NUCLEAR WEAPONS BAN TALKS: With Japan at the Table (Hopefully)

Ground Zero, Hiroshima --  . . . photo taken during
World Nuclear Victims Forum -- November, 2015

Ever since the vote last October on holding nuclear weapons ban negotiations, I have been particularly puzzled by Japan's vote against the resolution. I posed a general question -- who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons? -- and this question applied to no country more than it did to Japan.

I realize now that a "no" vote on resolution L.41 doesn't preclude participating in the negotiations themselves. And the more I think about it, the more it makes perfect sense that Japan would vote "no" on the resolution, but will likely participate in the negotiations.

The country's failure to show up for the preparatory meeting for the nuclear
weapons ban negotiations raised eyebrows in Japan. (Source: FNN)

The US pressured its allies to vote "no" and boycott the negotiations. By voting "no" on the resolution, Japan respected the request of the US (without changing the outcome of the vote).

Japan has a unique position in the world vis-a-vis nuclear weapons. As I think about it, it feels very likely that the leaders of Japan would feel an obligation -- bound by honor, in fact -- to be present at the table.

When I looked closely at the statement by Japan following the vote, I saw several things that were consistent with this view.  The statement begins by asserting: "as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, Japan has been devoted tireless efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons."

Second, it identified a fairly narrow rationale for its "no" vote: Japan "repeatedly pressed to have consensus-based decision making in the resolution, however it is regrettable that our basic position has not been reflected."

Third, it gave a nod to the US position: "we are concerned about the fact that this recommendation of the disarmament community would undermine the progress of effective nuclear disarmament."

Account (with illustration) by
survivor of Hiroshima bombing

Taken together, these elements -- Japan's unique position, its preference for consensus, its concern about undermining other efforts -- seem to me to point toward eventual participation in the negotiations themselves. The first issue is paramount. The second is not a deal-breaker. The third leaves maximum wiggle room -- especially as the failure of the nuclear weapons states to honor their NPT Article VI obligations is more and more openly talked about. ("Effective nuclear disarmament" is a coded phrase that has, in fact, become eviscerated.)

The statement by the Japan's foreign minister is suggestive: "Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida suggested willingness to participate, saying Japan should assert its stance towards 'a world without nuclear weapons.' But he said the decision will be made by the government." ("Japan remains cautious on UN nuclear ban talks")

See also: "136 Japanese legislators join global nuclear disarmament statement" and "EDITORIAL: Progress toward a nuclear-free world must keep moving forward."

Meanwhile, an important moment is coming up Saturday: the sixth anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The intensifying pressure on the government of Japan over its handling of nuclear issues can be expected to contribute to a feeling that Japan must be at the table for the UN nuclear weapons ban negotiations.

China has said it will participate in the talks. It would be difficult for Japan to justify allowing talks to go forward with China at the table while Japan, itself, sat on the sidelines.

In the last few days, there have been new flareups over North Korean missile tests. It's important to remember that this is part of an ongoing conflict involving the US, South Korea, and North Korea. Japan surely wants the problem to be resolved. That simply adds motivation for Japan to be at the table for the nuclear weapons ban negotiations (negotiations which North Korea voted in favor of, it should be remembered).

February, 2016 at Mar a Lago: Prime Minister Abe
experiences diplomacy, Donald Trump style

A wildcard in all this is what Prime Minister Abe thinks about Donald Trump. My best guess is that Abe (and his colleagues) are not reassured by the Trump record to date. This is a reason for Japan to explore every possible option to reach solutions jointly with all available counterparts.

Assuming Japan does participate in the negotiations, it has consequences for other countries who did not support the original resolution. How will it be possible for a country like Canada, or Germany, or France to refuse to participate if Japan is at the table? If Canada participates, it suddenly makes Australia's refusal to participate that much more conspicuous. If Germany participates . . . . And on and on . . . .

The nuclear weapons ban negotiations at the UN will be greatly enhanced by Japan's participation. I hope I'm right in believing Japan will be at the table.


UPDATE March 15, 2017: "Austrian foreign minister calls on Japan to join nuclear ban negotiations" - "Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz has expressed hope that Japan will join negotiations later this month on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. . . . 'Japan, as the world’s sole atomic-bombed nation, has a moral voice and can give an invaluable opinion on the issue of nuclear disarmament,' Kurz said in a written interview ahead of the first round of negotiations that begin March 27 in New York."

MORE:

Who would possibly vote "NO" to banning nuclear weapons???


Please share this post . . . .

Radioactive Waste: "What are you gonna do with it?"

We all loved the six-week course on auto mechanics taught by our high school shop teacher, Mr. Sutter.

I remember something about distribution caps and an oscilloscope that you could hook up to it, though I have to admit that is not a procedure I could reproduce now, 40 years later. I do remember the correct way to tighten the lug nuts when changing a tire, however . . .

And I do have a crystal clear memory of our session on changing oil.  Mr. Sutter carefully showed us how to locate the oil pan, how to position a receptacle under the outlet, and how to remove the bolt to release the stream of dirty oil.

But the part that was most memorable was when Mr. Sutter said, "Now you know how to change the oil yourself.  But I recommend you just go to a gas station and let them do it. Sure, it's not hard to get the old oil out. But once you get all those quarts of dirty oil . . . what are you gonna do with it?"

I thought of Mr. Sutter yesterday as I sat in Hiroshima at the World Nuclear Victims Forum listening to a dairy-farmer-from-Fukushima-turned-journalist-and-activist, Kenichi Hasegawa, describing the situation after the 2011 nuclear disaster there.

In one part of his presentation, he described the work to "decontaminate" his village of Iitate. He said that after removing a thin layer of soil from just the residential areas, the workers had produced acres of garbage bags full of contaminated soil.

"An aerial photograph taken by a drone shows the vast dump
sites that contain tens of thousands of sacks of contaminated soil."
(From Daily Mail / Image: Podniesinski/REX Shutterstock)

(The image above is sourced from the Internet -- and is similar to the one shown by Mr. Hasegawa.)

It is difficult to imagine what they will do with all the waste generated by "cleaning up" the much larger agricultural areas. (And a much larger area of unfarmed hills will be left contaminated.)

And this does not even begin to consider just how "cleaned up" those areas are after removing a thin layer of soil.

People act as if cleaning up after radiation releases is just a detail, just "a problem to be managed."

But I think Mr. Sutter was right: "What are you gonna do with it?"


Update March 1, 2016: Madhusree Mukerjee reports in Scientific American: "TEPCO collects the contaminated water and stores it all in massive tanks at the rate of up to 400 metric tons a day. . . . Disputes over its final resting place remain unresolved. The same goes for the millions of bags of contaminated topsoil and other solid waste from the disaster, as well as the uranium fuel itself." (See "Spill Waste: The cleanup effort could take decades; meanwhile the amount of radioactive material the plant leaks grows")


Related Posts

Voices from Chernobyl is a rock upon which to build a global effort to tell the truth about Chernobyl and the hibakusha of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.

(See IN ORDER TO HAVE A FUTURE: We MUST Study Chernobyl . . .)

Hibakusha is a word that has traditionally been used to refer to people affected by the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagaski.  It is now being broadened to recognize the many additional victims of acute affects of nuclear radiation (including fallout from tests and radioactivity from mining and processing). In fact, we are all subject to the impact and threat of nuclear radiation spread indiscriminately by nations and corporations.

(See HIROSHIMA: What does it mean to say, "We are ALL 'hibakusha'?")