International Meeting
2004 World Conference against A & H Bombs
Asai Motofumi
Professor at Meiji Gakuin University
Japan
Introductory Report, Session I:
Prospect for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
I would like to focus my discussion on the three points.
First is the need for clear recognition of the nature of the U.S.
war against Iraq and the subsequent occupation of the country. The
war and the occupation, a demonstration of the Bush Administration’s
pre-emptive strike policy, has no legitimacy in any way and is an
international crime. Second, the administration has no intention
of backing off its offensive nuclear strategy, which is an integral
part of its preemptive strike strategy, despite the frustration
to its policy on Iraq. Third is the complete subservience of Japanese
conservative forces to the Bush Administration. They have entered
the dangerous phase of laying the foundation for “revising” Japan’s
Constitution to strengthen the military alliance with the United
States.
I hope that we in the World Conference against A & H Bombs will
develop a clearer understanding on the three issues to play an effective
role in raising public awareness in Japan and internationally so
that the international society at large can work together to establish
an order of peace and stability.
1. The U.S. should be charged with an international crime for its
war and occupation of Iraq.
The pre-emptive strike policy came into the open with the 2001 Quadrennial
Defense Review (Sep. 30), 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (Dec. 31),
which I will discuss later, and the State of the Union Address of
January 29, 2002. Of the three, Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),
which was released soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks shows the
raving anger of the Bush Administration against the perpetrators
of the attack. Let us recall that the QDR opens with the following
statement.
“On September 11, 2001, the United States came under vicious, bloody
attack. Americans died in their places of work. They died on American
soil. They died not as combatants, but as innocent victims. They
died not from traditional armies waging traditional campaigns, but
from the brutal, faceless weapons of terror.” “The war the nation
fights today is not a war of America’s choosing. It is a war that
was brought violently and brutally to America’s shores by the evil
forces of terror. It is a war against America and America’s way
of life. It is a war against all that America holds dear. It is
war against freedom itself.” (Emphasis added.)
Out of such an erratic reaction against the attack that it recognized
as unpredictable, it drew the following conclusion that is immediately
connected to the pre-emptive strike strategy. (Note that the credibility
of the unpredictability is much questioned in the United States.)
“…(W)e cannot and will not know precisely where and when America’s
interests will be threatened, when America will come under attack(.)……We
must constantly strive to get better intelligence, but we must also
remember that there will always be gaps in our intelligence. Adapting
to surprise - adapting quickly and decisively - must therefore be
a condition of planning.”
Building on the QDR, 2002 State of the Union Address proclaimed
the United State’s will expand its global pre-emptive war against
terrorism and to counter an “axis of evil.” The Administration then
launched pre-emptive war against Iraq on the pretext of the country’s
possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Quida.
(Needless to say, such pretexts and rational have been proven completely
groundless, and therefore the legitimacy of the pre-emptive war
of the Bush Administration has been totally shattered.)
It has been said that Iraq has entered a new phase after its sovereignty
was handed over by the occupation forces. But we must recognize
clearly that the preemptive war was waged in complete violation
of current international laws that totally prohibit wars, and that
it constitutes a serious international crime that devastated Iraq
and killed more than 10,000 of its citizens.
Unfortunately, today’s reality of politics will not allow an international
tribunal to try George W. Bush, the president of the world’s only
superpower, for his crime as was done on the former president of
Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. But this by no means should exonerate
President Bush and his administration from their crime. This World
Conference against A & H Bombs must lead world public opinion
in charging Bush with criminality.
In this context, those who live in Asia need to be keenly aware
of the nature and the implication of the pre-emptive strike strategy.
The strategy was in the first place developed with the Bush Administration’s
offensive view against Asia and with the naked intention of beefing-up
Japan as a US military hub for putting that recognition into practice.
In this context, the QDR states that, “Along a broad arc of instability
that stretches from the Middle East to Northeast Asia, the region
contains a volatile mix of rising and declining regional powers.”
“Maintaining a stable balance in Asia will be a complex task. The
possibility exists that a military competitor with a formidable
resource base will emerge in the region. The East Asia littoral
- from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan - represents a particularly
challenging area. The distances are vast in the Asian theater. The
United States also has less assurance of access to facilities in
the region. This places a premium on securing additional access
and infrastructure agreements…” (Emphasis added.)
This unnamed “military competitor with a formidable resource” is
China, and in connection with the Taiwan issue, the country is in
the forefront of the Bush Administration’s mind as the greatest
potential threat as part of the “Axis of Evil.” And in order to
ensure the military capability against the region, the U.S. must
secure “additional access and infrastructure agreements.” This is
an implicit way of emphasizing the importance of the U.S.-Japan
military alliance. (Bush Administration’s ongoing global military
transformation isolates Japan from other countries that host U.S.
forces. Unlike others, U.S. military functions in Japan are being
concentrated and enhanced, which is a clear demonstration of its
military strategy.) I would like to point out that unless the Administration
is stopped from putting its dangerous policy into practice, the
region would suffer from increasing military tension. (For that,
specifically speaking, world public opinion must be strong enough
for the American voters to reject Bush in the coming election. But,
with John Kerry as President, the U.S. foreign policy will still
not see a drastic change.)
2. Bush Administration’s offensive nuclear strategy must be stopped
Based on the understanding that “(g)reater flexibility is needed
with respect to nuclear forces and planning than was the case during
the Cold War”, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) states that
“(t)he assets most valued by the spectrum of potential adversaries
in the new security environment may be diverse and, in some cases,
U.S. understanding of what an adversary values may evolve.” And
it clearly articulates the role of nuclear weapons in the pre-emptive
strike strategy by stating that “U.S. nuclear forces still require
the capability to hold at risk a wide range of target types. This
capability is key to the role of nuclear forces in supporting an
effective deterrence strategy relative to a broad spectrum of potential
opponents under a variety of contingencies. Nuclear attack combination
can provide the range of options that vary in scale, scope, and
purpose will complement other military capabilities.”
We can point out three aspects of the Bush Administration’s nuclear
policy in its preemptive nuclear attack strategy.
First is the great emphasis on the role ballistic missile defense
systems (BMD), intended to forestall nuclear missile counter-attack
by an adversary. The NPR states “(m)issile defenses are beginning
to emerge as systems that can have an effect on the strategic and
operational calculations of potential adversaries. They are now
capable of providing, active defense against short-to medium-range
threats.”
In this regard, Japan is trying to actively cooperate with the U.S.
in the development of such systems. The ostensible reason for this
is to prepare for possible missile attacks by North Korea. But it
is public knowledge that the Bush Administration’s actual intention
is to possess counter means against China’s possible use of nuclear-tipped
missiles in case of a contingency over Taiwan.
The second aspect is the Administration’s strong commitment to the
actual use of nuclear weapons as tactical weapons. The NPR states
without guise that “(c)omposed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear
weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater
flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat
opponents decisively.” Major emphasis is placed on the development
of operational mini-nukes to close the gaps between nuclear and
non-nuclear weapons and of earth penetrating nuclear weapons to
destroy hiding enemies or their facilities deep in the underground.
The development of the nuclear earth penetrators is pursued with
the understanding of the failure of attacks using conventional weapons
in destroying Al-Qaeda in the war on Afghanistan, and the fact that
China and many other countries are relocating their vital military
facilities and government’s central nerve systems underground.
The third aspect is the plan to resume underground nuclear explosion
testing, which is vital for developing tactical nuclear weapons.
Though it’s been a while since the U.S. decided to go ahead with
sub-critical nuclear testing, the Bush Administration has not withdrawn
its intention of breaking with the moratorium observed since 1992
and resuming explosion testing even in violation of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty.
If the U.S. does decide to conduct the explosion testing, the rest
of the nuclear weapons states may use that as the excuse to follow
suit. The Bush Administration’s nuclear policy is shamelessly double
standard: while taking a hard-line stance against the possible possession
of nuclear weapons by North Korea, Iran and other “rogue states”,
it completely ignores world-wide criticism against its own nuclear
policy.
If we allow such policies to continue unchecked, the world will
once again face imminent and present danger of nuclear war. Those
of us gathering at this conference cannot afford holding our arms
and do nothing before Bush’s nuclear tyranny. Above all, we must
thoroughly criticize the three characteristics of Bush’s nuclear
policy. Based on such efforts the conference needs to present persuasive
and feasible cases for the abolition of nuclear weapons. I think
this is another essential task of this conference.
3. Building public opinion in Japan and internationally to halt
the attempt of Japanese conservative forces to revise Japan’s Constitution
The international community got tied to the shock of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks and made a grave mistake in dealing with the problem. The
U.N. resolution which condoned the military response of President
Bush, who exclaimed the attack as “war”, against Afghanistan as
the use of force in self-defense, and the declaration of NATO member
countries and others to act in collective self-defense with the
U.S. legitimized and justified the U.S. international crime.
After these resolutions, the Bush Administration has embraced its
case and policy as representing justice and good, and labeled all
those who are against the U.S. as evil. It never reflects its military
and foreign policies that are designed to fit its self-interests.
The gross result of all this has been the pre-emptive war against
a sovereign nation, Iraq, in violation of international law and
the international crime of killing more than 10,000 people in the
country.
Whatever the reasons, condoning a pre-emptive attack against a sovereign
nation will clearly undermine the system of international laws developed
since the establishment of the U.N. Charter. As might be expected,
the international community demonstrated its strong opposition against
the war and consequently the U.S. is suffering isolation and stuck
in the morass in Iraq. Still, how the international community is
going to engage itself in the Iraqi reconstruction process following
the fallout of Bush’s international crime is a serious question
it must answer.
In this regard, we Japanese need to be keenly aware of our government’s
sheer blindness in fully supporting the Bush Administration. Despite
the fact that a growing number of countries are recognizing the
dangerous nature of the administration, the understanding of general
public in Japan of its gravity remains very weak. The lack of interest
in this question is clearly demonstrated by the fact that while
the government decided to take part in violating international law
and its own constitution and become an accomplice of the international
crime, the rate of public support in Japan for the deployment of
the its military to Iraq remains high.
Though explained as the right of collective self defense, Japan’s
conservative forces are not yet able to openly support war since
it is clearly prohibited by the peace Constitution. So the Japanese
forces in Iraq are left in limbo: unable to take part in the battle
nor join the multinational forces due to constitutional restraints.
They have not yet become full-fledged members of the international
force required by the United States.
Faced with these constraints, Japan’s conservative forces now see
a constitution bogged by a peace provision that fetters military
operations as the subject for “revision” at the earliest possible
date. The constitution that strictly prohibits war is an onerous
burden for those willing to develop Japan’s military alliance with
the U.S. to the finish and revive Japan’s militarism. In the election
campaign for the upper house of the Japanese Diet this July, the
pro-war forces for the first time openly pledged the “revision”
of the Constitution. The outcome of the election saw a greater number
of seats for the political parties pledging for the revision (Liberal
Democratic Party, the Komei Party and Democratic Party) and devastating
defeat of the pro-constitutional parties (Japanese Communist Party
and Social Democratic Party). Now the pro-revision forces dominate
the Diet by an overwhelming majority. In a few years the Japanese
people will face a bill for the constitutional “revision” and have
to decide whether they should accept it or reject it.
Whether Japan chooses to remain as it is or transform itself into
a war-mongering nation allied with the U.S. is a major question
that will bear immediate impact on international peace and security.
And it is no one else but the Japanese people, who have to grapple
with the challenge. We must exert all our efforts to inform the
public of the gravity of this issue as soon as possible.
Asian nations that suffered the Japanese militarism and colonial
occupation, and the rest of the international community that experienced
the terrible ordeal of World War II set off by Japanese militarism
together with other members of the Axis--Nazi Germany and the Fascist
Italy, would naturally have great interest in preventing Japan from
taking the wrong course. For that, I sincerely hope that international
opinion will pay close attention, react to the Japanese political
situation, and speak out in solidarity with our struggle. It is
my earnest desire that this World Conference will become an important
platform to mobilize stronger world opinion for that purpose.
|
