Japan hinting at using nuclear power for ‘security’ instead of energy

Posted on : 2012-06-22 12:49 KST Modified on : 2012-06-22 12:49 KST
Early, vague signs come up that Japan may be clearing a path toward weapons development

By Jung Nam-ku, Tokyo correspondent, and Gil Yun-hyung, staff reporter

Japan may be moving towards acquiring nuclear weapons, a move that is expected to draw objections from within the country and from its neighbors in Asia.

The issue came up after the National Diet of Japan amended the Atomic Energy Basic Act to add “contributing to security guarantees” as one of the goals for nuclear power.

According to June 21 news reports, the Diet’s House of Councilors voted the amendment through on the previous day. The amended act includes a twelfth supplementary article. A second item was added to Article 12, which prescribes the goals for the research and use of nuclear power. The new item states that nuclear power “is intended to protect citizen lives and property, preservation of the environment, and guaranteeing the nation’s security.”

The original article stated only that research and use of nuclear power would take place “under democratic management for only peaceful goals, with emphasis on ensuring security.”

Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura attempted damage control at a press conference after the decision was met with heavy criticism.

“Japan has not swerved at all in its adherence to the principle of peaceful use of nuclear power and the three non-nuclear principles,” he said. The three non-nuclear principles are that nuclear weapons should not be possessed, produced or introduced.

According to Fujimura, Tokyo has no plans to use its nuclear technology for military purposes. But the Japanese government’s explanation did little to dispel concerns.

The most common criticism was that the reference to “guaranteeing security” does not accord with the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

Speaking at the House of Councilors on June 20, the Diet members who proposed the amendment explained that the term referred to “safeguards to prevent the illicit use of nuclear material and terrorism.”

But the Asahi Shimbun said the Japanese term “hosho,” which was translated into English as “safeguard,” was an entirely different term from “anzen hosho,” which was translated as “security.”

According to the newspaper, use of the term “anzen hosho” was “raising concerns that [nuclear technology] might be used for military ends.”

Another problem was the stealthy passage of the amendment, without scrutiny from the Japanese public. The bill went through the House of Representatives and House of Councilors within five days of its presentation. The House of Representatives also did not post the amendment on its web site.

The circumstances suggest that the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito Party skillfully exploited the Democratic Party of Japan’s inability to avoid a concession to the opposition in the hopes of passing a law to raise the consumption tax. The situation recalls the events of 1954, when Diet member Yasuhiro Nakasone, whose Progressive Party was part of a ruling coalition, used the ruling party’s desperate situation to get the first earmarks for atomic power through an emergency revision of the budget.

Adding to the concerns is another amendment to the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Act. Japan has long limited its space development to non-military purposes, but when this act was enacted in 2008 it included a provision stating that the goals of JAXA’s operation included “contributing to security guarantees.” This time around, the Diet deleted a phrase stating that the organization‘s activities would be “limited to peaceful purposes.” The possibility that this act will follow a similar path to the Atomic Energy Basic Act cannot be ruled out.

The Committee of Seven for World Peace, an organization of eminent Japanese intellectuals, demanded that the amendment be withdrawn immediately. In a statement Tuesday, the group said, “It is impossible to deny the possibility that [the amendment] will open the way for real military use.”

The committee also said the amendment “hurts the national interest and plants seeds of trouble.”

The Committee of Seven was founded by Yudeki Hikawa, Japan’s first Nobel laureate in physics. It has consistently presented a non-partisan perspective on peace issues.

There is virtually no chance of Japan pursuing nuclear armament in the near future. Jin Chang-soo, director of the Sejong Institute’s Center for Japanese Studies, said, “I don’t think there‘s really any possibility of Japan producing nuclear weapons now, when opinions are so divided already on the issue of nuclear power.”

But the amendment does mark the first institutional step toward nuclear armament, and with observers predicting efforts from the LDP and elsewhere within Japan to push the country toward the far right, the embers of controversy appear unlikely to die out any time soon.

The amendment to Japan’s Atomic Energy Basic Act also appears likely to have a negative impact on international relations in Northeast Asian. Observers are expecting Pyongyang to use Japan’s example to justify its own nuclear capabilities, and Beijing to respond aggressively out of concerns about a potential domino effect leading to nuclear armament of Taiwan.

Seoul was circumspect about the amendment, saying only that it was “looking into the true motives and background.”

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade senior official said Tokyo did not appear to be in any position to develop nuclear weapons any time soon, since it is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international nuclear controls and has stated that it will adhere to its own “three non-nuclear principles.”

But some are suggesting Japan’s intentions warrant more attention due to the relaxation of constraints with its amendment of the JAXA Act. Coming on the heels of the 1998 insertion of a stipulation that the agency “must contribute to guaranteeing security,” the latest amendment saw the removal of previous language about its activities being “limited to peaceful purposes.” The argument is that Japan’s aims and actions should be observed more closely the country has already reprocessed spent nuclear fuel.

Irrespective of Tokyo’s intentions, the amendment stands a strong chance of stirring up concerns in South Korea, coinciding as it does with the ongoing North Korean nuclear issue and amendment of the South Korea-US Atomic Energy Agreement. New Frontier Party lawmaker Chung Mong-joon and others have argued that US tactical nuclear weapons, which were withdrawn in the early 1990s, should be reintroduced to the peninsula in response to North Korea’s development. The future may bring a revival of the argument for nuclear sovereignty, which conservatives presented around the time of North Korea’s two nuclear tests. Observers suggested Japan’s move may serve to bolster this position.

The ongoing negotiations to amend the South Korea-US Atomic Energy Agreement may also be affected. According to this agreement, which was signed in 1974, South Korea cannot enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel without the consent of the US. In the talks, Seoul is asking for blanket consent from Washington for reprocessing. But sources report that the US is opposed due to proliferation concerns.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)