Ishiba Makes No Mention of ‘Nuclear Sharing' Theory at Atomic Bombing Anniversaries; Remarks Criticized as Inconsistent
Ishiba instead emphasized the importance of maintaining the so-called three nonnuclear principles — neither possessing, producing nor permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons.
In his speech at the Hiroshima ceremony on Wednesday, Ishiba reiterated his intention to strive for a 'world without nuclear weapons' under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
At a press conference following the ceremony, the prime minister said he 'does not intend to reconsider the three nonnuclear principles.' He added, 'Japan has absolutely no intention of possessing nuclear weapons.'
Instead, he only emphasized the importance of extended deterrence, in which the United States protects Japan with its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons.
In September, prior to taking office, Ishiba contributed an article to the Hudson Institute, a U.S. policy research organization. In the article, he called for the creation of an Asian version of NATO, which should consider sharing U.S. nuclear weapons.
Referring to his theory on nuclear sharing, Ishiba said during the press conference: 'I have not considered it at all in relation to the three [nonnuclear] principles. Some people could misunderstand that nuclear sharing means nuclear ownership.'
Opposition parties have criticized his remarks for being inconsistent with statements he has made in the past.
'The things that make Ishiba unique seem to have all disappeared, and it's as if he's becoming featureless,' Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People, told reporters in Hiroshima on Wednesday.
He also said that nuclear sharing is 'extremely unlikely to happen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
2 hours ago
- Kyodo News
China fired warning shots at Japan destroyer in 2024 entry: sources
TOKYO - Chinese vessels fired at least two warning shots at a Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer in July last year when it inadvertently entered Chinese territorial waters off the country's eastern province of Zhejiang despite repeated warnings, diplomatic sources said Sunday. The Suzutsuki was tasked with monitoring Chinese military drills on the high seas. The rare move by the Chinese vessels suggests the two Asian neighbors were in a touch-and-go situation that could have escalated into a conflict. The sources said the destroyer's electronic navigational chart did not show the boundary between the high seas and other countries' territorial waters because a switch was not turned on, causing the Suzutsuki to enter Chinese waters without realizing it. Tokyo and Beijing did not use their defense hotline to communicate over the incident, raising questions about the direct line's effectiveness in crisis management. In the early morning of July 4, 2024, the Suzutsuki sailed for some 20 minutes in Chinese waters, within 12 nautical miles (22 kilometers) of the coast of Zhejiang. After repeatedly urging the Japanese destroyer to change course, the Chinese vessels fired a warning shot just before the Suzutsuki entered Chinese territorial waters and another after it had crossed into the area, the sources said. One of the sources stressed the need for vessels to ensure their navigational charts display boundaries when sailing near other countries' territorial waters. The incident triggered a protest from China. Tokyo has unofficially informed Beijing that it was caused by a technical error, with the captain not aware of the destroyer's exact location, according to the sources. The MSDF later dismissed the captain for negligence. The Japanese government has not made public its findings about the incident, given that they concern operations of the Self-Defense Forces. Jun Tsuruta, associate professor of international law at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo, said China needs to explain whether it had a "justifiable reason" to use force, as international law grants vessels the right of innocent passage through other countries' territorial waters. China regularly sends its military and coast guard vessels into Japanese territorial waters near the Tokyo-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, which Beijing claims and calls Diaoyu.
Kyodo News
4 hours ago
- Kyodo News
FOCUS: Japan at nuclear crossroads 80 yrs after A-bombings as survivors age
NAGASAKI - Eighty years after the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan faces with growing urgency the question of how to carry forward the moral voice for ridding the world of nuclear weapons as generational memory fades and nuclear risks rise amid the advancement of technology. Atomic bomb survivors, who have helped shape the nuclear taboo over the past decades, are now on average over the age of 86, meaning that the generation of those who witnessed firsthand the horrific effects of nuclear weapons is nearing its end, leaving a void increasingly difficult to fill. Positioned close to an assertive China and North Korea that is honing its nuclear capabilities, the Japanese government is unlikely to give up its reliance on the U.S. nuclear deterrent anytime soon, despite viewing its mission as advocating for a world without nuclear weapons. Following this week's 80th atomic bomb commemorative events, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said at a press conference Saturday that the government is committed to defending the country and its people, while at the same time working to eliminate nuclear weapons. "So how do we balance these two issues? I firmly believe that we have to fulfill both responsibilities," he said. Heigo Sato, a professor with expertise on security issues at Takushoku University in Tokyo, said Japan, the only country to have suffered nuclear attacks in war, should continue to play a key role in leading global efforts toward nuclear disarmament through what he calls a "multiple-pronged approach," given the challenges seen in international treaties regarding nuclear weapons. While the U.N. nuclear ban treaty lacks the support of nuclear weapon states, a broader arms control regime based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is increasingly under strain. In June, the United States carried out air strikes on Iran to degrade its nuclear programs, leading Tehran to issue threats to withdraw from the NPT. "We should neither be too dominated by talks on nuclear deterrence, nor be obsessed with the nuclear ban treaty," Sato said, suggesting that other approaches could include reinforcing a system to prevent nuclear proliferation or "fostering an international social movement that rejects nuclear weapons." As nuclear weapon states continue to modernize and expand their arsenals amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, conflicts in the Midde East and other geopolitical tensions, the landscape could be further complicated as artificial intelligence is eventually incorporated into nuclear command and control systems. Melissa Parke of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, warned of a "perilous" nuclear age in which AI, rather than human judgment, drives decision-making. She argues that this technological detachment makes it all the more urgent that policymakers heed the messages of those who have experienced the consequences of nuclear weapons firsthand. "We need global leaders to be listening to the hibakusha (survivors) about the reality of what nuclear weapons actually do to people. They talk in very abstract terms about nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence," said Parke. "But the reality is actually what the hibakusha are talking about." The testimonies of the survivors to convey the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons can only increase its significance as time passes, with both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki city governments training future generations to become "storytellers" to carry forward the account. But Sato is doubtful about the effectiveness of such efforts, saying that future storytellers are "no different from a game of telephone" as they are essentially recounting someone else's story. "As with any game of telephone, the further along the chain you go, the more the message gets distorted or loses impact," he said. Mitsuhiro Hayashida, whose grandfather survived the atomic blast in Nagasaki, said a broader understanding of history, including Japan's aggression in the lead-up to and during World War II, will help encourage the youth to link the stories with present day action to realize peace. In contrast to Germany, where children study the history of World War II in the hope of preventing future atrocities, the discourse in Japan tends to focus on victimhood, he said. "We need to explain the atomic bombings not just as isolated events, but in connection with the broader history of the war -- why that war happened, and what kind of reflection followed in postwar Japan," said the 33-year-old, who founded Peace Education Lab Nagasaki in 2023 to provide such training. While the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize last year to Nihon Hidankyo, Japan's leading group of atomic bomb survivors, has helped to reinvigorate citizens' movements and individual activists, a significant impact on a government policy level has yet to be seen. Terumi Tanaka, 93, who has long played a key role in Nihon Hidankyo, said that the government, as a democracy, reflects the will of the people. "If we have a government that supports policies like nuclear deterrence, ultimately, it's the responsibility of the citizens," Tanaka, a co-chair of the group, said at an event in Nagasaki on Friday. For Tanaka, who was exposed to the bombing in the city at age 13, seeing his efforts culminate in the signing and ratification of the nuclear ban treaty by Japan and meaningful steps toward eliminating nuclear weapons is one of his greatest wishes in life. "If we can begin to see a path to abolition, I think I can finally say farewell with peace in my heart," he said.
The Mainichi
8 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Russia and Ukraine hold fast to their demands ahead of a planned Putin-Trump summit
The threats, pressure and ultimatums have come and gone, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained Moscow's uncompromising demands in the war in Ukraine, raising fears he could use a planned summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in Alaska to coerce Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable deal. The maximalist demands reflect Putin's determination to reach the goals he set when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Putin sees a possible meeting with Trump as a chance to negotiate a broad deal that would not only cement Russia's territorial gains but also keep Ukraine from joining NATO and hosting any Western troops, allowing Moscow to gradually pull the country back into its orbit. The Kremlin leader believes time is on his side as the exhausted and outgunned Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances in many sectors of the over 1,000-kilometer front line while swarms of Russian missiles and drones batter Ukrainian cities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also has stood firm in his positions, agreeing to a ceasefire proposed by Trump while reaffirming the country's refusal to abandon seeking NATO membership and rejecting acknowledgment of Russia's annexation of any of its regions. A look at Russian and Ukrainian visions of a peace deal and how a Putin-Trump summit could evolve: Russia's position In a memorandum presented at talks in Istanbul in June, Russia offered Ukraine two options for establishing a 30-day ceasefire. One demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson -- the four regions Moscow illegally annexed in September 2022 but never fully captured. As an alternate condition for a ceasefire, Russia made a "package proposal" for Ukraine to halt mobilization efforts, freeze Western arms deliveries and ban any third-country forces on its soil. Moscow also suggested Ukraine end martial law and hold elections, after which the countries could sign a comprehensive peace treaty. Once there's a truce, Moscow wants a deal to include the "international legal recognition" of its annexations of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the four regions in 2022. Russia says a peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, abandon its bid to join NATO, limit the size of its armed forces and recognize Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian -- conditions reflecting Putin's earliest goals. It also demands Ukraine ban the "glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism" and dissolve nationalist groups. Since the war began, Putin has falsely alleged that neo-Nazi groups were shaping Ukrainian politics under Zelenskyy, who is Jewish. They were fiercely dismissed by Kyiv and its Western allies. In Russia's view, a comprehensive peace treaty should see both countries lift all sanctions and restrictions, abandon any claims to compensation for wartime damage, resume trade and communications, and reestablish diplomatic ties. Asked Thursday whether Moscow has signaled any willingness to compromise to make a meeting with Trump possible, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov responded that there haven't been any shifts in the Russian position. Ukraine's position The memorandum that Ukraine presented to Moscow in Istanbul emphasized the need for a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire to set stage for peace negotiations. It reaffirmed Ukraine's consistent rejection of Russian demands for neutral status as an attack on its sovereignty, declaring it is free to choose its alliances and adding that its NATO membership will depend on consensus with the alliance. It emphasized Kyiv's rejection of any restrictions on the size and other parameters of its armed forces, as well as curbs on the presence of foreign troops on its soil. Ukraine's memorandum also opposed recognizing any Russian territorial gains, while describing the current line of contact as a starting point in negotiations. The document noted the need for international security guarantees to ensure the implementation of peace agreements and prevent further aggression. Kyiv's peace proposal also demanded the return of all deported and illegally displaced children and a total prisoner exchange. It held the door open to gradual lifting of some of the sanctions against Russia if it abides by the agreement. Trump's positions Trump has often spoken admiringly of Putin and even echoed his talking points on the war. He had a harsh confrontation with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Feb. 28, but later warmed his tone. As Putin resisted a ceasefire and continued his aerial bombardments, Trump showed exasperation with the Kremlin leader, threatening Moscow with new sanctions. Although Trump expressed disappointment with Putin, his agreement to meet him without Zelenskyy at the table raised worries in Ukraine and its European allies, who fear it could allow the Russian to get Trump on his side and strong-arm Ukraine into concessions. Trump said without giving details that "there'll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both" Russia and Ukraine as part of any peace deal that he will discuss with Putin when they meet Friday. Putin repeatedly warned Ukraine will face tougher conditions for peace if it doesn't accept Moscow's demands as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a "buffer zone." Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for the territories of the four annexed by Moscow still under Ukrainian control. "That is potentially a situation that gives Putin a tremendous amount of leeway as long as he can use that leverage to force the Ukrainians into a deal that they may not like and to sideline the Europeans effectively," Sam Greene of King's College London said. "The question is, will Trump sign up to that and will he actually have the leverage to force the Ukrainians and the Europeans to accept it?" Putin could accept a temporary truce to win Trump's sympathy as he seeks to achieve broader goals, Greene said. "He could accept a ceasefire so long as it's one that leaves him in control, in which there's no real deterrence against renewed aggression somewhere down the line," he said. "He understands that his only route to getting there runs via Trump." In a possible indication he thinks a ceasefire or peace deal could be close, Putin called the leaders of China, India, South Africa and several ex-Soviet nations in an apparent effort to inform these allies about prospective agreements. Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center argued Putin wouldn't budge on his goals. "However these conditions are worded, they amount to the same demand: Ukraine stops resisting, the West halts arms supplies, and Kyiv accepts Russia's terms, which effectively amount to a de facto capitulation," she posted on X. "The Russian side can frame this in a dozen different ways, creating the impression that Moscow is open to concessions and serious negotiation. It has been doing so for some time, but the core position remains unchanged: Russia wants Kyiv to surrender." She predicted Putin might agree to meet Zelenskyy but noted the Kremlin leader would only accept such a meeting "if there is a prearranged agenda and predetermined outcomes, which remains difficult to imagine." "The likely scenario is that this peace effort will fail once again," she said. "This would be a negative outcome for Ukraine, but it would not deliver Ukraine to Putin on a plate either, at least not in the way he wants it. The conflict, alternating between open warfare and periods of simmering tension, appears likely to persist for the foreseeable future." (AP)
