Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day, 2018

     This year also, the newly dead were reported at the ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on 6 and 9 August, respectively.  In the case of the former, the number of confirmed dead because of the Atomic Bomb in the past year was 5, 393, bringing the total to 314, 118.  For Nagasaki, the figures were 3,511 and 179, 226.  We are again impressed that almost half a million have passed away because of just a couple of bombs.  The present number of survivors are 154, 859, and their average age is 82.

     In their speeches at the ceremonies, known as the Declaration for Peace, both the Mayors of the two cities have described the cruelties caused by the bombs.  At the same time both have called our attention to the year-old Non-nuclear weapons Treaty, and the Nobel Peace Prize for 2017 having been conferred on the International Campaign for the Abolition of the Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).  Both have expressed their pleasure that the situation in the Korean Peninsula has been changing. 

     Mr. Matsui of Hiroshima said that the idea of nuclear deterrence and nuclear umbrella is to take pride in the destructive capabilities of the nuclear weapons and to maintain the status quo.  Mr. Taue from Nagasaki said that the leaders of the nuclear powers and those who depend on the umbrella should remember that the United Nations in its first General Assembly resolution decided to abolish nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.  He must have been sorry that Mr. Onaga, Governor of Okinawa and a stalwart against the construction of the new US Airbase there had passed away the previous day.

     We are happy that Mr. Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, participated in the ceremony at Nagasaki last week.  Earlier he had sent a message to Hiroshima.  Also he had a very informal talk with some of the atomic bomb survivors at Nagasaki.  Several years ago his predecessor, Mr. Ban, had visited Hiroshima and participated in the ceremony.  Mr. Guterres also talked about the above mentioned Treaty.  He concluded his address by saying that let us make Nagasaki the last place of such terrible destruction.     

Japan and the DPRK

     We have reached our final question, for the moment, which is ; what is Japan going to do with the DPRK?

     This question has already been taken care of by the 2002 Declaration at Pyongyang of Japan's PM Koizumi and Korea's General Secretary Kim(the present Chairman's father), which aims at the normalization of the relations between the two.  But that has not been followed so far.

     The reasons are obvious and we do not have to repeat them here.  But, needless to say, the transformation of the Ceasefire into the Peace Treaty, coupled with a new politico-diplomatic superstructure will greatly change the atmosphere.  The remaining problem is the political will on the part of the Japanese.  We should at least start probing/sounding them as quickly as possible.  On what?  Investment in the grass-root basic infrastructure and public health plus compensation will take precedence.  For that, both sides should open a small diplomatic office in each other's capital city for intense negotiation and to set a timetable, say for two years.

      

Toward a Peaceful Far East

     As far as an Infantry Division and other US forces are in South Korea, and a Marines Division and other US forces are in Japan, both of these countries are bound to function as the US bases.  It is particularly so in the case of Japan, as the Peace Treaty together with the Security Treaty were signed during the Korean War itself, enabling the whole country to be used as the US bases to support the UN forces under the US command in the Korean Peninsula.  The legal framework has remained as it was.  Both of these Treaties with Japan were signed right in the middle of the Korean War and were meant for the anti-DPRK and anti-Chinese purposes.

     Suppose an ASEAN-like superstructure comes into sight in the East Asia.  What are the uses of the US Infantry or the Marines?  Is there any need for the US forces to defend South Korea or Japan, and against whom, let alone to move to other places to fight new enemies?  The main US objective when having a Peace Treaty with Japan in 1951 was to find ways and means of maintaining and freely using their military bases in Japan, thus to continue the situation of occupation of Japan.  That need has disappeared now, or is going to before long.  Where is the need, for example, for constructing the gigantic Henoko Air Base at Okinawa, which is said to serve for 200 years?

     It may sound idealistic, but this is no longer the time for the Security Treaties and the foreign bases.  These are the things which are blocking the countries like Japan and South Korea from becoming really independent ones.  It is many years now since the DPRK has been free from foreign troops and foreign bases and in that sense she is far ahead of others like Japan.

     For the Japanese the foremost question would be where is Japan going to place itself in the new Far East, particularly in connection with the DPRK.  We will talk about it tomorrow. 

       

From the Peace Treaty to What?

     Suppose the terms of the Peace Treaty are agreed to, who are going to sign it?  By definition the US and North Korea to begin with.  What about China?  It was not China as the state, that is the PRC, that signed the Ceasefire.  But China cannot be outside.  And Russia, and Japan.  And of course South Korea, even though it did not sign the Ceasefire either.  All the countries composing the Six-party Conference should be the participants.  Then what?  What sort of organization should be built upon the terms of the Treaty?  It would be desirable to describe them in the Treaty itself.  It should be something like, say, NATO?  Oh, no.  It should be, if we are to select something out of the existing ones at present, much more like ASEAN.

     But here opinions will get divided, and very sharply.  It will be on the US forces now in the Far East.  What will happen to them?  At the moment, 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea.  19,200 of them are the Army, mostly the Second Division.  They are usually not on move, but are stationed there to be ready to fight on the spot itself.  After the Treaty, are they still needed there, to fight the DPRK Army?

     Similarly 47,050 US troops are in Japan.  A great difference is that 20,700 of them are Marines, mostly the Third Marines Division.  They are not there to defend Okinawa, their major bases, or Japan as a whole.  They are there as a stepping stone, always ready to move elsewhere to fight whoever is the enemy.  After the Treaty are they still needed there, for jumping to somewhere else?  For my answer see tomorrow.  

From Ceasefire to Peace Treaty

     In his speech on 23 June, Mr. Onaga Takeshi, the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, said that the ongoing construction of a huge air force base for the US at Henoko, Okinawa, will not serve any peaceful purpose and goes against the present stream of things we are watching in East Asia.  He further said that in the coming years Okinawa should play the role of a bridge between Japan and Asia.  What then are the present streams of things flowing?

     First of all, it is a great possibility that as the result of the two summits, one between President Moon and Chairman Kim on 27 April, the other President Trump and Chairman Kim on 12 June, the ceasefire, yes, only a ceasefire, which has been the legal framework covering the whole of the Korean Peninsula for the past 65 years ever since 1953, may change into a peace treaty.

     Indeed the Korean War which was started in 1950, no matter who did it, was a decisive factor in making the Cold War a permanent phenomenon in not only the East Asia but almost the whole world.  Take Japan, for instance, which seems to be outside the involvement of the war.  The conclusion of the Peace Treaty of 1951, and the simultaneously of the Security Treaty, would not have been possible without the war.  And those Treaties themselves became an important factor in conditioning the situation in the Far East.  We will look at it tomorrow.   

Emerging Trend for Peace in East Asia

     On 23 June we commemorate one thing every year.  It is concerned with Okinawa Islands.  It is not at all a happy occasion.  It is supposed to be the day when organized fighting by the Japanese on these islands, particularly the Main Island, came to an end in 1945.  Japan surrendered two months afterwards.

     In the tragic and disastrous fighting, for the Japanese, nearly 100, 000 soldiers and about an equal number of private citizens lost their lives.  The dead on the US side was 12, 520.  Japan did not try to defend the Islands with any definite plan or objective.  It was simply to gain time, the time to fortify the main Honshu and Kyushu Islands against the expected US and the Allied landing.  Okinawa had been victimized in that sense.  As a matter of fact it is said that the US forces were planning to land Kyushu sometime in November.

     It is 73 years since then, and there are still many and large-scale US military bases there on these Islands, most of the US bases in Japan.  They are there in accordance with the Japan-US Security Treaty.  Why is this necessity?  We have to talk about the Korean War to explain why, equally a tragic and disastrous war which began on this very day, 25 June, 1950, and is still casting a long shadow over East Asia.  Let me please postpone it till tomorrow to discuss the present-day East Asia.

Mr. Pence Comes to Japan

     Mike Pence, the US Vice-President, came to Japan yesterday on his way to South Korea, where he is leading the US delegation to the Winter Olympics to be held from tomorrow.  This is the first Winter Olympics to be held in the Korean Peninsula.  A Summer Olympics, by the way, was also held in South Korea as far back as in 1988.

     This time, the North(DPRK) is also sending a delegation.  It is to be seen how often and on what occasions the two Koreas will use the flag showing them together as one united Korea, and what impact it is going to have on the peoples of the two.  It has just been announced that Chairman Kim's younger sister is also visiting the South at this time.  Strictly speaking it is apart from the Olympics.  But she is expected to attend the Opening Ceremony.

     Now Mr. Pence, at a joint press conference with PM Abe, after the two met for more than two hours yesterday, said several things concerning the Asian situation.  In particular he stressed that the DPRK is not trustworthy, making one promise after another but breaking them later.  Therefore for the US the 'strategic patience' is now over.  What he said here is closely backed by the new US nuclear policy announced at Washington on 2 February.

     But where is that path likely to lead us?  Who can deny that the North, under the US military pressure, may shoot first?  The US may be probably safe.  But both the Koreas may be instantly ruined, and the time in the Peninsula will go back to 1950 when the Korean War broke out.

     Mr. Pence should have come as a messenger of peace, a negotiator, even an honest broker.           

Beatrice Fihn's Japan Visit, January 2018

     Ms. Beatrice Fihn, the Swedish-born Executive Director of the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons(ICAN), visited Japan in mid-January of this year.  She was the one who received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of her organization at Oslo, Norway, last year.  ICAN was awarded the Prize as it was instrumental in having the Non-Nuclear Weapons Treaty approved by the UN in July of the same year. 

     She first visited Nagasaki as she came at the invitation of Nagasaki University.  After that she also visited  Hiroshima and Tokyo.  I was happy to see that she was meeting the hibakusha(radioactivity-affected persons, those who had survived the bombs), experts on the different aspects of the subject, the Press, and the people of the civil society wherever she went.  But the discussion that she had with the Members of the Parliament on 16 of the month was also as important.  As many as ten political parties sent their representatives both from the government and the opposition sides.  I must add, to my regret, that the Prime Minister has apparently avoided meeting her.

     The most important points that she made at the above meeting with the MPs were probably two.  She strongly suggested that Japan should join the Treaty as the theory of nuclear deterrence that the Japanese government believed in was powerless.  It was only a myth.  She also said that even in the presence of the DPRK's nuclear threat, it would be much more realistic to adhere to the Treaty to arrive at a peaceful solution.

     One more point she made and which strongly impressed me was what she said in reply to a question at the Press Conference at Tokyo.  When asked if she could be optimistic on the ratification of the Treaty when only three countries had ratified it so far, she said, in essence, that the very fact showed that the US is putting pressure on even the small countries in Africa and elsewhere not to ratify it, which itself shows that the Treaty is going to be a serious threat to the nuclear powers.
After this Mexico has ratified as the 4th country.

     At the moment there are 9 nuclear powers and about 30 militarily allied countries.  They are not easily expected to support the Treaty.  Japan belongs to the latter category.  But even in some NATO countries in the latter group, like Norway and Italy, some movement may get started to support it.  Japan may well  join such a movement.   The number of the countries that voted for the Treaty was 122, which is by far the big majority and shows the new winds of change.  A Happy New Year to you all.