Nuclear Weapons Convention and Japan's role
A Civil Society Viewpoint on the 2010 NPT Review Outcome
Presentation at Symposium of Japan Association of Disarmament Studies
Hitotsubashi University, August 28, 2010
Akira Kawasaki (Executive Committee member, Peace Boat)
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to take part in this very important discussion
today.
I was given the role to present a civil society viewpoint with regard to what the 2010 NPT Review
Conference has achieved and how civil society and governments can work together to strengthen
the current momentum and to move the disarmament agenda forward.
Reference to a nuclear weapons convention (NWC), or a comprehensive legal framework to achieve
and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world, was the most remarkable achievement in the outcome of
the NPT Review Conference. I believe this view is shared among all the major global civil society
networks working on nuclear disarmament, including Abolition 2000, the International Campaign
to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI), Parliamentarians for
Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) and International Physicians for thePrevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) among others.
In my presentation, I will first focus on an NWC and discuss what next steps are expected to betaken. Then I will turn to some policy implications specifically for Japan. I will talk about two
specific immediate policy tasks, namely, limiting the role of nuclear weapons in Japanese security
policy and the question of Japan-India nuclear cooperation. Finally I will conclude with some
remarks on roles of civil society, including cooperation among academics, NGOs and policy
makers.
Nuclear Weapons Convention
First let me quote two important parts from the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference. In
the “recommendations” part of the Document, “principle and objective” refers to a humanitarian
aspect of nuclear weapons:
The Conference expresses its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of
any use of nuclear weapons and reaffirms the need for all States at all times to comply withapplicable international law, including international humanitarian law.
The Document then recommends:
The Conference […] affirms that all States need to make special efforts to establish thenecessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons. The
Conference notes the five-point proposal for nuclear disarmament of the Secretary-General of
the United Nations, which proposes, inter alia, consideration of negotiations on a nuclearweapons convention or agreement on a framework of separate mutually reinforcing
instruments, backed by a strong system of verification.

According to media reports, there was great resistance by nuclear-weapon states to any reference tokawasaki@peaceboat.gr.jp
1

concrete, time-bound actions to implement the UNSG’s five-point proposal. Yet it is verysignificant that such a reference to an NWC, in the context of the SG’s five-point proposal, wasmade for the first time in an NPT review consensus document. I would like to praise the vision andskill of the Chair, Ambassador Cabactulan who managed to make this historic achievement.
This Final Document made clear two important points. The first is that a comprehensive framework
is necessary, and all States are urged to make “special efforts” to this end. It recognizes the need for
a comprehensive approach for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The second point is that humanitarian
perspectives on nuclear weapons and the application of international humanitarian law can be abasis for efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.
NGOs around the world are now actively conducting strategy consultations on the next steps to betaken. My organization Peace Boat held a consultation seminar on the NWC onboard our ship
between Norway and Ireland, in June, right after the NPT Review Conference. A UN officer on
disarmament affairs, parliamentarian network members from Europe and NGO campaigners
participated. Copies of the report are available at the table, and I hope you will pick one up.
This consultation seminar identified several key dimensions that civil society can focus on to movethe agenda forward. Let me point out three - the humanitarian aspect, environmental aspect andeconomic aspect.
Humanitarian, environment and economic aspects
First, regarding the humanitarian aspect, Japanese civil society already has a huge accumulation ofknowledge and information through Hibakusha. However, these should be compiled in a form
presentable to the global society to show the inhuman nature of nuclear weapons. For example,
focusing not only what happened in August 1945 but also on the long-term radiation effects,
including inter-generational questions, would make a convincing case on why such weapons must
not ever be used anywhere in the world.
Second, regarding the environmental aspect. Recent scientific studies have proven that a serious
climate change would be caused by an exchange of nuclear weapons. The “nuclear winter” effectwould threaten all lives on this planet. This danger represents the global nature of the problem.
Global citizens can understand that the danger is so serious that governments must not be restrictedby their narrowly-defined national interests.
The third is the economic aspect. Focusing on the impracticality of nuclear weapons not only frommilitary but also economic perspectives will make a convincing case for policy-makers in light of
the global economic crisis. A Peace Boat seminar participant from the UK parliament stressed thatthe money for upgrading Trident should be converted to meet the human needs of the public. Today
most countries are facing serious budgetary reviews, and even nuclear weapons cannot remain asanctuary. Norway’s 2006 decision of divestment from companies producing nuclear and otherinhumane weapons presents a new way of building an economic norm against nuclear weapons.
Last December, the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament(ICNND), initiated by Australia and Japan, recommended to start a preparatory process for anNWC:Recommendation 73: Work should commence now on further refining and developing theconcepts in the model Nuclear Weapons Convention now in circulation, making its provisions
as workable and realistic as possible, and building support for them, …
The Commission further proposed, at its last meeting last month in Vienna, the creation of a Global
2

Centre that has a mandate of “lead[ing] worldwide research aimed at refining and developing amodel Nuclear Weapons Convention, with the object of having a fully worked through draft
available to inform and guide multilateral disarmament negotiations as they gain momentum.”
Start the process now
Now is the time for civil society, including NGOs and academics, to play proactive roles to get
serious preparatory processes for an NWC started by engaging and helping governments. The Japan
Association of Disarmament Studies can play a unique role by facilitating research and dialogue tothat end.
Topics to be covered in such preparatory processes should include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Political process There are many lessons to be learnt from the landmine and cluster
munition cases. Actors in the process will not be limited to governments. Collaboration
with humanitarian organizations and environmental groups should actively be explored.
Verification There is much to learn from the UK-Norway study on this topic.
Deligitimization of nuclear weapons
The Swiss government and Monterey Institutefor International Studies co-produced a very useful case to delegitimize nuclear weapons
based on international humanitarian law.
UNSG five-point proposal The 2008 proposal covers not only an NWC but also many
important measures to ensure international security without relying on nuclear deterrence,
namely, rule of law, the role of the UN Security Council, other types of weapons of mass
destruction and space weapons. Adequate study for the implementation of the proposal
should be carried out at both governmental and non-governmental levels.
Malaysia-Costa Rican Model NWC
Further refining and development of the model
convention will be useful.

The step-by-step approach based on the NPT and a comprehensive approach for an NWC is notincompatible. Rather, the step-by-step and comprehensive approaches can go hand in hand. You
don’t have to wait until the current step-by-step approach reaches a certain condition before aprocess for an NWC can get started. We can start the process for a NWC now.
Commencing a process for an NWC is important not only for disarmament, but also for nonproliferation. For example, an NWC can engage the nuclear-armed states outside of the NPT,
namely India, Pakistan and Israel. Launching a global process for an NWC would build up the norm
against nuclear weapons and help deter any country’s attempt to go nuclear through breaking out ofthe NPT.
Limiting the role of nuclear weapons
Now let me briefly touch upon two specific and immediate policy tasks for Japan. The first task is
to limit the role of nuclear weapons. Action 5(c) of the Disarmament Recommendation of the Final
Document of the NPT Review Conference reads:
To further diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security
concepts, doctrines and policies
This “all military and security concepts” should be interpreted as indicating including the extended
deterrence concept in alliances. A draft version of the Document specifically referred to the militaryconcept of “alliance,” but this was made vague before the final adoption. Despite his keenness toreduce reliance on nuclear weapons in Japan’s security policy, Foreign Minister Okada has not yet3

abandoned the longstanding Japanese policy that it needs nuclear weapon even to deter non-nuclear
threats such as chemical and biological weapons. Japan’s official stance is far behind the US, which
declared to aim to have a “sole purpose” doctrine in the Nuclear Posture Review Report this April.
Even Australia made clear, at the opening of the NPT Review Conference in May, that it would be“comfortable” even if the US adopts a “sole purpose” doctrine. Japan has not even taken this very
modest step.
Japan and Australia will launch a new group of countries by holding a ministerial meeting in NewYork next month. This will be a very good occasion for Japan to declare that it would be noproblem for Japan if the US were to commit to a sole purpose or no-first use doctrine. The newgroup could then be united to encourage nuclear-weapon states to further reduce the role of nuclear
weapons.
Japan-India nuclear cooperation
The second immediate policy task for Japan regards the question of Japan-India nuclear
cooperation. Action 35 of the NPT Review Conference Final Document reads:
The Conference urges all States parties to ensure that their nuclear related exports do not directly or indirectly assist the development of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
This recommendation also recalls the 1995 decision on principles and objectives, that urged thosecountries outside of the NPT to conclude a comprehensive safeguard agreement with the IAEA,
which India has not yet done.
Japan commenced nuclear cooperation talks with India right after the NPT Review Conference
concluded a hard-compromised Document. Japan’s nuclear cooperation with India would, at leastindirectly, assist nuclear weapons development of the country, violating this agreement. It wouldworsen the nuclear disorder in the region. Japan and the international community are encouraged tomake efforts to ensure that India at least freezes its nuclear weapons development.
Conclusion: improving partnership—NGOs, researchers and policy-makers
My final comment is about the role of civil society, especially about the need to improvepartnership among different sectors. I participated in the UN Conference on Disarmament Issues in
Saitama over the past few days. There, I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Potter who ishere today, and Dr Hitchens from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. Dr Hitchensemphasized the way researchers can be a bridge between NGOs and policy-makers, by providing
accurate information to actors at both grassroots and governmental levels. Academic institutions
can also make a bridge between these parties by preparing forums at which different actors can sit
together, and facilitating dialogue.
This is exactly the role that the Japan Association of Disarmament Studies can strive to fill. As an
NGO campaigner, I would appreciate fellow researchers pursuing such a role of providing
information and facilitation. Also, I would appreciate disarmament studies in Japan to be developed
further, making the best of the current global momentum, so as it can reach a degree where bothNGOs and policy-makers can rely on information and analysis from this community.
Thank you very much.

4