Hell on earth

ABOUT 50,000 people from different parts of Japan congregated at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima on August 6 to observe the 55th anniversary of the dropping of the atom bomb on the city on that day in 1945, which had claimed more than 2,00,000 victims. Three days later, on August 9, some 30,000 people assembled at the front of the Nagasaki Statue of Peace to mourn the death of about 70,000 men and women, by a second atom bomb. Japan was the first and, hopefully, the last victim of atomic weapons, and it is debatable still whether it was necessary for the U.S. to have used the two bombs. Studies of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki validate the proposition that the use of nuclear weapons is fraught with the cruelest possible forms of death and long- lasting injury and health damage that make "life a living hell" for people, and the description "the living envying the dead" is not a hyperbole. It is not surprising that Einstein, when asked once about the type of weapons that may be used in a third World War, answered, "I don't know about the Third World War, but I know what weapons will be used in the Fourth World War: bows and arrows."

It is strange, however, that after more than half a century since the end of the Second World War, one could notice inherent contradictions in the attitudes, feelings and sentiments of the Japanese people towards the nuclear question. With the lifting of wartime censorship, right-wing writers poured out a stream of "sincere literature" which wanted to undo all the liberal reforms of American Occupation Forces and restore the Emperor to his pre- war divinity. And, there was the left-wing version: conscience keepers of world pacifism, they rekindled Japan's anti-war semantics regularly on each August anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over the last 55 years. The Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Yoshio Mori's address to a group of Shinto supporters that Japan is a "divine country" centred on the Emperor, is reminiscent of the Shinto ideology that justified Japan's aggression in the Second World War, while the Mayor of Nagasaki in his annual peace declaration said that the Government of Japan "must resolutely face up to its past aggression and sincerely address the unsolved issues". Obviously, there are gaps in perceptions.

One can notice an apparent dichotomy on the issue of war and peace in the attitude of the Japanese. Mr. Shigeru Yoshida, who dominated the Japanese political scene from 1946-1954, adamantly resisted re-militarisation of Japan but came out with an interpretation of the new Constitution as favouring the possession of a defensive force when SDF was established. Prime Minister Sato's "three nuclear principles" in the 1960s - not to make, not to possess and not to introduce nuclear weapons - received universal acclaim, but he firmly resisted attempts to freeze the nuclear option in the Diet as tying the hands of the future generations. And, the living legend, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone's advocacy of "atom pile budget" was a clarion call to rearmament, but today he is acclaimed as the greatest votary of non-nuclear proliferation in Japan. Even recently, one of the views touted against possible nuclearisation of Japan in the future is, "politicians would face difficult times if they go against the sentiments of the people."

This raises a fundamental question - are the Japanese worried about their security. During the days of the Cold War, Japan accepted the U.S. security umbrella; and sheltering beneath the umbrella, it pursued single-mindedly its aim of developing the country's economy. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a growing economic and military power, Japan, more than any other country in the east, has become conscious of the need for an effective security framework for Aisa. Japan is worried about China's nuclear nightmare even as China fears Japan not only as a rival in Asia but more as a potential nuclear adversary. China is aware and conscious of Japan's superior technology and its rapid development of nuclear energy, and probably calculates that nuclear weapon production is logically the next step.

Japan, we all know, is one of the most vociferous votaries of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) of 1970 under the U.N. auspices. But its leaders hemmed and hawed for nearly six years before it ratified the treaty in 1976. Reason: the nuclear power industry in Japan was uneasy about the effect of the NPT on industrial technology and Japan's competitive potential in the future. And, even after signing the NPT, the official position appears to be that should the Government decide to build nuclear weapons, they would be used exclusively for self-defence, without violating the constitution! Today, Japan is the greatest advocate of the comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), and has linked its foreign aid programme to countries and projects that would not even remotely encourage nuclear proliferation. Post-Pokhran India knows this to its cost. Former Prime Minister, Mr. Ryutaro Hashimoto, the architect of economic sanctions on India after Pokhran, declared during his recent visit to New Delhi that Indo- Japan ties were "not hostage" to the nuclear issue but pointed out at the same time that India's subscription to the CTBT would make its integration in the international mainstream much easier.

There is no gainsaying the fact that nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is most advanced today in Japan and research and development in the field is also of a very high order. A recent Washington report titled "Thinking the unthinkable: Will Japan deploy the bomb?" has highlighted numerous findings. Prominent among these are: Japan has enough super grade plutonium today for a small arsenal of sophisticated nuclear warheads, with the U.S. actively helping it by supplying plutonium re-processing technology. While there is little chance that Japan would exercise its nuclear option in the near future, the fact that Japan has steadfastly maintained it has the right and has taken action to ensure that it has the means to go nuclear, makes the hair bristle. This is not to say that the Japanese, especially the politicians and bureaucrats, are debating if or when Japan should go nuclear. But portents are ominous.

Let us remember that more than 10 years after the end of the Cold War, the world still has enough fire power in its 30,000 plus nuclear weapons arsenal to cause a million Hiroshima - half of this in a state of alert or ready to be deployed in a matter of a few minutes. Nuclear disarmament sounds simple, but even if achieved there are tremendous procedures, scientific and others, to be followed. Highly enriched uranium, reclaimed through dismantling of nuclear warheads, has to be stored till some other use is found for it, and who will keep it till then? What will be Japan's response to the new development if Japan comes in possession of weapon grade plutonium through kind courtesy of a troubled world, seeking refuge at the feet of a pacifist Japan? Will Japan offer its services - its expertise - to dispose of the plutonium, and if so, how?

The policy planners at Kasumigaseki, headquarters of Japan's Government machinery, must start working from now on if they are really serious about making the world nuclear free. Nuclear strategy is too serious a subject to be left to harmless experts who haunt seminar circuits or to the whims and fancies of highly volatile military generals.

N.KRISHNASWAMI

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Bill for broadcasting
Next     : The colours of silence