Subject: EEE会議（Re:　日本核武装論）
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:19:24 +0900
From: "kkaneko" <kkaneko@eagle.ocn.ne.jp>

各位

「日本核武装」問題については皆様から色々なご意見が寄せられていますが、
小生自身の意見は概要以下のとおりです。　これは、小生が参加しているある
米国のEメール会議における本件関係議論の中で表明したもので、要するに、
私見では「仮に北朝鮮が核武装したところで、米国の核抑止力（つまり核の
傘）が有効に機能している限り、日本自身が核武装する必要性もないし、核武
装すべきでもないし、実際に日本はそうしないだろう。むしろ米国政府の態度
の方が問題だ」という趣旨です。　いつもながら米国人は日本核武装論に妙な
「思い込み」や「こだわり」を持っているようですが、日本人としては、それ
をそのまま見過ごすのではなく、そのつど明快に反論しておくべきだろうと小
生は思っています。もっとも、小生の意見自体に異論のある方は、この際是非
ご開陳ください。
草々
金子熊夫
*********************************

Regarding the latest debate on "Japan going nuclear" touched off by
Krauthammer article (Washington Post dated January 3):

Like the majority of Japanese people, I am not very much impressed
with the argument that Japan might well feel compelled to go nuclear
unless North Korea stops threatening Japan (with or without Chinese
intervention). It is my well-considered view that Japan must not,
need not, and will not go nuclear so long as the American nuclear
umbrella continues to be dependable under any circumstance
(although personally I am somewhat skeptical about the strategic
value of the umbrella). In this sense, I concur in the following
analysis of Richard Halloran which he posted during the NBR debate
concerning Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda's controversial
statement made in early June 2002:

"The Japanese will not feel the need for nuclear weapons so long as
they are confident that the American nuclear umbrella is credible,
that they can count on the U.S. to deter and, if necessary, repel
aggression. Take that away and all bets are off.
The key to Japan's nuclear future is therefore held in Washington, not
Tokyo." (posted on June 24, 2002).

In this context, it is to be recalled that when President Clinton
visited Beijing in June 1998, the Chinese wanted to issue a joint
declaration on the so-called "no first use" of nuclear weapons but the
Americans rejected the Chinese proposal for the reason ( which later
became known) that such a declaration would make Japanese worried
about the credibility of the American nuclear umbrella and force them
to acquire their own nuclear weapons. It is generally believed that
the American rejection of the Chinese proposal was mainly based on the
strong objection by the Japanese government. (See my article published
in the World Affairs Weekly, August 18-25, 1998 edition, pp. 10-15)

Best wishes.

Kumao Kaneko, Tokyo.


> Regarding Michael Berger and Divyang Shah's postings about the
> Krauthammer nuclear nightmare article in the Post, I don't think the
> Bush Administration needs to go so far as to threaten to help Japan
> go nuclear if China doesn't keep North Korea from doing so. The
> Chinese government is already clearly aware of the danger that the
> Japanese might choose this option without U.S. urging if the North
> Korean threat gets out of hand.
>
> I had a revealing conversation over dinner in mid-November with a
> high-level officer of the Chinese embassy on this subject. When I
> raised the subject, he regaled me with all the difficulties the
> Chinese government sees in dealing with the North Koreans on the
> nuclear issue. Typical of his remarks was the characteristically
> understated observation that in dealing with the North Koreans the
> Chinese always have to keep in mind that the North Koreans
> have "very high self esteem."
>
> My Chinese host had a comeback for almost every point I made
> about the importance of pressuring the North Koreans not to try to
> sell the U.S. the same horse twice on the nuclear weapons issue.
> The only time he didn't respond was when I noted that if the North
> Koreans continued to pursue nuclear weapons, the Japanese might
> well feel so threatened that they would feel compelled to develop
> their own nuclear weapons capability, and that the U.S. might not
> be able to stop them. My Chinese interlocutor remained ominously
> silent.
>
> It's something to think about, and it may in the end be the one
> issue that brings the Chinese on board. Let's hope something does,
> because preoccupation with North Korea's "very high self esteem"
> doesn't seem likely to do the job.
>
> With respect,
>
> John Kelley
>