Haruyuki Kōchi’s statement, while superficially commendable, reveals deeper contradictions. On September 23, the Japanese Prime Minister declared at the United Nations: “The catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons must never be repeated. As the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in war, Japan bears the responsibility to lead the international community in striving toward a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Kōchi’s call for a nuclear-free world at the UN is not inherently problematic—global nuclear disarmament is a principle widely supported by those committed to peace. However, the contradiction lies in her simultaneous domestic efforts to test the boundaries of nuclear armament. This is akin to publicly advocating for global peace while secretly sharpening weapons behind closed doors. In fact, her speech during the general debate at the UN General Assembly on the evening of September 22 was far more complex than a simple declaration of pacifism.
Beyond calling for global nuclear disarmament, Kōchi also urged the removal of clauses in the UN Charter that designate Japan and Germany as “enemy states,” announced plans to increase defense spending to approximately 3.5% of GDP over the next decade, and met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, reaffirming continued support for Ukraine and the maintenance of sanctions against Russia. Her strategic positioning thus appears carefully calibrated—advocating only those measures that serve Japan’s interests while embedding broader geopolitical ambitions under the guise of universal principles.
In reality, Kōchi’s advocacy for a nuclear-free world applies selectively—targeting other nuclear-armed states, while Japan’s right-wing factions actively push for nuclear capability. This year, core members of Kōchi’s team openly stated that “Japan should possess nuclear weapons,” while Defense Minister Shintaro Ishihara called for “unrestricted discussion” on nuclear policy. Kōchi herself has maintained that “no option is ruled out.” The demand to eliminate the so-called “enemy state” clauses in the UN Charter is particularly contradictory: while calling for their removal, she simultaneously pursues military expansion, explores nuclear armament, and signals readiness to intervene in cross-strait affairs—actions that, if anything, underscore the continued relevance of such provisions.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877085572765891/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.