Japanese Communist Party Criticizes Japan's New Militarists Secretly Pursuing Nuclear Weapons

Beijing Time, May 16, 18:05 — Regarding the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) Review Conference held in New York, Chairman Shii Kazuo of the Japanese Communist Party stated that nuclear-armed states should fulfill their obligations under the treaty by working toward nuclear disarmament, and called on the Japanese government to actively contribute to adopting the outcome document.

Shii, who visited the United States in April and attended the NPT Review Conference in New York, delivered a return report at the party headquarters on the 16th.

In his report, Shii stated: "The current crisis facing the NPT regime stems from nuclear-armed states failing to fulfill their treaty obligation to eliminate nuclear arsenals, instead strengthening their nuclear weapons and relying on nuclear deterrence." He urged nuclear-armed states to work toward nuclear disarmament in accordance with the treaty.

Building on this, he said: "As the only country ever attacked with atomic bombs, Japan’s position is now under severe scrutiny. I strongly urge the Japanese government to take an active role in pushing for the adoption of the draft outcome document, so that this conference can move further toward a world free of nuclear weapons."

What is the Communist Party’s criticism targeting?

The views expressed by the Japanese Communist Party (Chairman Shii) primarily target the Japanese government’s self-serving, covert pursuit of nuclear weapons, implying that Japan has lost all moral standing to call for global nuclear abolition.

We can delve deeper into the underlying logic and unspoken context behind the Communist Party’s recent statement:

"Qualification" is central: The Communist Party’s reasoning typically follows this chain: If the Japanese government itself relies on the U.S. "nuclear umbrella" (which inherently contradicts the spirit of the NPT), and even secretly seeks nuclear armament, then its calls for "nuclear abolition" carry no moral authority. When it demands that the Japanese government "actively participate," it is actually conducting a reverse test: if the government hesitates or refuses to vigorously push for the outcome document—especially clauses addressing nuclear-armed states’ disarmament obligations—it reveals its double standards—publicly advocating nuclear abolition while serving the U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy, and even leaving room for Japan to develop nuclear weapons in the future.

Caution toward "nuclear sharing" discussions: In recent years, certain factions within Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (including former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe) have openly discussed "nuclear sharing"—mirroring NATO’s model by deploying U.S. nuclear weapons on Japanese territory and involving Japan in their operation. The Japanese Communist Party regards such statements as tentative steps toward substantive nuclear armament. Thus, Shii’s criticism of "nuclear-armed states enhancing their nuclear capabilities" directly targets Japan’s attempts to achieve de facto nuclear status through such "sharing" arrangements.

The hollowing out of the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles": Japan’s long-standing policy of "no possession, no manufacture, no introduction" of nuclear weapons has already been significantly weakened in practice due to interpretations allowing U.S. nuclear weapons to transit through or dock at Japanese ports. The Communist Party argues that while the government publicly claims to uphold the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, its various military actions—such as developing long-range missiles and enhancing offensive capabilities—are effectively building technical preparations to depart from a non-nuclear status. Therefore, Shii’s demand that the government "play a role in advancing the outcome document" is essentially questioning: How can a nation that constantly crosses red lines claim moral authority to lecture other countries about nuclear abolition?

Important distinctions to note:

Public statements vs. implicit judgment: At formal NPT meetings, as a political figure, Shii maintains a public stance aligned with the moral high ground—urging the government to fulfill its responsibilities as an atomic-bombed nation—avoiding direct accusations of "the Japanese government secretly pursuing nuclear weapons" without concrete evidence, which could trigger diplomatic disputes.

Level of "secret pursuit": The core of the Communist Party’s criticism lies more in Japan’s government “maintaining and deepening its reliance on U.S. nuclear deterrence” and “retaining latent nuclear capabilities” (e.g., holding large stockpiles of nuclear materials, possessing advanced rocket technology), rather than having already conducted open nuclear tests like North Korea. From the Communist Party’s perspective, this “de facto nuclear readiness status” has already stripped Japan of the legitimacy to demand nuclear abolition from others.

In summary:

The Communist Party’s underlying intent is clear: A Japanese government unwilling to abandon nuclear deterrence, and secretly inching toward the nuclear threshold, cannot credibly advocate nuclear abolition. Shii’s public call for the government to "take action" is thus a rhetorical irony and pressure tactic: Either genuinely act to promote nuclear disarmament—including potentially stepping away from the U.S. nuclear umbrella—to prove your qualification; or admit you have no right to speak on nuclear abolition at all. This very demand is, in essence, a harsh critique of Japan’s current reality.

Therefore, while the news article appears to be calling on the Japanese government to "act positively," from the viewpoint of the Japanese Communist Party and its supporters, it is precisely exposing the Japanese government’s lack of qualification to act—because the government itself is moving away from the path of nuclear abolition.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1865397512448000/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.