Nuclear Policies of Japan and Australia: Implications for India
Report of the IPCS Colloquy held on 13 May 2009
Speakers: Tomoko Kiyota and
Kimberley Layton, Research Interns, IPCS
Discussants: Rekha Chakravarthi, Research Officer, IPCS and
Vidisha Shukla, Research Intern, IPCS
Resource Persons: Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and
Dr. Vidya Shankar Aiyar, Independent Strategic Analyst and Researcher
Kimberley Layton
It is not logical for Australia to have nuclear weapons since it is a member of the ANZUS Treaty of 1952 and enjoys nuclear guarantees from the US. Moreover, there is a strong public opinion against the presence of any kind of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. The Australian government has a tough nuclear material export policy which is in compliance with the regulations of the non-proliferation regime and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Environmental concerns have also been an important reason for Australia’s aversion to Nuclear energy. The people of the country have opposed uranium mining, import and dumping of radioactive nuclear wastes in the countryside sourced from overseas, as also the establishment of more nuclear power plants.
Tomoko Kiyota
While Japan advocates global nuclear disarmament, at the same time, it also needs the US nuclear guarantee to address its security concerns. It is interesting to note that in the past Japan has advocated the first use of nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear conflict. President Sato is believed to have asked President Lyndon Johnson to use nuclear weapons against China even if it were to attack Japan using conventional weapons. Even in recent times, Japan has asked the US administration not to declare a No-First Use policy against North Korea. Japan was reluctant in signing the NPT and took six years to do so. These episodes reveal the contradictory nature of Japan’s nuclear disarmament policies.
Rekha Chakravarthi
Japan and Australia are allies of the US and both have security assurances under the US nuclear umbrella. Like other allies covered by US deterrence, Japan and Australia are fierce advocates of non-proliferation. Therefore, as US allies, their policies are bound to reflect those of the US. Japan’s and India’s nuclear narratives are more or less similar. Japan advocates nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and so does India. Japan has a policy on seeking nuclear deterrence as an ally of the US; India stayed outside the alliance system and the extended deterrence from either of the superpowers during the Cold War. Japan also has a policy of keeping its nuclear option open; India, on its part, kept its nuclear option open and even exercised it.
Vidisha Shukla
Australia’s policy of nuclear trade and commerce is heavily influenced by domestic factors and economic needs. Domestic factors such as public opinion, environmental factors like the issue of radioactive waste, and economic incentives are important variables. As far as the issue of non-proliferation is concerned, India has a better track record than China which is widely believed to have proliferated nuclear technology and material to Pakistan and also to Iran, Libya and North Korea. This appears to be a contradiction especially since Australia is so unequivocal in its commitment to non-proliferation and its avowed aversion to trade with states who have violated non-proliferation norms.
Though the Japanese Foreign Minister’s speech is of great significance, he has not said something new. The three S’s – Safeguards, Safety and Security – which he mentioned in his speech were basically proposed and approved by the G-8 during the Hokkaido Summit last year.
Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan
A nuclear guarantee to Australia and Japan is a much cheaper option for the US compared to a security guarantee which involves conventional weapons. A conventional guarantee would imply stationing of American troops in these countries and would also raise the issue of the stability of conventional deterrence which is highly questionable. The logic of nuclear deterrence allows states to secure themselves and their allies with minimal employment of human resources and at considerably low costs of man and material.
There is no apparent paradox in the nuclear and security policies of Australia and Japan. There is a consistency in their approaches whereby both countries seek American assistance in securing themselves from nuclear threats and also advocate global disarmament.
Dr. Vidya Shankar Aiyar
Whereas the discussion clearly brought out the reasons for Japan’s equivocal approach in its nuclear policy, the paper presented on Australia has been more balanced in that it does not take a clear stand on why Australia is engaged in selective trade of nuclear material? Moreover, there is a decrease in the number of people who oppose nuclear weapons in Australia. The reason for such behaviour also remains unclear.
The determination of foreign policy involves a number of variables and therefore, the context of foreign policy decisions needs to be mentioned. Australian foreign policy in the field of nuclear commerce cannot be explained by looking at the public opinion alone. Economic and strategic gains must be acknowledged as factors influencing the formulation of the state’s decisions.
Note: Excerpts from a colloquy at the IPCS on held on 13 May 2009. Click here for full report.
