Japan's hallowed ban on nuclear arms

By Linda Sieg

TOKYO (Reuters): Japanese politicians have become more outspoken in challenging the nation's post-war pacifism, but the fate of a junior minister who questioned Tokyo's hallowed ban on nuclear arms suggests that one taboo is still intact.

Shingo Nishimura, one of two parliamentary vice ministers who back up the defense minister, resigned on Wednesday after his suggestion that parliament should debate dropping its three decade-old ban on nuclear weapons sparked a domestic furor and threatened to anger Asian neighbors.

Government officials, clearly concerned about fallout at home and abroad, were quick to deny that Japan -- the only nation to suffer an atomic bomb attack -- was moving away from its ban on possessing, producing or introducing nuclear weapons.

Nishimura's comments, however, came amidst signs that Japan is breaking with its post-war pacifist past as it tries to edge toward a security stance more independent of the United States.

Among the recent changes, seen by some as a troubling echo of war-time militarism and by others as a valid search for a modern identity, are the controversial enactment earlier this year of legal status for Japan's national anthem and rising sun flag.

Calls have also mounted from both ruling and opposition party politicians for changes to Japan's U.S.-drafted pacifist Constitution, which renounces war as a sovereign right -- a clear break with the traditional taboo on debating revisions.

"Constitutional revision has ceased to be a taboo," said Takashi Inoguchi, a University of Tokyo political science professor.

How widely Nishimura's nuclear views are shared among ruling politicians is difficult to gauge, though analysts say some in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and many in its hawkish coalition partner, the Liberal Party, are of similar minds.

Several major newspapers on Wednesday deplored the challenge to Japan's "anti-nuclear principles," as well as the tone of Nishimura's remarks, contained in an interview with a weekly men's magazine and liberally laced with lewd comments.

But the more right-wing Sankei Shimbun, noting that Japan's anti-nuclear principles had been government policy since 1968, argued: "That doesn't mean the policy can never change. Amidst an international situation which is moving so bewilderingly, we cannot say that the time will never come when Japan will have to think seriously about nuclear (weapons)," the paper added.

Behind such views is a growing sense of frustration at a security stance which both keeps Japan subordinate to America and restricts its ability to play a bigger global role.

Efforts to allow Japan a broader role in international peace- keeping forces are a key policy plank of Obuchi's new ruling coalition forged this month, though differences exist among the three coalition partners in how far they want to go.

Still, clearly obstacles exist to any serious debate on nuclear arms policy -- not least of which is the assumption that Washington would strongly oppose any such change in stance.

"There is frustration that Japan is not getting the respect it wants," said Keith Henry, head of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Japan office.

"But in terms of putting the issue of nuclear weapons into a more structured discussion, no one is going to go near it."

The public, meanwhile, is probably less inclined to challenge Tokyo's traditional pacifism and loathe to see Japan bear nuclear arms. "The bottom line is that most Japanese still hold pacifist views and don't want Japan to go nuclear," said John Neuffer, a political analyst at Mitsui Marine Research Institute.

That means a debate which brings into clear focus what critics see as the paradox of a security policy which relies on the United States for nuclear deterrence while banning Japan's possession of nuclear arms is probably not yet in the cards.

"Japan is not opposed to the use of nuclear arms to maintain stability in Asia. Every time they emphasize the U.S.-Japan security relation, that's what they're saying," Henry said.

"But they are not willing to debate whether they should take the responsibility themselves."