|
|
|
|
|
Unrequited Responsibility:
Japan and Iran
Uninvited was Japan to the January 16th meeting in London
on what to do about a nuclear Iran. Just a day before,
Japan had offered to mediate the crisis. As one of Iran's
principal economic partners and a symbol of nonproliferation,
Japan seemed well positioned to help. Nevertheless, Japan
was excluded from this closed-door meeting that included
Germany and China. This oversight highlights the difficulties
Tokyo faces in its quest to become a permanent member of
the UN Security Council.
Japan has not been alone in distancing itself from US policy
toward Iran. Yet, Tokyo has reacted differently than China
and the EU to the increasingly outspoken Iranian President
Ahmedinejad insistent in establishing his country's right
to nuclear power. In December, the Iranian leader called
for Israel to be moved to Europe and denied that the Holocaust
had happened. The December 9th evening's Nihon Keizai Shimbun
(Japanese edition) quoted a Kyodo News report that these
statements were likely to result in protests from "oubei" (Europe
and the US). No mention was made of Japan, a country that
says it is a staunch supporter of the UN and international
law as the basis for global order. The article's implication
was that Japan might not want to join ranks with the West
on this issue.
At the UN that same day, Japan did join in making a unanimous
Security Council resolution condemning the Iranian statement.
The official UN statement especially "recalled that
the General Assembly had recently adopted a resolution
rejecting denial of the Holocaust as a historical event,
either in full or in part, and urged all Member States
to educate their populations about the Holocaust." Yet,
one cannot find any official statement from the Japanese
Foreign Ministry (Gaimusho) speaking out on the issue.
Japan's Foreign Minister Taro Aso, did respond to a question
about the Holocaust at a December 16th press conference
that "it would be highly unlikely that the photos
of Auschwitz were fabricated."
In contrast, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman did respond
directly to a press question on December 15th about the
Iranian President's claims that Nazi holocaust of Europe's
Jewish population was a myth. He stated "we disagree
with any remarks detrimental to state-to-state relations
and regional stability. Last month, the 60th UN General
Assembly adopted a resolution stressing that the Nazi holocaust
is an indisputable historical fact, which we endorse. Israel
is a UN member state. Its state rights should be respected." Tepid,
yet it still was a statement for the record.
The Japanese response to the Iranian president's October
declaration to wipe Israel off the map, was a Gaimusho
statement (in Japanese only and appears to have been only
released privately to the Israeli Embassy) to the effect
that Mr. Yoshikawa Motohide, in charge of Middle Eastern
and African Affairs had summoned Mr. Tarai, the Iranian
Ambassador, and expressed Japan's concern regarding Mr.
Ahmedinejad's declaration. Mr. Yoshikawa is said to have
pointed out that if the declaration were as quoted, it
was unacceptable in any context. Every declaration calling
for the erasure from the world's map a state which is a
member of the UN and recognized by international law is
in contradiction to the spirit of the UN Charter and Japan
condemns such a declaration, the Japanese diplomat concluded.
In contrast, in the US and Europe, as well as in other
parts of the world, the condemnations were made, loud and
clear, by the heads of governments.
One explanation of Japan's reluctance to comment on the
issue is that it simply did not concern Japan. In a December
interview in the Oriental Economist, MOFA parliamentary
vice minister Yasuhisa Shiozaki responded to a question
about the Iranian president's suggestions that Israel be
moved to Europe. He said that the idea is "Obviously,
very unrealistic. It seemed to be a rather honest, although
very provocative comment. I cannot blame the Iranians for
saying so, since we are outsiders from the long history
and rather complicated relationship between Jewish society
and Islamic society in the Middle East. But, simply put,
his suggestion is unrealistic." The reporter followed
by asking if Japan had responded forcefully enough about
the denial of Holocaust as did the leaders of Europe. Shiozaki
responded that "The president of Iran was talking
about a Holocaust in Europe, right? Not one in Asia or
Japan. The prime minister has not responded because the
comments were not directed at Japan."
Another explanation is that Japan has serious economic
interests in Iran; in particular, it hopes to get the access
to the Azadegan oilfield, which is one of the largest in
the world. Interestingly, on December 1, the Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) of the World Bank group
approved a $122 million in guarantee coverage for a joint
venture petrochemical project in Iran, its first coverage
ever for a project in the country. The major beneficiary
would be a Japanese trading company, Itochu Corp. At the
end of December, Inpex, a Japanese oil firm, said that
it would proceed shortly on its $2 billion deal to develop
the massive Azadegan oilfield to try to ensure stable oil
supplies for Japan.
Others point to another, darker explanation for Japan's
hesitancy to speak out against Iran. Japan, itself, is
proceeding with similar nuclear fuel cycle research for
energy production. The Japanese government's soon-to-be
released energy strategy is expected to call for raising
the percentage of nuclear power in the total national electricity
supply from the current 30 percent to nearly 40 percent
or more in 2030. In October, the Atomic Energy Commission
of Japan adopted a long-term nuclear plan promoting the
nation's nuclear fuel cycle program, which reprocesses
all the spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for future
use as nuclear fuel. Thus, Japan may be reluctant to spotlight
the fact that it is the only member of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) permitted both to enrich uranium and reprocess
spent nuclear fuel for peaceful civilian purposes.
Japan on Friday, January 13th officially backed the referral
of the issue of the Iranian nuclear program for consideration
by the UN Security Council. Tokyo, however, said it did
not believe that this step would immediately result in
the introduction of sanctions against Iran. "Until
Iran changes its current stance we do not see a way out
of the problem toward a solution other than submission
of it for consideration by the UN Security Council," Japanese
Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said at a press conference
in Tokyo. Japan's Foreign Minister Aso also urged the international
community to continue diplomatic efforts with the aim of
making Iran stop research on uranium enrichment. Aso said
the referral of this issue to the UN Security Council "is
one of the methods" and that "it does not mean
that Iran will be an object for immediate sanctions."
Japan's hesitancy to condemn Iran as strongly as others
on and off the UN Security Council can possibly be explained
by its economic interests in Iran (current and anticipated),
its strategy of engaging the Iranian government rather
than antagonizing or containing it, and its own interests
in nuclear power. Yet, one wonders if this is the appropriate
stance for country that wants to be an international leader.
Recently, the Shukan Post (1/13/06) published an interview
with Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe by Naoki Inose. In it,
Abe was asked for his thoughts on foreign policy. The rumored
successor to Koizumi answered that "in order for us
to build a 'new country,' Japan needs to engage in creating
some rules of its own, and then tackle the task of taking
the lead in the world on its own initiative and accompanied
by a willingness to take responsibility." Abe is right;
Japan's acceptance internationally will rest with its willingness
to take responsibility, internationally.
Mindy L. Kotler
Asia Policy Point
Asia Policy Calendar
January 16, 20066
|
|
|
Back To Top