Hideo Tsuchiyama　
Chairman of the Organizing Committee of Nagasaki Global Citizens' Assembly
for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The nuclear proliferation issue has now become the greatest matter of interest in the world. The reason is that a series of incidents have accumulated such as that North Korea has declared its holding of nuclear weapons, Iran would not give up experimenting with the enrichment of uranium in Iran, asserting that it will use nuclear power for peace, and in addition, India, Pakistan and Israel do not participate in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Doubtlessly, how to stop nuclear proliferation is an urgent and extremely important priority issue. However, in recent years only this point has been emphasized too much, and the tone of argument as if the prevention of nuclear proliferation were the final objective has been too much conspicuous. The danger of such an emphasis is that the elimination of nuclear weapons, which should be the true final objective, may be forgotten.

Needless to say, we should remember the international agreement reached by all member states including the five nuclear-weapon states at the NPT Review Conference held in May 2000. "Nuclear-weapon states unequivocally promise to achieve the total elimination of all nuclear-weapons that they possess." -This wording in the agreement contains a strong determination. This was an international public promise that finally became effected thirty years after the inauguration of the NPT.

However, the Bush administration has been strengthening its attitude to ignore or negate this promise under the pretext of an anti-terrorist war. To justify that policy, it attempts to bring forward the prevention of nuclear proliferation and exclusive concentrate discussions on that point. I think that no non-nuclear-weapon states are objective against the prevention of nuclear proliferation, either. However, the reason why we cannot clear our doubts concerning the diversion of the focus from the elimination of nuclear power by the Bush administration is that we can see such an intention. In addition, the remaining four nuclear-weapon states appear to have decided to remain silent without stating any objection to the US policy. Why is the idealism of the USA, that is to say, to establish states of democracy in the world without allowing states of dictatorship to exist, not necessarily supported by the peoples in the world? The reason is that various US policies and especially the nuclear policy are made under the "double standard," which is clear to anybody.

India has consistently refused its participation in the NPT up to today on the grounds that it is an unequal treaty. India carried out a nuclear experiment in 1998, and became a nuclear-weapon state in effect. Nevertheless, the Bush administration deemed India to be an allied state of China and that of Islam, and also to be a promising atomic power market, and announced a joint statement for the purpose of promotion of cooperation for the use of atomic power for peace in March of this year. The Bush administration did not persuade India to participate in the NPT, although Israel has also become a nuclear-weapon state in effect without participating in the NPT. On the other hand, the Bush administration is attempting to severely censure Iran which is signatory to the NPT and has also signed the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency, although there is no confirmed evidence that Iran has started development of nuclear weapons yet. Even if there is a possibility of challenging attitudes and support of terrorist attacks by the Iranian government, such a clear double standard should not be allowed by any means. We demand its prompt withdrawal.

On the other hand, we must point out that the Japanese government has still remained unchanged from its old ideas as to its policy of security relating to nuclear power. The conflict in appealing to the outside for the elimination of nuclear weapons, while relying on the "nuclear umbrella", that is to say, the deterrent potential of nuclear power, of the USA is an undeniable fact that the Japanese government cannot vindicate. Why then does the Japanese government continue to stick such an attitude? The reason is that the Japanese government is concerned about its direct effect on the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and fears that the concept that the U.S.-Japan security can exist with nuclear power will collapse by discussing secession from the nuclear umbrella.

The past anti-nuclear movement in Japan denounced the wrongness of this point in public, but did not regretfully show a clear idea to deal with this problem. Triggered by the northeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone plan first proposed in 1995 in the USA by Professor Endicott, the "Proposal on a Three plus Three Model" was presented by Mr. Hiromichi Umebayashi of "Peacedepot" as a more realistic plan in the following year of 1996. We have had a discussion with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs almost every year on the basis of this proposal. I will leave details of the "Proposal on a Three plus Three Model" to the meeting of the Subdivision to be held tomorrow, but we have asserted that this plan does not require any direct change to the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and is the most appropriate nuclear security policy in this region including North Korea, and further that it can become a means for Japan to block a nuclear armament.

However, from the beginning to the end, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stuck to its attitude that the Ministry understands that the northwest Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone plan is an ideal theory, but that it is not realistic. Ten years have passed since then. To what extent has the government policy deemed realistic by the government achieved a result in this region? The six-nation conference, which should have persuaded North Korea to abandon the development of nuclear weapons, has now been completely deadlocked. We consider that, at this time, this plan is not only an ideal theory, but an important priority issue which should be taken up as a more realistic actual solution. We now would like to ask for a renewed request that the Japanese government will take a drastic measure in this matter.

By the way, the six Subdivisions which will hold meetings tomorrow are to analyze the present state of their respective themes for today. We sincerely desire from the standpoint of an atomic bombsite that the government will present concrete practical measures to let us know how to break the present deadlock in the future on the basis of such analysis. We, people in an atomic bombsite, are confident that a horizon will be opened towards the elimination of nuclear weapons without fail in solidarity with citizens in and outside Japan and the government of right-minded states, whatever difficulties lie ahead.

I now would like to conclude my keynote report, requesting all of you from the bottom of my heart to cooperate to make this assembly lasting for three days a place of active NGO like debates without sticking to the conventional framework and constructive proposals.