In Arms Control, Has Japan Found Its Grand Purpose? : Militarism: The world’s only nuclear casualty, resisting calls that it re-arm, considers a leadership role in disarmament and nonproliferation.

Japan is about to propose a detailed plan to establish a worldwide mechanism for monitoring arms sales and transfers. Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu reportedly will unveil the plan at the G-7 summit this week. This could be big news--a sign that Japan is market-testing a “grand purpose,” something it has searched for since becoming a global power. The United States should actively encourage such Japanese leadership.

Over the years, American leaders and citizens have readily bashed Japan for shirking its military burden. Playing on resentment of Japanese commercial prowess, Republicans and Democrats alike have urged Japan to spend more on military forces in order to balance the military handicap on each country’s economy. This effort escalated during the Gulf War, as President Bush and Congress beseeched Japan to send forces to the Gulf.

Lost in this crusade is the reality that Japanese leaders and citizens have profound, historic and wise interests behind keeping their military forces modest, and America shares those interests. A militarist Japan is what caused the devastation of World War II and wrought the only nuclear-weapons attack in history. The country’s constitution (written by Gen. Douglas MacArthur) severely limits military spending and pledges Japan to “forever renounce” armed force. More important, the Japanese people realize that success in the new world derives from economic strength and diplomacy. Opinion polls constantly affirm the anti-military sentiment of the Japanese people.

All of this played out in the Japanese debate over President Bush’s call to Japanese arms in the Gulf. After watching Kaifu contort himself and the constitution in an attempt to satisfy Washington, Parliament and public opinion steadfastly refused to allow Japanese forces to be sent to the Gulf.

Undoubtedly this debate lies behind Kaifu’s initiative to establish, under United Nations auspices, an open registry to report and monitor conventional weapon sales around the world. Japanese leaders recognize what their own elites and the rest of the world have been saying for years: Now that Japan has become a major power, it must decide what grander purposes its leadership should serve. If Japan does not take the initiative, it will continually be forced to react to American pressures that may run counter to the country’s “Peace Constitution” and anti-military interests.

A hardheaded analysis of Japan’s options and the world’s needs yields the conclusion that we are all better off if Japan exercises leadership to pursue international arms control and balanced disarmament. The Gulf War showed the danger and folly of an open arms market. The end of the Cold War shows that the United States and the Soviet Union overbuilt their nuclear arsenals and now must reduce them to enhance economic and military security. Indeed, the greatest military threat to security in the world today is proliferation--the arms race itself. The world needs all the leadership it can get in reducing armaments.

Japan has unique moral and political authority in this arena. Japan understands the trading interests of advanced industrial countries, yet shares the sensibilities of the nuclear “have-nots.” Japan’s disastrous experience as a militarist nation and as the only victim of nuclear devastation enables it to speak knowledgeably about the futility of warfare in the nuclear age. Japan’s new global power demonstrates to the rest of the world that eschewing militarization is a good investment. A pro-arms-control Japan would allay the other Asian-Pacific nations’ profound fears of a militarily resurgent Japan.

Many impediments obstruct a Japanese decision to promote arms control and disarmament. Japan’s fundamental commitment to peace is rivaled only by its determination to maintain the alliance with the United States. Important quarters of Washington would treat an ambitious Japanese arms-control campaign as a nuisance, and the U.S. Navy is openly contemptuous of arms control. Accordingly, the United States has de-emphasized cooperative security measures in Pacific Asia, concentrating instead on pushing Japan to spend more on its military.

Some will also argue that it is precisely America’s nuclear weapons that give Japan the luxury to be “peaceful”; by advocating arms reductions internationally, Japan would burn the American security blanket. But this is old-world-order thinking. Japan faces no real threat to its territory today. Soviet and Chinese nuclear forces would have no incentive to target Japan were it not for the American nuclear weapons and supporting bases that Japan obligingly hosts.

Indeed, the former Joint Chiefs chairman, Adm. William Crowe, now argues that “substantial benefits” would accrue “from mutually denuclearizing all naval forces except sea-launched ballistic missiles.” Since port visits by nuclear-armed ships violate Japan’s pledge to forbid introduction of nuclear weapons to its territory, an initiative to ban such weapons from surface ships and attack submarines should be encouraged by Tokyo.

Of course, Japan has not said that it wants to make a grand cause of arms control and disarmament. A militarist minority remains in the country, and the Kaifu proposal may be as far as the cautious nation wants to go. We should hope not. Rather than urge Japanese militarization, America and the world should encourage Japanese leadership to bring about a peaceable new world order.