Okada: Alone in Kyoto?

NOH picked up on Friday’s post questioning Joe Cirincione’s use of the statements of the mayors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki as providing strong evidence to answer the title question “Will Japan Go Nuclear?” to quip

Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada on Sunday called on the United States to make a pledge not to use nuclear weapons first. Okada is not from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so is it okay to listen to what he says, PONI?

Another uninteresting PONI potshot that doesn’t answer the original post aside, one should look at what Okada was actually quoted as saying when speaking in Kyoto: 
 

We cannot deny the fact that we are moving in the direction of no first use of nuclear weapons. We would like to discuss the issue with Washington [emphasis mine]

Okada’s remarks were arguably intended to help influence the ongoing Fourth Meeting of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, which, according to GSN, reached a compromise that

extends until 2025 the adoption of a policy in which all nuclear-armed states agree to "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

The Asahi Shimbum puts the floating pieces of the puzzle together and explains:

Ironically, for Japan, the only nation to be hit by atomic bombs, the no-first use clause represents a dilemma. The government under the Liberal Democratic Party has for many years called for retaining the possibility of using nuclear weapons as a means of deterring possible threats from chemical and biological weapons. Sources said Japanese representatives to the ICNND have been hesitant about including a no-first use clause in the commission's final report because of the unstable security situation in East Asia, symbolized by actions taken by North Korea. At one time, Evans had actively called for including a no-first use clause in the final report. Because of the wide gap in the position with Japanese representatives, recent discussions have led to a compromise, sources said. A medium-term target of 2025 has been set for reducing nuclear weapons globally to an absolute minimum. Once that stage is reached, nuclear powers would be called on to clearly state their no-first use intentions. . . . Masayoshi Naito of the Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms said, "Putting off the clause until 2025 would represent a wide gap with the thoughts of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who want to eliminate nuclear weapons while atomic bomb victims are still alive." Evans told the Saturday meeting that the commission was seeking the proper balance between ideals and reality. The difficulty of finding such a balance was seen in the words of Okada. When the Democratic Party of Japan to which Okada belongs was an opposition party, Okada was a strong advocate of no-first use of nuclear weapons. The DPJ actually taking control of government apparently affected Okada's position. At a news conference in late September, Okada acknowledged the need for greater discussion within the Foreign Ministry because of opposition within Japan to a no-first use clause. [emphasis mine]

As argued on Friday, there's a difference between what folks want to be done and what can be realistically achieved at a given time.  As was written on the blog previously, it does seem like at least some within the newly elected DPJ want to move towards pressing the U.S. on NFU but it will take some time to reconcile the domestic obstacles within Japan and, as I’ve argued, the U.S. doesn’t seem chomping at the bit to modify calculated ambiguity.