US Should Be Wary of Claims That Japan Opposes NFU

The title of a recent UPI article was: "Japan wary of 'no first-strike' proposal".  The headline implies that Japan's government opposes the proposal for the US to adopt a No First Use (NFU) declaration for its nuclear arsenal.  If the US adopted a NFU posture,  we would only consider using nuclear weapons after they had been used against the US or our allies.  In the past, Japan has opposed a US shift to NFU.  The Japanese government has argued that a conventional, chemical, or biological attack against Japan should merit a nuclear response, if necessary.  However, a closer read of the UPI article and statements of the new DPJ government show that the Japanese government may be more willing to accept a US NFU posture.

The UPI article cites a disagreement between representatives from Japan and Australia at the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.  Citing a source at the conference, the UPI says:

[W]hile Japan has agreed to the principle of reducing the role of nuclear weapons, it won't go along with the "no first use" idea, and also has misgivings about a suggested timetable and weapons reductions...Tokyo, ...reportedly fears a weakening of its U.S. nuclear umbrella.

What the article omits is the identity of the Japanese representative at the Commission.  Earlier coverage of the event shows that the Japanese representative was a member of the LDP, who is not speaking for the Japanese government:

Japan's co-chairwoman, ex-foreign minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, has refused to back the proposal, reflecting common official fears in Japan that the change would diminish the protection offered by the US nuclear umbrella from large armies in countries such as North Korea...Ms Kawaguchi, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, which lost the election, said she could not speak for the new Government, but Japan was committed to abolishing nuclear arms.

Ms. Kawaguchi's position at the conference isn't an isolated opinion.  Whether or not the US should adopt NFU is a policy difference between the LDP and the DPJ:

Earlier this month, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso questioned calls for nuclear-weapon states to rule out use of their strategic arsenals except in retaliation to a nuclear strike: "I wonder if that's a realistic way to ensure Japan's safety," he said.
Katsuya Okada, secretary general of the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, has indicated he believes the United States could move to a no-first-use policy.

With the DPJ now in power, it is likely that Japan would be more receptive to NFU:

[T]here are signs of greater flexibility...The attitude to NFU by the DPJ and its potential coalition partners is likely to be quite different from the LDP...In response to a questionnaire sent recently to Japanese political parties by disarmament nongovernment organizations, the DPJ said that NFU was an issue that should be discussed with the U.S. government.

It seems that the party might be more committed to Obama's Global Zero agenda.  The party also seems less concerned with the threat posed by North Korea, which is one of the reasons the LDP opposed NFU.  The party has said that it will cut funding for missile defense designed to counter North Korean missiles:

The incoming government in Japan appears prepared to reduce funding for missile defense...“Missile defense is almost totally useless,” said Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi...Yamaguchi offered his comments even as North Korea seeks to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities.

In fairness, part of the reason Yamaguchi proposes cuts for missile defense is that he thinks it is ineffective and a waste of money.  Still, their willingness to shift away from (even marginally effective) defense shows they are less concerned with possible North Korean aggression.

Most of what we know about the DPJ is based on public statements and campaign promises that could be moderated now that Prime Minister Hatoyama and the DPJ are in power.  However, it's likely that the DPJ would not be wary of a US NFU proposal.