Kuniko Inoguchi

`Japan is of one mind with the United States in its counterterrorist commitment.'

This is the 23rd in a series of interviews examining Japan-U.S. ties and their implications.

* * *

While the government of U.S. President George W. Bush is widely seen as taking a unilateral approach to the world, Sophia University professor Kuniko Inoguchi says she thinks Washington can and will work multilaterally, as long as it produces results in the fight against terrorism. The former Japanese ambassador to the Geneva-based U.N. Conference on Disarmament says Japan, which holds the trust of the United States, can help coax Washington back to the international community.

* * *

Q: The prevailing view is that the United States acts unilaterally, but you see things differently. Why is that?

A: I refuse to view the United States as a unilateral country. At least from my experience, the United States has exhibited a strong commitment and eagerness to what we call ``effective multilateralism.''

This kind of multilateralism is more results-oriented. The United States does not have the patience to deal with process-oriented multilateralism. It wants to see things that make an immediate difference, or even a long-term meaningful difference, in containing and discouraging terrorism.

Terrorism affects the entire globe. Disarmament diplomacy must happen in a multilateral setting-there is no real replacement for it. The United States understands this and is willing to work with countries that are results-oriented.

At the same time, the United States views itself as the world's most-affected victim of terrorism. And its top priority in foreign policy is to never again see another 9/11.

In America's view, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily share the same degree of commitment to fighting terrorism because other countries have not been as affected as the United States has been. But many countries have experienced terror and do understand and share that commitment.

For many years, disarmament negotiations had produced no results. At the negotiations on the protocol for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), for example, the United States took a passive approach, and the talks were suspended for half a year. That's how things stood when I became the ambassador in spring 2002. The United States maintained that the BWC would do little to prevent terrorism. Six months later, they agreed to discuss a follow-up process for the convention with nonaligned nations.

Q: How did you persuade the United States to return to the table?

A: Right after I arrived in Geneva, I entered into long discussions with the chairman of the BWC process, the U.S. delegation and other key countries to urge them to revive the talks and start a process to strengthen the BWC.

Although it is not legally binding, an international political agreement does produce results for the BWC process-it gives it some clout. It is more expeditious, as it enables governments to put in place measures quickly without going through a lengthy legislative process.

I stressed to the United States that this would help the fight against terrorism. The U.S. delegation agreed to return to talks on two conditions: that the talks would take place at the official residence of the Japanese ambassador, and that representatives from all major nonaligned countries would be present. I contacted those representatives and they all agreed to attend.

Later, high-ranking U.S. State Department officials praised our efforts, saying that no terror attacks involving biological weapons have occurred since the BWC talks.

Q: Do you think that Japan can mediate between the United States and the rest of the world?

A: Definitely yes. I strongly believe that Japan is in a position to bridge the gap between the international community and the United States, and bring the U.S. position closer to the international community's.

Japan has the most sympathy with what the United States experienced on 9/11. And this sympathy, and commitment to our relationship, is helping the United States make sure that such a horrendous action is never to be repeated.

Japan is of one mind with the United States in its counterterrorist commitment. At this point, Japan's long-term commitment to disarmament and nonproliferation, rooted in the fact that Japan is the only country ever to be affected by nuclear weapons, comes hand-in-hand with the U.S. vow to fight terrorism. With Japan, the United States is more at ease, able to share its ``red lines'' (national interests that it cannot compromise).

This trust was not built in one day-rather, it is based on Japan's long-term commitment to this bilateral relationship.

Q: Tokyo and Washington aim to take the joint missile defense system to a new level. Japan is thus talking about loosening its so-called three principles that ban weapons exports. Isn't this counter to the spirit of disarmament?

A: Japan has revised the three principles on export bans several times, through statements by chief Cabinet secretaries.

One revision was to enable the transfer of technology for joint research on missile defense in the United States. Another was for a humanitarian cause, to enable export of de-mining equipment, also considered a weapon, to deal with anti-personnel land mines.

The basic understanding behind the three principles must be maintained, and their norms need to be held up for the international community to emulate.

I think someone has to uphold these ideals in this world filled with difficulty and confusion. And Japan can do that, and that is called burden sharing. It puts a burden on Japan, in that our arms development industry faces limited market opportunities, but I don't think it goes against national interests.

For missile defense, we could modify the principle with the statement ``for the development of MD-related mechanisms and systems.'' That would have a similar effect to modifying the principle itself, while we would still enjoy the political benefit of waving this flag on behalf of the international community.

Q: How do you evaluate the Iraq war? Isn't it true that it may have increased the terrorist threat?

A: Given Iraq's lack of transparency (on WMD), and the enormous security challenge in the Far East, it was inevitable for Japan to stand with the United States.

That position is right, but the method the United States used was probably not the most adequate. So now it is Japan's role to help the United States turn to more relevant and effective ways to restore peace and security in the Middle East.

Q: What is your outlook for the second Bush administration?

A: It will be fruitful. I have full confidence in Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser who has been tapped to be the next secretary of state. She is a prudent person who will make a difference.

Historically, second-term Republican administrations usually produce turning points in international relations. Ronald Reagan's second term saw the end of the Cold War, at least in Europe.

The second Bush administration will likely do what the Reagan administration couldn't-end the Cold War in Asia by helping North Korea out of its nuclear ambition.

I hope the United States will help Japan by solving the abduction issue and other regional concerns.

I would like the United States to understand that a true constructive relationship between regional partners in Asia will create stability for the United States and the world as a whole.

*

*

*

Profile