Kan needs to declare Japan’s 1910 annexation of Korea invalid to save Japan-ROK relations
Xinhua, 6/23 (6/23, “S. Korean lawmakers calls on Japanese PM to set history straight”, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7037220.html)
South Korean lawmakers on Wednesday called on Japan's new Prime Minister Naoto Kan to declare Imperial Japan's forced annexation of Korea a century ago null and void. Some 75 South Korean lawmakers from both the ruling and the opposition parties have signed a message to the Japanese prime minister, which will be delivered to him by Megumu Tsuji, a Democrat member of the Japanese House of Representatives. They asked Kan to make a "historic turning point" by announcing the annexation was invalid in the first place, as none of the five treaties forcibly signed before the annexation in 1910 was approved by then Korean leader. "For forward-looking South Korea-Japan relations, fundamentally resolving our conflicting views on history, especially regarding forced annexation of Korea, will be the key," the message to Kan said. The lawmakers urged Kan to make an announcement that goes beyond the statement made in 1995 by the then premier Tomiichi Murayama who apologized and expressed regret for Japan's colonial rule and atrocities before and during World War II.
India Nuclear Export—Needs Public Support
Without strong public support, Kan won’t export nuclear reactors to India
Brown, 6/19 (6/19/10, Peter J, Asia Times, “Japan Weighs Role in India’s Nuclear Boom”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LF19Dh01.html)
Despite pressure from the US and France to change Japan's existing nuclear and high-tech export control rules that forbid Japanese companies from engaging in such transactions with India, Kan can simply walk away from this deal or at least postpone it indefinitely. "Kan is rather stubborn when it comes to the issue of security, and he is not strongly in favor of the change of the [nuclear] export regulation," said Associate Professor Kazuto Suzuki of Hokkaido University's Public Policy School. He describes the way in which former prime minster Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio handled the issue of the Futenma air base on Okinawa as a constant reminder for Kan of the importance of separating important domestic ideological issues from realistic security issues. "In the case of the nuclear deal with India, Kan will demonstrate that his government will not do anything that would not easily win the approval of a rather ideologically stimulated population," said Suzuki. Should Kan oppose this deal, he will probably annoy Masayuki Naoshima, Japan's minister for economy, trade and industry, and Shunsuke Kondo, chairman of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). These two men are widely seen as spearheading this drive that is moving ahead with the creation with India of a joint working group. "Naoshima as well as Kan and Yoshito Sengoku, chief secretary general of the cabinet, are keen to promote sales of nuclear plants and large infrastructure projects such as bullet trains to foreign countries," said Suzuki. "However, they would do so only when there are no major security concerns or any conflict with existing laws and government principles." Besides, Kondo has previously stressed the need for openness and transparency when it comes to dealing with the public, a stance that may not work to the advantage of proponents of a nuclear agreement with India. "It is important to maintain openness and transparency to the public of any activities including policymaking processes, giving the public both formal and informal opportunities to learn what nuclear energy policy and activities are," said Kondo at the Second International Meeting on Next Generation Safeguards that was held in Japan last October.
Kan needs public support for his agenda to export nuclear reactors to India
Brown, 6/19 (6/19/10, Peter J, Asia Times, “Japan Weighs Role in India’s Nuclear Boom”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LF19Dh01.html)
When Hatoyama visited India in late 2009 and discussed the agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Hatoyama alluded to the possibility that Japan would soon start to export nuclear plant equipment and other high-tech items to India. Japan would do so, Hatoyama stated, so long as India promised to refrain from conducting nuclear tests. Because India possesses and has tested nuclear weapons, and because it has resisted signing key non-proliferation treaties such as the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), this is not an easy decision for Japan to make. However, with respect to the CTBT in particular, India is not alone because both the US and China have yet to ratify the CTBT. Manmohan did pledge that India would not conduct any more nuclear tests. Once India had received exemption from the NSG, after the US deal, it moved quickly and signed agreements involving the sale of uranium fuel and/or nuclear equipment with France, Russia, Kazakhstan, and soon if no last-minute snags occur, Canada. By joining this list, which includes a few other nations, Japan will in effect relinquish much of its moral high ground with respect to opposing the continuing spread of nuclear weapons. "Most experts do not appreciate how important Japan's role is, so in one sense the damage to the non-proliferation regime was done by granting India an exemption from NSG strictures," said Lewis. "If Japan sticks to its guns on a no-testing pledge, the India-Japan agreement might modestly reduce the harm from the NSG exemption." Confidence was high, and Hatoyama's popularity seemed to be on solid ground at the time he had these discussions with Manmohan. Following Hatoyama's abrupt exit from his leadership post this month, Kan finds himself perhaps in a defensive position, which means he might be prone to going the extra mile in terms of garnering popular support. Shedding some of Hatoyama's baggage and making life easier inside Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) after the bruising and often heated Futenma-related exchanges with the US, might serve this purpose well."The Kan government may want to promote nuclear disarmament to maintain its 'liberal' image," said Akiyama. Good results in the July poll will prompt Kan to export nuclear reactors to India
Brown, 6/19 (6/19/10, Peter J, Asia Times, “Japan Weighs Role in India’s Nuclear Boom”, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LF19Dh01.html)
While US and French companies lobby hard in the background, Kan eyes the latest poll numbers in advance of the elections. He wants to appear more decisive than his predecessor, but fears the consequences of poor decision-making. As much as Japan might want other countries to acquire Japanese nuclear expertise to boost its exports, Kan and his team can see the price the US paid for forging its own nuclear deal with India. As the US attempts to block China's plans to build a pair of nuclear plants in Pakistan, for example, many label the US stance as hypocritical. Does Japan want to follow the same path? There is a wild card here. Because Canada has apparently completed its negotiations and now intends to proceed with the actual signing of a nuclear agreement with India, Japan might feel more comfortable doing so too as a result. Canada's actions might help to deflect criticism that Japan is blindly following in lock step with the US at a time when more and more Japanese are openly questioning the soundness of this practice. India's former ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament Arundhati Ghose has attempted to call attention to what she has described as the "win-win situation" that Canada's decision has spawned.