Two recent developments concerning nuclear weapons highlighted Japan's twisted position — of advocating the abolition of nuclear arms as the sole nation in history to have experienced atomic attacks while depending on the "umbrella" of the nuclear arsenals of its ally, the United States, for its own security. Tokyo abstained from the vote at a United Nations-mandated panel last Friday that recommended to the General Assembly the launch of negotiations for an international treaty banning nuclear weapons. It has meanwhile been reported that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe conveyed his objection to a nuclear weapons "no first use" policy contemplated by U.S. President Barack Obama, although Abe denies it.

Though regrettable, both Japan's vote at the U.N. working group on nuclear disarmament in Geneva and Abe's reported opposition to Obama's nuclear policy review comes as little surprise. Tokyo has often deferred to the position of nuclear powers on issues of disarmament. Abe's concern — reportedly conveyed in a recent meeting with the head of the U.S. Pacific Command — that a U.S. declaration of a no first use policy could undermine the deterrence of its nuclear arsenal against countries such as North Korea sounds consistent with Japan's policy of relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its defense.

The question is whether Japan should continue to adhere to such a position. Possible talks at the U.N. on a legal framework for banning nuclear weapons — based on the majority recommendation by the working group — could put Tokyo's dilemma over nuclear disarmament in focus. Obama's nuclear policy review may hit a snag due to objections from inside his administration and key U.S. allies, but should Japan be among the parties to oppose a policy that could significantly reduce the security role of nuclear weapons? These developments should give the nation a chance to publicly discuss and rethink its twisted reliance on nuclear weapons.