Vol.14 No.3 March 2012

Examining the Dangers of the Civilian Use of Nuclear Energy
International Symposium“Exploring the Roles of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Japan”
The Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) and the Chugoku Shimbun cohosted an international symposium entitled “Exploring the Roles ofHiroshima, Nagasaki, and Japan: In the Wake of the 3/11 Nuclear
Power Plant Disaster” on November 19, 2011, held at theInternational Conference Center Hiroshima. It was aimed at reconsidering the future roles of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Japanfollowing the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Plant in March 2011, which revealed the potential dangers ofcivilian in addition to military use of nuclear energy. Attended byan engaged audience of approximately 280 people, experts from
Germany, the US and Japan, and also A-bomb survivors exchanged
their insightful knowledge and perspectives.
The first session entitled “Reflecting on the Development of
Nuclear Energy in Japan” opened with a report from Mr. Seiji
Shitakubo, a correspondent for The Chugoku Shimbun. Under thetitle “From the Series of Articles ‘Fukushima and Hiroshima,’” hespoke about the present situation in Fukushima together withphotographs. Secondly, Hitoshi Yoshioka, vice-president andprofessor of Kyushu University who is an expert in Japan’s atomic
energy policy, gave a speech entitled “The Impact of the
Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Japanese Nuclear Policy.”
Comparing the accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl, Yoshioka
highlighted the deficiencies of safety management at the plant inFukushima which led to the recent disaster.
In the following session entitled “How Does the International
Community See Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapons?”, Frank

Kazumi Mizumoto

Uekötter, fellow at the Rachel Carson Center in Germany who
conducts research on environmental problems caused by nuclear
power plants, gave a speech entitled “How to Abandon Nuclear
Energy: The German Case.” Uekötter examined Germany’s
experience up until its recent decision to instigate a gradual shutdown of all nuclear power plants in the country, by means ofconsideration of their costs and risks. This was followed by aspeech by Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs,
an anti-nuclear NGO based in California. In her speech entitled“US Nuclear Policy in the Age of Obama and Fukushima,” Kelley
underlined the increase in budget for nuclear weapons that has
occurred even under the Obama administration, and the recent
merger of movements against nuclear weapons and nuclear power
plants, following the Fukushima accident.
In the last session entitled “What is the Future Role ofHiroshima and Nagasaki?”, Osamu Saito, a medical doctor at Watari
Hospital in Fukushima City who has rich experience of providing
medical care for hibakusha in Hiroshima, gave a speech entitled“Ongoing Radiation Impact and Hibakusha.” In this speech he statedthat Japanese policy towards hibakusha has actually been largely toabandon them, and that we should not allow the government to repeatsuch negligence again. The session concluded with a final speechentitled “The A-bomb Experience and Fukushima.” The speaker,
Toshiko Tanaka who is a hibakusha and an enamel mural artist,
appealed that there must never be any more new hibakusha in Japan.
Vice-President of HPIPart 1 Reflecting on the Development of Nuclear Energy in Japan
From the Series of Articles Fukushima and Hiroshima
Seiji Shitakubo
Correspondent for The Chugoku Shimbun

The Chugoku Shimbun is currently running a series of reports about
Fukushima, dispatching three correspondents equipped with radiation
dosimeters and wearing radiation protection suits. As the leader of
the three, today I will talk about what we saw there and whether theexperience of Hiroshima can be of any help in handling the postaccident situation in Fukushima. While the cleanup of radioactive
soil is continuing at parks and schools in Fukushima City, some local
residents are opposing the plan for temporary storage sites for thecontaminated soil. It seems that this is partly due to the insufficient
explanation provided by the central and local governments.
I am repeatedly asked in Fukushima how nuclear power plants
have been perceived in Hiroshima. In 1956, an exhibition to promote
the peaceful use of nuclear energy was held at the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum. It glorified the power source as “the energy of
dreams,” and the media supported the promotion. Based on thisbitter experience, this time we selected 50 local residents from theHamadori area in Fukushima Prefecture so that we could report
how the local people are provided with information about theaccident, and how their needs and psychologicalstates are changing over the long term.
The mayor of Okuma Town, a town in thevicinity of the Fukushima power plant, wasinformed of the evacuation order issued by thecentral government only via a police officer
who happened to be at the town hall. Actually,
the local residents had been skeptical even prior to the 3/11 accident
about the transparency of TEPCO, the operator of the power plant,
regarding information releases about past accidents. Similarly,
interviews held in September, six months after the accident, revealed
the worry and fear among mothers and female high school students
concerning their babies’ health or having children in the future.
Just as hibakusha in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have sufferedprejudice, the affected people in Fukushima Prefecture are similarly
suffering from groundless rumors. I saw farmers in Date City bury
peaches, one of the local specialties, in the earth with their eyes fullof tears. Fireworks produced in the prefecture were being boycottedin other prefectures. As a company based in the atomic-bombed city ofHiroshima, we will continue producing our reports so that readers in
Hiroshima can communicate their sympathy to the people in Fukushima.

Contents

Examining the Dangers of the Civilian Use of Nuclear Energy:International Symposium “Exploring the Roles of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Japan”
Kazumi Mizumoto ……………………… 1-3
My Approach to Peace Studies Vol. 1 “Rethinking Peace from Hiroshima”
Nobuyuki Kakigi …………………………………… 4-5
Keys to Understanding the Arab Spring
Masaki Uno …………………………………………………………………………………… 6
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2011)“Nuclear Energy and Japanese Society: Historical Analysis and Prospects” …………………………………………………………… 7
Diary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Visit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

1

The Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Japanese Nuclear Policy
Hitoshi Yoshioka
Vice-President and Professor of Kyushu University

When comparing the nuclear accident in Fukushima with that ofChernobyl as well as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, several
important characteristics of the former case come to light. The firstcharacteristic is the fact that a great number of people were exposed
to radiation. While there haven’t been any victims suffering fromacute radiation disease, a fair number of people are expected to sufferfrom late onset radiation disease. The second is that hundreds ofthousands of people had to evacuate and most of them are unlikely
to be able to return home due to the excessively high levels ofradiation in their hometowns. The third is that a large number ofworkers who were engaged in the restoration of the damaged nuclear
power plant were also exposed to radiation. The fourth is that full
restoration of the pre-accident environment will be impossible insome contaminated areas. For instance, the damaged reactor buildings
are too dangerous to be dismantled or removed, therefore they willprobably need to be sealed within concrete sarcophaguses. The fifth
is that the situation in Fukushima is much worse than that in Chernobyl
since four of the reactors at the Fukushima plant are in a hazardous
condition. The sixth is that it is likely to take at least several years
before all of the reactors are safely shut down. The seventh is that asignificant amount of contaminated water has drained into the sea.
The cause of a nuclear disaster on such a grave scale can beanalyzed in terms of the reactors themselves and of crisis

management. Regarding the former, there are
four factors which it can be argued aggravatedthe accident: firstly, the disproportionate
number of 54 nuclear reactors were constructedwithin a small country where the occurrence ofearthquakes and tsunamis is by no means rare;
secondly, as many as six reactors wereconstructed at the Fukushima plant; thirdly, old and fragile reactors
were left in operation at the plant; fourthly, the risk of tsunamis was
disregarded. In fact, the site of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant was originally 30 meters above sea level, but it was
lowered by 20 meters for the convenience of pumping in seawater
to cool the reactors. As a result, it was hit by a tsunami with aheight of 14 meters. It should also be noted that the long power
outage was not predicted at the plant.
With regard to crisis management, this was carried out not by
the disaster management headquarters set up at the Prime Minister’s
Office, but by TEPCO’s headquarters from which the former was
only informed of decisions and provided with information. At thesame time, however, despite its huge size, TEPCO proved incapableof handling such a national crisis. Nevertheless, the actul anddisproportionate responsibility for restoration work was placed
upon the shoulders of TEPCO.
Henceforth a realistic approach for Japan could be to live with
nuclear power plants for the next 20 years or so, while gradually
moving towards the complete abandonment of all nuclear power plants.

Part 2 How Does the International Community See Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Weapons?
How to Abandon Nuclear Energy: The German CaseFrank Uekötter
Fellow at the Rachel Carson Center, Germany

The recent German decision to gradually shut down all nuclear
power plants in the country was the last step in a long process of denuclearization. The first step towards the decision was the strong,
persistent protest of local people who had learnt the dangers of nuclear
energy. The second step was the support for the anti-nuclear movementby the Green Party and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
The third step was that electricity companies realized that power plants
running on gas or oil are cheaper than nuclear power plants. The
fourth step was that by the late 1980s, the German government hadabandoned the utopian narrative of the 1950s which regarded nuclear
energy as “the technology of the future.” The fifth step came withGerman reunification, following which all nuclear reactors in East
Germany were shut down and construction of new reactors cancelled.
Consequently, it was clear in 1990 that no more new nuclear power
plant would be constructed in Germany in the future. The sixth step was
the decision taken by the coalition government that was formed between
the SPD and the Green Party in 1998: this was to limit the lifetime of
the then existing reactors to 32 years on average. The incumbent

center-right government which won the generalelection in 2009 enacted a new law to extend thelifespan by 12 years on average. Nevertheless,the overall stance towards nuclear energy of thegovernment can be said to be far from enthusiastic
as it had been during the 1950s. Only after allthese steps came the seventh step, that is therecent decision to abandon nuclear energy, madeby Chancellor Merkel following the nuclear accident in Fukushima.
What we should learn from the path of German nuclear power
policy since the 1950s is to “prepare for the unexpected.” Formerly,
engineers and physicists dreamed of nuclear power plants, the Social
Democrats were enthusiastic towards them, and the center-right coalition
government supported nuclear power policy. Nevertheless, none ofthese groups of people were able to maintain their support for nuclear
power plants. The process of de-nuclearization should be established
on a middle ground ------ a path between the extremes. In 2010, nuclear
power supplied 22 percent of all electricity consumed in Germany,and it will not be easy to replace this share with other energy sources.
The shift towards renewable sources will need to be gradual. Other
European countries may follow the path that Germany has taken.

US Nuclear Policy in the Age of Obama and Fukushima
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director of Tri-Valley CAREs, the US

President Obama called for “a world without nuclear weapons” inthe famous speech that he delivered in Prague in 2009. However, his
administration is actually engaged in the modification andmodernization of nuclear weapons for the purpose of “maintaining”
them, and also under the name of the “Life Extension Program.”Moreover, when the US and Russia signed the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty, President Obama promised the nuclear “hawks”
in the Senate a significant increase in the budget for nuclear weapons
programs in order to obtain the votes necessary for the ratification of
the treaty. In fact, the budget is projected to amount to 700 billion
dollars in total for the coming ten years. The National Nuclear
Security Administration of the US Department of Energy runs eight
major nuclear weapons facilities, and the US is planning to produce
nuclear weapons for the next 40 years or more at those facilities in
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Kansas City, Livermore and others.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California nearwhere I live, out of its budget for the next year of 1.2 billion dollars,
89 percent will be spent on nuclear weapons programs. The air, land
2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.3, March 2012and groundwater aquifer beneath our homes haveall been contaminated as a result of nuclear testing,and the laboratory is on a special government listof the most contaminated locations in the
country. The cleanup is expected to take 70 more
years, and government officials have admitted
that the area can never be completely cleaned up.
There are 7 million people living within 50
miles of Livermore Laboratory, and all of them are potential victimsof radiation exposure. Past accidents at the laboratory have so far
released 1 million curies of radiation into the air.
The accident in Fukushima has exerted a significant influence
on US citizens, and in fact movements against nuclear power plants
and nuclear weapons are moving closer to each other. Hiroshima
and Nagasaki have played the role of catalyst to accelerate action for
the abolition of nuclear weapons. For all the roles that you haveplayed, I thank you. As a citizen of the United States, I repeatedly
remind myself that it was my country that dropped two nuclear
weapons on Japan. In this context, my group organizes anti-nuclear
demonstrations at the gates of Livermore Laboratory on theanniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki every year.

Part 3 What is the Future Role of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Ongoing Radiation Impact and Hibakusha
Osamu Saito
Medical Doctor at Watari Hospital, Fukushima City

The level of radioactive contamination caused by the accident inFukushima is as grave as that of the accident in Chernobyl, and theradiation level of land reached 5 millisieverts per year in 13 percentof the whole area of Fukushima Prefecture. Contaminated water is
continuously draining into the sea. It is still an incomplete and urgent
task to establish a system to check the safety of food in order to preventthe internal exposure of local people. While it is difficult to measure
the radiation dose of external exposure accurately, some measurement
results which were taken in Fukushima City in September were far
lower than expected; this was a great relief. Although the probabilityof late onset radiation disease may not be so high, the uneasiness intheir daily lives and mental stress that the people of the prefecture aresuffering are serious enough. Secondary damage attributed toevacuation, such as excessive mental strain, decrease in income andseparation of families, should also not be overlooked. Living inshelters can also be a cause of mental illness. Concern is particularly
great for the mental and physical conditions of elderly people whohave to live on their own, especially during the winter.

The A-bomb Experience and Fukushima
Toshiko Tanaka
Hibakusha and Enamel Mural Artist

At the time of the atomic bombing, I was a first-year student atelementary school. On my way to school, I looked up at the sky. At
that moment there was a great flash of light and everything around me
went white. I must have covered my face with my right arm because
I received burns on my head, right arm and the left side of the back of
my neck. In later years I lived a happy married life and had a son anda daughter. However, my second child developed a disease caused byinherited radiation damage. A-bombed parents feel guilty for having
been atomic-bombed themselves, and they live with that sense of
guilt for their children and thus with a psychological burden for the
rest of their lives. Nevertheless, due to the difficulties of proving
causal relationships between exposure to radiation and specificdiseases, claims for public support usually have to be withdrawn.
Japan hasn’t learnt any lessons from the atomic bombings or

Q & A Session
Q: How is Germany moving towards alternative energy sources?
Uekötter: Solar energy, wind energy and biofuel are being introduced.
However, biofuel may cause some side effects on the soil. Renewableenergy is not a panacea; it has its own weak points.
Q: Why can’t nuclear power plants be abolished immediately?
Yoshioka: The cost of building and dismantling a nuclear power plant isenormous, whereas the cost of maintenance and nuclear fuel is cheap.
Therefore dismantling and replacing nuclear power plants with thermal
power plants will require a huge amount of money. One to two trillion yen
will be required to dismantle 30 to 40 nuclear reactors. The central problem
is this high cost.
Uekötter: Dismantling a nuclear reactor safely requires a long period of time.
In fact, Germany has begun searching for a place for the permanently safe
storage of a huge amount of radioactive waste. It takes a long time todispose of the radioactive waste that is produced following the dismantlingof a nuclear reactor.
Q: What is the situation in Japan regarding the ultimate disposal ofhigh-level radioactive waste?
Yoshioka: A law was enacted in 2000 which requires all radioactive waste to
be reprocessed, formed into glass, and then stored in geological depository
sites. The newly-established Nuclear Waste Management Organization ofJapan (NUMO) called on municipalities to offer candidate sites for this.
However, so far no candidate municipality has come forward. Having
witnessed the Fukushima accident, no municipality is likely to be interested
in the near future.
Q: Doesn’t the most powerful nuclear weapon state the US have any
desire to move towards the abolition of nuclear weapons, and leadthe world in efforts to that effect?
Kelley: In the US there are indeed citizens calling for nuclear abolition in various
cities and towns. However, it is still difficult to change US nuclear policy. In
order to achieve this, it is necessary to educate the general public so that they
will understand what their government is actually doing and then take action
themselves. I’ve been devoting myself to that effort, but it is a long process.
Q: What is the reality of the environmental damage caused by nuclear
weapons production facilities in the US?
Kelley: People engaged in the US nuclear weapons industry say thatenvironmental pollution was caused or nuclear accidents occured “only by

The people of Fukushima Prefecture arealso experiencing difficulties regarding their jobs
since most of the key industries of the prefecture,such as dairy farming, agriculture, fishing andtourism, have been suspended due to thewidespread contamination of land and sea. At thesame time, compensation claims brought against
TEPCO are not proceeding without difficulty due
to the complicated procedures, underestimatedcompensation amounts and inaccurate evaluations of the damage causedby groundless rumors. Therefore, full compensation is highly unlikely.
The recent nuclear accident in Fukushima is one of the mostserious incidents in the history of postwar Japan, both politically,
economically and internationally. However, the Japanese government
has so far shown insufficient leadership in its efforts to come to termswith the situation. Clarification of the state’s responsibility is essential
in order to restore industrial infrastructure. Previous Japaneseadministrations largely abandoned hibakusha, in response to whichhibakusha themselves have been calling for the abolition of nuclear
weapons and state compensation. It is an absolute necessity for thevictims of the nuclear accident in Fukushima to not tolerate such a policyof “abandonment” on the part of the government, and to demand theabolition of all nuclear power plants and a drastic shift in energy policy.
from the nuclear accidents of the Lucky Dragon,
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. On thecontrary, it has allowed the recent nuclear
disaster to happen, which caused the spread ofradiation and deprived people of fresh air, water,food and even places to live. When I recently
visited New York for 62 days to speak about myatomic bombing experience, wherever I went I
was asked why Japan has built so many nuclear
power plants despite all of its terrible experience of the atomic
bombings and nuclear accidents. I was always at a loss for words. It
is true that the myth of “peaceful use” of nuclear energy was
accepted in Japanese society due to a lack of knowledge andindifference among people, which I, as a hibakusha, am truly
ashamed of. I cannot tolerate the fact that Japan is creating morehibakusha now. As a hibakusha myself, I strongly believe that I
must continue to relate my own experiences.
accident.” In reality, however, the environment surrounding any nuclear
weapons production facility is contaminated with radioactivity. It was aslate as 2000 that the US government introduced a compensation system forthe workers who developed illnesses or lost their lives as a result ofradiation exposure at nuclear facilities. In fact, from Livermore Laboratory,
family members of approximately 3,000 workers who became ill or diedhave applied for compensation for their suffering.
Q: Is the damage caused by the atomic bombings in Hiroshima andNagasaki taught in the US and Germany?
Kelley: Many children in the US do not know the names of the cities ofHiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fact that the US dropped atomic bombs onthese cities. It is very dangerous not to know these historical facts. I want tocorrect this deficiency in US education through citizens’ NGO activities.
Uekötter: In Germany, teaching about Hiroshima has waned over the last 20
years. During the Cold War period, people in Europe associated any
confrontation with the experience of Hiroshima, that is the danger ofnuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, however, people inGermany assume that no nuclear weapons will ever be used against them.
This is by no means a positive tendency. In Germany, as in anywhere else,
we should not forget the experiences of the hibakusha.
Q: Can the people in Fukushima have any hopes for the future?
Yoshioka: I can talk about what we, the independent Investigation
Commission, were told by the mayors and civil servants of Okuma andFutaba Towns in which all the residents had to evacuate. According to them,
most of the young people of these towns have no intention of returning
there; however, middle-aged and elderly people still hold strong affection
for their hometowns and wish to return someday. Nevertheless, as long as aroadmap for the cleanup remains unclear, they may not be able to keep
hold of their hopes, nor to actually return home. The principle reason for
their anxiety is the fact that they cannot see a clear picture for the future.
Saito: It was reported in The Chugoku Shimbun that 25 percent of the people
who evacuated from the contaminated areas do not wish to return to theirhometowns, which in turn means that 75 percent of them wish to do so.
However, this will not be possible until the government develops acomprehensive plan for conducting the cleanup and ensuring food safety.
There are large numbers of people who have been compelled to return totheir hometowns as they have been unable to find a job in a new location,or they could not endure the separation of their families. These people arestrongly determined to live their lives positively. It is the government
which bears the clear responsibility to support these people.

(Summarized by Kazumi Mizumoto)
Visit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

3

My Approach to Peace Studies

Vol. 1The present issue marks the start of a new series entitled “My Approach to Peace Studies” in which a specialist
from a variety of fields writes about “peace” or “peace studies” as seen from the perspective of that particular field.
The first article presented here is written by Associate Professor Nobuyuki Kakigi of the Faculty of International
Studies, Hiroshima City University. Under the theme of “philosophy and peace,” he discusses how the concept of“peace” should be understood in relation to each individual’s life, making reference to issues unique to Hiroshima.

Rethinking Peace from Hiroshima:
From Memory Inheritance to Peace Lying between Selves and Others
Nobuyuki Kakigi
To affirm one's life with profundity“Life is survival.” ------ These words of the philosopher Jacque
Derrida which he expressed just prior to his death may pose animportant question in relation to the meaning of life in this world.
This question has become ever more pertinent in the aftermath of
the nuclear disaster in Fukushima since the accident has caused asignificant amount of radiation to be emitted into the surroundingarea, which has further devastated the lives of the residents in thevicinity and has also threatened their lives as well as those ofothers who have yet to be born. Furthermore, the potential effects
of invisible radiation still remain largely unforeseeable. In suchcircumstances, one may naturally think that one’s own survival isindeed a fragile condition.
When regarding oneself as a survivor, one inevitably recalls
those who were not able to survive. Thinking of such people does
not only lead to an idea that life and death are inseparable. It also
leads to an idea, as is often observed in the cases of hibakusha in
Hiroshima, of why it was that one did not perish along with thedeceased; and this thought manifests itself more strongly among
those to whom the deceased were close. For Derrida, clinging tolife despite having such a sense of guilt, which for him was anaffirmation of life, was not simply a matter of praising survival.
Suffering from cancer, he equated this affirmation of life to theutmost degree with his own philosophy. For him, philosophy may
have meant becoming closer to life which even resonated with thedead; and then affirming that life which has such overwhelming
power that it could even drive one into death. If this is the case, it
can be argued that within Derrida’s thinking may be found a
possible way to affirm survival with profundity without leaving
the dead behind.
This profound thinking may also offer a means throughwhich peace that originates from Hiroshima can be considered.
“To consider peace originating from Hiroshima” can beinterpreted as “to pursue peace as an opportunity to live on as asurvivor.” In this case, peace is no longer an abstract concept: itshould be revisited as an embodied concept and, moreover, an
opportunity for individuals to actually survive. What should be

4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.3, March 2012

sought in Hiroshima, therefore, is a means by which thisembodied concept of peace can be integrated with an idea ofcreating peace in relationship with others. A first step towards thiswould be an attempt to take on board the individual experiencesof the people of Hiroshima, be they experiences of those who
were lost or those who survived with deep psychological andphysical scars, without beautifying them and reducing them to acliché or a stereotyped image. This could provide an opportunity
to learn about past events which have preceded one’s own life,
uncover past violence which those people have actually gone
through, and also strive to prevent any similar cases happening
again in the future. (It should be noted that violence has been
repeated in the form of exposing people to radiation and throughlegislation under which government authorities have been able toselect who can be counted as a “victim” at their discretion.) In
such a process of endeavor, the act of passing on the memories ofhibakusha and of pursuing peace as an opportunity to survive canbe consolidated together.

A more open way of passing on memories of the atomic bombing
A further discussion of the issue of passing on the memories ofhibakusha should emphasize the need to address the difficulty ofachieving this successfully. The need to pass on the memories ofhibakusha has always been advocated in Hiroshima. However,what this can actually convey to non-hibakusha should be
carefully considered, while consulting other cases such as theissue of the limits of representation in relation to the Holocaust.
An enquiry of this nature may serve to clarify the difficulty ofsuch an endeavor. In spite of the considerable difficulty however,it still remains necessary to attempt to comprehend hibakusha’s
unique experiences of the atomic bombing in detail by means of
examining their records and testimonies. This clearly includes thegreat difficulty of bridging the gap between hibakusha and nonhibakusha. Nevertheless, this very gap can be conceived as
actually inducing comprehension. Otherwise, not only will theunique memories of each individual be lost forever, but Japan will
also likely have the memories of the atomic bombings utilized forthe justification of its self-contradiction, which is the fact that
despite its claims that it is “the only atomic-bombed country” andhas a constitution which strictly prohibits acts of war, for many
years Japan has been actively engaged in the development of
nuclear energy which could be diverted towards the production of
nuclear weapons.
If, in contrast, one addresses the memories of hibakusha
without reducing them to a cliché such as “the woefulness of theatomic bombing,” such an attempt can potentially go beyond the“myth” that Japan is “the only atomic-bombed country.” (Here it
should be noted that the victims of the atomic bombings were by
no means only Japanese people.) This can increase the possibility
that within each memory an entanglement of various forms ofviolence can be discerned, such as an indiscriminate massacrecaused by nuclear weapons, all-out war, colonization, and thepostwar Japanese legal system which has discriminated against
hibakusha. In this context, it is unavoidable to accept the fact that
Hiroshima was a military hub for the Japanese invasion of Asian
countries. Attempting to comprehend hibakusha’s memories by
putting oneself into their shoes may require addressing various
related issues: taking into account the fact that Hiroshima wasformerly a military hub; admitting Japan’s ultimate responsibility
for its invasion of Asia during WWII, together with its colonialist
policy; questioning Japan’s responsibility for continuing the war
which ultimately led to the atomic bombings; and also confronting
the Japanese government’s stance which has demanded that thewhole nation endure the damage caused by the war, and which at
the same time overlooked the war responsibility of thegovernment itself.
In the process of associating others’ past experiences withongoing problems that exist today, while addressing the cases ofviolence that have been experienced by each individual who wasin many respects a victim but also in some others an aggressor,
what is essential is to contrast the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
with other cases of violence that have occurred in other places.
The literary theorist Edward Said, who consistently maintained
his criticism of the imperialism of the West, stated that
remembering an experience of suffering is not enough unless it isassociated with the sufferings of others. Otherwise, that particularmemory will be confined to a limited scope and will be forgotten
in other places, which will then cause other people to endure thesame suffering. In fact, since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
there have been large numbers of people who have sufferedsimilar cases of violence, such as through indiscriminate
massacres or the use of radioactive weapons such as ammunition
which contains depleted uranium. Consequently, passing on thememories of the atomic bombing may mean not only
communicating them to those outside Hiroshima, but moreover
contrasting them with other cases of suffering, and attempting at
all cost to prevent similar cases of violence from occurring in the
future. In so doing, will it at last become possible to link memorytransmission and the pursuit of peace. Moreover, it may also
become possible for the concept of peace to be reinterpreted so as
to mean surviving together with others.

Revisiting the concept of peace
As discussed above, there is a necessity for the word “peace,”
which has become so ubiquitous in Hiroshima that it is almost acliché today, to be reinterpreted in order that it is no longer a mere
abstract ideal. Peace should be understood as representing an

opportunity to survive in this world in which the history ofviolence is still ongoing. In other words, the pursuit of peace is
not to view it as an imposed objective, but to seek it in close
relation to oneself who continually interacts with others in daily
life. This process requires that the concept of “peace” be clearly
distinguished from that of “security” which is today frequently
pursued by violent means. This situation is due to the fact that theconcept of “security” fuels an ungrounded sense of terror of others
who are different from oneself------the word “terrorist” functions toproject “terror” on others and exclude them------and consequently
provokes a new form of war, as represented by a “war against
terrorism.” In fact, for the sake of “security,” currently the lives ofthe people of Okinawa are once again on the verge ofvictimization, at the same time as the so-called “Apartheid Wall”
built in the West Bank “for security” stands as nothing more thana structurization of both racist and colonial violence which
tramples on the human dignity of Palestinians. It is crucial toclearly distinguish between the concepts of “peace” and“security” in order not to wage war for the sake of “peace” whichis understood as “security,” nor to allow violence to repeat itself
causing the exclusion of others, and nor to deprive people of an
opportunity to survive.
In this case, therefore, how can peace be interpreted as anopportunity to survive? Immanuel Kant who advocated “perpetual
peace” stated that peace among world citizens, upon which heplaced more importance than peace among states, should be builtwith universal hospitality as its guiding principle. Similarly,
Emmanuel Lévinas, who went beyond the theory of war toaddress issues of ethics, conceived a “first philosophy” of peace
as receiving the other into one’s space without unconditionallyperceiving the other as familiar. Adopting these perspectives maylead to a view that peace gains real meaning only through theacceptance of others with whom one lives. Kant advocated thatpeace must be established by means of law. However, if peace isdiscussed only within the field of law, this may overlook thepotential violent nature of politics which is carried out on the basisof law. In this respect, the theory of Lévinas may have more
validity since it argues that fundamental peace can be found inencounters with others who do not stand on the same ground as
oneself. Therefore peace should be reinterpreted to mean livingwith unfamiliar others in peace. Nevertheless, according toDerrida, peace understood only in the domain of ethics has thepotential to block the path of actually achieving peace between
oneself and others. In an attempt to question the fundamentals ofpolitics, he therefore sought a way to achieve a “first philosophy”
of peace through encountering others with whom one lives inpeace.
By means of this approach the concept of peace can be
successfully redefined. Peace can be constructed within life withothers through accepting them and standing against a history ofviolence; and this may represent what we are actually seeing in
the contemporary global political arena. In the present world
which poses a serious threat to peoples’ lives through violence
and radiation, comprehending hibakusha’s experiences in an open
manner in order to associate them with other experiences maylead to a pursuit of peace that originates from Hiroshima, which isunderstood as an opportunity to survive together with others andwithout disregarding the dead.
Associate Professor at the Faculty of International Studies,
Hiroshima City University

Visit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

5Keys to Understanding the Arab Spring
Masaki Uno
The protests in Tunisia which broke out towards the end of2010 rapidly developed into an anti-regime movement. On
January 14, 2011, Tunisia’s dictatorial regime collapsed
following the exiling of Tunisian President Ben Ali, and 11
days later on January 25, the revolution in Tunisia triggeredanti-regime protests in Egypt against President Mubarak andalso in other Arab countries. The spillover effects of theTunisian revolution have yet to come to an end, anddemocratization movements are still ongoing in countries suchas Syria and Yemen. The chain of these democratization
movements has been termed the Arab Spring. This article
discusses key issues relating to this historic event.
The first point that should be emphasized is the fact that
all of the individual cases that make up the Arab Spring
represent resistance against dictatorial regimes. On the surface,these regimes may seem to have had little or no association
with the Western world. However, history reveals theexistence of deep relations between these regimes and Westerncountries. The former were previously under the control of thelatter, either directly or indirectly, in the form of British or
French colonies, protectorates or UN trust territories. Against
such a historical background, some Arab monarchies such as
Morocco, Jordan and some Gulf countries have actually comeinto existence as a result of their installation and patronage by
the imperial powers. Similarly, republican regimes such as
Egypt (since the 1952 revolution), Algeria, Libya, Syria and
Iraq also have significant links to the regimes installed by theirformer masters. In fact, these regimes even utilized socialism
and communism, political ideologies which originated in theWest, to sustain their respective power. This explains how the
dictatorial regimes of the Arab world are in reality historicallyinseparable from the Western world. It should also be
remembered that it is partly due to the Western world thatthese regimes have been able to stay in power until now.
The second key point is the fact that anti-American (antiWestern) sentiment is quite common within Arab countries,
especially at the grassroots level. The reason for this can befound in the common understanding among the people of theregion that their countries were formerly under the control ofWestern countries. Particularly important in this context is the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. It is a common perception in the Arabworld that this conflict came about as a result of European
imperialism, and that the creation and continued existence ofIsrael has been essentially supported by the US. Hence, theArab world regards Israel as a “puppet state of European andAmerican imperialism.”
The final point which should be recognized is the factthat Islamism is gaining influence and beginning to assume
control in the political vacuum that has been created by the
recent collapse of dictatorial regimes. Political movements
calling for changes to bring about a more Islamic politicalsystem does not represent a new phenomenon, as
demonstrated by the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood
in 1928. However, hitherto these movements have been unable
to make a significant impact due to constant suppression
orchestrated by the former regimes. Nevertheless, the 1979
Islamic Revolution in Iran triggered a rapid increase in thenumber of young people devoting themselves to Islamism.
This trend was accelerated by the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. In the Arabworld, socialism and communism had previously exerted

6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.3, March 2012

significant influence on both anti- and pro-regime forces.
However, those historic events weakened support for theseideologies and, as a consequence, encouraged support for
Islamism among the people of the Arab world, despite its
religious and sectarian nature, which would ostensibly seemrather irreconcilable with socialism and communism. The
recent election victories of Islamist forces in Tunisia and Egypt
may confirm this trend of the rise of Islamism. In the West as
well as in Japan, democracy which developed in the West isquite often viewed as an absolute ideology which should
ultimately replace all other political systems. However, other
ideologies are actually being adopted in the developing world.
In fact, in the Islamic world, to which the Arab world belongs,
Islamic democracy is becoming widely developed andaccepted. It is important for this reality to be acknowledged.
These key points may lead to a conclusion that the ArabSpring stands as a consequence of the interactions between theWestern world, including Japan, and the Arab world. This
understanding may stimulate further questions regarding ourpossible subconscious tendencies when examining the ArabSpring: for example, imposing Western values on the Arabworld as an absolute; disregarding the political system of the
Arab world and regarding Islam as a threatening religion inorder to justify the imposition of Western values; andeffectively fueling such perceptions through the media. In thecase of Japan, the media appears to discuss the Arab Spring
only within the context of assessing its influence on Japan’snational interests, which can be rephrased as the national
interests of the US since the diplomatic policy of the twocountries largely resonates with each other. In fact, most of thecountry’s media reports seem to view the dictatorial regimes
as an absolute “evil,” while disregarding the fact that it was
the Western world, again including Japan, which supported
this “evil” and benefitted from it. Following the election
victories of Islamist forces in some Arab countries, theJapanese media was largely in line with that of the US in theway that it expressed great concerns over the future of the
Middle East and also a strong desire for the Islamic forces tobe moderate should they gain political influence. Similarly,
with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the media reveals astrong tendency towards overlooking the inhumane occupationof Palestine by Israel, and instead emphasizes the perceived
danger of Hamas, the Islamist organization based in Palestine,
to an unnecessary degree. It is this one-sided standpoint
prevalent in Japan that has not only blocked the path towards
mutual understanding between Japan and Arab countries, but
has rather made its achievement more difficult.
Although its further development is unforeseeable, it islikely that the democratization movements in the Arab world
will lead to a greater call for a resolution of the IsraeliPalestinian issue which is based on justice. Above all, thecurrent situation has been caused by past negligence in termsof addressing the issue in a truly just manner. Israel and the
US maintain that pressure on Israel has stalled the Middle East
peace talks, and Japan has followed this assertion. However, it
is clear that the greatest hindrance to peace in the Middle East
has been the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine. The ArabSpring urges us to decide whether to cling on to traditional
Western values or to champion diverse values.
Professor at the Faculty of International Studies,
Hiroshima City University

HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2011)

Nuclear Energy and Japanese Society: Historical Analysis and Prospects
The Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, and the subsequent disaster at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima
reminded us of the great potential dangers of nuclear energy. This event triggered a wide-ranging debate over how Japanesesociety can and should handle this energy resource, and also posed a question regarding Hiroshima s previous attitude towards
Japanese nuclear policy. Reflecting on this situation, the Hiroshima Peace Institute organized the latest Lecture Series for
Citizens on the theme of nuclear energy and Japanese society. Emanating from various research fields such as media studies,
history, medical sciences and physics, five lecturers examined the present situation and problems surrounding nuclear energy.
Particular focus was placed upon the following issues: the controversial handling of the Fukushima disaster by the Japanese
government; the similarities and differences between the radiation-caused damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that in
Fukushima; the problems and tasks imposed upon Japan which is heavily dependent on nuclear energy; and the recent antinuclear decision taken by Germany and the future path that Japan should take. The summaries of each lecture are as follows.

Lecture 1 From HIROSHIMA to FUKUSHIMA, from FUKUSHIMA to...?
（October 7）

Toru Takeda, Journalist / Critic / Professor at Keisen University

The first lecturer was Toru Takeda who is a
specialist in media studies and also a journalist.
Based upon his previous research on
Manchukuo, patients with Hansen’s disease inJapanese society and nuclear power plants, heidentified linkages between these three issues.
In both cases of city planning in Manchukuo, apuppet state established by the Japanese Empire
in 1932, and regarding nuclear power plants within Japan, priority
was given to technological development over people’s lives. At thesame time, discrimination against sufferers in society was observedin both the cases of Hansen’s disease and that of the Fukushimadisaster. Through historical analysis of Japanese nuclear policy, hequestioned the actual feasibility of both a society with nuclear
power plants and the immediate abolition of all nuclear power
plants. He also identified the creation of certain communities thatare vulnerable to radiation as a result of the imposition of nuclear
power plants on those peripheral communities. He then emphasized
the importance of people becoming aware that holding an absolute
expectation with regard to renewable energy is a naïve hope.

Lecture 2 Global Hibakusha and Japanese Society（October 14）

Hiroko Takahashi, Assistant Professor at HPI

As a scholar of US history, Takahashi has been
conducting research into the information control
relating to radiation issues imposed by both the
US government and its military. She has brought
to light the actual situation regarding “Global
Hibakusha” such as atomic soldiers (soldiers who
were mobilized for nuclear tests) and workers
at nuclear power plants who have sufferedhealth problems as a result of exposure to radiation. In the lecture
she first explained the historical background of the US information
control on radiation effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and revealed
the similarities between these cases and the handling of the Fukushimadisaster by the Japanese government. According to Takahashi, theJapanese government still disregards the dangers of residual
radioactivity and internal exposure to radiation. She emphasized
the need to protect people from radiation, especially workers at
nuclear power plants, infants, children and expectant mothers.

Lecture 3 The Physical and Psychological Effects of Nuclear Energy（October 21）

Nanao Kamada, Chairman of the Hiroshima A-bomb Survivors Relief Foundation

Based upon his own extensive experience oftreating and supporting hibakusha in Hiroshima,physician Nanao Kamada examined thecharacteristics of radiation effects in the casesof Hiroshima, Chernobyl and Fukushima. This
examination included the differences between
internal and external exposure, and the possible
effects that nuclear energy can have on thehuman body such as damages to chromosomes and the developmentof cancer. Kamada emphasized the need to measure the levels ofboth internal and external radiation exposure of the evacuees from
Fukushima, to examine their evacuation routes and dietary records,
and to conduct medical checks over a long period of time. He also
identified insufficiencies which exist in terms of social infrastructuresuch as the absence of a registration system for patients sufferingfrom cancer, inefficiencies in epidemiological research, and a lackof social and medical support for all victims of internal andexternal exposure to radiation.

Lecture 4 The Nuclear Power Phase-out in Germany（October 28）

Makoto Nishida, Lecturer at Kobe University

Following the Fukushima disaster, the German
government led by Chancellor Angela Merkel
carried out a radical shift in its policy on nuclear
energy through deciding to instigate a gradual
shutdown of all its nuclear power plants by 2022.
Despite the growing interest in this policy change
amongst the Japanese public, the long pathleading up to this decision is not well known.
Nishida first examined the historical and political background of
Merkel’s recent decision, the response of German society, and thefuture challenges facing the country. He then focused on the Green
Party and the influence that it has had in German politics and society,especially regarding previous moves towards the phasing-out of
nuclear power plants. Reflecting on the case of Germany, hediscussed the prospects for the abolition of nuclear power plants inJapan, and emphasized the need to examine nuclear power plants
in relation not only to natural disasters but also to national security.
He also emphasized the need for cross-factional discussions on
issues such as the abolition of nuclear power plants, alternative
energy sources and ecology.

Lecture 5 Nuclear Energy and Peace（November 4）

Michiji Konuma, Professor Emeritus at Keio University

Physicist Michiji Konuma has long been
involved in efforts campaigning for nuclear
abolition as a member of the Pugwash
Conferences and also of World Peace 7, a groupof intellectuals who are calling for world peace.
In this lecture, he first demonstrated that in orderto achieve peace, there is no alternative but tobring about nuclear abolition and the nonmilitary resolution of conflicts. He then examined the characteristics
and problems which are unique to the Fukushima disaster incomparison to other accidents such as that which took place in
Chernobyl, and presented a detailed examination of the problemsof the Japanese government’s handling of the disaster. He further
stressed that both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons
ultimately violate fundamental human rights, and as a consequence,
efforts need to be made to achieve the following: the cancellationof plans for and the construction of new nuclear power plants; theimmediate abandonment of old and decrepit nuclear power plants;
promotion of the development and use of renewable energy
resources; and the reduced and efficient use of electricity. He also
opined that if the nuclear power plants currently in operation are toremain so in the immediate future, it is absolutely necessary to
acknowledge the risk of nuclear accidents, develop thoroughsafety measures, and keep the plants in operation for the shortest
possible period, and only after having secured the agreement by all
the people who could potentially be affected in the case of a
nuclear accident. He concluded the lecture by emphasizing thatevery individual as well as society as a whole should makecontinued efforts towards a world without nuclear energy.

Makiko Takemoto, Assistant Professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

7November 1, 2011 ‒ February 29, 2012

◆Nov. 3 Robert Jacobs presents paper “Ignoring a Research
Cohort: American Atomic Soldiers and Radiation Exposure” at theannual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, held in
Cleveland, OH, US.
◆Nov. 5 HPI Vice-President Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture“Hiroshima and Peace: The Atomic Bombing Experience andContributions towards Peace” to a group of teachers from the Takéo
Provincial Teachers Training College as part of the Cambodia
Reconstruction Support Project, co-organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture and JICA, held at the Hiroshima Prefectural Office.
◆Nov. 8 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 8th meeting of
the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum, held at the International Conference Center
Hiroshima.
◆Nov. 10 Mizumoto and Jacobs give lectures on the reconstructionof Hiroshima and the atomic bombings and nuclear weapons asperceived in the US respectively, to a group of students from theLower Secondary School affiliated with the School of Education,
Nagoya University, held at HPI.
◆Nov. 13-14 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “Ganbarism: The
Dilemmas of Fukushima Victims” at the Asan Japan Conference“Japan in Crisis: What Will It Take for Japan to Rise Again?”,organized by and held at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies,
Seoul, South Korea.
◆Nov. 18 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “The Dokdo/Takeshima
Debates: A Memory Problem” at the Second International Forumfor Peace and Prosperity in Northeast Asia entitled “Sixty Years
after the San Francisco Peace Treaty: Peace, Conflict, andHistorical Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific,” held at Columbia
University, New York, NY, US.
◆Nov. 24 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “North Korea and East
Asian Community Debates,” at the international conference “G20
Era and Regional Cooperation of Asia: A Search for a Directivity,”
held at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea.
◆Nov. 25 Narayanan Ganesan presents paper “East AsianRegionalism: Positions and Priorities” at the 5th APISA Congress“Regional Integration in Asia and Europe in the 21st Century,”
held at Overseas Chinese University, Taichung, Taiwan.
◆Nov. 26 Mizumoto gives keynote speech “The Roles ofLocal Governments and NGOs” at the workshop on theinternationalization of local community entitled “From Regional
Societies!-----Support for Reconstruction and Contribution towards
Peace by Local Governments and NGOs,” organized by theCouncil of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR)
and other organizations, held at the International ConferenceCenter Hiroshima. ▽Mizumoto presents paper “An Analysis of
Recent Trends and Debates on Nuclear Weapons” at a workshop
organized by the Advisory Research Committee of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum, held at the museum.
◆Nov. 28 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima and the Danger of
Nuclear Weapons” to a group of Rotary Peace Fellows from the
ICU Rotary Peace Center during their Hiroshima Field Trip, heldat HPI.
◆Nov. 30 Jacobs gives report on his research project “Global

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
●Published by●Printed by

8

Hibakusha Project” and discusses films at the symposium“Rethinking Nuclear Development” during the 2011 Hiroshima
Peace Film Festival, held at HPI.
◆Dec. 6 Mizumoto gives lecture “Contribution towards Peacefrom Hiroshima: Support for Reconstruction and the Tasks for
UNITAR” at a meeting of the League of Hiroshima Prefectural
Councilors for the Support of UNITAR (the United Nations
Institute for Training and Research), held at the Hiroshima
Prefectural Council.
◆Dec. 19 Mizumoto presents paper “The Meaning of Peace
Studies in Hiroshima” at the 2nd workshop of the Research Projecton Peace and Conflict Studies, organized by and held at theInstitute of International Relations and Area Studies, Ritsumeikan
University, Kyoto.
◆Dec. 20 Ganesan co-hosts with the Jeju Peace Institute andchairs the joint conference “Peace and Cooperation in East Asia,”
held at HPI. ▽Mizumoto presents paper “A Nuclear-free Zone inNortheast Asia: Its Prospects and Challenges” at the same joint
conference.
◆Dec. 21 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 9th meetingof the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum, held at the International Conference Center
Hiroshima.
◆Dec. 22 Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture “The Institute for American
Studies of Rikkyo University during the Second World War” at
Rikkyo University, Tokyo.
◆Dec. 24, 2011-Jan. 16, 2012 Ganesan conducts field researchin Myanmar.
◆Jan. 16 Mizumoto attends the Task Force Meeting of “A
Hiroshima for Global Peace” Plan, organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture, held at the Hiroshima Prefectural Office.
◆Jan. 22 Mizumoto gives lecture “Cambodia: History, Civil War
and Rehabilitation” at a preparatory training course for the Study
Tour to Cambodia, organized by the Hiroshima International
Center (HIC) and JICA Chugoku, held at HIC.
◆Feb. 7 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 10th meetingof the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum, held at the museum.
◆Feb. 29-Mar. 7 Mizumoto conducts visit to Cambodia forseveral projects including the Cambodia Reconstruction Support
Project, co-organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
――Visitors――◆Nov. 10 Students from the Lower Secondary School affiliatedwith the School of Education, Nagoya University.
◆Nov. 28 Rotary Peace Fellows from the ICU Rotary Peace
Center.
◆Dec. 20 President Tae Kyu Han and six other members of the
Jeju Peace Institute.
◆Jan. 31 Prof. Akihisa Matsuno from the Osaka School ofInternational Public Policy, Osaka University, and three researchers
from Southeast Asia.

Vol.14 No.3（March 26, 2012）

Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University（Editor: Yuko Takahashi）
Ote-machi Heiwa Bldg. F9/10, 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan
Phone: +81（0）82 544 7570
Fax: +81（0）82 544 7573
E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.3, March 2012

狡Hiroshima City University 2012. All rights reserved.