HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace InstituteVol.1 No. 2 March 1999

Forum Mulls Final Report's Contents−The 2 Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference meets in Hiroshima−nd

The second meeting of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament, jointly sponsored by the Hiroshima Peace Institute and theJapan Institute of International Affairs, was held in Hiroshima on Dec.18 and
19, 1998.
Eighteen representatives from 16 countries participated in the meeting
held to discuss ways to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote global
disarmament. The third meeting is scheduled to take place in New York on
April 9 and 10. The forum plans to draw up proposals regarding nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament at the end of its fourth and final meeting,which will be held July 23-25 in Tokyo.
At a press conference held after the meeting, then HPI President Yasushi
Akashi said, "Although we should not become blindly optimistic, we havegone a long way toward determining our future course." Referring to a reportby the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, headded, "We would like to place a high priority on the methodology needed toaccomplish our goal, rather than on announcing the goal itself."Many of the participants visited the Peace Memorial Museum andjoined a meeting with an A-bomb survivor during the two-day meeting. Most
had high praise for the role of NGOs, one of which submitted an 11-point
proposal to the forum.
nd

Proposal Needed to Break Disarmament Deadlock

List of the Participants in the 2 Tokyo Forum(Alphabetical order)

Lt. Gen. Nishat Ahmad

Amb. Peggy Mason

President of the Institute of Regional
Studies, Islamabad

Dr. Zakaria Haji Ahmad
Professor & Coordinator, National
University of Malaysia, Selangor

Amb. Marcos Castrioto de Azambuja
Ambassador of Brazil to France

Director of Council Development,
Canadian Council for International Peaceand Security, Ottawa

Prof. Robert O'Neill
Chichele Professor of the History of War,All Souls College, University of Oxford

Amb. Qian Jiadong

Senior Consultant of the China Institutefor International Strategic Studies, Beijing
Vice President of World Economics andInternational Relations Institute, Moscow Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly
Director of the Ahram Center for Political
Amb. Emilio Jorge Cardenas
and Strategic Studies, Cairo
Executive Director of Hong-Kong andShanghai Banking Corporation Roberts
Mr. Jasjit Singh
S.A., Buenos Aires
Director of the Institute for Defense
Studies and Analyses, New Delhi
Amb. Rolf Ekeus
Ambassador of Sweden to the U.S.A.
Amb. Hennadiy Udovenko
Member of Ukrainian ParliamentProf. Han Sung-Joo
Professor of Korea University, Seoul

Prof. Sergei Yevgen'evich Blagovolin

Amb. Ryukichi ImaiDistinguished Scholar, Institute forInternational Policy Studies, Tokyo

Dr. Joachim Krause
Deputy Director of the Research Instituteof the German Society for Foreign Affairs

Mr. Michael Krepon-Co-chairmenMr. Nobuo Matsunaga

President & Director of the Japan
Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo

Mr. Yasushi Akashi
Then President of the Hiroshima
Peace Institute, Hiroshima

President of Henry L. Stimson Center,
Washington D.C.

CONTENTS
Forum Mulls Final Report's Contents
Proposal Needed to Break Disarmament Deadlock
From Confrontation to Cooperation
Anti-Nuclear Group Submits Proposal to Tokyo ForumThe 2nd U.N. Conference on Disarmament Convenes in Nagasaki
NPT Regime Requires Fundamantal Remodeling
U.N. Disarmament Conferences in Japan; Their Genesis and Implications
The Role of Hiroshima in the 21th Century, by Takashi Hiraoka
The Role of Non-Gevernmental Organizations Toward a Nuclear-Free World,
by Joseph Caron
Workshop Mulls Stagnation in Disarmament Process
Toward building Peace and Disarmament Database
A Visit to Research Organizations in the U.S. and Europe
Hello from HPI
Diary

Following are highlights of discussions at the forum:○
The forum said it expected declared nuclear states to reachagreement on the problem of nuclear disarmament in order tomaintain the NPT regime. It was recognized that a settlement among
three of the states, Britain, France and China, was of great importance
while START negotiations continue between Russia and the UnitedStates.
○Participants pointed out that regional problems, such as nuclear
weapons tests in South Asia, should be addressed within the context
of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, whileregistering the forum's grave concern over those tests.
○
The forum stressed that nuclear disarmament should beapproached comprehensively, encompassing such issues as controlson the export of nuclear weapons-related materials, control of weapondelivery systems, assistance in dismantling nuclear warheads andbans on the production and disposal of nuclear fissile material for
nuclear weapons.
○
Several concrete proposals were tabled at the meeting, reflecting
a desire among participants to see clear policies on non-proliferationand disarmament incorporated into the forum's Final Report.

p1
p1
p2
p2
p3
p3
p4
p5
p6
p7
p7
p8
p8
p8

By Hiromichi Umebayashi
Anti-nuclear non-governmental organizations in foreign countries do notappear to have much interest in the Tokyo Forum, nor do they expect much tocome of it. This is because they have witnessed the less-than-positive attitudeof the Japanese government toward nuclear disarmament. However, theJapanese government is not directly responsible for the forum. Indeed, as amember of a Japanese NGO, I believe the forum will be able to achieve agreat deal.
I was encouraged by a comment Yasushi Akashi, then president of theHiroshima Peace Institute, made at a press conference held after the second
meeting. He said, "Many participants share the sense that the NPT regime will
not be maintained if nuclear disarmament continues at the current pace." Ihope such a sense will appear in the forum's Final Report, a long withproposals emphasizing nuclear disarmament as a premise of nuclear nonproliferation.
In October 1998 the council of the Pugwash Conferences expressed
concern about the current impasse in the process of nuclear disarmament.
That impasse, I presume, is a common perception throughout internationalsociety. To break the deadlock, the New Agenda Coalition―now comprising
Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden――
calls on declared nuclear weapons states to "demonstrate an unequivocal
commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear
weapons." It is a remarkable demand, and one that I hope the Tokyo Forum
will discuss fully.
The Final Report will be directed toward the whole of internationalsociety, not just the Japanese government. But the forum may give special
consideration to the role of Japan as the only country to have been devastatedby atomic weapons, in the same way that it confers special importance on therole of nuclear weapon states.
The Final Report of the Canberra Commission was submitted by theAustralian government to the U.N. General Assembly and the Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva. I hope the Tokyo Forum will urge the Japanese
government to use the Final Report to bring about a breakthrough in thedeadlock over nuclear disarmament. For that to happen, the forum should
demonstrate its work at its third meeting in New York, which will take place,with fortuitous timing, just prior to the opening of a preparatory committee
for the NPT Review Conference in 2000.
Umebayashi is international coordinator of the Pacific Campaign for Disarmament andSecurity (PCDS).
(Translated by an HPI staff member)From Confrontation to Cooperation-−Two members of Tokyo Forum call for changes in approach toward international security−
Two ambassadors from countries that have renounced the development of a
nuclear capability challenged the notion of nuclear deterrence and spoke of theirhopes for disarmament at an open lecture organized by HPI and the Hiroshima
Peace Culture Foundation on Dec.20,1998. The lecture was held to mark the second meeting of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
Rolf Ekeus, Swedish ambassador to the United States, and M arcos de Azambu-

ja, Brazilian ambassador to France, both members of the forum, talked aboutchanges in international security since the end of the Cold War, as well as the history of the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
About 250 people attended the lecture, titled "In Pursuit of the Abolition of
Nuclear Weapons," held at the International Conference Center in Hiroshima.

Lessons of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in Latin America

Deterrent Logic Must be Challenged

Although Latin America was not the sceneof any of the major military conflicts of the 20th
century, it was almost embroiled in nuclear
conflict when the former Soviet Union decided to
deploy nuclear missiles in Cuba, aimed toward
the United States.
There can be no such thing as a localized
nuclear war. When first confronted by the Cuban
missile crisis, we in Latin America looked at thenuclear element with great urgency. Our initial
response was to ask whether it might not bebetter to protect ourselves from such dangers bycreating a nuclear-free zone; to take region-wide
Marcos Castrioto de Azambuja initiatives as a way of facilitating global
Azambuja is Brazilian disarmament.
Ambassador to France andAt that time, the idea of non-proliferation
Secretary General of the
Ministry of External Relations. was in its infancy. All of the permanent members
Previous posts include Special of the U.N. Security Council possessed nuclear
Representative
andCoordinatorforthe weapons, equating a nuclear capability withEnvironment and Development enhanced international status. During this period,at the United Nations, many Latin American countries were ruled by
Ambassador to Argentina.
authoritarian regimes, and it is much harder in a
non-democratic society to make progress toward nuclear non-proliferation.
Nuclear deterrence was the dominant philosophy, and the Cold War provided
the perfect environment to nullify impulses toward peaceful means and thecause of non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
Then a number of things happened that moved the debate in the directionof a more rigorous consideration of the benefits of non-proliferation.
First, people gradually realized that in developing nations, such as thosein Latin America, where money is scarce and resources limited, thedevelopment of a nuclear capability is a desperate waste of resources.
Second, thanks to countries such as Japan, Germany and Sweden, we
began to realize that major-power status could be achieved without the needto possess nuclear weapons. Third, the perverse nature of th e logic ofdeterrence became more obvious, not least the realization that countries wereaccumulating more weapons than they could possibly use. Stockpiling such alarge amount of fissile material requires continuous updating and also poses anumber of ecological problems.
Finally, democracy was beginning to take hold in Latin America, withcountries leaning toward cooperation, rather than the rivalry that had once
characterized their relations.
By building confidence, slowly and methodically, we created anirresistible force in favor of transparency, where before there was only
mistrust. The abolition of nuclear weapons will mark the end of the road. It isa feasible, realistic goal, provided we approach it pragmati cally, forpragmatism is a safe way to attain idealistic objectives.

Industrialized states have come to rely morethan ever on the advancement of technology todevelop weaponry that is accurate and causes
minimal collateral damage. In other words, theidea that strategic and technical supremacy can beachieved through mass destruction has become
outmoded.
We have learned from our visit to Hiroshimathat the future use of nuclear weapons would bemeaningless. All our strength and effort,
therefore, must be devoted to preventing theRolf Ekeus
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, andEkeus has been Swedish
eventually to eliminate them altogether.
Ambassador to the United
The five recognized nuclear weapons states States since September 1997.
Previous posts include
are all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ambassador and Permanentof Sweden to
However, given that they have recognized the Representative
theConferenceonultimate goal of disarmament to be the Disarmament in Geneva, andExecutive Chairman of theelimination of nuclear weapons, why is abolition United Nations Special
Commission for Iraq.
proving so difficult to achieve?
Supporters of the nuclear deterrent say nuclear weapons prevent largescale conflicts with conventional weapons. They say that nuclear weapons
deter the use of other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical andbiological weapons. They say that nuclear weapons have a sta bilizing
influence and are necessary to deter others from using them.
This is a wonderful circular argument; the idea that as long as someone
else has nuclear weapons, I can never relinquish my own. Finally, they argue
that disarmament is impossible to control and verify.
It is clear, however, that the use of chemical and biological weapons by
one nation cannot be prevented by the mere possession by another of a
nuclear weapon. It would be extremely difficult to blow up a laboratory witha nuclear weapon, for example. The logic of deterrence holds that one must
be prepared to strike if threatened or fearful. In that sense, deterrence servesto destabilize.
As for verification, major advances have been made in the past few
years. The major risk now is related to the lack of control over fissile material
in Russia. We all should make efforts to strengthen controls of such material.
I can see very real benefits if major nuclear states eliminate their nuclear
arsenals. It would increase their security and enhance their stability. It would
also radically diminish the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Anti-Nuclear Group Submits Proposal to Tokyo Forum
Anti-nuclear activists and hibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombings) from
Hiroshima and Nagasaki unanimously agreed late last year to submit an 11-point
proposal to the second meeting of the Tokyo Forum on Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens' Meeting to Demand the Abolition of
Nuclear Weapons, held on Dec. 12 at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum,
was organized by a committee comprising about 40 A-bomb survivors, scholars
and representatives of civic groups with the aim of making their voice heard at theforum.
The proposal asks the forum to:
1. Delineate a time frame for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
2. Draw up detailed plans to prevent the technological transfer and "braindrain" related to the development of nuclear weapons.
3. Demand that the United States and Russia stop sub-critical tests and cancel
all attempts to modernize their nuclear arsenals.
4. Demand that nuclear weapon states conduct concrete and bo na fidenegotiations toward "a treaty on general and complete disarmament" as
stipulated in Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
5. Call on Japan and nuclear states to support actions aimed at furthering a
nuclear weapon-free world, as set out in the New Agenda Coalition.
6. Appeal to governments to endorse the advisory opinion of the International

Calls for time limit on abolition of nuclear weapons

Court of Justice on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
7. Propose the prompt conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.
8. Launch an international appeal for the expansion of nuclear-free zone
treaties to include the Northern Hemisphere.
9. Demand that Japan hasten the passage of legislation containing its three
non-nuclear principles.
10. Ask for the convening of the Fourth U.N. Special Session on
Disarmament.
11. Ask that the international community listen candidly to the voices ofhibakusha and to understand the terrible nature of nuclear weapons.
About 200 people attended the meeting. At a related symposium, fivepanelists, including A-bomb survivors, a Foreign Ministry official withresponsibility for disarmament issues and a HPI researcher, exchanged views on
Japan's security policy, international moves concerning NATO's nuclear strategy
and other issues.
Prior to this meeting, the committee had also asked HPI and the Japan
Institute of International Affairs, which co-sponsored the forum, to arrange asecond meeting open to the public. It also asked them to make public the minutesof the first meeting and to arrange a meeting between members of the Tokyo
Forum and the general public. It plans to hold a meeting to coincide with the third
meeting of the Tokyo Forum, to be held in New York in April.

−２−

The 2nd U.N. Conference on Disarmament Convenes in Nagasaki
Indian, Pakistani N-tests give cause for concern, optimism
The 2nd U.N. Conference on Disarmament met in Nagasaki from
Nov. 24 to 27, 1998. The theme of the meeting, held in the second cityin Japan to have been devastated by an atomic bomb, was "Toward a
World Free from Nuclear Weapons."
It was the 10th conference of its kind since the inaugural meeting
was held in Kyoto in 1989, and was attended by 71 people, including
ambassadors for disarmament, government officials, scholars and NGO
representatives from 22 countries.
This year's conference concentrated exclusively on thedisarmament issue in light of nuclear tests conducted by India andPakistan in May 1998. All of the plenary sessions were open to the
public.
At the opening ceremony, Senji Yamaguchi, an A-bomb survivor,
delivered a well-received message as a representative of civil society,calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. In addition, 400 of the
1,000 people who attended the opening ceremony were students at local
middle and high schools. The ceremony was Nagasaki's attempt to linkthe voices of survivors of the atomic bombings with those involved in
official disarmament negotiations. It also encouraged young people toparticipate in peace and disarmament activities.
The meeting's five plenary sessions dealt with "New Challenges to
Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament," "Immediate Priorities:
How to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear Weapons Capability," "Practical
Nuclear Disarmament Steps," "Development of a Favorable
Environment for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament" and"Closing Session," respectively. There was intense discussion of the 18
papers presented at the sessions.

Defending her country's nuclear tests, Ambassador Savitri Kunadi,
India's Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva, said: "These tests were a measured response to a deteriorating
security environment. The tests were not in violation of any treaty
obligation."
Mr.Shabaz, director general for disarmament at the Pakistani
Foreign Ministry said: "Pakistan had no intention of going nuclear. Our
nuclear program is purely defensive and a counterweight to India. There
was no other choice."
Their statements might have disappointed both non-nuclear
weapons states as well as ordinary citizens, who have a genuine desire to
see nuclear weapons abolished. At the same time, however, thestatements may provide the international community with an opportunity
to recommit itself to nuclear disarmament.
The majority of the participants agreed that the NPT regime was at
risk due to the tests conducted by India and Pakistan. However, othersargued that the regime was still valid because it was supported by 187
signatories. Discussions centered on ways to strengthen the treaty whilebearing in mind the implications of the tests in South Asia.
For the first time a resolution was adopted that calls on conference
members to:"Encourage the cooperation among the members of the international
community to move toward a world free from nuclear weapons," and to"Reaffirm their commitments to ensure that Nagasaki will remain the lastcity in the world to suffer from the calamity of nuclear weapons."(By Masamichi kamiya, a visiting research fellow at HPI)NPT Regime Requires Fundamental Remodeling
Summary of a keynote address by Yasushi Akashi, then president of the Hiroshima Peace Institute
When the Cold War ended, the international community welcomed
the leadership on disarmament shown by the United States and Russia,
and expressed the hope that further progress would be made toward
nuclear disarmament in a global context.
At the time, much of the world appeared to be looking on withindifference−a mere bystander in superpower negotiations. But last
year's nuclear tests by India and Pakistan rid those observers of theirambiguous attitude toward the disarmament process. The tests sent themessage that it was wrong for non-nuclear states to let declared andthreshold nuclear powers, which had come to monopolize the nonproliferation process, to continue with their own negotiations. That is thelesson we have learned from the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan.
Once a country unilaterally declares the possession of nuclear
weapons, it is unable to join the NPT regime unless it relinquishes thoseweapons, or unless the NPT itself undergoes revision.
As it stands, the NPT offers no effective means to compel any statethat has already embarked on the development of nuclear weapons tothen start reversing the nuclearization process. What is nee ded,
therefore, is a remodeling of the current NPT regime, which has
fundamental flaws, rather than more attempts to impose ad ho c
remedies.
Allow me to share some of the means by which the NPT regime
can be rendered more effective.
^
First, the raison d'etre
for possessing nuclear weapons must be
challenged. To do that, the military threat that compels a country to go
nuclear must be reduced. Extinguishing such threats at once, of course,
is impossible, particularly in regions that are prone to military conflict.
But it should be possible to reduce them on an incremental basis byproviding opportunities for multilateral dialog and building confidence
among countries in a particular region. It is also important to provide
alternative security measures that enable countries to cope with amilitary threat without the need for a nuclear capability, while

continuing with long-term efforts to eliminate those threats.
Second, it is important to improve surveillance of countries
suspected of developing a nuclear capability. The establishment of aninternationally operated satellite surveillance system should be given
serious consideration.
Third, measures concerning the international flow of nuclear
materials, the ban on the production of fissile materials an d thestrengthening of regulations on missiles and other carriers of nuclear
warheads should be made more transparent.
Fourth, international society should offer stronger support for efforts
by states to prevent nuclear development and proliferation. In addition toeconomic sanctions and other punitive measures, we should also, where
necessary, assist countries suspected of developing nuclear weapons toaddress other problems, such as the domestic economy and standard ofliving.
Fifth, the five declared nuclear states (P-5) must demonstrate theircommitment to and responsibility for disarmament. The immediate task
is to put in place conditions necessary for the P-5 to begin
comprehensive, multilateral negotiations for nuclear disarmament. Such
conditions would include accelerating the ratification by Ru ssia of
START II, as well as reaching conclusions in START III and IV, both ofwhich will reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the United States
and Russia to below 1,000 each. Also, the nuclear capabilities andstrategies of the P-5 should be made more transparent so that the peopleof the world can see, at a glance, how much progress is being made on
nuclear disarmament.
There are no quick and easy solutions to the problems concerning
the functions of the current NPT regime. But it is extremely important to
combine the five suggestions I have mentioned above along with othermeasures, and to persist with them boldly and resolutely. In doing so, I
hope and believe we will see improvements in the international politicalclimate.

−３−

U.N. Disarmament Conferences in Japan: Their Genesis and Implications
By Masamichi Kamiya
Three factors are behind thedecision to hold a U.N. Disarmament
Conference in Japan, notwithstanding thesuggestion that they be held there by thenJapanese Prime Minister Noboru
Takeshita at a Special Session of theGeneral Assembly on Disarmament(SSOD III) in 1988.
First, the United Nations decided toembark on a regional approach todisarmament in the early 1980s. Second,the organization established regional
centres for peace and disarmament, andthird, it began exerting strong leadershipon the process of disarmament.
Member states of the United
Nations declared in the final document of
SSOD I in 1978: "[T]he United Nations
should facilitate and encourage all
disarmament measures - unilateral,bilateral, regional or multilateral "Furthermore, at SSOD II in 1982, theorganization launched the World
Disarmament Campaign, aimed atcoordinating disarmament initiatives at
the global, regional and national levels.
In short, the international community
became determined to formulate aframework for multilateral and regional
approaches to disarmament, parallelingbilateral disarmament negotiations
between the United States and the former
Soviet Union. By expanding the scope ofdisarmament, not only government
officials but also scholars, NGOs andjournalists began playing a role in aholistic,
regional
approachtodisarmament.
The U.N. Regional Centres for
Peace and Disarmament played asubstantive role in promoting theregional approach to disarmament by
providing a forum for dialogue. So far,similar U.N. centres have been opened in
Lome, Togo (1985), in Lima, Peru
(1986), and in Kathmandu, Nepal (1987).
The Kathmandu centre has been
responsible for organizing successive
disarmament conferences in Japan.
The same centre has also organizedannual regional conferences on

disarmament in Kathmandu since
January 1989. The first was held
shortly before the first conference inJapan, in Kyoto. The 10th Kathmandu
conference was held in February 1998.
Like the conferences in Japan, themeetings in Kathmandu, now referred
to as the "Kathmandu Process,"
represent an important initiative by the
U.N. centre. Both sets of meetings are
an integral part of the centre's work in
the Asia-Pacific region. The centre
played a particularly worthwhile role inencouraging dialogue between North
Korea and South Korea, and inpromoting other confidence-building
measures in the Asia-Pacific.
By convening the three General
Assembly Special Sessions on
Disarmament, and by promoting a
regional approach to disarmament andestablishing the regional centres, theUnited Nations has demonstrated
stealthy leadership. Yasushi Akashi,then president of the Hiroshima Peace
Institute, once wrote in a newspaper:"As U.N. Under-Secretary-General for
Disarmament, I came up with the ideaof holding a disarmament conference inJapan, with three objectives in mind."
The first objective was to reinvigorate
governmental
disarmament
negotiations, which had reachedstagnation point, by utilizing theexpertise of scholars and NGOs.
Second, Akashi wanted theinternational community to recognize
Japan's aspirations in the fields of peaceand disarmament as the only nation tohave experienced the devastation of
nuclear weapons.
Third, he wanted the Japanesepeople in turn to understand therealpolitik of disarmament ininternational affairs. The United
Nations' leadership paved the way forthe multilateralization of thedisarmament process, in which not only
government officials but also scholars,
NGO representatives and ordinary
citizens are involved at various levels.
−４−

Having participated in conferences
both in Japan and Nepal since their
inception, I can identify a certain
characteristic at the 1998 conference in
Nagasaki. At previous conferences, twodistinctive, but parallel sets of arguments
were never combined: namely, therealistic view held by some governmentsthat disarmament ought to proceed stepby step, and the idealistic view of civilsociety that all nuclear weapons shouldbe abolished as early as possible. It
seemed that the gap between the twoschools was too wide to bridge. A good
illustration of this gap is the so-called"time-bound" framework for nuclear
disarmament asserted by non-nuclear
weapons states when addressing nuclear
weapons states.
However, participants at theNagasaki Conference were given cause
for optimism. The two sides mentioned
above seemed to come together in theirshared goal of nuclear disarmament,sensing that they would be able to agree
on pragmatic ways to achieve that
common objective. These ideas werediscussed in specific terms at theNagasaki conference.
There is reason to be hopeful that
this realistic and gradual approach todisarmament, initiated by governments,
and the genuine desire for peace anddisarmament among ordinary people,
including the citizens of Hiroshima andNagasaki, will complement each other inbringing about nuclear disarmament.
But it should also be pointed outthat it will not be easy to turn the abovementioned optimism into real progress. It
is essential, therefore, that an innovative
opinion leader emerge that is capable ofbringing together diverse views, and of
voicing the concerns of civil society toachieve this shared goal. In this respect, I
believe the Hiroshima Peace Institute has
a vital role to play in contributing topeace and disarmament.
Kamiya is a visiting research fellow at HPI.

The Role of Hiroshima in the 21st Century
By Takashi Hiraoka
On July 16, 1945, a nuclear weapon
was successfully tested for the first time at
Alamogordo, New Mexico in the UnitedStates. Since that day, mankind has been
living with the horror of nuclear weapons,
and continues to do so as the 20th century
draws to an end.
The superpower rivalry between theformer Soviet Union and the United States
accelerated the build up of nuclear
weapons. The international community
stood by in horror as the Cuban missile
crisis unfolded, while Britain, France andChina began to develop their own nuclear
weapons capability.
So why has the nuclear button notbeen pushed? Because the memory ofHiroshima and Nagasaki has constantly
reminded leaders of major powers and theinternational community at large of thecatastrophe that nuclear weapons can bring.
In this respect, the experience of thosecities has played an important role.
Nevertheless, nuclear weapons still
exist. Because the end of the Cold War
gave people the impression that the threatof nuclear war had dissipated, opportunities
to build a new world order and accelerate
nuclear disarmament were lost. Nuclear
weapons, along with their delivery systems,
remain at the core of so-called nuclear
deterrence in international politics.
Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty,
nuclear weapons states are attempting tomaintain their monopoly on the ownershipof nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan
have protested at what they see as thediscriminatory character of the NPT regime
by conducting underground nuclear tests
last year. The tests exposed thecontradictory and limited nature of the
NPT regime.
How can the discriminatory characterof the treaty be remedied? One way would
be to allow all states to possess nuclear
weapons. But that approach would merely
fuel the proliferation of nuclear weapons
with possibly catastrophic consequences.
More realistically, the situation can
only be remedied by urging all states not topossess such destructive weapons, thereby
ensuring the equality of all states.
The International Court of Justicestipulates: "The threat or use of nuclear
weapons would generally be contrary to therules of international law " Nuclear
weapons are inhumane. The abolition of
nuclear weapons has become the common
view of the international community.
I have learned from my time in
Hiroshima about the misery nuclear
weapons can cause. In order to conquer themyth of deterrence, I strongly believe it isnecessary to demonstrate the injustice ofthe possession and use of nuclear
weapons, and to stress their truly evil
character from a human perspective.
Hiroshima has long raised its voice
against the inhumanity of nuclear
weapons
throughthepowerful
experiences of hibakusha - the survivorsof the atomic bombings. At the sametime, it is a fact that cruelty and misery ofa different kind to the one experienced in
Hiroshima exist in other parts of theworld.
It is, therefore, essential that wedevelop a new human-centered strategy
for peace, while being careful not todepend too heavily on the experiences ofhibakusha, because they will inevitably
become fewer in number as time passes.
The superpowers attempt to justify
the possession of nuclear weapons.
Hiroshima, on the other hand, opposes
their possession and their innately
inhuman nature. The people of Hiroshima
have tried to convey the lessons of thecity's experience in an attempt to fill thegap between the two sides.
In addition to their destructive
power, the horror of nuclear weapons is
also evident in the form of radiation,
which causes long-term damage to thebody. Since radiation is invisible, it isextremely difficult to remind people ofthe threat it poses. It is impossible,
though, to inherit the psychological painof hibakusha directly affected by theatomic bombings. On that front, we must
do as much as possible to emphasize withthose people and try to share in theirsuffering. It is our duty to find a way tocommunicate the misery of Hiroshima toevery single member of the international
community, no matter what it takes.
Some critics say that, although
Hiroshima is to be praised for its moral
opposition to nuclear weapons, the cityalone cannot prevent or end violence in
the international community.
But as long as stockpiles of nuclear
weapons pose a threat to humanity, wemust pursue peace and security throughtheir abolition.
There are two ways, political andcivil, to attain this objective. At thepolitical level, we need to recognize thedistinction between global issues such as
the START negotiations between the
United States and Russia, and regional
issues, such as the expansion of Nuclear
Weapons-Free Zones. At the level of civilsociety, we need to emphasize thestrength of public opinion as a factor in
nurturing an environment conducive to−５−disarmament.
The power of NGOs and the mass
media, evident in the International
Campaign to Ban Landmines, is a good
example.
In the meantime, the international
community must re-evaluate the role ofscience and technology in contemporarysociety so that we can approach the next
century with optimism.
In July 1997, the United States
conducted a series of sub-critical nuclear
weapons tests at the underground Nevada
Test Site. A television station that covered
the tests showed scientists and engineers
involved in the project applauding with joy.
It was a chilling sight. For scientists andengineers, a nuclear weapon test may
simply be an experiment that is ofprofessional interest. They may be happy
just to see their experiment succeed. But
they do not foresee the misery that will be
the logical conclusion of their experiments.
Their collaboration in developing
weapons of destruction, whether conscious
or not, is akin to those involved in the
Manhattan Project, or the members of the
AUM Supreme Truth cult who produced
sarin gas with a view to mass andindiscriminate murder. Nuclear weapons
are developed in laboratories far from thepublic eye, free from the mushroom clouds
and bubbling seas that accompany tests.
That will not change as long as nuclear
states remain dependent on these terrible
weapons.
The invisible dangers of radiation andexperiments with nuclear weapons are
manifestations of science and technology inthe 20th century.
Humans, of course, have the knowhow and technology to make nuclear
weapons. Given that nuclear weapons will
only be abolished through our own efforts,
the threat those weapons pose will not
disappear until the people of the worldtransform themselves into those who truly
love and cherish peace. The experiences ofHiroshima and Auschwitz prove that to be
the case; they are reminders that the worldhas, and will continue to disobey reason.
The role of Hiroshima in the 21 st
century will first be to deny the validity of
nuclear weapons, whose rationale can only
be equated with genocide, and second, torediscover the value of science andtechnology to civilization by remembering
the tragedy of Hiroshima.
Takashi Hiraoka is former mayor of Hiroshima(Translated by Masamichi Kamiya)

The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations
Toward A Nuclear-Free World
By Joseph Caron
The Ottawa Process led to the international
treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines(APLMs), signed by 122 countries, including
Japan, in Ottawa in December 1997. It formallyentered into force on Sept. 16, 1998, with the40th ratification and on March 1, 1999, it has
become binding international law for each of thecountries that has ratified it. What lessons
emerged from the Ottawa Process? Which ones
could be applied to the international efforts to
reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear
weapons?
The Convention on the Prohibition of theUse, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer ofAnti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction
is significant, most importantly, for thefollowing reasons.
First, there is a clear and unambiguous
feeling among the international community that
APLMs are inhumane weapons which must bebanned. Thanks to the globalization of
television, we see pictures every week thatgraphically illustrate the horrid effect of these
indiscriminate weapons. Indeed most of thevictims are civilians, for these tools of war
continue to kill long after the soldiers have left
the battlefield.
Second, the Ottawa Process pushed theboundaries of multilateral diplomacy in several
important ways. The policy circle that wasnecessary to develop APLMs strategies wasaggressively widened to include actors not
usually integrated in diplomatic processes,
especially for international security anddisarmament:
1)Non-government organizations (NGOs),
both global organizations such as theInternational Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), and national, such as
Mines Action Canada and the
Association to Aid Refugees in Japan;2)The media, which served to educate
broad swathes of the interested public in
virtually all countries where APLMs
were of interest;3)Internationally known personalities, suchas Princess Diana and former Prime
Minister Nakasone, who even painted
one of the most effective posters of thecampaign.
4)Finally, many governments played acentral role, without which bureaucracies
might not have been mobilized: Austria,
Belgium, Norway, the Philippines andSouth Africa in addition to Canada,
tirelessly campaigned in the world's
chanceries and foreign ministries, andexercised moral leadership.
This widening of the policy circle began in
Geneva in 1996, in the margins of a review
conference on the Convention on Certain
Conventional Weapons. Governments andNGOs that shared a sense of urgency on the
APLMs issue agreed that traditional channels of
diplomacy would not suffice. This was followed
by a series of informal consultations, and in

October 1996, by a formal meeting in Ottawa
with 50 pro-Ban governments, 24 observer
governments and numerous NGO and media
representatives. At the end of that conference,
Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy
courageously challenged the international
community to return to Ottawa a year later tosign a convention banning landmines outright.
A series of regional meetings andconsultations around the world culminated in
the negotiation and signing of the convention
in December 1997. In parallel, we worked
closely with NGOs to build grassroots support
for this new convention.
Why would a government want to involve
NGOs in a policy-making process? Because
NGOs can do things which governments
cannot. It is our firm belief that the activitiesof the myriad of groups within theinternational campaign were the mostimportant driving force against APLMs. The
remarkable "coalition of the willing" continues
in the implementation phase, or "Ottawa
Process II." The Canadian and othergovernments want and need NGO and media
engagement in the infinitely more arduous taskof removing the 100 million or so mines
buried in 72 countries around the world andrendering assistance to the thousands upon
thousands of victims who must learn to livewith their injuries, most of which threaten theirlivelihoods, if not their lives.
Some lessons relevant to our topic ofdiscussion were identified at the "Ottawa
Process Forum," hosted by the Canadiangovernment, to take stock of the process.
1)A clear, humanitarian message was
essential to the success of the process.
Only a total, verifiable and complete
ban on APLMs would solve theproblem.
This forced governments to makebasic policy choices, and made iteasier for the pro-Ban forces to deliver
the same message throughout theworld.
2)Humanitarian norms do matter. The
humanitarian merits of the issue were
essential in convincing governments tosign the convention. It was not,fundamentally, an arms control issue.
Because of the visibly devastating
effect of the mines long after a war hadceased, it was ultimately possible to goaround the traditional arms control
community and appeal directly togovernments and interest groups on thebasis of humanitarian arguments. The
treaty contributes to establish a newinternational humanitarian norm that
influences even non-signatory states.
3)Middle powers may now have a greater
opportunity to influence global affairs,
using instruments such as cooperation
with
NGOs,
and
effective
communications with the media. The
principal government actors in the
campaign were Austria, Belgium,−６−

Canada, Norway, the Philippines, South
Africa and many other countries withcredible track records on international
issues, but none could be defined as agreat power.
4)Partnership pays. NGOs had a significant
influence upon many actors, including
public opinion, media, governments, theU.N. and regional organizations. The
continued involvement of NGOs andcontinued NGO-government cooperation
is essential to the implementation of theconvention.
I must caution you that there is a realdebate on these conclusions, particularly theirapplicability to other arms control issues, and as
to whether the "Ottawa Process Model" is reallya model at all. Every issue requires a tailoredapproach. Yet, some factors should behighlighted and a few lessons can be drawn.
The success of the Ottawa Process was
based on many years of cultivating publicawareness, sometimes by very high profile
public figures. It revolved around a
straightforward issue on which there wassignificant
commongroundbetweengovernments, and among governments andNGOs. Other issues may simply not be "ripe"enough for an Ottawa-style Process.
Crucially, the military community was oftwo minds on land mines. The ICRC
commissioned a highly informed study of theirutility in contemporary battle, with pros andcons, impact assessment and examples ofhistorical usage. It came down firmly in favourof a ban. Similarly, letters to President Clinton
from senior US officers, starting with General
Scharzkoff, gave tremendous credibility to theargument against these weapons.
A first lesson is that a broad community ofinterests must be brought together to wage aneffective campaign. The Ottawa Process focusedon NGOs: other might find allies among
academics, public commentators, seniorstatesmen and political figures, even thebusiness community.
Second, the issue must be focused,straightforward, clearly articulated andconsistently argued. Truly global issues, be they
nuclear weapons reduction or climate change,
are simply too complex and engage too many
interest groups to be amenable to swift andunited action.
Third, for public education to take place,issues must capture media attention, over a very
long period of time, reduced to a series of easily
understood and highly visual messages.
All of this argues for addressing arms
control and disarmament questions one by one
and choosing issues that can capture public
imagination and interest. It argues for serious
and concerted policy development involving all
major interested parties, not only government.
Caron is Assistant Deputy Minister for AsiaPacific & Africa, Canadian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.

Workshop Mulls Stagnation in Disarmament Process
The Hiroshima Peace Institute held a workshop in Tokyo on Dec. 4,
1998. The aim of the workshop was to generate input for the Tokyo
Forum for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, which took
place on Dec. 18 and 19 in Hiroshima. The workshop featured lecturesby invited specialists on nuclear issues, followed by discussions withHPI members and other participants.
The invited speakers were Prof. Masahiko Asada of Okayama
University, who talked about "Positive and Negative Security
Assurances," Fumiaki Nishiwaki, associate professor at the Defense
Academy, whose lecture was titled "The Nuclear Situation in the South
Asia and the Problem of Japan's Nuclear Umbrella," and Hiromichi
Umebayashi, a coordinator of the Pacific Campaign for Disarmamentand Security, with a lecture titled "Toward Nuclear Disarmament:
Current Issues."
Asada examined whether positive and negative security assuranceswere effective for the security of non-nuclear weapon states, and how
much they could contribute to nuclear disarmament, as well as theirrelation to the no first-use policy.
He analyzed the conditions under which negative security assurance
to be provided by nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons statesshould be applied, and the practice of positive security assurance. He
then discussed ways in which negative security assurance could serve
Japan's security, particularly in relation to the situation on the Korean
Peninsula and China.
Nishiwaki discussed the motivation and background behind India's
nuclear tests from the political perspective of the ruling BJP, particularly
its perception of the international environment. The Bharatiya Janata
Party, he explained, believes that while international relations haveshifted from a bipolar toward a multipolar system in the post-Cold War
period, it suspects some countries, notably the United States, have tried
to establish a hegemonic order to benefit their own interests.
The BJP regards the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) andthe Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) as part of such plans,and says India must claim its right to equal national sovere ignty,

Nishiwaki explained. The party perceives economic development as an
inseparable part of India's national security, and it is in this context thatthe nuclear and missile technology programs are promoted.
Summing up, he said that the BJP's goal is to facilitate India's
resurgence as a "benign global power." India's pursuit of the nuclear
option, he said, had been driven by its desire to take its rightful place ininternational society, and to challenge the United States' bid to establish
its superiority, even in times of peace.
In his comments on Asada's presentation, Umebayashi said theissue of nuclear disarmament had undergone a qualitative change,
because it now involved non-nuclear, as well as the small circle ofnuclear states. Given that change, he said, there needed to be aclarification of the relationship between negative security assurance andno-first use policy.
He also drew attention to a section of the Agreed Framework,
concluded between the United States and North Korea, which impliedthat the United States had pledged not to use nuclear weapons against
North Korea. He raised the question of whether this was consistent with
the United States' non-commitment to no-first-use.
Umebayashi also commented on Nishiwaki's interpretation of theUnited States' national security strategy. He pointed out that national
security had become a significant part of the United States' national andforeign policy strategies, rather than a purely military strategy, which, hesuggested, reflected its relative decline as an economic power.
He said that the New Agenda Coalition, driven by a worldwide
perception that nuclear disarmament had stagnated, was significant due
to its vision of a more comprehensive approach to disarmament issues.
After the presentations, workshop participants discussed the New
Agenda Coalition, as well as the possibility of introducing legallybinding powers to enforce negative security assurance, particularly withregard to the aforementioned section in the Agreed Framework. Other
issues up for discussion included the utility of nuclear weapons, and theefficacy of the deterrence theory.
(By Nobumsa Akiyama, a research associate at HPI)

Research Project Report

Toward Building Peace and Disarmament Database
As a result of the growing importance in today's world of
information technology and the media, people have unhindered access toa vast amount of information on a daily basis. The problem lies in
deciding which information is necessary, and which can be ignored.
In some cases, information is simply wrong, or at least designed tomislead. Nevertheless, it can be said that the world we live in has been
made more convenient because of the information revolution. However,
we should remind ourselves that we are also in danger of being exposed
to information overkill.
Of course, information related to the military or peace should betreated with care because of national security considerations. In thatsense, the state should be the primary holder of such information.
However, the development of weapons of mass destruction, such as
nuclear weapons, and the unregulated transfer of arms to conflict-prone
regions pose a danger on a global level. It is certainly true that secrecy
regarding a country's military capability has led to a build-up of arms in
the past.
In the 1950s, for example, the United States grossly overestimatedthe Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal for this very reason. At the time, many
American policy makers believed that the United States might havefallen behind the Soviet Union in its nuclear capability. The so-called"Missile Gap" situation induced both superpowers into further nuclear
expansion. In reality, the number of nuclear weapons possessed by theSoviet Union was far smaller than that of the United States, although thatfact did not come to light until later.

This example tells us that it is better to make military information
open to some extent, and to share it to promote transparency. This will
make it possible to prevent conflict and promote disarmament. Thesedays, such information is more readily available than ever b efore.
However, the process is still difficult, and the information we are left
with may be both voluminous and complex. Databases have beendeveloped to store and make easily available large amounts o f
information. They enable us to access the data and information we needat any time.
Several peace research institutes, such as the Monterey Institute ofInternational Studies in the United States and the StockholmInternational Peace Research Institute in Sweden, collect and arrange
bulky data and then make it available, free of charge or at a price, via theInternet, journals and other publications.
In Japan, no database exists that deals with peace and disarmament
information, at least nothing comparable with those of other countries.
To remedy the situation, HPI is to conduct a feasibility study into thesetting up of a database as one of its priorities (4th Research Project).
Ahead of the feasibility study itself, we are in the process-which began
last autumn-of deciding what kind of data is required, and how it will
be presented on the database.
So far, we have taken a detailed look at the quality and userfriendliness of five sophisticated databases. We plan to complete the firststage of our evaluation by March, 1999.
(By IkukoTogo, a lecturer at HPI)A Visit to Research Organizations in the U.S. and Europe
Despite being busy preparing for the second meeting of the Tokyo
Forum in Hiroshima, I found time to visit several research organizationsin the United States and Europe for about five days in November 1998, atthe suggestion of then HPI President Yasushi Akashi.
The main aims of my trip were to learn about the management skillsof prominent overseas research organizations, to build an international
research network, to exchange views with foreign researchers and to
explain the work of the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
During my trip I visited the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington,
D.C., the International Institute for Security Studies (IISS) in London,
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and theMonterey Institute of International Studies in California.
I had the opportunity to talk with more than 30 researchers,
including the presidents of three research institutes. Most of the people I
met were specialists in nuclear non-proliferation and disarm ament,
Northeast Asian security and South Asian issues.
As a member of HPI, which was only set up about a year ago, I
found that I had many questions to ask, including some very basic ones,
such as "What is the goal of this institution?" "How is the institutemanaged?" and "What is your definition of peace?"
In answer to the last question, Dr. Adam Daniel Rotfeld, president of
SIPRI, offered a thoughtprovoking answer. "Peace," he said, "is similar tohealth. We don't discuss definitions of peace here at SIPRI. Instead, weare more interested in how to prevent conflict."
Thinking of solutions to ill-health is certainly more important thantangling with a definition of health, especially if you are working at aninternational institute with people from diverse backgrounds.
Second, I was able to gain some insights into Northeast Asianissues from three researchers at the Henry L. Stimson Center: Benjamin
L. Self, Kenneth W. Allen and Joel Wit.
We discussed what constitutes a threat in the region. The threat,according to one school of thought, stems from a perception gap among
nations concerning specific political, economic, diplomatic and militaryissues. This creates a communication problem, which in turn leads tomisunderstandings. That core issue of communication is more dangerous
than a single event, such as the launching by North Korea of the
Taepodong missile over Japan last year .
I learned a great deal, from the collection of materials andpublications, to building databases, to the practical skills required to run
an international research body.
Despite my lateness in arranging visits to each institute, t hebriefings, meetings and interviews were extremely helpful. I would liketo end by thanking all the people, too numerous to mention by name,involved in making my visit so worthwhile and enjoyable.
(By Kazumi Mizumoto, an associate professor at HPI)

Hello from HPI

New researcher at HPIMASAMICHI KAMIYA
Visiting Research Fellow
Kamiya specializes in international organizations
and disarmament issues. After graduating from the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, he spent seven years in Geneva and New
York assisting the World Conference on Religion andPeace (WCRP), a U.N.-accredited non-governmental organization. Kamiya
has been involved in disarmament and security issues as a member of boththe NGO Committee for Disarmament in Geneva and the NGO Committee
on Disarmament in New York. After leaving his post as an Associate
Secretary-General of WCRP, he became a visiting research fellow at HPI in
November 1998. He was born in Yokohama.

Akashi resigns from HPI
Akashi resigned as president of HPI on Feb.19,1999

D I A R Y
Oct.1,1998 - Feb.28,1999◆Oct. 15
HPI President Yasushi Akashi delivers a lecture "World MediaFrom View Point of theUnited Nations" at the 51st National Newspaper Convention, sponsored by the Japan
Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association at Hiroshima International ConferenceCenter.
◆Oct. 17
Akashi delivers speech at a meeting of the Japan Association of International
Relations at Shimane International College.
◆Oct. 22-27
Akashi attends a forum titled "U.N. Responses to Insecurity," organized by the
Academic Council on the United Nations System sponsored by the Kemp Fund of
Yale University. He delivers a lecture titled "HumanitarianAction at the Crossroads."◆Nov. 10-20
Kazumi Mizumoto visits four U.S. and European research institutes: the International
Institute for Security Studies, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
◆Nov. 24
Akashi, Mizumoto, Ikuko Togo, Nobumasa Akiyama and Masamichi Kamiya attend
the Second Meeting of the Second United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues
in Nagasaki sponsored by the Untited Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs
and the United Nations Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and thePacific, at Nagasaki Brick Hall.
◆Dec. 4
A Workshop is held at Akasaka Prince Hotel.
◆Dec. 9-10
Akashi, Mizumoto and Kamiya attend an international symposium titled "Korea andthe Search for Peace in Northeast Asia," sponsored, and held at, Ritsumeikan
University.
◆Dec. 18-19
The Second Meeting of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation andDisarmament is held at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆Dec. 20
A commemorative open lecture titled "In Pursuit of the Abolition of Nuclear
Weapons" is held to mark the Tokyo Forum in Hiroshima, sponsored by theHiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and HPI.
◆Jan. 31
Akashi and Mizumoto meet representatives of seven organizations for A-bomb
survivors in Hiroshima.
◆Feb. 10
Akashi delivers a special lecture at Hiroshima City University.
◆Feb. 19
Akashi delivers a keynote address at a symposium titled "Russian and Asia-Pacific
Security," co-organized by SIPRI and the Japan Institute of International Studies, and
the Asahi Shimbun.

Visitors to HPI◆Oct.9General Council of the Federal Republic of Germany Dr. Johannes Preisinger visits
HPI◆Nov. 19
Members of the working committee of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens' Meeting
Demanding the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons visit HPI.
◆Nov. 26
New Zealand Ambassador to Japan Neil Walter, and Glenys Karran, second secretary
at the New Zealand Embassy, visit HPI.
◆Nov. 27
Dr. Linda Groff, a professor at California State University, visits HPI.
◆Jan.27
Mehed Halilovic, editor of "Oslobojene," a journal in Bosnia-Herzegovina, visitsTokyo Office of HPI.

「HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS」●Issued by

Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg 12 th Floor 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051 JAPAN●Printed by Seikosha Ltd.

−８−

Volume 1, Number 2 March 31,1999
Copyright 1999 HPI All rights reserved

TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/ E-mail：office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp