Vol.17 No.2 March 2015

A Private Letter that Transcends Time and Space:
An Untold Story Behind the Philippine War Crimes Trials

Hitoshi Nagai

Introduction“I personally regret your leaving for Japan. I wish you success andGodspeed and I hope that we shall meet again in the near future.”
This is the conclusion of a private letter dated January 20, 1948.
The letter, typed in English, was written by a judge involved in
the Philippine War Crimes Trials, held in the Philippines after theend of World War II, to the chief of the Japanese defense counsel.
The letter is exceptional since it conveys gratitude and the regretof parting to a Japanese man against the strong anti-Japanesesentiments that dominated Filipino society at that time.

helped in liberating western Pangasinan as an intelligent officer.
Subsequently (in either February or March 1945), he was assigned
to the Judge Advocate General’s Office of the Philippine Army.
From July to September that year, he was dispatched to the UnitedStates to study law at the Judge Advocate General’s School at the
University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In
May 1946, he was appointed as one of the law members of themilitary commission (judge) for war crimes trials run by the U.S.
forces in Manila, and served in this position for 10 months. It was
during this period (June 30, 1946) that he was promoted to Major.

1. Major Montemayor’s War Experience

2. Trials by the Newborn StateThe writer of the letter, Major Mamerto R. Montemayor, was born
May 11, 1907 in Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, on Luzon
Island. Graduating from the College of Law at the University of
the Philippines in March 1933, he passed the bar examination andobtained a law license in November of the same year. He servedat the Department of Justice until he joined the Philippine Armyin December 1936. During the Pacific War, he fought against theJapanese Army with General Douglas MacArthur. When the war
broke out in December 1941, he was a 34-year-old captain. In the
41st Infantry Division of the Philippine Army led by Brigadier
General Vicente P. Lim, who held the post of Commanding General,
Captain Montemayor was assigned to the G-1 section responsible for
personnel affairs, and also served as a judge advocate.
In April 1942, following the defeat of the American andFilipino troops by the Japanese Army, Captain Montemayor
experienced the Bataan “Death March,” and was interned at CampO’Donnell, Capas, Tarlac as a prisoner of war. Since he wassuffering from malaria, he was released from the camp on July 2,1942, and returned to his hometown in Alaminos, but he remained
ill for a long time. From April 1943 to August 1944, he servedat the Bureau of Commerce and Industry of the government in
the Province of Pangasinan. While, at the same time he secretly
supported guerrillas fighting against the Japanese Army, under
the leadership of his former superior, Brigadier General Lim,and provided them with information about the Japanese Army.
When Brigadier General Lim and other guerrilla leaders werearrested by the Japanese Army, Captain Montemayor quit the
Bureau of Commerce and Industry in fear for his life, and joined
the guerrillas, serving as an intelligence officer. When U.S.
forces landed at Lingayen Gulf on Luzon Island on January 9,1945, he joined the 40th Infantry Division of the U.S. Army and

The Philippines became independent from the United States on
July 4, 1946. The newborn country celebrated its independence
immediately after the calamity of the war, which had utterly
devastated the national land and killed many people. Meanwhile,during the war the U.S. forces had started an investigation into theatrocities by the Japanese soldiers through seeking cooperationfrom Filipinos. Shortly after the end of the war, the UnitedStates convened the U.S. War Crimes Trials in Manila, which
completed in April 1947 after judging 215 defendants, including
General Tomoyuki Yamashita. Subsequently, the jurisdiction wastransferred from the U.S. forces to the Republic of the Philippines.
The Philippine government appointed a young legal officer as thehead of the war crimes tribunals (Senior Military Commissioner of
the Philippine Military Commissions) held by the Philippines; thisyoung officer was Major Montemayor.
The Philippine government commenced the war crimes trials
as a national project, establishing the National War Crimes Officein accordance with the Executive Order of the President on 29
July 1947. The newly born state considered the judging of war
criminals as an essential opportunity to exercise its sovereign rights
and to demonstrate the capability and prestige of the new sovereignstate. The trials spanned two and a half years, from August 1947
to December 1949. Of the 151 defendants, 91% were convicted,
and half of them were sentenced to death. In other words, the trials
resulted in harsh judgments against the Japanese defendants.

3. Invitation and Subsequent Ouster of theJapanese Defense Counsel
To facilitate fairness in the trials, the Philippine government asked
for the participation of Japanese lawyers. In July 1947, nine Japaneselawyers were dispatched to Manila. As the chief of the JapaneseContents

A Private Letter that Transcends Time and Space:
An Untold Story Behind the Philippine War Crimes Trials
Hitoshi Nagai… ……………………………………… 1-2
The Hiroshima Peace Institute Publishes the First Issue of Its Booklet Series:
Peace-Building in East Asia: Challenges and Prospect of Confidence-Building, Nuclear Abolishment and Peaceful Coexistence		Akihiro Kawakami ……………………………………… 3
Austrian Pledge Promotes the Way Towards Banning Nuclear Weapons
Akira Kawasaki… ……………………………………… 4
The Goal of the Global Hibakusha Movement
Seiichiro Takemine……………………………………… 5
HPI Research Forum… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6-7
Exhibitions on Anne Frank and Bertha von Suttner
Makiko Takemoto… …………………………………… 7
Second Issue of Hiroshima Peace Research Journal released… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Diary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’1

defense counsel, Mr. Choshiro Kosaka, the oldest, was appointed.
He was the recipient of the letter written by Major Montemayor.
The Japanese defense counsel began defending in the first trial of aJapanese defendant, former Captain Chushiro Kudo, in which Major
Montemayor served as the chief judge (President of the MilitaryCommission) and Mr. Kosaka as the Chief Defense Counsel.
On November 6, 1947, the trial of former Captain Kudo
was closed with the defendant having been sentenced to death.
On November 21, an unexpected incident took place in the officefor the Japanese lawyers. A dispute between one of the Japaneselawyers and the Filipino chief prosecutor broke out concerning
the adjournment of a trial. Since their altercation had resulted inviolence, local newspapers reported extensively on this unfortunate
incident. Fuelled by those reports, the Filipino public’s anti-Japanesesentiment reached a peak. President Manuel A. Roxas treated thismatter very seriously and ordered a fact-finding investigation to be
conducted. Based on the results of the investigation, the President
decided to dismiss the Japanese defense counsel. In January 1948,
the members of the counsel were dismissed, except for one who was
fluent in English. After the ouster of the Japanese defense counsel,
including Mr. Kosaka, Filipino legal officers of the Philippine Armybegan to act in their stead to defend the Japanese war criminals.
The defendant of the last war crimes trial in which Attorney
Kosaka had been involved was of former Captain Masayasu Ito.
He is known as the composer of the hit song, Ah, Montenrupa
no Yo wa Fukete [Ah, the Night is Deep in Muntinlupa], whichbecame very popular in Japan when it was released by the singer
Hamako Watanabe in 1952. On January 21, 1948, Attorney
Kosaka heard the death sentence adjudicated to the former Captain
Ito, and left the Philippines the next day. Probably, the letter byMajor Montemayor was delivered to the lawyer shortly before his
departure from the Philippines.

4. A Letter Representing Deep Friendship

Mr. Choshiro Kosaka was born in Akita Prefecture in Japan onJune 2, 1891. After graduating from the College of Law at Keio
University in March 1918, he served as a judge at the Yokohama
District Court. After resigning as a judge in 1926, he started his
own practice as a lawyer, and continued practicing in Tokyo
even after the onset of World War II. On February 25, 1945, hishouse in Azabu Kogaicho (present-day Minato Ward, Tokyo) was
destroyed by air raids by the U.S. Army Air Forces, so he rented
a house in Shitaya Shimonegishi (present-day Taito Ward, Tokyo)
and moved there with his family. Shortly after the end of the war,
he was appointed as a lawyer in the Philippine War Crimes Trials.
After returning to Japan, he was reinstated to the post of judge inDecember 1948, serving on district courts and high courts in suchplaces as Hakodate, Kushiro, and Sapporo.
The letter he received from Major Montemayor has been
carefully kept in the Kosaka family. The letter reads: “Yourconduct during and outside trials, together with the zealousness
with which you have protected the rights of your clients, has
merited the respect and admiration of the members of thiscommission.” This passage indicates that Filipino judges evaluatedAttorney Kosaka’s service highly. In the letter, Major Montemayor
expresses his gratitude and appreciation to Mr. Kosaka, along withhis deep compassion for the Japanese lawyer who was dismissed
and compelled to leave the Philippines. Attorney Kosaka, on theother hand, also sent a letter to Major Montemayor before his
departure from the Philippines, in which he expressed that he wasimpressed “most deeply” with the treatment he received during his
tour of duty as Japanese defense counsel for his countrymen on
the docket (Philippine Armed Forces Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, Feb.
1948). At the time of Mr. Kosaka’s departure for Japan, the Major
was 40 years old, and the lawyer was 56 years old.
Currently in Japan, war crimes trials are often discussed inassociation with such terms as “victor’s justice” and “revenge,”since many Japanese people embraced those impressions of thetribunals. However, it is little known that behind the scenes,a Filipino judge and a Japanese lawyer fostered such a deepfriendship. Since anti-Japanese sentiment was then extremely
strong in the Philippines, it was definitely rare for a Filipino to
2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.17 No.2, March 2015

foster such a friendship with a Japanese person.
The anti-Japanese sentiment prevailing in Filipino society
is well noted in a weekly magazine issued at the time of Attorney
Kosaka’s departure. It reads: “The Japanese invasion, and thesubsequent occupation, was too horrible. After three years of
the Japs, after the mass tortures and executions, the looting,burning, raping — Filipinos had ceased to think of the Japanese as
human beings, only as something to be killed, to rid the earth of”(Philippines Free Press, January 17, 1948). According to the Manila
Daily Bulletin, issued on January 15, 1948, a great many letters ofprotest were delivered to the Filipino lawyers who were obliged todefend Japanese war criminals after the departure of the Japaneselawyers. The Filipino lawyers were seen as targets of the rage andhostility embraced by Filipino people against the Japanese.
Against this backdrop highlighted by the swelling antiJapanese sentiments in Filipino society two years after the endof the war, Major Montemayor wrote his letter of gratitude to
Attorney Kosaka. In that letter, there are no words or expressions
connoting negative sentiments toward Japan or the Japanesepeople. While the letter does imply Major Montemayor’s intension
to overcome a barrier existing between the two countries.
As indicated earlier in this article, Major Montemayor andAttorney Kosaka were responsible for the first war crimes trial run
by the Philippine government (the case of former Captain Kudo).
Since public attention was focused on this initial trial, both the
Major and the attorney should have felt considerable stress. Major
Montemayor probably regarded the Japanese lawyer, who wasmuch older than he, as his “teammate” with whom he accomplisheda great task in a joint effort. While working together, the Major
might have developed a deep respect and sense of affinity for the
lawyer. The Major’s third son, Dr. Paul Jesus S. Montemayor,
reading the letter 66 years after it was written, commented that
his father probably expected to build humanistic relations withformer enemies, overcoming his rage and temptation to harbor
revenge toward them, although the battles with them brought suchintolerable misery and calamity to himself and his country.

Conclusion

At the end of January 1948, only a week after writing the letter,
Major Montemayor visited Japan on business and stayed there for10 days, until February 8. The purpose of his visit to Japan was
to observe the war crimes trials being held there then, including
the Tokyo War Crimes Trial and the U.S. War Crimes Trials in
Yokohama (The Evening News, Feb. 11, 1948). However, both of
the bereaved families said that they had never heard any news of any
reunion in Japan of the two men. As far as the author knows, there isno data suggesting such a reunion occurred. On November 21, 1974,
26 years after his visit to Japan (and after delivering his letter to Mr.
Kosaka), Major Montemayor, who was a colonel at the time of his
retirement, suffered a heart attack while playing golf and passed
away. He was 67 years old. Attorney Kosaka passed away on April
20, 1980, five years after the Major’s death. He was 88 years old.
Thirty-four years after Mr. Kosaka’s death, the author
was informed about the presence of the Major’s letter from amember of the Kosaka family. Subsequently, the author planned
to arrange a meeting of the bereaved families. Helped by pure
coincidence, a meeting was held between the Major’s son Dr. Paul
Jesus S. Montemayor (who lived in Manila) and Dr. Eiko Yaoita,
the second daughter of Attorney Kosaka (who lived in Tochigi
Prefecture, Japan) at a hotel in Osaka on November 2, 2014. Afterhalf a century, the letter of friendship, revealing a hidden, humandimension to the Philippine War Crimes Trials, helped unite thetwo families in a way totally unexpected by its writer.
Acknowledgments

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Eiko Yaoita, her son
Mr. Masashi Yaoita, Dr. Paul Jesus S. Montemayor and Mr. Michael
S. Montemayor (the eldest son of Major Montemayor) for offering
priceless materials along with valuable information concerning theirrespective fathers.

Associate Professor at HPI

ute Publishes theroshima Peace Instit

The Hioklet SeriesFirst Issue of Its Bo

Peace-Building in East Asia:
Challenges and Prospect of ConfidenceBuilding, Nuclear Abolishment andPeaceful Coexistence

Vol.1
創刊号

広島平和研究所
ブックレッ
トbooklet

2014年12月

DECEMBER

Akihiro Kawakami
The Hiroshima Peace Institute has published Peace-Buildingin East Asia: Challenges and Prospect of Confidence-Building,
Nuclear Abolishment and Peaceful Coexistence as the first issueof the Hiroshima Peace Institute Booklet Series. The booklet
compiled written contributions to the institute’s two public
lectures held during the first semester of the 2014 academic
year, the public lecture series titled “Tensions in East AsianInternational Relations and Reestablishment of Peace,” andthe international symposium “Confidence-Building as a Step
Toward Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Pursuing Measures toEnergize the 2015 NPT Review Conference.” The institutehopes that the publication will promote discussions of peacebuilding in the contemporary world.
The inaugural issue includes most of the lectures thattook place in the public lecture series “Tensions in East AsianInternational Relations and Reestablishment of Peace,” held on
five consecutive Fridays from June 6 to July 4, and speeches
and discussions that took place at an international symposium“Confidence-Building as a Step Toward Abolishing Nuclear
Weapons: Pursuing Measures to Energize the 2015 NPT Review
Conference” held on August 2. The symposium was jointly
hosted by Hiroshima City University, the Chugoku Shimbun andthe Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki
University, and supported by the Hiroshima City government,
Hiroshima Prefecture government, the Hiroshima Peace Culture
Foundation and the Hiroshima Peace Creation Fund.
East Asia is said to be one of the areas where tensions
are growing between nations, while Europe, or at least
Western Europe, enjoys relative stability with the promotionof international integration in the mechanisms of the European
Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operationin Europe (OSCE). It is now difficult to imagine that thearea had been a battlefield for two world wars. In East Asia,
intergovernmental relations between the major countries havecome to a standstill. Especially in the case of South Korea andJapan, regarding the issues of contested history, we can see
no hope for improvement in the prospect of their diplomatic
relations even as economic interdependence has expanded in
the private sphere. China-Japan relations have also worsened tothe point where the possibility of armed conflicts is feared, withthe military expansion of China and the movement to strengthen
the US-Japan alliance.
In Part I of the booklet, “Public Lecture Series,” Yeongho
Kim, Professor of the Faculty of International Studies at theHiroshima City University, discusses challenges in JapanKorea Relations and Peace in East Asia (Chapter 1), andDaesong Hyun, Research Professor at Kookmin University inSeoul, South Korea, analyzes the status quo and mechanism ofnationalism in East Asia (Chapter 2). In Chapter 3, I explore theeffects of the policy of the current Japanese cabinet, including
visits to Yasukuni Shrine, calls for constitutional amendments

2014

広島 市立 大学

広島 平和 研究所

hiroshima pea
ce institutehiroshima city
(hpi)
university

and changes in constitutional
interpretation to approve theuse of the right to collective self-defense. And in Chapter 4,
Hyun Jin Son, Associate Professor at the Hiroshima Peace
Institute, Hiroshima City University, examines the backgroundand prospect for solutions in the cases of nuclear development
and abduction in North Korea.
Part II of the booklet consists of the contributions to theinternational symposium “Confidence-Building as a Step Toward
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Pursuing Measures to Energize
the 2015 NPT Review Conference.” In April of this year, whichmarks the 70th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) Review Conference will be held in New York. There theinhumanity and illegality of the use of nuclear weapons will be
discussed, and the issue of concrete steps and measures for theabolition of nuclear weapons will be raised.
In order to make a world without nuclear weapons andworld peace come true, however, it is important to analyze
why nations want to nuclearize themselves and why tensions
increase to the point where this strategy is embraced. It isalso indispensable to examine how to build an internationalsociety where countries do not have to nuclearize themselves
and expand military alliances, and how to develop national orinternational conditions for such a society.
In Part II, you will read Ian Mitchell, Austrian Headof OSCE’s External Co-operation Section, discussing theexperiences of Europe for the development of conditions forinternational integration (Chapter 2). Three authors — Jong
Won Lee, Professor of Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies,
Waseda University (Chapter 1), Chang Soo Jin, Director ofJapan Center of Sejong Institute in South Korea (Chapter 3),
and Shingo Yamagami, Deputy Director-General (Ambassador),
Foreign Policy Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan(Chapter 4) — explore challenges and ways to promote
confidence among East Asian countries. From the viewpointsof people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have persistently
been making efforts for nuclear abolition, two contributors —Tatsujiro Suzuki, Vice-Director/Professor of the ResearchCenter for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University,
and Yumi Kanazaki, staff writer at the Hiroshima Peace Media
Center of the Chugoku Shimbun — examine the roles Japan andcities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should play, respectively, for aworld without nuclear weapons, and also the role of civil society.
Each author contributes from the perspective of theirexpertise — academic, professional and journalistic. I hope thebooklet will be a useful source for people from every walk oflife. Please call or email the Hiroshima Peace Institute for a copy.
Associate Professor at HPI

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

3

Austrian Pledge Promotes the Way Towards
Banning Nuclear Weapons
Akira Kawasaki
The third international conference on the humanitarian
impact of nuclear weapons was held on Dec. 8-9, 2014, in
Vienna under the auspice of the Government of Austria. In
addition to the representatives from 158 countries, some 300
representatives of civil society organizations and academics
attended. The conference received attention primarily for the
first-time participation of two nuclear-weapon states, namely
the United States and the United Kingdom, while it built upon
the discussions at the first and second conferences held in
Norway and Mexico, respectively. Prior to its opening about
600 people gathered in the city to participate in a civil society
forum organized by the International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

surprised the floor when he suddenly gave a statement that theUnited States “does not support efforts to move to a nuclear
weapons convention, a ban, or a fixed timetable for eliminationof all nuclear weapons.” The remark, I would say, revealed thecountry’s degree of impatience.

The international conference, hosted by 28-year-old
Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz, opened withstrong messages from Pope Francis and Setsuko Thurlow, aHiroshima survivor. Building on the work of the two previous
conferences, the substantive sessions discussed the short andlong-term consequences of nuclear weapons explosions; risk
drivers for deliberate or inadvertent nuclear weapons use;
and also scenarios, challenges and capabilities regarding
nuclear weapons use and other events. The major focus of theVienna conference included the effects of nuclear tests, withtestimonies of survivors of nuclear testing in Marshall Islands,
the United States and Australia.

The upcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
Review Conference, which starts in the end of April, willbuild on the discussion in the Chair’s Summary of the Vienna
conference. The New Agenda Coalition, the group of six
countries, including New Zealand, Ireland and Mexico, has
proposed for Review Conference discussions on options forlegal instruments prohibiting nuclear weapons as “effective
measures” for nuclear disarmament, which is stipulated in
the NPT’s Article VI. If the Review Conference should fail toproduce tangible results, the countries that associate themselveswith the Austrian Pledge might initiate their own diplomatic
process for a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Also, a session on “a ‘bird’s-eye view’ of international
norms and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons” washeld for the first time. In the session, presentations were given
on how international environmental laws and international
health laws could be made applicable in the event of nuclear
conflicts and nuclear detonations, and what their relationshipwith international humanitarian laws should be, and on the
ethical basis of these laws. In the general debate, which took up
the whole afternoon of the second day, many delegates called
for action on treaty banning nuclear weapons.

In such a circumstance, what should Japan do? Whatrole can it play? During the Vienna conference, Toshio Sano,
Ambassador of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament,
stunned the floor when he made a remark that the view by
experts that there is no adequate response capacity to a nuclear
detonation seemed “a little too pessimistic.” We have to work
hard to make up for this blunder. In Vienna it was repeatedly
pointed out that the 70 th anniversary of the bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki would mark an important milestone.
It will be indispensable for Japan to take such opportunities
as the United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues in
Hiroshima to be held this August to deepen discussions andtake action to “fill the legal gap” pertinent to nuclear weapons.

The conference closed with two documents : the four-page
Chair’s Summary and two-page Austrian Pledge. The Chair’s
Summary listed key findings regarding the humanitarian impactof nuclear weapons and presented the measures that werediscussed to be taken. While many countries expressed support
for the negotiation of a new legal instrument prohibiting
nuclear weapons, a number of delegations preferred a
step-by-step approach as the most effective and practical
way to achieve nuclear disarmament.

How the Austrian Pledge is going to be promoted is key tothe next step. In the middle of January, the Austrian government
formally requested all the member states of the United Nations toendorse this Pledge. This marks the beginning of an organizing
process for a group of countries that associate themselves with
the Pledge. The request was sent to the Japanese government as
well, whose response should be keenly watched.

Kawasaki is an Executive Committee Member of the Tokyo-based
NGO Peace Boat, and an International Steering Group Member of theInternational Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

The Austrian Pledge is an action-oriented statementthat demands a commitment to “identify and pursue
effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibitionand elimination of nuclear weapons.” The Austrian
government pledged to cooperate with all relevant
stakeholders, states, international organizations, the Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement and civil society to“stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate” nuclear weapons.
Because of the participations of the United States
and the United Kingdom, some media reports in Japandescribed a setback in the momentum for a treaty to ban
nuclear weapons. But these reports were not accurate.
Rather, the two nuclear-weapon states had been forced tothe point where they could not resist participating in theconference. The representative from the United States,in the question-and-answer session on the first day,4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.17 No.2, March 2015

Vienna Conference at Hofburg Palace

The Goal of the Global Hibakusha
Movement
Seiichiro Takemine
The notion that Japan is the only country to have sufferedatomic bombings is a cliché often used in discussions about
nuclear issues. It is true that nuclear weapons have notbeen used in a direct attack after the first ones were used on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is an important achievementof the international community in its effort for peace.
However, calling for “no more Hibakusha” based only onthat perspective ignores the reality of the nuclear disasters
that spread worldwide.

of A- and H- Bomb Sufferers Organizations), to establish
Global Hidankyo by connecting all the sufferers of nuclear
disasters worldwide.

“How much do we really know about the effectsof radiation exposure? Have we thought of the risks anddamages of radiation exposure well enough in different
perspectives from those of the people who promoted thedevelopments of nuclear weapons and atomic energy?” asked
Yasuo Nakagawa, doctor of engineering and engineeringhistory, in his book, The History of Nuclear Exposure(Tokyo: Gijyutsu-to-Ningen, 1991).

The warning Ivan Illich, an Austrian philosopher, hasleft for the field of peace studies — that people’s peace has
been left deep in the dark while monopoly of elite peaceprevails (“Heiwa-to-wa, Seikatsu-no-Arikata” (peace is theway of life), Kan, No. 19, 2004) — should not have only
intended to question the issue of economic development.
Where should we place the issue of nuclear energy andweapons? Have we not left “people’s peace” of the people incommunities who live with the risks and dangers of nuclear
energy deep in the dark, while we pay much more attention
to the actions and attitudes of the leaders of nuclear countries
and would-be nuclear countries?

In the hope of promoting research that deals withvarious nuclear disasters that have occurred in various partsof the world, Dr. Hiroko Takahashi, lecturer of the Hiroshima
Peace Institute, and I started to organize a research
project, Global Hibakusha, in 2004. We share a common
understanding that a new approach should be adopted that isradically different from that adopted thus far by those who
promoted the development of nuclear weapons and atomic
energy. In the same year, a sectional committee on Global
Hibakusha was established in the Peace Studies Associationof Japan.
Yoshihiko Uchida, who questioned the way social
science was studied, discusses the importance of building
our own instrument of conceptualization in his Dokushoto-Shakai-Kagaku (“Reading and Social Science”) (Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten, 1985). Uchida argues that social science isa field of study that identifies the essence of the matter deep
inside phenomenon through an instrument called concept,
as in a way people see the world, invisible to the naked eye,through an electron microscope.
Global Hibakusha is a new instrument of conceptualizatointhat was created to bring the whole picture of nuclear
disaster into view, along with the issues of atomic bomb
damage in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to face the facts ofenvironmental pollutions that have occurred in global scale.
Global Hibakusha sets in the horizontal axis various
aspects of nuclear disasters which are connected with thecommon denominator of radiation exposure, and copeswith them transversally. That does not mean they are of
the same nature. On the contrary, connecting them with thecommon denominator of radiation exposure, and bringing
them into one forum of discussion, makes the differences
and characteristics of each issue more obvious. We should
remember the landmark proposal made by Heiichi Fujii, first
secretary general of Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation

Global Hibakusha excavates the victims — bothcommunities and people who live there — and problems fromthe course of history, and connects them with the current andfuture societies setting them in the vertical axis, which is thegoal of the project.

There is no doubt that the issues of nuclear weapons
have been a central agenda of peace studies. Issues of nuclear
disasters, which explore “people’s peace” of the people wholive with the risks and dangers of nuclear energy, however,has not been pursued in peace studies as they deserved, except
by such researchers as the late Sadao Kamata and Noriyuki
Kawano. “There are many people who addressed the issueof nuclear weapons, while not many did so for hibakusha,”
Masaharu Hamatani, a sociologist, says in his presentation of
Nihon Heiwa Gakkai (Peace Studies Association of Japan, Jun
20, 2010).
When we look at the trend of peace studies, what was
dominant in 1950s and early 60s was issues of peace without
a nuclear war between the US and Russia, against a backdropof East and West tensions. From the middle of 1960s, with
the increased attention to developing countries, peace studies
started to address North-South issues, expanding the conceptof peace, as we can see in Johan Galtung’s structural violence.
If we identify Global Hibakusha in light of the historyof peace studies, it is an instrument of conceptualization,
which attempts to reconstruct the issue of nuclear energy by
expanding our imagination to “people’s peace” of the people
in the Pacific who suffer from nuclear disasters. It also aims
at developing existing characteristics of peace studies, withthe mission in the charter of the Peace Studies Association ofJapan—to institutionalize universal peace studies from thestandpoint of war victims based on the experience of atomic
bombing—in mind.
Takemine is an associate professor at Meisei University and a cochair of Global Hibakusha.

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

5

HPI

Research ForumThe Hiroshima Peace Institute held HPI Research Forums at the Satellite Campus, Hiroshima
City University

June 18,
2014 (Wed)Topic: “OSCE and Human Security in Europe”

Topic: “The Atomic Bombs, Soviet Entry into the War, and Japan’s
Decision to Surrender”

Lecturer: Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Professor, Department of History,
University of California at Santa Barbara
In the last phase of WWII, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan
were the three major players, and each of them faced a serious dilemma;
how to terminate the war. The atomic bombings provided the crucial
factor determining the dynamics of the tripartite relations. However,the first bombing on Hiroshima was not decisive for Japan’s surrenderdecision. Rather, the Soviet entry into the war in the early hours ofAugust 9 prompted Japan to terminate the war, but still the government
was hopelessly divided. Only the Emperor’s interventions, not once, but
twice, were the decisive factor for Japan’s decision to accept surrender.
In this forum, based on Professor Hasegawa’s critical analysis,
he multilaterally discussed the controversial issue of whether the U.S.
atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were decisive in Japan’s
decision to surrender, and examines this issue in an international context.

Lecturer: Philip McDonagh, Irish Ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
contributed to the end of the Cold War, and thereafter has been working
on building a security community from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The
OSCE’s unique approach to security building is based on the original
concept of common and comprehensive security. The merits anddemerits of this security concept, and also the problems that the OSCE
faces today were discussed.

October 30,
2014 (Thu)

December 2,
2014 (Tue)January 23,
2015 (Fri)Topic: “A Prospect on the Future Relationship between Japan andNorth Korea: Seeking Ways to Solve the Abduction Issue”

Lecturer: Um Jong-Sik, Chairman, Institute for Korean Integration of Society
In negotiations to normalize diplomatic relations between Japan andNorth Korea, one of the major issues today is to solve the abduction
problem. So far, setting a Special Investigation Committee on the
alleged abductees, North Korea has demonstrated their sincerity
for a solution. However, it is extremely difficult for us to ascertain
the credibility of the survey content including the results, and grasp
their ulterior motive. The speaker has long been dealing with North
Korean issues, and has had experiences in direct negotiations with
North Korea. Based on his expertise, in this forum, he examined thefuture prospects for the Japan-North Korea relationship.

Topic: “Counter-Monuments:

Memory Culture in Contemporary Germany”

Lecturer: Kathrin Maurer (Associate Professor at University of Southern Denmark)For the last 20 years the concept of “Counter-Monument”
has greatly impacted the discussion on memories of war
and exhibitions in museums. Unlike traditional exhibitions,which show a fixed national narrative and focus on theinterpretation of history and historical heroes, counter-monumental exhibitions do not show any linear narrative
facts for interpretation. Instead, the viewers are stimulated
to think and feel based on their own experiences. Using thisstrategy curators aimed at achieving decentralized memories
of war. Kathrin Maurer, who is an expert of German literatureand representations of history in literature, memory studies,
visual culture, and discourses of war, examined the countermonumental exhibitions in the case of the Military History
Museum of Dresden in Germany. The museum, which belongs
to the Federal Army, is regarded as a pioneer in its methodsof interpreting the experience of war. After the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the museum changed
its traditional military themed and political (ideological)
exhibitions into a more universal representation of violence,
which asks the viewers to rethink the meaning of violence aswell as war and peace. The museum building itself, is also
regarded as challenging traditional ideas of military museums.
Its unique design is supposed to foster openness and a moredemocratic interpretation of military history. After the lectureby Maurer, there was a lively discussion such as on thepresentations of war memories and the differences between
Japan and Germany.

The 20th Anniversaryof Hiroshima City
University

Exhibition on Anne Frank “Hopeful Future”
Exhibition on Bertha von Suttner “Life for Peace”

The 1st term: October 27–November 2 at Conference Room 409 of the Annex Building of theFaculty of Information, Hiroshima City University
The 2nd term: November 4–10 at Satellite Campus of the Hiroshima City University
As one of the events marking the 20th anniversary of thefounding of Hiroshima City University, HPI held exhibitions on
two women, Anne Frank who is world known for her diary andBertha von Suttner who was a pacifist and the first female
winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace. The exhibition on Anne
Frank is also one of the touring exhibitions around Japan madeby the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Fukuyama City and theBertha von Suttner exhibition was organized for commemorationof the 100th anniversary of her death. The year 2014 marked thecentenary of the outbreak of WWI and the year 2015 is the 70th
anniversary of the end of WWII. On this occasion, it may bepossible to learn about peace from the lives of Anne Frank andBertha von Suttner. A stage performance “Soul of Fire: Fight
for Peace”, concerning the life of Bertha von Suttner, was heldon October
29 at Aster
Plaza. We
would like togive special
thanks to
the Austrian
Embassy in
To k y o , t h e
Holocaust
Museum,Hiroshima-Austria Society and everyone who was concernedwith these exhibitions.

Makiko Takemoto, Assistant Professor at HPI
6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.17 No.2, March 2015s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’

7

Second issue of Hiroshima
Peace Research Journal
released
The Hiroshima Peace Research Journal , flagshipjournal of the Hiroshima Peace Institute launchedin November 2013, had released its second issue inMarch 2015. The issue contains nine articles, including
a new serial article “A Window into Peace Studies,”
articles in a special theme section, regular articles andan activity report of the institute. We are grateful to all
the contributors, ranging from junior through seniorlevel, who have strived to achieve the high standard intheir writing.
“A Window into Peace Studies” is a new seriesof articles that are written in turn by scholars within
and outside of Hiroshima who are interested in peaceissues. The contributors are solicited by the editorsof the Hiroshima Peace Research Journal to write
on topics such as the steps, conditions and challengesof peace-building, based on their experiences andopinions. We hope this series will play the part of agateway for peace studies and inspire readers towards
further thoughts on peace. The first contributor tothis series is Dr. Hiromi Hasai, nuclear physicist
and professor emeritus of Hiroshima University. Dr.
Hasai was exposed to the atomic bomb in Hiroshima

DIARY[Events organized by HPI]
◆Aug. 2, 2014 International Symposium, “Confidencebuilding as a Step toward Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: Pursuing
Measures to Energize the 2015 NPT Review Conference”◆Oct. 27−Nov. 2, Nov. 4−10, 2014 Exhibitions on Anne
Frank “Hopful Futuer” Exhibition on Bertha von Suttner “Lifefor Peace”◆Oct. 29, 2014 Stage Performance “Soul of Fire: Fight for
Peace”◆Oct. 30, 2014 Research Forum “Counter-Monuments: Memory
Culture in Contemporary Germany” by Kathrin Maurer(Associate Professor of German Studies, University of Southern
Denmark)◆Nov. 21−Dec. 19, 2014 Public Lecture Series FY2014 2ndSemester “The Centenary of the First World War: Its Legacy for
Peace Today”

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS● Published by● Printed by

8

when he was just 14 years old. His essay, exploring
the turbulent era of Japan’s surrender and occupation,
carries the power of his experiences into our modern
world.
In the special theme section, we have focused on
the U. S. hydrogen bomb test, the Bravo test conducted
on Bikini Atoll, which marked its 60th anniversary
in March 2014. Four articles discuss facts about theAmerican experiment, the global affects it inflicted andits implications on our current society. Three regular
articles that explore vital problems facing modern
Japan — the issue of North Korea, the JapaneseConstitution and the role of ASEAN in today’s world,
follow. In the activity report, a research note examines
the ways the phenomena of “peace” and “hibaku”(exposure to the atomic bomb and to radiation) arebeing treated in peace museums in Japan.
On the last page of the issue, readers will findinformation on the “Submission Guidelines.” Thesubmission rules, the special theme for the next issue
and other information will also be posted on our web
page. We look forward to receiving contributions forupcoming issues.

Jul. 1, 2014 – Feb. 28, 2015

◆Dec. 2, 2014 Research Forum “The Atomic Bombs, Soviet
Entry into the War, and Japan’s Decision to Surrender” by
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (Professor, Department of History,
University of California at Santa Barbara)◆Jan. 23, 2015 Research Forum “A Prospect on Future
Relationship between Japan and North Korea: Seeking Ways to
Solve the Abduction Issue” by Um Jong-Sik (Chairman, Institutefor Korean Integration of Society)[Visitors to HPI]◆Jul. 25, 2014 Ten researchers from the Korea Peace Institute,
South Korea◆Aug. 7, 2014 Fifty-one scholars from the King Prajadhipok’s
Institute, Kingdom of Thailand◆Nov. 12, 2014 Eight students from Junior High School of
Nagoya University

Vol.17 No.2（March 28, 2015）

Editorial Committee (Robert A. Jacobs, Taeko Kiriya, Hiroko Takahashi), Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
3-4-1, Ozuka-higashi, Asaminami-ku, Hiroshima 731-3194 Japan
Phone: +81（0）82 830 1811
Fax: +81（0）82 830 1812
E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.17 No.2, March 2015

狡Hiroshima City University 2015. All rights reserved.