HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

A Path to Peace Explored in Hiroshima
I will soon be leaving the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) after spending
almost three and a half years there as a visiting research fellow. I havelearned a great deal in that time. I would like to take this opportunity to sharesome personal experiences of my time here in the hope that they may
contribute to HPI’s further development.
I have worked in the field of peace and disarmament for the last 15 years.
During that time, I have witnessed multilateral disarmament negotiations at
the United Nations (U.N.) from the perspective of a Non Governmental
Organization (NGO) member. During the seven years I lived in Geneva and
New York, I was particularly active as a member of the U.N./NGO
committees for/on disarmament in both cities. As a citizen of Japan, the only
nation to have experienced atomic bombings, I have found the movement toabolish nuclear weapons in Hiroshima to be the spiritual pillar of my life
dedicated to disarmament.
At the beginning of the 1990s, international relations underwent
fundamental changes. First and foremost, that period marked the end of theCold War. On the one hand, negotiations between the United States andRussia, symbolized by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) process,gathered pace, but on the other, the international community in general becameless interested in disarmament. Second, our understanding of the concept of
security changed. Although it was once understood in strict political andmilitary terms, security as we now understand it has taken on social, economic
and cultural dimensions, too. From that new line of thought the idea of humansecurity emerged. Third, the international community began attaching greater
importance to “individual sovereignty” as opposed to state sovereignty, which
had been regarded as inviolable. That change is closely linked to the greater
prominence humanitarian intervention has attained since the Gulf War.
In the mid-1990s, the international community rediscovered the need fora multilateral approach to nuclear disarmament centered on the United
Nations. That shift in emphasis culminated in part in the adoption of theComprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) at the U.N. General
Assembly in 1996. Nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May
1998 further accelerated the positive change.
It was against that backdrop that HPI was inaugurated in April 1998. At
the time, I was dispatched from the Rissho kosei-kai and served as an
associate secretary general of the World Conference on Religion and Peace(WCRP), whose international secretariat was located across the street fromthe U.N. Headquarters in New York.
In June of that year, I received a visit from Yasushi Akashi, thenpresident of HPI, who had already urged me to join the institute as a research

CONTENTS
A Path to Peace Explored in Hiroshima by Masamichi Kamiya …………………… 1
The U.S. and the Islamic World after the War in Afghanistan by Akifumi Ikeda …… 2
Supremacy Leads to Vulnerability in U.S. Foreign Policy by Jun Tsubouchi …… 2〜3
HPI Research ForumHistory and Social Structure of Islamic Fundamentalism………………………… 3
Bringing China into a Regional Security Framework …………………………… 3
U.S.-Middle East Relations after the War in Afghanistan ……………………… 4
Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century― Discussions Preceding the Preparation of the Final Report ……………… 4〜5
Research Project on the Legitimacy and Rationality of New-interventionism― Peace Activities and Patterns of International Intervention: A Discussion …… 6
Recent Publications by HPI Researchers ………………………………………… 6〜7
DIARY………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Hello from HPI ……………………………………………………………………… 8

By Masamichi Kamiya

fellow. I accepted his offer, hoping that my work at HPI would in some way
contribute to the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, an objective sharedby people all over the world. My journey along the path to peace began at thatmoment in Hiroshima, a city the global nuclear disarmament movement has
always looked to for inspiration, for obvious reasons.
I was given two main tasks after arriving at HPI in November 1998.
First, I was engaged in administrative work for the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and second, I contributed to an HPI
project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century, which was launched in
April 2000. Co-sponsored by the Japan Institute of International Affairs and
HPI and supported by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the Tokyo Forumpublished its report in July 1999 after a year of intensive discussions. The
report, which became an official U.N. document, gave impetus to nuclear
disarmament initiatives and strengthened the non-proliferation regime. The
HPI research project, due to complete its work in March 2002, will publish a
final report containing practical recommendations that, it is hoped, will help
bring about nuclear disarmament in the new century.
Outside HPI, I contributed to initiatives in preventive diplomacy and the
reduction of small arms, hoping to build the foundations for a wide range ofpeace activities for HPI in the future. To that end, I promoted closer ties
between HPI and the Japan Center for Preventive Diplomacy, which was
founded in July 1999, hoping they would help Japan make a stronger
contribution to preventive diplomacy. I did so because I believe that theprevention of conflicts is an area in which Hiroshima must be involved if it isto achieve its ultimate objective of world peace.
I was an adviser to the Japanese delegation at the U.N. Conference on Small
Arms and Light Weapons in July 2001. Reducing the stockpile of small arms,
which have killed so many innocent people, is another vital issue Hiroshima must
work into its longstanding commitment to peace and disarmament.
I have learned several lessons during my time in Hiroshima. First, thecity must adopt a comprehensive approach to disarmament that encompasses
not only nuclear weapons but also small arms, including anti-personnel
landmines. A Hiroshima that is engaged in initiatives on small arms – whichare, in their own way, weapons of mass destruction – while making nuclear
disarmament its priority, would be worthy of the world’s praise.
Second, Hiroshima must reaffirm its ultimate objective of eternal world
peace, which will be achieved after the abolition of nuclear weapons. It must
pay attention to peace activities other than nuclear disarmament as well. It
can, for instance, contribute to conflict resolution through preventive
diplomacy and peace-building activities, which are sine qua nons for national
reconstruction after a conflict.
The vision for Hiroshima articulated above coincides with that
stipulated in the Fourth Basic Plan of Hiroshima City, issued by the city ofHiroshima in 1999. It also encompasses the importance of “reconciliation”
and “humanity” which Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba spoke of in his
peace declarations of 2000 and 2001.
Hiroshima’s partner in the quest for peace must be humanity, notnuclear weapons. In a work titled “Perpetual Peace,” Kant attempts to provethat humans have a moral disposition to conquer the evil principle throughpaying homage to the rule of law, while arguing that war is society’s status
naturalis. But as I serve out my term of office as a visiting research fellow, I
wish to embrace what I believe to be humanity’s intrinsic love of peace as
Hiroshima leads us farther on the road to peace.

−1−

Kamiya is a visiting research fellow at HPIVisit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

The U.S. and the Islamic World after the War in Afghanistan
By Akifumi Ikeda
The September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States presaged aninternational war against terrorism. The U.S. launched air strikes against
Afghanistan at the beginning of October, resulting in the collapse of the
Taliban regime. The alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks, Osama bin
Laden, led a network of terrorists known as al-Qaeda, which, by early 2002,
had been almost wiped out. With the formation of an interim government in
Afghanistan led by Hamid Karzai, it appeared that some semblance of peace
had come to the war-torn country.
Many people were concerned that the retaliation against the Taliban and
al-Qaeda would be perceived as an attack against the Islamic world as awhole and would result in a backlash against the West. Some feared theworst-case scenario – a violent confrontation between the Christian andMuslim worlds – would become reality.
Though the war in Afghanistan continued throughout the fasting monthof Ramadan, an important time in the Muslim calendar, the Islamic world
remained calm. It appeared that talk of a clash of civilizations had been
unfounded, at least for the time being. The relative calm proves that the vast
majority of Muslims did not support al-Qaeda’s actions. Despite their claims,
the Taliban and al-Qaeda were not representatives of disillusioned and angry
Muslims, but heretical anomalies. Their collapse is nothing less than theoutcome of their self-centeredness and misplaced optimism about thepolitical environment.
Recent events have also proved, however, that deep distrust of the Westremains in the Islamic world. Certainly, most Arab nations and other Islamic
countries firmly refused to be categorized alongside the Taliban and alQaeda, and were not surprised to see those groups disbanded and defeated.
Still, when the West positioned large-scale strike forces in the region andcontinued to rain blows on the already hard-hit Afghanistan, several Islamic
countries did not bother to conceal their contempt for the way the UnitedStates and its allies were waging the war. Some of those nations found it
painful to see a strong nation punish a weak one so severely, whatever thereason may have been. Some Islamic nations also wondered whether theUnited States would have resorted to force had it been attacked by a largely
Christian nation, such as Russia, or a European country.
The United States is likely to step up pressure on nations it suspects ofsupporting terrorism in its quest to wipe out the last vestiges of terrorism. It
will need to exercise extreme caution, however, if it is to accomplish thisgoal without creating further mistrust in the Islamic world. The United States
will face a very different reaction if it takes the war against terrorism tofailing nations or so-called rogue states such as Somalia, Sudan and Iraq.
While the Islamic world may accept the defeat of the Taliban and al-Qaeda
as necessary to maintain order, it is unlikely to stand by silently while
Washington arbitrarily and unilaterally widens the scope of its police action.
At the core of the anger felt in the Islamic world is the perception thatthe values applied by the United States to the international order change
depending on the time and circumstances, while what the ideal internationalsociety should look like remains unexplained. The United States should,
above all else, offer a specific vision of the kind of order it wants to establish
and maintain. It should also demonstrate that it is willing to consistently
apply the same values throughout the world.
The United States is also expected to mediate in the highly volatile
situations in Kashmir and the Occupied Territories in the Middle East. In
view of the potential for both these flashpoints to disturb the entire worldorder, Washington’s help will be indispensable, particularly in Kashmir
where three nuclear powers – India, Pakistan and China – all have conflicting
interests. The equal distance the United States maintains between itself andthe neighboring nations representing the traditions of Hinduism, Islam, andConfucianism favors U.S. mediation.
The Palestinian issue will be a tougher nut to crack. It is almost
impossible to expect absolute neutrality from the United States considering
the power of the Jewish lobby in U.S. domestic politics and the American
patronage of Israel during the Cold War. In addition, the Islamic world is
suspicious of Israel’s links with the West, which they see as a JudeoChristian cultural alliance. Many in the Islamic world agree that it is futile toappeal for the consistent application of values, such as justice and fairness,when two peoples on one side of a conflict, such as Americans and Israelis,
are psychologically and culturally so close. It is only natural, then, that U.S.
efforts to mediate the Palestinian issue should be criticized in the Islamic
world where frustration goes hand in hand with resignation. In turn, theUnited States can prove its credentials as the guardian of the idealinternational order by continuing to try to mediate despite the criticism.
Doing so would enable the United States to dispel at least some of the
mistrust felt in the Islamic world. It should offer a vision of peace between
the Palestinians and Israelis and lay down rules, acceptable to both sides, thatwill turn that vision into a reality.
Ikeda is a professor of area studies at Toyo Eiwa University

Supremacy Leads to Vulnerability in U.S. Foreign Policy
By Jun Tsubouchi
The September 11 attacks on the United States and the events that
unfolded in the aftermath raised a multitude of questions in both practical andtheoretical realms of international politics, economics and foreign policy. As
events progress, not only the United States but the world at large is amidst an
explosion of debate, much of which carries often intriguing implications. By
venturing too deeply into philosophical or cultural speculation, however, we
are in danger of losing sight of the issues at hand. What deserves closer
observation is a simple yet paramount problem – it is, ironically, the marked
supremacy itself of the United States that serves as the country’s greatest
vulnerability, and, in turn, a cause of instability in the international community.
This argument differs fundamentally from the more familiar notion that theUnited States provokes antipathy because it is the world’s only real winner. It
is, perhaps, a better starting point to ask why the United States was everallowed to attain such an unfavorably dominant status in the first place.
Roughly a decade since the Cold War ended, the United States has
become the world’s sole superpower – politically, economically and militarily.
The power of American slogans of “democracy” and “market economy”
served to eliminate the vital tension that had traditionally existed between
universal and endemic value systems. American influence permeatedthroughout the world, often to the point of boorish brutality. Yet to lay blame
for this state of affairs on stereotypical American arrogance is simplistic at

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

best. Such arguments are one-sided and unconstructive. In a world where statesfunction according to the pursuit of individual national interests, to call on the
United States alone to exercise self-restraint and accept an obligation to moral
standards would be a fallacy. Such is the irony in the outspoken demands of thevehemently anti-American for a morally upright U.S. foreign policy.
By and large, and throughout history, states have functioned according to
the drive to pursue maximum self-interest. As divergent interests collide,however, states are forced into adjustment and restraint. Though not morally
inclined, such a system has resulted in a certain degree of order and harmony
within the international community. Particularly in an era wheremultipolarization and interdependence co-exist (as opposed to, say, that of the
Roman empire), such a system of balance is of particular importance to amodern hegemonic state. The weakness of today’s America lies in its inability
to undergo any such adjustment due to its own incomparable supremacy –allowing, indeed, forcing the United States to pursue a single-minded race fornational interest in which there are no other competitors. A hegemonic
power’s eminent supremacy and its consequent solitude deprive it offlexibility between thought and action, and erode its capacity to utilize alogical decision making process it could otherwise rely on. Gradually, as if topush itself into a self-erected dead-end, the supremacy and solitude of thehegemonic power destabilize the entire international community.

−2−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

By similar logic, it becomes clear that the dominance of the United States
has harmed the study of international politics itself as a method of explaining
and predicting international relations. It is no exaggeration to say that the
study of today’s international politics is more precisely described as“American international politics.” International politics was cultivated in
post-World War II America with the help of researchers who had fled the war
in Europe. During the Cold War, with the U.S. taking the lead of the westernworld, it was the overlapping of American foreign policy and nuclear
strategies that contributed to the development of current theories. With few
exceptions, the study of international relations in Europe as well as in Japan
has consisted of the reading of American works, and it is clear that this U.S.centered perspective has remained unchanged to the present. Though thestudies of regional issues have become commonplace, when theorizing theframework that clarifies international politics, studies by American experts
continue to maintain an overwhelmingly dominant presence.
The point is that American studies in international politics simply
cannot elude the pervading influence of American perspective. Despite thefact that the world has been blessed with a diversity of thoughts, each aunique source of wisdom, and despite the ultimate challenge offered in
mobilizing such diversity, the “dominance” of America serves, thoughunintentionally, as the ultimate obstacle. Within the distinct setting of theCold War, America as the leader of the western world did not find this to bea particular malady. Yet in the present, and looking toward the future, based
solely on a framework bolstered by American thought, it is unlikely that theanatomy of international relations can be adequately portrayed. In
contemplating how to deal with, for example, the changing existence ofChina, or the Islamic world, it would not only be inadequate but increasingly
dangerous to depend solely on tenets of American thought.
Will the impact of September 11 change the course of the United Statesand American foreign policy sufficiently for Washington to overcome thevulnerability supremacy has caused? It is likely to take a few more years
before we are able to answer that question. Perhaps more important is therealization that it is far too simplistic to expect the United States to overcomethat vulnerability independently. Realistically, Europe and Japan must utilize
available resources to form a constructive counterbalance to the UnitedStates. More than just an empty expectation, the creation of such a structure
is a difficult yet necessary duty of international society within an increasing
anti-American world.
Jun Tsubouchi is an associate professor of international relations at Yamanashi
University. He is currently a Fulbright fellow at the John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment, Harvard University.

HPI Research Forum
October 2, 2001

October 25, 2001

History and Social Structure of Islamic Fundamentalism
Title: “Background of Terror in the U.S.: the World of ‘Islamic
Fundamentalism’ and its Infiltration into Eurasia”
Speaker: Akira Matsunaga, research fellow, East-West Institute;research associate, Sasakawa Peace Foundation

Bringing China into a Regional Security Framework
Title: “Coordinating U.S. and Japanese Responses to Chinese
Military Modernization”
Speaker: Benjamin L. Self, senior associate, Henry L. Stimson
CenterTo promote a better understanding of the September 11 terrorist attacks
in the United States, Matsunaga highlighted the following points: The
geographical and historical characteristics of Afghanistan and the growth ofIslamic fundamentalism, anti-Western sentiment in the Islamic world and thefailure of U.S. foreign policy, and the direction of Japan’s policy on Afghanistan.
For centuries, Afghanistan has been a meeting point between East andWest, a place where people from diverse backgrounds have gathered to socialize
and exchange information. However, as a junction, both literally for transportand figuratively for cultures, Afghanistan has had its share of problems. Since thetime of the Silk Road, it has been renowned for its tradition of looking after
guests and people in trouble. In the 1930s, a minister of pilgrimage in Saudi
Arabia who decided to devote himself to Islamic fundamentalism took refuge in
Afghanistan. It seems that Afghanistan harbored Osama bin Laden not only
because of his Islamic fundamentalism but also because of this tradition of
hospitality. The country has its share of structural problems, namely, poverty andregional opposition to strong central government behind the growth of Islamic
fundamentalism in Afghanistan and throughout central Asia.
It can be said that U.S. policy in Afghanistan has failed. After Soviet
troops invaded Afghanistan, the United States provided arms and funds toanti-Soviet forces. But when the Soviets withdrew in 1980, Washington, too,
ended its involvement in the country. Clearly, the United States did not havea long-term strategy for Afghanistan. If Washington should attempt to force
its values on Afghanistan or become preoccupied with short-term problems
such as drug trafficking and extremism, while ignoring structural problems
such as poverty, anti-American sentiment inside Afghanistan would escalate.
If that should happen, it would be far more difficult for the United States toestablish the kind of international order it favors.
Looking back on relations between Japan and the Islamic world, it ispossible to identify a tendency for Japan to take advantage of those relations
even before World War II. After the war, however, this approach disappeared.
Japanese experts on Islam, who were seen as having been meddlesome, weredeliberately no longer involved in Japan’s policy toward the Middle East.
After the Gulf War, some began to reassert their influence, but they remain
small in number. The friendly feelings many people in the Islamic world
have toward Japan should be seen as an asset. Japan must adopt a broad,strategic approach toward Afghanistan, bearing in mind the high level ofgoodwill that exists between the two nations.

Self discussed how the Japan-U.S. alliance could stabilize the Northeast
Asian region as China modernizes its military – a potential challenge to theinternational order. Although China says it has neither the intention nor thecapability to rival U.S. power on a global scale, it will soon have the militarycapability to extend its influence into the neighboring areas, including the
Taiwan Strait. In that sense, it has already offered us a glimpse of how it may
challenge the international order. In response, Japan and the United States
must cooperate to hedge China’s increasing influence. Here, to hedge means
not only to contain Chinese military power but also to prevent its growth andtry to circumvent and decrease tension.
Self described the aims as follows: To maintain forces to respond to thegrowth of the People’s Liberation Army; to help curb the mounting costs ofChinese military power by offering financial incentives; and to intensify theJapan-U.S. alliance by, for example, strengthening both countries’ ability to
defend sea lanes. An important aim is not to deter China per se, but to ward
off a Chinese challenge, support democracy and reject a link between Japan’s
imperialistic past and present international security issues. The United Statesshould defend the reliability of Japan.
But China should not be cornered. To avoid that, Japan and the UnitedStates should help bring China into the regional security order so that both
Japan and the United States may build positive security relations with
Beijing. The military power of Japan and the United States is needed tocounter a Chinese challenge, but not to the extent that China sees it as a direct
threat. Specifically, we need to address Chinese concerns over U.S. missile
defense plans and reconstruction of its nuclear defense strategy.
In addition, confidence-building and establishment of a security
community should both take the Japan-U.S. alliance as their starting point.
Relations between Japan and the United States should be strengthened so
China will be unable to oust Japan from its position as the United States’
most important partner. Efforts to stabilize security relations with China andaccelerate its integration into the regional order should commence on thebasis of the Japan-U.S. alliance.
Self’s speech was followed by a debate on the future direction of theJapan-U.S. alliance, relations between the United States and China, and the
security order in Northeast Asia.
By Nobumasa Akiyama, assistant professor at HPI

By Nobumasa Akiyama, assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

−3−

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

HPI Research Forum

December 21, 2001

U.S.-Middle East Relations after the War in Afghanistan
Title: “The War in Afghanistan and its Implications in the Islamic World”
Speaker: Daiji Sadamori, staff writer, Foreign News Department,
The Asahi Shimbun
Following the HPI Research Forum held on October 2, we invited
Sadamori, a journalist and expert on Middle East and U.S. affairs, to talkabout the September 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath. The following isa summary of his speech:
How has the international situation changed since the September 11
terrorist attacks? First, we must decide whether or not the terrorist attacks
constituted a new kind of war, dubbed as “asymmetrical warfare.” The
number of victims was certainly greater than in previous terrorist atrocities.
However, hijacking airliners and suicide attacks had happened before, andthe similar patterns abound in the past conflicts. The September 11 attacks,
though, were new in that the hijackers deliberately crashed fuel-laden
aircraft. They did not live to see the results of their efforts, but it may be said
that they succeeded. It may not be right to describe the attacks as a “newwar,” but we must nevertheless be vigilant against similar attacks on suchtargets as large oil tankers.
The terrorist attacks and the Gulf War had different consequences. Firstof all, there was no oil shock this time. Washington’s strategy in the Middle
East is said to have three pillars: stable oil prices, the maintenance of the status
quo in the oil-producing countries in the Gulf, and the security of Israel. Noneof these has been affected by the events of September 11. Furthermore, theUnited States did not invoke the causes of humanity or democracy during the
Gulf War because the nations involved, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,
were not democracies. If the United States had stated such ideals, it would
have been rightly accused of hypocrisy. This time, however, President George
W. Bush has talked of democratic government for Afghanistan, though no
democratic government has ever existed in the Arab world or the Middle East.
Furthermore, the Arab world reacted to the recent attacks as one,
whereas it was divided over the Gulf War. The United States and Britain
should understand that Osama bin Laden has been a hero in the Arab world
for some time and that his beliefs are still shared by a number of people. The
Arabian Peninsula, where Mecca and Medina are located, is the mostimportant and holy place for Muslims. Bin Laden says that the presence in

Saudi Arabia of the U.S. military, most of whose members are non-Muslims,
is unacceptable. On the emotional level, many Muslims agree with him.
Third, there are problems with defining terrorism. The attacks, whichwere targeted at civilians, were of course an affront to humanity. But there
exists another view of terrorism in the Islamic world that holds that terrorist
attacks against Israel, seen as the unlawful occupier of Palestine, are a justified
element of the struggle for liberation. The military wing of the Islamic
fundamentalist group, Hamas, has repeatedly carried out suicide attacks, whileother parts of the organization are active in the medical and welfare fields, ofwhich many Arab governments can not afford to take care. Any attack on
Hamas by the United States in its war against terrorism could be regarded bysome as a declaration of war against the entire Islamic world.
Fourth, an unprecedented propaganda war is being waged in the current
conflict. U.S. officials have often refused to answer questions in news
conferences, saying that details of the operation need to be kept secret toprotect their Special Forces and troops. The media blackout makes it easierfor the United States to manipulate information. The country’s media should
assert their independence, but instead they are self-restraining. This is partly
because the shock caused by the September 11 attacks is still keenly felt, butalso because media organizations fear being labeled unpatriotic if theyquestion Washington’s actions.
The fifth point concerns the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia.
About 500,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf
War. About 5,000 still remain there, generating resentment in the region.
Those troops have kept a low profile since terrorists bombed barracks in
Dharan in 1996, killing 19 U.S. soldiers and injuring dozens more. Although
the Saudi government refused U.S. requests to use the Prince Sultan Air Basein Saudi Arabia for its campaign in Afghanistan, the base is certainly being
used as the campaign’s central command center.
The United States could choose to withdraw its troops from Saudi
Arabia. If that should happen, the terrorists would lose one of theirjustifications for attacking the United States. The Pentagon has an alternativeplan that involves deployment of U.S. troops in Qatar instead of Saudi Arabia.
The mere suggestion by Washington that it is ready to pull out of Saudi Arabia
would have an immediate and favorable effect in the entire Islamic world.
Japan has a unique, if not ideal, opportunity to improve its relations with
Saudi Arabia and to expand its economic activities there. For its part, Saudi
Arabia continues to distance itself from the United States.
By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI

Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century

Discussions Preceding the Preparation of the Final Report
Members of HPI Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21stCentury met four times between September and December 2001. The projectwill publish a final report, tentatively titled “Nuclear Disarmament in the 21stCentury,” later this year. Members discussed the outline of each chapter.
Some authors presented their own reports, while others presented thosewritten by foreign contributors. Discussions followed each presentation. The
following are the highlights of the discussions, accompanied by the tentative
title of each chapter:¡14th meeting (September. 14)
Topic: Chapter 1 “Nuclear Disarmament: From the 20th Century to the
21st Century”
Speaker: Mitsuru Kurosawa, professor, Osaka School of International
Public Policy, Osaka University
Over the past 10 years, nuclear disarmament has made a certain amountof progress, including the conclusion of nuclear weapon reduction
agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia.
However, in the second half of the last decade, nuclear disarmament took astep backward due to the delay in the ratification of START II, Washington’srefusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and India andPakistan’s nuclear tests.
Nevertheless, the final document adopted at the 2000 Nuclear NonProliferation (NPT) Review Conference, which included an “unequivocal
undertaking” to eliminate nuclear arsenals, could serve as the basis forpromoting further nuclear disarmament.
The challenge for the international community in the coming decade is
to push forward with nuclear disarmament initiatives through thedevelopment of multilateral frameworks, including the CTBT, the further

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

promotion of U.S.-Russian nuclear reduction agreements, and diminishing
the role of nuclear arsenals.
Topic: Chapter 19 “The United Nations and Nuclear Disarmament –Overcoming a Lost Opportunity”
Speaker: Masamichi Kamiya, visiting research fellow, Hiroshima
Peace InstituteIn the first half of the 1990s, the United Nations did not play a particularly
active role in nuclear disarmament. This was because of the progress made inbilateral disarmament negotiations between the United States and Russia,
and the approach of former U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
who attached greater importance to peacekeeping operations. However, theU.N. Disarmament Commission (UNDC) and the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) have drawn up catch-up initiatives in the disarmament
sphere, all supported by current U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
The United Nations is now the most important forum for nuclear
disarmament negotiations. The U.N. secretary general, the U.N. General
Assembly, UNDC and CD should work together to further promote nuclear
disarmament.

¡15th meeting (October. 12)
Topic: Chapter 10 “Nuclear Weapons Issues in the Middle East”
Speaker: Hirofumi Tosaki, research fellow, Center for the Promotionof Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs
While Israel is regarded as a de facto nuclear-weapon state, some statesin the Middle East also possess other weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and/or seek to acquire nuclear arsenals. Therefore, in this region, it is−4−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

necessary to solve the nuclear weapons issues, together with other WMD
ones. However, it seems quite difficult to achieve such a goal in one leap.
Step-by-step, comprehensive, and long-term efforts by regional countries arevital towards achieving comprehensive peace and solving the issues
surrounding nuclear weapons and other WMDs.
Topic: Chapter 18 “Denuclearization in the Southern Hemisphere;
Prospects for Interregional Cooperation”
Speaker: Yoko Ogashiwa, associate professor, Institute for Peace
Science, Hiroshima University
By the 1990s, nuclear-free zone treaties had been concluded in four regionsin the Southern Hemisphere; Latin America, the South Pacific, Southeast
Asia, and Africa. The U.N. General Assembly had earlier adopted resolutions
calling for the denuclearization of the Southern Hemisphere. The nuclear
powers responded differently to the declaration; Some supported it, whileothers opposed it or abstained from voting. Greater cooperation is needed
among the four regions if a nuclear-free Southern Hemisphere is to be realized.
Topic: Chapter 7 “Present at the Creation: Nuclear Weapon Policies
and Nuclear Disarmament Policies of the United Kingdom”(Author: Dr. John Simpson)
Speaker: Masamichi Kamiya
Simpson offered an analysis of Britain’s nuclear policies from the 1940s
to the 1990s. He then offered his views on the country’s approach to nuclear
disarmament through 2012 in light of external factors, including Britain’s
relations with the United States and Europe, as well as domestic factors suchas the economy and divergent opinions over disarmament. He suggested that
Britain could become “a nuclear power without nuclear weapons.”
Topic: Chapter 5 “Nuclear and Nuclear Disarmament Policies of
Russia” (Author: Ambassador Roland M. Timerbaev)
Speaker: Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor, Hiroshima Peace
Institute
Timerbaev offered a detailed description of Russia’s nuclear disarmament
policies, including the reduction of strategic nuclear arms achieved in the
1990s. He made several suggestions for Russia to act on over the next
decade, including promoting nuclear reductions in cooperation with theseven other nuclear-weapon states, including India, Pakistan, and Israel,
while maintaining Russia’s position as a nuclear superpower on a par with
the United States. He wrote that international organizations should control
the nuclear arsenals of these nations, with abolition in mind, under thesupervision of the U.N. Security Council.

¡16th meeting (November. 12)
Topic: Chapter 20 “The Role of Japanese and International NGOs in
Nuclear Disarmament”
Speaker: Hiromichi Umebayashi, president, The Peace Depot, Inc.
NGOs have played an important role in nuclear disarmament. In the
1990s, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory dwelling on
the illegality of nuclear weapons in response to NGO pressure. NGOs werealso involved in the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences.
NGO campaigners drew up a model nuclear weapon convention to ban
such weapons, urging the United Nations and states to start negotiation. In
Japan, NGO members now have opportunities to speak directly with Foreign
Ministry officials. NGOs will have to get the “unequivocal undertaking” toeliminate nuclear arsenals to be fulfilled with an eye on the next NPT review
conference, while addressing issues at both the national and regional levels.
Topic: Chapter 2 “Toward Nuclear Disarmament” (Author: Rebecca
Johnson)Speaker: Mitsuru Kurosawa
Taking the abolition of intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) in 1987
as an important watershed in arms control, Johnson outlined the disarmament
progress made since the INF Treaty. The 1990s provided opportunities forpartnership between governments and NGOs, who played significant roles inbringing about negotiations on the CTBT, influencing the outcome of the
NPT Review Conferences of 1995 and 2000, the advisory opinion of theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ), the Canberra Commission, and thestrategies utilized by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC). Johnson noted that
despite the recent deterioration of political conditions for NGO participation
in information exchange and policy-making, it remained civil society’s
mission to continue to warn of the dangers still posed by nuclear weapons
and to seek effective ways to bring about progress in nuclear disarmament.

¡17th meeting (December. 28)
Topic: Chapter 3 “Shifting Paradigms: The Offense/Defense Debate
and Nuclear Disarmament” (Author: Dr. Cathleen Fisher)
Speaker: Nobumasa Akiyama, assistant professor, Hiroshima Peace InstituteSince the end of the Cold War, the role of weapon systems has graduallychanged from an offensive to a defensive one, a trend illustrated best by the U.S.
national missile defense (NMD) program. However, this paradigm shift, which isincomplete and unstable, combined with the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in
the United States, has contributed to a slowing of the movement toward nuclear
disarmament. The progress of international arms control and disarmament will be
determined by how Washington’s NMD program develops and how theinternational community views the shift from offensive to defensive weapons.
Topic: Chapter 8 “French Nuclear Policy – More Continuity than
Change” (Author: Dr. Therese Delpech)
Speaker: Mitsuru Kurosawa
France attached less importance to nuclear weapons after the Cold War,and drastically cut its arsenal to perhaps fewer than 350 weapons, anadequate, if not ideal, reduction. Although the French government supports
general and complete disarmament, it refuses to be party to multinational
nuclear weapon reduction programs as long as the international politicalenvironment remains volatile. Since France still believes in nuclear weapons’value as a deterrent, they will continue to play an important, though notcentral, role in the nation’s diplomatic strategies.
Topic: Chapter 11 “Nuclear Issues in North Korea”
Speaker: Nobumasa Akiyama
This chapter looks at issues surrounding the U.S.-DPRK (Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea) Agreed Framework and KEDO (the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization), both of which temporarily quelledfears over North Korea’s nuclear programs. The chapter contains suggestions fordiminishing the role that nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction play inNorth Korean policy. It also advocates reducing the risks of proliferation of
WMDs by ensuring the steady implementation of the KEDO project and securing
cooperation with neighboring countries, including Japan, China and Russia, as
well as the United States.
Topic: Chapter 14 “Challenges of Nuclear Disarmament in Japan”
Speaker: Kazumi Mizumoto
Japan’s nuclear policy has four cornerstones: the non-nuclear principles,
the nuclear umbrella, the active use of nuclear energy, and nuclear
disarmament diplomacy. Until the 1990s, these principles had an uneasy
coexistence. Japan’s task lies in developing comprehensive nuclear
disarmament strategies while balancing the four principles.
Topic: Chapter 15 “The New Agenda Coalition Nuclear Disarmament
Policies” (Author: Dr. Darach MacFhionnbhairr)
Speaker: Masamichi Kamiya
The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) was established in 1998 following
efforts begun by Ireland the previous year, which brought together a numberof like-minded governments concerned about the lack of resolve shown by
the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, as foreseen
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). MacFhionnbhairr
describes the development of the New Agenda Declaration of 9 June 1998
and further steps by the NAC in the process leading to the successful
conclusion of negotiations on the Final Document at the 2000 NPT Review
Conference. He further examines the prospects for the implementation of thedisarmament undertakings made in 2000 in the perspective of the review
process and the next NPT Review Conference in 2005.
Topic: Chapter 16 “Ban on Nuclear Tests and Production of Nuclear
Fissile Materials”
Speaker: Masahiko Asada, professor of law, Kyoto University
The prospects for the entry into force of the CTBT are very poor. However,it has imposed a legal obligation not to conduct nuclear test explosions (throughthe law of treaties) and provided a verification mechanism for monitoring thecompliance with it even though the Treaty has yet to come into effect.
Nonetheless, given the provisional nature of the situation described above, theearly entry into force of the CTBT is essential. Regarding the Fissile Material
Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), opinions are divided over the target materials andverification systems, and negotiations have not even started. Political hurdles
must be removed to enable FMCT negotiations to begin as soon as possible.
By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

−5−

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Research Project on the Legitimacy and Rationality of New-interventionism

Meetings 11-14

Peace Activities and Patterns of International Intervention: A Discussion
The HPI Research Project on the Legitimacy and Rationality of Newinterventionism met four times between September and December 2001. The
following is a summary of the meetings:
The 11th meeting was held on September 18 at Toshi Center Hotel,
Tokyo, and featured two speakers: Toshiya Hoshino, the project’s leader andassociate professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka
University; and Akihiro Okochi, assistant director of the International Peace
Cooperation Division of the Japanese Foreign Ministry.
In a speech about the concept of new interventionism, Hoshino
categorized military interventions according to their motives and theoreticaljustifications and analyzed how ongoing discussions on the legality ofexisting international law, the political legitimacy of intervention, and thelogic of power and interest interact to lead to an act of intervention.
Pointing out that the existing collective security system based on the
U.N. Charter is designed to address conflicts between states, he argued that,when intervention in intra-state conflicts is viewed from a humanitarian
viewpoint, we should subordinate national security to “human security.”
Based on this observation, he proposed the concept of “collective humansecurity” to complement the current concept of U.N. Charter-based security.
In a presentation titled “International Peace Cooperation Law and NewInterventionism,” Okochi discussed a future amendment to the International
Peace Cooperation Law, or the so-called PKO Law, – the revised law’s
potential and the problems it may pose. He said the strict conditions
governing Japan’s participation in PKO activities are at odds with politicalrealities and that the same strict conditions should not be imposed on the
country’s participation in international humanitarian relief efforts.
The indications are that, given the current international climate, theworld is ready to adopt a more flexible approach to Japan’s participation in
PKO activities. The focus will be on the dispatch of PKO forces under
Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter and in the event that no cease-fire agreement
has been reached. Under the existing law, PKO participation requires aninterpretation of the law beyond the limits of its original mandate. Okochi
said that this discrepancy should be addressed in the revised law.
At the 12th meeting held on October 15 at Toshi Center Hotel in Tokyo,
Naoki Ishihara who had worked in the U.N. Headquarters PKO Finance
Section and is now managing director of the Oral History Project of theCenter of Excellence Program (COE) at the National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies, and Hiroshi Hayashi, chief of the research section of the
Ground Self-Defense Force Staff College, spoke respectively on the“Administrative and Financial Aspects of UN Peacekeeping Operations” andthe “Lessons from PKO in Cambodia and the Future of the Japanese PKO.”
Ishihara discussed the systemic problems posed by U.N. peacekeeping
operations and how such problems are dealt with politically by the United
Nations. He explained the PKO budgeting process from compilation to
execution. Later, he and project members discussed the enhancement of theUnited Nation’s PKO capabilities. Some participants noted that, whilestronger administrative functions are important, the most crucial factor is themember countries’ commitments to provide human, physical, and financial
resources. More efficient PKO activities will be impossible without explicit
consensus on such commitments.
Hayashi based his presentation on his PKO experiences in Cambodia
and his research at the National Institute for Defense Studies, which
examined major countries’ plans for the dispatch of PKO troops. On the

dispatch of Japanese Self-Defense Forces, Hayashi said that ambiguities
surrounding their use of arms had made their missions more difficult.
However, he added that as long as the restrictions on Japan’s PKO activities
remained, it might as well continue with its own approach, as all countries
adopt individual approaches toward the dispatch of PKO troops. He said
Japan should give more consideration to active engagement in Asia where itis expected to play a bigger role.
At the 13th meeting, held on November 5 at Toshi Center Hotel inTokyo, Yukie Osa, a project member and secretary general of the Association
for Aid and Relief, and Hideaki Shinoda, research associate at the Institute for
Peace Science, Hiroshima University, made presentations.
Osa reported on findings from a field study she conducted in Peshawar,
Pakistan, on relief work for Afghan refugees. Hundreds of thousands ofrefugees have fled to Pakistan since the United States launched air strikes
against Afghanistan, but most are living illegally in Pakistan’s tribal area andso are not officially recognized as refugees. Fearing internal instability, thePakistani government has designated the tribal area a refugee camp. However,security is poor since the area is effectively off-limits to the government andforeigners. As a result, it is extremely difficult to conduct relief work there. The
large number of land mines that remain in Afghanistan further complicate
humanitarian relief efforts.
In a speech on “The Issues and Implications of the ‘War against
Terrorism’,” Shinoda placed Washington’s use of force against al-Qaeda in
an international context and gave his opinion on how U.S. actions would
influence the future of international politics. His speech was followed by adiscussion on the implications of the use of force in terms of bothinternational law and international political realities, and how best to
combine military action with humanitarian aid now that the Taliban regime
has fallen.
The 14th meeting, held on December 14 at the Hiroshima Peace
Institute, featured speeches by Professor Hiroshi Yoda of Kyoto Women’s
University, and Tomoko Kase, a former official of the United Nations
Volunteers (UNV) at the Sarajevo Office of the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP). In this presentation on “Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Its Democratization Strategy: A Clash of
Civilizations?” Yoda discussed how useful such concepts as democracy anddemocratization strategies would be in the Islamic world, given their
Christian origins and in light of OSCE’s efforts to promote democracy andhuman rights in the Balkans where both Christian and Muslim sensibilities
must be taken into account. He also explained how some Islamic nations
define democracy in their constitutions.
Kase drew on her experience in the field to address issues arising fromthe growing number and variety of actors in humanitarian activities. She
recommended improving efficiency through inter-organizational cooperation
and using funds more effectively by avoiding overlaps between projects. She
cited a number of problems that could be solved through better coordination,
including the profit motive found in some humanitarian organizations, theinvolvement in projects for self-serving purposes, and the unequal
distribution of aid resources among regions. It was also pointed out thatmeasures are needed to prevent the over-dependence of aid recipients onhumanitarian organizations.
By Nobumasa Akiyama, assistant professor at HPIRecent Publications by HPI Researchers
President ¡ Haruhiro Fukui
・“Japan,” in Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger, and William A. Joseph, eds.,
Introduction to Comparative Politics (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin,2000), pp. 187-239. Co-author: Shigeko N. Fukai.
・Review of Michael J. Green and Patrick M. Cronin, eds., The U.S.-Japan
Alliance: Past, Present, and Future, in Journal of Japanese Studies 26:2
(Summer 2000), pp. 520-526.
・“Introduction,” in Lowell Dittmer, Haruhiro Fukui, and Peter N.S. Lee,eds., Informal Politics in East Asia (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

University Press, 2000), pp. 1-19.
・“Informal Politics of Japanese Diet Elections: Cases and Interpretations,”in Informal Politics in East Asia (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2000),
pp. 23-41. Co-author: Shigeko N. Fukai.
・Review of Aurelia George Mulgan, The Politics of Agriculture in Japan,
in Social Science Japan Journal 4:1 (April 2001), pp. 127-131.
・“Japan,” in Joel Krieger, ed., The Oxford Companion to Politics of theWorld, 2nd edition (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001), pp. 449-452.

−6−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

Professor ¡ Christian P. Scherrer
・Indigene Völker und Staat: Von Krieg und äußerer Einmischung zum
Frieden durch Autonomie. Der Fall Nicaragua [Indigenous peoples andstate: From conflict and foreign interference to pacification throughautonomy] , 2nd ed. (Moers: IFEK, 2000).
・“Teaching and Researching Genocide from a Comparative Perspective,”in The Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust (Proceedings ofConference on Education, Remembrance and Research) (Stockholm:
Regeringskansliet / Svensk Information, 2000), pp. 319-321.
・“The Challenge of Genocide Prevention,” Prevent Genocide (Washington
DC, 2000), at: http://preventgenocide.org/prevent/scherrer.htm
・“Ethno-Nationalismus als globales Phänomen” [Ethno-nationalism as a
global phenomenon], in Rupert Moser, ed., Die Bedeutung des Ethnischen
im Zeitalter der Globalisierung [The significance of ethnicity in the era ofglobalization] (Bern: Haupt, 2000), pp. 17-90.
・“Structural Prevention and Conflict Management, Imperatives of,” inLester Kurtz, ed., Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict. Vol. 3(San Diego, London, etc.: Academic Press, 2000), pp. 381-429.
・“Die Vereinten Nationen und die Menschenrechte – von Fall zu Fall” [TheUnited Nations and human rights – from case to case], Widerspruch 19(Jg., Nr. 38, Jan. 2000), pp. 22-35.
・War in the Congo (Moers: IRECOR, 2001).
・Free Nagaland – NE India’s Unsolved Question (Analysis of current
deadlock and compilation of interviews), ECOR 20 (Moers: IFEKIRECOR, 2001).
・Racism and Xenophobia in the Enlarging Europe. Findings and Essentials
for Anti-Racist Strategies (Moers: IFEK-IRECOR 2001).
・Peace Research for the 21st Century: A Call for Reorientation and New
Research Priorities. (Moers: IFEK-IRECOR, 2001) (Short version at:
http://www.transcend.org/).
・“Rassismus, Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Diskriminierung in Europa. Zwölf
Schritte für eine antirassistische Strategie” [Racism, xenophobia anddiscrimination in Europe. A twelve-step anti-racist strategy], Widerspruch
21 (Jg., Nr. 41, Dezember 2001), pp. 111-122.
・“Interstaatlicher Konflikt, Ethnizität und Massengewalt” [Intra-state
conflict, ethnicity and mass violence], in Christoph Butterwegge andGudrun Hentges, eds., Migration und Flucht im Zeichen derGlobalisierung [Migration and refugee movements in the framework ofglobalization] (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 2001), pp. 47-61.
・Structural Prevention of Ethnic Violence. Regulating Conflict throughAutonomy, Nationality Policies, and Self-governance (Houndmills:
Palgrave, 2002).
・Genocide and Crisis in Central Africa: Conflict Roots, Mass Violence, andRegional War (Westport, CT: Præger, 2002).
・Far from Oromia? Ethiopia’s existential antagonism remains virulent(Analysis and compilation of interviews), ECOR 21 (Moers: IFEKIRECOR, 2002).
・War against the Oromo and the Mass Exodus from Ethiopia. Refugees
Voices (Analysis and background to political crisis and forced migration)(Berlin: EPD, 2002). Co-author: Mekuria Bulcha.
・“Some Elements of a Theory of Ethno-nationalism: Causes, Structural
Features, Remedies and Its Application on the Basque Conflict,” in Juan
Gutierrez and Hernández Txomin, eds., Nationalism, Conflict andReconciliation (Onati: IISL 2002) .

on Foreign Affairs) No. 145 (September 2000), p.8.
・“Trends and review of nuclear issues in 2001,” a paper submitted to theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum A-bomb Study Group (2001), pp. 118.
・NIRA Research Report No. 20000005, Japan’s proactive peace andsecurity strategies, including the question of the nuclear umbrella(National Institute for Research Advancement, March 2001).
・“Conciliation efforts needed,” Asahi Shimbun, Hiroshima local page,
September 28, 2001.
・“Nuclear issues in the 21st century and the experience of the atomic
bomb,” Heiwa Kenkyu (Peace Studies), (The Peace Studies Association ofJapan), Vol. 26 (November 2001), pp. 39-48.
・“International community’s loss of rationality: Terrorism in the U.S. andmilitary intervention in Afghanistan,” Peace Culture, No. 143 (Hiroshima
Peace Culture Foundation, December 2001), p.3.

Assistant Professor ¡ Ikuko Togo
・“Recent Trends in Humanitarian Intervention and its Significance: An
Inquiry into its Contribution toward Democratization and Modernization,”
Kokusai Seiji (International Relations) Vol. 125, (October 2000), pp. 115130.
・Shiroh Shimaya, Ikuko Togo, and Katsuya Fukuoka, International
Comparative Analysis on Topology and Transfiguration of NGO/NPO
Peace-keeping and Environmental Protection Activities (Tokyo: BOC
Publishers, March 2001).
・“Humanitarian Intervention and its theory of International Politics:
striving for Humane Interest based on Goodness and Justice,” Kokusai
Mondai (International Affairs) (April 2001), pp. 15-32.
・“Scenario for ‘Reconstruction of Afghanistan’ after Taliban,” Chuo
Kouron, (December 2001), pp. 64-69. Reprinted in Korean quarterly
journal, Japan Forum, No. 51, pp. 82-88.

Assistant Professor ¡ Nobumasa Akiyama
・“Security frameworks and conflicts along the Silk Road,” World Trend(Institute of Developing Economies, October 2000), pp. 20-23.
・“International environment surrounding the Silk Road and Japan’scommitment” (Research Institute for Peace and Security, 2000), p. 40.
・“The geopolitical significance of Georgia,” Research on the Possibility of
the Caspian Basin as an Oil-supplying Region, Section 2, Chapter 2 (FY2001 Contract Research for the Agency of Natural Resources and Energy,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Research Institute for Peaceand Security, March 2001), pp. 71-86.
・“Avoiding a marriage of convenience: Thoughts on a new Japanese state –NGOs and humanitarian relief in conflict,” Peace Studies Bulletin, No. 20(June 2001), pp. 15-21.
・“Positive pacifism” PRIME (International Peace Research Institute, Meiji
Gakuin University, September 2001), pp. 68-70.
・“Terrorism and war – the role of Japan,” Asahi Shimbun, December 1,
2001, p. 37.

Visiting Research Fellow ¡ Masamichi Kamiya
Associate Professor ¡ Kazumi Mizumoto
・“Japan’s nuclear-free policy and its tasks,” in Hiroshi Yamada & Gen
Kikkawa, eds., Why Are Nuclear Weapons Not Abolished?: Nuclear
Weapons and International Relations (Kyoto: Horitsubunkasha, 2000),
pp. 231-244.
・“Idealism and realism in nuclear disarmament proposals: Unsolved issuesof the Tokyo Forum report,” Hiroshima Peace Science (Institute for Peace
Science, Hiroshima University, 2000) No. 22, pp.115-135.
・“Trends and review of nuclear issues in 1999,” a paper submitted to theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum A-bomb Study Group (2000), pp.113.
・“No progress in nuclear disarmament without U.S.-Russia agreement,”
Asahi Shimbun, Hiroshima local page, May 19, 2000.
・“Concrete measures for the 21st century,” Mainichi Shimbun, August 5,
2000.
・“How to realize nuclear elimination?” (lead essay) Gaiko Forum (ForumHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002

・“Disarmament through small arms,” Yomiuri Shimbun, March 30, 2000.
・“Prospects for the NPT Review Conference,” Asahi Shimbun, April 11,
2000.
・“Overview of the 6th Review Conference of NPT and the role of NGOs,”
United Nations Quarterly, No. 21 (United Nations Association for Japan,
August 15, 2000), pp. 7-17.
・“NGOs’ contribution to international regulations for small arms,” Asahi
Shimbun, May 20, 2000.
・“The U.N. Conference on Small Arms – Hiroshima’s hopes for peace,”
Chugoku Shimbun, August 4, 2001.
・“International cooperation for regulating small arms,” Mainichi Shimbun,
August 20, 2001.

−7−

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Hello from HPI

Dr. Christian P. Scherrer

Professor

Scherrer specialized in conflict and peace studies since themid 1980s. He gained a Master’s degree in ethnology,sociology, and philosophy in 1982 and a Ph. D in social sciencein 1985 from the University of Bern. He was the head of theEthnic Conflicts Research Project (ECOR) since 1987 andserved as an international expert and consultant for NGOs andU.N. organizations in the 1990s, as a senior researcher at Copenhagen Peace
Research Institute (1997-99) and as research director at the Institute for Research on
Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution (1999-2001). He was appointed professor at theHiroshima Peace Institute effective on January 1, 2002.
Scherrer has contributed to theory and applications of peace research. During theperiod 1987-92, he conducted field research on ethnic nationalism in the Horn ofAfrica (focusing on Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan), Southeast Asia (mainly Burma,
northern regions of Thailand and Yunan, China) and Central America (Nicaragua,
Panama, and Guatemala) and Mexico. He investigated genocide in Rwanda in
1994-95 for the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights andconducted in 1996, 1998 and 2001 fact finding missions and research in Tanzania,

Rwanda, and Burundi for UNESCO, UNV, UNDP, OECD-DAC (Development
Assistance Committee), the government of Rwanda and IRECOR (the Institute for
Research on Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution).
On the basis of his extensive empiric research Scherrer started to reevaluate andrevise global conflict indexes, definitions and theoretical approaches. Recently, heproposed a wholesale reorientation of peace research, which aims at constructing a
new comprehensive theory of contemporary mass violence and which involves afusion of polemological research (on war) with comparative genocide research,studies into mass murder, and what has been named “democide” and “politicide,”i.e., state terrorism and slaughter by government.
Scherrer states: “By experiencing life in the world’s most deadly conflict areas I
learned that there is nothing more valuable than peace and justice. But it was in
Rwanda in 1994 where I investigated the worst crime against humanity in the late
20th century. This deeply shocking experience changed my life. Ever since I have
tried to contribute to the prevention of violence and genocide and to the peacefulresolution of conflict – not only on a theoretical level but also in practice. Such
activities range from policy advisory services to consultancies for the United Nations
and other international organizations, as well as advocacy for threatened groups andcivic organizations in a variety of countries and regions around the world.”

D I A R Y
Nov. 1 – Feb. 28, 2002
◆Nov. 1-2 Nobumasa Akiyama attends Japan-Russia atomic energy cooperation
workshop organized by Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM).
◆Nov. 1 Kazumi Mizumoto attends second meeting of working group of Committee
for Studying Peace Policies, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and National Institutefor Research Advancement (NIRA).
◆Nov. 5 HPI’s project team on the Legitimacy and Rationality of New-interventionism
holds its 13th meeting.
◆Nov. 10 HPI President Haruhiro Fukui delivers lecture, “Differences between
Japanese and American universities: Systems, administration and personnel
management,” at Chugoku-Shikoku branch meeting of Japanese Association for
American Studies, at Hiroshima University.
◆Nov. 12 HPI’s project team on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century holds its
16th meeting.
◆Nov. 15 Akiyama delivers lecture at Hiroshima Nishi Rotary Club.
◆Nov. 16-18 Fukui delivers lecture at symposium on English training at college, heldat Okinawa National Youth House and organized by National Institute of Multimedia
Education.
◆Nov. 18-19 Mizumoto, Akiyama and Masamichi Kamiya attend 4th International
Symposium on Korea and the Search for Peace in Northeast Asia, organized by United
Nations Trust Fund (UNTF), at Kyoto International Conference Hall.
◆Nov. 20-22 Ikuko Togo attends international symposium on “Peace Education in
Asia-Pacific Conflict Zones” in Seoul, South Korea, sponsored by United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Asia-Pacific Centreof Education for International Understanding (APCEIU). She gives lecture titled, “WhatEast Asia should do toward building sustainable peace: ‘The century of human rights’from Asia.”◆Nov. 21 Fukui attends meeting at Radiation Effects Research Foundation.
Kamiya visits Arms Control and Disarmament Division of Japanese Foreign Ministry,and discusses 56th United Nations General Assembly 1st committee.
◆Nov. 22-24 Akiyama attends meeting on “The United Nations in the global governanceera: East Asia and world peace,” sponsored by Asia University Federation in Bangkok,
Thailand.
◆Nov. 23 Fukui gives lecture at Peace Youth Summit, organized by Women’s
International League for Peace and Freedom in Tokyo.
◆Nov. 24-25 Fukui delivers lecture “Japanese politics and peace in Asia” at Korean
Association for the Study of Contemporary Japan in Korea.
◆Nov. 27 Akiyama speaks at Hamamatsu Rotary Club.
◆Nov. 30 Mizumoto attends workshop on arms control, disarmament and security, cosponsored by Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) and Center for Promotion of
Disarmament and Non-proliferation.
Guest: Yoshifumi Okamura, director of Arms Control and Disarmament Division, JapaneseForeign Ministry on “Recent trends in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”◆Dec. 11-13 Akiyama attends NGO conference in Tokyo on the reconstruction of
Afghanistan.
◆Dec. 14 Mizumoto attends second meeting of Committee for Studying Peace Policies
organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and National Institute for Research Advancement(NIRA).
HPI’s project team on the Legitimacy and Rationality of New-interventionism holds its

14th meeting.
◆Dec. 21 HPI holds research forum. Daiji Sadamori, staff writer in the foreign news
department of The Asahi Shimbun gives lecture on “The War in Afghanistan and its
Implications in the Islamic World.”◆Dec. 28 HPI’s project team on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century holds its
17th meeting.
◆Jan. 10 Mizumoto attends inaugural joint conference at HPI of Japan Center for
Preventive Diplomacy, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations(CICIR) and HPI.
◆Jan. 25 HPI’s project team on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21th Century holds its
18th meeting.
◆Jan. 29-30 Fukui serves as a commentator at workshop of National Institute ofMultimedia Education in Chiba.
◆Jan. 29 Mizumoto attends third meeting of working group of Committee forStudying Peace Policies organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and National Institute for
Research Advancement (NIRA).
◆Feb. 5 Fukui speaks on the problems of peace in the 21st century at Hiroshima City
Hall Auditorium.
Mizumoto and Kamiya attend inaugural conference on “The future of conflict prevention
in Asia and the Japan-China relationship,” co-sponsored by Japan Center for Preventive
Diplomacy, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and HPI and
held at International House of Japan in Tokyo.
◆Feb. 7-15 Akiyama visits Japanese Embassy in Vienna, International Intstitute forApplied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
and meets staff members of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE) in Vienna, and visits U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) andInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Finnish Foreign Ministry, andTampere Peace Research Institute in Helsinki, and attends seminar on East Timor in
London.
◆Feb. 8 Mizumoto attends World Partnership Forum in Hiroshima organized by
Japanese Foreign Ministry, and Hiroshima Prefecture and Hiroshima City.
◆Feb. 17 Mizumoto gives lecture on the role of Hiroshima in the 21st century as partof Hiroshima Project organized by Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Feb. 20 Mizumoto attends Peace Policies Symposium organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture and National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA).
◆Feb. 21 Akiyama gives presentation on Japan’s Security policy after the September 11
terrorist attacks at international conference, “Leaping for the Future: Peace and Prosperityin the Korean Peninsula” organized by Kim Dae-Jung Peace Foundation, Seoul, Korea.
–– Visitors to HPI ––◆Nov. 15 Fay Beauchamp, professor of English, Community College of Philadelphia.
◆Dec. 20 Liu Jinqin, Zhang Fengzhou, Fei Yongyi, Ru Guangrong and Wang Yidi, all
are members of Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament.
◆Jan. 11 Purnendra Jain, professor of Adelaide University.
◆Jan. 22 Subramani, professor of literature at University of South Pacific in Fiji.
◆Jan. 25 Chung-Suk Koh and four other officials of Jeju Development Institute.
◆Jan. 28 Michiko Tsuchihashi and three other officials of Hiroshima Religious Cooperation and Peace Center (HRCP).

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.4, No.3 March 26, 2002
Copyright 2002 HPI All rights reserved●Issued by Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg. 12th Floor, 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, JAPAN E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp●Printed by Tokatoo Print Media co., ltd.

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.4 No.3 March 2002