HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace InstituteVol. 2 No. 2 September 1999

Tokyo Forum adopts report, calls for immediate action
Fabric of international security showing signs of unraveling, report warns

After three days of intensive discussions, members of the Tokyo Forumfor Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament wound up a year ofdeliberations by adopting a final report calling on nuclear weapon states totake bold steps to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Twenty representatives from
16 countries participated in the final meeting, held at a Tokyo hotel from July
23 to 25, 1999.
The 50-page report, titled "Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan forthe 21st Century," calls for the United States and Russia to each reduce theirdeployed strategic warheads to 1,000, to be followed by a multilateral processof further reductions involving the three remaining declared nuclear powers.
Finally, the report calls on all de facto nuclear states to bring their nuclear
arsenals to "one step short of zero."
In Part One of its report, titled "The Nuclear Dangers," the forum
surveyed worldwide developments in the second half of the 1990s, outlining
the deteriorating situation with respect to nuclear proliferation. Part Two,
titled "Mending Strategic Relations to Reduce Nuclear Dangers,"-which isthe first of four parts containing recommendations-focused on the three
nuclear weapon states of the United States, Russia and China in the global
context of nuclear disarmament, as well as on South Asia, the Middle East andNortheast Asia in the regional context.
In Part Three, titled "Stopping and Reversing Nuclear Proliferation," theforum listed concrete measures to be taken immediately to promote nuclear
non-proliferation, such as tightening controls on fissile material andstrengthening nuclear export controls. In Part Four, titled "Achieving Nuclear
Disarmament," the forum recommended that a process of phased reduction betaken to bring the number of nuclear weapons to "one step short of zero.""Key Recommendations," the fifth and final part of the report, consists of
17 important recommendations selected from the whole report. One of therecommendations reads: "No other cities must be put through the devastation
wrought by nuclear weapons and the agony of recovering from their effects,
endured by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapon states must reaffirm thegoal of elimination and take sustained, concrete steps towards this end."
While participants tried to achieve a consensus in adopting the draft
report, forum members from some countries of which strict demands werebeing made, expressed dissent toward these particular recommendations.
On the first and second days, participants split up into four
subcommittees to discuss China, the Middle East, South Asia and editorial
matters concerning the final report. Some of the discussions ran from earlymorning until late at night.
The forum had billed itself as a successor to the Canberra Commission
on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which was established by theAustralian government in 1995. Comparing the reports drawn up by the twobodies, Yasushi Akashi, a cochairman of the forum, told a press conference
held after the meeting, "Our recommendations could be evaluated as having
taken a more realistic approach since the international status quo has become
more serious than (in 1996), when the Canberra Commission released its
report, (which) was based on an optimistic viewpoint of the post-Cold War
era."

CONTENTSTokyo Forum adopts report, calls for immediate action
Forum report a 'wake-up call' to the international community
Report adds new dimension to quest for global disarmament
Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report by Mitsuru Kurosawa
Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report by Hideo Tsuchiyama
Forum sets common goal for idealists, realists
From Canberra to Tokyo
Need for the triangle partnership for the stable Korean Peninsula
Japan supporting denuclearization efforts in former Soviet Union
TopicsHello from HPI
Diary

Robert O'Neill, who also participated in the Canberra Commission, said,"Up until just few years ago, we talked about five nuclear weapon states. But
now there are ten." In response, he emphasized the importance of suchinternational forums continuing their work, saying, "We see our mission on
two levels-education of international public opinion and the offering of theideas to governments, particularly for immediate and short term measures."
The Tokyo Forum was organized on the initiative of the Japanese
government following nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May
1998. The forum, cosponsored by the Japan Institute of International Affairs
and the Hiroshima Peace Institute, met three times before the final meetingin Tokyo in August 1998; in Hiroshima in December 1998; and in New Yorkin April 1999.
Nobuo Matsunaga, also a forum cochairman, emphasized the report's
significance, saying, "All the members of the forum shared a strong
awareness of the need for specific steps toward nuclear elimination."
Referring to Japan's initiative in establishing the forum, Matsunaga added,"Many of (the forum members) have expressed their expectation that Japan
would continue to play an active role in this regard."
The forum did not propose a time frame for the elimination of nuclear
weapons, despite requests to do so by NGOs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Referring to those requests, Michael Krepon, chairman of the forum's drafting
committee, said, "Making a declaration is one approach. But we concluded
that the circumstances were so disturbing, and the train line was so negative,that we had an obligation to focus on the near-term, clarifying the dangers thatnow exist."
The forum's cochairmen handed the report to Japanese Prime Minister
Keizo Obuchi at his official residence on July 26. Obuchi suggested he waswilling to use the report to promote Japan's diplomatic role in disarmamentissues. "I would like to make every effort to ensure that the recommendations
are acted on one by one," Obuchi said.
By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI

List of participants
Lt. Gen. Nishat Ahmad

Mr. Michael Krepon

Dr. Zakaria Haji Ahamad

Dr. Patricia Lewis

Former President of the Institute ofRegional Studies, Islamabad

Dean, Faculty of Social Science andHumanities, National University of
Malaysia, Selangor

Amb. Marcos Castrioto de Azambuja
Ambassador of Brazil to France

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

Director of UNIDIR, Geneva

Amb. Margaret Mason

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

Prof. Sergei Yevgenevich Blagovolin

Prof. Robert O'Neill

Amb. Emilio Jorge Cardenas

Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly

Dr. Therese Delpech

Prof. John Simpson

Deputy Director of World Economics andInternational Relations Institute, Moscow

Executive Director of HSBC Argentine
S.A., Buenos Aires
Director of Strategic Affairs Atomic
Energy Commission, Paris

Amb. Rolf Ekeus

１
２
２〜3
３
４
４〜５
５
６
７
８
８
８

(Alphabetical order)

Chichele Professor of the History of War,All Souls College, University of Oxford
Director, Al-Ahram Center for Politicaland Strategic Studies, Cairo

Director of Mountbatten Centre forInternational Studies, University ofSouthampton, U.K.

Ambassador of Sweden to the U.S.A.

Amb. Hennadiy Udovenko

Dean of School of Foreign Service,
Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

-Cochairmen-

Dr. Robert Gallucci
Mr. Hu Xiaodi

Member of Ukrainian Parliament

Deputy Director-General, Department of Mr. Yasushi Akashi
Former President of Hiroshima Peace
Arms Control and Disarmament, Ministryof Foreign Affairs, China
InstituteAmb. Ryukichi ImaiDistinguished Scholar, Institute forInternational Policy Studies, Tokyo

Dr. Joachim Krause−１−

Deputy Director of the Research Instituteof the DGAP (German Society for
Foreign Affairs)

Mr. Nobuo Matsunaga

Vice Chairman of the Japan Institute ofInternational Affairs, Tokyo

Report adds new dimension to quest for global disarmamentTokyo forum report discussed at 4th U.N. Conference on Disarmament Issues in Kyoto
By Masamichi Kamiya
The Fourth U.N. Conference on
Disarmament Issues, held in Kyoto, Japan, from
July 27 to 30, was convened in a timely manner,since it offered experts in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament their first realchance to scrutinize and discuss the contents of

the Tokyo Forum's final Report, adopted on July
25. Yasushi Akashi, a cochairman of the forum
and former president of the Hiroshima Peace
Institute, was invited to give a keynote address at
the conference. In his speech, Akashi briefed
participants on the contents of the report.

Overview of the conference
About 60 experts from 24 countries
participated in this year's conference, the main
theme of which was "Security Concerns andDisarmament Strategy for the Next Decade."
Such issues as the prospects for the NPT Review
Conference in 2000, theresponsibilityofnuclearweapon-states (NWS), thecomplexities of the Korean
Peninsula,
missile proliferation,
Concrete steps needed, forum's drafting committee head says
nuclear weapon-free zones andthe possibility of convening the
Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Iraqi nuclear program was stopped
fourth Special Session of theStimson Center in Washington, D.C. and chairman of and a number of important
U.N. General Assembly on
the drafting committee of the Tokyo Forum, stressed countries joined the NPT, including
Disarmament (SSOD IV), were
the importance of formulating concrete measures South Africa, Argentina, Brazil,
among the most contentious.
toward nuclear disarmament during a lecture on July Ukraine, and Belarus. We had a
Many of the participants
28. In his lecture, titled "The next steps in reducing decade of wonderful news fromshared concern over the contents
nuclear dangers," sponsored by the Hiroshima Peace 1985 to 1995. But now this treaty isof the report, however, thisInstitute and the Hiroshima Peace Culture in serious jeopardy.
article will focus on Akashi's
The language that we use inFoundation, Krepon explained the details of theaddress and ensuing discussions
forum's deliberations and the content of its final the Tokyo Forum report reflects the fear that thisabout the forum's report.
report. About 200 citizens attended the lecture, held treaty is in serious danger of unraveling. The forum
at the International Conference Center in Hiroshima. looked at all of these trends and decided that we
Summary of Akashi's keynoteneeded to issue a wake-up call to the international
Following is the summary of Krepon's lecture:
speechcommunity.
Akashi's speech was
When we began our deliberations, our focus wasNow, what are the actions we recommended? We
divided into the following three
on India and Pakistan. But the longer we worked, the believe that the NPT is an essential document. We
sections: the genesis of themore it became apparent that we had to issue a report need to deal with the sicknesses that are now evident,
Tokyo Forum; an overview ofthat looked at the entire landscape of nuclear danger. and to restore this treaty to good health. The treaty
the Tokyo Forum's final report;
There were many negative developments growing in consists of a bargain-a commitment by the nuclear
and future prospects after the
many different ways.
weapon states to eliminate their arsenals, and that ofTokyo Forum. In emphasizing
We saw that the relationships between the major the non-nuclear weapon states to continue to abstain
certain points, Akashi said:
powers were in bad shape-especially between the from acquiring these weapons. And this bargain has
U.S. and Russia, and between the U.S. and China. We to be reaffirmed.
a) thatnuclearnonworried about the loose nukes in the former Soviet
But the Tokyo Forum is not simply making calls
proliferation
andUnion. The CTBT is still stalled by the legislation of for declarations and reaffirmations-we call for
disarmament, and regional
the U.S., Russia and China. This treaty is not moving specific steps by the nuclear weapon states tosecurity concerns are
in India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, all of progressively reduce and then eliminate theirinseparable.
which are required to act on the treaty before it enters weapons. We call on the U.S. and Russia to combineb) that the core of the NPT is
into force. We saw a situation in which the existing START II and START III. Moreover, we call on thepartnership between NWS
moratorium on nuclear testing could not be two countries to do better than START III and toand non-nuclear-weaponconfidently assumed.
lower the threshold for the next step-down to thestates (NNWS).
We looked at a number of regions, not just South thousand deployed weapons. We debated missilec) that security cannot be
Asia. We were deeply troubled by developments in defenses a great deal. We believe that zero nuclear
guaranteed by possessing
Northeast Asia. In Iraq, the United Nations weapons on hair-trigger alert are a necessary step
nuclear weapons.
inspections had been suspended. Iran is moving ahead toward zero nuclear weapons. We talk about "ded) that the deterrence function
with its nuclear program with help from Russia. And nuclearization."of nuclear weapons is at
if Iran and Iraq proceed with the development of
Finally, let me talk about what is not in thisbest provisional, and thenuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them, that report. We did not set a timetable because of theobjective of the Tokyois going to have major repercussions in the Middle seriousness of the situation. The gravity of theForum
was to achieve theEast. We saw (that) the proliferation of missiles...is situation forced us to concentrate on specific steps
eliminationof
those
proceeding at a disturbing pace. We looked around that are needed now. Ambitious objectives will not
weapons.
and we asked ourselves what the likely end result of prompt the necessary action. A near-term deadline
With respect to future
all of these trends will be unless they are stalled and was so contrary to the trends that exist, and a longprospects after the Tokyo
reversed. We looked to the NPT and said collectively term deadline was not helpful for elimination. So we
Forum, Akashi illustrated fivethat that is where all of these problems will come concluded that our obligation under the current
points. First, NWS may begin
together.
circumstances is to lay out a plan of action to reduce
negotiations toward concluding
The NPT, just four years ago, was extended these dangers in the near term-keeping in mind thata legally binding treaty ofindefinitely by the international community. That was the long-term goal is the complete elimination of
the culmination of a decade of very good news- these weapons.
negative security assurances for
START I was ratified, START II was negotiated, andparties to the NPT. Second,
the CTBT was concluded; a decade in which thetechnical
andfinancialassistance for Russia is a matter

Forum report a 'wake-up call' to the international community−２−of great urgency for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Third,
the United Nations must be reevaluated.
On this point, Akashi proposed that a
subcentre of the U.N. Regional Centre
for Peace and Disarmament in Asia andthe Pacific be established in Japan.
Fourth, the parameter of disarmament
must be expanded as types of conflictchange. In other words, other weaponsof mass destruction, such as chemicaland biological weapons, small arms andlight weapons, must be tackled if true
disarmament is to be achieved. And
fifth, national security has to be viewed
from a wider political, economic, social,and even cultural, perspective as theworld's landscape changes. According to
Akashi, "human security" constitutes amulti-disciplinary notion of which peaceand disarmament is a part.

Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report

Ambitious forum report a solid basis for government action
By Mitsuru Kurosawa
One of the most significant features of theReport of the Tokyo Forum is its analysis of theinternational status quo regarding the problem of
nuclear proliferation. The report describes in great
detail and with much persuasiveness the growing
severity of the situation. It pointed out thedeteriorating relationship, in the global context,
between the United States and Russia, and theUnited States and China, with the United States as
the sole military superpower, as well as the dangerof nuclear proliferation in the regional context, inSouth Asia, the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
The report warns that nuclear nonproliferation anddisarmament treaties could become "hollow
instruments" unless action is taken to reverse thesetrends.
Second, the forum deliberated on aremarkably wide range of issues. It discussed not
only nuclear weapons, but also other weapons ofmass destruction, including chemical andbiological weapons. It also made an in-depth
examination of missile defenses and related issues.
And it referred not only to relationships between
governments, but also to those between terrorist
organizations and other sub-state groups.
Third, each of the recommendations isrealistic, and can be acted on immediately or in the
short term. The recommendations were made with
the intention of righting the current situation, about
which forum members share a common anxiety
given the increasing threat posed by nuclear
weapons. For those who had expected acomprehensive program for nuclear eliminationthat would go beyond the report of the Canberra
Commission, or one that contained a specific timeframe, the report might have proved disappointing.
But the stance of the Tokyo Forum is based on therecognition that situation has changed since thedays of the Canberra Commission, when the world
had reason to be optimistic about the prospects fornuclear disarmament, and has instead become
more dangerous.
Fourth, the recommendations make a numberof substantive demands on individual
governments. It had been feared that the forum's
recommendations would be watered down andcontain minimal content by the need to reachconsensus, particularly since representatives from
India, Pakistan and China participated in theforum. However, the final report included areas onwhich agreement had not been reached, due to adesire to maintain strenuous demands on national

General discussion on the Tokyo
Forum's report
On the afternoon of the second day,participants
heldunscheduled
discussions on the contents of thereport. A participant from the UnitedStates said he was concerned that thetone of the report was too pessimistic;
for instance, in the context of the NPT
regime's status. A participant from India
argued that the report did not fullyrecognize the responsibility of NWS,
and that no mention was made of theissue of the nuclear umbrella. An expert
from Japan raised the concern that theTokyo Forum could have talked more
about the issue of "no first use" ofnuclear weapons. Doubts were also
raised by an American participant about
the feasibility of establishing apermanent body of the NPT. A
Bangladeshi participant wondered
whether or not the Tokyo Forum
discussed the feasibility of convening
the fourth Special Session on
Disarmament, and a Pakistani expert
asked whether the forum had considered
its position on the question of Kashmir.
Akashi was joined at theconference by three other members of
the Tokyo Forum. They all responded toquestions and observations honestly,
and urged participants to read the entire
text of the Forum report since it
contains 40 or 50 recommendations andsuggestions, not just the 17
recommendations listed at the end of the
document.

Conclusion
Ryukichi Imai, a scholar at the Institute forInternational Policy Studies and a member of theTokyo Forum, said during one of the conference
sessions, "I only think that just as the Tokyo
Forum carried the torch the Canberra
Commission had started, some third country willtake up the theme and continue the detailed
technical, political and legal processes for theelimination of nuclear weapons." In this regard,
the recommendations adopted by the Tokyo

governments. In addition to the 17
key recommendations in Part Fiveof the report, other sections
contain several times more
recommendations.
The fifth significant featureof the report is the linking of
nuclear nonproliferation to nuclear
disarmament. Since the forum wasestablished following nuclear tests conducted byIndia and Pakistan, there was a fear that it would
focus solely on nuclear nonproliferation andneglect nuclear disarmament. However, one of thereport's key recommendations was to emphasize
the reaffirmation of the NPT's central bargainthat the treaty requires both disarmament andnonproliferation; in effect, that the nuclear weapon
states must make tangible progress in nuclear
disarmament, while the non-nuclear weapon states
must rally behind the treaty. Strengthening the link
between these two elements is a basic tenet of thereport.
Finally, I would like to point out some aspectsof the report that could be described as insufficientcompared with other disarmament studies. One isthat the forum dealt with the issue of "no first-use"
only with extreme caution, while acknowledging
elsewhere that it believes the only function of
nuclear weapons is to deter the use of othernuclear weapons. The other problem is that not asingle mention was made of the idea of a
Northeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zoneeven as a topic for the middle- or long-term-eventhough one of its key recommendations was thedenuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The Tokyo Forum was initiated by theJapanese government, and the prime minister andforeign minister have promised to play an activerole in promoting the report's recommendations.
The Japanese government now has the
responsibility to make every effort to help thoserecommendations put into practice, and it isanticipated that Japan will use the report to play anactive role in diplomatic efforts in the area of
nuclear disarmament.
Kurosawa is dean of the Osaka School ofInternational Public Policy at Osaka University.

Forum are not the last chapter of the story;
rather, they are the basis for nourishing an
innovative dimension to the cause of nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament.
On August 4th, following the Tokyo
Forum's final meeting, Akashi and Nobuo
Matsunaga, cochairmen of the forum, visited the
U.N. headquarters in New York to present thereport to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Commending the timely initiative of theJapanese government, Annan said: "Theinternational community will study (the Tokyo
Forum's recommendations) with a view to
reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons in the−３−world." The Tokyo Forum's report will soon
become an official U.N. document and, it isexpected, will stimulate negotiations on nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament at the U.N.
level.
Kamiya is a visiting research fellow at HPI.

See the full text on HPI's Web site at
ht
t
p:
/
/
s
er
v.
peace.
hi
r
os
hi
ma‑
cu.
ac.
j
p/

TheTokyoFor
um ReportReport adds new dimension to quest for global disarmamentTokyo forum report discussed at 4th U.N. Conference on Disarmament Issues in Kyoto
By Masamichi Kamiya
The Fourth U.N. Conference on
Disarmament Issues, held in Kyoto, Japan, from
July 27 to 30, was convened in a timely manner,since it offered experts in nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament their first realchance to scrutinize and discuss the contents of

the Tokyo Forum's final Report, adopted on July
25. Yasushi Akashi, a cochairman of the forum
and former president of the Hiroshima Peace
Institute, was invited to give a keynote address at
the conference. In his speech, Akashi briefed
participants on the contents of the report.

Overview of the conference
About 60 experts from 24 countries
participated in this year's conference, the main
theme of which was "Security Concerns andDisarmament Strategy for the Next Decade."
Such issues as the prospects for the NPT Review
Conference in 2000, theresponsibilityofnuclearweapon-states (NWS), thecomplexities of the Korean
Peninsula,
missile proliferation,
Concrete steps needed, forum's drafting committee head says
nuclear weapon-free zones andthe possibility of convening the
Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Iraqi nuclear program was stopped
fourth Special Session of theStimson Center in Washington, D.C. and chairman of and a number of important
U.N. General Assembly on
the drafting committee of the Tokyo Forum, stressed countries joined the NPT, including
Disarmament (SSOD IV), were
the importance of formulating concrete measures South Africa, Argentina, Brazil,
among the most contentious.
toward nuclear disarmament during a lecture on July Ukraine, and Belarus. We had a
Many of the participants
28. In his lecture, titled "The next steps in reducing decade of wonderful news fromshared concern over the contents
nuclear dangers," sponsored by the Hiroshima Peace 1985 to 1995. But now this treaty isof the report, however, thisInstitute and the Hiroshima Peace Culture in serious jeopardy.
article will focus on Akashi's
The language that we use inFoundation, Krepon explained the details of theaddress and ensuing discussions
forum's deliberations and the content of its final the Tokyo Forum report reflects the fear that thisabout the forum's report.
report. About 200 citizens attended the lecture, held treaty is in serious danger of unraveling. The forum
at the International Conference Center in Hiroshima. looked at all of these trends and decided that we
Summary of Akashi's keynoteneeded to issue a wake-up call to the international
Following is the summary of Krepon's lecture:
speechcommunity.
Akashi's speech was
When we began our deliberations, our focus wasNow, what are the actions we recommended? We
divided into the following three
on India and Pakistan. But the longer we worked, the believe that the NPT is an essential document. We
sections: the genesis of themore it became apparent that we had to issue a report need to deal with the sicknesses that are now evident,
Tokyo Forum; an overview ofthat looked at the entire landscape of nuclear danger. and to restore this treaty to good health. The treaty
the Tokyo Forum's final report;
There were many negative developments growing in consists of a bargain-a commitment by the nuclear
and future prospects after the
many different ways.
weapon states to eliminate their arsenals, and that ofTokyo Forum. In emphasizing
We saw that the relationships between the major the non-nuclear weapon states to continue to abstain
certain points, Akashi said:
powers were in bad shape-especially between the from acquiring these weapons. And this bargain has
U.S. and Russia, and between the U.S. and China. We to be reaffirmed.
a) thatnuclearnonworried about the loose nukes in the former Soviet
But the Tokyo Forum is not simply making calls
proliferation
andUnion. The CTBT is still stalled by the legislation of for declarations and reaffirmations-we call for
disarmament, and regional
the U.S., Russia and China. This treaty is not moving specific steps by the nuclear weapon states tosecurity concerns are
in India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, all of progressively reduce and then eliminate theirinseparable.
which are required to act on the treaty before it enters weapons. We call on the U.S. and Russia to combineb) that the core of the NPT is
into force. We saw a situation in which the existing START II and START III. Moreover, we call on thepartnership between NWS
moratorium on nuclear testing could not be two countries to do better than START III and toand non-nuclear-weaponconfidently assumed.
lower the threshold for the next step-down to thestates (NNWS).
We looked at a number of regions, not just South thousand deployed weapons. We debated missilec) that security cannot be
Asia. We were deeply troubled by developments in defenses a great deal. We believe that zero nuclear
guaranteed by possessing
Northeast Asia. In Iraq, the United Nations weapons on hair-trigger alert are a necessary step
nuclear weapons.
inspections had been suspended. Iran is moving ahead toward zero nuclear weapons. We talk about "ded) that the deterrence function
with its nuclear program with help from Russia. And nuclearization."of nuclear weapons is at
if Iran and Iraq proceed with the development of
Finally, let me talk about what is not in thisbest provisional, and thenuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them, that report. We did not set a timetable because of theobjective of the Tokyois going to have major repercussions in the Middle seriousness of the situation. The gravity of theForum
was to achieve theEast. We saw (that) the proliferation of missiles...is situation forced us to concentrate on specific steps
eliminationof
those
proceeding at a disturbing pace. We looked around that are needed now. Ambitious objectives will not
weapons.
and we asked ourselves what the likely end result of prompt the necessary action. A near-term deadline
With respect to future
all of these trends will be unless they are stalled and was so contrary to the trends that exist, and a longprospects after the Tokyo
reversed. We looked to the NPT and said collectively term deadline was not helpful for elimination. So we
Forum, Akashi illustrated fivethat that is where all of these problems will come concluded that our obligation under the current
points. First, NWS may begin
together.
circumstances is to lay out a plan of action to reduce
negotiations toward concluding
The NPT, just four years ago, was extended these dangers in the near term-keeping in mind thata legally binding treaty ofindefinitely by the international community. That was the long-term goal is the complete elimination of
the culmination of a decade of very good news- these weapons.
negative security assurances for
START I was ratified, START II was negotiated, andparties to the NPT. Second,
the CTBT was concluded; a decade in which thetechnical
andfinancialassistance for Russia is a matter

Forum report a 'wake-up call' to the international community−２−of great urgency for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Third,
the United Nations must be reevaluated.
On this point, Akashi proposed that a
subcentre of the U.N. Regional Centre
for Peace and Disarmament in Asia andthe Pacific be established in Japan.
Fourth, the parameter of disarmament
must be expanded as types of conflictchange. In other words, other weaponsof mass destruction, such as chemicaland biological weapons, small arms andlight weapons, must be tackled if true
disarmament is to be achieved. And
fifth, national security has to be viewed
from a wider political, economic, social,and even cultural, perspective as theworld's landscape changes. According to
Akashi, "human security" constitutes amulti-disciplinary notion of which peaceand disarmament is a part.

Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report

Ambitious forum report a solid basis for government action
By Mitsuru Kurosawa
One of the most significant features of theReport of the Tokyo Forum is its analysis of theinternational status quo regarding the problem of
nuclear proliferation. The report describes in great
detail and with much persuasiveness the growing
severity of the situation. It pointed out thedeteriorating relationship, in the global context,
between the United States and Russia, and theUnited States and China, with the United States as
the sole military superpower, as well as the dangerof nuclear proliferation in the regional context, inSouth Asia, the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
The report warns that nuclear nonproliferation anddisarmament treaties could become "hollow
instruments" unless action is taken to reverse thesetrends.
Second, the forum deliberated on aremarkably wide range of issues. It discussed not
only nuclear weapons, but also other weapons ofmass destruction, including chemical andbiological weapons. It also made an in-depth
examination of missile defenses and related issues.
And it referred not only to relationships between
governments, but also to those between terrorist
organizations and other sub-state groups.
Third, each of the recommendations isrealistic, and can be acted on immediately or in the
short term. The recommendations were made with
the intention of righting the current situation, about
which forum members share a common anxiety
given the increasing threat posed by nuclear
weapons. For those who had expected acomprehensive program for nuclear eliminationthat would go beyond the report of the Canberra
Commission, or one that contained a specific timeframe, the report might have proved disappointing.
But the stance of the Tokyo Forum is based on therecognition that situation has changed since thedays of the Canberra Commission, when the world
had reason to be optimistic about the prospects fornuclear disarmament, and has instead become
more dangerous.
Fourth, the recommendations make a numberof substantive demands on individual
governments. It had been feared that the forum's
recommendations would be watered down andcontain minimal content by the need to reachconsensus, particularly since representatives from
India, Pakistan and China participated in theforum. However, the final report included areas onwhich agreement had not been reached, due to adesire to maintain strenuous demands on national

General discussion on the Tokyo
Forum's report
On the afternoon of the second day,participants
heldunscheduled
discussions on the contents of thereport. A participant from the UnitedStates said he was concerned that thetone of the report was too pessimistic;
for instance, in the context of the NPT
regime's status. A participant from India
argued that the report did not fullyrecognize the responsibility of NWS,
and that no mention was made of theissue of the nuclear umbrella. An expert
from Japan raised the concern that theTokyo Forum could have talked more
about the issue of "no first use" ofnuclear weapons. Doubts were also
raised by an American participant about
the feasibility of establishing apermanent body of the NPT. A
Bangladeshi participant wondered
whether or not the Tokyo Forum
discussed the feasibility of convening
the fourth Special Session on
Disarmament, and a Pakistani expert
asked whether the forum had considered
its position on the question of Kashmir.
Akashi was joined at theconference by three other members of
the Tokyo Forum. They all responded toquestions and observations honestly,
and urged participants to read the entire
text of the Forum report since it
contains 40 or 50 recommendations andsuggestions, not just the 17
recommendations listed at the end of the
document.

Conclusion
Ryukichi Imai, a scholar at the Institute forInternational Policy Studies and a member of theTokyo Forum, said during one of the conference
sessions, "I only think that just as the Tokyo
Forum carried the torch the Canberra
Commission had started, some third country willtake up the theme and continue the detailed
technical, political and legal processes for theelimination of nuclear weapons." In this regard,
the recommendations adopted by the Tokyo

governments. In addition to the 17
key recommendations in Part Fiveof the report, other sections
contain several times more
recommendations.
The fifth significant featureof the report is the linking of
nuclear nonproliferation to nuclear
disarmament. Since the forum wasestablished following nuclear tests conducted byIndia and Pakistan, there was a fear that it would
focus solely on nuclear nonproliferation andneglect nuclear disarmament. However, one of thereport's key recommendations was to emphasize
the reaffirmation of the NPT's central bargainthat the treaty requires both disarmament andnonproliferation; in effect, that the nuclear weapon
states must make tangible progress in nuclear
disarmament, while the non-nuclear weapon states
must rally behind the treaty. Strengthening the link
between these two elements is a basic tenet of thereport.
Finally, I would like to point out some aspectsof the report that could be described as insufficientcompared with other disarmament studies. One isthat the forum dealt with the issue of "no first-use"
only with extreme caution, while acknowledging
elsewhere that it believes the only function of
nuclear weapons is to deter the use of othernuclear weapons. The other problem is that not asingle mention was made of the idea of a
Northeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zoneeven as a topic for the middle- or long-term-eventhough one of its key recommendations was thedenuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The Tokyo Forum was initiated by theJapanese government, and the prime minister andforeign minister have promised to play an activerole in promoting the report's recommendations.
The Japanese government now has the
responsibility to make every effort to help thoserecommendations put into practice, and it isanticipated that Japan will use the report to play anactive role in diplomatic efforts in the area of
nuclear disarmament.
Kurosawa is dean of the Osaka School ofInternational Public Policy at Osaka University.

Forum are not the last chapter of the story;
rather, they are the basis for nourishing an
innovative dimension to the cause of nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament.
On August 4th, following the Tokyo
Forum's final meeting, Akashi and Nobuo
Matsunaga, cochairmen of the forum, visited the
U.N. headquarters in New York to present thereport to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Commending the timely initiative of theJapanese government, Annan said: "Theinternational community will study (the Tokyo
Forum's recommendations) with a view to
reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons in the−３−world." The Tokyo Forum's report will soon
become an official U.N. document and, it isexpected, will stimulate negotiations on nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament at the U.N.
level.
Kamiya is a visiting research fellow at HPI.

See the full text on HPI's Web site at
ht
t
p:
/
/
s
er
v.
peace.
hi
r
os
hi
ma‑
cu.
ac.
j
p/

TheTokyoFor
um ReportForum sets common goal for idealists, realists
Analysis of the Report of the Tokyo ForumBy Kazumi Mizumoto
Unlike diplomatic dialogues between
governments, the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear NonProliferation and Disarmament was intended tofacilitate
informalexchange
betweenindividuals-the so-called track two conference
format. Over the course of the forum's four

meetings, more than 20 people from 18
countries, including the five nuclear weapon
states, and India and Pakistan, participated indebates and discussions in a private capacity.
Having engaged people from those countries in
the formulation of the report, the forum hoped

Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report

Report's neglect of Japan's nuclear policy a cause for concern
By Hideo Tsuchiyama
Allow me to begin by expressing myrespect and gratitude to each of the membersof the Tokyo Forum for their efforts over the
12 months preceding the release of the report.
I would also like to express my sympathy
toward the 49-page report, which is based
throughout on a strong realization of the crisis
facing the international status quo on nuclear
weapons. However, I am concerned that thereport omitted several areas I believe to bevital to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The forum's overall aim wasaccomplished in the sense that each of the 17
key recommendations contains concrete
proposals. However, many of the proposals
simply retraced old paths toward theelimination of nuclear weapons via nuclear
disarmament. It bore the hallmarks of othermajor disarmament studies completed inrecent years by, among others, the Henry L.
Stimson Center, the Canberra Commission and
the National Academy of Sciences, as well as
the Pugwash Conferences. Frankly, the Tokyo
Forum report contains nothing new.
The Tokyo Forum purportedly regarded
the report of the Canberra Commission as its
starting point, and hoped to issue a report thatwent one step farther than the commission's
document. However, an "agreement amongst
the nuclear weapon states of reciprocal no
first-use undertakings," a clause included in
immediate steps recommended by thecommission, was omitted from the Tokyo
Forum report, which simply called for efforts
to be made "that will bring to fruition an
effective no first-use commitment." Onecountry represented at the forum reportedly
took exception to the inclusion of a no firstuse clause due to its belief in the logic ofnuclear deterrence fuelled by mistrust andsuspicion of other countries. Granted, the sixth
recommendation calls for zero nuclear
weapons on hair-trigger alert, yet the omissionof a no first-use clause represents nothing but
a retreat from the report of the Canberra
Commission.
Several new ideas can be found in thefirst recommendation, which calls for thecreation of a permanent secretariat andconsultative commission to deal withquestions of compliance, and to consider
strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The same can be said of the 15th
recommendation, which calls for theannulment of the consensus rule at theConference on Disarmament. It
is hoped that the abovementioned bodies willmaterialize, although theirpreciserole
andfoundations will need moreclarification.
I am most concernedthat the report does notcontainasinglerecommendation directed toward the Japanese
government. Instead, it offers a list of "shoulddos" aimed at the international community atlarge. Since Japan is expected to play an activerole in pressuring countries to respondpositively to the report, it seems unnatural thatit has been asked to do nothing with regard to
its own nuclear policy.
Whenever Japan raised objections in thepast to nuclear tests conducted by such nations
as China, France, India and Pakistan, it was
accused of hypocrisy, due to its dependence on
the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The report's neglectof Japan's nuclear policy means Tokyo will
face difficulty winning the trust andunderstanding of other countries in its quest
for a nuclear-free world.
For example, the 13th recommendation
says, "The Tokyo Forum urges all parties toredouble their efforts to achieve the goal of adenuclearised Korean Peninsula as soon as
possible." However, it is hard to imagine North
Korea accepting such an idea as long as
it is confined to the Korean Peninsula. The
problem can only begin to be resolved when
Japan is included in a proposal to establish a
Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.
A commitment by Japan to a NWFZ in theregion would provide clear evidence that it has
no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons
after leaving the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Realistic recommendations should neverserve just as an affirmation of the status quo.
Unfortunately, this is precisely the weakness to
be found in the Tokyo Forum report, whichlacks the impact of the New Agenda Coalition
proposals.
Tsuchiyama is former president ofNagasaki
University.
He
wasa
corepresentative of the Working Committee for
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens' Meeting
Demanding the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons,
one of the civic groups that submitted
proposals to the Tokyo Forum.

−４−

they would also feel bound by its
recommendations.
We will have to wait for formal responses tothe report from individual experts andcountries. However, it is already clear that
representatives from some countries disagreed
with the rigorous demands placed on
governments by several of the recommendations.
The participant from India, for instance, refused
to adopt the report, and his counterpart from
China did so only with reservations about some
aspects of the document.
The report cited a reduction by the UnitedStates and Russia of deployed strategic nuclear
warheads to 1,000 each as the starting point of
nuclear disarmament in the global context, and areduction of such warheads to within "one step
short of zero" by all nuclear weapons states as
the next step. The report says, "A process ofverifiable, phased reductions by all nucleararmed states to one step short of zero is a goal on
which advocates of abolition and deterrence
might find common ground and from which allstates would reap shared gains." On the other
hand, the report called for the "elimination of
nuclear weapons through phased reductions,"
rather than in accordance with a specific timeframe.
Compared with recommended reductions ofstrategic warheads by the United States andRussia to 2,000 each made by three similar
studies in the mid-1990s-the Canberra
Commission on the Elimination of the Nuclear
Weapons, the National Academy of Sciences andthe Henry L. Stimson Center-the Tokyo
Forum's numerical goal is more ambitious. In
striving to find some common ground between
advocates of abolition and those of deterrence,
the forum took a new approach absent from theearlier studies.
With regard to nuclear deterrence, theTokyo Forum pointed out, as did the three earlier
studies, that the only function of nuclear
weapons is to deter the use of other nuclear
weapons, and that they do not act as a deterrent
against chemical and biological weapons.
However, the forum said such a function wasdependent on the existence of nuclear weapons.
"National, regional and global security have notbeen enhanced by the possession of nuclear
weapons," the report said, thereby offering amore restrictive definition of the deterrent
function than the three previous studies.
One of the most important features of theforum's report is that it devotes considerable
attention to the issue of regional disarmament.
The forum attached particular importance toSouth Asia, with most of its recommendations inthis area aimed at India, Pakistan and China.
First, it called on India and Pakistan to sign
up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as
non-nuclear-weapon states, and to take concreteand verifiable steps to reduce their nuclear
arsenals. The report acknowledged that India's
persistence with its nuclear program was spurredby the deployment by China of its own missiles.
The report called on both countries to forgo thedeployment of nuclear long-range ballistic
missiles and to make a verifiable pledge not tostation short-range missiles close to theircommon border.
Opinionwasdivided on several
recommendations, andcareful wording wasoften called for. For
However fragile the flame of the torch may be, it is have argued that the conservative coalition government thatexample, the reportcertainly burning. And the incessant light of the torch may subsequently came to power, has not done enough to promote
madealimitedwell help show the way on the long road of nuclear the commission's report.
reference to the "noHowever copies of the report were circulated among
elimination. Three years after Australia initiated the Canberra
first-use"
pledge,Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Japan governments-both capitals and large cities-international
adding that "in-depth
carried the torch Canberra had started-by initiating the organizations, and non-governmental organizations, as welldiscussion and further
Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and as academic institutions, with the executive summary of thereport translated into most major languages. The report was
Disarmament.
efforts will be needed"
The two countries share, in a sense, common historical presented to the U.N. General Assembly and the Conference
to secure concrete
backgrounds-Japan is the only country to have suffered the on Disarmament, and the report's Web site continues tocommitments on thisnuclear attacks, at the end of the World War II, and in receive large numbers of hits. Many declarations by
issue. Mistrust of noAustralia, British nuclear tests took place between 1950s and governments and NGOs, as well as academic and media
first-use pledges made1960s. Public sentiments that arose as a result of these articles, including the draft resolution in June 1998 of thein the past by China
experiences pushed the governments to take action following New Agenda Coalition, have referred to the report.
and the former Soviet
nuclear tests by France in 1995 and by India and Pakistan in
At the Hiroshima Peace Institute workshop, Medcalf
Union were behind the1998.
said: "The true value of creative initiatives like the Canberra
forum's
guardedSeventeen experts from 12 countries, including former Commission or the Tokyo Forum is not that they produce
approach.
U.S. Secretary of Defense, a Nobel laureate physicist who instant, overnight results. However, if they contain practical
The
forum
worked on the atomic bomb during World War II and a ideas, they can help to affect the agendas of government at apointed out that missile
representative of NGO, participated in the independent deeper level over a longer period of time." During his five
defensesystems
commission, established by the Australian government in months' work in Japan since last March, Medcalf also visiteddevalue
nuclearNovember 1995. Its report, published at the end of its fourth Nagasaki as a member of the Tokyo Forum secretariat,
deterrents, and could
meeting in August 1996, was the first of its kind to be meeting citizens and scholars there and helping to bridge theincrease the risk of
distance between the two nations, as well as between Tokyo
sponsored by a government.
nuclear proliferation.
"Creative initiatives like this," says Rory Medcalf, an and the two historical cities.
While
expressing
Observers have noted that, at the same time asAustralian Foreign Affairs official and a former member ofconcern over thethe commission's secretariat, "can combine the resources of sponsoring the Canberra Commission and Tokyo Forum, both
unilateral approachgovernments, the moral force of statements by NGOs and the Australia and Japan hold security treaties with the United
being taken toward
analytical credibility of good academic work." The States, which offer the two countries protection under the
missile defense by theAustralian government, in the spirit of cooperation with nuclear umbrella. One argument that officials have used in
United States, one ofJapan, sent Medcalf on secondment in a personal capacity to response to this is that to pursue nuclear disarmament it istheforum'skey
necessary to influence nuclear weapon states, and one way ofassist the secretariat of the Tokyo Forum.
recommendations"Independent reports like these are not official doing that is to remain close to those states.
calledon
thoseInternational security and political environment has
documents and may therefore be less restricted by thecontemplating
thesensitivities of international relations," he explained at a completely changed in the last three years, and so the report
deployment of suchworkshop held by the Hiroshima Peace Institute in July. of the Tokyo Forum differs from that of the Canberra
systems to "proceed"They are about making concrete contributions to the Commission. In addition to the five nuclear weapon states, aswith caution." It isinternational debate, and searching for the sort of practical well as Brazil and Sweden, both of which have renounced
important to consider
nuclear options, the forum also included participants fromideas that would make a real difference."
China'soutright
RyukichiImai,ascholaratthe
InstituteforInternational
India and Pakistan. "The next agenda would be to include
opposition to the
Policy Studies and a member of the Tokyo Forum, who was Israel so that all the de facto nuclear weapon states would bepossible introduction
also a Canberra Commissioner, had called for the involved," said Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at the
into East Asia of aestablishment of a Japanese version of the commission since Hiroshima Peace Institute. "It is also an idea to include Souththeater missile defense
well before the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. "This is Africa, a country that renounced possession of nuclear(TMD) system by thesomething to be continued until achieving the goal," Imai weapons after developing several nuclear warheads," heUnited States, as wellsaid. "Since the Canberra Commission was left halfway with added.
as similarly negative"Once the Tokyo Forum report is published, it would be
the defeat in an election of the then government, I thought
reactions
towardsomebody should take over it. And I thought Japan was most a tool, a resource for anyone who wants to carry theprospective missile
suitable to serve this purpose. Since this would help wipe arguments forward in a convincing way," Medcalf said,
defense systems fromaway the suspicion that Japan may become a nuclear state," adding, "One report is not likely to change world opinion.
Russia, Britain and
But a succession of credible reports, each building on thehe added.
France.
In Australia, the Labor government led by then Prime other,
may well help influence the agenda."
The Tokyo Forum
Minister Paul Keating, who initiated the commission, wasstronglyandin
By Atsuko Shigesawa, editor of Hiroshima Research News
defeated at a general election, held while the Commission
principle supports thewas still deliberating in March 1996. Some commentators
creation of nuclear
weapon-freezones(NWFZ). However, it did not call for the
Indeed, the forum made a point of noting its
recommendations based on an analysis ofestablishment of an NWFZ in Northeast Asia;
appreciation for the New Agenda Coalition's
nuclear dangers faced by the world, borne of aonly for the denuclearization of the Korean"recent efforts to provide new impetus toconviction that those recommendations can be
Peninsula, based on the belief that it is better tomultilateral fora that are mired in competing
realized under current circumstances. If the ideal
begin by removing nuclear weapons from thetheologies of nuclear deterrence and time-boundof the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
most unstable areas.
frameworks for nuclear disarmament."
represents the ultimate goal, the forum's
As for sub-critical experiments, which arerecommendations can be said to be prescriptions
Finally, I would like to draw attention to thenot prohibited by the Comprehensive Test Ban
for current maladies. Realism without idealism
fact that the Hiroshima Peace Institute, a bodyTreaty (CTBT), the forum recommended the
may end up producing nothing more thanestablished by the city of Hiroshima,
introduction of practical monitoring andrecognition of the status quo. However, idealistic
cosponsored the Tokyo Forum, which wastransparency mechanisms, rather than an all-out
appeals and realistic recommendations should, I
initiated by the Japanese government. Hiroshimaban, to confirm whether they are consistent withbelieve, complement each other. The Tokyo
was the first place in the world to experience a
the treaty's objectives and purposes.
Forum has given us all the opportunity to takenuclear attack, followed by Nagasaki. As a
The forum devoted one paragraph tothe ideal of the people of Hiroshima to the stage
result, the abolition of nuclear weapons has been
nongovernmental organizations and the Newof realistic proposals.
a consistent goal of the people of both cities
Agenda Coalition to demonstrate its willingness
since the end of World War II. Their ideal has
to cooperate with citizen-based movements
remained unaffected by changes in the
Mizumoto is associate professor at HPI.
around the world in their campaign to bringinternational situation.
about the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Tokyo Forum report contains realistic

From Canberra to Tokyo−５−

Forum sets common goal for idealists, realists
Analysis of the Report of the Tokyo ForumBy Kazumi Mizumoto
Unlike diplomatic dialogues between
governments, the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear NonProliferation and Disarmament was intended tofacilitate
informalexchange
betweenindividuals-the so-called track two conference
format. Over the course of the forum's four

meetings, more than 20 people from 18
countries, including the five nuclear weapon
states, and India and Pakistan, participated indebates and discussions in a private capacity.
Having engaged people from those countries in
the formulation of the report, the forum hoped

Comment on the Tokyo Forum Report

Report's neglect of Japan's nuclear policy a cause for concern
By Hideo Tsuchiyama
Allow me to begin by expressing myrespect and gratitude to each of the membersof the Tokyo Forum for their efforts over the
12 months preceding the release of the report.
I would also like to express my sympathy
toward the 49-page report, which is based
throughout on a strong realization of the crisis
facing the international status quo on nuclear
weapons. However, I am concerned that thereport omitted several areas I believe to bevital to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The forum's overall aim wasaccomplished in the sense that each of the 17
key recommendations contains concrete
proposals. However, many of the proposals
simply retraced old paths toward theelimination of nuclear weapons via nuclear
disarmament. It bore the hallmarks of othermajor disarmament studies completed inrecent years by, among others, the Henry L.
Stimson Center, the Canberra Commission and
the National Academy of Sciences, as well as
the Pugwash Conferences. Frankly, the Tokyo
Forum report contains nothing new.
The Tokyo Forum purportedly regarded
the report of the Canberra Commission as its
starting point, and hoped to issue a report thatwent one step farther than the commission's
document. However, an "agreement amongst
the nuclear weapon states of reciprocal no
first-use undertakings," a clause included in
immediate steps recommended by thecommission, was omitted from the Tokyo
Forum report, which simply called for efforts
to be made "that will bring to fruition an
effective no first-use commitment." Onecountry represented at the forum reportedly
took exception to the inclusion of a no firstuse clause due to its belief in the logic ofnuclear deterrence fuelled by mistrust andsuspicion of other countries. Granted, the sixth
recommendation calls for zero nuclear
weapons on hair-trigger alert, yet the omissionof a no first-use clause represents nothing but
a retreat from the report of the Canberra
Commission.
Several new ideas can be found in thefirst recommendation, which calls for thecreation of a permanent secretariat andconsultative commission to deal withquestions of compliance, and to consider
strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The same can be said of the 15th
recommendation, which calls for theannulment of the consensus rule at theConference on Disarmament. It
is hoped that the abovementioned bodies willmaterialize, although theirpreciserole
andfoundations will need moreclarification.
I am most concernedthat the report does notcontainasinglerecommendation directed toward the Japanese
government. Instead, it offers a list of "shoulddos" aimed at the international community atlarge. Since Japan is expected to play an activerole in pressuring countries to respondpositively to the report, it seems unnatural thatit has been asked to do nothing with regard to
its own nuclear policy.
Whenever Japan raised objections in thepast to nuclear tests conducted by such nations
as China, France, India and Pakistan, it was
accused of hypocrisy, due to its dependence on
the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The report's neglectof Japan's nuclear policy means Tokyo will
face difficulty winning the trust andunderstanding of other countries in its quest
for a nuclear-free world.
For example, the 13th recommendation
says, "The Tokyo Forum urges all parties toredouble their efforts to achieve the goal of adenuclearised Korean Peninsula as soon as
possible." However, it is hard to imagine North
Korea accepting such an idea as long as
it is confined to the Korean Peninsula. The
problem can only begin to be resolved when
Japan is included in a proposal to establish a
Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.
A commitment by Japan to a NWFZ in theregion would provide clear evidence that it has
no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons
after leaving the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Realistic recommendations should neverserve just as an affirmation of the status quo.
Unfortunately, this is precisely the weakness to
be found in the Tokyo Forum report, whichlacks the impact of the New Agenda Coalition
proposals.
Tsuchiyama is former president ofNagasaki
University.
He
wasa
corepresentative of the Working Committee for
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Citizens' Meeting
Demanding the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons,
one of the civic groups that submitted
proposals to the Tokyo Forum.

−４−

they would also feel bound by its
recommendations.
We will have to wait for formal responses tothe report from individual experts andcountries. However, it is already clear that
representatives from some countries disagreed
with the rigorous demands placed on
governments by several of the recommendations.
The participant from India, for instance, refused
to adopt the report, and his counterpart from
China did so only with reservations about some
aspects of the document.
The report cited a reduction by the UnitedStates and Russia of deployed strategic nuclear
warheads to 1,000 each as the starting point of
nuclear disarmament in the global context, and areduction of such warheads to within "one step
short of zero" by all nuclear weapons states as
the next step. The report says, "A process ofverifiable, phased reductions by all nucleararmed states to one step short of zero is a goal on
which advocates of abolition and deterrence
might find common ground and from which allstates would reap shared gains." On the other
hand, the report called for the "elimination of
nuclear weapons through phased reductions,"
rather than in accordance with a specific timeframe.
Compared with recommended reductions ofstrategic warheads by the United States andRussia to 2,000 each made by three similar
studies in the mid-1990s-the Canberra
Commission on the Elimination of the Nuclear
Weapons, the National Academy of Sciences andthe Henry L. Stimson Center-the Tokyo
Forum's numerical goal is more ambitious. In
striving to find some common ground between
advocates of abolition and those of deterrence,
the forum took a new approach absent from theearlier studies.
With regard to nuclear deterrence, theTokyo Forum pointed out, as did the three earlier
studies, that the only function of nuclear
weapons is to deter the use of other nuclear
weapons, and that they do not act as a deterrent
against chemical and biological weapons.
However, the forum said such a function wasdependent on the existence of nuclear weapons.
"National, regional and global security have notbeen enhanced by the possession of nuclear
weapons," the report said, thereby offering amore restrictive definition of the deterrent
function than the three previous studies.
One of the most important features of theforum's report is that it devotes considerable
attention to the issue of regional disarmament.
The forum attached particular importance toSouth Asia, with most of its recommendations inthis area aimed at India, Pakistan and China.
First, it called on India and Pakistan to sign
up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as
non-nuclear-weapon states, and to take concreteand verifiable steps to reduce their nuclear
arsenals. The report acknowledged that India's
persistence with its nuclear program was spurredby the deployment by China of its own missiles.
The report called on both countries to forgo thedeployment of nuclear long-range ballistic
missiles and to make a verifiable pledge not tostation short-range missiles close to theircommon border.
Opinionwasdivided on several
recommendations, andcareful wording wasoften called for. For
However fragile the flame of the torch may be, it is have argued that the conservative coalition government thatexample, the reportcertainly burning. And the incessant light of the torch may subsequently came to power, has not done enough to promote
madealimitedwell help show the way on the long road of nuclear the commission's report.
reference to the "noHowever copies of the report were circulated among
elimination. Three years after Australia initiated the Canberra
first-use"
pledge,Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Japan governments-both capitals and large cities-international
adding that "in-depth
carried the torch Canberra had started-by initiating the organizations, and non-governmental organizations, as welldiscussion and further
Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and as academic institutions, with the executive summary of thereport translated into most major languages. The report was
Disarmament.
efforts will be needed"
The two countries share, in a sense, common historical presented to the U.N. General Assembly and the Conference
to secure concrete
backgrounds-Japan is the only country to have suffered the on Disarmament, and the report's Web site continues tocommitments on thisnuclear attacks, at the end of the World War II, and in receive large numbers of hits. Many declarations by
issue. Mistrust of noAustralia, British nuclear tests took place between 1950s and governments and NGOs, as well as academic and media
first-use pledges made1960s. Public sentiments that arose as a result of these articles, including the draft resolution in June 1998 of thein the past by China
experiences pushed the governments to take action following New Agenda Coalition, have referred to the report.
and the former Soviet
nuclear tests by France in 1995 and by India and Pakistan in
At the Hiroshima Peace Institute workshop, Medcalf
Union were behind the1998.
said: "The true value of creative initiatives like the Canberra
forum's
guardedSeventeen experts from 12 countries, including former Commission or the Tokyo Forum is not that they produce
approach.
U.S. Secretary of Defense, a Nobel laureate physicist who instant, overnight results. However, if they contain practical
The
forum
worked on the atomic bomb during World War II and a ideas, they can help to affect the agendas of government at apointed out that missile
representative of NGO, participated in the independent deeper level over a longer period of time." During his five
defensesystems
commission, established by the Australian government in months' work in Japan since last March, Medcalf also visiteddevalue
nuclearNovember 1995. Its report, published at the end of its fourth Nagasaki as a member of the Tokyo Forum secretariat,
deterrents, and could
meeting in August 1996, was the first of its kind to be meeting citizens and scholars there and helping to bridge theincrease the risk of
distance between the two nations, as well as between Tokyo
sponsored by a government.
nuclear proliferation.
"Creative initiatives like this," says Rory Medcalf, an and the two historical cities.
While
expressing
Observers have noted that, at the same time asAustralian Foreign Affairs official and a former member ofconcern over thethe commission's secretariat, "can combine the resources of sponsoring the Canberra Commission and Tokyo Forum, both
unilateral approachgovernments, the moral force of statements by NGOs and the Australia and Japan hold security treaties with the United
being taken toward
analytical credibility of good academic work." The States, which offer the two countries protection under the
missile defense by theAustralian government, in the spirit of cooperation with nuclear umbrella. One argument that officials have used in
United States, one ofJapan, sent Medcalf on secondment in a personal capacity to response to this is that to pursue nuclear disarmament it istheforum'skey
necessary to influence nuclear weapon states, and one way ofassist the secretariat of the Tokyo Forum.
recommendations"Independent reports like these are not official doing that is to remain close to those states.
calledon
thoseInternational security and political environment has
documents and may therefore be less restricted by thecontemplating
thesensitivities of international relations," he explained at a completely changed in the last three years, and so the report
deployment of suchworkshop held by the Hiroshima Peace Institute in July. of the Tokyo Forum differs from that of the Canberra
systems to "proceed"They are about making concrete contributions to the Commission. In addition to the five nuclear weapon states, aswith caution." It isinternational debate, and searching for the sort of practical well as Brazil and Sweden, both of which have renounced
important to consider
nuclear options, the forum also included participants fromideas that would make a real difference."
China'soutright
RyukichiImai,ascholaratthe
InstituteforInternational
India and Pakistan. "The next agenda would be to include
opposition to the
Policy Studies and a member of the Tokyo Forum, who was Israel so that all the de facto nuclear weapon states would bepossible introduction
also a Canberra Commissioner, had called for the involved," said Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at the
into East Asia of aestablishment of a Japanese version of the commission since Hiroshima Peace Institute. "It is also an idea to include Souththeater missile defense
well before the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. "This is Africa, a country that renounced possession of nuclear(TMD) system by thesomething to be continued until achieving the goal," Imai weapons after developing several nuclear warheads," heUnited States, as wellsaid. "Since the Canberra Commission was left halfway with added.
as similarly negative"Once the Tokyo Forum report is published, it would be
the defeat in an election of the then government, I thought
reactions
towardsomebody should take over it. And I thought Japan was most a tool, a resource for anyone who wants to carry theprospective missile
suitable to serve this purpose. Since this would help wipe arguments forward in a convincing way," Medcalf said,
defense systems fromaway the suspicion that Japan may become a nuclear state," adding, "One report is not likely to change world opinion.
Russia, Britain and
But a succession of credible reports, each building on thehe added.
France.
In Australia, the Labor government led by then Prime other,
may well help influence the agenda."
The Tokyo Forum
Minister Paul Keating, who initiated the commission, wasstronglyandin
By Atsuko Shigesawa, editor of Hiroshima Research News
defeated at a general election, held while the Commission
principle supports thewas still deliberating in March 1996. Some commentators
creation of nuclear
weapon-freezones(NWFZ). However, it did not call for the
Indeed, the forum made a point of noting its
recommendations based on an analysis ofestablishment of an NWFZ in Northeast Asia;
appreciation for the New Agenda Coalition's
nuclear dangers faced by the world, borne of aonly for the denuclearization of the Korean"recent efforts to provide new impetus toconviction that those recommendations can be
Peninsula, based on the belief that it is better tomultilateral fora that are mired in competing
realized under current circumstances. If the ideal
begin by removing nuclear weapons from thetheologies of nuclear deterrence and time-boundof the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
most unstable areas.
frameworks for nuclear disarmament."
represents the ultimate goal, the forum's
As for sub-critical experiments, which arerecommendations can be said to be prescriptions
Finally, I would like to draw attention to thenot prohibited by the Comprehensive Test Ban
for current maladies. Realism without idealism
fact that the Hiroshima Peace Institute, a bodyTreaty (CTBT), the forum recommended the
may end up producing nothing more thanestablished by the city of Hiroshima,
introduction of practical monitoring andrecognition of the status quo. However, idealistic
cosponsored the Tokyo Forum, which wastransparency mechanisms, rather than an all-out
appeals and realistic recommendations should, I
initiated by the Japanese government. Hiroshimaban, to confirm whether they are consistent withbelieve, complement each other. The Tokyo
was the first place in the world to experience a
the treaty's objectives and purposes.
Forum has given us all the opportunity to takenuclear attack, followed by Nagasaki. As a
The forum devoted one paragraph tothe ideal of the people of Hiroshima to the stage
result, the abolition of nuclear weapons has been
nongovernmental organizations and the Newof realistic proposals.
a consistent goal of the people of both cities
Agenda Coalition to demonstrate its willingness
since the end of World War II. Their ideal has
to cooperate with citizen-based movements
remained unaffected by changes in the
Mizumoto is associate professor at HPI.
around the world in their campaign to bringinternational situation.
about the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Tokyo Forum report contains realistic

From Canberra to Tokyo−５−

Japan-U.S.-China framework critical for stability on Korean Peninsula
By Nobumasa Akiyama
The Hiroshima Peace Institute held a workshop titled "Cooperationon the Korean Peninsula" in Tokyo on July 2 and 3, 1999. The event wascosponsored by the ACT Foundation in Tokyo and the Atlantic Councilof the United States. Its aim was to facilitate discussions on the unstablesecurity situation in Northeast Asia, with particular emphasis on
confidence-building and the creation of an environment conducive tointernational cooperation-both of which are necessary if the Korean
Peninsula problem is to be resolved. About 30 experts on security andNortheast Asia from Japan, the United States and China, as well as policy
makers, participated in the workshop.
The workshop opened with a keynote speech by Fukushiro Nukaga,
a Diet member and former director general of the Defense Agency.
Nukaga noted that
Programthesecurity
July 2
Keynote Speech Fukushiro Nukaga
environmentin
Session 1 "Overview of Security Situation in Northeast Asia"
Asia
had
not
Moderator: Richard Armitagetransformed with
Lead-off Speaker: Yang Zhenya, Akihiko Tanaka
the end of the Cold
Session 2 "Reviewing the Agreed Framework"
War, and cited theModerator: Harry Barnes
dividedKoreanLead-off Speaker: Leon Sigal
July 3Peninsula as theSession 3 "Cooperating in Nonproliferation Issues on themain source of
Korean Peninsula"instability in theModerator: John Merrill
region. He touched
Lead-off Speaker: Hajime Izumi
Session 4 "Economic Cooperation in Northeast Asia"
on North Korea's
Moderator: Toshiro Ozawa
suspected nuclear
Lead-off Speaker: John Merrill
andmissilePlenary Session Moderator: Seiichiro Takagi
Lead-off Speaker: K.A. Namkung
development
programs, and stressed the need to take counter the threat of proliferationof weapons of mass destruction and the ensuing regional instability. He
said that peace and stability in Northeast Asia would depend on
confidence-building measures, increased communication and acontinuing commitment to the region by the United States. He also
expressed a wish to see China take a greater role in ensuring regional
peace and stability.
Several issues were discussed at the workshop, including thetrilateral relationship between Japan, the United States and China, North
Korea's alleged missile program, the effectiveness and prospects of the
Korean Energy Development Organization, engagement with Pyongyang
and the prospects for multilateral frameworks for economic cooperationin Northeast Asia, including North Korea.
The missile issue attracted most attention since, at the time, there
were reports that North Korea was about to test-launch a second ballistic
missile. A test, or the threat of one, could be interpreted either as ademonstration of North Korea's readiness to enter the international
weapons market, or as a diplomatic card to be dealt during negotiations
with the United States. Participants were divided over whether the launchwould take place. Some asked how the international community should
respond to a launch. An American participant said that, in the event of alaunch, other countries should continue to engage North Korea, and thatsanctions aimed at isolating Pyongyang (such as suspending KEDO)
should not be implemented. Engagement, he said, would contribute to thelong-term stability of the Korean Peninsula.
Another participant argued that the United States and Japan should
step up development of the theater missile defense system (TMD) tocounter the threat posed by missile proliferation. A Chinese participant
said that, while China did not wish to see missile proliferation, it would
not interfere with North Korea's sovereign right to conduct missile tests.
China would also oppose TMD, which it regards as a threat to thebalance of power in East Asia, the participant said. There was also a
frank exchange of views on the future of KEDO. Some participants said
KEDO had been functioning relatively well, and served as a channel for
dialogue between North Korea and the United States on the issue ofenergy development. Others proposed using KEDO as a model forcooperative bodies in other areas, such as a Korean Peninsula
Agricultural Development Organization (KADO). There was a proposal
to integrate cooperation with North Korea on comprehensive security intoa broader framework. An American participant backed Chinese
membership of KEDO after a Chinese colleague pointed out Beijing's
support for the organization's activities.
The Chinese participant said that cooperation should not be limited
to the Korean Peninsula, but should be broadened to include the whole ofNortheast Asia, such as the Trumen River and areas of the Yellow Sea.
Some expressed the desire to see Japan play a more active role indevelopmental cooperation by, for example, setting up a developmental
financial organization along the lines of a Northeast Asian Development
Bank.
Although the Korean Peninsula has been the subject of numerous
discussions and dialogues, few have adopted the framework of the JapanU.S.-China trilateral efforts, despite their notable impact in the region.
The recent workshop decided to adopt the framework, since it offers aunique perspective for discussions about the peninsula. Despite
differences in their respective roles and interests vis-a-vis the Korean
Peninsula, Japan, China and the United States will play a critical role inresolving the region's problems. It is, therefore, essential that analysts andpolicymakers from the three countries meet regularly to exchange views,
deepen mutual understanding and share in their common vision-peaceand stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Akiyama is research associate at HPI.

List of Participants<Japan>Fukushiro Nukaga (Member of the Diet, former Director General of
Defense Agency)*
Hajime Izumi (Professor, University of Shizuoka)
Tomoyoshi Kaneko (Managing Director, ACT Foundation)
Kazumi Mizumoto (Associate Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute)Tetsuo Murooka (Senior Researcher, National Institute for Defense Studies)
Toshiro Ozawa (Acting Director, Japan Institute of International Affairs)
Seiichiro Takagi (Director of 2nd Research Department, National Institute for
Defense Studies)
Akihiko Tanaka (Professor, University of Tokyo)
Yasuhide Yamanouchi (Professor, GLOCOM, International University of Japan)* Chairman of the workshop<P.R.C.>
Yang Zhenya (President, Asia-Africa Development & Exchange Society of China)
Fu Chengli (Research Fellow, Academy of Military Science of People's
Liberation Army)
Lu Zhongwei (Vice-Director, Modern International Relations Institute of China)
Yang Baoyun (Professor, Beijing University)
Yang Xinbin (Assistant Researcher, Asia-Africa Development Research Institute ofDevelopment Research Center of State Council)<U.S.A.>
Richard Armitage (President, Armitage Associates)
Harry Barnes (Director, Program on Conflict Resolution, Carter Center)
Kent Calder (Special Advisor to Ambassador, U.S. Embassy in Japan)
James Delaney (Senior Associate, Institute for Defense Analyses)
John Merrill (Policy Analyst, Department of State)
K. A. Namkung (Director, Korea Roadmap Project, Program on Conflict Resolution,
Atlantic Council)
Robin Sakoda (Armitage Associates)
Jason Shaplen (Senior Advisor, Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization)
Leon V. Sigal (Consultant, Social Science Research Council)−６−

Japan supporting denuclearization efforts in former Soviet Union
By Yasuhide Yamanouchi
Denuclearization and disarmament
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I), signed by theUnited States and the former Soviet Union in July 1991, was an epochmaking legal framework comparable to the Intermediate Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty, since it committed both super powers todramatically decreasing their nuclear stockpiles. Under the treaty, thecountries agreed to cut the number of deployed strategic nuclear
warheads to 6,000 each, and delivery systems to 1,600 each, and to
dismantle and dispose of remaining warheads and delivery systems.
To accelerate the trend toward nuclear disarmament, the Group of
Eight (G-8) countries discussed assisting denuclearization in the former
Soviet republics-now the Commonwealth of Independent States-at
their summit in Cologne, Germany, in June 1999. At the G-8 foreign
ministers meeting held at the same time, the Japanese government
announced assistance of U.S.$200 million toward the denuclearization of
the CIS. This policy was based on the "Japan-Russian Federation Joint
Efforts for Disarmament and Environmental Protection," an initiative
announced by Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura when hevisited Russia in May 1999. The initiative comprises the following threeplans:
1. To dismantle decommissioned nuclear submarines in the Russian Far
East.
About half of the nuclear submarines belonging to the Russian PacificFleet based in Vladivostok and other cities in the Russian Far East are in
the process of decommissioning. Some countries have already adopted
policies on the issue, including the United States and Japan. The Japanese
government also plans to enhance its programs in this field.
2. To promote the conversion of military resources to private industry.
Japan plans to increase cooperation in such areas as helping scientists
involved in developing nuclear arms to find jobs in private sector
industries, and converting military industry to the private sector.
3. To manage and dispose of Russian surplus weapons-grade plutonium.
Several countries, including France, Germany and Canada, have madeproposals regarding the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium derived
from dismantled nuclear warheads in Russia. Japan has offered to assist
with the disposal of the plutonium at a fast reactor BN-600 in Beloretsk.
The Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, a government-funded
research and development organization attached to the Science andTechnology Agency, plans to promote technical and financial cooperation
with the Research Institute for Atomic Reactors (RIAR) in Dimitrovgrad,and other Russian research institutes in such projects as producing mixed
oxide (MOX) fuel from dismantled plutonium, and experiment withreactors' ability to irradiate plutonium.
Disposal of dismantled plutonium
Most people agree that nuclear disarmament is a worthwhile goal.
However, questions remain concerning the disposal of enriched uranium
and weapons-grade plutonium taken from nuclear warheads. Experts
from around the world have been considering how to overcome thisproblem since the end of the Cold War. The United States government
decided to adopt two measures-using MOX fuel processed fromplutonium at commercial lightwater reactors, and disposing of theplutonium through vitrification. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy
has already selected an electric power company, which is managing
nuclear power plants and is preparing to manufacture MOX fuel.
In addition, Russia is also preparing to use MOX fuel at its
lightwater reactors, and has started investigating the possible use of BN600 for this purpose. The Japanese government's initiative is behind theseencouraging international efforts to turn "swords into plowshares" in the
nuclear field. However, careful preparation and long-term cooperation arenecessary for the safe transformation of weapons-grade plutonium forcommercial use.
Japan's efforts in the past
The recent Japanese initiatives constitute the country's second phaseof assistance in the denuclearization of the CIS. The first phase waslaunched at the G-7 summit in Munich in 1992. In April 1993, Japan
pledged to provide the former Soviet republics with assistance totaling
U.S.$100 million. It had concluded "agreements with regard to thecooperation for abolition of nuclear weapons" with Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus by March 1994, and established cooperative
committees with each country. Since 1994, Japan's program to assist thedenuclearization of the CIS is showing tangible progress.
As part of a separate program launched after the Chernobyl accident
in 1986, Japan is also helping the CIS and former East European
countries to safely manage their commercial nuclear reactors. Controllingand protecting nuclear materials in the former Soviet republics took on
greater importance with the political and social collapse of the socialist
state. The introduction of IAEA safeguards and inspections of nuclear
facilities in the republics, all of which, with the exception of Russia, havesigned the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapon
states, has also taken on added importance. Ministries and nuclear-relatedorganizations in Japan continue to provide technical and financial
assistance in this regard. In addition, a program has been set up toprovide medical equipment and drugs for the treatment of Ukrainiansoldiers exposed to radiation while disposing of radioactive waste
dismantled from nuclear warheads. Humanitarian medical support is also
being given to people living near the test site in the Semipalatinsk region,and telemedicine consultations are being provided for checkups andtreatment. Japan reportedly is to step up assistance in this area.
Prospects for denuclearization
The aforementioned networks of diplomatic and humanitarianassistance afforded to the former Soviet Union would have been
unimaginable during the Cold War. It is important to strengthen these
networks to continue the momentum toward the elimination of nuclear
weapons. With the end of the Cold War, the goal of denuclearization of
the CIS and the United States that lies at the heart of the START treaties
has become a practical possibility for the first time. The current climate
also offers Japan an excellent opportunity to promote its long-term
diplomatic goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. In its report of July 25,
1999, the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
made its contribution toward that goal. The report said, "We call on the
United States to continue and to increase cooperative threat-reduction
efforts in the former Soviet Union. The world community, especially theG-8 states and the European Union, must substantially expand
cooperative threat-reduction efforts."
Yamanouchi is a professor at the Center
Communications, International University of Japan.

for

GlobalMore information can be accessed from the following Web pages:
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program: http://www.ctr.osd.mil/"Japan-Russian Federation Joint Efforts for Disarmament and Environmental
Protection-New initiative by the government of Japan in the areas of assistancefor denuclearization, disarmament and nonproliferation":
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kaidan/g_komura/russia99/k_sagyo.html
Cooperation in the denuclearization of the former Soviet republics using Russian
fastbreeder nuclear reactors: http://www.jnc.go.jp/jncweb/jncintro.htm"Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the 21st Century-the Report of
the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament":
http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/−７−

ＴＯ ＰＩ ＣＳ

Hello from HPI

New researcher joins institute
AKIKO NAONO

HPI improves, updates Web site
A new version of the Hiroshima
Peace Institute's Web site appeared on
Sept. 1 at http://serv.peace.hiroshimacu.ac.jp/. The institute hopes the changes
to the site will enable visitors to promptly
find the information they need, as well as
contribute to the promotion of world
peace.
The reconstruction of the Web site,
the first since the HPI went online in June
1998, means the site carries more than

three times more information than theoriginal version. In addition to the existing
outline of the institute and "What's new"a section featuring reports on past andupcoming events involving HPI-the newversion includes details of research
projects, HPI publications and profiles of
the institute's researchers.
An index appearing on the left handside of the site enables visitors to surf
several pages with ease. The site's new"Links" section features the addresses ofabout 30 other research institutes andnongovernmental organizations involved inpeace and disarmament issues. The
institute plans to increase the number oflinks to other institutes and NGOs.
Those wishing to have theirorganization included in the links section
should contact Ritsuko Ogawa, the Web
site's editor, at ogawa@peace.hiroshimacu.ac.jp.

Visiting research fellow

TOPICS

Correction
An article in Hiroshima Research News
(Vol. 2, No. 1, Page 3) titled "Hiroshima's
peace role reaffirmed as new century
approaches," incorrectly named the World
Conference of Mayors for Peace through Inter-city
Solidarity. We apologize for the error.

After graduating from the School ofInternational Service at the American University inWashington, D.C. in 1994, Naono established the
Nuclear History Institute at the university and, as
project director, organized an atomic bomb
exhibition titled "Constructing a Peaceful World:
Beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki" in July 1995. She
entered the doctoral program in sociology at the
University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1996,
where she is currently a Ph.D. candidate. Naono
joined HPI as a visiting research fellow in
September 1999. Her areas of interests include
cultural studies, nationalism and memories of war.

D I A RY
July 1 〜 August 31, 1999

◆July 2-3
Kazumi Mizumoto, Ikuko Togo and Nobumasa Akiyama attend aworkshop titled "Cooperation on the Korean Peninsula," sponsored by
Hiroshima Peace Institute, the Atlantic Council of the United States andthe Association for the Communication of Transcultural Studies (ACT),at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International
University of Japan.
◆July 4-8
Akiyama acts as a program coordinator at the 13th ACTTranscultural Seminar titled "Achieving International Cooperation in the
Asia-Pacific Region in the 21st Century" at Zao, Miyagi Prefecture.
◆July 4Masamichi Kamiya participates as a panelist in a symposium titled"What international cooperative coordinators should be like in 21st
century," sponsored by the AMDA Training Center for International
Cooperative Coordinators, at Hiroshima Bunkyo Women's College in
Hiroshima.
◆July 5
A workshop is held at the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
◆July 7
Togo and Valentine Seveus, visiting representative of PeaceQuest
International, a nongovernmental organization based in Sweden, discuss
peace and related issues at the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation.
◆July 19
Kamiya attends an organizers' meeting for the Center for Preventive
Diplomacy, held at the International House of Japan in Tokyo.
◆July21
Akiyama participates in a workshop on preventive diplomacy,sponsored by Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, at Waseda University inTokyo.
◆July 22
Akiyama attends a workshop sponsored by a study group on theissue of nuclear energy, held at the Ministry of International Trade andIndustry.
◆July 23-25
The 4th meeting of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament is held at the Takanawa Prince Hotel in Tokyo.

◆July 27-30
Kamiya participates in the 4th United Nations Conference on
Disarmament Issues in Kyoto, sponsored by the U.N. Department for
Disarmament Affairs, at Kyoto International Conference Hall.
◆July 30
Akiyama attends a workshop on energy and security, held at andsponsored by GLOCOM.
◆August 1-2
Akiyama acts as a coordinator at the Strategic Studies Fellowship
Program Summer Seminar, sponsored by the Research Institute for Peaceand Security, at the International House of Japan in Tokyo.
◆August 4
Kamiya and the cochairmen of the Tokyo Forum visit the U.N.
headquarters in New York.
◆August 5
Mizumoto delivers a speech on the global environment thatencompasses the problem of nuclear weapons, at a symposium sponsoredby Japanese Consumer's Co-operative Union, at Hiroshima YMCA Hall.
Akiyama acts as a coordinator at a peace forum at the RIHGA Royal
Hotel Hiroshima, sponsored by the Japan Junior Chamber.
◆August 18
Akiyama attends a workshop on energy and security, held at andsponsored by GLOCOM.
◆August 23
Mizumoto participates in a meeting of a study group, titled"Exploring Japan's proactive peace and security strategies: the case of the'nuclear umbrella,'" organized by the National Institute for Research
Advancement (NIRA) in Tokyo.
◆August 24
Akiyama attends a workshop sponsored by the Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry, held at the Institute of Applied Energy.
◆August 26
Akiyama delivers a lecture titled "The Administrative System inJapan" to foreign trainees at the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), at the Hiroshima International Center in Higashihiroshima.

「HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS」 Copyright 1999 HPI All rights reserved
Vol.2, No.2 September 30, 1999

●Issued by Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University●Printed by Seikosha Ltd.

Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg. 12th Floor 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051 JAPAN−８−

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