Hiroshima Peace InstituteVol.5 No.1 July 2002

A Few Thoughts on the Past Year

By Haruhiro Fukui

Time, as the saying goes, flies like an arrow. It is indeed hard to believethat a year has passed since I arrived at Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI).
Nonetheless, that is sufficient time for me to be able to stop and take stockof the latest phase of my life.
I arrived here last spring with a specific and ambitious goal in mind:
to help build HPI into a world-class peace research institute by quickly
adding to its fledgling research staff as many world-class scholars as
possible.
Efforts to reach this goal had actually begun before I arrived.
Advertisements placed in a variety of printed and electronic media bothin Japan and overseas in January and February drew 96 applications from
14 countries. The list of candidates was whittled down to eight following
a two-stage screening process conducted by a 10-member international
panel. After interviews, four of the eight were offered jobs. Three accepted,
and one declined. (Profiles of the three can be found in this and theprevious issue of Hiroshima Research News.)
No sooner had the first search been completed than a second searchfollowed in the autumn of 2001. This time, job advertisements appearedin more places, and for longer periods, than before. HPI received
applications from 109 scholars in 23 countries. At the time of writing,five on the short list of those who have passed two rounds of screening
have been interviewed and formal offers of appointment are expectedshortly. I hope to see at least a few new appointments as a result. In any
case, two more worldwide searches will be needed to fill several positions
that are likely to remain vacant after the current search, and to bring HPI’s
research staff to its initially projected size.
Meanwhile, HPI’s research and related programs and activities haveprogressed well over the past year. Two research projects initiated in 2000
―one on nuclear disarmament in the 21st century and the other on thelegitimacy and rationality of new interventionism―are almost complete,with the publication of their final reports expected by the end of the year.
In late July, half a dozen international experts on disarmament
attended an HPI-hosted symposium in Hiroshima to discuss the state of
the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Ties have been cemented andexpanded not only with local organizations, such as the Hiroshima Peace
Culture Foundation and atomic bomb survivors organizations, but alsowith those abroad, such as sister peace research institutes in Scandinavia
and the United States.
All in all, the past year has been a good one both for HPI and formyself. Staying the course is the most sensible tack for us to follow inthe coming year.
Fukui is president of HPICONTENTS“A Few Thoughts on the Past Year” by Haruhiro Fukui………………………………1
International Symposium “Competing Memories of Hiroshima: Quest fora New Role of ‘Hiroshima’ for Peace and Reconciliation in the 21st Century” ……1“International Terrorism: A Provisional Assessment” by Christian P. Scherrer …2〜4
New HPI Research Project “Confidence-Building Mechanism in East Asia” ………4
HPI Research Forum“Assessing the Risks of Nuclear Power” …………………………………………5“Modern Genocide and the Nuclear Holocaust in Hiroshima”……………………5“Globalization, War and Terrorism” by Yuki Tanaka ……………………………6〜7
Research Project “Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century”――――Discussions Conclude on Chapters of Final Report ……………………7
Hello from HPI …………………………………………………………………………8
DIARY …………………………………………………………………………………8International Symposium
Competing Memories of Hiroshima: Quest for a New Roleof “Hiroshima” for Peace and Reconciliation in the 21stCentury
Narratives about experiences of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima, evenwhen more than 50 years have lapsed since the event, are believed to add
to the advocacy of peace.
With the passage of time, however, the task of passing down thoseexperiences to future generations as lessons to be learned is becoming
increasingly difficult.
In the meantime, memories of World War II and the atomic bombing
give rise to conflicting ideas about the implications of the events and peacein the postwar period among people in Hiroshima, the rest of Japan, other
Asian countries and the United States.
By examining and comparing different memories of the war and thebomb, we hope to reevaluate Hiroshima’s message of peace and revitalize
the city’s role in the world. All those interested in this issue are invited
to attend the symposium.
Panelists:
Prof. Kiichi Fujiwara
Graduate School of Law and Politics, Tokyo University
Prof. Martin J. Sherwin
Department of History, Tufts University
Prof. Bu Ping
Deputy director, Heilongjiang Social Sciences Academy
Dr. Sook-Jong Lee
Research fellow, Sejong Institute
Kazumi Mizumoto
Associate professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute
Date and time: Aug. 3 (Sat.), 2002 1:30 p.m.- 4:30 p.m.
Venue: Himawari Room, second basement floor (B2), International
Conference Center (Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park)
1-5 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima
Host: Hiroshima Peace InstituteHow to Attend
Send a postcard to reach Hiroshima Peace Institute by July 31. Write yourname, address, and telephone and fax numbers. Reservations can also bemade by phone, fax or email. Up to 200 people can be accommodated
on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Address: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima Mitsui Building 12th floor,
2-7-10, Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan
Tel: +81-82-544-7570
Fax: +81-82-544-7573
Email: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp−１−

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

International Terrorism: A Provisional Assessment
By Christian P. Scherrer
We all saw the same horrific images on September 11, scenes that
Hollywood could have invented: burning giant buildings in Manhattan,
deliberately hit by airplanes, huge explosions, firestorms, desperate people
jumping to certain death, huge structures collapsing one by one, thePentagon burning―scenes like those in a war. But it was not a war, eventhough thousands of people died. The world’s mightiest state seemed
defenseless and confused.
What we saw on September 11 was the result of failed preventive
efforts, missed opportunities, or quite the opposite of it, the result of
decades of denial of development, democracy, freedom, and human rights
to peoples in the South by those in the North, especially in places endowedwith abundant resources or considered strategically important.
What was the aim of those who committed the aggressive acts? It
was obviously to strike decisively and scare a whole nation by inflicting
on it as much destruction as possible in both human lives and economic
damage. They attacked the most powerful symbols of America―thesymbol of its dominance of world trade and the headquarters of its mighty
armed forces, though the airplane that crashed at the latter site wasnowhere to be seen.
Who were the attackers? They were different from any hijackers
we had known before. The hijackers were no cowards, but fanatics―firmly
determined to fulfil a carefully planned suicide mission. The attackers,
mainly from Saudi Arabia, were ready to commit ruthless mass destruction.
They did nothing less than transform a civilian plane into a bombshell.

The Lack of an Agreed Definition of Terrorism
The U.N. General Assembly is working on drafts of a convention for the
suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism and a comprehensive convention
on the elimination of terrorism. Progress has been blocked by the lackof an accepted definition of terrorism. It is a matter of considerable urgency
to identify types of political violence that the international community
regards as “unjustifiable.” Such types of political violence require theapplication of both preventive and repressive measures consistent withinternational law.
A definition ought to connote the essence of terrorism and the salient
elements at work, and include both non-state and state actors as potential
perpetrators of criminal acts. This may be phrased as: “Sporadic, repeatedor systematic violent actions by either clandestine gangs or state elites
who pursue illegitimate demands, aims, and/or interests are forms ofterrorism, if such actors employ criminal or otherwise unjustifiable meanscharacterized by serious violations of human rights, the committing of
war crimes (as defined by the Geneva conventions) or crimes against
humanity, thereby spreading fear and horror amongst defenselesspopulations by randomly or selectively targeting predominantly civilian
victims.”

Differentiating Terrorism from Legitimate Struggles
The contradiction between the viewpoints captured by the cliché that one
state’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has not ended with the Cold
War. The question “How does one differentiate terrorism from the struggle
for self-determination and to combat foreign occupation?” still makes it
almost impossible to mold an international consensus on how to define
non-state terrorism and, even worse, state terrorism. This does not mean

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

that we have no way of distinguishing heinous terrorist acts from liberation
struggles. Terrorist acts violate international humanitarian law, especiallysuch law as embodied in the Geneva conventions, since they target
defenseless civilian populations rather than combatants and other military
targets. But so did many acts of dirty war committed by a number of U.N.
member states.

Sustained Structural, Cultural or Direct
Violence Breeds Terrorism
Indeed, there are only a few ideologies capable of turning individuals into
suicide warriors. Fanaticism must be based on a belief and a sense of
belonging to a special group, no matter if the belief is tied to a religion
or to its modern surrogate, nationalism, or to both. In contemporary history,
suicide bombing has been rarely used by ethno-nationalists (e.g., mostoften by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE) but frequently by
religious fundamentalists (Islamists, Hinduists and Christians) for whom
religious and nationalist ideologies mix. Even states have used the same
tool, as Japan did with its kamikaze pilots in World War II.
What are the driving forces behind international terrorism? Is it
structural violence (Galtung), such as the daily toll of 100,000 deaths at
the bottom of the world economic system? Or some 230 U.S. militaryinterventions abroad? Historical guilt, such as the nearly total genocideof Native Americans, and 300 years of slavery? More recently, the U.S.
bears direct or indirect responsibility for the death of more than 15 million
people killed since 1947 by U.S. forces in such countries as Korea,
Vietnam, Latin America, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

Policy Failures Breed Terrorism
The United States is certainly a superpower in regard to military mightand economic wealth. In the political sphere, however, America has failed
to meet many people’s expectations of global leadership. On the contrary,narrow vision and short-sightedness characterize U.S. policy in many areas.
For decades the U.S. has had popularly elected leaders deposed andreplaced with puppet military dictators in countries it considered partsof its own backyard, which embraces all of Latin America and beyond,and in those it considered as of strategic interest, such as the oil statesin the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
The U.S. seems isolated in regard to many global issues and a numberof major policy failures occurred in recent years in such domains as justice(e.g., the campaign against the International Criminal Court), human rights(e.g., the policy failure in Durban), and ecology (e.g., the lone opposition
to the Rio summit and the Kyoto protocol), as well as in its role in policing
the world that has been assumed without U.N. mandate (e.g., the messcreated in Iraq and the Balkans). Worse still, the U.S. is about to start a
new arms race.
But the triggers for terrorist violence against the U.S. are foundelsewhere: the most embarrassing U.S. policy failures have occurred in
the Middle East. The weak resolve of the U.S. to bring the Oslo peace
process back on track in the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s
Temple Mountain provocation, has been followed by non-response to theescalation of violence in the region, especially in the occupied territories.
The United States could have played, as no other country could have, acritical role in calming the situation in the Middle East. The present−２−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

administration has, however, utterly failed to tame Israel’s new aggressive
policy that is arguably bordering on state terrorism. As the abuse of power,
injustice, and sustained oppression continue unchecked in the Middle Eastand are allowed to reproduce political violence and terrorism, more“democidal” attacks against America are likely to occur in the future.

What Is New About September 11?
First to be clarified is exactly what is truly new about the threat of highlyorganized international terrorism. My assessment is that only the direction
and target of this form of terrorism are new. It is pointed against the West
and, inter alia, against the leading power, the United States. In the past,this type of terrorism was invented and financed for use against the East,
but now it is used against the West. Obviously, something has gone wrong.
Former Iranian president Bani Sadr has called on U.S. political leaders
to stop lying to their own people and to the world about the origins of
September 11. Ahmed Rashid and others have revealed that the UnitedStates has nurtured Islamist terrorism for decades.
For example, one needs to look into developments in Afghanistan:
In 1986, the then CIA boss, William Casey, stepped up the war against
the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) by taking significant topsecret measures. In 1998, it was disclosed by the security adviser to former
U.S. president Jimmy Carter that Carter had allocated some US$500
million to provoke an intervention in Afghanistan by the USSR in order
to trigger an Islamist “response.” It is known that this engagement wasmaintained (and greatly increased in scale) during Ronald Reagan andGeorge H.W. Bush’s administrations. Despite the abundant evidence
showing that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda (‘the base’) organization
are creations of the United States’ Cold War policy against the Soviet
Union, the denial of the truth continues.
The United States and Saudi Arabia have financed the constructionof the infrastructure of the Islamic fundamentalist threat against theerstwhile USSR’s Central Asian republics and China. Tens of thousandsof Uzbeks, Kazaks, Kyrgyz, and Tajiks from the former Soviet Union,
Uyghurs from China, Chechens from Russia, and other Turks, as well as
Arabs from an assortment of countries―but the bulk of them from Saudi
Arabia, Algeria, and the Gulf states―all went through training courses
operated by al-Qaeda. Many soon started undertaking activities aimed at
the destabilization of the existing regimes in the region.
Bin Laden and his lieutenants were on the CIA “payroll” for someten years; in the 1970s, the construction company owned by his family
built many of those caves which he later used for hiding and which werebombed by U.S. airplanes, with bombs containing depleted uranium which
release large amounts of toxic uranium-plutonium dust.
Today the potential threat of another terrorist attack looms large, but
it is hardly measurable. Rashid writes that more than 100,000 Muslim
radicals have direct contacts with Pakistan and Afghanistan and are
influenced by the jihad (holly war) ideology. An unknown percentageof them receive regular training as terrorists. A few thousands were trainedas special commandos. Several hundreds have probably learned secretservice skills. To advance a global jihad , al-Qaeda has trained a large
number of sleepers for potential new strikes at targets around the world.
This type of terrorist network is comparable only with highly-organizedsecret organizations such as the German Rote Armee Faktion (RAF), theRed Brigades in Italy and the Red Army in Japan, and their alliances
formed with fighters elsewhere.
The difference between this network and left-wing terrorist networks,
and the advantage of the former over the latter, is that the jihadists haveenjoyed secret but massive support of a dozen states. Until 1989, or
probably even until the 1991 Gulf War, the jihadists were supported by

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Pakistan. A key figure
was General Hameed Gul, an ethnic Pashtun and head of Pakistan’s InterServices Intelligence (ISI) secret service.

What Could Have Prevented September 11?
Some scholars have been pondering what would or could have prevented
the September 11 attacks. In a violent conflict, it is a usual practice tolisten to all sides and hear their points of view. In the case of Osama bin
Laden and the al-Qaeda network, however, the key question has not beenasked: What made them turn against their masters?
Al-Qaeda people were trained to use the media for widely publicizing
their demands, which became publicly well known. Years before
September 11, this Islamic network warned and made several demands
to the United States’ governments: these were ignored, however. The
response was bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, embassy
bombings in East Africa, and a bomb attack against USS Cole in Yemen.
What were the demands? Why was there no action on the part of the U.S.?
Most commentators say that the demands of al-Qaeda were
impossible to meet without major policy changes. This point of view iscontestable. Generally speaking, the demands were limited, concise, andlegitimate. The two main demands could have been accommodated
without major problems, if seen from the angle of U.S. national security.
What were asked for were the withdrawal of the U.S. military presencefrom the holly lands of Saudi Arabia and the settlement of the IsraeliPalestine conflict, whereby Palestinians’ right of self-determination,
including their claim to their own state, was to be honoured. It was only
during the military campaign against the Taliban regime that President
George W. Bush began, all of a sudden, to talk about a Palestinian state.
Indeed, the U.S.-military presence on the holy lands of Saudi Arabia
represents an insult to all Muslims, and it was easy for bin Laden tocapitalize on this fact. As for the Israeli-Palestine question, it was the
U.S. that passively sabotaged the implementation of the 1993 Oslo accords,
giving chances and even carte blanche to the extreme right-wingers andAriel Sharon to strike against the Palestinians, invade the West Bank, anduse sophisticated weapons and excessive force against defenselesscivilians. Possible solutions for the Palestine question have been on thetable, such as the peace plan unveiled in the New York Times by Saudi
Arabia’s Prince Abdullah in February 2002 and supported by the Arab
League amidst a dangerous escalation of tensions in the Middle East.
It would be disingenuous to ignore the fact that bin Laden and alQaeda enjoy mass support in many Muslim countries and that it was
precisely for the legitimacy of their demands that they do so, and willcontinue to pose a threat to the security of the United States. Without apolitical solution, there will be no end to this type of violence.

“War Against Terrorism” Is Inappropriate, Treats Only
Symptoms
Most of the war effort in Afghanistan has been carried out by the Afghan
Northern Alliance, while the U.S. forces were, until the ill-conceived
Operation Anaconda in March 2002, rarely in any exposed position on
the ground but were bombing enemy targets with everything U.S. defense
contractors produce, including huge depleted uranium bombs. The U.S.
has claimed “victory,” but nothing much has been won by the U.S. in its
strange “war on terrorism.” None of the original war aims―to capture theleaders of the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda “dead or alive” (Bush) has
been achieved. A long conspicuous silence followed the initial hard talkas regards bin Laden and his lieutenants. Meanwhile, we have witnesseda military operation with ever-shifting aims.
The U.S. president has vowed to declare war against a whole “axis−３−Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

of evil,” in which he includes a very heterogeneous group of nations suchas Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Without a shred of evidence, all these states
have been accused of aiding al-Qaeda terrorism. Military assaults on otherstates such as Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan, have also been publicly
discussed. Not since the days of Ronald Reagan’s obsessive anticommunism has Washington’s political rhetoric about the fight between
good (America, its subaltern, Great Britain, Israel, and few others) andevil (all above-mentioned rogue states and others not specificallymentioned) packed such a pathological fury.

Terrorism as Catalyst for Increasing
Military Spending and Aggression
War-mongering has been the most disturbing element of a wholesale
policy change in the United States. As in the 1950s and the 1980s, thenew policy has been designed to capitalize on and further spur growing
patriotism and popular support for a government under the control of amilitary-industrial complex, as well as to quash progressive dissent athome and openly support pro-U.S. dictatorships and regimes with abysmal
human rights records. Playing on the fear of “Islamic” (Islamist) terrorism
has been intended to advance an ideological agenda not very different fromthat of the Reagan era, with commitment to the aggressive pursuit of U.S.
global hegemony and supremacy.
The U.S. military spending of US$350 billion, an incredible amountin itself and already larger than those of the next six largest militaryspenders combined, has been augmented by another US$50 billion “tofight terrorism,” as if terrorism could be fought with more sophisticatedbombs, missile defense (a renewed version of Reagan’s star wars project),and a new generation of nuclear weapons. Even before he moved into theWhite House, President-elect Bush made clear at the end of 2000 what
policy he stood for: He would place the highest priority on “restoring”
the level of U.S. military force. Expanding the U.S. military, however,has been deemed difficult to justify. Globalized terrorism conveniently

provided the “new daunting challenge” the Pentagon was searching for.
How would the U.S. otherwise legitimate the further expansion of its
already oversized armed forces and their hyper-sophisticated equipment?
The Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review has raised fears about
the Bush administration’s intention to lower the threshold for the use of
nuclear arms. The Pentagon declared a “need” for new nuclear arms thatwould deliver lower levels of yield and fallout. The Bush team deliberately
left open the possibility that the targets of such new weapons might include
non-nuclear states. To prepare the ground for such a scenario, the Pentagon
created a shadowy new Office of Strategic Influence for disseminationof disinformation. Lower radiation GBU-28 bunker-breaking bombs havebeen already tested in combat situations in Afghanistan; reports depict
a frightening vision of a localized nuclear war that fits in well with thePentagon’s new aggressive strategy for the consolidation of U.S.
supremacy. The Bush administration is not only pushing for thedevelopment of new types of nuclear weapons but also seems to bebroadening the perimeters of the circumstances in which they might beused.
NATO constitutes the world’s strongest and, after the demise of its
counterpart, the Warsaw Pact, in 1991, the only remaining supra-regional
military alliance. While representing hardly 10 percent of the world’s
population, it spent US$471 billion in 2000, a sum that amounts to almost
two-thirds of the world’s total military expenditure of US$756 billion (seethe 2001 yearbook, p. 226, of the Stockholm International Peace ResearchInstitute).
Never in modern history has the distribution of military forces andmilitary expenditures in the world been so dangerously imbalanced. Neverhas a single state been as militarily mighty as the U.S.―and yet so
vulnerable and impotent in dealing with threats posed by sub-state actors.
Scherrer is a professor at HPI

New HPI Research Project

Confidence-Building Mechanism in East Asia
HPI recently launched a new research project titled “Confidence-Buildingin Europe (OSCE). Although East Asia does not have an equivalent

Mechanism in East Asia.” We have been working alongside Prof. Yoshihideorganization, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), launched by the

Soeya of Keio University (chairman), Prof. Akihiko Tanaka of the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has successfully

University of Tokyo, Dr. Seiichiro Takagi of the National Institute forbrought a number of non-ASEAN nations into its fold, and taken steps

Defense Studies and Prof. Hajime Izumi of the University of Shizuoka.

toward providing some form of cooperative security framework.

The scholars, all leading experts on the international politics of East Asia,
met in February to draw up details of the new project.

The ARF names conflict resolution as one of its objectives, but the
majority of the ARF’s work goes into promoting security dialogues,

Important legacies of the Cold War remain in East Asia, such as
unsettled conflicts on the Korean Peninsula and over the Taiwan Strait,leaving rule making and the resolution of specific conflicts on thesidelines.

as well as territorial issues involving several nations. They are all potential

To realize a sustainable peace in East Asia, the project will reexamine

threats to regional peace and security, and any one of them may develop

existing confidence-building mechanism in East Asia on a country-by-

into a major conflagration.

country basis, and attempt to produce a prognosis on the future of theGenerally speaking, confidence-building measures can be describedas those policies that prevent the accidental outbreak of armed conflict

ARF. The project also seeks to conduct research conducive to the creationof a multilateral security system in the region.

and remove distrust between countries through such measures as priornotification

venue in Hiroshima. Experts and researchers from eight countries willcommunication channels between heads of government, and transparency

be invited to take part, with a view to releasing a report by the summer

in military power.

of 2003.

Europe,military

exercises,

confidence-building

theinstallation

measuresareof

The first workshop is scheduled for November 2 and 3, 2002, at a

hot-lineInofpermanently

institutionalized as part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−４−

By Ikuko Togo, assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

HPI Research Forum
January 15, 2002

Assessing the Risks of Nuclear Power
Title: “The Proliferation Risks from Civilian
Nuclear Technology”
Speaker: Dr. Ron Smith, senior lecturer/director,
Defense and Strategic Studies, Departmentof Political Science and Public Policy, The
University of Waikato

In his speech, Smith said the risk depended largely on the level of nuclear
technology and range of nuclear facilities in a given country. More
important, he added, is the effectiveness of measures a country takes tocontrol and manage those risks.
Although Japan’s nuclear facilities and capabilities are of a highstandard, Smith said, it has been trying to introduce greater transparency
regarding information on nuclear facilities in cooperation with theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), implementing IAEA
safeguards and accepting inspectors.
By contrast, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities
are not nearly as advanced as Japan’s, have not adopted a policy oftransparency, he added. Hence, the potential for civilian nuclear knowhow falling into the wrong hands and being diverted into military use isparticularly high in these countries.
In the nuclear production cycle, he explained, the highest proliferation
risk comes during the storage of spent fuel and the disposal of waste. In

the storage stage, measures should be taken to reduce the accumulationof spent fuel and separated plutonium, and to protect fissile materials.
At the same time, international controls should be put in place over the
storage of spent fuel, as such a system would reduce the risk ofproliferation by preventing countries from unilaterally accumulating
plutonium. Countries that do not have their own nuclear reprocessing
facilities or enough storage space would also benefit from such an
approach, although arranging safe transportation could pose a problem.
Smith evaluated proliferation risks by comparing the safety risks
involved in using alternative energy sources, as well as other factors, suchas the sudden termination of a stable energy supply.
This writer believes it is impossible to secure absolute safety in theuse of nuclear power, although in terms of the likelihood of accidents,
fatal or otherwise, nuclear power carries no greater risk than any otherenergy source. Others disagree, pointing to the risk nuclear power poses
to the environment and the extent and degree of damage that could result
from an accident of the type that occurred at Chernobyl.
Nevertheless, the reality of current energy use makes it impossible
to avoid serious discussion of how to minimize the risks of accidents andproliferation, and to ensure the safe and peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The history of research into the impact and risks of nuclear energy is shortwhen compared with the half-life of fissile materials. Many issues remain
to be explored in greater depth, including the intergenerational effects ofradiation.
By Nobumasa Akiyama, assistant professor at HPI

May 30, 2002

Modern Genocide and the Nuclear Holocaust in
Hiroshima
Title: “The Armenian Genocide and theHolocaust in Comparative Perspective:
Ideology, War, and Revolution and theOrigins of Modern Genocide”
Speaker: Dr. Robert Melson, professor ofpolitical science and former acting directorof the Jewish Studies Program at Purdue
University, Indiana, U.S.A.

Melson discussed the Armenian genocide (Aghet) and the Holocaust(Shoa) in comparative perspective. The following is a summary of his
presentation:
The Aghet is the archetype of modern genocide and the first of four
total genocides, which include Cambodia (1975-76) and Rwanda (1994).
In the Ottoman Empire, Armenians enjoyed autonomy like most of theother 40 or so millets (communities). The disintegration of the empire set
free destructive forces. The Young Turks’ political revolution in 1908
started with liberal ideas and ended in a nationalist upheaval inspired by
Pan-Turkish ideologies. In the context of Wold War I, the Armenians ofAnatolia were accused of conspiring with Russia against Turkey, and theYoung Turk leadership ordered their deportations and subsequent
destruction.
Like the Young Turks, the Nazis came to power after the collapseof an old regime, the German empire that was vanquished in 1918, a social
revolution, and the downfall of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis reactivatedthe late 19th century theory of human races and declared the Jews a threat
to the “Aryan race.” Hitler also denounced a “Jewish world conspiracy.”
Exploiting age-old anti-Semitism in Europe, the Nazis preyed on Jews.
In the context of World War II, the extermination of six million Jews was
the result of Hitler’s project for which he mobilized the state apparatus,
the army (Wehrmacht), the Nazi S.S., and collaborators in the 20 or sostates occupied by the Germans.
Similarities and dissimilarities between the two cases should beconsidered in reference to other cases of genocide and acts of mass murder.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

In sharp contrast to the colonial genocides of the 19th century, the four
total genocides in the 20th century were characterized by the obliterationof a substantial component or components of domestic society. The
victimized groups were minorities in the very states that destroyed them.
Those victimized first, however, were members of the political opposition.
Revolutions, or upheavals in general, and wars provided the framework
conditions of these genocides. This was because the wars closed off otherpossibilities for dealing with the minorities, such as integration,
assimilation, or segregation.
The discussion following Melson’s presentation was extremely lively.
The question of where to locate the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombingson the conceptual map of genocides provoked an especially intense
discussion. Melson recalled the U.N. convention, which defines the
genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy in part or in wholea national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such” (emphasis Scherrer’s).
He proposed to distinguish the intent of President Truman and his advisors,
who decided to use the A-bomb, from the effect of that decision on the
citizens of Hiroshima. The effect of the bombing was unquestionably
genocidal.
Some participants argued that the distinction between intent andeffect would do harm to the movement for peace and the abolition of
nuclear weapons. Others referred to the recent proliferation of nuclear
weapons and voiced pessimism about the possibility of barring their use
in the future. Melson pointed out, however, that the effects of nuclear
weapons are so well known today that whoever uses such weapons in the
future must be presumed to do so with the intent to commit genocide.
By making this inference, we remain consistent with the U.N. definitionof genocide, while categorically rejecting the use of nuclear arms.
The lecture fit in very well with HPI’s research agenda, which
includes prospective work on issues related to genocide, mass murder,
and war crimes. A survivor of the Holocaust, Melson, and his wife, Dr.
Gail Melson, visited the peace museum and viewed its exhibits. They
also met and engaged in a very moving exchange of experiences andopinions with a delegation of hibakusha, or survivors of the atomic
bombing.

−５−

By Christian P. Scherrer, professor at HPIVisit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Globalization, War and Terrorism
By Yuki Tanaka
Technological innovations, particularly in information and transportation,

life, the proliferation of large supermarkets, shopping malls, chain

have revolutionized the way we communicate and interact. The regions

restaurants, cinemas and other entertainment complexes means that,of the world are now directly linked, and comprehensive financial andalarmingly, the multinationals have acquired the power to standardize

distribution networks have expanded worldwide under the mantle of freelifestyles and value systems.

trade. “Globalization,” as this process is called, has made possible the

Globalization of the type described above has been in the ascendantmassive and constant flow of information, money, commodities andsince the oil crises of the 1970s, and received a further boost from the

manpower on a global scale. On the surface, it would seem that

neo-liberal policies of the administrations of Margaret Thatcher in Britain

globalization constantly improves the quality of our daily life andand Ronald Reagan in the United States in the 1980s. Economic

communication between various groups of people is also beneficial.

globalization made the Soviet communist bloc heavily dependent on the

The fact is, however, that multinational corporations are further

Western capitalist world and, aided by the failure of socialist policies of

expanding their global business operations by utilizing the most advanced

the Soviet bloc itself, it worked to destroy one communist nation after

technologies. The oil and military industries are among those undergoinganother in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The United States emerged fromexpansion as they exploit the increase in regional conflicts seen since thethe collapse of the Soviet bloc with its supremacy unchallenged, allowing

end of the Cold War. Such multinationals and industries view trade

globalization to proceed at a greater speed and on a larger scale than everprotection and environmental regulation as obstacles to the untrammeledbefore.

pursuit of business opportunities and, of course, profits. They are

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995 todetermined to replace those regulations with new ones based on thereplace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as theprinciple of “free competition.”principal means of promoting a global system of free trade. The WorldFree competition, or the law of the jungle, is creating a serious

Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were the major players

economic imbalance and inequality between the nations of the northernin creating this new system. Clearly, the political and economic powerand southern hemispheres. These inequalities have, in turn, created greatof the West, home to the multinationals, was behind this drive towardsocial tensions. Many nations in the southern hemisphere havecreating a new free trade system.

accumulated huge debts. They have fallen prey to chronic poverty andDeveloping nations are forced to implement structural reforms based

diseases, and suffer from widespread environmental destruction. Social

upon the neo-liberal economic model in return for financial support fromfunds such as those for education, social welfare and economic

the World Bank and the IMF. These reforms include the promotion ofdevelopment have been substantially reduced, which increases theexports (particularly natural resources), the devaluation of currency inpotential for regional conflicts, with their attendant massive loss of life

order to secure sufficient foreign currency, substantial cutbacks inand refugee crises. Poverty also causes the illegal migration of workers

education and social welfare, the large-scale reduction of financial supportand illegal trade in such items as narcotics and human organs.

for small-scale farmers, and the privatization of national assets and public

Furthermore, in the developed nations of the northern hemisphere,

corporations. Yet these nations’ debts are increasing, not decreasing, withthe concept of marketability equates with control over all areas of life,

the current total estimated at well over US$83 trillion. The inequality gap

leading to the privatization of public facilities, such as railways andbetween the winners and losers in globalization is widening, and social,telecommunications networks, hospitals, schools, homes for the elderly

political and economic problems are spreading as a consequence.

and even prisons. Small businesses, which can no longer obtain

In 2000, the top 20 percent of nations in terms of wealth produced

government protection and financial support, are unable to compete with

86 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP), while the totallarge multinationals and are forced to close down. Unemployment rates

GDP produced by the remaining 80 percent of nations amounted to aremain high, unions have little influence over government policies, andmere 14 percent. In the same year, the top 20 percent consumed 82 percent

the income gap between rich and poor is widening all the time. Theseof the world’s goods and services, while the remaining 80 percent

circumstances provide the ideal breeding ground for crime and corruption.

consumed 18 percent. In the same year, moreover, 93 percent of Internet

While cutting investment in education and welfare, governments

users worldwide hailed from the top 20 percent of nations. About 50

simultaneously strengthen their military and police forces to protect

nations are currently regarded as super-debtor nations; i.e., they are no

advanced technologies, large financial institutions and the oil industry.

longer able to repay their debts. Of these, the average debt accumulated

Thus the military budget is increased and the military-industrial complex

by African nations is 123 percent of gross national product (GNP), while

is expanded.

that of Latin American nations is 42 percent, followed by Asian nations

In the political sphere, these so-called advanced nations tighten

at 28 percent. Inequalities between rich and poor are spreading among

surveillance of their citizens in the name of protecting freedom, humandeveloped nations. The gap between the top 20 percent of income earners

rights and democracy. People’s privacy is no longer guaranteed. In daily

and the remaining 80 percent is growing particularly fast, and is being

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−６−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

accelerated by rising unemployment.

reducing and delaying the distribution of money to each republic. ThisThe conditions for structural reform imposed on debtor nations bycatastrophic economic situation created political divisions among the six

the World Bank and IMF create economic inequalities that often lead to

republics and two autonomous provinces, and was followed by outbreaks

domestic conflict. In many cases, people are unaware of the real causeof violence between ethnic groups. Those conflicts were aggravated byof those inequalities, and, in the search for scapegoats, find themselves

the war-mongering policies of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

engaged in inter-ethnic and religious fighting. The consequences include

The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), with financial support frompremeditated massacres, the destruction of schools and hospitals, andthe United States, bought weapons from Germany and other nations, andstarvation among refugees.

received training from British Special Forces. The Milosevic government

Western nations and international aid organizations such as the Red

collapsed shortly after NATO launched air strikes on Yugoslavia in 1999.

Cross typically arrange for emergency food and medical supplies to be

The new administration in Belgrade handed Milosevic over to the Hague

sent to war-torn regions. At the same time, political power is handed over

International War Crimes Tribunal in return for economic aid, and once

to foreign political powers or the United Nations until a new politicalagain, Western nations secured opportunities for fresh investment inauthority is established and political stability restored. Although NGOs

Yugoslavia and control of the country’s markets.

do their utmost to relieve refugee crises, the new political regime is, in

The September 11 terrorist attacks can be described as a high-voltage

most cases, placed under the direct control or influence of the United Stateselectric shock, triggered by the accumulation of social tensions aroundand other Western governments. This is the pattern that emerged during

the world due to globalization, the origins of which are in the United States

the conflicts in Mozambique, Angola and Rwanda, to name but a few.

and other Western nations. In other words, the terrorist attacks were part

The wars in the Balkans and Kosovo emerged amid politicalof a war against globalization. The United States and its Western allies

instability that had been created by financial aid from the World Bank

responded with military force. It is fair to say that economic globalization

and IMF. In 1990, the World Bank and IMF proposed financial support

has created the globalization of war and conflict. The only possible

programs to Yugoslavia, then a socialist state, subject to certain structural

solution lies in the globalization of forces opposed to economic

adjustments. The Yugoslav government tried to turn itself into a neo-liberal

globalization. Such a movement must involve the consolidation ofmarket economy, but instead received a severe blow to its economy, which

grassroots movements, in particular those in the peace movement, on a

was already in dire straits following the death of President Tito.

worldwide scale.

In the years that followed, inflation skyrocketed and unemployment
reached massive levels following the collapse of state-owned corporations.

Tanaka is a professor at HPI

In addition, the federal budget was slashed to repay foreign debt, thereby

Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century

Discussions Conclude on Chapters of Final Report
HPI’s Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century held

Rauf, head of the Verification and Security Policy Coordination Section

three study meetings in January and March 2002. The members concludedof the IAEA, which was followed by a discussion. Comments about these

discussions on each chapter for the final report, which is scheduled forchapters were passed on to each author to be taken into account for their

publication in August.

final drafts.

At the 18th meeting on January 25, Osamu Yoshida, professor of law

The Research Project on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century,at Hiroshima University, made a report based on his draft for the chapter

initiated in 2000, held its 20th and final meeting on March 22. Kurosawa“Nuclear Development in South Asia.” Discussions followed themade a report on the last chapter “Nuclear Disarmament in the 21stpresentation. A draft of the chapter “Non-nuclear Policies and Nuclear

Century,” based on his draft. Heated discussions accompanied thisDisarmament Policies in Australia and New Zealand,” written by Naokipresentation, since the chapter will serve as a conclusion to the final report.

Kamimura, professor of international studies at Hiroshima City University,

It proposes concrete measures on nuclear disarmament to be taken by thewas submitted to the meeting in advance, and was discussed by members

international community over the next 10 years. These measures areof the project.

designed to strengthen the outcome of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty

At the 19th meeting on March 5, Prof. Mitsuru Kurosawa of the(NPT) Review Conference.

Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, made a

The research project is now in its final stage and is focusing onreport on the first draft of “Nuclear Policies and Nuclear Disarmament

publication of its final report titled “Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st

Policies of the United States” by Lawrence Scheinman, professor at theCentury―A Message from Hiroshima.”

Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International
Studies. Mizumoto gave an outline of the first draft of a chapter on Non-

By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI

nuclear Policy and Nuclear Disarmament Policies in Canada by Tariq

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002

−７−

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

Hello from HPI
Dr. Toshi Yuki Tanaka Professor

Hitoshi Nagai Research Associate

Since the mid 1980s Dr. Tanaka has been concentrating his
research on war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial
Forces in World War II. Having extensively used a range ofarchival documents, he has revealed many cases of war crime in
the Asia-Pacific War, which were hitherto unknown to theresearchers in this field.
He lived and taught at several universities in Australia for about 20 years until
2000. While in Australia he conducted research at the Australian War Memorial aswell as the National Archives of Australia and unearthed many invaluable archival
documents concerning war crimes committed by the Japanese against the Allied forces
and civilians. Since 1995 he also has travelled to the U.S. National Archives manytimes and used its collection extensively for comparative analyses between Japanese
war crimes and war crimes committed by forces of the U.S. and other nations. His
research aims are not only to analyze the causes of war crimes but to seek solutions
to prevent military conflicts.

Born in San Francisco, California, U.S.A., Nagai specializes in the history of Japan-Philippines relations and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. He studied at Rikkyo
University and Ateneo de Manila University.
He gained a Master’s degree from Rikkyo University in 1993. He has taught
at several universities, including Kanto Gakuin University and Kyoritsu Women’s
University, and took up the post of research associate at the Hiroshima Peace Institutein April 2002.
“I have analyzed Japanese foreign policy, focusing on the Asia-Pacific region
during World War II,” Nagai said upon his appointment. “It is significant for me totake part in peace studies at this institute, because Hiroshima is a symbol of both
war and peace. Through my research, I will endeavor to contribute to the preventionof war and its miserable consequences, and to consider what messages can be sent
to the world from the first city in the world to have been struck by a nuclear bomb.”

D I A R Y
March 1, 2002 - June 30, 2002
◆ March 5 HPI’s project team on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century holds its 19th
meeting.
◆ March 13-14 HPI’s project team on the Legitimacy and Rationality of Newinterventionism holds its 15th meeting.
◆ March 18 Kazumi Mizumoto attends a supervisors’ meeting at the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum on the master plan to renovate the exhibits regarding the reasons for the
dropping of the atomic bomb.
◆ March 19 Mizumoto gives a lecture on “Current Trends in Nuclear Weapons” in the second
workshop of the Exchange Gatherings for A-bomb Witnesses, at Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum.
◆ March 22 HPI’s project team on Nuclear Disarmament in the 21st Century holds its 20th
meeting.
◆ March 24 Janusz Onyszkiewicz, former Polish defense minister and analyst at the Center
for International Relations in Warsaw, takes part in a discussion with HPI President Haruhiro
Fukui and HPI Professor Christian P. Scherrer titled Euro-Atlantic Area of Security: From
Vancouver to Vladivostok, or to Tokyo?
◆ March 25-29 Nobumasa Akiyama visits the John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, in Boston. In Washington, D.C., Akiyama attends the U.S.-Japan Track
II Meeting on Arms Control, Disarmament, Nonproliferation and Verification, visits theJapanese Embassy, the office of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and the Henry
L. Stimson Center.
◆ April 1-June 30 Yuki Tanaka begins twice-monthly lectures at Niigata City Adult
Education Course “Memory and future in Northeast Asia: For mutual understanding in the
21st century.”◆ April 8-9 Akiyama attends the second Asia-Pacific Seminar, organized by the Association
for Communication of Transcultural Studies, held in Jakarta.
◆ April 10-11 Akiyama attends the second meeting on Enhancing U.S.-Japan Cooperation
on Crisis and Consequence Management organized by the Osaka School of International
Public Policy, Osaka University, and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, in Tokyo.
◆ April 11-14 Fukui attends the second meeting of the Jeju Peace Forum titled Rethinking
and Re-engineering Peace in the 21st Century: Lessons and Opportunities in East Asia, inJeju City, South Korea.
◆ April 16 Fukui attends opening ceremony of an exhibition titled Linus Pauling and the20th Century.
◆ April 24 Scherrer visits refugee camps in West Timor and begins a four-week investigationin East Timor into U.N. peacekeeping operations and the United Nations Transitional
Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).
◆ April 29 Mizumoto gives a lecture on “the importance of handing the experiences ofA-bomb survivors to future generations” in a seminar organized by Meiji Gakuin University
and the University of California, at Hiroshima Aster Plaza.
◆ May 2 Akiyama visits the Japanese Foreign Ministry to discuss the U.S.-Japan Track II
Meeting on Arms Control, Disarmament, Nonproliferation and Verification held in
Washington, D.C. in April.
◆ May 6-10 Scherrer meets the Timorese general prosecutor, the U.N. deputy prosecutor
in the Serious Crimes Unit of UNTAET, the justice minister, and chairman and vice chairmanof the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in Dili. They discuss how toachieve justice after genocide.
◆ May 13 Scherrer meets the Timorese foreign minister and other high-level UNTAET
officials in Dili.
◆ May 17 Scherrer questions Timorese President-elect Xanana Gusmao on justice andreconciliation in East Timor.
◆ May 19 Scherrer meets the president of Philips Petroleum (Australia) and other businessleaders in East Timor.
◆ May 20 Scherrer participates in independence celebrations in East Timor. Tanaka lectures
on war and society as part of a course run by the Economics Department of Keio University.
◆ May 24-25 Fukui attends a meeting in Hiroshima of the preparatory committee fordesigning college courses about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
◆ May 28 Scherrer visits the Kyoto Museum for World Peace at Ritsumeikan University
in Kyoto.
◆ May 30 HPI holds a research forum. Robert Melson, professor of political science andformer acting director of the Jewish Studies Program at Purdue University, gives a lecture
titled The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust in Comparative Perspective: Ideology, War,and Revolution and the Origins of Modern Genocide.
◆ May 31 Fukui, Scherrer, Robert Melson, a survivor of the Holocaust, and Gail Melson
meet five survivors of the atomic bombing at the Peace Memorial Museum.
◆ June 1-8 Fukui interviews applicants in the United States as part of the second search
for new researchers at HPI.
◆ June 6 HPI holds a research forum. Gianni Deligia, U.N. coordinator in the Bobonaro
district of East Timor, gives a lecture titled Building Peace in East Timor: U.N. Peacekeeping
and the Role of U.N. Volunteers.
◆ June 9 Tanaka attends a symposium about air raids on cities at Waseda University tomark the opening of the Research Center for the Tokyo Raid and War Damages.
◆ June 10-20 Akiyama conducts research and attends a meeting on the Central Asia andCaucasia Project in Azerbaijan and Georgia, sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation.
◆ June 14 Mizumoto gives a lecture on “Japanese Nuclear Policy and the Security ofNortheast Asia” at a preparatory meeting of The Japan-South Korea Lawyers Interchange
Meeting, held at the Hiroshima Bar Association.
◆ June 21 Mizumoto gives a lecture on the “Current Trend of Peace Research and Its Tasks,”
held at and organized by the Hiroshima Prefectural Nursing Association.
◆ June 21-22 Akiyama attends the meeting for the Asia Europe Forum for young
professionals in Denmark.
― Visitors to HPI ―◆ March 22 Australian Ambassador John McCarthy, Maj. T.F. Gellel, assistant defense
attaché at the embassy, and Katsuhiro Tobimatsu of the Japan-Australia Society in Hiroshima.
◆ April 5 Richard Bonney, history professor at the University of Leicester, England.
◆ June 24 Thomas Ganschow, professor emeritus of history, Han S. Park, professor ofpolitical science, and six students of the University of Georgia.
◆ June 25 Mohammed Saad Al-Muqadam, dean of student affairs at Sulatan Qaboos
University.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWSVol.5, No.1 July 25, 2002
Copyright 2002 HPI All rights reserved

TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573●Issued by Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg. 12th Floor, 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, JAPAN E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp●Printed by Syukodo co., ltd.

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

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.5 No.1 July 2002