HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.7 No.2 November 2004
International Symposium (July 31, 2004)“Reflections of the Enola Gay: Symbolic Representations of War and Destruction, 1945-2004”

What Can We Learn from the Enola Gay Exhibition? By Yuki Tanaka
Since December 2003, the “Enola Gay,” the B-29 bomber which dropped
the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, has been on permanent display in the
new wing of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in
Washington, D.C. This exhibition is seen by American World War II
veterans and politicians as evidence of the military might as well as thetechnological supremacy of the United States, but it makes no reference
to the nuclear holocaust that resulted in horrific mass killing and the total
destruction of Hiroshima city, as well as long-term damage done tosurvivors and the environment by the bomb’s radiation.
Yet, it was a common practice already during World War II toregard aerial bombing campaigns as proof of a nation’s (military)strength or as a way to demonstrate a nation’s ascendancy over theenemy to its own people by exploiting images of aerial bombings. In
Britain, for example, there is a wartime propaganda poster in which alarge number of Lancaster bombers, looking like a huge swarm of
dragonflies, are pictured showering bombs on a German city. Similarly,
immediately after the bombing of Hiroshima, a popular American
magazine, Life, published a special edition, with a large imaginary
picture of the bombing of Hiroshima by the Enola Gay spread across its
cover page. The irony of an illustration depicting the instant killing of
70,000 people splashed across the cover page of a magazine entitled Lifecannot be ignored. Interestingly, however, the picture itself was not thatof a gigantic mushroom cloud, as we know the detonation of theHiroshima A-bomb actually produced, but simply an enlarged version ofan explosion typically caused by a conventional bomb or an incendiarybomb. This implies that the common understanding of an atomic bombby those on the attacking side was that it was simply a mammoth
conventional bomb. Indeed, this view is still held by most American
veterans who do not clearly perceive the difference between atomic
bombs and conventional bombs.
According to Professor Lawrence Wittner, while the majority ofAmericans are now against the development of nuclear arms and the
conduct of nuclear wars, they still regard the use of atomic bombs
against Hiroshima and Nagasaki as justifiable acts. It seems that theiranti-nuclear sentiment derives from a wish not to become themselves thevictims of a nuclear attack. In other words, the fundamental point ofAmerican anti-nuclear sentiment lies in the desire to defend the lives ofAmerican citizens, with little concern for the lives of people of othernations. Clearly, this problematic attitude stems from the fact that the
memories of the A-bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are notwidely and deeply shared with the American people.
In any war, it is almost inevitable that the “enemy’s faces” aredehumanized. This leads to the dehumanization of the civilian populationof the enemy nation as well, even though these civilians’ faces are
similar to those of one’s own people. If one wishes to prevent thedehumanization of citizens of any country and thus to reduce acts ofviolence and terrorism throughout the world, it is most important foreach of us to examine such acts from the viewpoint of the victims. To
comprehend the problems of violence as seen in the eyes of the victims

CONTENTSHPI International Symposium on July 31, 2004
“Reflections of the Enola Gay:
Symbolic Representations of War and Destruction, 1945-2004” ………………… 1~3
Genocide in Darfur, Sudan? by Christian P. Scherrer………………………………… 4
HPI Research Forum
What Does “Peace” Mean in a Post-Civil War Society? by Midori Iijima ……… 4~5
Iraq after the “Anti-terrorism War” by Shintaro Yoshimura…………………………… 5
New Tasks for the Peace Movement in Hiroshima by Kazumi Mizumoto………… 6~7
HPI Public Meeting
Research in Progress on Damage Due to Bikini Atoll H-Bomb Tests ……………… 7
Diary…………………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

means that one must listen to the individual stories of the victims, tore-experience their psychological pain, and to internalize such pain as
one’s own. As Professor Takashi Kawamoto claims, “sharing memories”
in the true sense becomes possible only through this process of re-living
and internalizing the pain of others. The intense desire of Americanparents to protect their own children against air raids was vividly
expressed in a propaganda poster produced in the U.S. during World War
II, using a picture of an innocent girl’s face looking apprehensively up at
the sky. A recent photograph of an Iraqi father carrying his severely
wounded daughter strikes us by conveying the indescribable sorrow of
this man. Both of these images capture the essence of “individual
stories” of victims. By focusing attention on these individual stories, thescope for “sharing memories” begins to widen, as they force one to think
about the fundamental question of universal humanity.
How can we, the citizens of Hiroshima, help American citizens
share the memories of the A-bomb victims? What changes are needed tomake the present exhibition of the Enola Gay a symbol of “sharing
memories” between the Japanese and Americans? It is impossible toachieve this goal of sharing memories simply by criticizing theAmericans’ one-sided way of maintaining their memories of thebombing of Hiroshima. We must also change our own way of storing ourmemories, so that they can be shared with many people throughout theworld. To this end, it is necessary, for example, to design and restructure
the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum so that it may provide a venue
where all people can share common memories of Hiroshima, regardlessof nationality, race, religion, and political ideology. Such a change
should be the result of extensive discussions from a wide range ofviewpoints and perspectives. In addition, as Professor Laura Hein lucidly
argues, there seems to be much that can be learnt from the recentchanges at some American museums, which have occurred since the first
Enola Gay Exhibition controversy in 1996.
It is indeed indisputable that the central message of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum must be opposition to nuclear weapons. Yet,
we also need to find our own unique way to continually deliver to theentire world a powerful message of rejecting any type of violence
anywhere in the world.
The core philosophy of this message must include the conviction
emphasized by Professor Tony Coady, that any form of indiscriminate
killing of civilians amounts to an act of terrorism, whatever the
motivation and whoever the perpetrator. Seen from this point of view, it
is clear that indiscriminate mass killing is a crime against humanity,common both to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to the
9/11 terrorist attacks. Moreover, “sharing memories” becomes possible
between the Japanese and the Americans if we listen carefully to theindividual stories of the victims in both cases.
No matter what the reason, killing civilians – including those ofenemy nations – is one of the most serious violations of fundamental
human rights. One inevitably brutalizes oneself by violating those rights,
and such an act eventually leads to the disintegration of one’s own
humanity. Similarly, by violating the fundamental human rights ofcitizens of other nations, the perpetrating nation corrupts its own
democracy and contributes to its own eventual destruction. We Japaneselearnt this important lesson from our own experiences in the 15-year
Asia-Pacific War, although it seems that Japanese politicians are now
forgetting this lesson. Today the U.S. seems to be embarking upon a pathsimilar to that which we commenced more than 70 years ago. In the eyesof the citizens of Hiroshima, the body of the plane, the Enola Gay,
displayed simply to symbolize the supremacy of American military
power and technology, is seen as a warning sign against the danger that
American democracy faces.

−1−

Tanaka is professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

International Symposium “Reflections of the Enola Gay: Symbolic Representations of War and Destruction, 1945-2004”

The Enola Gay andthe World of Terror

The Enola Gay Exhibits
and the Peace Movementin the United States

By Tony CoadyTony Coady is Professor of Applied Philosophy at theCenter for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics,
University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied
philosophy.

The symbolism of the hijacked airliners exploding into the World Trade
Center in New York needs to be juxtaposed with the image of the Enola
Gay above the mushroom cloud rising from Hiroshima. It is important
today to view the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki against thebackground of the current war on terror and concern with the spread of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Both the atomic bombings ofJapan and the September 11th attacks in the United States were acts ofterrorism if we define terrorism, as I think we should, as “the organizeduse of violence to attack the innocent (or their property) for political
purposes.” These were qualitatively similar crimes, although the scale ofdestruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was much greater.
Both attacks constitute moral crimes because they employed a tactic
that violates a deep principle of just war theory: that which prohibits
direct attacks upon non-combatants (the “innocent” in the special senseof the word meaning those not engaged in executing harmful acts thatmight justify a violent response). In my definition of terrorism, bothstates and non-state agents can perpetrate terrorist acts.
Some have argued that there is no moral point in distinguishing
between non-combatants and combatants, but these arguments areflawed. In particular, the idea that modern warfare or insurgency cannot
distinguish between combatants and non-combatants is unsustainable inlight of the fact that in any war there remain millions of people who
cannot plausibly be seen as being involved in the enemy’s lethal chain of
agency. There are, for instance, infants, young children, the elderly andinfi rm, large numbers of tradespeople and workers, not to mention
dissidents and conscientious objectors. It is simply obscene to claim that
there is no moral difference between shooting a soldier who is shooting
at you and gunning down a defenseless child who is a member of thesame nation as the soldier.
Terrorism is often justified by both state and non-state actors as anecessary means of achieving critical goals. The United States claimed
its terrorism was required to bring the war to an end more quickly andwith lower loss of life; other terrorists claim their deeds are justified bytheir contribution to the end of foreign occupation or to the exposure ofvulnerabilities of an imperialist power. Not only is this sort of
explanation often weak in its own terms, but more significantly, it ignores
the inherent wrong in terrorism.
The legitimate campaign against the spread of weapons of mass
destruction is hampered by the fact that its principal promoter, the UnitedStates, has itself used such weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki andcontinues to possess huge stockpiles of them. The legitimate campaign
against terrorism also needs to acknowledge the existence of state
terrorism, especially the readiness of major powers to use nuclear
weapons.

By Lawrence S. Wittner
Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History at the University
at Albany, State University of New York. He has a Ph.D.
from Columbia University and specializes in American
diplomatic history.

In 1995 and again in 2003, the National Air and Space Museum of theSmithsonian Institution, a very large U.S. government museum complex,
opened exhibits featuring the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped theatomic bomb on Hiroshima. Both of these exhibits stirred up substantial
public controversies centered on the atomic bombing of Japan.
In the first controversy, hawkish forces — veterans groups, military
lobbyists and conservative politicians — succeeded in using nationalism
to browbeat Smithsonian officials into eliminating pictures and portionsof the museum script highlighting Japanese suffering and the nuclear
arms race, and had them replace these items with new sections
emphasizing Japanese wartime villainy. However, these changes deeply
disturbed two key constituencies: historians and peace movement leaders.
As a result, these groups protested against the reduction of the exhibit tolittle more than nationalist propaganda and secured a few small
concessions from the Smithsonian staff. Outraged, the hawkish groups
succeeded in forcing the museum director to resign and stripping down
the exhibit to merely a plaque identifying the B-29, an upbeat film about
the crew, and a cardboard cutout showing the crew members.
The issue resurfaced in 2003, as the Smithsonian was making plans
for another Enola Gay exhibit. By this time, the Smithsonian leadershipand staff had been thoroughly purged or tamed, and the new museum
director promised that the Enola Gay would be displayed “in all its glory
as a magnificent technological achievement.”
Peace activists and anti-nuclear academics once again responded.
Under the banner of the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear
History and Current Policy, they demanded that the exhibit also discuss
the effects of the atomic bombing. They petitioned, staged a public
protest meeting at American University and held a demonstration at the
opening of the exhibit.
Despite these efforts, the 2003 protests did not generate broad
popular backing. The public meeting and the demonstration were bothrather small-scale events, and once again there was a strong expressionof support for the atomic bombings.
This failure to mobilize substantial criticism of the Enola Gay
exhibits reflected the strength of nationalism in American life. Polls showthat over the years most Americans have continued to support the atomic
bombing of Japan. This support is not based upon a fondness for nuclear
weapons, for, since World War II, peace groups have managed to turn amajority of Americans against them. However, most Americans cling to
the notion that they are the citizens of a uniquely virtuous nation andtherefore dislike exhibits that undermine this belief.

Ｑ＆Ａ
Question: I believe that comparing the bombing of Hiroshima with theattack on the Twin Towers would be hardly acceptable in the UnitedStates. Considering the strong nationalistic sentiments currently prevalent
in the U.S., I believe that there should be changes both in the way theAmerican government perceives its own actions and in the way theAmerican people perceive their own actions. How can we face thisdifficulty and appeal to ordinary Americans at the same time?
Answer (Prof. T. Coady): There are several American intellectuals,
outstanding intellectuals like Michael Walzer and John Rawls, whoregard the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral acts on thesame grounds that I have been arguing. Walzer gets very close to callingit terrorism and he certainly calls the bombing of German cities
terrorism. That is getting as close as you can to saying that it is on a parwith September 11th. He probably does not say that publicly at the
moment, but certainly in the United States there are a lot of philosophers
who take a somewhat similar line to mine about terrorism. I think thatthe only thing one can do is to keep repeating these views and writing

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

about them, and being as brave as possible about confronting people with
them.
Question: I understand that thanks to American multi-culturalism,
American museums have also become more open-minded towards avariety of differing views that exist within their own nation. However, it
is often pointed out that while this growing tolerance brought about
through multi-culturalism accepts and appreciates differences withindomestic culture, it fails to extend such an outlook to foreign culture.
Does there exist any trend that seeks to make American multi-culturalism
more truly universal?
Answer (Prof. L. Hein): American multi-culturalism is a newphenomenon. When I was a child and in school, there was no mention of
the internment of Japanese Americans in our textbooks. I didn’t learn
about it until I went to college. I have looked at this closely and all the
textbooks that are used widely in the United States now discuss this eventand take the view that it was a terrible wrong that harmed not just−2−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

International Symposium “Reflections of the Enola Gay: Symbolic Representations of War and Destruction, 1945-2004”

American Museums andTheir Audiences since the
Enola Gay Controversy

Caring for Memories and Sharing ofMemories : A Critical Note on theSmithsonian Enola Gay Controversy

By Laura Hein

By Takashi Kawamoto

Laura Hein is Professor of History at Northwestern
University. She has a Ph.D. from the University of
Wisconsin and specializes in Japan’s international relationsin the 20th century.

Takashi Kawamoto is Professor at the Graduate School of
Education, University of Tokyo. He entered the doctoral
program in the Graduate School of Humanities at the Universityof Tokyo, earning a Litt. D. He specializes in social ethics.

In December 2003, the National Air and Space Museum opened apermanent exhibit featuring the Enola Gay. Like the 1995 exhibit, itcelebrates the technical details of the plane without acknowledging thehuman suffering that it caused. The exhibit is chilling evidence of themilitarization of American culture. Similarly, much of the U.S.
government’s motivation for going to war since 1945 seems to have been
aimed at making Americans feel good about using military power again.
For example, the 1983 war on Grenada was staged largely for the effectit would have on domestic audiences, and glorification of American wars
was the real goal of the conflict.
This is the reason why it is so disturbing to see that one effect of thecontroversy over the 1995 Enola Gay exhibit has been to make museum
curators more willing to censor themselves. Nonetheless, wider trends incuratorial practice over the last two decades still offer opportunities formuseum professionals who wish to question the costs of wars. Museums
have worked hard to overcome the impression that they are irrelevant to
the lives of most Americans. Curators now believe that museum exhibits
should be open-ended and also should reflect a multiplicity of views
about a given subject. Therefore war exhibits everywhere now featurefoot soldiers and civilians at least as much as generals. The main museum
strategy is to evoke a variety of memories among museum-goers without
trying to integrate them completely — collecting memories rather thancollectivizing them. Far more challenging for museums is representing
the larger social categories that shape peacetime lives as well: nationality,of course, but also race, gender, region, class, religion, etc. Nonetheless,simply by collecting a variety of individual experiences about anindividual conflict, it has become impossible to choose one white soldier
to stand in for everyone involved in it.
While growing increasingly sensitive to the feelings and sensibilitiesof all Americans, however, it seems that most Americans, including thoseworking in museums, are still relatively uninterested in representing theexperiences of foreigners. Yet, many Americans have never been
comfortable with the official A-bomb narrative because it seems not tosupport the idea that the United States fights only for the right reasonsand only when it must. Indeed, people come to look at the Enola Gay
airplane at the National Air and Space Museum because they already see
it as a complex symbol of many things. If, as museum professionals now
emphasize, visitors are bringing their own meanings to exhibits, displayof the Enola Gay will forever provide an invitation to debate the moral
and strategic legitimacy of the use of the atomic bomb in August 1945.

Introduction : The Aim and Scope of Presentation
At the time when the first controversy over the display of the Enola
Gay had reached its final stage in 1995, John Rawls, an American moral
philosopher, explicitly stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima andNagasaki had been morally wrong. I translated into Japanese thiscourageous and cogently argued article, “Fifty Years after Hiroshima,”(Dissent, Summer 1995) and had it published in the February 1996 issueof the liberal Japanese magazine Sekai (World). Subsequently, I gave atalk on A-bomb survivors’ memories jointly with Etsuko Nakatani, amember of the Association of Second-Generation Atomic Bomb Victim
Teachers (Hibaku Nisei Kyoshi no Kai). Our talk was televised under thetitle of “Caring for Memories.” In the program, Nakatani and I attempted
to loosen the fi xed ideas, i.e. myths, held by both Americans andJapanese about the meaning of the atomic bombings and correct
distortions in their memories. As the permanent exhibit of the Enola Gay
in the Smithsonian Museum shows, however, it is difficult to say thatJapanese and Americans have succeeded in sharing their memories of theatomic bombings.
The First Enola Gay Controversy (1994-1995) and Diverse Memories
Differences between the Japanese and American “myths of theatomic bombs” surfaced during the first controversy over the exhibitionof the Enola Gay. Simply put, there remains a strong myth in the U.S.
that the use of the atomic bombs brought about an early conclusion to
World War II and saved the lives of a great number of American soldiers.
In Japan, on the other hand, the atomic bombings were accepted as akind of terrible “natural disaster,” which finally ended World War II.
Japanese also tend to forget their responsibility for the war of aggression
they had launched against other Asian countries. Although both
Americans and Japanese hold on to their own myths that underscore theirnational and cultural backgrounds, memories relating to the atomic
bombs are not monolithic in either country. For instance, there is amovement within Japan that rejects the characterization of Japan simply
as “the only nation in the world that has ever been subjected to atomic
bombing” and insists on incorporating in its collective memory therecord of its own aggression against Asian countries. Similarly in the U.S.,
some citizens and scholars dispute the prevailing “A-bomb myth.”“Stories of Individual Victims,” “The Dialectics of Memory,” and“Overlapping Consensus”
Considering these diverse memories, I would like to explore a path
towards “sharing of memories” by way of “caring for memories.” In my
opinion, there are three possible ways to follow such a path.
First, we can start from a consideration of the person: an individualwith his/her proper name and body, and relationships between him/herand others. My thought in this regard has been prompted by the article
entitled “Commemoration and Silence: Fifty Years of Remembering theBomb in America and Japan” by Laura Hein and Mark Selden published
as a chapter in Living with Bomb: American and Japanese Cultural
Conflicts in the Nuclear Age in1997. This article focuses attention on “thestory of individual hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors),” which might beused to challenge or even undermine “the official stories.”
Second, there is an approach that Risa Yoneyama calls “thedialectics of memory.” Yoneyama has conducted research into A-bomb
survivors’ involvement in testimony-giving activities based on theirpersonal experiences. She describes, for example, the process oftransformation experienced by the testifier (shogensha) such as Suzuko
Numata, whose self as well as memories changed as a result of speakingof her experiences as an A-bomb survivor while carrying out research
into other survivors’ experiences.
Third, we can attempt to find “overlapping consensus,” to borrow
John Rawls’ technical terminology, between our differing views, evenbetween multiple conflicting and competing memories, and generatepartial and overlapping agreements step by step. I believe that thisapproach has much in common with the proposals put forth in the “Hague
Appeal for Peace 1999” by Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor of Hiroshima. For
example, in order to condense the messages of hibakusha into the highest
moral principle and to make it the overwhelming rallying point of world
public opinion, Akiba proposed as a possible first step adherence to thestraightforward principle: “One should not kill non-combatants in war orsimilar conflicts.”

Ｑ＆Ａ
Japanese Americans but everyone else. It harmed the Constitution;
therefore everyone’s rights were affected. And Japanese Americans
should be praised for insisting that their views be incorporated into thenational point of view; that represents something that has changed in mylifetime. In the city of Chicago where I live now, about a third of thechildren speak a language other than English in their homes. These aremostly American citizens, and even among those who currently are not,the majority will ultimately become citizens. The line between Americanand foreigner for many people has become blurred also because children
who were born in the United States automatically become American
citizens. There are many families that include both citizens andnon-citizens. Therefore, when I am feeling optimistic, the situation I see
is one of an expanding community of people whose perspective isconsidered legitimate. However, at the moment, we are at the point where
the imagination of many Americans gets stuck and I spend a lot of mytime trying to get it unstuck.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

−3−

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

Genocide in Darfur, Sudan?

By Christian P. Scherrer

SPAIN

The Sudan is one of the world’s deadliest places. The largest country in
The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis
Africa has suffered horrific mass violence ever since it gained independence
The Darfur crisis of 2003-2004 clearly came about as the result of criminalfrom Britain in 1956. In the past 50 years more than 3.5 million people have Tunis policies pursued by the military junta in Khartoum. As happened earlier in
Algiers
SYRIA Arab Baggara tribes – morebeen either slaughtered or starved to death. The Sudan
has been asouthern Sudan, the regime incited nomadic
IRAN
particularly deadly place for minority peoples Casablanca
and rebels ever since civilTUNISIA
war
precisely, members of the Bani-Helwa, Bani-Hussein,
Rizegat, andMisiyria
IRAQ
MOROCCObroke out in the south of the country in 1955 with the rise of the Anyanya
the indigenous, sedentary African Muslim
tribes – to assault and terrorize
ISRAELthem for their alleged support of local
separatist movement among the Southern Sudanese. This conflict continued Tripolipeoples of Darfur in order to punish JORDAN
CAIRO
rebels.
from 1955 to 1972, with some violence continuing up until 1979. Major
The regime provided militiamen with modern weapons and mobile
bloodshed was halted at that time by the dictator Numeiri’s
ALGERIA promise ofphones,and granted them full impunity to carry out killings and the raping
autonomy for the Southern
Sudanese, only to resume in a more devastating
WESTERN
LIBYA
SAHARAand kidnapping of girlsEGYPT
and women from among
Fur, Masalit, andfashion in 1983, this timewith the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA)SAUDI theARABIA
Zaghawa peoples. The assaults of armed gangs called Janjaweed on the
becoming the principal foe of a succession of Khartoum regimes. The SPLA,
defenseless population caused widespread panic and a mass flight to safer
led by Dr. John Garang, is strong among the pastoralists, Dinka, Nuba andareas and into Chad since the fall of 2003.
some Nuer.
Nouakchott
The Miserable Non-response of the International Community
Failed State— Criminal Governance
MAURITANIA
U.N. organizations and international NGOs warned of a major disaster in
Ninety percent of this horrendous death toll canMALI
be attributed to nefarious
NIGER
Darfur as early as November 2003 but no effective action took place. Despite
government forcesDakar
and their allies among Arab tribes. The victims
wereSENEGAL
international
efforts to put a stop to the killings
widely reported
mainly unarmed civilians among the African peoples of the Dinka, Nuer,
YEMEN
Asmera and
CHAD
GAMBIA
atrocities committed by Arabmilitiamen in conjunction with Sudanese army
Shilluk and Equatorians insouthern Sudan and the Nubaof central Sudan.
NiameySUDANKhartoum
BamakoGUINEA-BISSAU
andpolice forces, the mass violence continued.
Only recently has violence
spread to Darfur inOuagadougou
western Sudan.
N´Diamena
FASO
The militias were not disarmed and it is estimatedDjiboutithat by May 2004
The same brutal tacticsGUINEA
were applied in BURKINA
this region
as earlier in southern
Conakrythey
hadkilled up to 50,000 people and driven
one millionSOMALIA
into “internally
Sudan: the predominantly
civilian
victims
from
among
the
non-Arabic
Addis Ababa
BENIN
SIERRANIGERIAGHANA
LEONEsuffered COTE
displaced people” (IDP) camps in Darfur ETHIOPIA
and an additional 200,000 into
(African) peoples invariably
indiscriminate
genocidalAbuja
attacks byrefugee camps in Chad. Janjaweed militiamen have clashed with ChadianArab militias and wereMonrovia
subjected toD´IVOIRE
the deliberate premeditated use of
CENTRAL
LIBERIA
Abidjangovernment
forces along the border.
famine as a weapon by successive
governmental
Accra regimes, be they either
AFRICAN REP.
CAMEROON
TOGO“democratically” elected or military in nature.
Peace Process in Southern Sudan Gave Rise to More Violence in Darfur
BanguiYaoundéThe peace process initiated between the Sudanese government and the SPLA
Divide and Rule Tactics and Terror — Now Also Against Muslims
UGANDAThe only differences in this case in comparison to previous
assaults
arethat,provided the
Mogadishu
EQUATORIAL GUINEA in the 50-year-old conflict in southern Sudan unfortunately
KENYA
firstly, the Darfur rebels of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) Librevilleandregime with the opportunity to redeploy
Kampalaas many as 20,000 of its soldiers
Nairobi
Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) are much younger and weakerGABON
than
andas many policemen into the Darfur region.
CONGO
RWANDAthe 21-year-old SPLA, which became a formidable opponent of the northern
Allegedly they came to stop the militia terror being waged against the
ZAIRE
Arabized clique regimes, hence they are much less able to protect the very
civilian population, butBURUNDI
in reality it was to combat the rebels. The murderous
Kinshasaof the Janjaweed have not stopped. Despite the passing of strongly
people they claim to be fighting for.
attacks
TANZANIAintervention
Secondly, for the fi rst time the victims are almost entirely fellow
worded U.N. resolutions, no international
has taken place. A
Dar Es Salaam
Muslims, a surprising fact for a government that has imposed draconianfew hundred observers have been sent by the African Union (AU). One
Sharia law throughout the country, and is known to be composed of hard-line Luanda
hundred fifty Rwandan soldiers were sent in August to protect them and a
COMOROS“good Muslims” — offshoots from the 1989 coup by the fundamentalist
force of 3,500 AU peacekeepers will be deployed — depending
on funds andNational Islamic Front (NIF) and its sympathizers in the army.
facilities provided by EU and the U.S. Several hundred already arrived.
ANGOLA
Genocidal Pattern of Violence
Plight of the Refugees Worsens
ZAMBIAIn relation to Darfur, the mass media has referred to “ethnic cleansing,” a
Meanwhile, as predictedby the U.N. andhumanitarian NGOs, the scale of
MALAWI
Lusakaterm that implies the use of various policies designed to remove forcibly
the humanitarian disasterincreased dramatically with the arrival of the rainy
Hararemembers of a particular ethnic group or several groups by a particularseason in July. Lines of communication
were interrupted and food could not
attacker – usually a state or a state-sponsored armed group. This constitutes
be delivered to the neediest
people.MOZAMBIQUE
Currently there are almost Antananarivo
two million
ZIMBABWEa gross violation of human rights, as are forced emigration and state-ordered
IDPs and refugees in the Darfur region, and up to 100,000 civilians are
MADAGASCAR
population transfers. In extreme cases, if the international community
believed
NAMIBIAto have been slaughtered. More may die from famine in the coming
BOTSWANA
chooses to look the other way, it becomes a prelude to genocide.
months.
WindhoekThis seems to be what has happened in Darfur since the fall of 2003,
The scale of the Janjaweed
campaign of terror has led to comparisons
MaputoPretoria
despite some engagement by the international community, and after thewith the Rwandan genocide.
For many observers, the tactics used in Darfur
Mbabanecrisis was described as the world’s “worst human disaster” by U.N. sources.
are more akin to the ethnic cleansing
campaigns carried out in former
SWAZILAND
Violence has increased and displayed a genocidal pattern, and has been
Yugoslavia, although
Maseruin Darfur a genocidal pattern has become clearly
LESOTHOaccompanied by organized mass rapes of girls and women, systematic
visible. So
far, however,
SOUTH
AFRICA neither the United Nations nor the African Union
killings of men among the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa peoples and destruction
considers that the Darfur conflict constitutes genocide. This could hamperof their villages, food storages, and mosques.
the planned
CapeAU
Townpeacekeeping operation.
Scherrer is professor at HPIHPI Research ForumMay 6, 2004

Title: What Does “Peace” Mean in a
Post-Civil War Society?:
The Case of Guatemala
Speaker: Midori Iijima, Associate Professor of
Latin American Studies, Rikkyo
University➡

“Civil War” is the phrase that accurately describes a certain “Latin
Americaness.” The term refers to a bitter confrontation between a regime
and an anti-regime force, especially between military governments and theiropposition. “Civil War” often takes the form of an “unbalanced war” inwhich the regime side has overwhelming power to mobilize all resources
against the anti-regime forces. Now, does the end of such a confl ict
immediately bring peace to the society? In this presentation, the speaker
analyzes this important question, through a typical case of Guatemala.
In Guatemala an internal war was fought between left-wing guerrillas

and government forces for over 30 years ending in 1996. It is believed that
this war left more than 200,000 dead and displaced more than 150,000
civilians, turning them into refugees. In the worst period (1978-1983), thearmy carried out ruthless counterinsurgency (and even civilian-targeted)
operations in the central-western highlands of the country where 440
villages were burned to the ground. Most of the victims of these assaults
were rural Mayan civilians who lived in departments with predominantly
indigenous population, such as Quiche.
The complexity of this prolonged war stems from the fact that racial
discrimination in this society has compounded and intensifi ed apolitical/ideological confrontation. The army drafted members of theindigenous population and had them organized into groups called the Civil
Self-Defense Patrols (PAC) in rural communities. Members of the PACs,
assigned the task of persecuting the guerrillas and sympathizers, killed even
their own neighbors in order to survive and overcome their own inferiority
complex. They were thus in charge of executing human rights violations
planned by the army. As a result, it is not unusual to find members of thesame family on both sides of the conflict in Guatemala.
At the end of 1996, the Peace Accords were concluded between the
Guatemalan government and the guerrilla organization under U.N. auspices,

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

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

Iraq after the “Anti-terrorism War”
The situation in Iraq continues to worsen long after U.S. President
George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on
May 1, 2003. One year after the alleged “end” of the war, the death tollof American soldiers had reached at least 900 (with American wounded
numbering at least 5,800), surpassing by far the 140 deaths recorded
during the period of “actual wartime” (40 days). Worse still, since thebeginning of the Iraq War, the death toll of Iraqi civilians has reached atleast 11,000. It is a notable characteristic of this war that the death tollhas been far greater following the “end” of the war than during thelarge-scale military engagements, and that the victims include many more
non-combatants than combatants.
One cannot dismiss these facts simply by saying that no war is freefrom miscalculations due to the fact that these miscalculations areintegrally linked to the contradictions that have dogged the war from thevery beginning. With regard to the reasons used to justify the launchingof the attack against Iraq, the Bush administration drew attention to: 1)
Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction; 2) its relationshipwith al-Qaeda; and 3) the dictatorship of the Hussein regime, underwhich human rights were being severely and systematically abused. Of
these three reasons, the first two have already been proven to be largely
unfounded. Even the third and last reason appears dubious when one
considers recent highly questionable U.S. military activities, including
the brutal arrest and imprisonment of suspected “terrorists,” assaults
without warning on and accidental bombings of houses and mosquescondemned as “terrorist-connected,” the killing and wounding of innocent
civilians, and the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. These acts committed bycoalition forces are more than equal to those committed under the
Hussein regime in their degree of disregard for human life and humanrights.
It is true that following the fall of the regime, many Iraqi peoplecelebrated their liberation from Hussein’s dictatorship. It is also true,
however, that increasing numbers of Iraqi people have begun to believethat the liberation has subsequently turned into occupation anddominance by a foreign power, wherein the U.S. occupation force goes
about single-mindedly “terrorist-hunting” and the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) and U.S.-based corporations go about profi teering
through the appropriation of oil interests and reconstruction funds. Not
surprisingly, many Iraqis have come to hear the cliché “for the sake of
the Iraqi people” — so often repeated by leaders of the occupation, as
just another foreign lie.
Many of the suicide bombings and kidnappings that occurred invarious parts of Iraq immediately following the overthrow of the Husseingovernment were committed by Sunni Muslim groups, including
supporters of the previous regime, such as members of the Fedayeen
Saddam and al-Qaeda members who entered Iraq during the war and thepost-war turmoil (including al-Tawhid wal-Jihad). Since March 2004,
however, resistance from Shi’i Muslims, who make up 60% of Iraq’s
population, has intensified. As dissatisfaction with the occupation grows
among the urban population around the country, members of the coalition
forces have started to become paranoiac. At the same time as espousing“peace and justice” as their slogan, they have become increasingly
belligerent and have begun to treat all opponents of occupation policies

By Shintaro Yoshimura

as “terrorists.”
Afghanistan’s case differs somewhat from that of Iraq. During andafter the conflict, the U.S. and U.K. leaders made use of the Northern
Alliance as a political and military counterforce to the Taliban regime,
and, as a result, the transition to a provisional government has been
relatively smooth. As long as the traditional tribal decision-making
system represented by the Loya Jirga (great assembly) and Islamic values
and institutions are being respected, and as long as there is no drasticchange in the balance of power among the tribal groupings and warlords,
Afghanistan may not experience so serious political turmoil, at least for
the time being.
Iraq, on the other hand, was created by the U.K. in the aftermath ofWorld War I in the same way that a house can be built on a vacant plot of
land. There exist neither an easily identifiable “Iraqi people,” nor specificinstitutions through which relationships can be coordinated between theethnic, religious, and sectarian groups on one hand, and the tribal groups
on the other. While the search for a new social and political order is underway, various political groups are at present coming and going, eachseeking to promote its own interests. In this general climate, it now looks
to be almost impossible for the Iraqi Interim Government (inaugurated inJune 2004), or Ali al-Sistani, the authoritative leader of the Shi’i sect, orMuqtada al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, or the leaders of Kurdishorganizations, or for that matter any other politician or leader to succeedin the challenge of rebuilding a peaceful Iraq.
The Bush administration and the political leaders of its so-called“Coalition of the Willing,” who have embarked upon what appears now
to be a reckless adventure in the name of an “anti-terrorism war,” in orderto gain control of oil resources and even to redesign the 80-year-old“Middle Eastern States System,” seem to lack the wit to understand thatthe fact is that war is terrorism writ large. Nor do they seem tounderstand that the reason why their enormous barrage against the specterof “terrorism” has not managed to eliminate it is because this sameterrorism is, in fact, the creation of the aggressive policies of the U.S. No
matter how the situation in Iraq pans out in the future, the politicalsituation in the Middle East will continue to grow more and morevolatile, and as a result it may lead to another 9/11.
The destructive interventions by external, i.e. European and U.S.,
forces, coupled with the enforced restructuring of the regional system, allcouched in some kind of euphemism or another, have succeeded in
producing a perennially conflict-ridden Middle East, which is tragicallysymbolized by the intractable Palestinian problem. The whole world iscurrently pervaded today by an “anti-terrorist” mood and is in effectsitting on another powder keg. Confronted by this grim situation is not
only the United Nations’ political leadership but also the authenticity ofJapan’s commitment to peace — the commitment of a nation that during
World War II went through the dual tragedy of, on one hand, committing
cruel aggression against its Asian neighbors and, on the other, suffering
the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yoshimura is associate professor,
Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University➡
bringing the war to an end. The Peace Accords stipulate, among otherthings: 1) a thorough investigation be carried out about alleged humanrights violations and massacres committed during the confl ict, 2)
recommendations be formulated for national reconciliation, and 3) aninvestigation report be published. Based on these stipulations, the Historical
Clarification Commission (CEH) began operations in cooperation with the
U.N. in July 1997. Victims of the conflict were, however, far from hopefulabout the results, predicting that the military would exercise considerable
influence over the Commission’s work.
In consideration of the feelings of this nature held by many victims,
the Recovery of Historical Memory project (REMHI) released a reportbased on the findings of its own investigations one year earlier than the
CEH did, so as to prevent the latter from publishing a hollow andmeaningless “report.” REMHI was led by the Catholic Church who had
played an active role in the negotiations of the peace process. During thecourse of the investigations, which proceeded in a “climate of terror,” those
who shared similar experiences of suffering under similar circumstances
gave their testimonies to each other.
The REMHI report was released in April 1998. Two days later, Bishop
Juan Gerardi, the representative of the project, was brutally assassinated, inspite of the passage of a dozen months or so after the signing of the Peace
Accords. The murder frightened the fragile civil society of the country andalthough “perpetrators” of the crime were subsequently arrested, the truth

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

about who was really responsible for the crime remains unknown. The
incident proved that peace-building efforts in Guatemala have not led tosignificant improvements in the judiciary, legislature or executive of thecountry. Furthermore, it has highlighted the persistence of a “structural
impunity,” which impedes investigations and the attribution of responsibility
for injustices and political crimes.
Two competing views exist about the priority action that post-civil war
society like Guatemala should take: one view holds that it is better toconcentrate first on establishing democracy, which would in effect grant
impunity to human rights violators, rather than raking up past wrongs, while
the other holds that it is essential to uncover the truth about the past wrongs
not to repeat the same mistakes. This confrontation over the better way todeal with the past continues to split Guatemalan society as much as the war
itself. This shows how difficult it is to rebuild a society torn apart by civil
war and to achieve genuine peace even after “peace” has been signed on
paper.
Following Professor Iijima’s presentation, Mr. Daniel HernándezSalazar, a photographer and former Associated Press correspondent who
observed many excavations of civil war victims’ remains in Guatemala,presented photos and film that depict the reality of the horrors that continue
to dominate Guatemalan society today.

−5−

By Hitoshi Nagai, research associate at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

New Tasks for the Peace Movement in Hiroshima: Sixty
Years after the Atomic Bombing
By Kazumi Mizumoto

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

It was the Bikini Atoll Incident of March 1954 — the incident inwhich a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon, was exposed to fallout
and radiation from a U.S. thermonuclear test in the Pacifi c Ocean,causing the subsequent death of one crew member — that changed theattitude of the Japanese public towards the wartime atomic bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki and their survivors. A nationwide movement
collecting signatures to support an appeal for the banning of atomic andthermonuclear weapons began and, as a result, the fi rst World
Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikin) wasconvened in Hiroshima on August 6, 1955, exactly 10 years after theatomic bombing of the city. It was practically the first time that the peace
movement in Japan had defined “the rescue of atomic survivors” to be its
central mission as well as one of the central goals of the 1955
Conference.
<From the First Conference to the Division of Gensuikin >After 1955, the World Conference was held once every year, mainly in
Hiroshima and Tokyo. However, the opinion of the organizers soon
became divided over issues such as the attitude that should be taken
towards the U.S. and the Soviet Union and the pros and cons of therevision and renewal of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, among others. In
1959, the pro-Liberal Democratic Party group left Gensuikin. In 1961,
the pro-Democratic Socialist Party group organized a rival anti-nuclear
weapon conference. The pro-Socialist Party group, too, left Gensuikin in
1963 and inaugurated its own conference and campaign against atomic
and hydrogen bombs. Following these defections, the original Gensuikin
World Conference became an event organized mainly by pro-Communist
Party groups. The split of the World Conference had a significant effecton the peace movement in Hiroshima and brought about corresponding
divisions within it.
<The Development of a Diverse Movement in Hiroshima>
The split of the Gensuikin movement, mainly caused by ideological
rivalries, had a negative effect on the peace movement in Japan as awhole. However, in Hiroshima, new groups were formed in the period
from the mid-1960s to the 1980s that were not bound to the doctrine andideology of any particular political party. Citizens’ groups focused on
specific targets which could act as unifying goals for the city and called
for broad cooperation among the people. Among these goals were thepublication of a white book on the damage caused by the atomic bombs,
the re-creation on a map of the original layout of the area around the
hypocenter, the protection and reinforcement of the Atomic Bomb
Dome, exhibitions of the bombs’ damage inflicted upon Hiroshima andNagasaki in cities around the country, and the recovery of films collectedby the U.S. authorities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after thebombing, a campaign that was to become known as the Ten Feet
Movement.
The local media in Hiroshima provided impetus to the movement
by publishing a variety of reports and articles or broadcasting
documentary programs about the atomic bombings and their survivors.
In recent years, it has become customary in Japan for the media topublish or broadcast every summer reports and commentaries on theatomic bombings. In order to produce reports of high quality, the media
find it necessary to work with citizens’ movements. In so doing, themedia help energize the peace movement in Hiroshima. The municipal
governments of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and members of academic
circles have also contributed significantly to the movement by supporting
its goals.
<The Internationalization of the Movement>
In 1977, after more than 10 years had passed since the split of the
Gensuikin movement, a joint World Conference was held by the original
Gensuikin’s two successor groups where “the total ban on nuclear
weapons” and “support for atomic bomb survivors” were declared as the
movement’s major goals. The latter was a goal addressed to the Japanese
government, which eventually bore fruit in the Atomic Bomb Victims
Relief Law promulgated in 1995. The former was an appeal tointernational society. In pursuit of this goal, the citizens of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki sent a delegation of atomic bomb survivors to the U.N.
General Assembly’s Special Session on Disarmament in New York in
1978 and 1982, together with the signatures of hundreds of thousands ofJapanese who supported the abolition of nuclear weapons. Since then,the peace movement in Hiroshima has become more and more

−6−➡

In 2005 it will be 60 years since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It is
often said that throughout the postwar era, Hiroshima has been
continually appealing to the world for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
However, the path of the peace movement in Hiroshima has not been so
simple. In reality, it has been influenced by the surrounding internationaland domestic political contexts at each stage of its development. At thepresent time, at the beginning of the 21st century, the movement
continues to be affected by the changing international conditions of the
post-Cold War era, and especially so since the September 11th terrorist
attacks.
The peace movement in Hiroshima is deeply rooted in issues
relating to the atomic bombing and nuclear weapons. As the internationalsituation becomes increasingly complex, however, it is necessary that its
goals and methods become better adapted to the changing dynamics ofthe political sphere.
In this article I will review the developments and achievements ofthe peace movement in Hiroshima over the last 60 years and also explore
the mission and role that Hiroshima is expected to play at the dawn of
this century.
Atomic and Nuclear Issues
At the outset, I would like to ask the question “What are the real issues
posed by atomic and nuclear weapons to today’s world?” Although thephrases “atomic issues” and “nuclear issues” are commonly used, theissues implied by these phrases are actually quite diverse and are notsimple to address. Some of them are listed below.
• Why did the U.S. develop and drop the atomic bombs on theJapanese cities?
• What is the true extent of the damage caused by the dropping of
the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
• What are the real dangers associated with the development andtesting of nuclear weapons?
Additionally, there are issues relating to:• Relief and compensation for the atomic bomb victims andsurvivors• International law on the use of nuclear weapons• Justification for the American use of the atomic bombs and thecontrol of information related to that action• How to implement measures aimed at bringing about theeradication of nuclear weapons and the safe disposal of nuclear
materials• Legal control over the development, testing, storage, deployment,
and transport of nuclear weapons• Legal control over nuclear disarmament and the process ofbanning and eradicating nuclear weapons• The conditions for the denuclearization of nuclear-weapon states,with special reference to the experiences of South Africa, theUkraine, etc.
• The dangers of military doctrines based on nuclear deterrence
The topics listed above are just a few examples of the real issues
relating to nuclear weapons that the world is currently facing. If weseriously intend to pursue the goal of banning and eradicating theseweapons from the Earth, it is vital for us to tackle these problems in aconsistent and comprehensive manner.
A Brief History of the Peace Movement in Hiroshima and Its Achievements
The history of the peace movement in Hiroshima can be divided into
several distinct periods.
<From the End of World War II to the Bikini Atoll Incident>
The peace movement in early postwar Japan, which was widely
supported by a strong anti-war sentiment held by the public, focused on
several specific issues, such as the peace treaty concluded in 1951 with
the Allied nations, the presence of U.S. military bases in Japan and thecountry’s postwar rearmament. The movement had strong links with
left-wing political parties and the labor movement.
In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were some small-scale
movements seeking the banning of atomic weapons, but survivors of theatomic bombings were not fully re-integrated into local postwar society
and many suffered from discrimination in terms of employment
opportunity and choice of marriage partner. One reason for this was that
until April 1952, Japan was under occupation by the Allied nations,
during which time strict controls were enforced upon the disseminationof information relating to the atomic bombings.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

HPI Public Meeting

Research in Progress on Damage Due to Bikini Atoll H-Bomb Tests
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Bikini Incident, thetragedy caused by the U.S. hydrogen bomb tests conducted at
Bikini Atoll. Among the victims of the tests were thecrewmembers of a Japanese fi shing boat called the Daigo
Fukuryumaru (5th Lucky Dragon), who were exposed to theradioactive fallout of the H-bomb test. On September 17, 2004, a
meeting was held by HPI to discuss the incident and its continuing
aftereffects on the hibakusha, or the people who were exposed to
the radiation, over half a century later. The meeting, held at
Hiroshima City Plaza for Town Development through Citizen
Exchange, heard a lively discussion among some 40 citizens who
attended.
The first session began with an explanation of the general
purpose of the meeting by MC Hitoshi Nagai, a Research Associate
at Hiroshima Peace Institute. Next, Professor Tetsuo Maeda ofTokyo International University gave the keynote lecture entitled“The Meaning of the Human Suffering Caused by the Bikini Atoll
H-bomb Test in Today’s Context.” In the second session, Hiroko
Takahashi, also a Research Associate at Hiroshima Peace Institute,
gave a presentation entitled “The Daigo Fukuryumaru Incident andthe U.S. Government’s Responses.” Following her presentation,
Mr. Seiichiro Takemine, a student of Waseda University Graduate
School, gave a presentation entitled “U.S. Government Approaches
to the Treatment of the Marshall Islanders Exposed to Radiation,”based upon his recent survey of the current conditions in the
Marshall Islands and their inhabitants.
Professor Maeda emphasized the fact that the total damage
inflicted by the series of H-bomb tests at Bikini Atoll has yet to beaccurately assessed since the tests affected so many people: notonly the crewmembers of the Daigo Fukuryumaru but also those ofover 900 other Japanese fishing boats. He also stressed that by nomeans was Bikini Atoll the only location where nuclear tests havebeen conducted in the post-1945 world. This suggests that there
may be countless other victims of nuclear tests living in various
parts of the world. Furthermore, we are as yet unaware of the
precise impact of depleted uranium bombs used during the recent
confl ict in Iraq and elsewhere. “Prior to the A-bombing ofHiroshima, numerous civilians died in the indiscriminate bombingof Chongqing (China) and many other cities,” Maeda continued.
“After Hiroshima, Marshall Islanders were exposed to radiationfrom the H-bomb tests. Because these incidents are allinterconnected, it is extremely important and meaningful to discuss
the Bikini Incident here in Hiroshima.”
Takahashi reported that the U.S. government has yet to accept
its responsibility for the death of Mr. Aikichi Kuboyama, the chiefradio operator of the Daigo Fukuryumaru, who died after exposure
to radiation from the H-bomb test. Instead, the government
continues to maintain that Kuboyama died of hepatitis caused by ablood transfusion. She further stated that the U.S. government has
had the Daigo Fukuryumaru case declared closed, rejecting any

further contact
with the victims on
the ground that thecompensation
problem had reacheda “full settlement”
when the Japaneseand U.S. governments
signed an agreementon the issue in January
1955. Takahashi
maintained, however,that scholars havebegun to discover much new information relating to the Daigo
Fukuryumaru case in official documents recently declassified by
the U.S. government.
Mr. Takemine pointed out that, half a century after the H-bomb
test at Bikini Atoll, the local people are still suffering from thelasting and serious aftereffects of those 67 tests. He stated: “Theeffects of the nuclear tests have not been limited to the deteriorationof the natural environment or the residents’ health conditions.
Worse than either of such effects, the aftermath of the tests
continues to erode the fundamentals of local life such as the
economic, psychological and social bedrock upon which the people
have built their lives in their own land.” Takemine also brought up
the compensation issue in the Marshall Islands and stated that “theU.S. government provided 150 million US dollars to the people in1986 not as a sign of an admission of their fault for conducting
nuclear tests but as a way to bring the issue to a ‘full settlement’
and thus to ensure that the U.S. would not be officially charged
later with responsibility for the damage done to the people.”
Finally, Nagai gave a brief summary of the presentations madeby Takahashi and Mr. Takemine and made the following comment:“The U.S. government’s responses to the Bikini Incident have beencharacterized by a clever maneuver to justify both its nuclear tests
and its possession of nuclear weapons.”
The presentations were followed by an open-ended discussion
between the speakers and the audience. Some members of theaudience pointed out the similarity between the Japanese
government’s aid to hibakusha in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the
U.S. government’s compensation to American soldiers exposed toradiation at nuclear test sites. The audience demonstrated a keeninterest in, and deep empathy for, the experience of the MarshallIslanders. The meeting effectively fostered a shared awarenessamong the speakers and members of the audience of a variety offacts relating to the Bikini Incident, as well as generating acommon recognition that problems pertaining to it are yet to reacha “full settlement.”
By Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPI➡
internationalized, and interchange between NGOs in Hiroshima andabroad has become more extensive.
Examples of more recent international activities include support
for: victims of nuclear tests and nuclear power plants outside Japan;
campaigns against the deployment of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles in
Europe; the nuclear-free cities movement; the World Court Movement;
and assistance to atomic bomb survivors living overseas. A delegation
was sent to India and Pakistan after both countries conducted nuclear
tests in 1998 to appeal against the atrocity of the use of atomic bombs.
<Tasks for the Peace Movement 60 Years after the Atomic Bombing>As stated above, in spite of the split of the Gensuikin movement, there
are many clearly visible achievements of the peace movement inHiroshima. However, many challenges also remain. As mentioned above,
although many problems can be included under the heading of so-called“atomic bomb issues” and “nuclear issues,” only a handful of them havebeen addressed so far. Furthermore, whereas the linkages between the
movement, on one hand, and the media and local governments, on theother, have been strengthened, the movement still lacks an effective
channel through which it can influence the nation’s lawmakers in Tokyo.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004

The negative legacy of the split of Gensuikin is still found in Hiroshima.
The difficulty of conveying the A-bomb experiences of the survivors
to the younger generation represents another important issue; even now
many citizens and the media are equally dependent upon the atomic
bomb survivors for finding “answers” to many of the problems they arefacing. Although the importance of sending messages from Hiroshima to
the rest of Japan and beyond is constantly re-emphasized, it seems thatsome in the city are not as interested in receiving messages from theworld in exchange, and are indifferent to how people abroad look at
Hiroshima and its experiences.
Clearly atomic bomb and nuclear issues will be and should be at theheart of the peace movement in Hiroshima in the years to come. But, atthe same time, more recognition is needed of the fact that nuclear
weapons represent only one of the many issues relating to peace intoday’s world. The peace movement of Hiroshima should free itself fromlocal and parochial interests and adopt “human” and “humanitarian”
perspectives transcending nationalities and national borders.

−7−

Mizumoto is associate professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

ＤＩＡＲＹ
July 1, 2004 - October 31, 2004

July 4-9 Sung Chull Kim delivers paper entitled “Peace-Prone Foreign
Policy: Systems Analysis of Domestic-Regional Linkages,” at 48th
annual conference of International Society for Systems Sciences, inAsilomar, California.
July 10 Kazumi Mizumoto reports on “Nuclear Holocaust—How
Should We Perceive the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima?” at joint study
meeting of the 1st and 3rd sectors of Hiroshima Institute for Peace
Education, at Hiroshima Institute for Peace Education.
July 17 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Inhumanity of Depleted
Uranium Bombs” at meeting for peace held at Sakura City Museum ofArt, Chiba Prefecture.
July 19-29 Christian Scherrer participates in Working Group for
Indigenous Peoples 22nd session and Sub 2 meeting of United Nations
Human Rights Commission in Geneva and speaks on “Indigenous
Peoples and Conflict Resolution,” presenting recommendations to the
Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
July 27 HPI President Haruhiro Fukui attends and chairs Hiroshimameeting of Peace Memorial Facilities Utilization Council convened by
Hiroshima City at Hiroshima City Hall.
July 28 Mizumoto attends as committee member 1st conference of
core members of Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by
Hiroshima Prefecture and held at Hiroshima Prefectural Government
Tokyo Office.
July 29 Fukui attends and chairs Tokyo meeting of Peace Memorial
Facilities Utilization Council convened by Hiroshima City at Tokai
University Members-Club.
Mizumoto gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Peace” in training programfor journalists organized by Hiroshima City.
July 31 HPI holds international symposium, “Reflections of the Enola
Gay: Symbolic Representations of War and Destruction, 1945-2004,” atHiroshima International Conference Center.
Aug. 5 Scherrer visits Cambodian fi lm director Panh in Locarno,
Switzerland, to discuss his fi lm “S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing
Machine,” in which killers and victims of the Cambodian genocide
confront each other for the first time.
Mizumoto gives lecture on “Review of the Relationship between Peace
and A-bomb Experiences” at 18th meeting for peace for high school
teachers and staff in large cities, organized by Hiroshima City HighSchool Teachers and Staff Union, held at Hiroshima Garden Palace
Hotel.
Hiroko Takahashi chairs 2nd workshop on Global Hibakusha at HPI.
Aug. 13 Scherrer interviews Chief Prosecutor of the U.N. Tribunal on
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at The Hague, about questions relating tocriminal justice and the Milosevic case.
Aug. 14 Scherrer interviews Secretary General of Amnesty
International on the organization’s work related to the Rwandan
genocide, its aftermath and genocide alerts in general.
Sep. 7 Mizumoto and Takahashi attend annual meeting of researchgroup on reference materials at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Sep. 7-13 Fukui attends Fifth Pan-European International Relations
Conference held at Netherlands Congress Centre, The Hague. He chairs
Panel on “Case Studies on Security Threats and Institutional Response:
North America” at Section 8: “Global and Regional Security
Governance” and reports on “Case of Japan” at Panel on “Case Studies
on Security Threats and Institutional Response: China, Japan, andRussia.”Sep. 10 Mizumoto attends as committee member 2nd conference of
core members of Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by
Hiroshima Prefecture, at Hiroshima Prefectural Government.
Sep. 11 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Current Situation of Nuclear
Weapons” at 5th session of the Peace Club for Junior High and HighSchool Students at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Sep. 12-19 Mizumoto visits Phnom Penh and Siem Reap in Cambodia
as member of Consulting Team for Reconstruction Support Project inCambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture.
Sep. 16-19 Yuki Tanaka presents paper entitled “A History ofIndiscriminate Bombing: What Can We Learn From It?” at the 16th
World Congress of International Physicians for the Prevention of
Nuclear War held in Beijing.
Sep. 16-23 Narayanan Ganesan visits Bangkok to conduct researchand interview academics at Chulalongkorn and Thammasat Universities
for his ongoing work on Thai domestic politics and foreign policy.

Sep. 17 HPI holds meeting for presentation of the results of researchby its staff on 50th Anniversary of the Bikini H-bomb Test at Hiroshima
City Plaza for Town Development through Citizen Exchange. Hitoshi
Nagai chairs the meeting and Professor Tetsuo Maeda of Tokyo
International University gives keynote lecture on “The Meaning of the
Human Suffering Caused by the Bikini Atoll H-bomb Test in Today’s
Context.” Mr. Seiichiro Takemine, student of Waseda University
Graduate School, gives presentation on “U.S. Government Approaches
to the Treatment of the Marshall Islanders Exposed to Radiation” andTakahashi gives presentation on “The Daigo Fukuryumaru Incident andthe U.S. Government’s Responses.”
Sep. 19 Takahashi gives presentation on “The Atomic Bomb
Information Control during the Japanese Occupation Period” at
Symposium on “U.S. Occupation and Complicated Circumstances ofAnti- and Pro-American Feelings” at 1st Conference of Japanese
Association for American History held at Hitotsubashi University.
Sep. 25 Takahashi gives presentation in session on “The Reality of the
Bikini H-bomb: Damages and Victims” at “Peace as a Global Language
Conference 2004” organized by PGL III Organizing Committee at Kyoto
Museum for World Peace at Ritumeikan University.
Oct. 3-13 Mizumoto visits Phnom Penh and Siem Reap in Cambodia
as member of Consulting Team for Reconstruction Support Project inCambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture.
Oct. 5 Scherrer, Tanaka, and Kim meet and hold discussions with U.N.
Disarmament Fellows at HPI.
Oct. 12 Fukui and Takahashi attend Exploratory Committee for
Renewal Plan of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Oct. 14 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Peace-building Efforts Startingfrom Local Governments—The Atomic Bombing Experience ofHiroshima and Its Tasks for Peace in the 21st Century” for 16th training
program of National Association of City Audit Commissioners at
Hiroshima Koseinenkin Kaikan.
Oct. 14-16 Scherrer participates in 2nd International Conference on
Genocide at California State University in Sacramento and gives keynote
speech on “The 1994 Rwandan Genocide-in-Whole in Comparative
Perspective.”
Oct. 15 Fukui gives lecture on “New Approaches to the Study of War
and Peace” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima.
Oct. 18 Fukui attends and chairs Tokyo meeting of Peace Memorial
Facilities Utilization Council convened by Hiroshima City at Tokai
University Members-Club.
Mizumoto gives lecture on “Activities for Peace Contribution from
Hiroshima” at training program for teachers from Bosnia andHertzegovina organized by Hiroshima International Center and Japan
International Cooperation Agency at Hiroshima Prefectural government.
Oct. 27 At a meeting of the HPI lecture series for citizens ofHiroshima, Professor Masaki Uno of Hiroshima City University gives
lecture on “The Idea of War and Peace in Islam.”
Oct. 28 Fukui attends and chairs Hiroshima meeting of Peace
Memorial Facilities Utilization Council convened by Hiroshima City at
Hiroshima City Hall.
Mizumoto attends as committee member 3rd conference of core
members of Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by
Hiroshima Prefecture, at Tokyo.
Oct. 29 Tanaka gives lecture on “‘Humane Bombing’ and ‘Precision
Bombing’ in Iraq: A Comparative Analysis of Aerial Bombing by the
RAF in the 1920s and by the U.S. Forces in 2003-2004” at HPI Research
Forum.
- Visitors to HPI Aug. 2 Wen Desheng, section chief (Asia, Africa and Oceania) at
Chinese Association for International Understanding. Niu Qiang,secretary general of Chinese People’s Association for Peace andDisarmament.
Aug. 3 His Excellency Judge C.G. Weeramantry, former vice presidentof International Court of Justice.
Aug. 5 Masaki Takahashi, member of executive committee of Peace
Boat, Hsi-Chieh Chien, executive director and 3 other members of
PEACETIME Foundation of Taiwan.
Oct. 7 Eugen Eichhorn, professor of Mathematics, and 3 otherprofessors of TFH University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
Oct. 15 Dr. Victor Dionisio Montejo Esteban, peace secretary,
Guatemala.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.7, No.2 November 26, 2004
Copyright 2004 HPI All rights reservedPublisher: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Ote-machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan. E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Printed by Nishiki Print co., ltd.
Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.7 No.2 November 2004