�����������������������

�������������������������������������������������

Asia, Lost and Found:
Japanese Historical Perceptions and History Textbook Controversies
By Mikyoung Kim
1. Japan, Non-apologizer?
Despite the widespread conventional wisdom that Japan is a confirmed non-apologizer regarding World War II, the sense of past misdeeds at the public level has shown remarkable changes over the years.
The first Textbook Controversies in 1982 signified the beginning oflarge-scale antagonistic reactions from China and Korea, foreign criticism that facilitated the understanding that Japan had not done enough toatone for the suffering its militarism caused its neighbors. It also foreshadowed the current debates over Japan’s war responsibility.
The 1982 controversy, however, did not draw much public attention. Only recently have Japan’s war atrocities become recognized as
proper material for history classes in public schools. The Japanese publicdebate now includes the interpretation of the so-called the 1937 Nanjing
incident and “comfort women” issues, and in conjunction with thesetwo, how history textbooks should be written. All of this was unthinkable throughout the post-war years until the 1990s. Why has Japanesepublic sentiment changed so drastically in recent years? This paper attempts to elucidate an answer by mapping Japan’s self-identity in its relations with Asia.
2. Japan’s Self-identity in Its Relations with Asia
Japan’s de-Asianization accelerated during the Meiji Period(1868-1912). Such contemporary opinion leaders as Yukichi Fukuzawa
were at the forefront advocating the necessity for Japan to expel thebackward elements of Asia and emulate the advanced West in its modernization efforts. Japan’s victory in the Sino-Japanese War (1895) was awatershed event that distinguished it from the rest of Asia. Its subsequent
victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) was another morale
booster instilling a deep confidence in the Japanese psyche that it had
become strong enough to conquer the West. Such confidence was one of
the motives behind Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, which in turn led to
the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The irony is that Japan’s defeat in World War II served to deepen its
admiration for the West. The U.S. symbolized advanced science andtechnology, democracy and capitalist wealth. Opinion surveys taken immediately after the defeat show that the Japanese felt most friendly towards Americans and most contemptuous of Koreans. The way the war
ended was a powerful message to Japan that it must further accelerate its
westernization process.
Amid phenomenal post-war economic success, Japanese pride grew

CONTENTS
Asia, Lost and Found by Mikyoung Kim ………………………………… 1
Series: Reflections from Hiroshima
Not Discrimination But Coexistence by Lee Sil Gun ………………… 2~3
Reflections on the Military Coup in Thailand by Narayanan Ganesan …… 4
Bombers and the American Popular Imagination in World War II
by Yuki Tanaka …………………………………………………………… 5
HPI’s Fifth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima……………………… 6
Publications of HPI Research Projects
Ima ni tou hibakusha to sengo hosho …………………………………… 7
Regional Cooperation and Its Enemies in Northeast Asia ……………… 7
Diary ……………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

accordingly. The pride lay in industry, peace, culture and democracy.
The Japanese began to feel superior to other peoples of the world, including Westerners and Asians. A 1968 survey showed that Japaneseranked themselves as the most superior people followed by Americans
and Germans. A survey taken in 1987 shows that 49% of the respondents
identified Japan with the West, while 29% identified with Asia and 16%
with neither. As their society accumulated more wealth, the troubling
past faded into oblivion. Japan’s Asian identity was largely lost in thisprocess.
3. The History Textbook Controversies
The first History Textbook Controversies of 1982 were a wake-up
call, a warning against collective amnesia and rising Japanese pride.
Anti-Japanese sentiments in China and Korea began to boil over whennewspapers printed allegations that the government pressured history
textbook publishers to replace the words for “invasion” and “independence movement” with “advance” and “riots.” Even though such allegations turned out to be false, the protests from Beijing and Seoul drew attention from Tokyo, which later passed the “Neighboring Country
Clause.” Such diplomatic accommodation, however, stirred criticism
among domestic conservatives, who charged the government with being“masochistic” about its own history.
Masayuki Fujio, the newly appointed Education Minister in the
Nakasone Cabinet, held his first and last press conference in 1986. When
asked about the history textbook controversies during the conference andlater on, he made a series of comments that provoked angry protests
from Beijing and Seoul. He suggested that Koreans were also responsible for becoming Japan’s colony. He dismissed the pertinence of the
Nanjing incident as a relevant topic for a history textbook. His statements were perceived as not only insensitive to the feelings of Koreans
and Chinese, but also a callous justification of Japanese wartime atrocities.
A survey conducted by the author and her colleagues during 2000
and 2001 revealed increasing sensitivity towards wartime atrocities
among the youth. For instance, the respondents were almost evenly split
in feeling morally responsible for such past events as Korean annexation,
the Nanjing incident and the abuse of “comfort women.” When asked
why they felt responsible, about 57% emphasized their hopes to redress
present wrongs and prevent the recurrence of past wrongs. Only about
28% exempted themselves from moral responsibility for the sins committed before their births. These responses suggest the limited persuasive
power of official discourse as narrated in history textbooks. A people’s
grasp of history often supersedes official “public opinion” due to alternative sources of knowledge.
4. Conclusion
Memory holds a nation as one community with a soul and will. The
Japanese history textbook controversies suggest a dynamic interplay between the people’s self-identity with respect to Asia and the shifting
landscape of domestic and international affairs. They also demonstrate
how history can constitute a core agenda between and among nations in
the clarification and definition of past path-crossing events.

−1−

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

＜����������������������������������＞�������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������Motofumi Asai
HPI President Asai interviewed Mr. Lee Sil Gun, President of the
National Association of Atom-bombed Koreans/President of theCouncil of Atom-bombed Koreans in Hiroshima, in December
2006. Lee published his autobiography, titled Puraido: kyosei eno
michi [Pride: Path toward Coexistence], in July 2006. It was published by Choubunsha. The eventful life described in his book will
make readers sit up straight. In this article, Asai will introduce
Lee’s view on several subjects related to being a Korean survivor of
the Hiroshima bombing. Subjects include North Korean nuclear development issues and the nuclear test, opinions on Japan andHiroshima as victims of the atomic bomb, and the memorial for
Koreans brought to Japan against their will and forced to work on
the construction of Kobo Dam in Hiroshima Prefecture.
1. North Korean Nuclear Development Issues<The Nuclear Test>
Lee: I have two views on the nuclear test by North Korea. It is
my political position and deep belief that all nuclear weapons arean absolute evil, that nuclear tests cannot be condoned, and that nonation should possess nuclear weapons. The late Kim Il-sung sternly forbade his nation to develop nuclear weapons. He said that
North Korea must neither import nor produce them. He also strictly
demanded that his son, Kim Jong-il, observe this policy. Despite
this demand, North Korea resorted to a nuclear test on October 9,
2006, which greatly shocked me.
The other view is that the nuclear test tells us that North Korea
is facing a very serious situation. In other words, they believe thatthey are facing a life or death crisis as a nation. The nuclear test
was a last resort to counter U.S. nuclear intimidation, which hasreached a peak in recent months. I could not help but feel the outrage and hatred of the North toward the U.S. policy of a nuclear
double standard.
<Mass Media Reports and Japan’s Political Reality>
On October 10 and 11 immediately after the North Korean nuclear test, the mass media quoted me as saying “I was shocked by
the nuclear test in North Korea,” or “The nuclear test was regrettable.” Though I explained my view thoroughly and expressed myunderstanding of the reasons why North Korea went so far as toconduct the test, few in the media reported that part of my statement. Afterwards, a local newspaper journalist, with a cameraperson, spent more than two hours interviewing me for a special feature article. But no such article has yet appeared in the newspaper.
Instead, they published an article with aggressive and inflammatory
statements, like a high school girl’s assertion that “We should justcrush North Korea,” or an elderly person’s comment that “I want
North Korea to disappear.” One might say that such reporting is acceptable toward an enemy nation, and Japan still has hostile, notdiplomatic, relations with North Korea. But Japan and the Korean
Peninsula historically have had a long and deep relationship. Whenformer Korean President Chun Doo-hwan visited Japan in 1984,
the first Korean President to do so, the Showa Emperor made astatement at the formal welcoming banquet. He said, in effect, thatJapan and Korea are geographically very near, despite the Sea ofJapan between them, and the Korean people came to Japan during

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

our nation-building period to provide us
lessons and technology. But because ofJapanese aggression toward the Korean
Peninsula by Hideyoshi Toyotomi and other acts of aggression beginning in the Meiji
Period, and because of Japanese colonial
rule for 36 years, the Japanese people havea deep-rooted contempt for Korean people,
which has surfaced in the form of North
Lee Sil Gun
Korea bashing.
The Japanese disdain for Koreans would have changed drastically, and relations between Japan and North and South Koreas
would have become friendlier, if Japan, immediately after WorldWar II, had nationally and sincerely expressed regret and apology
for its behavior. In reality, there has been no such expression, andtherefore, no atonement. The fundamental cause of Japanese disdain for Koreans today lies here. The Abe administration’s argument for punishing North Korea comes from the same root, taking
a form similar to the Seikanron, or “Conquer Korea Debate,” putforth by Shoin Yoshida, a 19th-century scholar. The once-flourishing “Punish China Debate” is being replaced by the “Punish North
Korea Debate” today. It seems that the Abe administration is frantically preparing for the next war, using this debate to work up intense feelings and promote a climate that favors dealing harshly
with North Korea. It is in this context that the mass media furiously
fans Japanese hatred against North Koreans. The intentions of the
Abe administration are now surfacing blatantly. He wants to mobilize the mass media to fuel Japanese hatred against North Korea,
spur the argument that North Korea poses a military threat, and revise the Fundamental Law of Education and the JapaneseConstitution. The administration does all this with the intention ofcreating a pro-war nation ready to go to war at any time. The ultimate goal is to hold hegemony over, not the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere this time, but over modern Asia. With the recentchange of its Defense Agency into a Defense Ministry and its willing acceptance of the realignment of U.S. forces, I actually feel
fearful of Japan.
<Korean A-bomb Survivors and the Abduction Issue>
There is one thing I want Japanese politicians and people tothink about. Why do you think tens of thousands of Koreans had tosuffer from the A-bombs in Japan, even though they did not start
the war? Without Japanese colonial rule in the Korean Peninsula
and the fact that Koreans were brought forcibly to Japan, few
Koreans would have suffered from the A-bombs in Hiroshima andNagasaki. To put it plainly, Korean A-bomb victims were createdby Japanese aggression and colonial rule in the Korean Peninsula.
Many Japanese people do not recognize this fact.
There is no doubt that the abductions are absolutely evil
crimes. The perpetrators of such crimes should be punished. But
when Japanese bring up this subject, they must also deal with the
far larger problem of Japanese colonial rule. I very much doubt thatJapan’s desire to keep the lid on its past crimes against Korea andto emphasize solely the abduction issue can lead to a real resolutionof the tensions between the two nations.
If Japan brings up the abduction issue at the Six-Party talks, it−2−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

will be isolated. To soothe the hysterical relations between Japan
and North Korea, Japan first should seek a peaceful solution to themost dangerous problem, the nuclear problem, using the opportunity offered by the Six-Party talks. Then, they should begin working
to settle past crimes against each other, including the abduction issue, in separate bilateral talks for peaceful relations between thetwo countries. There is no other course toward peaceful solutions.
If the Six-Party talks evolve smoothly, U.S.-North Korea relations
will improve. North Korea said that it will denuclearize if relations
with the U.S. develop favorably, which I would like to believe.
Also, better relations between the U.S. and North Korea will allow
a change in Japan-North Korea relations.
2. Japan’s Peace Movement and Aggression during Past Wars
I set up the Council of Atom-bombed Koreans in Hiroshima,
the first organization for A-bombed Koreans in Japan, in August,1975. Since then, I have been consistently engaged in anti-nuclear
and peace activities as well as campaigns for relief for A-bomb survivors. I want to make several statements about what I have always
held in my mind.
<American Responsibility for the Atomic Bombings>
Japan’s peace movement has appealed for peace and for theabolition of nuclear weapons. But why does it not pursue American
responsibility for making and dropping the A-bombs on Japan?
Japan’s failure to identify American responsibility for the bombings
has allowed the U.S. to be complacent, continue its nuclear intimidation policy, bully non-nuclear states, and eventually create a unipolar world led by a nuclear-armed U.S. Considering the path the
U.S. has taken up to this point, I think part of the responsibility lies
with Japan’s peace movement and the Japanese government.
<Victim Mentality Lacking Recognition as an Aggressor>
Japan fought five big wars in the past 100 years—the first SinoJapanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Manchurian Incident,
the second Sino-Japanese War, and the Greater East Asia War/
Pacific War. Japan was not forced to start these wars for self-defense
after having been provoked or attacked. The five wars caused huge
numbers of casualties in Asia, and more than 3.3 million people inJapan suffered from the wars, including the casualties of the atomic
bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After World War II, Japan
has never seriously reflected on its conduct in these wars, somehow
avoiding the questions of “Who did what in the wars? When, where,
and why?” Japan’s aggression is not taught at all in Japanese history
classes. Its peace education emphasizes Japan as victim, but the issue of responsibility for the wars remains ambiguous.
<Silence Directed toward Korean A-bomb Survivors>
Seeing themselves as victims and lacking recognition ofJapan’s aggression, most Japanese people see themselves as thesole victims of the atomic bombs. Does this view correspond to reality? Not only Japanese, but also many Koreans, some Chinese,and a small number of other foreign nationals were also victimizedby the atomic bombs. The Japanese claim to be the sole victims of
the A-bombs leaves behind the non-Japanese A-bomb victims.
When I established the Korean A-bombed survivors’ organization

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007−3−

in 1975, 30 years after the end of World War II, Korean survivors
barely made their presence felt, which made me call ourselves“A-bomb survivors forgotten in a valley.” As long as Japanese feelthey are the sole victims, it is awkward to say that we have goodsolidarity with them. I have to say that Japanese discrimination
against Koreans and Chinese runs deep in this problem, too, whichurgently needs to be addressed.
Hiroshima City submitted its report to the United Nations outlining measures for A-bomb victims in 1976. The report said thatthe atomic bomb caused deaths of 140,000, plus or minus 10,000,
by the end of 1945. I do not know why, but that number does notinclude the deaths of Korean people killed by the atomic bomb.
According to our survey, about 43,000 Koreans were affected by
the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and 25,000-30,000 of them were
believed to be killed. Why is this original number left untouchedwithout correction even now?
3. The Monument for Korean Workers at Kobo Dam
Looking back on my 50-year-old engagement in the peace
movement as a Korean resident in Japan, the construction of themonument for Korean workers at Kobo Dam takes its place as thefirst step in peaceful coexistence of Korean and Japanese people.
The construction of Kobo Dam, which is located upstream on the
Kannose River in Takano Township, Hiroshima Prefecture, started
in 1940 to counter chronic power shortages. About 2,000 Koreans,
who were forcibly brought to Japan, engaged in building the dam,
many of whom died. In fact, quite a number were buried alive inthe structure itself. Many souls rest in that dam. We started thecampaign to build the Kobo Dam monument for Korean victims in
1993, which led to a splendid unveiling ceremony in July, 1995.
Since then, a memorial service has been held every year with theparticipation of local residents.
Here is a story about the location where the monument now
stands. The land for the monument originally belonged to the
Chugoku Electric Power Company, which rejected a request to
construct the monument on their land because permission would betantamount to admitting their past crimes. I then proposed that thecompany offer the land to the Takano Town government, which
would, in turn, provide the land to the campaign to build the monument. The company agreed to do so and not obstruct constructionof the monument. Then, the Mayor of Takano responded that the
town government would actively cooperate in the construction of
the monument. Such positive and friendly acceptance has been possible because local residents know the history of the dam and haveno disdain or discrimination toward Korean people.
*Asai writes: Another Japanese civic movement concerned with
Koreans forcibly brought to Japan took place prior to the buildingof a memorial for victims of the Ukishima Maru incident. Maizuru
citizens in Kyoto Prefecture built the memorial and held an unveiling ceremony in August 1978. Since then a memorial service at thesite has been held every year. As far as I know, the campaign for
the Kobo Dam memorial was the second such civic movement for
Korean victims in Japan.
Asai is president at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Reﬂections on the Military Coup in Thailand
By Narayanan Ganesan
On September 19 2006, while visiting New York, Thai Primefore in the form of organized resistance to his leadership manifest-

Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted from power in a coup led

ing in widespread street protests in the capital Bangkok. The large

by army chief General Sondhi Boonyaratglin. This coup came as ademonstrations paralyzed the city, and the fear of violence wassurprise to most observers of Thai politics who regarded the failed

never far away. At one point, in a move designed to defuse the ten-

military coup of 1992 as having marked a turning point insion, the Thai King intervened and Thaksin resigned his govern-

Thailand’s political evolution towards democracy. Indeed, at thement position. However, he continued in a caretaker role until elec-

turn of the century, there was a sense in Southeast Asia that mili-tions could be called again. After a brief interregnum, he continued

tary authoritarianism was a thing of the past and that, riding whatwith his previous duties as Prime Minister, but his position was le-seemed to be a third wave of global democracy, the region had pro-gally weaker because the courts annulled the 2006 elections he had

gressed politically into the ranks of developed countries with elect-

won and his party had been accused of electoral fraud.

ed governments. After all, some years earlier in 1986 the Philippine

In the midst of this political stalemate and mounting tensions

military strongman Ferdinand Marcos had been ousted from powerthat required resolution, Thaksin left the country to attend a U.N.

to be replaced by Corazon Aquino. Similarly, in 1998 the govern-

meeting in New York. It was then that the military staged a coup

ment of President Suharto of Indonesia had been brought down.

citing rampant corruption and political instability. Thaksin was also

Myanmar seemed to be the only country still caught in a time warp,

accused of being disrespectful towards the monarchy.

continuing its military authoritarianism following the collapse of

At the present time, the caretaker government has been en-

the socialist government in 1988. Hence, the September 2006 coup

dorsed by King Bhumibol and the general feeling is that elections

against Thaksin was a major setback for the important political

will be called within a year. The Thai King has previously mediatedprogress Thailand had made since 1992.

difficult political situations when there was violence or the threat ofSince his ouster, Thaksin has been barred from returning toit. Hence, he has fulfilled a traditional role that has been expected

Thailand and is currently being investigated for possible corruptionof him over the years. Yet, there are many who are unhappy withcharges. A caretaker Prime Minister and government have been ap-

the manner in which an elected government has been ousted frompointed.

power. Such a development sets a bad precedent and weakens at-

First sweeping into power in 2001 backed by his new political

tempts to evolve a mature democratic system. Some believe thatparty Thai Rak Thai, Thaksin was re-elected in 2005 by such a

the military should be confined to the barracks rather than becom-

wide margin that the party controlled 377 out of the 500 seats ining involved in politics. And an increasing number of analysts areparliament. His position was so strong that he did not require thequestioning the role of the monarchy within the country’s demo-

support of smaller parties to form a majority government. His pop-

cratic evolution. Whatever the sentiments, it is obvious that theularity was based fundamentally on the coopting of traditional cen-most recent coup has set a bad precedent and taken the country

ters of power, including the military and the business community.

backwards on the path to democracy. Whereas elected leaders are

Thaksin was also able to harness electoral support from the poor

equally prone to certain excesses seen among unelected politicians,

agricultural constituencies through a number of populist policies.

the answer must lie in strengthening the mechanisms of democracy

These included a three-year moratorium on farm debt, a grant of 1

rather than dismantling it.

million bahts to each village to promote enterprise and highly sub-Elections will probably be held at some point in 2007. In thesidized healthcare pegged at a flat fee of 30 bahts per hospital visit.

meantime, the political violence that has plagued the Muslim ma-

These populist policies endeared Thaksin to the rural poor, whojority provinces in southern Thailand continues unabated, though

voted overwhelmingly in favor of his party in 2005.

the upsurge in violence was attributed to Thaksin’s hard-line secu-

Despite his apparent popularity, all was not well in Thailand

rity policies there. A state of martial law exists in about 30 provinc-during the five years when Thaksin was in power. His critics com-es, and the government remains fearful of urban discontent. It

plained that he had an uncompromising and dictatorial style, prac-should be noted that in Thailand, as in most developing countries,

ticed nepotism, increased the debt of the rural poor, tried to control

urban sentiment tends to have a disproportionate influence on thethe mass media and fashioned policies to benefit himself and his

country’s political culture.

loyal entourage. A number of factions became visible within thegoverning party. Eventually, the pressures on Thaksin came to the

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−4−Ganesan is professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

Bombers and the American Popular
Imagination in World War II
By Yuki Tanaka
The Japanese Imperial Navy first engaged in indiscriminate bombing
with a January 1932 attack on civilians in Shanghai during the socalled Shanghai Incident. Thereafter, civilians in cities such as
Nanjing, Wuhan, and Guangzhou (Canton) were targeted from the air.
Chongqing, the Nationalist Chinese wartime capital, was repeatedly
targeted with more than 200 air raids over three years from the end of
1938, resulting in a total death toll of some 12,000 people. In 1940,
U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt condemned Japan for these inhumane acts of terror, charging that Japan was engaging in the slaughter of non-combatants, including women and children, without any
justifiable reasons.
Towards the end of World War II, the United States and Britain,
in turn, directed their far more devastating airpower against cities killing civilians, in particular women, children and the elderly on a farlarger scale. They conducted relentless aerial bombings of scores ofGerman and Japanese cities, using incendiary bombs and the recently
invented napalm.
How did the American people assess this situation when it was
American bombers doing the killing? What did they think about thefact that tens of thousands of people were instantly killed, first in firebombings, and finally by atomic bombs? How much did they know
about the mass killing caused by indiscriminate bombing from theirown forces, in particular between mid-1944 in Germany, and the firebombing of Japanese cities culminating in the atomic bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945? Did they ever ponder on thequestion of moral justification for “strategic bombing”?
There is no way to conclusively answer these questions: as far as
I know, no kind of opinion survey was ever conducted in the UnitedStates on these issues during or after the war. Yet, by examining how“bombing of enemies” and “bombers” were presented in contemporary popular magazines published in the United States, we can see
how the issues were presented, and perhaps thereby gain certain insight into the views of the American people in a time of war. In otherwords, by examining images of the “bombing of enemies” and“bombers” that American people received through periodicals widely
circulated during World War II, it may be possible to gain a certain
understanding of popular beliefs regarding the bombing of enemy nations.
For this purpose, I examined wartime issues of some popular
American magazines, including Life, Time, and The U.S. News. The
articles typically provided a catalog of the amount of damage thebombing inflicted on the enemy’s war production and the nation’s morale, sometimes explaining the precise selection of military targets for
attack. Articles about bombing of cities were frequently accompanied
by aerial photos taken from a bomber high up in the sky, looking
down on the burning and smoking city. These bird’s-eye photos, capturing the physical destruction of the built environment, did not show
the wounded and the dead. Indeed, Washington’s wartime guidelines
explicitly barred photographic representations of the enemy and allied
dead, and such images of the war at close hand remained rare throughout the war. In this way, the bombing of civilians was sanctioned, justas the discussion of military targets obscured the deaths of womenand children resulting directly from firebombing attacks.
In the absence of any images of the reality of death by fire andblast, it may have been difficult for readers to imagine the horror thatpeople on the ground were undergoing. Certainly the rhetoric of “precision bombing” concealed from readers the reality of the mass killingof citizens through systematic firebombing of cities.
But readers had another important source of information about
U.S. bombing. One feature that distinguishes U.S. from Japanese wartime journalistic images is the presence in U.S. magazines of numerous types of advertisements for bombers like the B17 and the B29, inparticular in issues published between 1944 and the end of the war inAugust 1945. These advertisements, often full page or even two facing pages, used eye-catching colorful drawings and photos. They werea product of the close collaboration between the War Information
Office, which was set up in June 1942, and the War Advertising

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

Council, a voluntary group of advertising executives. The advertisements were the pinnacle of new American approaches to advertising.
This involved the presentation of clear and concise explanations of thebenefits of the commodity, embellished with colorful drawings andphotos. Such an illustrative style of advertisement actually became
dominant in the 1920s, replacing the old fashioned European style advertisement, which mainly used simple symbolic forms with little explanation of the commodity.
The advertisements for bombers can roughly be categorized into
four categories:
1) Those demonstrating the might of the American military forces,
through an emphasis on the ability to mass-produce bombers, utilizing the well-organized Taylor Management System and theworld’s most advanced technologies.
2) Those underlining the role of bombers as “peace makers,” claimingthat the destruction of enemy nations’ war production capacity andmorale would hasten their defeat and the onset of peace. In short,the bombers would soon bring peace to the United States and theworld.
3) Those emphasizing utilitarian benefits through the application inpeople’s daily life of various technologies that were spin-offs fromthe technologies developed in manufacturing bombers: for example, kitchen utensils made of steel, car mechanical parts, plastic
panels used for automobiles, electric blankets, sun-glasses and thelike.
4) Those anticipating that the development of large bombers would
soon result in the rapid transport of large numbers of passengers
and amounts of freight from the United States to every corner ofthe world.
From early 1945, when the U.S. aerial bombing of Japanese cities intensified and Japan’s defeat seemed imminent, the theme of“peace maker” was emphasized more and more. For example, a photograph shows a group of B29s flying over Mt. Fuji with the words“peace maker” below it. As anticipation of the end of the war grewstronger, the promotion of the rapid rise of the international commercial aviation industry also became more frequent. The U.S. postwar
vision was one of dominance of the air, both its military and commercial dimensions, a vision that would soon be given concrete expression in the global network of U.S. bases.
Although less frequent than the above-mentioned four themes,
another noticeable feature of the popular advertising related to bombers was “air education.” From time to time, popular magazines promoted the necessity of educating youngsters to become good pilots,
by posting an advertisement or running a relevant article in their pages. The issue of Life published on 20 August 1945, with a cover photograph of General Carl Spaatz, Commander of the U.S. Strategic Air
Forces in the Pacific, carried articles on the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, nuclear physics, and the Manhattan Project. The issue
included an article entitled “Air Education: Chattanooga publicschools teach youngsters to live in aviation age.” Together with many
photos of children studying aviation equipment and relevant basic science, the article highlighted a comprehensive air-education program
introduced at public schools throughout the state of Texas.
For children growing up during the war, an airplane was a“bomber” more than anything else. There was even an episode inwhich a three year old boy said “Dad, that is a bomber!” looking at asmall plane flying high above his head.
In summary, images of bombers—symbolizing “technologicalcivilization,” “American dominance” and “peace”—fed the popularimagination through popular magazines, week after week, month aftermonth, throughout the war. While highlighting American power, including the power to destroy entire cities in a matter of hours, or evenwith a single bomb, Americans were shielded from images of thebombers as machines that routinely targeted civilians, sometimes killing as many as 100,000 or more people in a single raid.

−5−

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

HPIʼs Fifth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima
Brighten Future by Overcoming Negative Historical Legacy:
Mutual Understanding and Peace Building between Japan and Korea

The Hiroshima Peace Institute held its sixth public lecture series in
October and November 2006. The issues between Japan and the
Korean Peninsula were discussed as the central theme for the firsttime since the start of the lecture series five years ago.
There were many good reasons to do so. Although Korea isJapan’s closest neighbor, our understanding of its history and culture is insufficient. A significant gap remains between the Korean
community in Japan and society at large, despite the fact that thecommunity has become an integral part of our society. The two nations remain entangled in controversy regarding the proper interpretation of Japan’s modernization process, including the colonization of Korea and its involvement in Japan’s war. Recently inJapan, interest in South Korean entertainment culture is growing
even as North Korean abductions of Japanese people, missile firings and nuclear threats have become major political and diplomatic obstacles. It is hard to imagine easy solutions to those problems.
However, we cannot expect peace in East Asia without a steady,step-by-step improvement of bilateral relations. We organized our
five lectures based on the above considerations.
Lecture summaries(1) Oct. 31 “Issues between Japan and Korea:
Historical Background and Current Situation”
by Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI
The goal was to provide basic knowledge on the issues involved. Topics discussed included: Korean society and relations
with Japan from ancient to early modern times; Hideyoshi’s invasion of the peninsula; Japan’s expansion into and colonization of
Korea after the Meiji Restoration; wartime aggression and making
Koreans subjects of the Japanese Emperor; forced worship at
Shinto shrines, insistence on Japanese names; controversy overTakeshima/Tokto Island and problems of Korean residents in Japan.
(2) Nov. 7 “Present and Future Japan-Korea Relations”
by Koichi Ishizaka, associate professor at Rikkyo
University
Prof. Ishizaka first explained the establishment of the state ofNorth Korea after WWII and the Korean War. He pointed out thatas early as 1955 North Korea proposed normalization of ties withJapan but was ignored by the Japanese government. He describedNorth Korea’s independent policy known as Juche, establishedaround 1960 due to the Sino-Soviet conflict, and demonstrated how
North Korea’s current struggle for regime survival has been dependent on nuclear deterrence since the collapse of the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. Lastly, he emphasized
the importance of Japan’s effort to peacefully induce North Korean
policy change rather than topple the regime, even though a majority of Japanese people dislike the current North Korean leader. He
stressed that the Japanese government should not prepare for war.

tion to the North Korean nuclear crisis is indispensable for peacein Northeast Asia and, for this purpose, the U.S. should offer a security guarantee to the North Korean regime in exchange for abolition of its nuclear program. He added that a “sanctions only” policy might lead to a negative outcome and that the Japanese
government should establish cooperative relations in this region.
(4) Nov. 21 “Historical Perceptions of Japanese and the
Koreans with a Focus on the History Textbook
Controversies” by Mikyoung Kim, assistant professor at
HPI“History Textbook Controversies” among Korea, China, andJapan occurred twice in the 1980s and developed into a diplomatic
issue. The problem of “historical perceptions” is still an enormous
chasm between Japan and Korea. Historically, the Japanese havemaintained a strong tendency to look up to the West and down on
Asia. Opinion polls in the 1980s revealed that 50% of Japanesepeople regarded Japan’s actions during the war as “invasion” and80% thought “Japan should be sorry about what it did during thewar.” On the other hand, 40% believed the “invasion was unavoidable” and “The Pacific War brought liberation to Asia.” In responseto the question, “What is the greatest shame in our history,” 54% ofJapanese answered “the war in Asia” while 56% of South Koreans
identified “colonization by Japan.” After examining the differencesin historical perceptions between Japan and Korea, Prof. Kim emphasized the need to further promote understanding between thetwo nations.
(5) Nov. 28 “Japan’s Asian Diplomacy and Relations with
Korea” by Motofumi Asai, president at HPIIn the last lecture to analyze the future of Japan-Korea relations from the context of Japan’s diplomacy in Asia, Prof. Asai firstexamined the economic factors in Japan’s negative legacy of invasion and colonial rule in East Asia. He pointed out that the normalization treaty between Japan and South Korea in 1965 failed to fully clear away that legacy. It was not until the 1990s that theJapanese government officially commented on comfort women andother “past regrets.” In analyzing North Korea’s nuclear and missile issues, Asai shed light on the threatening nature of the U.S.
Bush administration, including its policy of preemptive strikes andits expanded interpretation of the right of self-defense. Finally, hestressed that for the future of the Japan-North Korea relationship,
both sides need to work with sincerity based on “mutual trust” asspecified in the Pyongyang Joint Declaration of 2002.
Based on our evaluation survey after the lecture series, a great
majority of the participants showed high levels of interest in the topics discussed and expressed the desire that the lecture series on JapanKorean issues will be continued. As a result, we will continue to takeup issues that arise between Japan and Korea, China, and East Asia.

(3) Nov. 14 “The Two Koreas and Japan: A Road toPeaceful Cooperation” by Sung Chull Kim, associate
professor at HPI
North Korea surprised the world in October 2006 by announcing that it had conducted an underground nuclear test. According
to Prof. Kim, if one carefully followed North Korea’s public announcements since the start of the second nuclear crisis in October
2002, the result was predictable. Comparing the public reactions inJapan and South Korea to the threat of North Korea, Kim pointed
out a conspicuous difference. (According to polls conducted rightafter the North Korean nuclear test, 62% of Japanese people supported sanctions against North Korea, whereas 68% of South
Korean people supported a solution through peaceful dialogue.)
Based on detailed analysis of the difference, Kim said that a solu-

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

By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

Publications of HPI Research Projects

Global Hibakusha Kenkyukai, ed., (Tokyo: Gaifusha, 2006)

Ima ni tou hibakusha to sengo hosho[Raising the Question: Hibakusha and Post-war Compensation]
Raising the Question derives from a HPI research project entitled “The Real State of
the Hibakusha Exposed by the 1954 Bikini
Nuclear Test” (2005). In a previous book,the Global Hibakusha Kenkyukai focused
the hidden suffering of hibakusha caused by1954 U.S. nuclear test at the Bikini Atolls.
The Global Hibakusha Kenkyukai was established in 2004 with Seiichiro Takemine,a graduate student at Waseda University,and myself as co-chairs. In autumn 2004, it
became a subcommittee of the Peace
Studies Association of Japan.
Raising the Question comprises articles by 13 specialists. In the
introduction, Prof. Akira Kimura of Kagoshima University discusses
Japanese attitudes toward World War II, as both victims and perpetrators. In asserting the significance of studying nuclear issues from theperspective of “global hibakusha,” he points to the quest for human security, a new concept that transcends the conventional framework ofnational security maintained by military forces. He also elaborates on
an approach to abolishing all nuclear weaponry by overcoming certain
myths about the atomic bombings and “nuclear deterrence.”
The chapters that follow include short essays and papers presented
by speakers at a symposium we held on June 9, 2006, entitled “Inquiring
into the responsibility of the Japanese government six decades after the
Chongqing Bombing, the Great Tokyo Air Raids, the nuclear attacks
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and surrender.” The book includes papers
by Terumi Tanaka, secretary-general of the Japan Confederation of Aand H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations; Hiroshi Hoshino, chairman of
the Association for the Bereaved Families of the Great Tokyo Air
Raids; and Tetsuo Maeda, military historian and security analyst. Two
symposium panelists, Masayoshi Naito, a lawyer, and Nobuhiro

Yanagihara, a graduate school student of the University of Tokyo,
wrote the essays.
Raising the Question also presents reports by experts in relevant
fields. Shoji Sawada, physicist, hibakusha and professor emeritus of
Nagoya University, explains the collective hibakusha lawsuit demanding official recognition of diseases under the Hibakusha Aid Law.
Seiichiro Takemine analyzes problems in the research on global nuclear contamination conducted by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission incollaboration with the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC).
Hiromitsu Toyosaki, a photojournalist, discusses racial discrimination
associated with nuclear development. Tetsuji Imanaka of the Research
Reactor Institute, Kyoto University, discusses the radiation exposure
caused by the Chernobyl Accident. Hitomi Kamanaka, film director,
describes the production of her documentary Rokkashomura Rhapsody.
Katsumi Furitsu, a physician, describes the annual conference of theInternational Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), held in
Hiroshima in August 2006. Finally, I address problems in Japan’s civil
defense plan (civil protection plan), specifically, the Japanese government’s effort to formulate the plan while concealing various facts regarding nuclear radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This book presents 13 opinion leaders discussing hibakusha problems and compensation for victims of war and nuclear radiation frommultiple perspectives. Despite differences of topics, all recognize thatthe authorities responsible for the war and the radiation tend to underestimate the damage inflicted on victims. They are also reluctant tocompensate for that damage, seeking instead to shift blame onto thevictims. It is my sincere hope that this book will provide readers withlogical grounds for resisting pervasive myths concerning the atomic
bombings, nuclear safety, victory in the Cold War, and the so-called
war on terrorism.
By Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPI

Edward Friedman and Sung Chull Kim, eds., (London: Routledge, 2006)

Regional Cooperation and Its Enemies in Northeast Asia: The Impact of Domestic Forces
This book is the culmination of a project
conducted under the auspices of the HPI invo l v i n g wo r k s h o p s t h a t t o o k p l a c e
November 12-13, 2004 and May 26-28,
2005 in Hiroshima.
Northeast Asia is a region of extraordinary economic growth and dangerous tensions. This book examines how domestic
politics in all the countries in the region—
Japan, China, Taiwan, North and South
Koreas, Russia, and the United States—areintensifying both the forces of mutually
beneficial prosperity and the forces of war. It goes on to provide policy
suggestions for enhancing the prospects for prosperity and inhibiting
the forces of war. Describing how domestic imperatives shape foreign
policies, this book will be an important contribution to the literature on
Northeast Asian regionalism and prospects for future development. The
table of contents of the book is presented below.
Introduction: Multilayered Domestic-Regional Linkages(Sung Chull Kim)
Part I. Contextualizing the Northeast Asian Region• Domestic Politics and Regional Cooperation in Southeast andNortheast Asia
(Etel Solingen)• Envisioning a Northeast Asian Community: Regional and Domestic
Factors to Consider(Haruki Wada)
Part II. Domestic Dimension of Regional Interaction• Washington’s Policies toward North Korea and the Taiwan Strait:
The Role of U.S. Domestic Politics(Tun-jen Cheng)• The Two Koreas in Northeast Asia: Linkages between Domestic,
Inter-Korean, and Regional Politics(Yong-Pyo Hong)• The Transformation of Chinese Foreign Policy(Lowell Dittmer)• The Fragility of China’s Regional Cooperation (Edward Friedman)• State Consolidation and Foreign Policy in Russia (Leszek Buszynski)• Mediating Geopolitics, Markets, Regionalism: Domestic Politics inJapan’s Post-Cold War Relations with China(Peng Er Lam)
Part III. Non-Governmental Sources of Regional Cooperation• Transnational Cooperation among NGOs in Northeast Asia: From Rethinking Development towards Re-thinking Security (Daehoon Lee)
Conclusion(Edward Friedman and Sung Chull Kim)
“Cooperation is best served when domestic politics fosters political leaders who can check backlash groups that complicate peaceprone cooperation....All the countries of the region obviously benefit
from existing regional cooperation. Peoples in these countries cannot
help but see that their peace and prosperity would be further enhanced
by far more regional cooperation. Since it is so much in each country’s
interest to foster new structures of cooperation, it is worth focusing on
and challenging the enemies of cooperation in Northeast Asia. SinoJapanese acrimony presents a real check on the development of an
Asian regionalism....While conflicts of interest, as with China’s andJapan’s competition for an oil pipeline from Russia, are inevitable,
these conflicts can be resolved to the benefit of all if each could assume
that multilateral cooperation is the better way ahead. Conflicts of material interests can be resolved so as to avoid confrontation if the political
will for regional cooperation can trump narrow nationalisms and very
parochial political interests.” (extracted from Conclusion)
By Sung Chull Kim, associate professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.3 March 2007

−7−

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

ＤＩＡＲＹ
November 1, 2006 - February 28, 2007
uNov.1-2 Kazumi Mizumoto is coordinator for Hiroshima International

Peace Summit 2006, which invites 3 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, inHiroshima Prefecture.
uNov. 4 Mikyoung Kim presents paper at International Association ofArea Studies on Japanese perception of Asia in Seoul, Korea.
uNov.11 HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture on “Current Stateand Tasks for Hiroshima” at 20th anniversary gathering of Kyoto
Association for Pursuing Non-nuclear Government at Kyoto University.
▽Mizumoto attends 1st section meeting titled “Changing International
Environment Surrounding Nuclear Weapons” as chair and commentatorat annual conference; Hiroko Takahashi chairs “Global Hibakusha” section meeting of Peace Studies Association of Japan, at Yamaguchi
University.▽Makiko Takemoto gives lecture on “Pacifists and Foreign
Policy in Weimar Republic” at 446th Monthly Meeting of Society forStudy of Modern History, at Senshu University, in Tokyo.
uNov.17 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Peace” at core program “Development and Education” of Japan Foundation Middle East
Fellowship Program for Intellectual Exchange, at HPI.
uNov.18 Asai gives lecture on “Rapidly Changing Situation on Korean
Peninsula” at study meeting organized by Association of Korean Social
Scientists in Japan, in Tokyo.
uNov.22 Asai gives lecture on “For a Peaceful Future in Japan and theWorld” at inaugural meeting of Article 9 Association (A9A) Group in
Izumo City organized by its preparatory committee, in Shimane
Prefecture.
uNov.22 -29 Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of Reconstruction
Aid Project in Cambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
uNov.24 Sung Chull Kim delivers paper entitled “Mutual Understandings
and Security Strategies: China, Two Koreas, and Japan” at conference on“Building East Asian Security Community: Challenges andOpportunities,” sponsored by and held at Asian Center, University ofPhilippines, in Manila, Philippines.
uDec. 2 Robert Jacobs gives lecture on “Narrating Hiroshima from Two
Sides of the Ocean,” to Council on International Educational Exchange,
at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
uDec. 3 Asai gives lecture on “What Will Happen if Article 9 isChanged?” at 1st anniversary of A9A Group in Yamaguchi City organized by the Group, in Yamaguchi Prefecture.
uDec. 6 Asai gives lecture on “Civil Protection Plan” at antiwar rallyorganized by Tokushima Human Rights and Peace Movement Center, inTokushima Prefecture.
uDec. 7 Asai gives lecture on “Rapidly Changing Situation on Korean
Peninsula” at relay lecture meeting organized by Group of KoreanStudents at Kyoto University, at Kyoto University.
uDec. 8 Asai gives lecture on “Strengthening Arguments to Support
Japan’s Current Constitution” at 12.8 Hiroshima Gathering for No War
organized by its planning committee, in Hiroshima Prefecture.
uDec. 9 Asai gives lecture on “Friendly Path Built by Citizens” at gathering “Our Future in East Asia” organized by Yamaguchi Prefecture
Peace Movement Forum, in Yamaguchi Prefecture.▽Mizumoto attends“Hiroshima International Youth Forum” as commentator, organized by
Hiroshima Prefecture, at Hiroshima University of Economics.
uDec.10 Asai gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Japan’s Constitution” atpublic meeting for Article 9 organized by Higashi-Hiroshima Citizens’Group to Think about Education, in Hiroshima Prefecture.
uDec.13 -Jan.16 Jacobs conducts research on history of American atomic soldiers at several American Military Bases, U.S.
uDec.15 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Future and Peace” at in-houseseminar organized by Arakusa, a social welfare organization, in
Hiroshima Prefecture.
uDec.19 -Jan.16 Jacobs discusses American nuclear weapon testingwith American scholars at University of California and Stanford
University, U.S.
uDec.21 Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture on “Institute for American Studies
of Rikkyo University during World War II” at Rikkyo University, inTokyo.
uDec.25 Mizumoto gives presentation on “Recent Trends Surrounding
Nuclear Weapons” and Takahashi gives presentation on “Investigation of
Atomic Bomb Materials in U.S.” at public lecture meeting organized by
Research Group on Reference Materials of Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, at the Museum.
uJan.4-10 Narayanan Ganesan conducts field research on domestic politics at Pegu, Toungoo and Pho-Kyar in Mon State, Myanmar.

uJan. 7 Asai gives lecture on “North Korea and Asian Denuclearization”

at New Year’s gathering for peace and abolition of nuclear weapons, organized by Aichi Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb, in Aichi
Prefecture.
uJan.12 Takahashi gives lecture on “How was Hibakusha Informationof U.S. Nuclear Test Concealed?” at Hiroshima study meeting organized
by Hiroshima Prefectural Cultural Organization Conference, in
Hiroshima Prefecture.
uJan.13 Takahashi gives lecture on “Atomic Bomb Materials in U.S.:
Focusing on ABCC Material” at study meeting of History ofInternational Relations and Science at Bunka Woman’s University, inTokyo.
uJan.13 -15 Mikyoung Kim collects materials on North Korean refugees in Seoul, Korea.
uJan.14 Asai gives lecture on “Situations on Korean Peninsula andJapan-North Korea Relations” at New Year’s gathering of commerce orindustry-related North Korean Residents in Fukuoka Prefecture organized by Yahata Chamber of Commerce and Industry of North Korean
Residents in Fukuoka, in Fukuoka Prefecture.
uJan.20 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Peace Policy and International
Contribution” at board of councilors organized by Osaka Medical
Practitioners’ Association, in Osaka Prefecture.
uJan.21 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Constitution and Us” at
Hiroshima Prefectural youth and female exchange 2007 organized by its
planning committee for peace and friendship festival, in Hiroshima
Prefecture. ▽Takahashi gives lecture on “Concealed Reality ofHiroshima and Nagasaki” at 2nd one-day movie seminar for peace, in
Hiroshima Prefecture.
uJan.23 Asai gives lecture on “Situations on Korean Peninsula andFuture of Japan-North Korea Relations” at lecture meeting organized by
Yamaguchi Chamber of Commerce and Industry of North Korean
Residents in Yamaguchi, in Yamaguchi Prefecture.
uJan.25 Asai gives lecture on “Abolition of Nuclear Weapons” at summit meeting of member organizations of Japan Conference of A- and
H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations organized by Hiroshima organization,
in Hiroshima Prefecture.
uJan.26 Asai gives lecture on “Task and Outlook for International
Situation” at New Year Peace School 2007 organized by Kanagawa
Prefecture Peace Committee, in Kanagawa Prefecture.
uFeb. 2 Takahashi gives report on “Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
Documents in the U.S.” at 3rd annual War and Peace Workshop titled“Cultures, Conflicts and Peace-building” organized by Graduate
University for Advanced Studies, in Tokyo.
uFeb. 3 Asai gives lecture on “Strengthening Arguments in Support of
the Current Japanese Constitution” at study meeting organized by mothers and female school personnel in Hiroshima Prefecture, in Hiroshima
Prefecture.
uFeb. 4 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Current Global Situation of
Nuclear Weapons” at training course for Hiroshima Peace Volunteer
Project sponsored by and held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
uFeb.11 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Constitution and Yasukuni
Shrine” at 2.11 antiwar and peace gathering organized by its planningcommittee, in Hiroshima Prefecture.
uFeb.18 Asai gives lecture on “Convention on Rights of the Child andChildren with Disabilities” at national meeting for sending voices ofchildren with disabilities to U.N. organized by a group seeking to limit
financial demands of treatment and upbringing of children with disabilities, in Tokyo.
uFeb.18-Mar. 2 Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of Reconstruction
Aid Project in Cambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
– Visitors to HPI –uNov.16 He Jun, vice president, Chinese People’s Association for Peaceand Disarmament and 5 other members.
uNov.29 Sumio Tarui, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary,
Delegation of Japan to the Conference on Disarmament.
uFeb. 8 Dr. Daisuke Moriwake, COE cheif reserach fellow,
International Christian University (ICU), Toshiaki Komatsuzaki, JSPS
DC fellow, ICU, Hilary Elmendorf and Kristofer Sparks, COE guest research fellows, ICU.
uFeb.13 Ole Mjøs, chairman, The Norwegian Nobel Committee, andJochen Peters, project manager, Center for Peace Studies, University ofTromsø, Norway.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.9, No.3 March 26, 2007
Copyright 2007 HPI All rights reserved

lPublisher: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
lOte-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
lPrinted 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.9 No.3 March 2007