HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

International Symposium by Hiroshima Peace Institute“ Terror from the Sky: Indiscriminate Bombing from Hiroshima to Today ”
By Yuki Tanaka“Suddenly
There was a brilliant white-hot flash.
Buildings crumbled,
Fire blazed,
Smoke swirled all around,
Wires dangled everywhere,
And a writhing mass of humanity fled for safety”
This passage from a poem by Hiroshima A-bomb victim, Sadako
Kurihara, graphically depicts the horror experienced not only by A-bomb
victims, but by all who have suffered air raid attacks. There is little
warning of such attacks beyond the sudden appearance of monstrous
bombers overhead, emitting ferocious noises, or the sharp, ear-piercing
sound of on-coming missiles. The reality of such attacks is all too often
a litter of bodies blown to pieces by the blast. Yet, the attackers, hundredsof meters in the air above, have little sense of the horror down below.
For the bombardiers and pilots the people on the ground are simply“abstract” targets. By contrast, the experience of their victims is“concrete” reality, reeking of death. This sharp juxtaposition of abstract
and concrete within a distance of a few hundred meters is a phenomenon
unique to aerial bombing.
The frequent use of aerial bombing in modern warfare surely owes
something to the attackers’ complete inability to imagine the terrifying
experiences of their victims.
The origin of aerial bombing can be traced to the application of
hot-air balloons in warfare in the late 18th century. Initially air balloons
were used simply to locate the size and position of enemy forces, but
militarists soon realized their potential for dropping grenades and otherharmful objects on enemy troops. However, the use of airplanes in theearly 20th century led to a drastic change in war strategy. One result was
the wide expansion of war zones; another was indiscriminate attacks on
civilians.
The indiscriminate bombing of civilians was first conducted byGerman planes against Parisians in August 1914 — 11 years after the
Wright brothers successfully flew the first aircraft in 1903. By the end of
1914, the Allies were also making serial air raids into German territories.
Thus, by the time World War I ended in 1918, both sides had engaged inindiscriminate bombing, killing or injuring several thousand civilians.
Shortly after World War I, planes from the British Royal Air Force(RAF) were sent to the Middle East to engage in a new type of operation—the bombing of what an RAF document refers to as “rebels of
uncivilized tribes” who refused to submit to British rule. Over several

CONTENTSInternational Symposium Held by Hiroshima Peace Institute“Terror from the Sky: Indiscriminate Bombing from Hiroshima to Today” …… 1~3
Perspectives of Accountability after the U.S.-U.K. Invasion of Iraq by Christian P. Scherrer … 4
New Lecture Series Started at Hiroshima City University:“Peace Studies I & II” Taught by HPI Staff ………………………………………… 5
Public Meeting
HPI Research Project on Legitimacy and Rationality of New-interventionism …… 5
Research Project
Military Violence against Civilians—A Comparative and Historical Analysis …… 6
Comparative Research into Genocide and Mass Violence ………………………… 6
Confidence-Building Mechanism in East Asia ……………………………………… 7
HPI Research ForumThe Bush Doctrine of Preventive War by Jacques Hymans………………………… 7
Hello from HPI ……………………………………………………………………… 8
Diary ………………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

years from 1920 onward, the RAF attacked rebel groups in Iraq—for
which Britain was the trustee nation at the time — by dropping bombs,
including incendiary bombs, on remote villages and tent encampments.
The same technique of indiscriminate bombing was also used in other
territories of the British Empire such as India and South Africa. Yet, theBritish administrators recommended this use of airpower as“outstandingly effective, extremely economical and undoubtedly humanein the long run.”In the European theater of World War II, indiscriminate bombing—
now termed “strategic bombing” — was increasingly used to terrorize
civilians as the war intensified. Civilians in major cities were victimized
as both the Axis and Allied sides engaged in such bombing, with massslaughter as the result. The Germans suffered particularly heavy
casualties. By the end of the war, 131 German towns and cities had beenbombed, and approximately 600,000 German civilians killed byindiscriminate bombing conducted by British and U.S. forces.
In the Asia Pacific region, the Japanese Imperial Navy first engaged
in indiscriminate bombing with a January 1932 attack on civilians inShanghai during the so-called Shanghai Incident. Thereafter, civilians incities such as Nanjing, Wuhan, and Chongqing were targeted. In 1940,
after repeated Japanese aerial attacks on Chongqing, the U.S.
government condemned Japan for these inhumane acts of terror.
Yet, a few years later, when Japan was losing the war in the Pacific,
cities on the Japanese mainland became the targets of U.S. air raids. The
U.S. engaged in “saturation bombing” in a literal sense until the very
end of the war in August 1945, repeatedly attacking cities from
Hokkaido to Okinawa, including Tokyo, Kawasaki, Osaka, Kobe,
Fukuoka and Naha. In total 64 major cities were destroyed, causing overone million casualties, including half a million deaths, the majority ofwhom were civilians. Indiscriminate bombing reached its peak, however,with the use of atomic weapons to annihilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki inAugust 1945. Following Japan’s surrender, the U.S. Strategic Bombing
Survey stated that “the air attack on Japan was directed against thenation as a whole, not only against specifi c military targets,” thus
unashamedly admitting the indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the U.S.
Army Air Force.
In the Korean War, U.S. forces bombed and destroyed two large
irrigation dams, causing enormous flood damage in North Korea. As aresult, North Korea’s agricultural economy was ruined. In the Vietnam
War, in addition to a new type of napalm bomb, cluster bombs (with ahigh failure rate), daisy-cutter bombs (so-called earthquake bombs), andagent orange (a type of chemical defoliant) were widely used. This newbombing strategy with its new types of bombs resulted in long-term
damage to the environment and the people, bringing suffering and death
to countless civilians well after the actual bombing.
Due to the widespread use of depleted uranium weapons since theGulf War and the increasing possibility that tactical nuclear arms may be
used, as well as the availability of super-large bombs like daisy-cutter
bombs and mother bombs, the distinction between conventional andnuclear weapons is rapidly disappearing. The number of countries
seeking to equip themselves with weapons of mass destruction isincreasing as nuclear powers like the U.S. and Britain attempt to
subjugate so-called “rogue nations” by the use of military might. Why
have we been incapable of preventing this situation, despite theenormous sacrifice of civilian victims to bombing—including those ofHiroshima and Nagasaki— during the last century?
The purpose of our symposium on August 2 was to re-examine thehistory and the present situation of indiscriminate bombing through theeyes of the A-bomb victims of Hiroshima.

−1−

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

International Symposium “Terror from the Sky: Indiscriminate Bombing from Hiroshima to Today”

Inauguration of Indiscriminate Bombing
in Asia: Bombing of Chongqing, China,
by the Japanese Air Force

Indiscriminate Bombing in World War II:
Prologue to a Counterfactual Study
This presentation sought to identify ways in which
the very large number of civilian casualties
generated by strategic bombing in the Second
World War might have been reduced. It described
the origins of strategic bombing theory and its
salient ideas, among them the notions that bombing
Ronald Schaffer is could secure victory by destroying an enemy’s
professor emeritus of economic infrastructure, that attacks from the air
history at California State
could break an enemy’s will to resist and cause its
University, Northridge.
people to rise up against its government, and that
He has a Ph.D. from
Princeton University and the use of air power against an enemy society
specializes in the history would reduce one’s military casualties, providing adesirable trade-off between the lives of enemy
of strategic bombing.
civilians and those of one’s own armed forces.
Theorists and practitioners of aerial bombing argued that, by ending wars
quickly and efficiently, the bomber would actually prove to be a humane
weapon.
At first, the British, the Americans, and the Germans attempted to
employ their bombers against what they considered to be essentially
military and industrial targets, but all eventually turned to attacking areas
inhabited by civilians. Under actual combat conditions, it proved difficult
to hit targets with precision and extremely costly to their own forces. All
then turned to night attacks, guided by imprecise navigation and aiming
systems. They also increasingly employed incendiary weapons, sometimes
producing enormous conflagrations. Even when improved methods oflocating targets evolved, along with long-range fighter escort to protect
them from enemy defenders, the British continued to deliver massive area
attacks, and the Americans inflicted very large civilian casualties in raids
aimed at military targets within cities.
The American aerial bombing strategy for the war in the Pacific hadfrom the beginning contemplated the incineration of Japanese cities.
American military and civilian experts planned incendiary and atomic
offensives against those cities so meticulously that it is misleading todescribe the bombing that burned down almost all of Japan’s largest urban
areas or obliterated them with nuclear weapons as “indiscriminate.”
To indicate possible ways by which the slaughter of civilians might
have been diminished, this presentation noted elements of irrationality andemotionalism in the thinking of those who organized the bombing attacks
and also ways in which some of the bombing proved counter-productive.
It suggested that some loss of civilian lives might have been averted byreversing the trade-off of civilian for military lives implicit in strategic
bombing theory (for instance by an increased amount of low-level
precision bombing of Japan). The presentation discussed whether or not
the practice of bombing in World War II vindicated the prewar theory. It
also discussed the proposals for demonstrating the power of the atomic
bomb in much less deadly ways. It concluded that strategic bombing
failed to bring about an uprising of civilians against their leaders in
Europe, but that it may have led Japan’s rulers to feel that such an uprising
was possible, thus contributing, along with the entry of the Soviet Union
into the Asian war and the imminent threat of an American invasion, toJapan’s decision to surrender.

Sending a Message: the Language of
Air Power in Korea and Vietnam
World War II ended with the biggest bang then possible,
administered in what was believed to be a righteouscause, the defeat of Japan. It was the logical conclusion
to total war. Then and since, to many in the armed
forces, particularly the air force, anything short of themassive use of available force to attain American ends
is immoral. Totally secure in the air, able to attack any
M a r i l y n Yo u n g i s
enemy at will, Air Force generals like Ira Eaker andprofessor of history at New
York University and director Curtis LeMay felt a sense of irresistible power. Limited
at International Center for war was an oxymoron. The only problem the advocates
Advanced Studies Project of unbridled air power foresaw was the timorousness ofon the Cold War as Global a civilian leadership unwilling to use its weapons.
In my paper I explore the ways in which the
Conflict. She earned her
Ph.D. at Harvard University definition of limited war fought with limited means
and specializes in the was, in Korea and in Vietnam, slowly but certainly
Vietnam War.
transformed into total war fought all-out—though shortof using nuclear weapons. Starting with Korea and undergoing sophisticateddevelopment in Vietnam, air power was understood as a special language
addressed to the enemy and to all those who might in the future become theVisit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

To my mind, the essence and significance of the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima may be summarized as follows:
1. It was an attack targeting a city as such, thus
amounting in its degree of inhumanity andcruelty to indiscriminate massacre on a massive
Te t s u o M a e d a i sscale.
p r o f e s s o r a t To k y oInternational University. 2. It was a mechanical and insensible act in which
He specializes in military
the murderer did not see the murdered, thus
affairs with an emphasist o t a l l y d evo i d o f a s e n s e o f p e r s o n a l
on nuclear weapons.
involvement.
3. It represented a combination of the strategy of “terror from the sky”
and the 20th-century technology that made that strategy possible, i.e.,the marriage of nuclear power and the bomber.
It is for reasons to do with these characteristics that Hiroshima must
continue to be talked about and remembered. Furthermore, the fact that theworld still remains prisoner to the same kind of threat calls for theuniversalization of the Hiroshima experience, which should be recalled as
an event that could happen again any time just as it once happened.
“Hiroshima” is not a tragedy of bygone days. Its ideology continues tohaunt mankind in the guise of “strategy of deterrence” and “regional war,”as brought home to peoples around the world from Hanoi to Baghdad.
In order to universalize the significance of “Hiroshima” in the context
of these experiences, we must look back to the time before Hiroshima andstudy the lead-up to Hiroshima. For we can know neither who we are nor
where we are going without knowing where we have come from.
My interest in the bombing of Chongqing by the Japanese air force
derives from the sense of a problem as sketched above.
Within just a few years of 1938, Japan introduced three new elements
into the history of warfare:
1. The politico-military bombing, i.e., massive indiscriminate bombing,of Chongqing in Sichuan Province, then the provisional capital of
China.
2. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, or the projection of
power from the sea to land, launched at the outset of theJapanese-American war.
3. The “special attacks,” i.e., suicide bombing, which in effect turned
an airplane into a manned missile and which reached its peakduring the Battle of Okinawa.
These “firsts” in the wars of the 20th century, which shared thecommon characteristic of sudden horror falling from the sky, were all
witnessed in the Japanese operations in the Asia-Pacific War. Was notwhat happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki nothing but the ultimate formof this new type of violence? Are not both 9/11 and the Iraq War eventsoccurring on the same trajectory?
The bombing of Chongqing lasted for two and a half years and killed
11,885 people in a sequence of 218 air raids, which targeted the city itself,
relied on air power alone, and aimed to break the citizens’ will to continue
to fight. Little is yet known of what actually happened, however. It isanother role of Hiroshima, I believe, to help prevent what happened there
from sinking into oblivion.
enemy. It was, at the same time, a language intended to reassure America’s
allies. And it was a language that incorporated one very crucial silence: behind
all the bombs dropped was the sound of the one that could drop but had not...
yet.
What was it about bombing that made it so attractive to U.S. policy makers
as a mode of communication? The answer begins with a fallacy: WWII ended
in a blaze of bombing, ergo, bombing ended WWII. Although air power had
never fulfilled the promises of its prophets, after WWII the value of strategic
bombing was accepted as an article of faith. There were some that doubted theefficacy of strategic bombing for limited warfare, arguing that the goal of suchwarfare was not the total destruction of the enemy but rather the pursuit of peace
through “air persuasion.” Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, with theexperience of the Cuban missile crisis behind him, developed this idea,convinced, as H.R. McMaster has written, that “the aim of force was not to
impose one’s will on the enemy but to communicate with him. Graduallyintensifying military action would convey American resolve and thereby
convince an adversary to alter his behavior.” By 1971, it would be difficult to
see the difference between total war and the limited war the U.S. claimed to be
waging in Indochina: from 1965 to 1971, the U.S. dropped on Indochina threetimes the total tonnage dropped on Europe, Africa and Asia during WWII.

−2−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

International Symposium “Terror from the Sky: Indiscriminate Bombing from Hiroshima to Today”

Hiroshima: Culmination of Strategic
Bombing, Beginning of the Threat of
Nuclear Omnicide

Summing Up

This presentation was based on a paper, co-authoredwith Matthias Bjørnlund, in which we demonstratethat the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, whilerightfully regarded as a milestone in the history of
inhumanity, was at the same time the result of
thinking and practices that began years before
Eric Markusen is
research director at the August 6, 1945, namely, the incendiary bombing of
D a n i s h C e n t e r f o r enemy cities. It was also an important point of
Holocaust and Genocide departure for American nuclear weapons policy at
Studies and professor at the beginning of the Cold War.
As the final speaker, I had the opportunity ofSouthwest State University.
He received his Ph.D. hearing the presentations made by Professors
f r o m U n ive r s i t y o f Tanaka, Schaffer, Maeda, and Young, as well as the
Minnesota and specializes ensuing discussion. With that in mind, I focusedin genocide studies.
my comments on several points raised in our paper.
I noted that Great Britain and the United States
both began World War II with a moral repudiation of bombing cities, but
in the course of the war they conducted it at levels far exceeding the
Nazis. A key point, echoing Professor Schaffer’s presentation, was the
meticulous planning that guided American incendiary and atomic bombingof Japanese cities. In March 1945, such planning resulted in a raid against
Tokyo that killed more than 70,000 people in six hours.
By August 1945, the political and military leaders responsible forincendiary attacks embraced the new atomic bombs. Following Japan’ssurrender, some of the airmen who had been systematically burning thecities of Japan, e.g., Air Force General Curtis LeMay, played decisiveroles in developing U.S. plans to wage nuclear war.
As hydrogen bombs were integrated into the United States and Soviet
arsenals, nuclear war plans entailed ever greater levels of destruction.
The concept of “nuclear omnicide” was introduced by the philosopher
John Sommerville in 1985 in order to convey the likelihood that a “war”
fought with nuclear weapons would constitute a categorically new
dimension of mass killing, even more destructive and evil than genocide.
The American nuclear war plan for 1961 anticipated killing as many as
425 million people in Communist nations, as well as millions downwind
from radioactive fallout. In 1962, when the United States discovered that
the Soviet Union had managed to sneak nuclear-armed missiles into Cuba,
the so-called “Cuban Missile Crisis” brought the world to the brink ofactual nuclear war.
The end of the Cold War has not ended the nuclear threat. On thecontrary, I mentioned disturbing developments in American nuclear
weapons policy following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: thenuclear arms race between India and Pakistan; and the risk of weapons ofmass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists and brutal
undemocratic regimes.
Despite the depressing accounts of terror from the sky given by theother presenters, and notwithstanding the terrible present dangers
mentioned above, I tried to end on a note of hope by briefly surveying
several promising international developments: increasing education andresearch into war and peace, as exemplified by work under way at theHiroshima Peace Institute; a world-wide surge of concern about genocide;
and advances in international law and justice, including therecently-established International Criminal Court.

When we examine the history of wars, we see thatno other organizations have committed as much
injustice—not only against foreigners, but against
their own citizens—as nation-states. As far as
genocide and mass killing are concerned, stateg ove r n m e n t s g e n e r a l l y c a r r y t h e g r e a t e s t
responsibility for such crimes against humanity.
Yu k i Ta n a k a i s
When nation-states were engaged in total wars
professor at theHiroshima Peace Institute such as World War I and II, it was always stateo f H i r o s h i m a C i t y governments that perpetrated the most serious
University. He received crimes against non-combatants, i.e., civilians. Thish i s P h . D . f r o m t h e is evident not only from the genocide committed
University of Western by the German Nazi government against Jews andAustralia. He specializes
other socio-ethnic minority groups, or thein comparative analysis
of Japanese war crimes numerous massacres committed by the armed
forces of Imperial Japan against whites as well as
during World War II.
Asians. It is also instanced by the thousands ofcivilians killed by aerial bombardment by the Allied forces in Europe andthe Asia Pacifi c region, and in particular by the atomic bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki.
State violence against civilians, in other words, state terrorism, hasbeen repeatedly committed since World War II, in the Korean and Vietnam
Wars, the Gulf War, and the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. In more
recent aerial attacks conducted by the U.S. and British forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq, many civilians were again killed or injured as aresult of the bombing of “wrongly identified targets” by “incorrectly
programmed smart bombs,” or as “collateral damage.” No matter what
military jargon is used to justify attacking civilians, it is clearly
indiscriminate bombing in the eyes of the victims. Such bombing also
creates huge numbers of refugees, as seen in Afghanistan where thousandsof people fled their homes shortly before the onset of U.S. bombing.
Eventually about one million Afghan people ended up in refugee camps.
Clearly, such aerial bombing, which inflicts enormous hardship on vast
numbers of civilians, is nothing short of state terrorism.
“The September 11 Attack” was unquestionably an act of terrorism
as it killed thousands of civilians indiscriminately. This act, perpetrated byan al-Qaeda group can be seen as a variation on indiscriminate bombing
where civilian planes are used instead of bombers to complete the suicidal
mission. One can be certain that al-Qaeda would have used bombers ifthat had been an option. Whether indiscriminate bombing is carried out by
an armed group or by the military forces of a particular nation, it is clearlyan act of terrorism from the viewpoint of the civilians who become its
targets. Thus it is necessary to re-examine the history of indiscriminate
bombing from the viewpoint of its victims to understand its real nature.
For this, we need to re-experience, by using our imagination, the terrorthat the victims went through as well as critically analyze the mentality ofthe perpetrators.

Comments by Some ParticipantsParticipant A
Looking at aerial bombing from the legal point of view, an importantquestion is on what grounds the policy makers and those who
implemented their decisions justified the bombing. Rules banning thebombing of civilians were established in the wake of World War I. So, thequestion is how the aerial bombing conducted by many states since thenhas been justified. For example, the Iraq War is seen and justified as a war
against terrorism following the September 11 attacks. But can the aerial
bombing conducted as part of the war be acceptable and justifiable? If we
accept the war against terrorism as a just war, it might become possible tojustify even the use of nuclear arms.
Bombing conducted by a state, especially bombing of civilians, raises
the problem of state terrorism, which must be considered in the context ofthe Hague Rules of Air Warfare forbidding bombing as a means toterrorize civilians.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

Participant B
As an atomic bomb survivor (Hibakusha), I remembered the horror of 58
years ago while listening to your presentations and was deeply inspired.
From a survivor’s viewpoint, nuclear weapons not only kill people, butalso destroy humanity, sully man’s history, and blaspheme God. The
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be tried as a crime
against humanity, but it has not been even as we have entered the 21st
century. It is the United States, which preaches humanitarianism to therest of the world, that should be tried first. Only then, will we be able tobegin building solid foundations of global order and peace. In reality,
however, the United States continues to seek to perpetuate its hegemonicrule by blackmailing the world with nuclear arms in defiance of the wishof the whole world to abolish nuclear weapons. Japan must repeal the
U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and get rid of all U.S. military bases on
Japanese soil. I believe that only when these goals have been attained, thevictims of the atomic bombing may finally rest in peace.

−3−

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

Perspectives of Accountability after the U.S.-U.K. Invasion of Iraq
By Christian P. Scherrer
The invasion of Iraq was only the endpoint of a long and intensive
campaign of aerial warfare against 22 million Iraqis in Mesopotamia—
once the cradle of civilization. When exploring crimes committed
against Iraq the time-scale is important. It was from mid-January to
March 1991 when the U.S.A., U.K. and other states first began to attackand systematically destroy life and life-support systems in Iraq. Since
that time U.S.-U.K. aircraft and missiles continued to attack targets in
two arbitrarily declared no-flight-zones.
Most Serious Breaches of Law
The aggressors used cruel weapons such as deadly uranium (DU)
munitions. Probably as much as 2,000 tons were employed, leaving
behind highly toxic contamination of extensive areas, especially heavily
populated city areas. DU remains a threat to health and life for billionsof years unless the radioactive materials are quickly collected anddestroyed. (For a study that presents preliminary evidence of the mostegregious crimes committed in Iraq, see http://firstpeoplescentury.net/
accounta.pdf). If such serious war crimes were to be overlooked without
any form of accountability, then the legal and moral order of theinternational community would be undermined.
The Occupiers Failed to Establish Any Degree of Security
The U.S. has opened a Pandora’s box, and it might harvest utter anarchy
in Iraq and instability in the entire Middle Eastern region and beyond, as
well as generating increasingly hostile responses throughout the world.
Bush’s premature “victory” declaration on May 1 was followed by a
low-intensity war. The occupiers were unable to establish any degree of
security. Indeed, the aggression against Iraq has given a great boost tointernational terrorism, and irregulars and terrorists started to infiltrate
into Iraq, making it a lawless country.
Targeted strikes against U.S.-U.K. occupation forces have killed
dozens of soldiers. Since August, deadly bomb blasts have been directedagainst other targets as well. The massive bomb attack on the U.N.
compound in Baghdad on August 19 killed 20 people, among them the
U.N. Special Representative for Iraq. It was an assault on an institutionthat came to help to establish a post-war order. The bombing in the holycity of Najaf, which killed more than 100 people, aimed at a Shiite clericconsidered by extremists as a collaborator.

Bush became a “global monster” for outraged citizens worldwide. Neverin the history of the peace movement has there been such a worldwide
mobilization, not even against the Vietnam War or the nuclear arms race.
The protests also brought about an increasing intertwining ofanti-war movements with social justice and anti-globalization
movements. Projects such as the People’s Tribunal on Iraq, thecampaigns against U.S. bases and for the upcoming World Social Forum,
the “World Says ‘No’ to Bush” campaign in the coming 2004 U.S.
elections, etc., show the strength of popular movements on a global
scale.
Among these projects, one to indict the warmongers in a legitimate
way by independent people’s tribunals is developing rapidly. It aims at
preventing further wars of aggression, genocide, and the use ofradiological weapons, and its popularity is growing fast.
The Hands of Mr. Ocampo Are Tied
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established fairly recently.
The Court’s first Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, elected in
April 2003, must not close his eyes to crimes against humanity, war
crimes, breaches of world peace, and violations of a long list ofinternational agreements and norms committed in Iraq. However, in thecase of Iraq the legal base of the ICC is narrow. Ocampo stated in a
recent interview that “war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocidemust have been committed either on the territory of a State Party to theRome Statute or by a national of a State Party for the ICC to havejurisdiction” (MoveOn Bulletin, August 2003, http://www.moveon.org/).
ICC does not have universal jurisdiction, as Belgium had until
recently. Currently 91 states are parties to the ICC statute; the problem isthat neither Iraq nor the U.S.A. is among them. Ocampo’s hands are tied.
He has already received hundreds of complaints about members of the
U.S.-led force in Iraq. In the case of British members of that force, thecourt could act, but only after determining that the national authorities
concerned were unwilling or unable to investigate.
It is intolerable that Blair, Hoon, and others could be indicted, while
Bush, Rumsfeld et al would go free. This is one of the many reasons
why rights groups and legal experts decided to take action, culminating
in an international campaign by attorneys and no-war groups in fivecountries to have Bush and Blair indicted for crimes against humanity.
Initiatives for People’s Tribunals on Iraq

Backlash of Lies and Pretexts for War
Slowly but surely the deceptions and lies of the war leaders have cometo light. The U.S. and U.K. governments maintained that Saddam
Hussein possessed what U.N. inspectors did not find, yet what the U.S.
and U.K. continue to stockpile and used to achieve Iraq’s defeat:weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Evidence of Iraq’s possession of
WMD was simply fabricated or grossly exaggerated. Tony Blair got into
trouble and fired Alastair Campbell, his director of communications andstrategy, as controversy raged over his own role in misrepresenting thenature of Iraq’s threat to the West.
The U.S. media portrayed Saddam as the incarnation of evil, andsubsequently made him a scapegoat for 9-11, though meanwhile many
U.S. citizens became aware that this was an outright lie from the mouthof their president. (Read my lips). Operational links with al-Qaeda were
excluded because of their ideological and political incompatibility—asassessed by the CIA. However, public outrage was modest. Americans
seem to have shorter memories than the British, but they are now
reacting against the high costs of the Iraq campaign.
The World Peace Movements Call for Accountability
The most striking phenomenon that occurred during the run-up to theattack on Iraq was the emergence of a strong peace movement. No other
war of aggression in modern times has been so close to universallycondemned. Millions of people gathered to protest in Washington,
Tokyo, Berlin, Tehran, Paris, Sao Paolo, New York, Cairo, Buenos Aires,
London, Barcelona, Gaza, Beijing, Frankfurt, Boston, Brussels,
Manama, Jakarta, Seoul, Torrejon, Athens, Canberra, and other cities.

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

The International People’s Tribunal on Iraq was first proposed by Action
to Indict Bush-Blair et al based in Japan in March 2003 and the Turkish
International Tribunal Initiative. The project was endorsed during the
Jakarta peace conference and the Brussels conference of no-war groups
and NGOs from Europe and the Middle East in the summer of 2003. The
initiator committee, formed in Brussels, subsequently earned support ofthe Bertrand Russell Foundation. It has since gained the support andcooperation of thousands of individuals, dozens of anti-war movements,
and 200 or so organizations in five countries.
The current plans are to hold tribunal sessions and hearings in New
York and other cities in the U.S.A., London, Brussels, Hiroshima, Tokyoand other cities in Japan, Istanbul, Heidelberg and other cities inGermany, Copenhagen, Buenos Aires and Monterrey, Mexico,culminating in the final session in a major Arab city.
The Hiroshima tribunal will deal mainly with two issues: theuranium weapons used in Iraq since 1991 and their impact on the Iraqi
people and future generations; and the genocidal use of the U.N.
sanctions by the U.S. and the U.K. in the 1990-2003 period, which killed
an estimated two million people, mainly babies, children and women.
The World Uranium Weapons Conference held in October 2003 in
Hamburg, Germany, pledged moral and technical support of the
proposed international tribunal in general and the Hiroshima tribunal inparticular.

−4−

Scherrer is professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

New Lecture Series Started at Hiroshima City University“ Peace Studies I & II ” Taught by HPI Staff
dropping of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. The fallsemester started with the enrollment of approximately 50 students.
Peace Studies I & II is an elective course primarily for second-year
undergraduate students. The teaching staff comprises all the current
nine HPI researchers, including the two foreign staff members.
During the 2003 spring semester, a summary of each lecture givenby the foreign staff in English was available on the homepage in English
and Japanese one week before the lecture date. In the final examination,
both Japanese and English questions were given to be answered also inJapanese and English. The final examination of Peace Studies II will be
conducted in the same manner.

A new two-semester course titled “Peace Studies I” and “Peace Studies
II” taught by all HPI researchers was introduced in the Faculty ofInternational Studies, Hiroshima City University (HCU), in the springsemester of this year. The course aims to teach a variety ofpeace-related contemporary international issues. At HCU, members ofthe HPI staff had taught a similar course titled “Contemporary
International Peace Studies I & II” from 1999 to 2002. The new course
deals with a broader range of issues more comprehensively by
involving all the HPI research staff, including President Haruhiro
Fukui. Peace Studies I offered in the 2003 spring semester was
successfully concluded with the enrollment of approximately 80
students. A member of the faculty assisted the students with, among
other things, a new homepage created especially for the course on theuniversity website.
Peace Studies I is designed to teach the basic concepts,
framework, and issues of peace studies. Peace Studies II is an extensionof Peace Studies I and deals with specific cases of peace-making andconflict resolution based on the HPI researchers’ own work as well as
the results of HPI-sponsored research projects.
Peace Studies I in the spring semester of 2003 covered issues suchas the basic concepts of peace studies, military confl icts in thecontemporary world, ethnic conflicts and genocides in the modern
world, war crimes, violence by the military, and disarmament-related
problems in the post-World War II period. In addition, more current
issues such as the structure of post-Cold War international politics,
confl ict prevention, human security, and pacifi sm in Japan were
examined.
The issues expected to be covered in Peace Studies II in the fallsemester of 2003 include: structural violence and globalization, security
structure and confidence-building in Northeast Asia, war responsibility
and war crimes, military conflict and genocide, the new U.S. nuclear
strategy, state terrorism and indiscriminate bombing, changing U.S.
strategy after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, nuclear andother weapons of mass destruction, control of information related to the

HPI Research Project

Intensive Summer Course “Hiroshima and Peace”
HPI research staff members also joined the faculty of the Intensive
Summer Course “Hiroshima and Peace” at HCU from July 27 toAugust 7, 2003. The course was the first intensive summer program
offered by HCU and conducted in English for both international andJapanese undergraduate students. Approximately 30 students, including
a dozen from the University of Hawaii, Manoa — one of HCU’s sisterschools—took the course.
In this summer program, fi ve HPI scholars gave lectures, as
follows: Fukui on “War and Peace in the Post-World War II World”;
Tanaka on “The Pacific War: Atrocities and War Crimes”; Scherrer on“International Terrorism: Causes, ‘War on Terrorism’ and Arms Race,and the Context of Contemporary Mass Violence”; Huntley on “U.S.
Security Policies in Northeast Asia,” ; and Mizumoto on “Experience ofAtomic Bombing in Hiroshima and Japan’s Nuclear-Related Policies.”
The students also had a chance to learn about Hiroshima and Peace byvisiting Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the Peace Memorial
Museum.
By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI

Public Meeting on “HPI Research Project on Legitimacy and
Rationality of New-interventionism”

HPI’s research project, “The Legitimacy and Rationality of
New-interventionism,” held a public meeting to report on the outcome ofthe project at the Hiroshima City Plaza for Town Development throughCitizen Exchange on June 13. The project completed its activities by
publishing a book titled “Jindo Kiki to Kokusai Kainyu” (Humanitarian
Crisis and International Intervention) in February 2003. The aim of thismeeting was to share the outcome of the project and exchange opinions
about it with citizens of Hiroshima. The meeting invited three membersof the project as speakers: Toshiya Hoshino, professor of Osaka
University and the leader of the project; Yukie Osa, Secretary General of
the Association for Aid and Relief, Japan (AAR); and Hideaki Shinoda,
research fellow at Hiroshima University. It was attended byapproximately 40 people, and there was a lively discussion.
Hoshino reported on the research undertaken by project participants,
their main findings, and the significance of those findings in the study ofcontemporary international politics. Osa spoke about how civil society
was, and should have been, involved in humanitarian crises such as thewars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shinoda argued, citing concrete examples,the legitimacy of intervention by international society in humanitariancrises and discussed whether and how such intervention might beinstitutionalized as a norm of international society. Following these threepresentations, Mizumoto and Akiyama, project members from HPI,
joined them in a panel discussion with the participation of the audience.
Prior to the meeting, there was some concern that its topic might be
too theoretical and that purely conceptual discussions might dominate it.
However, the meeting taking place amidst an international crisis brought
about by the U.S. attack on Iraq, discussion became heated over such

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

issues as the legal, political, and ethical justifi cations for foreignintervention and the implications of “imperialistic” U.S. diplomatic
posture for the formation of future international social norms.
Considerable interest was also shown in a number of other issues, suchas the importance of civil society, NGOs in particular, and the difficultyof effectively providing humanitarian assistance.
The meeting served as a forum for fruitful interaction between HPI
and citizens of Hiroshima.

−5−

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

HPI Research Project

Military Violence against Civilians —A Comparative and Historical Analysis

It is widely known that the Japanese Imperial Armed Forces committed
various war crimes throughout the Asia Pacifi c region during theso-called “15 Years War” between the Manchurian Incident in September
1931 and the end of World War II in the Pacific in August 1945. In thelast few decades, major war crimes committed by the Japanese—for
example, the medical experiments conducted on prisoners by Unit 731,
the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons in actual combat, theill-treatment and massacre of prisoners of war (POWs), and the sexual
exploitation of Asian women as “comfort women”—have been revealed
and studied. However, most of these studies are simply historicalaccounts of the crimes and scarcely address the fundamental question of
why Japanese troops were capable of committing such crimes against
humanity. Furthermore, there is a general assumption that Japanese
troops before 1931 were well disciplined and their conduct relatively
humane, but that a major change in their behavior occurred shortly after
the outbreak of World War I, due to the inculcation of a strong
nationalism based upon the emperor ideology. However, this assumption
contradicts what actually happened in modern Japanese history.
Indeed, Japanese troops were brutal in their conduct even before thefi rst major war involving Japan as a modern state after the Meiji
Restoration of 1868. This was the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895.
During the peasant upheaval (the so-called Tonghak Revolt) in Korea
shortly before this war, Japanese troops killed tens of thousands of
Korean peasants to crush this peasant movement. In the Sino-Japanese
War itself, Japanese soldiers massacred several thousand civilians in Port
Arthur in November 1894. Within five months from late May 1895,
Japanese Imperial troops also killed well over 15,000 Formosan guerrillafighters and civilians in order to colonize Taiwan.
It is therefore necessary to re-examine the Japanese military
violence from new perspectives to comprehend its distinctive elements
and to understand what caused Japanese troops to commit such atrocities
from the very beginning of their operations overseas. Yet it is also

HPI Research Project

important to view these atrocities in a comparative perspective to avoid
assuming that they were somehow “peculiar” or “unique.” Rather, it isessential, by documenting and analyzing the historical roots of Japanese
war crimes, to illuminate the specific dynamics of modern Japaneseculture and society but within the context of a broader analysis of theuniversal problem of war crimes. By adopting a comparative approach,this project will thus seek to understand Japanese war-time atrocities, notin popular mythical terms of abiding “cultural” legacies, such as“Japanese uniqueness,” but in precise historical, political, andsocio-psychological terms. Thus, in the end, the project addresses thefundamental question of how wars dehumanize and brutalize both men
and women.
For this purpose, the project adopts the following two aims as its
major objectives:
1) To analyze several major cases of massacres and atrocities
committed by the Japanese Imperial troops against non-Japanese
civilians, and to compare them with similar cases committed in otherplaces at different times by troops of other nationalities.
2) Through such comparative analysis, to determine whether or not
the Japanese military atrocities have any distinctive characteristics andalso to explore the fundamental elements of military atrocities in general.
Toward these ends, a team of 10 Japanese scholars is currently
conducting case studies of several major war crimes committed by theJapanese Imperial forces against civilians between 1894 and 1945. Aftercompleting this task, we plan to conduct a comparative study of theJapanese cases and those committed by the military forces of othernations, such as the U.S.
By Yuki Tanaka, professor at HPI

Comparative Research into Genocide and Mass Violence

The twin aims of HPI’s comparative genocide project are ambitious:
first, to compare the four total genocides of the 20th century and several
other large-scale cases of contemporary genocide and mass murder and,second, to explore a number of critical issues related to those cases, witha view to establishing criteria of comparison and identifying common
elements, patterns, and possible remedies. As part of this new project, aninternational workshop was held in Hiroshima in March this year andanother is planned for winter/spring 2004.
Documenting genocide in the modern age is a most delicate andsensitive matter. The 10 participants of the fi rst workshop are
documenting modern cases of genocide and mass murder, aware thatthey are dealing with one of the most important and abhorrent themes of
our times. The participants include some of the most prominent scholars
in the field. The founder of comparative genocide research, Prof. Vahakn
Dadrian (Armenia, U.S.A.), made a masterpiece presentation incomparative research that focused on the Armenian genocide of the
1920s, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. The editor-in-chief of
the Journal of Genocide Research, Prof. Henry Huttenbach (U.S.A.),
spoke about perspectives for preventing genocide. Prof. Yuki Tanaka(Japan) offered a revealing account of Japanese crimes against humanity,
which focused chiefly on the question of “comfort women.” Beate Ziegs(Germany) explored the contribution made by the father of the genocide
convention, Raphael Lemkin, an international lawyer and one of the first
genocide scholars. Faustin Kagame (Rwanda, Switzerland) discussed therole of the media in the Rwandan genocide. Prof. Geoffrey Gunn (Japan)
presented research on the genocide in East Timor. Patrick Burgess
addressed the genocide in East Timor and talked about his work on theCommission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor.
Galuh Wandita spoke about the Indonesian genocide of the mid-1960s,

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

and my own contribution was a comparison of the Rwandan genocidewith other total genocides. An additional topic, the reactivation of the
Elmau Initiative to Stop Genocide, was discussed on the last day. The
participants of the session chaired by Prof. Huttenbach made a numberof thoughtful, creative, and constructive proposals about this initiative.
In general the workshop was a successful start to a project dealing withan extremely important subject.
The second workshop, to be held at a place yet to be chosen, will
discuss studies on a number of other cases and issues. Scholars such asCharny, Cribb, Gunn, Jones, Tatz, and Tanaka are invited to makepresentations. A third workshop will concentrate on synthesizing
findings and possible remedies. The outcome of the project will be anedited volume, which will be submitted to leading publishing houses for
publication in both English and Japanese.
The relevance of this project cannot be underestimated.
Unfortunately, genocide is not a thing of the past. Gross human rights
violations, atrocities and, in some cases, outright genocide continue tocause havoc in different parts of the world and force whole populations
to live in fear and trauma. Violence not only kills but also limits life’s
possibilities for those who survive it.
There are, however, some small signs of hope. The latest case, themass murder in the Eastern Congo, is now being addressed by ICC
prosecutor Ocampo, and the U.N. Security Council has sent in peace
enforcement troops under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. The world
seems finally to be ready to put a stop to a long and dreadful history of
genocide and mass murder.

−6−

By Christian P. Scherrer, professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

HPI Research ForumMay 22, 2003

Title:The Bush Doctrine of Preventive
War: A Case of Foreign Policy
Jujitsu
Speaker: Dr. Jacques Hymans, AssistantProfessor of Government at Smith College

Dr. Hymans’ presentation addressed a vital topic in today’s world: the Bushadministration’s National Security Strategy and its doctrine of “preventive
war.” Hymans focused on how the administration has successfully
implemented a radical shift in U.S. strategic policy by appropriating certain
security perceptions and beliefs of the administration’s opponents tolegitimize that policy shift.
Hymans presented the five basic tenets of the threat perception
portrayed by the Bush administration’s new Strategy:* Proliferation as a major and growing national security problem* Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as long-range
missile technology, lumped together as “weapons of mass
destruction” (WMD)* The adversary as a set of “rogue states”* Increasing skepticism about the future effectiveness of“nonproliferation” diplomacy* Increasingly radical doubts about the wisdom of the traditionalreliance on “deterrence”
Hymans argued that the Bush administration obtained a quick and wide
consensus among Washington elites on this threat articulation because theadministration astutely depicted it in terms its critics were alreadypredisposed to hear. Hymans stated that “the absence of significant debate
about the nature of the threat neither reflects ‘obvious’ world realities, nor is ita ‘natural’ reaction to the events of September 11.” Rather, the National
Security Strategy’s mainstream critics have endorsed its threat assessment
because, in fact, “they had already independently arrived at the sameconclusions.”
Hymans explained that none of these tenets is particularly controversial
among Washington opinion leaders because each tenet has deep roots in the

HPI Research Project

thinking of Democratic politicians, arms control advocates, and even some
progressive activists. Many individuals in this “loyal opposition” have longargued, for example, that proliferation is a major concern and that long-term
reliance on traditional deterrence is untenable. Hence, these individuals could
hardly complain when the Bush administration adopted such positions.
Of course, sharing threat perceptions and agreeing on policy
prescriptions are very different things. As Hymans noted, the “loyal
opposition” generally has not accepted the Bush administration’s conclusionthat a strategy of preventive war is the necessary policy solution to the
problems fl owing from this threat perception. However, the Bushadministration’s usurpation of threat perceptions already shared by the “loyal
opposition” has limited that opposition’s latitude to critique theadministration’s policy choices. Hymans attributed the “timidity” of the “loyal
opposition” not to post-September 11 reticence to challenge a popularpresident, but to its difficulty in developing different policy prescriptions
sharing essentially the same set of threat perceptions.
This final point stimulated a lively discussion following Hymans’presentation. Hymans observed that the Bush administration’s claim—that a
strategy of preventive war necessarily follows from its threat assessment—is“not entirely baseless,” noting that some “arms controllers” have embraced
counterproliferation and preventive action strategies. However, he also
observed that many arms control advocates and most progressive activists
have never supported such policies. Picking up on this, the forum’s
discussant pointed out that decades-long opposition by arms control andnonproliferation activists to the general thrust of U.S. nuclear weapons
policies and global strategies—promulgated by Democratic and Republicanadministrations alike—has left a powerful legacy of policy prescriptions
fundamentally distinct from those the Bush administration has now made thecenterpiece of U.S. global strategy. Forum participants discussed how a
sturdy link between concerns over proliferation and non-offensive policy
strategies already exists, and what it would take for the U.S. “loyal
opposition” to embrace such an alternative.
Understanding why a stronger opposition to the Bush administration’s
global strategies has not yet emerged is a vital prerequisite to successfully
generating politically meaningful articulation of an alternative approach. Dr.
Hymans’ thought-provoking and educational presentation was a positive
contribution toward this goal.
By Wade L. Huntley, associate professor at HPIThe Second Research Workshop on“Confidence-Building Mechanism in East Asia”

On May 23 and 24, the second workshop for the “Confidence-Building
Mechanism in East Asia” project was held at the Toshi Center Hotel inTokyo.
The workshop was held at a time when the world had been shaken
by two major international incidents: the fluidity introduced on the
Korean Peninsula by North Korea’s announcement that it had secretly
kept developing nuclear technology in violation of the U.S.- North
Korean Agreed Framework, followed by the outbreak of the Iraq War andits chaotic aftermath. Moreover, the participants from Singapore andTaiwan were unable to attend the workshop due to the ban on travels
abroad imposed by their governments in response to the outbreak of
SARS.
Following on the first workshop, the participants discussed theinterpretations of and policies on confidence building in the different
countries. Aware of the diversity of approaches to confidence-building in
nations in East Asia and of the fact that these approaches are still in theearly stages of development and bound further to deepen and expand,they focused on understanding the differences among the nations andfi nding common features rather than insisting on adherence to any
particular definition of the term “confidence-building.”
Throughout the workshop, the participants spent much time
discussing the North Korea issue to arrive at a new realization that theissue was a critical and destabilizing factor for East Asian security. Some
expressed the view that, overall, the East Asian security situation had
deteriorated since the previous workshop because of the North Korea

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003

factor. However, such a pessimistic view was not shared by everybody
and, in fact, the wide range of opinions expressed on the subject wasmore impressive. The Russian participant made a particularly interestingobservation that North Korea already possessed three or four nuclear
weapons.
Consensus was reached at the workshop on the following threepoints. First, while the North Korea issue complicates the situation, thefundamental structure of East Asian security has not changed. Second,
the broad patterns of cooperative relationships and interests, including
those represented by the extant alliances, have not changed, and it isessential that both South Korea and Japan continue to maintain their
alliance with the U.S. Third, the roles of the U.S. and China remain
critical. Even though the U.S. under the present Bush administrationaccords a lower priority to East Asia, it must continue to play a criticalrole, if the fundamental structure of regional politics has not changed, andits cooperative relationship with China must also remain indispensable.
The participants of the workshop confi rmed the increasing
importance of the institutionalization of confidence-building in East Asia.
They also agreed that it is important to incorporate North Korea into theEast Asian security system and maintain the dialogue with the regime.
The project is now preparing a final report based on discussions at
the second workshop and the document is scheduled for publication in
the near future.

−7−

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

Hello from HPISung Chull Kim Associate Professor

diplomacy and a comparative study of market transition in China, Vietnam,
and North Korea.

Sung Chull Kim moved from the Korea Institute for
National Unification (KINU) in Seoul to Hiroshima to join
HPI in October 2003. He received his doctor’s degree fromthe University of California at Irvine in 1991, andspecialized in Korean affairs and comparative socialist
systems for 11 years at KINU. In 2002, he taught at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, as a visiting professor.
His recent research interests are the North Korea’s nuclear

Kim states: “I am glad to join the Hiroshima Peace Institute. Thisis a research organization that disseminates the culture and knowledge ofpeace and promotes the security of human beings. Peace is not a simple
matter of military defense, but involves the cultivation of a peacefulmind-set in people and the establishment of law-abiding regimes. Fromsuch a perspective, I would like to contribute to peace by researching thecreation of a systemic milieu in which a peaceful policy may be nested.”

ＤＩＡＲＹ
July 1, 2003 - October 31, 2003
◆Sept. 3 Mizumoto attends the annual meeting of a research group on reference◆July 1-4 Yuki Tanaka presents a paper “Crimes Against Humanity: Perspectives
materials at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Towards Revitalizing the Spirit of Hiroshima” at the Activating Human Rights andDiversity Conference hosted by Southern Cross University in Byron Bay, Australia.
◆Sept. 15-21 Scherrer meets representatives of governments, the U.N. and NGOs in
Kabul, Afghanistan.
◆July 1-8 Wade Huntley conducts research on nuclear disarmament and East Asian
regional collective security initiatives in Berkeley, U.S.
◆Sept. 27 Takahashi receives a doctorate from Doshisha University in Kyoto.
◆July 3 Kazumi Mizumoto gives a speech on peace studies for third through sixth◆Sept. 28-Oct. 5 Mizumoto visits three cities in Cambodia as the leader of agraders at Midorii Elementary School in Hiroshima City.
Hiroshima prefectural mission on reconstruction assistance under the auspices ofHiroshima Prefecture’s “Hiroshima Peace Contribution Initiative.”◆July 3-19 Hiroko Takahashi conducts research on nuclear tests at the National
Archives at College Park, Maryland, and at the National Archives and the Library of◆Oct. 1 Tanaka gives a lecture on “History and Thoughts of Indiscriminate Bombing:
Congress in Washington, D.C.
Europe” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima City, at the Hiroshima City
Plaza for Town Development through Citizen Exchange.
◆July 4 Mizumoto discusses “The Reality of Peace Research and Its Tasks” at a
meeting of the Hiroshima Prefectural Nursing Association.
◆Oct. 2-16 Akiyama conducts research in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
◆July 9-11 Huntley visits the Asia Society, San Francisco, the Center for◆Oct. 5 Scherrer gives a paper on the People’s Tribunals and discusses “Genocidal
Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute for International Studies, and the
U.S.-engineered Sanctions Against the Iraqi People 1990-2003” at the all-Japan
Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University.
meeting on accountability for the Iraq War, at Waseda University, Japan.
◆July 11 Nobumasa Akiyama gives a report on “Support for the Denuclearizaion of◆Oct. 8 Fukui, Scherrer, Tanaka, Huntley, and Mizumoto participate in discussions
Russia and G8 Global Partnership” at a workshop of the Japan Institute of Internationalwith U.N. Disarmament Fellows at the Hiroshima International Conference Center.
Affairs in Tokyo.
Tanaka gives a lecture on “The History and Thoughts of Indiscriminate Bombing: theAsia-Pacific Region” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima City.
◆July 14 Huntley conducts research on nuclear policy issues at the National Archives,
College Park, Maryland.
◆Oct. 12 Mizumoto serves as a coordinator at “Hiroshima International Peace Forum”
hosted by the Hiroshima Peace Contribution Network Council and the 37th School◆July 15 Christian Scherrer meets representatives of the Lelio Basso Foundation (LBF)and the Permanent People’s Tribunal in Rome.
Festival Planning Committee of Hiroshima Prefectural Women’s University.
◆July 15-17 Huntley visits the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the◆Oct. 15 Professor Masahiro Igarashi of Kanazawa University gives a lecture on “TheCenter for Strategic and International Studies, the Council for a Livable World, theDevelopment of Ideas of International Humanitarian Law: From the Viewpoint of theMansfield Center for Pacific Affairs, the Stimson Center, and the Washington Office of
Iraq War” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima City.
the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Washington, D.C., and the Center for◆Oct. 15-17 Huntley visits the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the China
Naval Analysis, Alexandria, Virginia.
Institute for Contemporary International Relations, Qinghua University, Beijing
University, the Chinese Institute for International Studies, and meets a senior◆July 18 Scherrer visits the Ligue Internationale pour les Droits et la Liberation desPeoples (LIDLIP) and the Secretary General of International Peace Bureau, in Geneva.
representative of the Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Beijing.
Mizumoto gives a lecture on “The Atomic Bombing Experience of Hiroshima and Its◆Oct. 17 Scherrer discusses “Accountability for War Crimes: Deadly Radiological
Tasks for Peace in the 21st Century” at a meeting of the Hiroshima City Women’s
Warfare in Iraq and Beyond” at the World Uranium Weapons Conference workshop on
Peace Group.
International Law in Hamburg, Germany.
◆July 18-25 Huntley conducts research on nuclear disarmament and Japan’s nuclear◆Oct. 18-19 The fourth workshop of the HPI Research Project on “Military Violence
weapons policies at the University of California, Berkeley.
against Civilians --- A Comparative and Historical Analysis” is held at HPI.
◆July 28 Tanaka gives a lecture on “The Pacific War: Atrocities and War Crimes” in◆Oct. 22 Akiyama gives a lecture on “ ‘Victims’ of Local Conflict: the Case of Eastthe intensive summer course of Hiroshima City University (HCU), “Hiroshima andTimor” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima City.
Peace.” Scherrer meets U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food in Geneva.
◆Oct. 24-25 Tanaka gives a lecture on “How Should We Conduct Peace Studies in a Timeof Globalization? A View from Hiroshima” at Chungnam National University, South Korea.
◆July 29 Mizumoto gives a lecture on “The Experience of Atomic Bombing in Hiroshima
and Japan’s Nuclear-Related Policies” in the HCU summer course, and on “Hiroshima◆Oct. 25 Mizumoto gives a lecture on “The Current Situation of Nuclear Weapons” atand Peace” for a training program for journalists organized by Hiroshima City.
the 6th session of the Peace Club for Junior High and High School Students at theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆July 31 Huntley gives a lecture on “U.S. Security Policies in Northeast Asia” in the
HCU summer course.
◆Oct. 25-29 Scherrer gives a talk on “Perspectives of Accountability” at the meetingof the preparatory commission for the Iraq tribunal in Istanbul, Turkey.
◆July 31-Aug. 1 Mizumoto serves as a commentator at the Senior Journalist Seminar
hosted by The Chugoku Shimbun, the U.S. Consulate General Osaka-Kobe, and the◆Oct. 29 Tanaka gives a lecture on “Contemporary Wars and Indiscriminate Killing:
Kansai American Center, at the Hiroshima International Conference Center.
From Vietnam to Iraq” in the HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima City.
◆Aug. 2 HPI holds an international symposium, “Terror from the Sky: Indiscriminate◆Oct. 29-30 Huntley makes presentations on “Australasia and South-East Asia” andBombing from Hiroshima to Today,” at the Hiroshima International Conference Center.
“Contrasting Approaches of the United States and the European Union” at the United
Nations University’s select graduate course on Northeast Asian security in Tokyo.
◆Aug. 4 Scherrer gives a lecture on “International Terrorism: Causes, ‘War on
Terrorism’ and Arms Race, and the Context of Contemporary Mass Violence,” in the◆Oct. 31 Huntley makes a presentation on “No Way Out: Bush Administration
HCU summer course.
Dilemmas on the North Korean Nuclear Crisis” at the Peace Research Institute,International Christian University, Tokyo.
◆Aug.18-Sept. 12 Tanaka conducts documentary research on World War II at the
British Public Records Office in London and the U.S. National Archives.
— Visitors to HPI —◆Aug. 19 Mizumoto discusses peace-related issues at the “International Peace
Seminar by Students” hosted by an organization of college students in Hiroshima for◆July 1 Han S. Park and two other professors of international affairs and 13 students
international exchange, ISHR.
from the University of Georgia.
◆Aug. 22 Dr. Lawrence Scheinman of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in◆July 11 Essa M. Al Zadjali, editor-in-chief of the Times of Oman.
Washington, D.C., gives a lecture on “Non-Proliferation, WMD and Terrorism: Do◆Aug. 5 Yuji Otabe, professor at Shizuoka College of Welfare and Computer
Regimes Matter?” at an HPI Research Forum.
Technology and 27 students of Meiji University.
◆Aug. 28 Huntley chairs the panel on “Futures in Asian Security” at the American◆Aug. 8 Ko Chang Hoon, professor, Department of Public Administration, and two
Political Science Association 100th Annual Convention in Philadelphia.
other professors of Cheju National University, South Korea.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWSVol.6, No.2 December, 5. 2003
Copyright 2003 HPI All rights reserved

zIssued by Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University

TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg. 12th Floor, 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, JAPAN E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp

zPrinted by Nishiki Print co., ltd.

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

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.6 No.2 December 2003