Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.8 No.3 March 2006
<Series: Reflections from Hiroshima>

Professor Emeritus Yoshie Funahashi at Hiroshima University

Hiroshima is Tired
Prof. Funahashi has worked for years on the issues ofHiroshima A-bomb victims (hibakusha) as a member of the“Association of Counselors for A-bomb Victims.” In thefollowing interview, Motofumi Asai, president of HPI, asks
her to look back on the history of efforts in Hiroshima
toward nuclear abolition and peace from her standpoint assomeone interacting with hibakusha. We provide asummary of her interesting comments here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The nuclear abolition movement in Japan got into full swing 10 years
after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the wakeof the Daigo Fukuryu Maru Incident in 1954. One can cite press
restrictions during the U.S. occupation as one reason, but that makes
one wonder why a peace movement did not gain momentum in 1952
after Japan regained its independence through the San Francisco
Peace Treaty. Looking back at the controversy over the inscription
on the cenotaph for A-bomb victims, which flared up immediately
after the unveiling of the cenotaph in 1952, we can see that mosthibakusha were eager to pursue U.S. culpability for the atomic
bombings. Even so, considering the impact of occupation policy andpublic feeling toward the Emperor at that time, it would have beendifficult for Hiroshima to even consider initiating a peace movementin those days. But such a movement should have started somewherein Japan. Why was there no such movement in Japan?
The Japan Confederation of A- and H-bomb Sufferers
Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo) was established in 1956 at thesecond World Conference against Nuclear Weapons. According toHeiichi Fujii, the first Secretary General of the Confederation,
nuclear abolition and A-bomb survivor relief were placed as a pair ofwheels for the peace movement in the first declaration of the World
Conference. In their initial stages, relief activities for hibakusha
succeeded in establishing the A-bomb Survivors Medical Care Law,but people engaged in these activities sometimes found themselves inan awkward position, ridiculed as “welfare cases” even by theirrelatives. Ironically, Nihon Hidankyo started its own peace
movement activities after the World Conference against Nuclear
Weapons split up. Nihon Hidankyo has remained unified, though
Hiroshima Hidankyo remains divided.
The great milestone in the hibakusha issue was the NGO
International Symposium on Damages and After-effects of theAtomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, held in 1977, where
all problems regarding hibakusha were discussed. Even today, thesymposium’s report, titled “The Realities of Atomic Bombings andthe Actual Situation of A-bomb Victims,” is the first text to readwhen thinking about hibakusha problems. Even on the 50th or 60th

CONTENTS
Series: Reflections from Hiroshima
Hiroshima is Tired by Yoshie Funahashi………………………………………………1
Politicization of Human Rights:
North Korean Refugees in China by Mikyoung Kim…………………………………2
Facing the Future in Iraq by Facing the Past by Robert Jacobs…………………………3
International Law after the Iraq War: Ex injuria oritur jus? by Yoshiaki Sato…………4
HPI’s Fourth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima…………………………………5
HPI Research Forum..
The History of War and Peace in Europe by Sigrid Pollinger…………………………6
The Politics of International Solidarity by Jean-Marc Coicaud………………………6
Research Project
Myanmar Peace Initiative………………………………………………………………7
Workshop Report: Political Economy of Interdependence between Two Koreas………7
Hello from HPI……………………………………………………………………………8
Diary………………………………………………………………………………………8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

Interview by Motofumi Asai

anniversaries of the atomic bombings, we find nothing superior tothat report, which makes us wonder why so little has changed since1977.
The Health and Welfare Ministry conducted its first survey on
hibakusha long after 20 years in 1965 and released the results two
years later, but did not indicate that anything should be done forthem. The Council for Basic Problems of A-bomb Victims, a private
consultative body to the Health and Welfare Minister, released areport on December 11, 1980, which cast a long shadow onhibakusha policies. The report said that Japanese people should
equally accept and tolerate the damage caused by the War, and thatthe government had to strike a balance between assistance forhibakusha and for other victims of the War.
In response, hibakusha in Hiroshima sent a letter of protest to
the Health and Welfare Ministry. Medical social workers, whohelped them draft the letter, set up the “Association of Counselors
for A-bomb Victims” in June 1981. This group holds general
meetings every August 6th, when hibakusha give their testimonies.
They also hold a symposium and lecture meeting every December
11th. Looking back on the history of the group, we regret that wewere never able to develop a working theory or peace movement
surpassing the 1977 symposium report, and that we failed to convey
the comprehensive picture and realities about hibakusha from a newand more advanced perspective. Though individual hibakusha hadstrong feelings, it was difficult to develop their feelings into a
campaign or protest. We feel deep remorse for not being able tochannel their feelings toward a drive to say “when something iswrong, we have to say so.” This failure meant that grass-roots
movements never developed.
As a background factor curbing the drive of the hibakusha, we
can point out that Hiroshima has been led by the national governmentand has shown no strong inclination to “protest against authority.” In
Hiroshima people rarely make requests of the government. They
would never take action against the government’s wishes. Shortly
after I moved to Hiroshima, someone told me, “It’s true that
Hiroshima is an A-bombed city, but people in Hiroshima are notnecessarily against the re-armament of Japan.”Some people visiting Hiroshima say that people here should stopusing the phrase “the only country to have suffered nuclear attacks”
or “an A-bombed city.” What they say can be interpreted as thequestion: “Hasn’t the phrase ‘A-bombed city’ lost substance by thistime?” Or it might be the message, “If you really want to use theexpression ‘A-bombed city,’ you should use it decently andsincerely.” It seems that people in Hiroshima do not notice the way
people outside of Hiroshima look at them. I think that Hiroshima isvery tired. Because of that, no new hero has come along to unleash
his energy, as Heiichi Fujii used to do. And new ideas are not born.
Even at the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing, Hiroshima
failed to come up with anything new.
Lastly, in accordance with the will of Heiichi Fujii, I would liketo urge Hidankyo to mobilize nuclear victims and create a worldwide
Hidankyo. Hidankyo has the know-how to deal with the politicalworld and governments on international nuclear problems, including
the Chernobyl problem. I would recommend that Hidankyo mobilize
a second generation of hibakusha and supporters with the goal of
creating an international Hidankyo. Hidankyo heading such a
movement would be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

−1−

Asai is president of HPI

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

Politicization of Human Rights:
North Korean Refugees in China
By Mikyoung Kim
North Korea’s failure to feed its own people has driven a
starving population across a dangerous 850-mile Sino-DPRK
border in search of food. The exact number of North Korean
refugees in China is open to debate, ranging from the Chinese
government’s conservative estimate of 10,000 to Seoul’s
calculation of between 10,000 and 30,000. Humanitarianorganizations put the figure as high as 300,000. The refugees’
usual hideouts are the Sino-DPRK border regions densely
populated by ethnic-Chinese Koreans, such as the Liaoning
and Jilin provinces, Dandong, Tumen and Yanji. The police
crackdowns in Beijing late 2004 suggest that a substantial
number of refugees are in hiding in the capital area as well.
The continuing influx of North Korean refugees ispushing Beijing to address the current situation in a morestraightforward manner - but this will not be an easy matter.
Beijing naturally wants to maintain its increasing economic
ties with Seoul, now its third largest trading partner. And
while Beijing wants to prove its respect for human rights tothe international community, it does not wish to damage its
alliance with Pyongyang, with whom it shares a mutual
security pact.
Moreover, China has enough social woes of its own. It
does not need additional, externally-imposed burdens. The listof China’s domestic problems ranges from a rapidly
deteriorating environment, a growing number of internalmigrants and “floating unemployed,” a worsening labormanagement situation, an increasing imbalance in the boy-girlbirth ratio, and rampant corruption. Under the circumstances,
Beijing cannot welcome another source of strain by having todeal with a massive influx of famished people from aneighboring country. Beijing is therefore faced with several
dilemmas at once.

Defining North Koreans in China:“Refugees” or “Illegal Economic Migrants”?
Currently, Beijing designates North Korean escapees as“illegal economic migrants.” The United Nations, along withthe majority of legal experts, regard them as refugees, whoshould be granted refugee status on the grounds ofrefoulement, as returnees to North Korea are known to sufferfrom severe repercussions, including capital punishment.
Labeling North Korean escapees as “illegal economic
migrants” goes beyond a simple difference in preferredchoices of words. It is the conscious byproduct of Beijing’s
carefully calculated effort to evade any legal or politicalresponsibilities for these people.
By designating the escapees to be “illegal economic
migrants,” Beijing exempts itself from any moral and ethicalobligations to these persons. Police crackdowns, cash rewards
for turning in escapees, and levying hefty fines on citizens
who aid them are therefore legitimate and justifiable.
Beijing’s definition has been particularly tragic for North
Korean women who comprise two-thirds of all escapees.

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

North Korean women hiding in China are often forced into
violent marriages or sold into sexual slavery, but since they
are “illegal economic migrants,” they are stripped of any
legal recourse.
The People’s Republic’s rising economic and military
power entails higher expectations of its moral leadership in
the region, and yet, its history is riddled with bloody sanctions
against anti-regime challenges. The memories of the 1989
Tiananmen Square massacre have not faded, nor has Beijing’s
decades-old brutal crackdown in Tibet.
Complicating this issue, Beijing has been voicing
concerns over the unilateral imposition of universal humanrights on non-Western contexts. Advocacy for individual
rights has been deemed a Western invention with limited
validity in more group-oriented Confucian cultural contexts
like that of China. Beijing, for instance, has never supported
the Bush administration’s elevation of human rights as a core
political agenda.

Appeasing Pyongyang and Preventing Regime Collapse
China obviously wishes the North Korean refugee
problem would simply go away, but it has grown too big to
ignore. In trying to deal with this issue, however, Beijing istrapped between encouraging Pyongyang to reform its
economic practices, in order to ease the influx, and at thesame time working to prevent regime collapse. Beijing istrying to appease and prod North Korea toward reform byaligning with it. Assigning “refugee” status to the North
Korean escapees would be an admission that Kim Jong-il’sleadership is politically repressive and is, therefore, anonstarter.
Meanwhile, to prevent further mass exodus from North
Korea into its territory, Beijing needs to make sure that thecurrent regime does not collapse abruptly, causing chaos in
the region. That would be a major disaster for China’s
booming economy. During the latter half of 2004, the Chinese
military deployed its elite troops along the Sino-DPRK
frontier to tighten it. Beijing’s provision of oil and food isdesigned to sustain the failing regime. China is the thirdlargest benefactor of humanitarian aid to Pyongyang, behindSeoul and Washington.
Beijing knows that it can play an important role asmediator between Pyongyang and other regional powers. But
to maintain the upper hand in the coalition, China cannot
afford to lose its alliance with North Korea. As much as
Pyongyang needs Beijing, its sole ally, Beijing needs to stayin close touch with Pyongyang to remain mediator and leaderof the six-party framework. Sadly, in this complicatedequation of security and human rights, the plight of North
Korean refugees and the debate as to their human rights
continues to fall between the cracks.

−2−

Kim is assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

Facing the Future in Iraq by Facing the Past
By Robert Jacobs
In the current debate raging in the United States about
the consequences of withdrawing American troops
from Iraq, one thing sorely missing in the discussion ishonesty about the past, honesty about how we havearrived at this present dilemma.
In the series of old speeches and policy statements
pieced together (in response to growing politicalpressure at home) to form President Bush’s “National
Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” the President lays out the“consequences of failure.” These consequences repeat
Bush administration rhetoric intended to rebuke those
who call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces. The bullet
points detailed include:-Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists.
-Iraq becoming a country tormented by “inhumane
practices.”-Iraq becoming a “failed state and source of instability
for the entire Middle East.”-Failure will place “the American people in greater
danger by destabilizing a vital region.”-Failure will call into question “American credibility.”-Failure will weaken “the growing democratic impulses
in the region. Middle East reformers would neveragain fully trust American assurances of support for
democracy and pluralism in the region.”(taken from, “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,” pp. 5-6,
available at:www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html)

This is the picture that the Bush administration
paints of the consequences of American withdrawal or
failure in its war in Iraq. The problem with this pictureis that it places these consequences in the future when
in fact they are a part of the present situation in Iraq
and in the Middle East. These consequences were a
direct result, not of a United States withdrawal from
Iraq, but of the United States entry into Iraq.
The United States military entered Iraq and easily
defeated Saddam Hussein’s army in the spring andsummer of 2003. Only after this time Iraq became ahaven for terrorists, and only after this time the avowed
enemy of the United States, al-Qaeda, established apresence in Iraq and began to carry out terrorist actions
against the Iraqi people, U.S. armed forces and military..
contractors. Na l ve beliefs about the Iraqi people
welcoming the U.S. military as liberators, and ageneral lack of planning for the post-Saddam era in
Iraq resulted in a “failed state,” or more accurately,statelessness. This situation has created an intensely
destabilized Middle East, with terrorist attacks
spreading to many countries, and rising tensions
between Sunni and Shiite Muslims region-wide. The
HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

growing instability in the Middle East has fueled antiAmerican sentiments worldwide and placed theAmerican people in far greater danger than thetrumped up weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) everdid.
The widespread use of torture by U.S. forces
against the Iraqi people has made “inhumane practices”
endemic in Iraq (and in American “black site” prisons).
Far from liberating the Iraqi people from such horrificthreats, the entrance of the U.S. into Iraq has merely
changed the nationality (and the religion) of theperpetrators, while maintaining the scale and cruelty ofthe torture of Iraqi political prisoners.
Similarly, the initial political structures pursued by
the Bush administration in Iraq were far fromdemocratic. These policies focused on creating
provincial and municipal councils whose members
were to be picked by Paul Bremer, the head of the
U.S.-installed Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
It was only at the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Sistanithat such a plan was abandoned. The right for one
person/one vote was forced on the U.S. by Sistani, whoeasily recognized that Shiites have a statistical
majority, and, therefore, could rule in a democratic
Iraq. Further, CPA moves to consolidate power overIraqi ministries and oil production have offset
American rhetoric paying lip service to democracy.
The message heard loud and clear throughout the
Middle East is that of the imposition of power rather
than the implementation of democracy.
What then of American credibility? The question
must be asked, is there any American credibility left in
the Middle East, or the rest of the world? When the
United States has abandoned the Geneva Convention,
has violated the sovereignty of numerous states
through kidnappings, has planted stories in the press of
Iraq as well as in its own country, what credibility isleft to lose? When it launched a “preventive war”
based on falsified intelligence and alarmist rhetoric, its
credibility became the first casualty of its own actions.
There will be no clear way forward for the UnitedStates in Iraq until it faces this past. The Bushadministration must be honest with itself and with thepeople of the world, brutally honest, if it has any hopeof changing the current situation in Iraq, any hope ofoffering the Iraqi people some semblance of stability
and prosperity. To carry the present circumstances intoa rhetorical future is to continue to take the U.S. andcountless millions around the world further down ahole of failure and bloodshed.

−3−

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

International Law after the Iraq War:Ex injuria oritur jus?
By Yoshiaki SatoInternational law seems to be violated quite frequently.
Superpowers often take actions inconsistent with internationallaw, yet sanctions are rarely imposed on them. When small
states commit illegal acts, however, law enforcement actions arequickly taken by major powers. No wonder it is commonly said
that international law is like a spider’s web, which traps
mosquitoes, but is broken by a wasp. This characteristic ofinternational law gives some the impression that it should not be
considered “law,” at least not in the same sense as domestic law.
Some go so far as to dismiss the entire system of internationallaw as just a false veneer over raw power politics. On the other
hand, international law would be of no use if violations
routinely went unchallenged. If we think of violations ofinternational law as actual violations of law, we might hope thatarguments based on the principle “Ex injuria non oritur jus”[“illegal acts do not create a legal norm”], emphasizing the
logical coherence of international law, will move public opinion
toward acceptance of international rule of law, ultimately
limiting power politics to a certain extent.
The problems are not that simple, however, because no
supranational legislature has plenary powers comparable to anation’s parliament. The United Nations General Assembly does
have the power to pass resolutions, but except on budgetary
matters, its resolutions are merely recommendations and are notlegally binding. Similarly, when a diplomatic conference is held
to conclude a treaty, each nation is basically free to decide
whether or not to participate. Even when a situation clearlyrequires that international law be changed, the international
community has no institutional measure by which to compel
nations to accept the change. Given this structure, or lack ofstructure, major powers often choose to take unilateral actions
that cannot be justified under existing law, virtually forcing
other nations to recognize the legitimacy and effectiveness ofsuch actions. Sometimes major powers even seem to think that
this is, in fact, the way to develop new rules of international
law; they tend to argue, in effect, that illegal acts do create legal
norms, or to be more precise, that “seemingly illegal acts canestablish a new legal order.”The formation of such concepts as “crime against
humanity” and “crime against peace,” originating in the trials of
the war criminals before the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals,
may be seen as an example of new legal norms created through“illegal acts.” Traditionally, these military trials werecondemned as invalid on two grounds. They were criticized in
the first place for applying ex post facto laws, which thedefendants could not have referred to when they committed thecriminal acts in question. Strong criticism has also been leveledon the grounds that these tribunals did not honor the principlethat trials should be conducted in a court composed of detachedand neutral magistrates. It is certainly difficult to say that thepunishments imposed by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals
were authorized by then-existing international law, since there
were no established rules regarding war crimes, such as thoseenumerating prohibited acts and providing penalties forviolations. Having said this, it is entirely possible that the law
applied in those tribunals actually created an international
consensus against war and toward respect for human rights,−4−
Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

leading to the development of international humanitarian law.
We may well say that apparent violations of traditional legal
rules by the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals were committed tocreate new rules of international law necessary for thecontemporary international community.
Some people maintain that the United States abandoned any
attempt to justify its actions under international law, throwing
away the fig leaf that had covered its embarrassing motivations,when it started the Iraq War in 2003. Admittedly, the legal
justification for the war given by the United States was far frompersuasive, but it is hardly self-evident that it should bedismissed as totally implausible from the start. Suppose that theUnited States did have convincing evidence that Iraq possessed
WMDs. Then it is not impossible to argue that United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1441, stipulating that Iraq would
face “serious consequences” as a result of its continued
violations, authorized the use of force against Iraq. Likewise,
suppose that the United States had convincing evidence ofimminent attacks by terrorists armed with WMDs supplied by
Iraq. In such a case, it is possible to justify the Iraq War as an
exercise of the “right to preemptive self-defense.”
In retrospect, as President Bush admitted on December 14,
2005, so-called evidence of WMDs in Iraq was generally flimsy
and some was fabricated. If the United States government knewthat factual preconditions for the use of force against Iraq were
nonexistent when it started the war, then we must say that the
Iraq War was illegal, regardless of whether or not we accept thejustification submitted by the United States. Generally,
however, a policy decision is presumed to be reasonable as longas it is supported by sufficient information to meet legal
requirements; it need not be based on scientific findings.
Considering that mistaken self-defense is not in and of itself
illegal, the Iraq War may still be justified as long as theinformation leading to the war was credible enough to meetlegal requirements, even though such information later turned
out to be unsubstantiated.
Assuming that the justification of the Iraq War offered by
the United States fails under existing international law, thecrucial question should be whether we are ready, in light of thelong-term effect on the international legal process, to endorse or
acquiesce in the creation of new legal norms through “illegal
acts.” International law, in principle, does not allow the use ofviolent countermeasures against “structural violence,” andregards the deterrence of terrorism as a legitimate goal.
Accordingly, it comes into question whether the “right topreemptive self-defense,” which may currently be “illegal,”should be recognized as a means of deterring terrorism, orwhether such action should be deemed to be an abuse of theright of self-defense. The key point for international law in the
post-Iraq War era is to dissociate the question of what the law
should be from our assessment of the Iraq War itself: We haveto be careful not to prohibit all preventive anti-terrorism
measures by banning every use of force, but at the same time,
we should probably avoid completely lifting the ban on the useof force when terrorism worries are cited as the excuse.

−4−Sato is research associate at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

HPI’s Fourth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima“Experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
Atomic Bombing and Current Challenges from Nuclear Weaponry”
To date, the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) has held international
symposiums, research forums, public lecture meetings and otherevents designed to share outcomes of HPI research projects and to
exchange views and information with other researchers and citizens.
Since fiscal year 2002, the HPI has annually held a lecture series for
citizens, each series comprising about 10 lectures.
In contrast to the research forums, where external researchers
lecture primarily for specialists, the lecture series for citizens isdesigned to share research outcomes with the general public. At thelectures, HPI researchers and other lecturers explain their specialties
and activities as plainly as possible. The purpose of sharing researchoutcomes with the general public is to provide them with relevant
information to help them think about peace more deeply and include
it in their actions. For further information on the program, please referto the related article, published in the March 2003 issue of thisjournal.
In previous years, HPI held the lecture series for citizens fromautumn to early winter (all three previous lecture series began in
October), inviting several lecturers, both from HPI and outside. The
themes of the past three events were as follows:First lecture series in 2002
“Memories and the Future of Northeast Asia: Towards a Mutual
Understanding of Asian Peoples in the 21st Century”
Second lecture series in 2003
“Wars Encountered by Civilians: A Perspective Towards theEstablishment of Peace in the 21st Century”
Third lecture series in 2004
“War and Peace: Seen through Culture, Ideas and Movements”
While the previous lecture series took a multi-faceted approachto a broad range of themes relating to war and peace, this fourth
lecture series (in fiscal year 2005) was designed to analyze several
problems relating to nuclear weaponry and the atomic bombings in1945. By focusing on these issues, the organizers sought to clarify thenature of these problems.
Because 60 years have passed since the first atomic bombing in
Hiroshima, we considered it essential to review the experiences of Abomb survivors and to explore ideal methods of passing on to future
generations the knowledge and lessons acquired from theirexperiences. In the hope that this lecture series will provide thepublic with a good opportunity to consider new strategies for
movements to abolish nuclear weaponry, we decided that the themeof the fourth event would be “Experiences of Hiroshima andNagasaki: Atomic Bombing and Current Challenges from Nuclear
Weaponry.”
In planning the fourth lecture series, we studied the Hiroshima Nagasaki Peace Study Courses, which were planned by Hiroshima
City, to prepare programs in connection with the study courses. In
fiscal year 2002 HPI began providing model courses of the Hiroshima- Nagasaki Peace Study Courses at Hiroshima City University. In
these courses Mr. Kazumi Mizumoto, HPI associate professor, andother members lectured students on the theme “Peace and Human
Rights (Hiroshima and world peace).” On the basis of theseexperiences we prepared the fourth lecture series, targeting thegeneral public. For lecturers, in addition to scholars and researchers,
we invited an A-bomb survivor and a film director. The themes andindividual lecturers were as follows:First lecture (September 26):
“How Should We Approach the Problem of Nuclear Arms? Can We
Abolish Nuclear Arms Simply through the Efforts of Anti-nuclear
Movements?”
Lecturer： Yuki Tanaka, professor of HPISecond lecture (October 3):“How to Convey the Atomic Bombing Experience”
Lecturer：Koji Hosokawa, volunteer guide of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum and member of the Hiroshima World Peace
MissionThird lecture (October 17):
“Late Effects of A-bomb Radiation on the Human Body”
Lecturer：Nanao Kamada, director of Hiroshima A-Bomb Survivors
Relief Foundation
Fourth lecture (October 24):
“Legal Problem of the Use of Nuclear Weapons under International
Law”

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

Lecturer： Yoshiro Matsui, professor of International Law,
Ritsumeikan University Graduate School of Law
Fifth lecture (October 31):“Concealed Hibakusha: Civil Defense Program of U.S. in 1950s andCivil Protection Program of Present Day Japan”
Lecturer：Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPI
Sixth lecture (November 14):
“Scars Left by the War on Chinese People: Their Views ofHiroshima”
Lecturer：Tomoko Kana, documentary film director
Seventh lecture (November 21):
“Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Today’s
Challenge of Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Lecturer：Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI
Eighth lecture (November 28):“Distant from Ground Zero: A Study on the Criminality of theAtomic Bombing”
Lecturer：Hitoshi Nagai, assistant professor at HPI
Nineth lecture (December 5):“North Korean Nuclear Problems: Present Situations and Possible
Approaches to a Solution”
Lecturer：Sung Chull Kim, associate professor at HPI
Tenth lecture (December 12):“Domestic and International Political Environment: Hiroshima’s
Position”
Lecturer：Motofumi Asai, president of HPI

The above themes were selected with the aim of scientificallyanalyzing experiences of atomic bomb victims and survivors - alongwith current challenges posed by nuclear weaponry - from various
perspectives, including, but not limited to, history, politics,
international law, medical science, art and peace movements; and tofind an ideal way of communicating A-bomb survivor experiences so
as to promote movements working toward permanent peace. In
planning the lecture programs, we took three approaches to the theme,
as described below.
First, to clarify the actual impact inflicted by the A-bomb, weplanned a lecture by an A-bomb survivor. At the same time, weplanned a lecture focusing on the impact of radiation on humanhealth, including mental health, together with a lecture on legal
problems involved in the A-bombing. Second, we sought multiangled views concerning the A-bombing, and World War II ingeneral. In other words, we sought to introduce views and memories
not only of A-bomb victims, but also other people in Japan andabroad. Studying the views of foreigners is particularly essential as
we prepare to discuss the experiences of Hiroshima with citizens ofother parts of the world, and in raising Hiroshima’s voice for theabolition of nuclear weapons. Third, we sought to analyze the present
situation of nuclear weaponry, along with historical trends in nuclear
proliferation and nuclear disarmament, so as to develop prospects forthe future and explore the roles expected of Hiroshima.
As in previous years, we held the fourth lecture series at themultimedia studio of Hiroshima City Plaza for Town Development
through Citizen Exchange (sixth floor of the north building). A totalof 10 lectures were held, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Mondays,
from late September to mid-December. Each 2-hour lecture
comprised a 90-minute presentation and a 30-minute Q&A session.
Though we were concerned that a total of 10 evening lectures might
be a burden for some citizens, fortunately we received over 90
applications for the lecture series, that has a capacity for only 60
people.
This fact attests to the interest of Hiroshima citizens in the Abombing and current nuclear threats. Male and female participant
numbers were about the same. The average participant age wasrelatively high since, regrettably, few young people - particularly
those in their twenties or under - attended the program. However, allparticipants were eager to attend the lectures; many asked questions
during the Q&A sessions. Their questions, representing various
viewpoints, helped to deepen the discussions and were enlightening
for both participants and lecturers.
In fiscal year 2006, in consideration of requests from previous
participants, we plan to hold the lecture series in spring and autumn
on a trial basis. We hope to develop optimal programs that can fully
meet the high expectations of Hiroshima’s citizens.

−5−

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

HPI Forum
October 6, 2005

Title:The History of War and Peace in Europe..
Speaker: Dr. Sigrid Pollinger (Secretary General of the Center for
Peace Research at Vienna University)

Based on her own rich experience as amember of the Austrian Delegation to theOrganization for Security and Co-operationin Europe (OSCE) since 1986, Dr. Sigrid..
Pollinger, Secretary General of the Center for
Peace Research at Vienna University,
recently gave a constructive talk on how thepossibility of creating a united and peaceful
Europe is starting to become a reality. She
explained the current encouraging situation of
establishing peace in Europe by analyzing the long history of wars
from ancient times till today.
..
Dr. Pollinger examined the destruction of the Berlin Wall, theresulting dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the consequent fall ofcommunism that brought the Cold War to an end. She sees events
such as these as useful in explaining Europe’s struggles to establish
peace. With the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, a former
superpower, was politically split apart and suffered from an
economical downfall. Thus the collapse of communism brought
victory to the West without necessitating a hot war. Yet, contrary to
the general expectation, peace in Europe was far from secure. It
soon became clear to the West that the collapse of the Soviet Union
imperium actually created various unpredictable and dangerous
problems. Ethnic and nationalist tensions broke out in some former
totalitarian states, the situation in former Yugoslavia being the..
extreme example. Hence, as Po llinger pointed out, it became
apparent that democracy alone was not a sufficient solution to the
problem of security and to other important political questions.
..
In Pollinger’s view, one of the most important preconditions for
European security is therefore the strengthening of political andeconomical reforms in Eastern Europe together with theconstruction of new European peace and security order. The
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) could
play a major role in achieving these aims. During the Cold War
December 13, 2005■

Title: The Politics of International Solidarity
Speaker: Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud (Director of the United Nations
University New York Office)Jean-Marc Coicaud’s presentation at the HPI
forum in December 2005 was benefiting fromtheoretical and practical insights of over 10
years of working for the United Nations. Dr.
Coicaud was previously a French
speechwriter of Secretary-General BoutrosGhali and is currently the Director of theUnited Nations University New York Office.
On the occasion of his forthcoming book“International Solidarity and Responsibility
in the 1990s” (Tokyo, Fujiwarashoten, forthcoming in the spring2006), as originally planned, the author spoke about the U.N. Peace
Missions in the post-Cold War world and the new period ofinternational relations since 2001, which marks a radical departure.
To measure international solidarity Coicaud looks at U.N.
Peace Missions, both classic peacekeeping operations (PKOs)
under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, requiring the agreement of
involved parties, and peace enforcement operations under Chapter
VII, tha latter allows use of force. In the post-Cold War period thislatter type of intervention became more prominent within some 30
PKOs. Their number rapidly increased and decreased in the 1990s- after a series of spectacular failures in Somalia, Rwanda andelsewhere - and increased again in the 2000s, this time without
U.S. troop involvement.
Peace operations are key to measure solidarity since they
ideally do not deal directly with national interests of member states

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

period, the CSCE was the only multinational East-West forum,
which included not only all Western European nations but also all
the Eastern European states as its members. It was the only
institution that regarded Europe as the vast region geographicallyextending from Vancouver to Vladivostok and dealt with peace andsecurity in a positive sense, with human rights, economy, culture
and education as essential points of focus. Ironically the originalidea of the CSCE started in the East as a way to clearly divide theEast from the West. The Final Act of the CSCE was signed on 1st
August 1975. The Soviet Union’s aim had been to make the West
formally acknowledge the territory and hegemony of the East. This
was the very reason why the East agreed to the Final Act of Helsinki
which comprised the 10 principles, including those of territorial
integrity and non-interference into internal affairs as well as that ofpermanently fixed boundaries. However the protection of humanrights was also included in the Final Act, which eventually gavestrength to the dissidents in the East and contributed to the fall of..
communism. Therefore, according to Pollinger, the Helsinki Final
Act is a document that provided the foundation for a more unitedand secure Europe and can therefore be called the bedrock of the
security architecture of post WWII Europe. The OSCE today, which
was formed in 1995 based on CSCE, embodies two vital elements “peace and order in Europe” and “the triumph of human rights.” As aregional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the Charter of theUnited Nations the OSCE is today above all a primary instrument
for early warning, conflict prevention, crises management andrehabilitation in Europe through a comprehensive security system.
In the last few decades, Western Europe has developed aconcept of security architecture based on a framework of mutually
reinforcing institutions, encompassing the OSCE, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU)..
and the Council of Europe. Pollinger stresses that developing
cooperative security structures in a new Europe - including Eastern
Europe - will require the strengthening and cooperation of these
existing organizations. This strengthening will, in turn, require a reexamination of their roles leading to the best possible system ofcooperation between these organizations, including the United
Nations.
By Yuki Tanaka, professor at HPI

but rather with human rights violations and humanitarian crisis
situations. PKOs include new tasks such as preventing and halting
conflict as well as post-conflict reconstruction.
Peace missions multiplied but with quite modest results. Whilesome missions are seen as successes, such as the making of a newstate in East Timor (after occupation and genocide by Indonesia
1975-99), others such as the missions in Somalia 1993, Rwanda
and Bosnia-Herzegovina were failures and have - most seriously
in Rwanda 1994 - tarnished the image of the U.N. Only in recent
years has the “responsibility to protect” been recognized as a keytask of the U.N. This was not least due to the Rwanda disaster
where innocent people were slaughtered under the eyes of the U.N.
troops, with criminal non-action imposed by the Western powers
who dominated Security Council decisions since the 1990s.
Though peace operations have sharply increased the spending
for it was extremely modest, less than one percent of the militaryspending by U.S., which remained in the 1990s around $280-300
billion annually and is now over $400 billion/annum. This excludes
the huge costs of the Iraq invasion, which heralded a new period ofinternational relations. A period that is marked by a disconnect of
security and legitimacy, due to atrocious breaches of internationallaw, illegal warfare and increasing isolation of the U.S.
internationally, amid almost global condemnation of the crime ofaggression against Iraq.

−6−

By Christian Scherrer, professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

The second workshop of the project entitled “ Myanmar Peace
Initiative” was held at the Hiroshima Peace Institute from 26 to 28
October 2005. This second workshop involved the presentation anddiscussion of six revised papers from the first workshop in March
2005 as well as three newly commissioned papers. One new paper
author, Professor Vincent Boudreau from City College of New York,
examined state-society and civil-military relations in Southeast Asia,a task previously assigned to Professor Takashi Shiraishi, who was
unable to join the conference for personal reasons. The second newpaper examined majority-minority relations in Southeast Asia ingeneral and Myanmar in particular. These papers will serve as thebroad introduction to the book of essays on Myanmar that will be theoutcome of this project.
The third new paper examined the Kachin minority community
and its development in Myanmar. Another paper commissioned at
the second workshop will examine the Mon community. Thus,
including the earlier papers on the Shan and Karen communities, thebook will reflect the views of the four largest minority communities
in Myanmar.
Emeritus Professor Robert Taylor from the School of Oriental
and African Studies in the University of London and distinguished
Professor David Steinberg from Georgetown University were two of

the more renowned scholars who presented papers. Special guests at
the workshop included Professor Michio Takatani from Hiroshima
University and Professor Omar Farouk from Hiroshima City
University.
All papers will be revised and resubmitted by the end of
December 2005. Emeritus Professor Robert Taylor and I will thenedit them before submitting the manuscript for publication. An
agreement has been reached for the book to be published in 2006 by
the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore. The plan is tolaunch the book in July 2006 when the International Burma Studies
Conference will be held in Singapore.
By Narayanan Ganesan, associate professor at HPIWorkshop Report

Political Economy of Interdependence between Two Koreas
The inter-Korean relationship has undergone a significant change
since the inauguration of President Kim Dae-jung in 1998. As
South Korea has engaged with the North through trade, business
investment, and humanitarian aid, North Korea has become reliant
on South Korean resources. Actors involved in the expanding
relations are not limited to governmental officials but extend tocorporations and non-governmental organizations. In this respect,
although the relationship is not symmetrical, the two Koreas are
becoming coupled and dependent on each other.
Derived from observing this rapid change in inter-Korean
relations, the workshop held at Hiroshima Peace Institute on
November 10-11, 2005, sought to answer the following question:Will the development of interdependence contribute to peacefulcoexistence between the two Koreas? That is, the workshop
intended to appraise overall the development of thisinterdependence and its impact on peace in the Korean Peninsula.
In the study of international relations, the question of whether or
not interdependence fosters peace is theoretically and empiricallycontentious.
The workshop participants agreed that various factors affectthe security situation in the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, interKorean interdependence - particularly economic interdependence- is not the only factor in peaceful existence. Regional dynamics
in Northeast Asia, centered on bilateral security alliances andrelations between four contending powers, are an important
structural factor that constrains or channels inter-Korean relations.
And yet, the participants also pointed out that inter-Koreaninterdependence per se is a dynamic factor that affects regional
dynamics or, at the very least, interacts with regional politics, as
revealed by changes in the U.S.-South Korea relationship.
Workshop participants did avow that the present inter-Korean
relationship fails to properly induce North Korea to accommodate
international norms and standards that are requirements for the

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006

interactive settlement of outstanding issues, including the nuclear
development program and the problem of transparency regarding
humanitarian aid.

−7−

The participants and their presentation titles are as follows:. “Interdependence, Peace, and Unification in Korean
Peninsula: Conceptual Appraisal,” Sung Chull Kim
or Partnership: Can NGOs Deepen
Interdependence between the Two Koreas?” Edward Reed
. “Interdependence within Confrontation: Implications of the
China-Taiwan Case for Korean Peninsula,” Chien-min
Chao. “Two Koreas and Two South Koreas,” Sang-In Jun. “Impact of Korean Interdependence on North Korean
Politics,” In-Young Chun. “Impact of Korean Interdependence on the North Korean
Economy,” Kang-Taeg Lim. “Danger and Opportunity: Implications of KoreanInterdependence for China and Japan,” Timothy Savage. “U.S.-Korea Relations Engulfed by Two Korea ’s
Interdependence,” Kenneth Quinones. “Inter-Korean Transactions in the World Trade Order:
Legal Issues,” Pilho Park. “Charity

By Sung Chull Kim, associate professor at HPIVisit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

Robert Jacobs Assistant Professor

Yoshiaki Sato Research Associate

Dr. Jacobs joined HPI in October of 2005 after
completing his Ph.D. in history at the University
of Illinois, U.S. His expertise is in the social andcultural history of nuclear weapons and warfare.
“I feel that working at HPI carries with it agreat responsibility to keep in my heart the desires of the people of
the world to live free of violence and warfare, and the wishes of thepeople of Hiroshima to create in our town a beacon of hope andaction that can light the way towards peace for all to see.”◆Nov. 4 - 8 Mikyoung Kim interviews U.S. government officials, academics and journalists
in Washington D.C.
◆Nov. 6 Yuki Tanaka participates as panelist in the symposium “Nuclear Threats in the Last
60 Years” organized by Hiroshima Peace Film Festival 2005 at Nishi Ward Community
Cultural Center.
◆Nov. 10 - 11 Sung Chull Kim heads workshop on “Political Economy of Interdependence
between Two Koreas” held at HPI.
◆Nov. 1 1 Mikyoung Kim gives lecture on “Clinton’s Legacy” at the 11th Presidential
Conference, “William Jefferson Clinton, The ‘New Democrat’ from Hope” in the U.S. Hiroko
Takahashi attends as discussant and Makiko Takemoto as chair at book review workshop
organized by Global Hibakusha and Nagasaki Peace Institute.
◆Nov. 12 Takahashi reports on “Human Experiment Aspects of the Dropping of the Atomic
Bomb” at symposium of Peace Study Association of Japan at Nagasaki University.
◆Nov. 13 -16 Mikyoung Kim co-chairs the Northeast Asia session “U.S. Foreign Policy” at
U.S. Military Academy, U.S.
◆Nov. 14 At meeting of HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima, Tomoko Kana,
documentary film director, gives lecture on “Scars Left by the War on Chinese People.”◆Nov. 14 - 25 Tanaka, as honorary principal research fellow to Center for Applied
Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University, gives lecture on “Japan’s Kamikaze
Pilots and Contemporary Suicide Bombers.”◆Nov. 21 Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture on “Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and Today’s Challenge of Weapons of Mass Destruction” in HPI lecture series.
◆Nov. 23 HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture on “Looking Back on 60 Years after
the Atomic Bombing” at “Hiroshima Peace Meeting in Autumn at the 60th Anniversary ofAtomic Bombing” organized by the Planning and Action Committee for the 60th Anniversaryof the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombin Hiroshima Prefecture, and Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizationsin Hiroshima Prefecture, in Hiroshima. Mizumoto gives presentation on “Why Peace Creationfrom Hiroshima?” at 3rd Symposium of Hiroshima International Peace Forum “Peace Creationfrom Hiroshima” organized by Hiroshima Prefecture at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Nov. 26 Asai gives lecture on “Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution for International
Peace” at the symposium “If not for the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution” organized by
the Planning Committee and Japan Scientist’s Association Chugoku Regional Branch andHiroshima Prefectural Branch at Hiroshima University.
◆Nov. 27 Asai gives lecture on “To Consider the Right of the Disabled” at “The 32nd
Shikoku Meeting in Ehime to Consider the Concerns of the Disabled” organized by its
planning committee and held in Ehime Prefecture.
◆Nov. 27 - Dec.4 Mizumoto visits Cambodia as a member of the reconstruction and aid
project in Cambodia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
◆Nov. 28 Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture on “Distant from Ground Zero” in HPI lecture series.
◆Nov. 29 -Dec. 19 Takahashi conducts research for Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research“Study of U.S. Nuclear Test History” at UCLA and U.S. National Archives.
◆Dec. 3 Asai gives lecture on “Task for Nuclear Abolition” at workshop of Yokosuka
Family Theater in Yokosuka.
◆Dec. 5 Sung Chull Kim gives lecture on “North Korean Nuclear Problems” in HPI lecture
series.
◆Dec. 6 Asai gives lecture on “Peace Constitution Providing Guidelines to International
Community” at symposium “Let’s Expand and Strengthen the Net to Uphold Article 9”organized for 1st year anniversary of establishment of Ishikawa Net, in Kanazawa.
◆Dec. 9- 15 Mikyoung Kim conducts interviews with Japanese government officials,
American diplomats, Korean diplomats and journalists in Tokyo and visits Yasukuni Shrine
for preliminary research data collection.
◆Dec. 11 Asai gives lecture on “Looking Back on Past 60 Years after Atomic Bombing” at
Peace Culture Lecture Meeting organized by Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science held in
Nagasaki.
◆Dec. 12 Asai gives lecture on “Domestic and International Political Environment” in HPI
lecture series.
◆Dec. 13 HPI holds research forum with Dr. Jean-Marc Coicaud, director of the U.N.
University NY Office, lecturing on “The Politics of International Solidarity.”◆Dec. 15 Nagai gives lecture on “American Studies at Rikkyo University during World War
II” at Rikkyo University.
◆Dec. 17 Asai serves as panelist at the 10th anniversary of war compensation trial for
Chinese people in the 60th year after the end of World War II “Let Us Consider War
Responsibility Again” organized by Support Group for War Compensation to Chinese andSupport Group for Requests of Chinese War Victims in Tokyo. Mizumoto gives lecture on“Current Situation of Nuclear Weapons in the World” at training course for Hiroshima Volunteer
Project sponsored by and held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

Born in 1972. Ph.D. candidate (University of Tokyo).
After working as a research associate at the Institute ofSocial Science, University of Tokyo, from April 2003
to September 2005, Mr. Sato has been a research
associate at HPI since October 2005. His expertise isinternational law, American law and constitutional law.
He is quoted as saying, “I find myself satisfied withworking here in Hiroshima. I would like to study jus
cosmopoliticum (cosmopolitan law), which is developing steadily in this ageof globalization (or counter-globalization). Jus cosmopoliticum, i.e.,transnational law or transgovernmental law, should contribute toestablishing peace as well as securing human rights around the world inconjunction with traditional international law and constitutional laws.”◆Dec. 19 -30 Christian Scherrer visits East Timor and interviews Xanana Gusma~o, presidentof Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CAVR), Aniceto Guterres Lopes, chairman of
CAVR, Jacinto Alves, national commissioner of CAVR, Olandina Caeiro, commissioner of
CAVR, Jose Ramos-Horta, Timorese Foreign Minister, Peace Nobel Price laureate, Amado
Hai, and member of Timorese human rights organization, Yayasan Hak, and Sukehiro
Hasegawa, Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General for Timor-Leste.
◆Dec. 21 -Jan. 3 Narayanan Ganesan conducts field research in the Karen, Mon and Shanstates in Myanmar.
◆Jan. 14 Asai gives lecture on “Consider the Raison d’Etre of the Peace Constitution” atworkshop for Japanese Constitution organized by People’s Network of Tamakita area inTokyo.
◆Jan. 17 Yoshiaki Sato gives lecture on “International Court of Justice and the Developmentof Jus Cosmopoliticum” at Staff Seminar organized by and held at Institute of Social Scienceof University of Tokyo.
◆Jan. 26 Sung Chull Kim gives lecture on “Appraisal of the East Asia Summit 2005” atseminar organized by and held at Comparative Regionalism Project at Institute of Social
Science of University of Tokyo.
◆Jan. 28 Asai gives lecture on “Purpose of the U.S. Military Transformation” at symposium“To Question the Transfer of Carrier-based Plane Units to Iwakuni” organized by symposiumplanning committee in Yamaguchi. Mizumoto attends as commentator the Peace Club for
Junior High and High School Students at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Jan. 30 Asai attends editorial supervisory conference for book of A-bomb drawings bysurvivors organized by and held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Feb. 2 Asai gives lecture on “Questions About Right of Collective Self-defense” at study
group for Japanese Constitution organized by Kochi Shimbun and held in Kochi.
◆Feb. 4 Asai gives lecture on “To Think About Peace” at lecture meeting organized by
Miyoshi Citizen’s Group for Peace in Hiroshima.
◆Feb. 5 Asai gives lecture on “U.S. Military Transformation” at lecture meeting organized
by Kyoto branch of Japan Lawyers Association for Freedom and held in Kyoto.
◆Feb. 10 Asai gives lecture on “The Question of Yasukuni Shrine and Hiroshima/Nagasaki”
at workshop to explore Yasukuni Shrine issues organized by Shikoku Region Disciplinary
Board of Jodoshinshu Otani-ha, in Takamatsu. Robert Jacobs gives lecture on “Narratives ofSurvival Under Atomic Attack” to the Southwest Popular Culture Association, New Mexico,
U.S.
◆Feb. 11 Asai gives lecture on “The Constitution and Security in Our Lives” at Yamaguchi
Prefecture Residents’ 40th Meeting for Freedom of Thought and Religion organized by its
planning committee and held in Yamaguchi.
◆Feb. 12 Asai gives lecture on “What is Happening and What is Japan Doing in the World?”
at preliminary workshop for Japan Women’s Conference 2007 in Hiroshima organized by its
planning committee in Hiroshima.
◆Feb. 14 Asai gives lecture on “About the Japanese Constitution” at workshop organized by
Hokuriku Region Branch of Zennorin Labor Union and held in Kanazawa.
◆Feb. 15 -16 First workshop of HPI Research Project “An Exploration of the Atomic Bomband Nuclear War in Art and Popular Culture in Japan and the Untied States” is held in
Chicago, U.S.
◆Feb. 17 Asai attends editorial supervisory conference for book of A-bomb drawings bysurvivors organized by and held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Feb. 18 Asai gives lecture in Fukuoka on “Past, Present, and Future of Japan-China
Relations” at public meeting for Fukuoka lawsuit victory for Chinese forced laborers,organized by Fukuoka Lawsuit Lawyers for Chinese Forced Laborers, Support Group for
Requests of Chinese War Victims, and Association to Promote Fukuoka Trial for Chinese
Forced Laborers. Takahashi reports on “U.S.-Japan Relation in Bikini Incident” at “Civil
Lecture & Assembly for Bikini Incident March 1” organized by Daigo Fukuryu Maru
Exhibition Hall in Tokyo.
◆Feb. 2 1 Sato serves as panelist in symposium “Regionalism and Sovereignty” organized byand held at Institute of Social Science of University of Tokyo.
◆Feb. 28 Takahashi reports on Bikini Incident at 2005 Annual Conference of the Japan
Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) in Shizuoka and reports on “TheLucky Dragon Incident and U.S. Government Responses” at study meeting for analyzing the
Bikini Hydrogen Bomb Test Incident organized by the Sizuoka-ken Executive Committee forMarch 1 and the Sizuoka-ken Executive Committee for Study of Bikini.

-Visitors to HPI◆Feb. 13 Dr. Roy E. Shore, vice chairman and chief of research, Radiation Effects Research
Foundation.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWSVol.8, No.3 March 28, 2006
Copyright 2006 HPI All rights reserved●Publisher : Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Ote-Machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-Machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan / E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm●Printed by Sanko Ltd.
Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.3 March 2006