Vol.16 No.1 July 2013

Message from the New President of
the Hiroshima Peace Institute
The United Nations charges its Security Council with the primary
responsibility for the “maintenance of international peace andsecurity.” After nearly 70 years since the establishment of the UN,
has this mission been achieved? Has war been abolished? Why havenuclear weapons not been abolished?
More than 100 million people lost their precious lives in war
from the 20th century up until today. The international society has
worked to prevent war, utilizing its wisdom. The measures for peace
conceived and taken so far can be summarized as the applications offollowing peace theories. Firstly, peace theory that seeks to outlaw
war. Resulting first in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the theory
continues to be passed down in the forms of the 1945 UN charter
that prohibits threat or the use of force, and the current movement
to outlaw nuclear weapons. Secondly, peace theory that seeks
peace through arms control and disarmament. Resulting first in the
Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, this theory has been applied tovarious arms control and disarmament treaties and agreements oftoday. There is, thirdly, peace theory that seeks to prevent war andconflicts through economic internationalism, by making resources
and food available through free trade or collective management.
That the European Community (EC), established for the joint
management of natural resources, was developed into the European
Union (EU) as a “no-war” security alliance, and the creations offree trade systems from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade(GATT) to the World Trade Organization (WTO), are the examples
of such an attempt. Fourthly, peace theory of mutual understandingthat seeks to realize peace through the promotion of mutual
understanding and trust. Based on the philosophy of the League of
Nations International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, thistheory was passed on to the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization (UNESCO), through which it has
been practiced in the activities of various international friendshipgroups and study abroad programs. And lastly, there is a systemof collective security alliance that is designed to prevent wars andconflicts through an international framework.
The number of wars and conflicts did decrease as a resultof these multiple efforts. As far as wars of aggression go, no warof aggression has been waged since 1976 except for the aborted
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. But that does not mean we now haveworld peace, with people in the world enjoying prosperity. On thecontrary, human security is not necessarily guaranteed even in timesof peace. During the Cold War, for example, nuclear weapons in a“balance of power” threatened the very survival of human beings.
Also in the background of peace, freedom, or even the lives of many
people were being threatened under undemocratic governments.
The peace and security the international society tried to protect lie
in states’ political independence and territorial integrity. While theCold War was an ideological confrontation between East and Westfought over which is more superior a sovereign, security meant thatof a regime. The doctrine of Peaceful Coexistence was the middle
ground for the two superpowers in the fierce clash between theconfrontation and maintenance of international peace. How many
people, especially of Eastern and developing countries, lost theirlives behind the scenes when the international society had tried
to maintain peace and security of their regimes? According to a
recent study, “democide,” or the murder of people by a government,

Gen Kikkawa

passed war as the leading cause of death in the 20th century.
What was peace then? Behind the name of peace and underthe banner of friendship and cooperation, how many people havebeen sacrificed? We have to learn from this lesson that international
peace, while it may contribute to national security, may notnecessarily serve as the foundation of human security. In addition,
we have to find answers to the following questions: Why is humansecurity not guaranteed in times of peace? How can we achieveboth peace and human security at the same time?
Yet, we have to note that peace has been maintained, thoughbetween developed countries, in the second half of the 20th century,and the number of wars has decreased. And this peace was the resultof the comprehensive efforts already mentioned. On the other hand, alarge stockpile of nuclear weapons, ethnic confrontations and failed
states were left behind after the end of the Cold War. And little
progress has been made toward the abolition of nuclear weapons.
What is even worse is that India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are
now arming themselves with nuclear weapons. We cannot help but
be surprised to find East Asia, of which Japan is a part, one of themost dangerous areas in the world. In fact, with territorial disputes
creating international tension, and nuclear and missile tests posing
threats, there are a lot of concerns over the possibility of militaryconfrontation. The international environment surrounding Japan
has become an area most delayed in terms of building a framework
for international peace and security. Who would have imagined that
East Asia, where peace-oriented Japan is located, would be at thecenter of international politics in the raw, contrary to its will?
Nuclear programs are often motivated by the desire to bearmed with a tool that can help maintain the regime. Countries in
Asia that are developing nuclear weapons are those long engaged
in conflicts, either within their territory or between each other,many of which being undemocratic nations that oppress theirpeople. In the backdrop of the nuclear program lies the growing
sense, from the international society, of isolation, which is closely
connected with the way of governance of the regime seeking
nuclear weapons. What is urgently needed for the internationalsociety to maintain peace in Asia and to pursue nuclear abolition is
its effort to democratize oppressive regimes of countries that tend
to be obsessed with nuclear development, to protect human securityof the people under the regime who have nowhere to go, and toconstruct a security community that would eliminate the need forarms.
Nuclear weapons must be abolished for world peace. They
must be abolished also for the sake of the human security of thepeople of the nuclear armed countries. And there is no high roadtowards nuclear abolition. What is currently needed are multifaceted
efforts to eliminate all the factors that demand nuclear programs. It
may look roundabout but will be a steady step. How can we realize
human security and a security community in Asia? I believe it is themission of the Hiroshima Peace Institute to present comprehensive
measures for nuclear abolition from multifaceted points of viewand to make an academic contribution to the creation of a security
community in Asia. I will perform the duties of the HPI president
toward this end to the best of my ability.
Kikkawa assumed the presidency at HPI on April 1, 2013.
Visit HPI s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

1

My Approach to Peace Studies

Vol. 5

Peace through the Concept of “Open” One Asia
Kim Tae Wook
Various problems have recently emerged in Asia including
territorial disputes in the South China and East China Seas, aswell as tensions on the Korean Peninsula. In these circumstances,
however, many scholars have called for the establishment of ahuge collective body in Asia.
Since last year I have hosted a special omnibus lecture
series by top-flight scholars in and outside Hiroshima City
University, where I work, under the theme of “An Open
Collective Body in Asia.” Along with the lecture series I havebeen devoted to the issue of the possible construction of an Asian
consortium with the publication of Hitotsu-no-Asia-Kyodotai-oMezashite (toward a one Asia consortium), a collection of papers
written on the issue by the lecturers and other scholars. This
academic work has been done out of my belief that a regional
community should not only be realized by the establishment oftrade zones but also discussed based on the full understandingof the relationship of economic mutual reliance and of the needfor security cooperation, as well as of the cultural and historicalcontexts.
Here I would ask readers to remember that this community
in Asia that we are talking about should be “open.” The concept
of “an open collective body,” unlike merely “a collective body,”refers to a state with an active traffic of people and goods
with few obstacles restraining them. Mutual traffic and accessshould not be limited in a community. In an exclusively naturalcommunity a hierarchy will be created and the country at the
top will have control over other countries. The Great East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere proposed by Japanese Foreign Minister
Yosuke Matsuoka in 1940 is one such example.
Also, the open nature of the community must be
flexible. The Asia we are talking about is not Asia in a precise
geographical term, but includes countries that are not usuallyperceived as belonging to Asia. In fact, the discussion overregionalism and community in Asia is gradually extending fromthe west to the east; starting with ASEAN countries extending toJapan, China and Korea, and further extending east to the Pacificregion. While economics might have been the core of the flow atfirst, there is also a growing need for cooperation in the areas ofpolitics and security.
Additionally, the open community has its own obstacles tothis openness.

Contents
2

In examining the Asian consortium, I would ask readers
to remember the three points just mentioned. In the following,
I would like to examine the roles a regional community shouldplay.
As for the need for a regional community to constructpeace in Asia, the importance of regional cooperation in security
matters must be firstly noted. North Korea’s nuclear program
not only remains a matter of concern for proliferation, but has
also heightened tensions in the region, especially on the Korean
Peninsula.
Six countries, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the UnitedStates, Japan, China and Russia, began talks in 2003 to stop the
DPRK’s nuclear tests. Though currently suspended, the talks
have created expectations for the six-party process to play therole of a future regional security mechanism. Also because of the
newly intensified military activities due to territorial disputes,
establishment of more effective bilateral or multilateral security
cooperation mechanisms are urgently called for.
Especially in Asia, there are many areas where cooperative
alliances between countries are deemed necessary, including
the environment, energy and disaster prevention. It will take atremendous amount of time for the negotiation and establishmentof a cooperative structure if countries are to cope with theseissues on a global scale. It would be easier to solve, however,
if it was an issue of environmental cooperation within limitedareas such as the Asian Consortium. The issue of large-scale
earthquakes and subsequent tsunamis in Japan, China, andIndonesia, above all, requires, not a temporary relationship in
the wake of a disaster, but a system of regional cooperationin such areas as information gathering, joint research and theconstruction of an emergency relief system.
The importance of regional cooperation in Asia applies
not only to security but also to economics. The rapid economic
growth in China and the ripple effects of the financial crisis in
the US and Europe are causing an adverse effect on economies
the world over. The ripple is approaching Asia and somemeasures are needed to contain it on a regional basis at the Asianfront.
Historically there were cases in which crisis acted as acatalyst for regional cooperation — an Asian consortium like
we are currently discussing. The Asian financial crisis in 1997

Message from the New President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute
Gen Kikkawa ………………………………………………………………… 1
My Approach to Peace Studies Vol. 5 “Peace through the Concept of “Open” One Asia”
Kim Tae Wook ……………………………… 2-3
Peace Education for a Sustainable Society – A New Program at Hiroshima City Schools –Masashi Urabe ……………………………… 4-5
A War of Memories “Dissecting the Takeshima/Dokdo Dispute”
Mikyoung Kim ……………………………………………………………… 6-7
Diary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.16 No.1, July 2013

led to the organization of the ASEAN+3 later in that year
through which countries began to seek ways to strengthen
regional cooperation in East Asia. And now they are discussing
the possible establishment of an East Asian Community. The
Chiang Mai Initiative in 2000 triggered countries in East Asia tocontribute to the construction of crisis prevention mechanisms
via the currency swap agreements, in a hope that realized an East
Asian Community in 2005.
As we have seen, establishments of regional communities
based on cooperative relationships between countries in theareas of peacekeeping and economic cooperation is an importantmatter. What then does the relationship of economic reliance
have to do with political cooperation? I would like to discuss
this in the following essay.
For Asian countries, the rising tide of militarism in China
and the DPRK is a menace. The United States is also interested
in this, warning against military threats by strengthening ties
with Japan and the ROK, as well as with other Asian countries
including Vietnam, the Philippines and Australia. However, atthe same time the unified US-Japan military strength, which
combines Japan’s latest technology with the US system that
dominates half of the military spending in the world, as wellas the expansion of China’s military strength pose unstableelements in the security of East Asia. In this regard, the region
serves as the largest point of military competition in East Asia.
At a time when a cooperating system for security is most neededin the region, East Asian countries, especially the three countries
of Japan, China and the ROK, are having difficulty reaching
agreements on the issue of a possible regional community due todiplomatic frictions over history and territorial disputes, as well
as over nationalistic public sentiments.
As I have already mentioned, mutual economic reliancein the Asia-Pacific region has increased despite the intensified
tensions over security and complicated public sentiments in East
Asian countries. When we further discuss the issue with a focus
on Japan, China and the ROK, we find the following two points
notable. Firstly, each of the three countries has trade volume
with the other two countries that exceeds, when combined, thatwith outside countries, including the US and EU. This proves
the strong mutual economic reliance among the three countries.
Secondly, the United States is still an important trade partner foreach of the three countries. Summing up, the three countries aremutually indispensable in economic terms despite their politicalconflicts with each other.

Now, can we offset the political conflicts with mutual
economic reliance? This is a question that has been pursued bymany scholars over the last decades. Opinion is largely divided
in two — while realistic scholars argue that the more possibilities
of conflicts the more expanded the trade between the countries,
scholars of liberal leaning, by contrast, claim that trade and othereconomic activities have nothing to do with political issues.
They believe powers inside each country would work to alleviate
the possible tensions between countries since it is something thebusiness communities desperately want to avoid.
Our conclusion is based on the latter’s theory — that
economic activities have nothing to do with political issues,and that mutual economic reliance would promote cooperation
rather than political conflicts between countries. The degreeof economic reliance is difficult to measure since capital
movements among countries have become increasingly rapid,
not only with trade but also with capital investments and stock
investments. Since various individuals and organizations
promote economic reliance in pursuit of profits, they do notdesire political or military conflicts that would deter theiractivities.

Partner

Total tradevolumeExport (%)

Import (%)

Japan

China
US
RK
China + ROK

301,886
185,369
90,594392,480

149,086 (19.4)
118,199 (15.4)
62,053 ( 8.1)
211,139 (27.5)

152,800 (22.1)
67,170 ( 9.7)
28,541 ( 4.1)
181,341 (26.2)

China

EU
US
Japan
RK
Japan + ROK

479,712385,342
297,768
207,170
504,938

311,235 (19.7)
283,304 (18.0)
121,061 ( 7.7)
68,771 ( 4.4)
189,832 (12.1)

168,477 (12.1)
102,038 ( 7.3)
176,707 (12.7)
138,399 ( 9.9)
315,106 (22.6)

How then could we build the regional community basedon economic cooperation that we just discussed that would help
promote peace?
Firstly, all the individuals and countries need to try
to remove barriers between themselves and others. All theindividuals are different, e.g. their nationalities and languages incollective terms, and their thoughts and opinions in individual
terms. I assume these differences have stood as barriers formutual understanding, ultimately working as an obstacle forpeace to come to the world. Japan, for example, is often said
to have an inward-looking perspective compared with herneighboring countries of China and the ROK. It is true thatJapan with a population of more than 100 million people has
power that is comparable to the US and Europe, and that her
people’s acquisition of foreign languages did not really matter
until recently. We are now entering a global age that changes so
rapidly that it is time for Japanese people to stop resting on theirearlier fame as an economic power and make efforts to remove
these barriers, e.g. by studying abroad.
There are many problems to be solved before building acommunity, including the issues of public sentiment over history,
territorial disputes and suspicious nuclear programs. In fact, theKorean Peninsula is now full of tension caused by the DPRK’s
military threats. There is a mountain of issues as just mentioned
in the Asian region, however, I hope peace will come when weovercome these problems and are able to build a community.
Finally, the key for countries to realize peace is to
overcome their conflicts, build an open community to constructa multilateral cooperative structure that places a high value
on security and economy. Building a community does notnecessarily directly lead to peace; however, it will certainly
shorten the way. My specialty is economics and not politics orpeace studies, and thus I have explored ways towards peacefrom an economic point of view. But there is no doubt thatcooperation is a more important element than conflicts between
countries in their activities, whether economic or political.

Republicof Korea
(ROK)

China
Japan
US
China + Japan

188,41292,472
90,219280,884

116,838 (25.1)
28,176 ( 6.0)
49,816 (10.7)
145,014 (31.1)

71,574 (16.8)
64,296 (15.1)
40,403 ( 9.5)
135,870 (31.9)

Excerpt from “Introduction” in Kim Tae Wook and Kim Sung Chull, eds.,
Hitotsu-no-Asia-Kyodotai-o-Mezashite (toward an one Asia consortium),Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo, 2012. Partially revised and expanded by theauthor.

Source: Japan External Trade Organization (http://www.jetro.go.jp/)

Professor, Faculty of International Studies,
Hiroshima City University

Table. 1: Trade Volume of Japan, China and ROK(As of Dec. 31, 2010, in million USD)

Visit HPI s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

3Peace Education for a Sustainable Society− A New Program at Hiroshima City Schools −Masashi Urabe
Peace education in Hiroshima is undergoing a gradual change.
A new program for peace education was introduced from thisacademic year at all the municipal elementary, middle and highschools in Hiroshima. In traditional peace education various
programs have been conducted based on the local or school
experiences and histories, such as peace assemblies, school operas,
visiting peace museums and monuments (field work), as well as
listening to a-bomb survivors telling their experiences. In these
programs, children learned the horrors of war and effects of theatomic bombing as well as the importance of peace, through local
memories. However, peace education now faces a need to respondto changing circumstances and modern issues as it has become
increasingly difficult to directly come into contact with a-bomb
survivors as they are rapidly aging, and new types of conflicts
emerge in an era of expanding globalization.
Hiroshima City, in an effort to meet with these newchallenges, declared to start building a sustainable society on
a global scale in its basic plans for the promotion of education
formulated in 2010. It aims to promote school education that could
nurture children who would cherish life and would be capable ofcreating a peaceful and sustainable society, who would bear the
future responsibility for building this sustainable society. The newprogram for peace education was introduced based on the principleof this education plan. What is innovative about this program isthat it systematized peace education into a 12-year program to be
adopted from elementary through high school education.
Let’s take a look at this program for peace education. It iscomprised of four programs; Program 1: Come to see the realhorror of the effects of the atomic bombing and to realize thepreciousness of life and humanity (for 1st-3rd graders); Program
2: Come to understand the real horror of the effects of the atomic
bombing and the efforts of reconstruction (4 th -6 th graders);
Program 3: Come to examine the issue of world peace (7th-9th
graders); Program 4: Come to have a view for realization of apeaceful and sustainable society (10th-12th graders). It stipulates
schools to allot three hours in an academic year for the program.
The contents of each program are as follows (Tables 1-4).
Hiroshima Peace Notebook, a 4-volume textbook/workbook (eachvolume is designed to suit each program), was specially edited forthe program.

Table 1：Peace Education <Program 1> for 1st-3rd graders

Table 2：Peace Education <Program 2> for 4th-6th gradersst

Goal of this unit：Students will come to know the horror of the eﬀects of
the atomic bombing as well as the way of life of children during the war, tofeel the spirit of the people who tried to do their best in the diﬃcult time, tolearn how determined survivors are to tell their experiences in a hope notto repeat the tragedies, and to respect their feeling and appreciate peace.

Lesson 1
Let s draw what we treasure（awakening）
Lesson 2
Let s talk about what we treasure（thinking）
Lesson 3
Goldﬁsh is gone
（disseminating）

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

History and mission of the Flower
Festival
Hiroshima s experience andpeople s way of life
What to pass on and our messages

Socialstudies
SocialstudiesMoral
education【2nd graders】Unit Title：We are all alive【5th graders】Unit Title：Reconstruction of Hiroshima and its citizens wish

Goal of this unit：Students will come to feel the life of plants
through the five senses, to respect all living creatures andappreciate peace through viewing the event of atomic bombing
from the perspective of plants.

Goal of this unit：Students will come to learn the way of life in the wakeof atomic bombing and the spirit of people who were involved in thereconstruction of the city, to respect the people who contributed to thereconstruction of the city, to explore his/her own way of life and deepen
their understanding of what contribution they can make for peace.

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）rd【3

Let s become friends with trees
and ﬂowers
Chinese parasol trees
Letters to Chinese parasol treesLifeeducation
Moral
education
Japanese

graders】Unit Title：Hiroshima at the time of war

Goal of this unit：Students will come to know the importance offamily in a hard life through the ways of life of children when the
war intensified, to realize how inhumane things war and atomic
bombs are as they could deprive people of their lives and destroy
family ties in a moment, and to appreciate peace.
Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

4

Photo Caption: Hiroshima Peace Notebook

Way of life of children: in the pastand now
Family ties
Separation of families

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.16 No.1, July 2013

SocialstudiesMoral
education
Moral
education

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

What war and the bomb deprived
people of?: Survivors speak
Reconstruction of the city andpeople s wish
Those who contributed to the city sreconstruction and development

Moral
education
Moral
education
Japanese【6th graders】Unit Title：Hiroshima from now on
Goal of this unit：Students will come to understand various
activities of citizens of Hiroshima in the pursuit of peace, including
the reconstruction of the city, to appreciate the peace at hand,
and to be interested in voluntarily participating in making apeaceful society as a member of the community.
Lesson 1
Making a peaceful city
（awakening）
Lesson 2
Peace in life
（thinking）
Lesson 3
Making a more peaceful city
（disseminating）

Socialstudies
Socialstudies
Japanese

Table 4：Peace Education <Program 4> for 10th-12th graders【10th graders】Unit Title：Hiroshima

graders】Unit Title：People s desire for peace

Goal of this unit：Students will come to lean the history of and stories
behind Okonomiyaki (a local specialty food in Hiroshima), to know
behind-the-scene stories of the city s reconstruction, to understand thepeople s desire for peace, and to think about peace at his/her own
school and community as well as about what they can do for peace.

Goal of this unit：Students will come to deepen their thoughts onpeace based on their past studies. They will also come to learn
what happened to the city when the atomic bomb was dropped,
its effects from the scientific point of view. They will come tounderstand survivors wish and their ways of life.

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson ２（thinking）
Lesson ３（disseminating）

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

th【8

Stories behind Okonomiyaki
Stories behind reconstruction of
the city
Peace at our own school andcommunity

Moral
education
Socialstudies
Japanese

graders】Unit Title：Connection of Hiroshima and the world

Goal of this unit：Students will come to understand the achievementof the children in Hiroshima who contributed to the establishmentof the Children s Peace Monument in the Peace Park and Dr. Marcel
Junod, a Swiss doctor and delegate of the International Committee of
the Red Cross, who came to the city following the end of war. Students
will come to think about the connection between Hiroshima and therest of the world and to be encouraged to contribute to peace.
Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

Goal of this unit：Through drawing pictures of one s own treasures,
Students will come to realize that everyone ̶ he/she and all thefriends around him/her live surrounded by precious things, tounderstand that the atomic bomb had destroyed everything in a
moment, and to think about the preciousness of life and peace.

Art class【7

About the world-famous story of
Sadako and her paper cranes
Love and courage that transcended
the borderMoral
education
Socialstudies

Recipe for peace

Japanese

Goal of this unit：Students will come to understand current
problems in the world through studying international efforts toabolish nuclear weapons, and to become aware that they are theones to lead the community in the future for the realization of asustainable society as they explore ways to solve the problems.

【4th graders】Unit Title：Hiroshima s a-bomb experiences and what we would like to tellMoraleducationth【9th graders】Unit Title：Making a sustainable society come true

【1 graders】Unit Title: What we treasure

Art classTable 3：Peace Education <Program 3> for 7th-9th graders

Status quo of the world over theissue of nuclear weapons
Eﬀorts being made for internationalpeace
To make a peaceful, sustainable
society come true

Socialstudies
Socialstudiesth【11

What is peace?

LHR

The real horror of atomic bomband its eﬀects

LHR

A-bomb survivors messages

LHR

graders】Unit Title：About a peaceful, sustainable society

Goal of this unit：Students will come to study the problems theinternational society faces from multilateral points of view, and to
examine further the role of Hiroshima in the international society
from the viewpoint of making a sustainable society.
Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）th【12

Let s talk about nuclear weapons

LHR

People s thoughts on Hiroshima

LHR

From Hiroshima to the internationalsociety

LHR

graders】Unit Title：Our peace project

Goal of this unit：Students will come to think about what they can
do to create a peaceful world through their work of Our peace
project. They will be encouraged to get voluntarily involved
in realizing a peaceful world. Also, they will come to have an
overview of their future life as they attempt to identify it with theissue of peace that they have learned so far.
Lesson 1（awakening）
Lesson 2（thinking）
Lesson 3（disseminating）

What we can do to make peace
come true

LHR

My peace project

LHR

My future course and peace

LHR

Japanese

The new program for peace education is innovative even from a
global point of view. The program has a perspective of sustainable
development. Its concept is based on the principle of Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD).
Sustainable development refers to a mode of developmentin which resources are used in a sustainable way so that humanneeds can be met not only in the present, but also for generations
to come. To ensure everyone a healthy and cultured living wehave to, for example, overcome poverty, secure good hygiene
standards and preserve the environment. To achieve this, we haveto take such measures as to abolish discrimination by gender andrace, promote effective use of resources, and construct a society inwhich people of future generations will be able to live without fear.
The realization of a peaceful society is an important agenda forsustainable development since wars and conflicts generate refugees
and cause extensive damage to the environment. And we need tonurture citizens, who can contribute to achieve an intergenerational
and interregional equity, equality between men and women, social
generosity, poverty reduction, environmental conservation andrestoration, and preservation of natural resources, as well as afair and peaceful society. And ESD is the type of education toserve for such purposes. ESD is a learning mechanism to realize
a sustainable society, a place for people of various standing anddiverse backgrounds to exchange ideas and use their talents, in an
attempt to achieve a sustainable future through trial and error.
Japan has been a global forerunner of ESD since it has
become a global movement after the United Nations General
Assembly adopted on Japan’s initiative a resolution to designate
the 10 years from 2005 as the UN Decade of ESD.
In these circumstances, Hiroshima’s program for peaceeducation could be highly appraised as a model of ESD. The city
has organized the program in a future looking style, providing
children with an opportunity to learn about modern issues ofnuclear weapons and regional conflicts, and think for themselves
about what they can do for the future, while it has maintained the
traditional program of learning the local memory, e.g. listening to
the stories of a-bomb survivors. For example, in the program for6th graders, children will learn about various activities for peacefulenvironments and will be encouraged to get involved in suchactivities. In the programs for 9th graders and up, they will learn
about international efforts to abolish nuclear weapons, examine
ways to solve current global problems, and explore what they can
do for a sustainable society.
And here I, in the capacity of a member of Hiroshima City
University, would like to ask teachers in the municipal schools
to make every effort to improve the program. Perhaps while
implementing the program in the classroom, you will find somekind of defects in the textbook or other teaching materials foreach unit, e.g. awkward flow of the story. Or the materials may
not stimulate children to act voluntarily as expected. There shouldstill be room for improvement. But I also understand that frontline
teachers are too busy, unfortunately, to examine the textbook andother teaching materials to propose improvements.
So here I ask teachers of Hiroshima municipal schools to
make use of the graduate school at the Hiroshima City University
to develop better teaching materials for the program for peaceeducation. To be more specific, I recommend that you study in our twoyear Master’s course of peace studies at the Faculty of International
Studies at the Hiroshima City University and obtain a Master’s
degree in peace studies by writing a thesis on the program forpeace education. The university’s Faculty of International Studies
now has a Peace Studies program in addition to the International
Studies program. The Peace Studies program offers a high quality
research environment for peace studies with the professoriate ofHiroshima Peace Institute in addition to the regular faculty.
Frontline teachers are expected to improve the city’s
internationally progressive program for peace education and makeit more advanced. And for members of the Graduate School andPeace Institute of Hiroshima City University, it would be ourpleasure to be of service to such an effort. We, on the university’spart, will continue to improve the research environment towelcome you here.
Associate Professor, Faculty of International Studies,
Hiroshima City University
Visit HPI s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

5Dissecting the Takeshimma/Dokdo Dispute
Mikyoung Kim
SUMMARY BOX: The disputed islets known by Japanese as Takeshima and by Koreans as Dokdo
continue to plague bilateral relations between the two countries, and each side approaches the issue froma different perspective. Koreans regard the dispute as a history problem, while the Japanese perceive it
as a territorial issue. This essay argues that the dispute should be approached as a “memory problem” inorder to open up a venue for mutually sympathetic discourse.

While much of the world’s attention was focused on the maritime
disputes in the South China Sea between China and several
members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, South
Korean President Lee Myung Bak paid a surprise visit on Aug. 10
in 2012 to the disputed Takeshima/Dokdo islets, provoking Japanto recall its ambassador to Seoul and reigniting bitter feelingsin both countries that have long hampered efforts to overcome
historical grievances between the two nations.
Compounding the problems are lingering legacies of the San
Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, which officially ended WorldWar II, because the treaty added ambivalent legal stipulations toa murky “memory” problem. After the war, Japan, the colonial
perpetrator, was transformed into a strategic ally of the UnitedStates in the emerging Cold War architecture. The US, in effect,
rewarded the former aggressor at the cost of Korea’s grievances.
The current clash over the islets is on a continuum of unresolved
memory problems where resentments, lack of convincing
repentance and territorial ambition co-exist. In the eyes of
Koreans, an unrepentant Japan continues its aggressive postureby making impudent territorial claims, while the Japanese believe
the Koreans are confusing territorial issues with peripheral
historical sentiments. In short, the two sides keep talking pasteach other in what is essentially a memory war.

Lingering Legacies of the Asia-Pacific War
The Asia-Pacific War (1931-1945) was a pivotal moment inhistory partly because its violence awakened dormant feelings
about earlier humiliations. Japan’s atrocities precipitatedmemories of 19th century colonial invasions, collaboration with
the West and earlier aggression against Asia. Japan modernized
rapidly in the early 20th century and became a colonial power;
Korea, meanwhile, vanished into what proved to be the beginningof a 36-year-long Japanese Empire. Japan, thus, chose not toresist the Western powers but to emulate them. The elites of the
Meiji era in Japan held Asia in contempt, and adopted an attitudeof even sterner superiority as its colonial conquests continued.
For Koreans, the memory of dehumanization under Japanesefascism defines the felt past. From their standpoint, Japan not
only violated the entitlements of citizens but also offended theirnational honor, shamed and demeaned them, and refused torepent by humbling itself, as it had humbled them, through a
6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.16 No.1, July 2013convincing apology. Only the clearest expressions of remorse
could have begun to mitigate these resentments, but instead of
genuine remorse, Japan extended formal apologies. Remorse
is a sentiment that accompanies the realization of wrongdoing;
apology is the communicative format through which remorse isconveyed. Even today, Korea under the influence of Confucian
formalities remains all too aware of the separate realms occupied
by ritual, true feeling and the telltale signs of inauthentic
performance. Repeated insults and denials by Japanese politiciansof past wrongdoings raise suspicions of broader Japaneseindifference and intensify demands for authentic remorse. Hereinlies a perceptual dilemma that worsens the memory problem andalienates Japan from its former victims.
Historians, political scientists and Asian studies scholars
often sample regional memory content, but they leave importantquestions unanswered. How bitter are the memory wars between
Korea and Japan? At what level of concreteness or abstraction
are events selected for analysis? Which aspects of these events
are taken as a given and which remain in dispute? What causes
and functions are attributed to them? In what social locations(for example, state, class, community, generation, institution andinterest group) are the accounts of historical events produced
and perpetuated? Which cultural forces (values, climate ofopinion, cultural mentality) inspire them? Is the relation between
memories and their social contexts causal? Semiotic? Functional?
Hegemonic?

The Korea-Japan Memory Problem
Japan is the antagonist in Northeast Asia’s memory wars.
Spatially isolated and economically superior to its former victims,
Japan took its time in addressing its past. Postwar Japan deemeddemands for apology and compensation less urgent than its
own citizens’ sense of victimhood, but as former victim-nations
became economic competitors during the last decades of the 20th
century, Japan mellowed. If this point stands alone, however, weare left with the conclusion that generations change their minds
about the past when it becomes good for business, and that Korea
presses its claims because the country now is strong enough to
rub Japan’s nose in its own sins. Resentment grows, it is true,as economic and political circumstances change, but with noconception of national culture and its symbols, we are inclined

to dismiss memory changes as epiphenomena “reflecting,”“expressing” or “articulating” power differences, thus denying
the very existence of a memory problem.
Koreans take great interest in the way their Japaneseneighbors remember the Asia-Pacific War. They get theirinformation from Japan’s textbooks, mass media, official
statements, historical monuments and ritual observances. The
main point of contention is Japan’s alleged whitewashing of its
colonial past and wartime atrocities, where Dokdo stands as a
powerful symbol of Japanese unequivocal impudence. Japanesepoliticians paying their respects at the controversial Yasukuni
Shrine, where Japanese war criminals are entombed along withother war dead, have continually reinforced this mindset.
Modern Japan, therefore, is important for the value it adds
to the “presentist” models of collective memory, in which thesocial, psychological, cultural, economic or political demandsof the present shape views of the past. When Japanese prime
ministers have visited Yasukuni, they were more concernedwith their present political problems than with the sacrednessof the past. The same observation can be extended to the three
LDP politicians who attempted to visit South Korea’s Ullneung
Island in August 2011, despite stern protests from Seoul. The
parliamentarians were staging a political show as a means of
distracting cynical constituents back home.
The “presentist” mode of collective memory is stronger inJapan than in Korea. A residual culture of communitarianismand honor, and an emergent culture of individualism and dignity
coexist. That explains the pendulum swings in public sentiment
between dismissive indifference to charged self-vigilance.
Conservatives prefer pure nationalism, uncontaminated bymemories of atrocity, and they justify Japan’s past actions. To
this end, they tell their story in television programs, comic strips
and films, which young people avidly consume and discuss.
By the same token, newly approved textbooks describe Korea’s
Dokdo as Japan’s Takeshima, igniting another round of memory
war between the two neighbors. In Japan, facing a difficult
past is not a matter of coming to terms with wrongdoing alone
but also of seeking to salvage oneself from a sense of shame.
Every defense of past wrongdoing is thus rooted in cultural,
economic and political contexts that promote official and private
expressions.
This is particularly so when we consider the limited
economic advantage that Japan can get from the surroundingsof Takeshima/Dokdo. It is the very desire to redeem its pastin the collective memory that makes the territorial issues socritical. For Japan, winning international recognition that theislands unquestionably belong to Japan is one of the key tasks inrectifying the misdeeds and injustices committed in the processof relinquishing its territories “which she has taken by violence
and greed,” as stated in the Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943.
By implication, Takeshima/Dokdo should not have been part of
the territories that Japan would have to relinquish.
Japanese honor, which takes the form of particularism – a refusal
to submit its “soul” to foreign ideas – energizes and sustains its
modernity. Without transcendental reference points to critiquewrongdoing, however, Japanese recollection of their country’s
atrocities leads more to silence than to remedial protest. They
also expect silence from their former victims. When Koreans
protest the exploitation of their forbears by Japan, many Japanesehear what they describe as urusa (or “noisiness”), which refers
not to acoustics but to contempt and annoyance with insincere

complaints. To conceive these different outlooks as a memory
war is reasonable but does not get to the core of the problem,
for it is ultimately a matter of one nation misreading another’scultural codes, not its memories.
For South Korea, Dokdo is a reminder of its suffering underJapanese occupation. Koreans consider any contest about its
sovereign control over the islands to be tantamount to denying
their historical memory as victims of imperialism. For Koreans,
Japan’s persistent claims to Dokdo are unmistakable evidence
that the former colonizers do not repent their past sins and haveevery intention of reviving their violent greed.

A Perfect Symbol
Korea’s use of the past to reinforce itself in the present draws
from Japanese preoccupation in other ways. The Takeshima/
Dokdo controversy exemplifies the memory problem because it
concerns a group of uninhabited and rocky islets claimed by both
Japan and Korea. The fact that the islets are practically uselessmakes it a perfect symbol of the memory wars. In this context,
the Korean “presentism” entails a change in the appearance ofan object, event or issue resulting from a change in the positionof the viewer. In this case, the viewer is the United States, andits post-war preoccupation with communist rather than fascist
expansion as demonstrated by the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
New threats cause even powerful states to see the world – andthe past – differently. The Treaty, which was drawn up during
the Korean War, when the US was concerned with maximizing
Japanese support against the communist threat to Asia, meansa great deal to Japan, for it constitutes proof that it is an allyof the democracies, a respectable nation that has compensatedfor its historical crimes. In crafting the treaty, the US, over theobjection of its European allies, left the legal status of the islands
ambiguous enough for Japan to claim ownership. The Korean
claim to the islets, in contrast, is based on remembrances ofpast suffering and disgrace – intensified on the anniversaries ofJapan’s occupation of Korea, the end of the Asia-Pacific War andthe normalization of diplomatic relations with Japan.
The “recovery of honor” (myongyehoebok) is the overriding
mnemonic task in contemporary South Korea. Amid politicaldemocratization and rising national affluence, those “wronged
and defamed” under Japanese hegemony are reclaiming“historical justice” (yoksajok jungeui); collaborators are identified
and punished. Relative to the continuing resentment against
Japan, some Koreans see their memory war as a manifestation ofrising nationalism despite, or because of, globalization. Others
see Korean honor manifesting a unique version of the norm ofreciprocity, linked as it is to a sense of justice so strong that, toJapanese critics, Koreans seem “dogmatic,” i.e., morally selfindulgent, and unforgiving as a matter of principle. In turn,Koreans see “opportunism” in the empty apologies of Japanese
officials.
The conjunction of the Cold War’s lingering threats andthe memory of Japanese colonialism thus combine to makeTakeshima/Dokdo, rather than some other geographical site,
the source of the continuing dispute between the two countries.
Because very little is materially at stake, the islets become “goodto think with,” symbols of national integrity and pride and of
humiliation and suffering both for Korea and Japan.
Associate Professor at HPIVisit HPI s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

7March 1 - June 30, 2013

◆March 7 Mizumoto & Nagai attend a working groupmeeting of the editorial committee of the “research project ofreconstruction and peacebuilding of Hiroshima” organized by
Hiroshima Prefecture, held at the Hiroshima Prefectural Office.
◆March 9 Takemoto, Takahashi, Kawakami, and Kiriyaorganize a film show of the Movie “Hiroshima” (1953) at
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum as part of research project“Peace museum studies on relationship of the idea of ‘peace’and presentation of the information of radiation disaster in local
governments,” funded by the peace-related grants of Hiroshima
City University. ▽Takemoto organizes a web-meeting withauthor Peter Stephan Jungk at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum.
◆March 9-10 Takemoto organizes a two-day research meetingin Hiroshima as part of research project “Toward the peace studies
as global history: memories of Auschwitz and Hiroshima” (Jungk
Kaken) funded by Kaken-hi (Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research).
◆March 12 Nagai gives lecture, “Hiroshima Seen from Abroad:
The Case of the Philippines” at Hiroshima Jogakuin Senior HighSchool.
◆March 18-20 Ganesan organizes a workshop and presents apaper on The Role of Civil Society in Democracies in Southeast
Asia in Istanbul Turkey.
◆March 19 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 14th
meeting of the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum, held at the museum.
◆March 22 Mizumoto attends the 5th meeting of the Drafting
Committee of the Peace Education Program organized by theHiroshima Municipal Board of Education, held in Hiroshima City.
◆March 24 Mizumoto gives lecture “Further Learning from the
Study Tour to Cambodia: A New Perspective” at a review sessionof the Study Tour to Cambodia organized by the Hiroshima
International Center (HIC), held at HIC.
◆March 25 Mizumoto & Takahashi attend the annual meeting of
the Advisory Research Group of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, held at the museum.
◆March 27-April 4 Ganesan conducts German-funded training
workshops for NGOs and political parties in Yangon and
Mawlamyaing in Myanmar.
Kim serves as chair and discussant of a panel “Korean◆April 3
Peninsula in the Past, Present, and Future,” and presents a paper,“Historical Memory, Human Rights and Reconciliation: KoreaJapan Relations,” at the “Korea, Japan and Africa in the Midst ofConflict” panel at the 2013 Annual Convention of International
Studies Association in San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mizumoto attends the 1st & founding meeting of the◆April 8
executive committee of the 2013 Hiroshima International Youth
Conference for Peace in the Future, organized by the Hiroshima
Municipal Board of Education, held at the International
Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆April 19 Kiriya presents paper “Lessons from the processof reconstruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki” at the researchmeeting organized by and held at the Research Center for Nuclear
Weapons Abolition (RECNA), Nagasaki University.
◆April 20 Kim organizes a workshop on Japan’s Korean War in
Hiroshima.
◆April 27 Kawakami gives lecture “The Position of Peace
Constitution in the Global Nuclear Age” at the University ofCalifornia Program organized by Meiji Gakuin University, held in
Hiroshima. ▽Kawakami gives lecture “Origin and Current Status of
the Peace Constitution” at a symposium organized by the Hiroshima
Branch of Japan Congress of Journalists, held in Hiroshima.
Mizumoto gives presentation “Vision and Practice◆May 4of Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in Northeast Asia: Model of
Security Cooperation” at a symposium “Toward an Open Asia
Community,” co-organized by the Academy of Korean Studies(AKS) and Hiroshima City University, held at AKS in Seongnam
City, South Korea.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS● Published by● Printed by

8◆May 10 Ganesan delivers the Distinguished Guest Lecture on
Recent Developments in Myanmar at Ewha Womans University,
Seoul.
◆May 13 Mizumoto participates in a meeting of the Promotion
Committee of “A Hiroshima for Global Peace” Plan, related to
the “Hiroshima Round Table” for nuclear disarmament in East
Asia, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture, held at the Tokyo
Office of Hiroshima Prefecture Government.
◆May 20 Mizumoto attends the 1st regular meeting of
the Hiroshima Network of Peace Research & Education
Organizations, organized by and held at Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆May 20-21 Takemoto organizes a research meeting of Jungk
Kaken Group in Hiroshima.
◆May 24-25 Ganesan attends a workshop on Human Securityin Asia and chaired a panel on Southeast Asia at Ewha Womans
University, Seoul.
◆May 26 Jacobs presents lecture “Hiroshima as seen anddefined in America, and the development of modern nuclear
weaponry” to the seminar “To learn how to deliver the A-bombdamage in English” at the Hiroshima Memorial Peace Museum.
◆May 28 Kikkawa attends the second meeting of the boardof trustees of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, held at
Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆May 31 Kikkawa attends the joint social gathering for peacerelated organizations in Hiroshima, organized by the seven groupsof atomic-bomb survivors in Hiroshima, held at Hiroshima City
Cultural Exchange Hall. ▽Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima& Peace: the Danger of Nuclear Weapon” at the Peace Seminar2013 for the students of Saint Elizabeth College and Hiroshima
Jogakuin University (HJU), organized by and held at HJU.
◆June 1 Nagai serves as chair at the 1st Open Session of the89th Conference of Japan Society for Southeast Asian Studies,
held at Kagoshima University.
◆June 3 Jacobs gives lecture “Nuclear Weapons in Hiroshima
and America” at the HJU Peace Seminor 2013.
◆June 6 Kawakami gives lecture “The Idea and Challengeof Peace Constitution” at a meeting organized by the Shinshu(Shin-Buddhism) War-Bereaved Families Association, held at
Hiroshima Branch Temple of Hongan-ji.
◆June 10-22 Ganesan coordinates and trains on International
Relations and Public Policy Formulation at the Egress Summer
School in Yangon, Myanmar.
◆June 12 Mizumoto gives special lecture “The Current Stateand Tasks of Peace Research” at a training program for Level II
Certified Nursing Administrators organized by the Hiroshima
Nursing Association, held at the association.
◆June 13 Kim serves as discussant of a panel, “Human Rights
in Post-Conflict and Transitional Societies,” at the International
Conference “Protection of Human Rights: Institutes andPractices,” in Saint-Petersburg, Pushkin, Russia.
◆June 14 Kim serves as chair of a panel, “The Arab Springand Human Rights,” at the International Conference “Protectionof Human Rights: Institutes and Practices,” in Saint-Petersburg,
Pushkin, Russia.
◆June 15-16 Takemoto and her Jungk Kaken Group hold ancentennial exhibition of Robert Jungk “The man who told theworld about Hiroshima: For a nuclear-free future” at the Japan
Peace Society’s annual meeting, held at Osaka University.
◆June 20 Mizumoto gives presentation “Japanese Perspectives”
at the second International Workshop “Envisioning Northeast
Asia Peace and Security: Developing a Comprehensive Approachto a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,” organized by
the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki
University, and Hanshin University, held in Seoul.
◆June 28 Jacobs gives lecture titled, “Hibakusha Communities
Around the World,” as an invited speaker at Seijo University inTokyo.
Vol.16 No.1（July 27, 2013）

Editing Committee, Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
3-4-1, Ozuka-higashi, Asaminami-ku, Hiroshima 731-3194 Japan
Phone: +81（0）82 830 1811
Fax: +81（0）82 830 1812
E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.16 No.1, July 2013

狡Hiroshima City University 2013. All rights reserved.