�����������������������

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

Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education
and Peace Education in Hiroshima Prefecture By Akira Yamaima
The first educational reform after World War II, in which political parties
were not involved, encouraged peace education in schools throughout
Japan. This reform proceeded in faithful accordance with theFundamental Law of Education to embody the spirit of the JapaneseConstitution. Shortly after the armistice of the Korean War, in October,
1953, Hayato Ikeda, a special envoy of then Prime Minister Shigeru
Yoshida, participated in the Ikeda-Robertson talks, discussing therearmament of Japan. At the time Ikeda said “Peace education is so
thorough in Japan that the feeling of ‘Do not bear arms’ is widespread
and well-rooted in the Japanese people.” But in the wake of the Korean
War, political parties began blatantly to intervene in educational
curricula. Japanese conservative governments considered peaceeducation something to keep an eye on and to “correct.”
In July 1968, about 20 years after Japan’s defeat in World War II,
volunteers, mainly education professionals who had been affected by thebombing of Hiroshima, conducted a questionnaire survey to investigate
children’s knowledge of the atomic bomb. The questionnaire, given to
2,000 students in the fifth and ninth grades, produced an alarming result.
It revealed that 61% of the fifth graders and 29% of the ninth graders
could not answer the exact year, month, date, and time of the atomic
bombing. It also said that 90% of the fifth graders and 60% of the ninth
graders had never heard of the song “Genbaku o yurusumaji” (Song ofHiroshima). In fact, it had been the students’ inability to sing this songon a school bus trip, when it was suggested by a bus tour guide, that
prompted the faculty to conduct the survey.
Shocked by the results of the survey, school personnel who had
survived the atomic bombing set up Japan’s first special subcommittee
on peace education at the 18th Hiroshima Prefectural Education andStudy Meeting, which was organized by the Hiroshima Prefectural
Teachers’ Union in November, 1968. This subcommittee was a landmark
development in that peace education programs, which had previously
been implemented in an uncoordinated way by individual schools, began
to be examined and discussed systematically.
We had five pillars in mind when we began our systematic
examination. 1) Children had missed opportunities to learn about the
A-bombing and war experiences. When and why were such opportunities
missed? How could we do a better job of passing on knowledge of theseexperiences to students? 2) Why did World War II occur and why was
the atomic bomb dropped? We needed to clarify the cause, and develop
relevant teaching material. 3) Some people think that the War and the

CONTENTS
Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education and Peace Educationin Hiroshima Prefecture by Akira Yamaima ………………………………… 1
Series: Reflections from Hiroshima
The 50th Anniversary of HIDANKYO by Sunao Tsuboi ………………… 2~3
Special Feature: North Korean Nuclear Issue
The North Korean Nuclear Test and Missile Launches by Motofumi Asai … 4
North Korea’s Nuclear Path by Sung Chull Kim …………………………… 5
HPI’s Fifth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima………………………… 6
HPI Research Forum
How to Memorialize War for Peace by Mike Boehm/Hiroshi Fujimoto …… 7
What Do Americans Think About the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
and Why? by Robert Jacobs ………………………………………………… 7
Diary ………………………………………………………………………… 8

atomic bombing are things of the past; they are just happy because it ispeaceful now. We should consider such ideas in connection with the very
real problems of A-bomb-related diseases, the second generation of
A-bomb victims, U.S. military bases in Japan, the Okinawa issue, abuild-up of the Self-Defense Forces, and the current situation withregard to nuclear arms. 4) How can we eliminate war, ban nuclear arms,
and ensure peace? How can we generate the political power toaccomplish these goals? 5) As the Hiroshima Teachers’ Union, we
should systematically clarify the content of peace education. How should
we create such teaching material as part of our work?
Representatives of the Hiroshima Teachers’ Union called fortackling the A-and H-bomb issues nationally at the 18th National
Education and Study Meeting organized by the Japan Teachers’ Union
for January 25-28, 1969. They reported the results of the discussion onpeace education at the 18th Hiroshima Prefectural Education and Study
Meeting under the title of “Education with Special Attention,” and intheir appeal said that “Now is the time to actively take up the A-and
H-bomb issues in every classroom in every region of Japan.” Theexamination and implementation of peace education began to be
discussed at the national level in Japan. Since then, freedom of education
research has been guaranteed by the Fundamental Law of Education.
Article 1 of Chapter 10 of the Fundamental Law of Education, dealing
with school administration, stipulates that “Education shall not be
subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole
people.” Article 2 of the same chapter stipulates that “School
administration shall, on the basis of this realization, aim at theadjustment and establishment of the various conditions required for the
pursuit of the aim of education.” As stated above, administrators were
not encouraged to intervene directly in the educational content.
Peace education was dramatically enriched by the systematic
discussion of its implementation. In Hiroshima Prefecture,supplementary teaching materials communicating the realities ofA-bomb experiences to students were created. These materials included
Hiroshima: This is Our Cry for elementary school students, Hiroshima:
Considering the Atomic Bomb for junior high school students,
Hiroshima: Considering the Atomic Bomb for junior high school
teachers, Hiroshima: Living in Today’s Nuclear Age, and a set ofphotographs to assemble for display entitled Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On the other hand, Hiroshima peace education centering on A-bomb
experiences began to receive criticism as peace education expanded anddeepened. Critics said that focusing only on the A-bomb experiences
would end up overemphasizing the damage to Japan caused by the War.
This criticism was a turning point and a new supplementary teachingtext Hiroshima: 15-year War and Hiroshima was created, taking Japan’s
military aggression into account. Systematic study and discussion ofpeace education eventually turned sight-seeing school trips into
opportunities for field work in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for learning
about the War and the atomic bombings.
Peace education in Hiroshima Prefecture was forced to transform
itself by the direct “corrective instruction” of the government—moreexactly, the Education Ministry—in 1998. The Hiroshima Prefectural
Board of Education routinely prepares Hiroshima Ken Kyoiku Shiryo[Instruction Materials for Hiroshima Prefecture] to address problems
regarding the practice of school education and distributes it to teachers
in Hiroshima public schools. Material for fiscal year 1998 devoted 4
Continued on Page 3

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

−1−

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

＜Series: Reflections from Hiroshima＞

The 3rdSunao Tsuboi, Co-chairperson, Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations

The 50th Anniversary of HIDANKYO
��Retrospect and Prospect
Interview by Motofumi Asai
1. History and Activities of Hidankyo
The year 2006 marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of
the Hiroshima Prefectural Confederation of A-Bomb Sufferers
Organizations (Hiroshima Hidankyo) and the Japan Confederationof A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo).
Since then, the two confederations have consistently pursued
activities with the aim of atomic bomb survivor relief and theelimination of nuclear weapons.
I am the fourth chair of the Board of Directors of Hiroshima
Hidankyo. Its first chair, Dr. Ichiro Moritaki, filled the post for 38
years until his death in 1994 at the age of 92. In those days, mosthibakusha (survivors of the atomic bombing) had difficulty
making a living, and there was a growing call for their relief.
Instead, Moritaki placed prime importance on nuclear abolition
and made strong efforts to promote international exchange.
The second chair was Sakae Itoh, who had served as
secretary general of the organization for many years. She served
as chair for six years until 2000, when she died at the age of 88.
She also served as co-chairperson of Nihon Hidankyo. Her
successor, Kazuto Fujikawa, was appointed the third chair of
Hiroshima Hidankyo in 2000 and resigned his post in 2004. I thensucceeded him as the fourth chair, while serving concurrently as
co-chairperson of Nihon Hidankyo.
What is most important for Hiroshima Hidankyo in pursuing
its activities? I believe our first concern should always be theconcerns of the hibakusha. I always do my best to attend to thehibakusha, many of whom are so openhearted that they arewilling to consent to my ideas, saying “Let’s do it because Tsuboi
says so.”
My first effort was a shikishi (message card) campaign
conducted for one year, beginning in 2002. Its purpose was toencourage hibakusha to work with interest on expressing
themselves. We asked the Hiroshima National Peace Memorial
Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims to permanently keep the
shikishi cards, on which messages were written by hibakusha. The
Hall promised that those messages would be stored in the
database. This campaign helped unify the hibakusha, who had
been quite divided, and promoted more emotionally connected
relationships among them.
In 2006, we launched a three-year project to conduct
questionnaire surveys of hibakusha in an effort to fill a 10-year“blank” after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the history of
the hibakusha, there is a 10-year “blank” from 1945 until 1956,
when the Hidankyo was founded. As mentioned in thequestionnaire, we aim to “pass on the history of the atomic
bombing to future generations … to serve as a useful guide,” withthe understanding that the invaluable experience of the first
decade after the bombing is the point of departure for many
hibakusha.
The initial questionnaire survey to be conducted this year
consists of 20 items, including concerns of everyday life, barriers
to marriage, changes in personality, involvement with otherpeople, anxiety about the education system and poor academic
performance, consultations during years prior to the founding of
Hidankyo, responsibility for aiding the hibakusha, and what waslost and gained during the 10-year “blank.” The respondents arerequested to circle all the appropriate answers to the 20 questions,so someone else can fill in the questionnaire for any hibakusha
who is sick in bed. In 2007, a descriptive questionnaire will be
used to survey selected hibakusha, and in 2008, the findings of the

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

two surveys will be compiled into abooklet. About 70 to 80% of the
publishing cost will be covered by grants
provided as part of the central government’s
memorial project under the Hibakusha Aid
Law.
What is most important in our
activities—the shikishi campaign, thesurvey, and anything we do—is to win thehearts of hibakusha. Our fundamental
policy is to grapple with our situation in a spirit of mutual
encouragement. Hidankyo is an activist organization, and I
acknowledge that I am an activist. I flatter myself by thinking thatno one is more considerate of, or has more empathy for the
oppressed than I do. I rarely feel down because this feeling or
spirit is the driving force in my life.
With regard to politics and relations with political parties, weare strictly neutral. When lobbying, for example, we approach allpolitical parties equally. I sometimes feel that things cannot bechanged without political power. To unify our organization,
however, we have to act with discretion and remain neutral, giventhat some heads or presidents of the 54 branches of Hiroshima
Hidankyo are leaders of support groups for Liberal Democratic
Party lawmakers, New Socialist Party members, or city council
members.
2. The Spirit of Hiroshima
Which is more appropriate: to write “Hiroshima,” in kanji(Chinese characters) or katakana (Japanese phonetic characters)?
I believe that it is more appropriate to write Hiroshima in
katakana. Until the moment of the atomic bombing, it was okay
to write Hiroshima in kanji characters, especially when the city
was being referred to in geographic terms or as a military capital.
When thinking of Hiroshima in a future-oriented manner,
however, it should be written in katakana. The future is my guide.
I believe therefore that, in general, Hiroshima should be written in
katakana, so as to invoke the spirit of Hiroshima.
“No More Hiroshimas!” is a key element of the spirit ofHiroshima. When asked which should be pursued, nuclear
abolition or the elimination of nuclear weapons, I personallybelieve that all things nuclear should be abolished. It is said that
nuclear power is safe, but as evidenced by the Chernobyl nuclear
reactor accident, it is hard to completely ensure the safety of
nuclear power. Given that nuclear power accidents can have alonger, more profound impact than even atomic bombing, nuclear
power poses a greater risk. As an organization, however, Hidankyo
has focused its activities entirely on the elimination of nuclear
weapons, giving consideration to friendly relations with pacifist
organizations that are in favor of nuclear power (peaceful use of
atomic energy).
“No More Wars!” is another key element of the spirit ofHiroshima, and of Japan’s pacifist Constitution, specifically
Article 9 of the Constitution—I personally think that Article 9 of
the Constitution should be adopted by the rest of the world. The
recent movement to change the Constitution has made my blood
boil. As a hibakusha, I have been involved personally in various
movements in defense of the Constitution. As I mentioned earlier,
however, Hidankyo is an organization that makes it a rule not to
be involved in politics.
When it comes to the spirit of Hiroshima, it is impossible to−2−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

3. Observations of Hiroshima, JapanNo matter how extensive the efforts, it is hard to improve thesituation in conservative Hiroshima. I do not understand why, andI continue to pose the question to myself.
Some explanations can be given. Since the Warring State
Period (late 15th to late 16th century), people in Aki Province(present day Hiroshima) have tended to be fence sitters. It is often
said that the local population’s poor spirit of adventure andenterprise can be attributed to the natural features of the area, ourmild climate and lack of earthquakes. Another reason is that inHiroshima, which used to be a military capital, the construction ofa railroad by the central government and consecutive victories in
the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars also contributed tothe area’s reputation for being a “good area.” In the wake of theatomic bombing, Hiroshima changed, as was evident in theelection of innovative lawmakers. However, over the years,
Hiroshima has since found itself restored to its former
conservative state.
With regard to Japan’s current swing to the right, the problem
is that the right is often connected with violence or terrorism. I
cannot help but worry about the rising tendency to accept nocomplaints and offer no argument.
To put Japan back on a healthy track, it is essential to provide
cultural enrichment for all the people. It will take time, but
education is the key to achieving that end. Therefore, we must
object to the current efforts to guide education in a limited,
narrowly focused direction at the government’s command. Thisissue must be addressed not at the level of hibakusha but as animportant matter of national concern.

discuss Hiroshima in isolation from Nagasaki. The two cities used
to be characterized as “the Hiroshima of indignation” and “theNagasaki of prayer.” This means that in Hiroshima, dynamic,
aggressive peace movements emerged from the anger and profoundhatred among the atomic bombing victims against the UnitedStates, while Nagasaki apparently endures more philosophicallythe agony of the atomic bombing devastation and even condones
the bombings.
However, this comparison between Hiroshima and Nagasaki
has been invalid since the 1980s at the latest. Now, there is notmuch point in distinguishing between the two cities. In Nagasaki,energetic efforts involve, for example, earnestly tackling issues
concerning children or grandchildren of atomic bomb victims andpromoting deeper exchange with atomic bomb victims in South
Korea. In some cases, we see more aggressive peace movements
in Nagasaki than in Hiroshima.
How to convey the spirit of Hiroshima to the world? I believe
there are three keys to success. First, we need to appeal to people
all over the world continuously and on a massive scale. It is
important to increase public awareness of the spirit of Hiroshimaby creating a ripple effect, rather than by distributing the message
on an intermittent basis—only on the anniversary of the atomic
bombing, for instance. To this end, the Japanese government
should be involved more deeply, enough to provide a subsidy, as it
does for the Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers.
The second key is to make optimum use of media andinformation tools. Large numbers of visual aids—such as DVDsand photo collections—should be effectively used, as there isnothing better than appealing directly to the eye. The third key isrelated to arousing public demand. The full horror and destructionof nuclear weapons have not been fully conveyed throughout theworld; there are still many areas that lack awareness of the threat.
More pressure must be applied in such areas to enhance publicawareness and generate a rapid groundswell of international
public opinion favoring the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Asai is president at HPIContinued from Page 1

Revision of the Fundamental Law of Education and Peace Education in Hiroshima Prefecture
pages to peace education out of the 153 pages of the book. It prescribed
the basic approach as “We have to deepen our understanding of thesignificance of peace, pray for lasting peace, and enrich education tocultivate students capable of contributing to international peace as
residents of Hiroshima, which experienced the suffering of the firstatomic bomb disaster in human history, and also as a people whose
nation’s past conduct inflicted tremendous suffering and damage on
people in neighboring Asian countries.” But since fiscal year 2000, thematerial has devoted only one page to peace education. The material for2005 also has only 1 page for peace education in the 250 pages of thebook. In addition, one finds expressions such as “Implement peaceeducation according to the curriculum guidelines” and “Do not impose aone-sided view or perspective on students.” At the same time, thesentence beginning with “as a people whose nation’s past conduct
inflicted tremendous suffering and damage on people in neighboring
Asian countries” was completely deleted.
On April 19, 2006, the Chugoku Shimbun newspaper carried theresults of a Hiroshima Municipal Board of Education survey of
elementary and junior high school students in Hiroshima City regarding
the atomic bombing. The survey targeted 2,491 students in total, or 1,499
students from fourth to sixth grades (elementary school students) and992 students from seventh to ninth grades (junior high school students),
chosen randomly in July 2005. The same kind of survey is conducted
every five years and this was the third. We can compare these resultswith those of past surveys.
Students’ accuracy rate in naming the year, month, date, and time of
the atomic bombing is as follows:

Junior high school students
67.6% (2005) 63.0% (2000) 74.7% (1995)
Why did the accuracy rate of both elementary and junior highschool students drastically drop in 2000? This is probably because of theserious impact of the 1998 “corrective instruction” by the Education
Ministry. I would like to draw your attention to the case as a concrete
example that shows the consequences of direct government interferencein educational content.
The governing party submitted a bill to “revise” the Fundamental
Law of Education to the 164th ordinary session of the Diet. The bill has
been carried over to the current extraordinary session of the Diet. The“revision” bill appears to gravely threaten peace education, which has
been enriched and developed by voluntary and free practice. The
government’s “revision” bill aims to strengthen state control overeducation. The revised bill’s Article 16 on school administration aims tocontrol education by “law” as follows: “Education shall not be subject toimproper control, but shall be provided as required by the Fundamental
Law of Education or other laws.” However, it includes 20 stipulations,more than Kyoiku Chokugo, [the Imperial Rescript on Education.] It
clearly seeks to prescribe educational content.
Up to now school personnel have developed peace education
believing that they were guaranteed the freedom to do so, since theFundamental Law of Education states that “Education shall not be
subject to improper control, but shall be directly responsible to the whole
people.” Enactment of the “revised” law, however, would compel
educators to give top priority to national interests, and peace educationin Hiroshima would undoubtedly come to an end.

Elementary school students
46.9% (2005) 35.2% (2000) 55.7% (1995)

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

Yamaima is chief director at Hiroshima Institute for Peace Education−3−

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

＜ Special Feature: North Korean Nuclear Issue ＞

The North Korean Nuclear Test and Missile Launches:Japan and Hiroshima

By Motofumi Asai

1. Do North Koreaʼs Nuclear Test and Missile
Launches Pose a Military Threat?
In considering the Japanese and Hiroshima’s response to the
nuclear test (on October 9) and missile launches (on July 5) by the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), we first need tounderstand the military implications of these incidents. The carefulchoice of the missiles’ landing sites, which formed an orderly line in
the sea alongside the coast of the Asian continent, proves that there
has been an improvement in the DPRK’s missile launching
technology, but does not necessarily mean that the military threat
posed by North Korea towards Japan has dramatically increased.
The statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a July 6
news conference should serve as a useful reference in supporting myobservation. According to a July 9 article in the Shimbun Akahata, adaily newspaper published by the Japanese Communist Party, Putin
said, “There is no evidence that the North Korean missile program
targeted Russia. Neither the offensive nor defensive militarycapabilities of North Korea are comparable with those of Russia.”
American military prowess, along with that of Japan, greatly
surpasses Russian military power, which shows how incongruous it isfor the United States and Japan to raise such alarm over the DPRK’s
military threat.
Regarding the nuclear test, as of now, on October 11, there is yet
no conclusion from the third parties’ observations and analyses thatthe nuclear test was successful, except for the DPRK’s claim that itwas. Even if the test was not successful, the DPRK will no doubt
continue its nuclear tests until success is confirmed. Therefore, I
would like to discuss the issue, assuming that the nuclear test was
successful.
The key point is whether the DPRK has successfully downsized
the nuclear warhead so that it could be loaded on the Nodong missile,which covers Japanese territory. If they succeed in doing so, having
proven sophistication of their missile technology, the DPRK can besaid to have developed a nuclear missile capable of striking Japan.
Based on the theory that a military threat exists when one country has
both the intent and the capability to attack an adversary, the DPRK
can be said to have acquired offensive capability.
But does the DPRK have the intention to recklessly use a nuclear
missile against Japan? If North Korea launched missiles against Japan,
the United States would crush North Korea in a matter of seconds,
citing the missile provocation as the justification. Kim Jong-il could
not possibly make the reckless decision to attack Japan with missiles
as that would lead to the instant annihilation of himself and his
country.
The same observation holds true for U.S. war scenarios.
According to the war scenario stipulated in the Quadrennial Defense
Review 2006 prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense, the UnitedStates will start the war against North Korea with a preemptive strike.
They envision no scenario in which North Korea provokes the U.S.
first with a violent act leading to a war. Although the scenarios were
written before the DPRK’s nuclear test, their successful nuclear test
would not influence or change American war scenarios.
2. Reﬂections on Japanese Reaction to North
Korean Nuclear Test and Missile Launches(1) What Lies Behind the Japanese Overreaction to North Korea’s
Missile Launches?
Japan overreacted to the missile test with clear political ends.
The crux of the matter is that the United States and Japan haverepeatedly used the “threat posed by North Korea” to achieve theirpolitical ends.
The argument that North Korea poses a threat, first raised by thecrisis on the Korean Peninsula over the DPRK’s suspected nuclear

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

development in 1993 and 1994, accelerated the establishment of the
New Guideline for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation (1997), the Law
on Situations in the Areas Surrounding Japan (1999), and the Law on
the Nation’s Response to Foreign Military Attack (2003). After the
DPRK’s launch of the Taep’o-dong 1 in 1998, the United States andJapan took advantage of the arguments that North Korea poses a
security threat to hasten cooperation in a missile defense program.
The same argument being triggered by the DPRK’s suspected uranium
enrichment programs in 2002, the United States started theProliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in 2003, in which Japan has
participated.
The United States and Japan have clear political goals in staging
their reactions to the current missile tests. The U.S. force realignment
in Japan being advanced by both governments is a key element in U.S.
plans to expand its global military power. If the realignment of U.S.
forces in Japan suffers a setback, it will have a negative impact onworldwide U.S. military realignment efforts. Such a setback could
lead to the failure of the U.S. war against terrorism.
In fact, the reorganization of U.S. forces in Japan faces strong
resistance from local authorities and residents in places like Iwakuni,
Okinawa, and Kanagawa. It is believed that the North Korean threat isagain being used, as usual, to weaken or eliminate resistance against
the realignment plans and to implement them as the U.S. and Japanese
governments see fit.
Actually, a missile-related question was reportedly raised by theaudience at a symposium on the Iwakuni U.S. military base organizedby local leaders of western Hiroshima Prefecture in Hatsukaichi City
on July 15 this year. This reveals that the justifications promoted by
the U.S. and Japanese governments have gradually found their way
into public consciousness.
(2) Hiroshima’s Role in Facing North Korea’s Nuclear Test
It is no wonder that the DPRK’s nuclear test provoked severereaction in Japan, considering the strong anti-nuclear sentiments heldby Japanese people. On the other hand, vociferous calls to toughen the
sanctions against North Korea, which dominates the Japanese
government and the public, seems to lack important perspective.
Most of all, Hiroshima should give top priority to prevent thesituation from deteriorating further. Nuclear destruction may becaused as follows in the worst case scenario: 1) U.N. Security Council
adopts a resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea, 2) Japan andthe U.S. strengthen the sanctions regime, 3) North Korea resists, 4)
The U.S. preemptive attacks against North Korea starts a war, 5)
Desperate North Korea resists and fights back, 6) North Korea attacks
Japan with nuclear missiles and/or their saboteurs destroy nuclear
power plants in Japan.
Hiroshima is required to return to the original starting point andreflect on why they have cried for “No More Hiroshimas.” Hiroshima
has called for nuclear abolition and protested against nuclear tests so
as to prevent outbreak of nuclear wars at any cost. The idea held byHiroshima should culminate in the determination that Hiroshima will
never allow a situation in which Japan faces nuclear disaster again.
Hiroshima is expected to send a strong message at home and abroadthat we have to seek not hard-line policy against North Korea, but asolution through dialogue.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to recognize anew that, more thananything else, the Bush administration’s all-out hard-line policy
against North Korea has cornered North Korea to this extent. The
American policy has caused today’s nearly suicidal act by North
Korea. In resolving this problem, we need to arouse international
public opinion to fundamentally transform U.S. policy toward North
Korea. I would like to emphasize that this is also a crucial task for
Hiroshima.

−4−

Asai is president at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

＜ Special Feature: North Korean Nuclear Issue ＞

North Korea's Nuclear Path
The impact of North Korea’s nuclear test on October 9, 2006,

By Sung Chull Kim
under secure conditions.”

will be dreadful. The test is a suicidal act for North Korea. NorthWhy has North Korea followed the path to nuclear

Korean authorities may be proud of having military mightstatehood? On the one hand, the phenomenon is a historicallytemporarily, but for the general public, such pride will be at odds

driven result of North Korea’s old confrontation with the United

with unacceptable living conditions in the long run. Furthermore,States since the division of Korea in 1945: the Korean War fromthe nuclear test might bring about fear of insecurity and an1950 to 1953 and the U.S. nuclear threats during the Cold War

ensuing arms race, if not expansion of nuclear armament, inperiod. The motive of North Korea’s nuclear development can be

Northeast Asia.

traced back to the Cold War legacy of the American nuclear

North Korea has wanted to be treated as a nuclear state

threat and nuclear predominance in the Korean Peninsula. On

since October 2002. And North Korea has implicitly andthe other hand, the phenomenon is also a consequence of North

explicitly established itself as a de facto nuclear state. The

Korea’s repeated failure to approach its key enemy, the United

country has kept its political affairs clandestine but has neverStates, either by bypassing or sidelining South Korea in theconcealed its intention to continue the project of

post-Cold War period. It is noteworthy that there was an

nuclear-weapons development since October 2002. It is said thatimportant shift in North Korea’s posture: a shift fromat that time, North Korea admitted to James Kelly, then Assistantconfrontation to the attempted approach to the United States.

Secretary of the U.S. State Department, that it possessed an

This shift took place in the process of North Korea’s struggle for

uranium-enrichment program. This admission was a calibrated

survival in the 1990s. For the shift, there were junctures: theact of defiance; it ran counter to the spirit of the Agreed

disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the death of North

Framework in October 1994, which abated the “first nuclear

Korea’s founding father Kim Il-sung in 1994, and a famine fromcrisis” whereby North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear

1996 to 1998. These junctures were critical. At the same time,

program in exchange for the provision of two light water

the trajectory of the shift has emerged within certain broader

reactors.

limits that took shape in North Korea’s hostility toward and fear

Starting in 2002, the “second nuclear crisis” strikinglyof the United States. A distinctive development in these criticaldiffers from the first. The second crisis has proceeded with Northjunctures was the so-called military-first politics, which is an

Korea’s provocative, and also defensive, statements and actions,

adaptive mechanism to cope with fear of insecurity in domestic

as a reaction to American negligence and pressure. Since theand external affairs. As the second nuclear crisis has spiraled

eruption of the second nuclear crisis, North Korean behavior has

since 2002, the military-first politics has gained prominence inbeen to a certain extent predictable. On April 18, 2003, North

North Korean society as an approach that contextualizes

Korea’s Foreign Ministry announced that the atomic agency ofdomestic and external policies. The nuclear test is theNorth Korea had opened 8,000 spent-fuel rods, which had been

culmination of the military-first politics.

sealed in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework, andIt seems that with the nuclear test, North Korea will have toreprocessed them. On October 2, 2003, the Ministry again statedcope with a greater challenge than any others in its history. The

that North Korea had transformed the use of plutonium, obtained

magnitude of the shock to North Korea itself is unpredictable.

as a result of the reprocessing, for the strengthening of nuclear

But it is certain that the shock will be an unbearable one to thedeterrence. On February 10, 2005, the Ministry proclaimed forcountry, because the isolation of North Korea by the international

the first time that North Korea had nuclear weapons. Since then,community will reach its peak. Sanctions alone will not suffice.

political authorities and the mass media in Pyongyang have

There is no incentive for the neighboring countries, including thereiterated that the U.S. confrontational policy forces North Korea

United States, to officially acknowledge North Korea’s nuclear

to pursue nuclear-weapons development. On October 3, 2006,

state status that the country has strenuously pursued in the past

the Ministry declared that the country would conduct its firstfew years. North Korea is not a Pakistan that cooperates with thenuclear test by noting that “the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear

United States for the “war on terror”; it is not an India that may

war, sanctions, and pressure compel our country to conduct a

check China’s expanding influence in Asia; nor is it an Iran with

nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent,rich oil reserves. There are no intrinsic mitigating factors for

as a corresponding measure for defense.” On October 9, finally,

American acceptance of the situation.

the Korean Central News Agency reported that North Koreanscientists “successfully conducted an underground nuclear test

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

−5−

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

HPIʼs Fifth Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima

Can Human Beings Coexist with Nuclear Weapons?:
Seeking Ways to the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
In 2006, the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) decided to divide its
public lecture series into two parts: five lectures each would be heldin both the first and second semesters with each semester having its
own theme. The lectures for the first semester, with the theme “Can
Human Beings Coexist with Nuclear Weapons?: Seeking Ways to the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons,” were held on June 8, 15, and 22; andJuly 6 and 13.
More than 60 years have passed since human beings acquired
nuclear weapons. During this time the United States and other nuclear
powers have considered the atomic bombings symbolic of the end ofWorld War II. They have justified themselves by advocating nuclear
deterrence theory as if human beings were protected by nuclear
weapons. The aim of this lecture series was to explore from various
angles how to overcome this justification of nuclear weapons andeliminate nuclear weapons.
The first lecture was delivered by Mr. Hisaki Nakamura, former
NHK reporter and currently freelance journalist, on the theme “The60-Year History of Atomic Bomb Victims in South Korea.” Nakamura
argued that Japan’s claim of being the world’s only victim of a
nuclear bombing shows a lack of awareness that about 10% of theatomic bomb victims were North and South Koreans. He also
maintained that the partitioning of the Korean Peninsula was a resultof U.S. strategies and that thinking about the North and South Korean
hibakusha will pave the way for the unification of North and South
Korea, eventually turning Asia into a nuclear-free zone andeliminating nuclear weapons.
The second lecture, on the theme “Nuclear War and Its Survivors
as Described in American Films,” was given by Dr. Robert Jacobs,
who assumed his appointment at HPI in October 2005. Using visual
aids, he explained how “strength,” “wisdom,” “violence” and “cruelty”
have been emphasized when survivors of nuclear war are depicted in
U.S. films, and how those accounts diverge from real-life nuclear
wars. He also pointed out that the U.S. government’s optimistic civil
defense planning, in which nuclear warfare is envisioned as if it werea natural disaster, has been reflected in those films.
In the third lecture, I (Hiroko Takahashi) gave a presentation on
the theme “Problems of Research by the ABCC/Radiation Effects
Research Foundation.” In 1947, the Atomic Bomb Casualty
Commission (ABCC) was launched to study the long-term effects ofradiation on the human body by the U.S. Presidential directive from
Harry Truman. However, the Commission’s objective was not toprovide relief for atomic bomb victims, but to obtain useful
information for U.S. civilian/military defense in case of nuclear war. I
talked about the harsh truths that emerged from official U.S.
documents. I briefly discussed the problems arising from the fact thatthe research results obtained by a U.S.-oriented research organization
have been considered the only “scientific” data available.
The fourth lecture was delivered by Dr. Shoji Sawada, A-bomb
survivor, physicist and professor emeritus at Nagoya University. His
theme was “The Danger of Mininukes: Serious Impacts of Internal
Irradiation by Residual Radioactivity.” The United States has covered
up information on damage caused by residual radioactivity in order tojustify its dropping of the atomic bombs. Postwar Japanese
governments have followed U.S. government policy and dealt withissues pertaining to atomic bomb victims and the certification ofradiation casualties using criteria far removed from reality.
Consequently, class action suits have been initiated by A-bomb
survivors across the nation, and these suits have revealed the serious
consequences to the health of survivors from internalizing the residual
radioactivity. He also pointed out that there is growing concern
regarding the development and use by the United States of“easy-to-handle” mininukes, without any consideration given to the

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

influence of residual radioactivity on human beings.
The fifth lecture was given by Motofumi Asai, President of HPI,
on the theme “Can Japan Coexist with Nuclear Weapons?: Seeking
Ways to the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Wars.” Mr.
Asai indicated that postwar Japanese governments have pursued
policies that hinged on U.S. nuclear deterrence theory and obstructedcampaigns for the elimination of nuclear weapons, while claimingthat Japan, as “the only atomic bombed nation in the world,” opposes
nuclear weapons. He also argued that, as a prerequisite for arousing
international public demand for the elimination of nuclear weapons, it
is important for Japan to radically change its politics. Japan must
abandon its dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrence theory/policy,
thoroughly review Japan’s diplomatic/security policies, and clean up
the political environment in which Japan denies its war responsibility.

Enrollment in this lecture series exceeded 90 persons, and eachlecture attracted a large audience. The exchange of views at thelectures, the stated reasons for enrollment, the question lists, and a
post-lecture questionnaire have yielded two important findings.
Firstly, the majority reported learning facts that could not be learned
directly from their usual sources of information. Secondly, many feelthat HPI should have more opportunities to present to the public, inan easy-to-understand manner, the findings of research conducted by
HPI researchers. These two issues are inextricably linked. The
feedback obtained from the questionnaire shows that many people
have further expectations for HPI projects, including the following
requests for improvement:- It is necessary to figure out some way to enhance public awarenessregarding the issue of peace. Cablecasting the HPI lecture series
was offered as an example.
- The lecture series for citizens should be broadcast on the Internet.
- A seminar series comprising about 12 lessons on a single theme
should be offered to promote deeper understanding.
- Given the significant issues discussed in the lectures, the time wastoo short to obtain a sufficiently deep understanding.
I hope that the lecture series for citizens will continue tostimulate participants intellectually and inspire them to work together
in seeking paths to achieve peace.

−6−

By Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

HPI Research Forum
July 31, 2006

Title: How to Memorialize War for Peace: A
Vietnam War Veteran’s My Lai Peace Park
Project
Speakers: Mr. Mike Boehm, Director of the Madison Quakers
Projects in Vietnam
Mr. Hiroshi Fujimoto, Professor of American Foreign
Relations, Nanzan University

Mike Boehm, a Vietnam veteran who heads
the Madison Quakers Projects in Vietnam,
served as the driving force behind thepromotion of the “My Lai Peace Park
Project.” Its aim is to advance reconciliationand harmonious coexistence between Vietnam
and the United States at the grassroots level,
centering on My Lai, a hamlet of Son My,
Mr. Hiroshi Fujimoto
where occurred what is called the “Son My
Massacre,” which came to symbolize the tragedies of the Vietnam
War. At an HPI Research Forum Hiroshi Fujimoto, Professor of
Nanzan University and Vietnam War expert, talked about thesignificance of the My Lai Peace Park Project. His speech was
followed by Boehm’s presentation on the project and his activities inVietnam.
Boehm said that although there are many places in the U.S. andVietnam that commemorate victory, this park was not built for that
purpose. The park has many trees, flowers and a pond with fish,
instead of weapons and other war monuments. Boehm also added that
25 Americans, including Vietnam War veterans who played asignificant role in ending the massacre at Son My, attended theinauguration of My Lai Peace Park. Fujimoto took his students and

September 6, 2006

Title: What Do Americans Think About theBombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki andWhy?
Speaker: Dr. Robert Jacobs

How can one see the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima as ahumane act? Over 50 members of the Hiroshima community came
together at HPI on the evening of September 6 to hear Jacobs address
this question.
Jacobs approached the topic from a cultural narrative standpoint.
He explained how Americans learn two basic stories about the use of
the atomic bombs on Japan by the United States in World War II. The
first story is that the bombs “ended the war.” Most Americans were
unaware that the Japanese Imperial government was in the process ofattempting to secure surrender terms from the U.S., and saw the swift
Japanese surrender following the bombing of Hiroshima andNagasaki as proof that the bombs forced the Japanese to surrender.
This enshrined the bomb in American culture as a weapon that could
single-handedly compel an enemy to capitulate.
The second story many Americans learn about the bombing isthat it saved lives, both American and Japanese lives. This is because
it ended the war before an imagined U.S. invasion of the Japanesehome islands. Americans were told that this invasion would haveresulted in up to 1,000,000 deaths of American servicemen, as well aslarger numbers of Japanese deaths, and taken over a year to lead to an
eventual Japanese surrender. Remember, the Allied forces had justdriven all the way to Berlin to end the European half of World War II.
The use of atomic bombs brought the war to a swift end, and avoided
the invasion of the home islands. In this way, the use of the bombs

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006

many Vietnam War protestors from Japan to the park to plant trees.
Boehm considers the park to be a place for broadening the campaign
to turn the horrors of the War toward the promotion of peace and hopefor a better future.
During his service in the Vietnam War from 1968 to 1969,
Boehm was not directly involved in the massacre. He said thatthrough his activities in Vietnam and exchanges with the families ofvictims of the Son My massacre, however, he came to learn the truth.
He had believed in the myth that America could not make a mistake,and that evil could be done only by those of abnormal character. It
took him many years to realize that the only difference between him
and those who committed the massacre at My Lai (Son My) (or at
Auschwitz, Nanjing and Rwanda) was that, fortunately, he was not at
the scene. He had to face the hard reality that everyone has thepotential to do evil.
Boehm said that a common thread foundin My Lai, scene of the massacre of many
civilians, and Hiroshima, an atom-bombed
city, is that both overcame great tragedy andwere successfully reborn as places nurturing
hope for a better future. I am worried about
the trend today to highlight institutions andmonuments that justify and glorify war,
Mr. Mike Boehm
including the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan and thelocations of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. I hope thatplaces to pray for peace, as represented by the My Lai Peace Park andthe Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, will play a more important rolein promoting deeper relations among former enemies by confronting
the tragedies of the past and preventing like events from ever
happening again.
By Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPI

was “humane” because it spared all the lives that would otherwise
have been lost on both sides.
For many Americans the story of the bombing of Hiroshima is astory of American greatness: great leaders make important decisions
about a magical technology in order to alter history and bring thegreatest benefit to the world. These stories were then shown to beembedded in and exert a powerful influence over much of U.S. policy
towards its own nuclear arsenal and global nuclear proliferation.
Jacobs also discussed counter-narratives in American culture thatregard the use of atomic bombs on Japan as war crimes, mentioning
specifically the observance of Hiroshima Day in most U.S. cities andtowns by Americans who are dedicated to the total elimination of
nuclear weapons and warfare.

−7−

By Robert Jacobs, assistant professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

ＤＩＡＲＹ
July 1, 2006 - October 31, 2006
Reconstruction, and Support for Cambodia” at Cambodia Japan Cooperation
uJul. 1 HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture on “Peace in Asia” at
37th regular general meeting organized by Japan Young Lawyers Association
Center in Royal University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia.
Attorneys and Academics Section, held in Hiroshima.
uAug. 18 Robert Jacobs gives lecture on “Good Bomb/Bad Bomb” atconference of International Committee on History of Technology at University
uJul. 8 Asai gives lecture on “Peace and Article 9” at workshop for chief
nurses organized by Health Co-operative Association of JCCU, held inof Leicester, U.K.▽Mikyoung Kim gives lecture on “Japan-Korea History
Hiroshima; serves as panelist at symposium for 1st anniversary of Hiroshima
Textbook Controversies” at Kyushu University in Fukuoka.
Mass Media and Article 9 Association in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
uAug. 23 Asai gives lecture on “Preciousness of Peace” at 3rd peace study
meeting organized by Hiroshima Rainbow Group in Japan Association ofuJul. 9 Mikyoung Kim serves as panelist for 20th International Political
Science Association World Congress in Fukuoka.
Community Workshops for Disabled Persons (Kyosaren), held in Hiroshima.
uJul. 11 Sung Chull Kim delivers presentation on “Structural Coupling inuAug.26-Sep. 10 Mikyoung Kim participates in Young Leaders Training &Engagement Diplomacy” at 50th annual conference of International Society for
Research Program in Regional Cooperation on 2006 Northeast Asia Economic
Systems Sciences, California, U.S.
Forum Fellowship in Khabarovsk, Russia.
uJul. 12-21 Kazumi Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of reconstruction
uAug. 30 Mikyoung Kim gives lecture on “Culture and Management” at
and aid project in Cambodia organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law in Russia.
uJul. 15 Asai gives lecture on “U.S. Military Realignment in Relevance touSep. 10 Asai gives lecture on “Warning to Japan Rushing to be a Warmonger
Iwakuni” at gathering on problems of Iwakuni U.S. military base organized by
State” at Meeting for 4th Anniversary for Pyongyang Declaration organized bygroup to empower Iwakuni referendum on Iwakuni U.S. military base, held in
Nikkori Net, held in Kyoto.
Yamaguchi.
uSep. 15 Asai gives lecture on “U.S. Military Realignment and Japan’s Statusin Asia” at workshop for secretaries in charge of policy in House of Councilors
uJul. 16 Asai gives lecture on “Peaceful Diplomacy” at Peace Course for
Citizens organized by Itami City Central Community Center in Hyogo
organized by Secretariat of House of Councilors, held in Tokyo.
Prefecture, held in Hyogo.
uSep. 16 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Pacifism in Japan and Security” at
symposium “International Order for Whom?” organized by, held at Institute foruJul. 18 HPI holds 1st meeting for new organization networking HPI andpeace research organizations.
Social Ethics, Nanzan University in Nagoya.
uJul. 21 Asai gives lecture on “So-called Civil Protection Plan” at study
uSep. 17 Asai gives lecture on “North Korea” at meeting on North Korean
meeting organized by Japan Congress Against A- and H-bombs (Gensuikin),issues organized by Boomerang Net and holds talks with Yang Yonghi, film
held at PARC in Tokyo.
director, in Tokyo.
uJul. 22 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Nuclear Weapons Today and Perceptions
uSep. 22 Asai gives lecture on “International Power Politics, Japan andof the Atomic Bombings” at 2nd session of Peace Club for Junior High andHiroshima” at lecture meeting organized by Article 9 Association (A9A) GroupHigh School Students at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
in Fukuyama, held in Hiroshima.
uJul. 24 Narayanan Ganesan gives lecture on “The Defiant Prime Minister
uSep. 30 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Future from the Viewpoint ofand Determined Opposition” at conference of Political Parties in Southeast
Residents” at 4th School for Local Governments in Kyoto organized by Kyoto
Asia organized by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, held in Singapore.
Institute of Local Governments, held in Kyoto.
uJul. 29 Asai gives lecture on “The Roles of A-bombed Hiroshima” at
uOct. 6 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Promotion of Peace by Hiroshima” atmeeting for peace and sign language interpretation organized by NPO Sign
seminar on population and development sponsored by Asian Population andLanguage Center Hiroshima, held in Hiroshima.▽Mizumoto gives lecture on
Development Association, held in Hiroshima.
“Hiroshima and Peace” for training program for journalists organized by
uOct. 7 Asai gives lecture on “Peace and Welfare” at preparatory meeting for
Hiroshima City, held at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
national convention organized by Hiroshima branch of Kyosaren, held in
Hiroshima.
uJul. 29-Aug. 22 Yoshiaki Sato visits Netherlands for research on Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty.
uOct. 10 Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary
Suicide Bombers” at U.S.-Japan Relations Program, Harvard University, U.S.
uJul. 30 Asai gives lecture on “International Peace Seen from Hiroshima” at
37th National Convention of National Association of Democratic Studies in
uOct. 11 Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary
Hyogo.
Suicide Bombers” at Peace and Justice Studies Program, Tufts University, U.S.
uJul. 31 Asai gives lecture on “No More Hiroshimas, No More Nagasakis anduOct. 13 Sung Chull Kim delivers presentation on “North Korea’s Path to
No More Wars” at meeting for nuclear abolition and peace organized by 7
Nuclear Statehood” at conference on Nuclear Security in Northeast Asia,
A-bomb survivors’ organizations, held in Hiroshima.
cosponsored by Center for World Affairs and Global Economy of University of
Wisconsin-Madison in Washington, DC, U.S.
uAug. 2 Asai serves as chief judge at Contest for Junior High and HighSchool Students to Appeal for Peace organized by Hiroshima Municipal Board
uOct. 14 Asai gives lecture on “Role of Hiroshima and Expectations for Peaceof Education, held in Hiroshima.▽Yuki Tanaka gives lecture on “Terror from
Education” at education workshop organized by Hiroshima Senior High School
the Sky” to students of University of Tennessee at Martin participating in
Teachers and Staff Union, held in Hiroshima.
research trip to Hiroshima at Hiroshima Jogakuin University.
uOct. 15 Asai gives lecture on “Why Change Article 9 now?” at lecture
meeting in commemoration of establishment of A9A Group in Mihara City,
uAug. 5 Asai gives lecture on “So-called Civil Protection Plan” atsubcommittee of Gensuikin conference organized by Gensuikin, held in
held in Hiroshima.
Hiroshima.▽Tanaka gives lecture on “Criminality of the Atomic Bombing of
uOct. 22 Asai serves as panelist at workshop of 3rd Nagasaki Global Citizens’
Hiroshima and Nagasaki” to students of American University participating in
Assembly for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons organized by its planningresearch trip to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at HPI.▽Hiroko Takahashi gives
committee, held in Nagasaki.
lecture on “Atomic Bomb Materials in the United States” at “Global
uOct. 23 Asai gives lecture on “Problems of Civil Protection Plan Based on
Hibakusha” study meeting at HPI.
Civil Protection Law” at study meeting on civil protection plan organized by
Kagawa Trade Union Congress for Peace and Democracy, held in Kagawa.
uAug. 8 Asai gives lecture on “Japan Rushing to be a Warmonger State” atNagasaki Forum organized by United Congress of Nagasaki Mass-Media anduOct. 24 Takahashi gives lecture on “U.S. Government Attitude to Bikini
Culture Worker’s Unions, held in Nagasaki.
Incident” at Tokyo Institute of Technology.
uAug. 9-Sep.14 Takahashi visits U.S. for research group on reference materials
uOct. 29 Asai gives lecture on “Japan’s Peace” at meeting on peace and healthat Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and for research sponsored byin Komoro organized by A9A Group in Komoro City, held in Nagano.
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research.
uOct. 30 Mizumoto gives lecture titled “Atomic Bombing Experience andPeace in the Future” at public lecture meeting on peace organized by Shobara
uAug. 10 Mizumoto gives table speech at regular meeting of Rotary Club ofHiroshima West, held at ANA Hotel Hiroshima.
City, Hiroshima Prefecture.
uAug. 12 Asai gives lecture on “Warning to Japan Rushing to be a Warmonger
State” at peace lecture meeting organized by planning committee of Masuda– Visitors to HPI –City Peace Lecture Meeting, held in Shimane.
uAug. 13 Asai gives lecture on “Peace in Relevance to Iwakuni” at Meeting for
Remembrance and Peace on 39th Anniversary of Japan’s Defeat at World War
uJul. 14 Dr. Akira Kimura, professor, Faculty of Law, Economics and the
II organized by bereaved families of Christians in western Chugoku region
Humanities, Kagoshima University.
parish, held in Hiroshima.
uJul. 19 Sunao Tsuboi, Co-chairperson, Japan Confederation of A-and
H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations.
uAug. 15 Asai gives lecture on “Peace in Asia and Our Future in Relevance to
U.S. Military Realignment” at Meeting for Conveying War Experiences on
uAug. 1 Wang Lin, deputy division chief for Asian, African and Oceania
Aug. 15 organized by Group for Conveying War Experiences on Aug. 15, held
Affairs, Chinese Association for International Understanding, and Wangin Kagawa.
Changyong, deputy secretary general, and another member of Chinese People’s
Association for Peace and Disarmament.
uAug. 16 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Atomic Bombing in Hiroshima, its

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.9, No.2 November 28, 2006
Copyright 2006 HPI All rights reserved

lPublisher: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
lOte-machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan. E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
lPrinted by Nishiki Print co., ltd.
Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.9 No.2 November 2006