HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace InstituteVol.1 No. 1 October 1998

HPI Cosponsors Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference
Eighteen representatives from around the world discussed ways toprevent nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament at a conference
held in Tokyo on Aug. 30 and 31.
The Conference on Urgent Actions for Nuclear Non-Proliferation
and Disarmament (Tokyo Forum), which was jointly sponsored by theHiroshima Peace Institute and the Japan Institute of International
Affairs, was the first of a series of four scheduled meetings. The
conference was proposed in June by then Foreign Minister Keizo
Obuchi, (who became prime minister in August) following nuclear
tests carried out by India and Pakistan.
The conference is expected to publish a report, either in the formof a suggestion or an advisory, at the end of its final meeting, which isdue to take place next summer. The second meeting is scheduled totake place in Hiroshima on Dec. 18 and 19.
The Tokyo meeting comprised four closed sessions titled"General Discussion," "Nuclear Weapons Development in South Asia,""Maintaining and Strengthening Nuclear Non-Proliferation and thePromotion of Nuclear Disarmament" and "Closing Session."
Participants exchanged views on the May nuclear tests, the problemsof the NPT regime and nuclear disarmament.
At a press conference, HPI President Yasushi Akashi, who acted
as cochair, said that the participants, who included former diplomats
and scholars from 16 countries, agreed that nuclear disarmam ent
should proceed on a global, not just a regional, basis. The participants
were from declared nuclear states, threshold nations and other nations.
"I believe that the methods, processes, and procedures to achieve

List of Participants
Lt. Gen. Nishat Ahmad
President of the Institute of Regional
Studies, Pakistan
Dr. Zakaria Haji Ahmad
Professor & Coordinator of National
University of Malaysia
Amb. Marcos de Azambuja
Ambassador of Brazil to France
Prof. Sergei Yevgen'evich Blagovolin
Vice President of World Economics andInternational Relations Institute, Russia
Amb. Emilio Jorge Cardenas
Executive Director of Hong-Kong andShang-Hai Banking Corporation Roberts,
Argentine Republic
Amb. Rolf Ekeus
Amabassador of Sweden to USA
Prof. Han Sung-Joo
Professor of Korea University, South
Korea

Dr. Patricia Lewis
Director of UNIDIR, United Kingdom
Amb. Peggy Mason
Director of Council Development,
Canadian Council for International Peaceand Security
Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr.
Dean of JFK School of Government,
Harvard University, USA
Prof. Robert O'Neill
Chichele Professor of the History of War,All Souls College, University of Oxford,
Australia
Amb. Qian Jiadong
Senior Consultant of the China Institutefor International Strategic Studies, China
Dr. Abdel Monem Said Aly
Director of Ahram Center for Political andStrategic Studies, Egypt
Mr. Jasjit Singh
Director of the Institute for Defense
Amb. Ryukichi ImaiStudies and Analyses, India
Distinguished Scholar, Institute forInternational Policy Studies, Japan
Amb. Nobuo Matsugana
President &Director of the Japan InstituteDr. Joachim Krause
Deputy Director of the Research Institute of International Affairs, Japanof the German Society for Foreign Affairs Yasushi Akashi
President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute,Japan

CONTENTS

１HPI Cosponsors Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Conference"Japan Must Reassert Leadership Role in Disarmament Movement"by Ryukichi Imai ２
３"Today's Disarmament Landscape"by Patricia Lewis
4･5
Opening Symposium"World Disarmament Issues -Towards the 21st Century"th６
Report on 17 International Peace Research Association Conference
７
HPI Invites Experts to WorkShops
HPI Announces Research Themes
７
Hello from HPI -Introductions to HPI Researchers８８Time for a New Approach to Human Rights in Asia８
Diary

nuclear disarmament are going to be discussed further at this forum. I
would like us to make suggestions that can be acted on by every
government in the world," he said.
The main points of discussion were as follows:○India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT, but theregime is a global system that has come to be accepted by 18 7
countries. The Indian and Pakistani tests were a serious violation of theregime and should not be tolerated.
○The issue of the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan should be
discussed critically, but the international community should not isolate
the two countries; there must be a limit to economic sanctions against
the two countries.
○It would be difficult to force India and Pakistan to abolishnuclear weapons, but we require the means to prevent them fromturning their nuclear capabilities into nuclear weapons, and to prevent
them from deploying and using them.
○It is necessary to build trust between the two countries andfoster a dialog between them.
○There are discriminatory elements in the NPT, but it has been
useful in promoting nuclear non-proliferation. The treaty should bemaintained and strengthened.
○We should formulate a reliable system of verifying nuclear
disarmament. At the same time, we should consider what to do withchemical and biological weapons, which are capable of mass
destruction, as well as nuclear weapons.

Global nuclear disarmament needs more attention
By Mitsuru Kurosawa
In aiming to agree on proposals for nuclear disarmament throughdiscussions and exchanges of opinion, the Conference on Urgent Actions
for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament is truly epoch-making.
The first meeting reportedly focused on non-proliferation, because it washeld shortly after India and Pakistan conducted their nuclea r tests.
However, since the forum was proposed by the Japanese government, I
hope it will go further than simply promote non-proliferatio n, andactually show the way toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.
It will be very difficult to reach agreement as long as someparticipants put their countries' national interests above all else. Proposals
should be adopted on a majority vote; otherwise we may be destined tocome up with stale and ambiguous proposals. In that sense, I am both
apprehensive and hopeful about the forum's ability to produce effective
proposals.
The forum has often been compared with the Canberra Commission
on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, whose report drew a great deal of
criticism from nuclear states. The report was instructive and contained
clear, practical steps toward a nuclear-free world. A good idea would be
for the forum to discuss issues left unresolved by the commission. It
would also be beneficial if the forum could reach resolutions similar to
those of the commission. By doing so, we will enhance the value of theoriginal proposals.
I hope that participants at the second meeting in Hiroshima will havethe chance to visit the Peace Memorial Museum and the A-bomb Dome,and to exchange views with the citizens of the city. The true destructive
capability of nuclear weapons will become all the more apparent once theconference moves to Hiroshima.
Kurosawa is dean of the Osaka School of International Public Policyat Osaka University.

Opinion

Japan Must Reassert Leadership Role
In Disarmament Movement
By Ryukichi Imai
"We can hardly overcome the pain
and sorrow that come fromremembering the damage an atomic
bomb has inflicted on the city ofHiroshima. However, it is possible tooffer a justification for the bomb; i.e.
that it prevented a greater loss of lifethat would have resulted from a planned
ground war on mainland Japan." Thesewords were spoken by an American
professor during a working group
discussion at a disarmament conference
organized in Hiroshima by the United
Nations in 1991. As moderator of theworking group, I warned him, saying "Iknow there is such a view, but thosewords are not appropriate at aconference like this." He seemed tounderstand what I meant.
When I was Japanese ambassador
to the Conference on Disarmament
about 15 years ago, Japan was a memberof the so-called Western group ofnations, holding position similar to thoseof the members of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) throughthe Japan-U.S. security treaty. Indeed,Japan had often spoken as arepresentative of the Western alliance. I
remember that I often found myself in adilemma, working between Tokyo,
satisfied with its three non-nuclear
principles, and NATO, which held firm
to its faith in the nuclear deterrence.
The destruction of Hiroshima wasbeyond description. However, thedamage caused by Allied air raids tocities such as Dresden was no lesspainful for the Germans. A Germanambassador once said that Japan was not
the only country to have suffered in thewar. I used to have difficulties in
explaining Japan's non-nuclear policy toambassadors from the Third World, who
would say, "You have great cars, stereos
and cameras. You must also havenuclear weapons of a high quality."
I want to use the above episodes tostress that Japan's nuclear policies are
difficult for some countries tounderstand. It has been repeatedly asked
whether Japan is preparing to use its
large stock of plutonium to become anuclear state. It may be natural for
people to suspect that Japan is planningto go nuclear, since it is atechnologically and economicallyadvanced nation surrounded by three
nuclear powers; the United States, China
and Russia. But, I know most Japanesepeople are against the possession of
nuclear weapons from the bottom ot

their hearts. There would be few
engineers willing to cooperate with anuclear weapons developing program.
Moreover, the people would neverapprove. And we explain that it is
impossible to develop nuclear weapons
from plutonium produced from lightwater reactors. But we are still facedwith such comments as, "Just look at
how Japan's national feeling haschanged since the time of the Great East
Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere."Japan tends to shun a step-by-step
approach to the resolution of the nuclear
weapons issue and instead lump
together the total processes ofdevelopment―from the weapons'
structure and transportation to actual
controls. But such ambiguous rallying
calls as "No more bombs!" will hardly
convince those who have been
discussing the details of nuclear
strategy, nuclear disarmament and arms
control since the end of World War II.
It is natural that most Japanese areunable to participate in discussions on
the concrete and incremental reductionof nuclear weapons―from preventing
nuclear proliferation to decreasing thenumber of nuclear warheads andeventually bringing about abolition. By
concentrating only on the "good or bad"of possessing nuclear weapons, Japan
has been left at a different level of
discussion than most other countries.
The Japanese government expressed
deep regret over the recent nuclear tests
by India and Pakistan, and has decided
to withhold part of its Official
Development Aid to those countries. But
it is still not clear what kind of reform
within the international nuclear regime
Japan really wants. The Conference on
Urgent Actions on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (Tokyo
Forum) held in August was, I hope, atleast a step forward.
One of the problems withagreements on nuclear disarmament―
the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, theNon-proliferation Treaty and theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996
―is that they have not defined terms
such as nuclear explosion and nuclear
weapons. Several efforts have been
made, but no definitions have yet beenfound that do not cause confusion
regarding tests for the peaceful use of
atomic energy.
Because of this, sub-critical tests
andexplosive
nuclearfusionexperiments conducted by the UnitedStates are considered contraventions of
the CTBT. And given that some of thenuclear tests conducted by India andPakistan in May―which were of subkiloton yield range of TNT―were notdetected by seismic monitoring devices,it may be impossible for theinternational community to detect
similar tests in the future. Moreover,experts in the United States point out
that simple model atomic bombs madefrom either uranium or plutonium can beassembled without the need for tests.
The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
and no first-use policy are of great
importance in disarmament negotiations
following the conclusion of the CTBT,
and we should intensify negotiations on
those issues.
At the same time, we should also
address the issue of dismantling nuclear
warheads. This can be achieved byinspecting stockpiles, transporting anddisassembling warheads in the UnitedStates and the former Soviet Union―
which together once possessed astockpiles of more than 60,000―andensuring the safe transfer of enricheduranium and plutonium to atomic power
plants for use as fuel. We should try toinclude France and China in this,because they disapproved of the NPT in
its early stages, claiming it was
inequitable. Whether they will cooperatein enforcing the treaty is still a delicate
question. The same goes for India withregard to its participation in the CTBT.
Japan, as a nation that favors nonnuclear diplomacy, should seek concretemeasures for the abolition of nuclear
weapons and call on others to help it
realize this aim. In that way, Hiroshima
can also deserve the status of world
peace capital it has been claiming.
Imai is a professor at Kyorin
University graduate school.

Opinion

By Patricia Lewis
Despite significant progress over thelast decade and recent progress onnegotiations to ban fissile material for
weapons purposes, arms control anddisarmament face a deep crisis. The future
path of disarmament negotiations is
unclear and certain existing agreements
are under threat.
The NPT, at the heart of the global
nuclear non-proliferation regime anddespite its unlimited extension in 1995,
has been dramatically undercut by the
declared and demonstrated capabilities ofIndia and Pakistan in 1998.
The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests
symbolize the end of the "post-cold war"phase. It seems now to be pointless to try
to resolve present dilemmas or predict
future issues within the structures andpractices of a bygone international order―
be that of the cold war or the post-cold
war period.
The responses to the tests have beenvaried. They can be basically categorized
into three groups: (ⅰ) in actuality little
has changed, India and Pakistan havemerely come out of the nuclear closet andwe carry on as before; (ⅱ) the tests showthat non-proliferation efforts can only fail,and so the response of the NWS should be
to take heed, stop further reductions andshore up defenses; and (ⅲ) the tests showthat efforts at non-proliferation anddisarmament have to be redoubled so thata process of global nuclear disarmament
will include all countries with nuclear
weapons and nuclear-weapon capabilities
and that we should begin now.
Failuretoachievefurtherdisarmament could result in disaster. The
spread of WMD, leading to unprecedented
regional instabilities with the increasing
probability of actual use, demands thatsteps be taken to control and eliminate
such weapon systems. These steps need toembrace the global and the regional
aspects of security and as such thesolutions need to be regional and global intheir approach.
Collective security, through security
assurances, regional cooperation and UN
peace operations, development and humanrights, would offer the most conducive
framework to bringing about disarmament,
and disarmament in turn could also
encourage regional and global attempts tostrengthen international security andlegitimacy. The UN, as the depositary ofinternational legitimacy, and supporter ofgovernmental disarmament activities has acentral role to play.
The time when India and Pakistan
have just decided to go openly nuclear
may not appear as the most auspicious forsuch thinking to take hold. But recent
events in South Asia also provide a stark
illustration of the risks involved in the
opposite course of action. Failure to bringabout nuclear disarmament has provided
an excuse for certain countries toproliferate. Similarly, proliferation can
provide justification for those who rejectmoves towards disarmament. Thisparticular spiral of negative reinforcement
needs to be stopped before it escalates
again beyond control and producesanother, although different, arms race.
Export controls (however necessary)can only delay the inevitable in the face ofa determined proliferator. The speed ofscientific advances and the rapidity of the
spread of such knowledge and of its
technical applications usually means thatexport controls are quickly out-of-data andthe suppliers groups are often running justto stand still.
Small arms and light weapons havebeen a long-neglected area of arms control
and disarmament. The attention that has
increasingly been devoted to them in thelast few years stems from a recognition
that the ravages they cause are a daily
reality in many regions, and one that not
only threatens the very security of life andlimb of some of the world's most destitutepeoples, but also severely hampers any
prospects for significant socio-economic
development in states and regions affectedby internal and trans-border strife.
Responses to this recently acknowledged
disarmament challenge remain in theirinfancy. There is in fact good reason tobelieve that the excessive accumulationand destabilizing impact of small arms
does not lend itself to any single remedy.
Rather, the issue is one that will need to be
woven into a number of aspects of theforeign, defense and development policies
of industrialized and developing statesalike.
Certainly, the link between
conventional arms―including landminesand small arms―and WMD ought to beacknowledged. Rather than such linkage
being used as a way to prevent progress in
one if there is no progress in the other, amore constructive approach would be to
see that progress in one would inevitably
lead to progress in the other―purely
because of the inherent linkages. Controlof, say, small arms or larger conventional
weapons could lead directly to reductions
in nuclear weapons. The spectrum of
weaponry is a continuum with nuclear
weapons at one end (with the potential forkilling millions of people and completely
destroying civilizations) and small arms at
the other end (which are currently killing

millions of people and destroying societies
and nations). Begin to unravel one end of
this spectrum of violence and chances arethat the rest will be easier to undo.
It remains to be seen whether theestablished structures, such as the CD can
respond to these challenges. The
multilateral disarmament agenda today is
still based on the one crafted at the first
UN Special Session on Disarmament in
1978. Twenty years on, it is surely long
overdue for the disarmament vehicles tobe taken for a collective service andmaybe even for States to decide to trade
them in for more up-to-date models, which
are more suited to the times, run more
efficiently, can carry a wider variety ofcargo and, at the very least, start when theignition key is turned.
It is now time to re-think and restructure the whole disarmament andsecurity agenda. Given the stalemate in theCD, the nuclear tests by India andPakistan, and the difficulties exposed in
the NPT PrepCom mechanism, now is thetime for a complete reassessment. There isa need to weave together the issues andapproaches to nuclear disarmament, smallarms, the arms trade, biological andchemical weapons, landmines, newtechnologies, missile proliferation, fissile
material production and so on.
A fourth Special Session on
Disarmament, which could be structured
so as to allow a complete overhaul of thedisarmament agenda, could be one way
forward. There is much, valid, opposition
to such a session taking place if it isstructured to achieve nothing. Too muchtime and taxpayers money can be wasted
on large international conferences that
achieve very little. On the other hand,much time and many taxes are being spentright now on the CD, on the UN
Disarmament Commission and on thevarious
otherconferencesandinternational assemblies that take place on
disarmament, with little to show as aresult. Perhaps, effort put into reassessment would not go to waste if there
is careful preparation and a strong will tobring about effective change. Without
such determination, the disarmament
landscape will continue to present a bleak
picture.
Lewis is director of the United
Nations Institute for Disarmament
Research (UNIDIR).

The balance between small
and large nations in a global
relationship, power struggles, andthe dignity and position of nationsin an age where economies andthe flow of information know noboundaries are important to any
nation, but perhaps more so to anation such as India. We must also
bear in mind the fact that Pakistanchose to place greater importanceon its national security and stockof nuclear weapons than on
improving the standard of livingof its poor. Our immediate task is
PRESIDENT AKASHI
to stop nuclear testing and preventthe accidental outbreak of a nuclear war. We must also continue
our efforts to eradicate the causes of conflicts such as the one
currently dogging Kashmir. We should also look at the different
privileges enjoyed by large and small nations, the organization of
the United Nations Security Council and the rectification of suchdisparities. All over the world, particularly in Northeast Asia andin the Middle East, there remains a deep mutual distrust among
nations. Wrestling with such matters will also assist the cause of
nuclear non-proliferation and continue to expedite nuclear
disarmament. One of our most important tasks is to improve thepresent organization of the NPT and the CTBT. The NPT is an
unfair treaty that clearly discriminates against the nuclear havenots. But if there were no treaty, nuclear proliferation would
continue unabated. So how can we improve the treaty? In theprocess of trying to eliminate nuclear weapons, we need to define
our aims in specific terms. The tests conducted by India andPakistan provide a good opportunity to shift our perspective andface the nuclear issue, and at the same time consider measures todeal with the current crisis.

Trying to move India andPakistan into the NPT is, at least
for the time being, a waste oftime. Realistically, I believe theobjective should probably be tostabilize nuclear competition inSouth Asia at the lowest possiblelevel. On the other hand, it isfundamentally important to keep
the NPT intact. And this is the firstandforemost
matterof
implementing article VI of thistreaty. This phase involves three
specific measures: A test ban; a
SVERRE LODGAARD
cut off, that is, ceasing the
Lodgaard is director of the NorwegianInstitute of International Affairs in Oslo and a production of weapons grade
member of the Security General Advisory material; and security assurances
Board on Disarmament Matters. Positions
previously held include Director of European for non-nuclear states. Specific
Security and Disarmament Studies at the measures to eliminate nuclear
Stockholm International Peace ResearchInstitute and Director of the United Nations weapons include the idea of
Institute for Disarmament Research in storing weapons at a certain
Geneva.
distance from delivery vehicles,
and the signatures of India and Pakistani to the CTBT. In
contemporary civil wars, small arms are the most lethal. Usingdevelopment aid means conflict prevention and preventive action.
West African countries are planning to declare moratoriums on
the import, export and manufacture of small arms. At the sametime, they have entered into dialogue with arms-exporting
countries. New forms of violence have emerged from the civilian
population, so it follows that they may be freely available. Groups
wishing to hit other countries' values might be a politicalmovement that uses violence, or a terrorist organization. There isno lack of demanding items on the security and disarmament
agenda.

CTBT membership, political dialog keys to preventing India-Pakistan N-arms race

Need for Realism Theme of HPI s Opening Symposium
Representatives from Japan, the United States and Norway discussed ways to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote further disarmament at a
symposium titled "World Disarmament Issues―Towards the 21st Century," held July 9 at the International Conference Center in Hiroshima.
At the symposium, which was held to mark the opening of the Hiroshima Peace Institute in April, participants reviewed efforts made by theinternational community under the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime and addressed nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May.
They stressed the importance of approaching problems realistically and progressively, and the need to shun idealism. They also agreed that Japan,
as the only country to have experienced nuclear attacks, and non-governmental organizations should play a leading role.

Question & Answer

AKASHI: If tension is not relieved, then no country will implement disarmament
measures. On the other hand, as long as we have military capabilities, no country reallyfeels secure. How do we resolve this paradox? We probably have to take a parallel
approach encompassing disarmament, security and the resolution of regional conflict.
That may be the only way. What should the government of Japan do to achieve nuclear
disarmament, and what can we do? You have emphasized the role of NGOs, but is it
possible to follow the ban on land mines?

delivery vehicles. But plutonium can be taken from delivery vehicles and then stored in
the form needed to become part of a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy
Agency's statute has provisions for the establishment of an international plutonium
storage regime. Japan, with the background that it has in the nuclear power industry andthe problems it has with reprocessed plutonium, would be in a good position to make acontribution to the solution of all these problems. It would be wise to expand the UNarms register to include nuclear weapons.

KREPON: I think Japan's role in promoting nuclear disarmament at the UN General
Assembly is very welcome. I hope Japan will have creative ideas about how toresuscitate the conference on disarmament, perhaps through some non-negotiating
formats, such as discussions on the political conditions necessary for phased nuclear
arms reduction and disarmament. I see clear roles for Japanese NGOs in pushing thisprocess forward, but they need to find a new mode of operation. It is no longer sufficientfor NGOs to simply convene meetings of experts, to write essays and not to do otherthings. We have found that NGOs in today's environment needto be involved in training
a new generation of analysts and advocates for disarmament, in applying theconclusions that they have reached and trying to make them happen.

AKASHI: The land mine treaty is complete. Is it possible to apply it to nuclear
weapons?

LODGAARD: It is necessary to follow up what the Canberra Commission phrased as
an input to the next UN special session on disarmament. And I think major Japanese
input there in the form of a special commission to help prepare the agenda would be
useful. I think there is a case for some Japanese involvement in security issues in the
Persian Gulf, as well as arms control issues. In that part of the world there may be a needfor an arbiter, a facilitator, coming in from a distance. This might be an opportunity for
powerful NGOs and governmental agencies. With regard to the relationship between
NGOs and governmental agencies, NGOs tend to follow their own schedule. On theother hand, the government is likely to be passive. Consequently it is difficult tocooperate, but it is possible to build a relationship that would lead to nuclear
disarmament. So far disarmament has been treated as a matter of nuclear weapons and

TANAKA: At the disarmament conference in Geneva, there was a heavy debate
regarding land mines. There were many countries that felt the mines were vital in termsof national defense. But with the support of the public, the treaty was adopted. Land
mines are completely different types of weapons (compared with nuclear weapons), but
the enactment of the ban on land mines is a step toward nuclear disarmament. The
success of the land mine ban will contribute to the process of total nuclear disarmament.
KREPON: Hiroshima recently sent a delegation to India and created a great deal of
discomfort there. I think this is a wonderful role for the people of Hiroshima andNagasaki to play, because the rest of the world needs discomfort. So you havecontributed a great deal and I trust that you continue to contribute a great deal.
AKASHI: Today's discussion will not come to the end with this meeting. Thissymposium should be just another starting point. It really is easy to grieve or to be
pessimistic about the current international situation, but we should not miss any
opportunity to create a new international wave for disarmament, not only on a local
level, but among peoples from all over the world. Thank you very much for yourenthusiastic participation.

I am convinced that there are no short cuts; we have to identify the political conditions
that stand in the way of the phased reduction and elimination of the nuclear threat. And we MICHAEL KREPON
have to work to change those political conditions to make them favorable for the phased
Krepon is the president andreduction and elimination of the nuclear threat. Let me give you five necessary political cofounder of the Henry L.
conditions that need to be in place for us to succeed. First, we have to reduce the perceived Stimson Center in Washington,
D.C. The center conducts
utility value of those weapons. We have to diminish their military utility. Second, we need research and draws up policy
to secure improved relations between the United States and Russia. If we fail to do that, we suggestions on national andinternational
security
will fail to bring about nuclear disarmament. Third, the five permanent members of the UN problems. He is a former
Security Council should have closer working relations. At some stage, the current consultant to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
negotiations between the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals need to and to the Under-Secretary
include the other permanent members of the UNSC. Fourth, we have to strengthen the NPT General of the UN for
Disarmament Affairs.
and other non-proliferation arrangements that most countries adhere to. Fifth, we need towork together to resolve very difficult regional tensions step by step. We need to work together to make progressin reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. The orthodox timetable to achieve this is eroding basic partnerships
for disarmament. I think we should start by reminding ourselves that despite the difficulties, we have madeunprecedented progress and can build on our successes by reaffirming the fundamental building blocks for success in progressively reducing andeliminating the nuclear threat. Those building blocks are the NPT, the CTBT, controls on dangerous exports, the negotiation of a cut-off treaty
and negotiations to further reduce and move toward the elimination of strategic nuclear arsenals, indeed all nuclear arsenals. We need thesebuilding blocks.

The nuclear tests by India
and Pakistan weakened, rather
than enhanced their national
security. The fact is that bothcountries, which have both been
involved in conflicts in the past,
have created greater instability inSouth Asia. To stabilize theregion, both countries must join
the CTBT and end their nuclear
tests. Unlike the NPT, all nations
participating in the CTBT have thesame obligations, regardless ofwhether they possess nuclear
YOSHITOMO TANAKA
weapons. I do not think that India
Tanaka is President of Radiopress, Inc.
and Pakistan would lose their Positions previously held include Deputy
for European and Oceanic,
national dignity by joining the Director-General
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Consul General
CTBT. They would be in a similar in Sydney, Ambassador to Bangladesh, andof Japan to the UN Conference
situation to China, the United Ambassador
on Disarmament.
States and Russia in joining thetreaty, so they would in fact enhance their national dignity. They
will inevitably be subject to severe international sanctions if they
do not take appropriate measures for domestic reasons. We may
have to wait for a while for people in India and Pakistan to saywhich course they want their governments to take.

The stage of nuclear
development varies from country
to country. The uses of nuclear
weapons for political purpose may
also differ because nuclear states'
intentions and political situations
are not always same. I did notalways agree with the indefinite
extension of the NPT. One of its
harmful effects has alreadyappeared. The number of nuclear
states was declared at five by the
NPT on Jan. 1, 1967, and it is
impossible to take into account
RYUKICHI IMAI
other developments because of the
Imai is a professor at Kyorin University. He istreaty's rigid framework. By also a counselor at the Atomic Energy
a member of the board at thecontrast, the CTBT is rather Commission,
Institute for International Policy Studies, andambiguous and leaves room for a member of the governing board at theInternational Peace Researchnegotiation. I do not think that a Stockholm
Institute. Posts held previously include
country would take nuclear action Ambassador of Japan to the UN Conference
on Disarmament, and Ambassador to Mexico.
because it has joined the CTBT
while remaining outside the NPT. One way to resolve thatproblem is to make India and Pakistan join the CTBT. If the twocountries show signs of wishing to join, we should do all we canto support their membership.

By Omar Farouk
Every IPRA Conference is always Africa. Thus, the theme of thespecial in its own right. The 17th conference "meeting human needs in a
General Conference of the International cooperative world" underlined the need
Peace Research Association held in for global cooperation to tackle human
Durban, South Africa, from 23 to 26 problems in all their forms andJune 1998, was no exception. It was a manifestations.
very significant meeting for many
One obvious strength of thereasons. In its 34-year history this was conference was that it chose to look at
the first time that IPRA held its general peace in a comprehensive manner
conference on the African continent. without losing its focus on the practical
The choice of the venue of the aspects of the problem. Most of theconference at Durban, Kwazulu Natal papers and presentations complemented
Province in South Africa, was also each other in their emphasis on themeaningful because the first South urgency to address the issue of human
African Nobel Peace Laureate, Chief needs in an environment of cooperation.
Albert Luthuli was born here and that it Thus, the topics for discussion and
was also here that Mahatma Gandhi had debate at the plenary as well as thehis own experience of oppression when workshop, seminar and commission
he was thrown out of a train. Today sessions, while touching on a wide
many followers of Gandhi are to be spectrum of issues did not digress fromfound in this province and his teachings the main theme of the conference.
continue to draw reverence. At the Some of the major issues that wereheight of the civil conflict in South addressed at the plenary sessions of theAfrica, Kwazulu-Natal had been conference included the problems ofinfamously referred to as the killing North-South cooperation, globalization
fields of South Africa. There was so and its impact on the world community,much bloodshed and violence there in reform of international institutions,those years but ultimately it was the human rights, military versus humanpath of reconciliation and non-violence security, conflict resolution and futurethat triumphed in the province. challenges to peace research. In theKwazulu-Natal, like the rest of South Commission seminars, of which there
Africa, seems to be in the threshold of a were 13, a broader range of issues waspeaceful transformation towards the addressed. At the opening session, Dr.
goals of a stronger civil society. The Francis Deng, an African intellectual
relative peace and prosperity that now and former United Nations envoy on
prevail in the province and the country Displaced People, was given the honour
offer a glimmer of hope to a continent to give the keynote address on thestill seriously threatened by ethnic theme "Conflict Challenges at the close
conflict, political turmoil, war, poverty of the Twentieth Century".
and marginalization.
Dr. Deng identified four problem
It was without doubt a most areas which could be investigated andappropriate move by IPRA to hold this translated into policy, namely, 1)
eventful conference in Africa to re- conflict and conflict resolution, 2)
focus our attention to the whole range human rights, 3) democracy, and, 4)of neglected issues in peace research sustainable development. He eloquently
such as human needs, truth and argued that part of the African tragedy
reconciliation and practical lessons in is that its vision of a state has been
conflict management and to remind us externalized to the extent that instead ofof the bigger agenda that lie ahead as reconceptualising to meet the demands
we prepare to enter the next of the changing times, the leaders ofmillennium. The problems that Africans new states simply perpetuate colonial
countenance are in many ways not systems causing their governments todissimilar to the kind of problems that appear like a "foreign body". A major
persistently threaten the rest of the challenge facing African governments
human race albeit in their different therefore is how to manage diversities
forms.
in a creative way in order to involve
But perhaps more importantly, this people in a positive way in governance
IPRA conference, although held in and to re-apportion responsibilities in a
Africa, was actually not just about fair and equitable manner. His lucid

remarks on Africa are equally relevant
to many nations now in crisis across theglobe.
A major concern of IPRA at thisconference was to try to relate peace
research to the practical situation. The
idea of pure and esoteric research hasapparently given way to research
involving policy proposals and practicalsolutions to problems. The conference
clearly underlined the need for peace
research to produce immediate results.
The 17th IPRA General Conference
was also special because, for the firsttime in its history, the selection of
speakers in all the sessions was done insuch a way as to give greater prominence to the role of the participantsfrom the South. This was one IPRA
conference that gave a major platformto speakers from the non-westernworld. But yet this was also a very well
represented forum for peace researchers
from all over the world.
The venue for the 18th IPRA,
which is now scheduled for the year
2000 has yet to be decided but it seems
that Britain and Macedonia haveexpressed interest to host theconference. As it is going to be the lastconference in this millennium, its
significance cannot be underestimated.
Nevertheless, one thing which is almost
certain is that, like the 17th IPRA, the18th IPRA General Conference willalmost certainly be another special
event in the future peace researchcalendar.
Farouk is a professor at Faculty ofInternational Studies, Hiroshima City
University.

Four distinguished experts in disarmament and national security gave lectures at two workshops organized by
HPI. Following are reports on the lectures compiled by HPI researchers. The first lecture, titled "CTBT Negotiationand the Treaty's Problems," was given by Toshitaka Takeuchi,an associate professor at Osaka University of Foreign
Studies, on May 29. Three others, "Nuclear Abolition," by Prof. Tetsuya Umemoto of Shizuoka University; "The
Security of Non-nuclear States," by Shinichi Ogawa, a researcher at the National Institute for Defense Studies; and"Nuclear Disarmament and Japan's National Security," by Satoshi Morimoto, a researcher at Nomura ResearchInstitute, were given on July 1.

Difficulties of nuclear negotiations

Stepping stones toward disarmament

In his lecture, Prof. Takeuchi, who participated inComprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations in Geneva as a special
assistant to Japanese representatives at the Conference on
Disarmament, outlined important issues in negotiations and thestandpoints of participating nations.
India, for example, wanted to include the abolition of nuclear
weapons within a given time frame worked into the treaty. The
parties were also divided on what should be included in Article I of
the treaty, which specifies which activities are covered by the CTBT.
In a draft of the treaty, nuclear explosions of any type werebanned. China, however, insisted that "peaceful" nuclear explosions
be permitted. It agreed to review its stance on the issue in the futurein accordance with Article XIII of the CTBT.
Nonaligned nations called for a blanket ban on all forms of
nuclear testing. However, others pointed out that a ban on subcritical testing would require inspections of university laboratories
all over the world. Even if that were possible, there would still bedifficulties agreeing on a working definition of the word "testing."
It has been almost impossible to enforce the provisions of thetreaty because they require the ratification of the so-called P8―thenuclear states, the threshold states of India, Pakistan and Israel―and
36 other countries. The treaty is meaningless if it cannot prevent
nuclear testing by those countries. To remedy the situation, various
proposals were made, but then withdrawn, symbolizing the complex
nature of nuclear negotiations.
By Kazumi MizumotoWorkshop participants discussed the history of the debate
surrounding nuclear disarmament, the Indian and Pakistani challenge
to the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime―which places P5 nations at
an advantage―and new approaches to the disarmament issue.
There was general agreement that the current NPT regime
should remain in place, and that efforts should be made to fully
implement the CTBT. There were also calls for immediate
negotiations on the cutting off of fissile material and the banning of
nuclear test data.
The workshop concluded that the P5 nations should be
persuaded to unilaterally make no-first-use declarations and promote
reduction of nuclear weapons to enhance security itself.
To achieve the above aims, the workshop agreed that moreneeded to be done to create an international environment conducive
to disarmament. This would involve P5 nations and Japan doing
more than before to maintain stability in Asia.
By Ikuko Togo

HPI Announces Research Themes
The Hiroshima Peace Institute will concentrate on the following four research themes during the three years following its
establishment in April: The research will be conducted by project teams comprising several researchers and experts from aroundthe world.
The themes are as follows:
1. The processes of abolishing nuclear weapons.
2. The easing of tensions, the formulation of confidence-building measures and disarmament in Northeast Asia.
3. United Nations peacekeeping operations and humanitarian assistance.
4. A feasibility study into setting up a disarmament database.
The institute has also identified the following eight themes it intends to tackle in the future:
1. The verification of disarmament.
2. An all-round approach for preventive diplomacy in regional conflicts.
3. The construction of peace after conflicts.
4. The formation of public opinion for peace.
5. Human rights and peace.
6. The problems of small arms and light weapons, and ammunition registration systems.
7. The problems of democratization in the post-Cold War era.
8. International research on damage caused by nuclear radiation.
The results of the research will be made public through workshops, lectures and symposiums. At a press conference held at
Hiroshima City Hall on July 17, HPI President Yasushi Akashi said the institute should strive to come up with concrete proposals
through its research. "We would like to produce the kinds of results that will be taken up by politicians when making policy," hesaid.

Following areare brief
brief introductions
introductions toto threethree researchers
researchers currently
currently
Hello from HPI Following
workingattheworking at the Hiroshima
Hiroshima Peace
Peace Institute
Institute

Kazumi
Mizumoto

Ikuko Togo

Nobumasa
Akiyama

Lecturer

Associate
Professor

Research
Associate

Specializes in security studies and U.S.
Japan relations. He joined
the Asahi Shimbun newspaper after graduating from the
Department of Politics in the Law Faculty ofTokyo University in 1981. He took a Master's
degree at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy in 1989 before becoming thenewspaper's Los Angeles bureau chief. Born in
Hiroshima in 1957.

Specializes in theinternational politics ofEast Asia and U.S. foreign
policy (particularly human rights
diplomacy). Studied at Waseda University and the
Graduate School of Law and Politics at Tokyo
University, where she was also a Ph.D. candidate.
Togo was a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholar graduate
student in the Department of Government at theGraduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard
University (1996-1997). Born in Hiroshima.

"Since studying the issues of A-bomb victims
and Korean survivors of the bombing ofHiroshima during my high school days, I havecome to regard the A-bomb and the need for peace
as my life's work. After watching Hiroshima fromthe outside for 20 years, I feel I have finally
returned to the starting point.""A peaceful world where human rights arerespected and nuclear weapons a thing of the past is
the ultimate ideal for all human beings. I will
endeavor through my research to find ways ofachieving that ideal while bearing in mind therealities of international society."◆1 April
Hiroshima Peace Institute opening
ceremony◆30 April
1st hearing for research themes◆1 MayPresident Akashi meets withrepresentatives of 7 organizations ofA-bomb survivors◆15 May
2nd hearing for research themes◆26 May
Inauguration lecture by President Akashi"Towards the 21stCentury; Challenge to
Peace and Japanese Role," sponsored by
Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation(HPCF) and HPI◆27 May
3rd and 4th hearings for research themes◆29 MayWorkshop◆4 JunePresident Akashi attends the 4th UN
Symposium on North East Asia in
Kanazawa, sponsored by UN Associationof Japan◆11 June
President Akashi attends the Committee on
Foreign Affairs and Defense of the Houseof Councilors as a witness◆14 June
Hiroshima Peace Institute Advisory
meeting◆16〜23 June
President Akashi and Mizumoto visit theUnited States"In order to enhance the process of nuclear
disarmament, it is essential to create and maintainan international environment in which containment
strategies involving nuclear arms are neither
rational nor effective. I would like to conduct
policy-oriented research into Japan's role increating such an environment. I would also like toexplore confidence-building measures throughcooperation in the areas of nuclear management
and the sharing of information on nuclear policies,
as well as in the resolution of regional conflicts."

Time for a new approach to human rights in Asia
By Ikuko Togo
The issue of human rights in Asia has been watched withkeen interest by the world since the suppression of democracy
activists by the Burmese military junta in 1988 and the
Tiananmen Square massacre in China in 1989.
After Burma and China were subjected to sanctions andseverely criticized by many Western nations, some Asian
countries, particularly those belonging to the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN), argued that the Western
approach to human rights was unsuitable for Asia, and that foreconomic development to continue, some forms of oppression
might be inevitable. They insisted that the region had its own
set of "Asian values." Former Singapore Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew became one of the most outspoken advocates ofAsian values in the fields of human rights and economic
development.
During the Seminar to Commemorate the 50th
Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
held Aug. 15, attention focused on the contribution to thedebate of the so-called Singapore School. During discussions,advocates of the school's ideas acknowledged that they had
been too defensive in their attitude toward Western critics, andagreed that more should be done to promote multicultural
human rights.
About 300 people, including students, members of themedia and foreign ambassadors, attended the seminar. While
recognizing diversity of cultures and stages of development in
Asia, many participants agreed that more effort should bemade to promote human rights in the region.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Copyright 1998 HPI All right reserved
Volume 1, Number 1 October 1998

●Issued bySpecializes in international relations andJapanese foreign policy.
Studied at Hitotsubashi
University, Cornell University
and Oxford University. The theme of his researchis the relationship between economic cooperation
and Japan's post-Cold War contribution tointernational society. Born in Fuji, Shizuoka
Prefecture, in 1967.

Yasushi Akashi President of Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University
Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg 12 thFloor 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku , HIroshima 730-0051 JAPAN◆1 JulyWorkshop◆9 July
Hiroshima Peace Institute Opening
Symposium "World Disarmament Issues;stTowards the 21 Century," at Hiroshima
International Conference Center◆17 July
Research theme announcement at press
conference◆4 AugustPresident Akashi attends in theInternational Symposium and Lectures"Our Role in Eliminating Nuclear
Weapons" sponsored by Asahi Shimbun,
Hiroshima Ctiy and HPCF
◆15 August
President Akashi and Togo attend"Seminar to Commemorate the 50 th
Anniversary of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights" in Singapore organizedby the United Nations Association ofSingapore◆30-31 August
1st Conference on Urgent Actions on
Nuclear Non-Proliferation andDisarmament◆8〜17 September
President Akashi visits the United States◆25 September
President Akashi attends the ResearchCommittee on International Affairs of theHouse of Councilors as a witness●Printed by

Seikosha Ltd.
2-3-8 Honkawa-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima

TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/ E-mail：office-peace＠peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp