Vol.13 No.2 November 2010

International Symposium on Nuclear Abolition
Attempting to identify future tasks for citizens
following the recent NPT Review Conference

Kazumi Mizumoto

On July 31, 2010, the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun co-organized an international
symposium held at the International Conference Center Hiroshima. The title of the symposium was “What Should We Do to Advance Nuclear Abolition?:
Reflections on the 2010 NPT Review Conference.” The guests included Hideo Tsuchiyama, a former President of Nagasaki University; Douglas Lummis,a political scientist resident in Okinawa; Sugok Shin, a Korean human resource development consultant resident in Japan; Yumi Kanazaki, a correspondent
for the Hiroshima Peace Media Center; and Sung Chull Kim and Robert Jacobs, Professor and Associate Professor of HPI, respectively. The symposium
opened with keynote speeches from the first two guests, followed by presentations from the remaining panelists and a question-and-answer session with an
Vice-President of HPI
earnest audience of approximately 300 people.

PartⅠ

Keynote Speeches

From Obama’s Initiative to a Nuclear Weapons Convention
Hideo Tsuchiyama, Former President of Nagasaki University

I would like to discuss three points today.
The first is related to the outcome of the recent NPT Review Conference.
On the plus side, the Conference pushed forward what was agreed at the 2000
Review Conference, instead of ending in rupture, as occurred in 2005. However,the Final Document adopted on this occasion contains a number of rather
abstract wordings, which is rather disappointing. For example, the Main
Committee I of the Conference which focuses on nuclear disarmament
discussed the possible achievement of nuclear abolition within a specified
timeframe and a proposal was put forward that the UN Secretary-General
would call an international conference in 2014. Nevertheless, this proposal
was strongly rejected by the nuclear weapon states, and instead it was decided
that those states will make progress reports on their commitment to nuclear
disarmament at the NPT Preparatory Committee which is also scheduled
for 2014. We, ordinary citizens, should not be satisfied with the obscurewordings in the Final Document and should continue to strongly demand
the acceleration of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapon states.
The second point is the feasibility of nuclear abolition based on
Obama’s nuclear vision. While his efforts to actualize his vision can beobserved in the speech he gave in Prague last year and in the new Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreed between the US and Russia, it isstill doubtful whether nuclear abolition can really be achieved based only
on Obama’s vision. In reality, strengthening the NPT system, the idea

Nuclear Weapons as Terror
An important task for a political scientist like me is “to correct terms.”
British novelist and critic George Orwell once said that when a politician
speaks words of obscurity, he is hiding something. Today I would like todiscuss what the word “terrorism” really means.
Nine years ago the US declared the “War on Terrorism,” but that useof the terms is not correct. Then eight years ago, a friend of mine and I put
up an advertisement for a prize competition in a US magazine. It would
award $1,000 to those who could give a clear definition of “terrorism,”satisfying the following two conditions: 1) characteristics of terrorism as
military strategy to be clarified; 2) US military strategy not to be includedin the definition. We received 52 entries, but not one of them was correct
because, once you attempt to define the term correctly, you cannot do it
without mentioning US military strategy.
Then what is terrorism? The meaning of the term “terror” is derived
from the Reign of Terror at the time of the French Revolution that trampled
the rule of law. During the 19th century, anti-governmental forces
implemented terrorist attacks. The point here is that the term “terrorism”
originally referred to “state terrorism.”
One characteristic of terrorism is disregard for the law. In war, it
specifically refers to disregard of the law of war which prohibits the deliberate
killing of non-combatant civilians. Terrorists, for example, throw explosives

which Obama has been advocating, is not sufficient tosettle the nuclear issues of non-NPT states such as
Israel, India and Pakistan. At the same time, while
Obama is calling for reducing the role of nuclear
weapons, he is also stating that the US will maintainits “nuclear umbrella” for its allies such as Japan, and keep its own nuclear
weapons unless other nuclear powers abandon their nuclear weapons.
As warnings are heard against the possibility of nuclear materials
falling into the hands of terrorists, the only way to achieve nuclear abolition
by complementing Obama’s vision and incorporating non-NPT states into
the international system is through the early adoption of a Nuclear
Weapons Convention (NWC). This is the third point I want to make today.
At the moment, the idea of an NWC is opposed by four of the nuclear
weapon states: the US, Russia, the UK and France. This opposition needs
to be broken down. Meanwhile, the International Commission on Nuclear
Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), which is a joint initiative of
the Japanese and Australian governments, announced in a 2009 report thatstrong efforts to advocate for an NWC were essential. We need to demandthat the Japanese government takes a leading role in this. In order to realize
the Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone advocated by [then]Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada, powerful voices from citizens
need to reach the Japanese government and then the nuclear weapon states.
Douglas Lummis, Political Scientist and Author

into a restaurant and the whole of society gets disturbed
for fear of unpredictable, indiscriminate killing. Terrorist
attacks are thus an “effective” tactic to cause great fear
among the masses without carrying out mass killings.
In relation to this, airstrikes which were madepossible by the invention of aircraft are an interestingcase. Before aircraft came into practical use, four standpoints existed
regarding airstrikes: 1) only enemy forces can be attacked; 2) arsenals canalso be attacked; 3) the economic infrastructure can also be attacked; and
4) indiscriminate attacks on private facilities and civilians are also
permitted. The last standpoint was first advocated by the Italian general
Giulio Douhet who regarded this stance as the “most humanitarian” way tobring a war to an early end. This idea was expanded into indiscriminate
bombings during WWII, and in fact the indiscriminate bombing on Dresdenby the British Royal Air Force during that very war was once referred to by
the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as an “act of terror.”In the same manner, the atomic bombings in Japan were the severest
terrorist attacks, and the “nuclear umbrella” is a means of containment byterrorist menace, thus a “terrorist umbrella.” If the US wants to reduce thenumber of terrorist attacks by fighting a “War on Terrorism,” it should startfrom abandoning its own terrorist strategy with nuclear weapons and missiles.

Contents
International Symposium on Nuclear Abolition
Kazumi Mizumoto ……………… 1-3＜Reflections from Hiroshima＞Vol. 15 ………………………… 4-5
Looking Back Upon the 9th World Conference
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Makoto Kitanishi)

Hibakusha, Myself, and Hiroshima City University
Taeko Kiriya ……………………… 6
HPI Research Project ……………………………………………… 7
New Publications from HPI ………………………………………… 7
Diary………………………………………………………………… 8
Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

1

Part Ⅱ

Panel Presentations“Nuclear Weapons Can Be Eliminated”

Americans and Nuclear Weapons
at a Time of Declining Empire

Yumi Kanazaki, Correspondent for the Hiroshima
Peace Media Center, Chugoku Shimbun

Observing the latest NPT Review Conference as a correspondent,
when it closed with the adoption of the Final Document, I thought tomyself “How will the people of Hiroshima perceive this?” as there
were no specific proposals towards nuclear abolition left in theDocument. During the Conference, I had a strong sense that thenuclear weapon states really hated having a framework imposed onthem by other states. On the other hand, the reference to an NWC was
included in the Final Document, despite objections from all the
nuclear weapon states except China, which would not have beenpossible without the efforts of NGOs and citizens from around theworld and particularly from Hiroshima.
A key factor throughout the latest Review Conference was the“power of citizens.” A room at the UN Headquarters was made into a
center for NGOs where government representatives of different
countries came to exchange opinions with NGO members. At asession for NGOs during the first week of the Conference, Sumiteru
Taniguchi, a hibakusha from Nagasaki, presented a testimony of his
own experience, following the speeches made by the Mayors ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. His presentation received long applause
which lasted for over a minute. The idea of an NWC was backed bycountries that have established cooperative relations with civil society
such as Australia, Norway and Switzerland, and I believe that theirbacking of an NWC was due to the fact that their philosophies camecloser to that of Hiroshima. In contrast, the Japanese government has
been passive, saying that it is “too early” to develop an NWC, and for
the Final Document it only made proposals that were “easy tocompromise on” from the beginning. Therefore Japan merely exposed
its limited capability as a country which “relies on the nuclear weaponsof the US.” Changing this passive stance requires a concerted callfrom citizens to resist nuclear weapons. During the Review
Conference, the Swiss government presented a report which points
out that nuclear deterrence has been overestimated. The Japanese
government seems still to be obsessed with the “nuclear fantasy.”
Throughout the Final Document there are signs of efforts to resist
the opposition of the nuclear weapon states. While the Final Document
is indeed a product of compromise, a source close to the UN Department
of Disarmament Affairs commented that it is not only the palpableoutcome that has meaning; equally important is how many seeds havebeen sown for the future. A large number of Japanese citizens flew all
the way to New York to witness the proceedings of the Conference.
We need to water and take good care of these precious seeds.

Part Ⅲ

Robert Jacobs, Associate Professor at HPI

For the last 100 years the US has been a leader in international
politics. But concerning nuclear issues, the US has been leading in
the wrong direction. The first nation to build the bomb, the US has
primarily led us into a world filled with nuclear weapons and along and dangerous nuclear arms race. Americans feel empoweredby nuclear weapons. We first met the bomb as a savior weaponthat seemed to end WWII in a few days. During the Cold War, we
felt that these weapons kept the Soviet Union from attacking us.
So what will the role of the US be in the movement towards
nuclear abolition? In my opinion, that role will be as a follower
and not a leader. In fact, I believe that the role of the US will bethat of an obstacle.
Nuclear weapons are part of the military economy in the US,
resulting in billions of dollars of spending each year. It is my
opinion that as long as we in the anti-nuclear community talkabout the immorality of nuclear weapons, those in the weaponsproducing complex are happy. They don’t really argue against us
and say that the weapons are moral. That is not why they support
nuclear weapons; they support nuclear weapons because of themoney. They don’t want the US to use nuclear weapons; they justwant us to buy them. This is what I think we need to understand:nuclear weapons are part of the profiteering that is at the center ofAmerican militarism. We need to fight to abolish nuclear arsenals,
but more directly, we need to attack militarism.
Like all empires before it, only when the American empire
begins to crumble and collapse will it rethink its relationship withthe other nations of the world. So while I do believe that we willhear more rhetoric from President Obama about nuclear abolition,
we will not see concrete steps being taken in that direction. Obama
has proven so far that he is a leader who avoids confrontation andseeks compromise. In this case, compromise means not taking on
the US military and military contractors. For the US to play a keyrole in nuclear abolition, we must look to the American people todemand abolition, and not American politicians. Change in the US,
as in most countries, comes from the bottom up. We are the people
who can make change. We must force our leaders to follow.

Panel Discussion and Q&A

In the panel discussion the keynote speakers and panelists answered some questions from the audience which were presented
by the chair, Kazumi Mizumoto, on behalf of the audience.
― Will you explain a bit more about your idea of a retreat from the“nuclear umbrella”?
Tsuchiyama: A retreat from the “nuclear umbrella” will be brought
about if we realize a nuclear-free Northeast Asia covering Japanand the Korean Peninsula, and obtain pledges of no nuclear
attack from the US, Russia and China.
― What about an NWC? How can it be realized?
Tsuchiyama: There is an organization called the Parliamentary
Network for Nuclear Disarmament (PNND) which is a networkof lawmakers from around the world who are opposed to nuclear
weapons. Collaboration between PNND and NGOs to lobby thegovernments of the nuclear weapon states can lead to therealization of an NWC.
― Why doesn’t the US government apologize for the atomic bombings?
Jacobs: The US apologizing for the atomic bombings will mean
not only acknowledging its moral responsibility, but alsoquestioning the reason for possessing nuclear weapons and thereliability of the weapons, both today and in the future.
Lummis: Apologizing for the bombings will mean the promise thatthey will never do the same again. But the US cannot promise it,
2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.2, November 2010

therefore they cannot apologize.
― Are there any calls for an apology amongst US citizens?
Jacobs: There are various opinions within the US, including doubts
about the atomic bombings and the possession of nuclear
weapons. In the city where I used to live, there is an annual
memorial held on August 6, and some people there think that the
war crimes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be
remembered. But such opinions are not yet reflected in the wholeof American society.
― How may President Obama’s leadership be assessed?
Kanazaki: It depends on whether Obama’s leadership actuallyrefers to the President himself, the Congress, or the US as awhole. The President is making efforts towards, for example, theratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(CTBT), but it faces strong opposition in the Senate. Instead ofrushing to criticize Obama, people should be aware of the factthat he may be replaced by a hard-line Republican president.
Lummis: The US Congress does not want to ratify a treaty which
may limit US sovereignty or rights. Even the ratification of the
Genocide Convention took a few decades. US citizens need toThe NPT, North Korea, and Japan:
Overcoming Contradictions
Sung Chull Kim, Professor at HPI

The Peace Movement in Japan:
A Zainichi Korean Woman’s Perspective
Sugok Shin,
Human Resource Development Consultant

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has lately been advocating
the creation of cooperative relations among non-nuclear weapon
states, particularly between 11 countries including Japan, Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, Germany and South Korea. If such a network
could be created, it could exert significant pressure on the nuclear
weapon states, and I believe that Japan is in a position to achieve this.
At the same time, however, the Japanese government has also
been revealing the limits of its non-proliferation policy. Japan isseeking to conclude a civil nuclear energy deal with India, a country
which itself is a nuclear weapon state, having conducted nuclear tests
while not being party to either the NPT or the CTBT. Although Japanis demanding India include a statement that it will not conduct any
further nuclear tests, India has rejected this on the basis that it has
already declared its own moratorium.
Concluding a Japanese-Indian nuclear energy deal will mean thatJapan is effectively overlooking nuclear proliferation, as the US did in
its own civilian nuclear agreement with India. What is more alarmingis that as the US-Indian agreement contained no prohibition on India
to conduct further nuclear tests, it is likely that Japan will follow asimilar example. Such an approach may present a further bad example
to those countries that are also attempting to possess nuclear weapons,particularly North Korea.
An additional problem is the excessive production of plutonium.
Japan’s nuclear reprocessing facilities, the operations of which entail
the production of plutonium, may bring many problems. With asmuch as 250 tons of plutonium available for civilian use around theworld, when the construction of the massive reprocessing facility in
Aomori is completed and plutonium is produced there on a significant
scale, it could well serve as a psychological driving force towards anintensification of what is already a competitive arms race in East Asia.
The US, South Korea and Canada are not conducting nuclear
reprocessing and many European countries have abandoned it.
Therefore excessive production of plutonium is certainly a factor that
could threaten the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
To move towards nuclear non-proliferation, the Japanese
government needs to be consistent in its stance and apply toughstandards to its own use of nuclear energy. It is only when Japan
displays such a stance that more countries will be motivated towards
joining the cooperative network of non-nuclear weapon states which
Japan has been advocating.

My nationality is kankoku-jin (South Korean), but I call myself
cho-sen-jin (an ethnic Korean, though more commonly called zainichi
which literally refers to any foreigners resident in Japan) because inJapanese society the two terms are used in completely different
contexts, and the latter more often than not comes under attack. Actually
I have a Japanese name, Setsuko Niiyama, which does mean a lot tome, but still I call myself by my more easily-attackable Korean name.
When I first heard the title of the present symposium “What Should
We Do to Advance Nuclear Abolition?,” I wondered whether I was
included in this “we.” The reason being, I can sense a fear of the “threat
from the North,” and a feeling of discrimination against and disturbanceabout ethnic Koreans behind Japan’s desire to possess the apparatus ofviolence that are called nuclear weapons. It is a fact that Japanese society
gets into a panic when it encounters ethnic Koreans. The suspicious
money flow from ethnic Korean-run pachinko parlors, the Taepodong
missile incidents, and the abduction issues ---- all these provokedviolence and harassment against ethnic Koreans. And whenever thishappens, I always think that it is not that Japan never wants to fight a
war again, but that it never wants to be a country that loses a war again.
Japan provoked the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars at
the expense of the Korean Peninsula, and ended up becoming a loser
in WWII. During the process of post-WWII reconstruction, this war
loser introduced the alien registration system following an Imperial
decree, and the Japanese Constitution excluded ethnic Koreans frombasic rights. We were also excluded from the recently revised special
measures law on the disputed Northern Territories between Russia
and Japan. It has been 100 years since the annexation of Korea, but
nothing has really changed in Japan’s treatment of ethnic Koreans.
Every time major disasters occur such as the Great Kanto- Earthquake
in 1923, ethnic Koreans are attacked and that energy is directed
towards Japan’s armament efforts.
When I have an occasion to give a talk, I am often asked whether
I like Japan, and I see in such words an implicit message: “Shut up if
you like Japan, go back to the Peninsula if you don’t!” With regard toethnic Koreans, Japanese people cannot unhesitatingly label
themselves as “victims” since they have failed to save the ethnic
minority within their country. They are supposed to be “victims who
were made into aggressors,” but they have only faced the past fromthe standpoint of mere being “victims.”
The same can be said for citizens’ movements. People call forthe preservation of the Japanese Constitution, but actually that very
Constitution disregards ethnic Koreans. The struggle for nuclear
abolition is a struggle against US war-mongering ideology. However,the US military with its many nuclear weapons is also strong becauseof the gender equality and diversity in its personnel. In contrast, theleaders of peace movements in Japan are always men, and there is no
initiative on the part of women or collaboration with minorities. In
such an environment, I believe that cooperative struggle for nuclear
abolition will never be possible.

change this passive stance on the part of Congress.
― Do NGOs and citizens’ movements within the US that are callingfor nuclear abolition have any influence over the government at
all?
Jacobs: Their influence is not strong enough to change thegovernment. NGOs are overshadowed within the two-party
system of the Republican and the Democratic Parties.
― Is there any compensation from the government for hibakushawithin the US such as the soldiers who participated in nuclear
tests or residents who have been exposed to the nuclear “deathash” while living near nuclear test sites?
Jacobs: Ninety-eight percent of US hibakusha receive nocompensation at all.
― There are many questions from the audience for Ms. Shin: “Yourtalk was simply eye-opening,” “How do you view Hiroshima?,”“What actions can women take?,” and so on.
Shin: It is important to go hand in hand with people with whom you
can have mutual understanding, however slight. The role ofwomen is “how well to bring up men who will not be an obstacle
in women’s lives.” There is no need for the Japanese people oftoday to apologize for being “aggressors.” The later generationsof the past victims and aggressors do not need to shoulder the
responsibility of their former generations; what they should think

about is how not to repeat the past and how to solve the tragedies
in front of them now.
Hiroshima is a town which has lost its voice. A sea of feelings
and thoughts have been repressed, and these feelings andthoughts have been ignored in society or by the state, and havethen been lost. This is the suffering of Hiroshima.
― Does the voice of Hiroshima actually reach the world? What isnecessary to have this voice heard?
Kim: If the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with their sufferings
from the atomic bombings share their pains with the Asianpeople who have experienced their own sufferings imposed by
Japanese imperialism, then the actions of Hiroshima andNagasaki will be truly universal.

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

3

＜Reflections from Hiroshima＞Vol. 15

Makoto Kitanishi, Professor Emeritus at Hiroshima University

By Motofumi Asai,
President of HPI

Looking Back Upon the 9th World Conference
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs
The present interview was conducted with Makoto Kitanishi,
Professor Emeritus of Hiroshima University, who was deeply
involved in the management of the ninth World Conference
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs in 1963. The following ispart of the long interview in which he talked about his “onlypersonal perspectives with fading memory,” although he “prepared
beforehand by consulting some old records.”

1. Prologue
I was full of rebellious spirit since I was a little kid. I chose the
Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine in 1943 in order to get
out of military service of injustice and strict discipline, as medical
students at that time received the longest exemption from military
service. But after the war, I returned to my hometown where myparents lived and enrolled in the Faculty of Law, Kyushu
University, in 1948.
During my time at Kyushu University, I belonged to the classof Professor Tsugumaro Imanaka and was at the same time deeply
involved in student movements, then in 1949 I joined the JapaneseCommunist Party (JCP). My decision to join the Party came fromthree thoughts. First I had always felt guilty, having got out ofmilitary service by a cunning maneuver. Second, I felt a sense of
admiration for the Party with its courageous figures such as Kyu- ichi
Tokuda and Yoshio Shiga who had held on to an anti-war ideology
even during their wartime experience of imprisonment. And lastly I
was convinced that war must be prevented not by individual efforts
but by collective efforts, with the JCP at the center of thismovement.
I finished university in 1951 and started working for Ube
Industries, Ltd. where I was highly motivated to work for therenaissance of labor movements after the Red Scare. But I could
not get along with my comrades in their activities, so in 1952,
recommended by Prof. Imanaka, I returned to a graduate school of
Kyushu University as a special research trainee and his “final pupil,”thus entirely placing myself in the academic world. The firstconnection I had with Hiroshima University was when Prof. Imanaka,
who had now moved there, asked me to come to Hiroshima andbecome a research assistant in November 1954. There was anorganization called the Society of University Professors to Protect
Peace and Academic Freedom which was established in 1953 under
Prof. Imanaka and Prof. Kiyoshi Sakuma of Hiroshima University
as Director and Secretary-General of the organization respectively.
I joined the organization upon moving to Hiroshima and assisted withits management. It was in August of the following year, 1955, that I
worked as a member of staff for the first World Conference Against
A&H Bombs, and this experience caused me to become deeply
involved in the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs(Gensuikyo). In fact, one of the most active parties in the anti-A andH bombs movement in Hiroshima up to the ninth World Conference
was the members of the Society of University Professors.

4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.2, November 2010

2. The 9th World Conference Against A&H Bombs, and Hiroshima
There was a concern about whether the ninth World Conference
Against A&H Bombs in 1963 would really take place due to thesevere antagonism that had developed between the faction ofsocialists and labor union members on one side and communists on
the other since 1961. In the end it was decided on August 4, the day
before the conference, that Gensuikyo, the nation-wide organization
which was in charge of the annual World Conference, would give
carte blanche to its Hiroshima prefectural chapter (Hiroshima
Gensuikyo). It was not that Hiroshima Gensuikyo exerted its
influence to take control of the conference.
The first World Conference was a success, at least partly, as aresult of a call from the people of Hiroshima, and it marked thetenth anniversary of the nation-wide signature-collecting campaign
against A and H bombs, which first started in 1954. In fact, thehibakusha issue had not been a significant concern until it was
decided during the first conference that support for hibakusha
would be one of the two pillars of the entire anti-A and H bombs
movement, with the other being opposition to A and H bombs. Thisdecision should not have been possible without the strong initiativeof the people of Hiroshima. Nevertheless, Hiroshima Gensuikyo
had never been given any important role in organizing theconference since 1956, and its influence within the overall anti-A
and H bombs movement remained rather limited.
An explanation of the carte blanche of the 1963 World Conference
to Hiroshima Gensuikyo needs to take into account the complicatedcircumstances of that time. Hiroshima Gensuikyo predominantly
consisted of members of the Socialist Democratic Party Japan(SDPJ) and their sympathizers, therefore the SDPJ members and thesocialist-leaning General Council of Trade Unions of Japan (Sohyo),both of whom consisted of the majority of the members of the national
Gensuikyo, expected that the carte blanche would give them greater
influence over the conference. The decision was then taken by amajority vote. Meanwhile, the executive bureau of the national
Gensuikyo consisted mainly of capable Communists such as Kasei
Yoshida, and this together with the abovementioned circumstances
led to the eventual breakdown of the 1963 conference.
Hiroshima Gensuikyo had six board members including Ichiro
Moritaki (a professor at Hiroshima University), Kiyoshi Sakuma,
and Manso- Hamamoto (an SDPJ member and the Chairperson of
the Hiroshima Prefectural Trades Union Congress), and GeneralSecretary Mitsuru Ito- (a professor at Hiroshima University and aleading figure of the SDPJ). Therefore, the executive members ofHiroshima Gensuikyo predominantly consisted of, as said earlier,those inclined towards the socialist SDPJ and Sohyo, and thenumber of communists which included Sakuma (though not a JCP
member) and myself (Deputy Secretary-General of Hiroshima
Gensuikyo) was quite limited.
During the process of organizing the conference, Hiroshima
Gensuikyo faced a most difficult task, that of developing the
keynote speech. We held discussions and chose Moritaki, Sakuma

and Ito- to be the drafters. However, as Ito- was not involved in theactual drafting, the speech was developed by the other two whowere both hibakusha themselves.
The two drafters presented a draft and a final version at joint
meetings of Hiroshima Gensuikyo and the conference-organizing
group on August 1 and 5 respectively. However, we did not haveenough time for thorough discussion. Regarding the question of
whose views the speech should represent, some insisted that itshould represent the stance of the national Gensuikyo while others
stressed that it was merely the personal perspective of Moritaki. It
was in the end settled in an obscure manner that it would be “akeynote speech developed upon a proposal from Hiroshima
Gensuikyo” (hereafter the “Moritaki report”).
The two points of argument in the Moritaki report at the
aforementioned joint meetings concerned the controversial issues
that existed between the socialist and communist factions. The firstwas the assessment of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (hereafter
PTBT) that the US, the UK and the USSR had initialed only on
July 25. While the socialist faction together with Hiroshima City
welcomed the treaty as a step forward towards nuclear abolition, thecommunist faction opposed it as they argued that it would permit thenuclear possession by the three superpowers and become an obstacleon the road to nuclear abolition. The other point of argument was
the so-called “any states” dispute which had been an unresolved
issue since 1961. In this case, the socialist faction advocated astance to oppose nuclear tests conducted by any state, whereas thecommunist faction demanded that the issue not be put on the table
during the World Conference as they regarded the nuclear tests
carried out by socialist states as defensive measures, and thus weredifferent in nature from those conducted by the US. In the resultant
Moritaki report, the PTBT was assessed in a positive way and the“any states” position adopted regarding nuclear tests, therefore thereport was more inclined towards the socialist faction.
Regarding the assessment of the PTBT, I’m still convinced thatthe perspective of the communist faction was right. As to the “anystates” problem, on the other hand, I once wrote in an academic
journal: Within Hiroshima Gensuikyo, there was a common
understanding that our approach to the “any states” problem should
be different from that of the national Gensuikyo, SDPJ or JCP. But
there was no substantial conclusion as to what form that approachshould take (Hiroshima Ho-gaku, December 1978). In fact theMoritaki report states: The Japanese people, especially those whohave experienced the atomic tragedies in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or
at Bikini Atoll, could not help crying out for absolute rejection of
all nuclear tests or nuclear armament of all states, simply becauseof their outrage at, and grief about, the atomic bombings.
That the report says “all nuclear tests … of all states” and uses
the past tense “the Japanese people … could not help crying out”
implies Moritaki’s heart-rending efforts to indicate Hiroshima
Gensuikyo’s stance that it would not align itself with either the
SDPJ or the JCP. When I first heard the report, I thought it waswell thought-out and also better than the hard, inflexible stancetaken by the socialist faction which made the issue too crucial aproblem and employed an exclusionist stance towards those taking
different stances from their own. Nevertheless, to say that theJapanese people “could not” help crying out only implies that it was
something that happened “in the past”; therefore it cannot escapefrom the criticism that it by no means suggests that Hiroshima
Gensuikyo had established its own philosophy different from that of
the two opposing factions, as had been hoped.
Today I still have no answer myself regarding what Hiroshima
Gensuikyo’s own philosophy should be. Even at that time, I kept
telling myself that, as a non-hibakusha, I should not place myself ina leading position in the anti-A and H bombs movement.
Developing a keynote speech is no exception to this rule as I
thought that a person who had had no personal experience of not
only the atomic bombing but even conventional air raids should not
overvalue one’s capacity and get involved in the process. After all,since moving to Hiroshima and meeting many hibakusha I had
developed a sense of awe towards them. Now the problem is that I
have no solution ready to the question that such a passive, reserved
stance leaves nothing but a vacuum of philosophy when all the
hibakusha have passed away.

3. Epilogue
I would like to speak about two episodes that occurred after the
split of the anti-A and H bombs movement following the ninth
World Conference in 1963.
The breakdown of the World Conference was caused by the
SDPJ leaving the organization following competition between the
SDPJ and the JCP for supporters. At the Standing Committee ofHiroshima Gensuikyo held during the World Conference, it was
decided that the management of the conference should be returnedto the hands of the national Gensuikyo. However, just after the closingof the conference on August 7, Moritaki and Ito-, who did not attend
the closing ceremony, held a press conference at their own discretionand delivered a statement which contained three main points. The
first was that they acknowledged that control of the conference had
been assumed by a single political party, despite people’s hopes forreconciliation. The second was that the spirit contained in the Moritaki
report had been emasculated. And the third was that in order to avoid
the collapse of the organization, they, as the leaders of Hiroshima
Gensuikyo, were determined to rebuild their movement in line with
the Moritaki report which expressed the stance to oppose any
nuclear tests conducted by any states and to highly value the PTBT.
Hiroshima Gensuikyo on August 10 approved the Moritaki-Itostatement by a majority vote. Those who opposed this approval,
including me, held a conference to rebuild Hiroshima Gensuikyo on
June 7 of the following year with the aim of preserving andpressing forward with the tradition of Gensuikyo’s movement. At
the conference, we appointed executive members: Naokichi Suzuki(Professor Emeritus at Hiroshima University) as President, Sakuma
as Director, Noboru Miyake (a JCP member and the Vice-Chair of
the Hiroshima Prefectural Trades Union Congress) as SecretaryGeneral, and me as Deputy Secretary-General. Thus, another
Hiroshima Gensuikyo was established in the Hiroshima Prefecture,using exactly the same name as the original organization.
This chain of pitiful events resulted in losing a significant
degree of the trust and hope of hibakusha and the people of Hiroshima
Prefecture and City. I felt guilty as one of the parties involved in theproceedings, therefore I left the JCP and Hiroshima Gensuikyo in
1965 and decided to devote myself to the reconciliation of the two
Hiroshima Gensuikyos, and also the SDPJ and the JCP.
Another story that I want to relate is what happened to theSociety of University Professors to Protect Peace and Academic
Freedom. With a majority of the members having distanced
themselves from both the SDPJ and the JCP, the split of the twopolitical groups during the World Conference led to paralysis within
the Society. It still remains paralyzed to this day, having lost its
influence or voice in the overall peace movement in Hiroshima,including the anti-A and H bombs movement. This is a true causeof repentance and grief. For this too, I am one of the parties whobears responsibility.
(Interviewed on August 26, 2010)

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

5Hibakusha, Myself,and Hiroshima City University
Taeko Kiriya
It has been eight years since I commenced my Master’scourse at Hiroshima City University. Since I moved to there,
my impression of Hiroshima had been that it was a citywhich achieved a dramatic post-war reconstruction.
However, during my interviews with hibakusha on the postwar history of Hiroshima some of the interviewees
confessed their “discomfort” with the “reconstruction”
process of the city. In fact, poet Sadako Kurihara andnovelist Yoko Ota, both of whom were hibakusha
themselves, expressed in their works this “discomfort” asseen through the eyes of hibakusha during their everyday
lives. The existing literature does not cast much light on
hibakusha’s perspectives on the “reconstruction” under the
US occupation during the 1940s when they were in thegreatest need of physical, mental and economic support: thenarrative of “reconstruction” was related, without any
historical account, as if the “miracle of reconstruction” was aspontaneous phenomenon. I thought that to question thisone-sided perspective on the “reconstruction” might lead me
to face a problem that I have never succeeded in escaping
from ---- the problem of a deep gulf of understanding existing
between hibakusha and non-hibakusha.
Born and raised in Yokohama, when I was ten I wastold by my father that my mother’s family had experienced
the atomic bombing in Nagasaki. My mother, though not a
hibakusha herself, was not able to say a word when asked
about the event but only shed tears. My father confessed that
his marriage to her once met with a strong opposition fromhis family simply because of her tragic background. An
enormous fear of early death engulfed this ten-year-old girl.
This fear continued to grow and I only wished to escapefrom it forever.
The subject of the atomic bombing had long been deep
in my heart until I decided to face up to it after the time
when, during high school, I found my grandmother’s olddiary and met hibakusha in person in Hiroshima andNagasaki.
After receiving my Bachelor’s degree with mydissertation focusing on Nagasaki, I began a Master’s at
Hiroshima City University. This decision was strongly
opposed by my mother who said that facing up to the topic
would be too much for me. In contrast to the hesitation in
confessing my inner struggle in Yokohama, I believed thatmoving to Hiroshima would bring me some change. Upon

6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.2, November 2010

arriving in Hiroshima, I was enthusiastic about talking to oldpeople in the town while walking or jogging. However, I
thought that a rain of questions from a stranger might havemade the hibakusha upset. ---- So I felt heartache asking them
about the atomic bombing.
Reading memoirs written by hibakusha stored at thePeace Memorial Museum or local libraries devastated mewith the cruel experiences that hibakusha had faced and themonstrous power of the bomb depicted there; yet I was
always invigorated by hibakusha themselves who had gone
through such harsh lives. A hibakusha once confided herexperiences to this perplexed student by a river, and herwords gave me sincere encouragement. When I lost
confidence about whether I could keep up with mypostgraduate studies, I suddenly remembered an A-bombed
doctor from Nagasaki, Tatsuichiro Akizuki, whose book had
once given me encouragement, so I took a night bus toNagasaki to see him. I could not speak to him as he was
bedridden, however, I still got inspiration from being withhim. It was fortunate that on that very visit I was able to see
his wife, Sugako, with whom I stayed in touch for years andwho always welcomed me with a heart-warming smile every
time I visited them. These episodes are only a few of many
wonderful encounters with hibakusha that I have had both inHiroshima and Nagasaki.
Having been caught up in a feeling of hopelessness forthe future that only seemed to portend a dark, nuclear age,the lives of hibakusha and their existence ---- which I believe
represent their “philosophy” in themselves ---- gave me aglimmer of hope for our survival through the nuclear age.
This can also be found in the works of so-called “A-bomb
literature” by hibakusha writers such as Tamiki Hara,
Sankichi Toge, Yoko Ota and Sadako Kurihara.
I always feel great appreciation for the teaching staff at
Hiroshima City University who with patience helped me
expand my inner thoughts into academic research wheneverI felt overwhelmed by my emotions and thought that I could
no longer work on my thesis. I would not be here without
my two years at HCU, and it is simply a pleasure to be backin Hiroshima, while I also feel a strong sense of
responsibility. The goal of my career as a researcher is toestablish a link between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and tobuild a bridge between hibakusha and non-hibakusha.
Assistant Professor at HPI

HPI Research ProjectState Violence and Regime Transitionin East Asia
The project from 2009 to 2010, which concluded with the final
workshop held in Seoul on August 5-6, was funded by theHiroshima City Government (2009) and Hiroshima City University(2010). The project involved a comparative study of the use ofviolence in eight countries. Two conceptual papers were presented
and two discussants spoke at the Seoul workshop, as well as at thepreceding one held in Hong Kong in December 2009. The countries
and incidents chosen for the project were as follows:
1. China: Tiananmen Incident (1989)
2. Japan: Okinawa Incident (1945)
3. Korea: Kwangju Incident (1980)
4. Burma/Myanmar: Suppression of democracy movement (1988)
5. Cambodia: Khmer Rouge mass killings (1975-1978)
6. Indonesia: Anti-Communist Party violence (1965-1968)
7. The Philippines: Mendiola Bridge violence (1987)
8. Thailand: Red drum murders (1972-1976)
The aim of the project was first to establish the conditions underwhich violence against civilians occurred. The literature in politicalscience generally identifies the use of state violence during two
specific episodes in state evolution. The first is during the earlystages of state formation. This is when countries are consolidating
their territories and peoples, when violence is used instrumentally to
subjugate peoples and spaces. The second stage at which state
violence can occur is when states undergo regime transition to adifferent government or type of government. This form of violence,
which is usually referred to as “exemplary violence” in the literature,is meant to demonstrate state power and eliminate enemies, whileserving as a lesson to dissenters. Then over time, citizens will
become accustomed to the new rules and conform accordingly.
The important central questions that the project sought toanswer were as follows:
1. Under what conditions does state violence occur?
2. What accounts for the differences in the state’s use of violence?
3. Is the use of violence ever justified and if so, why?
4. How does a state reconcile itself to the use of violence afterwards?
5. If there is no attempt at reconciliation, why is this the case?
6. What are the common forms of reconciliation?
7. When are punitive justice and retributive justice used against theperpetrators of violence?
8. Does political transition from authoritarian to democratic formsof governance facilitate the addressing of state violence?

The findings of the most recent workshop and the preceding one in
Hong Kong thus far are that the most common examples of state
violence occurred during the Cold War and when authoritarianregimes were in power. In fact, the Okinawan case stands out as the
only time when state violence was used against civilians in a stateof war. In the most sustained and widespread use of state violence
that resulted in the largest number of deaths (the cases of Cambodia
and Indonesia), there was a change of government as well as of therules of governance. The Khmer Rouge, which drew its strengthfrom the countryside, was unused to urban areas and therefore
vacated them, while carrying out a reign of terror against educatedpeople, artisans, urban dwellers and eventually its own cadres. The
Indonesian military, which was responsible for the violence against
the Communists, acted in response to an abortive coup attempt that
had led to the assassination of six senior military commanders.
There have been two attempts at reconciling previous cases ofstate violence in East Asia. The first of these took place in South
Korea when a democratizing government acknowledged themilitary’s role in the Kwangju Incident, indicted military officials,
and offered compensation to the victims, while erecting a memorial
in their honor. In the second case in Cambodia, where the United
Nations is currently conducting a tribunal against the main leadersof the Khmer Rouge, a punitive approach to justice is being used. A
general survey of the other cases indicates that democratization
does not always lead to reconciliation between the state and thevictims of state violence. This is especially the case if the incident
occurred a long time ago and there is no sustained pressure on thegovernment to address it. On occasion, reconciliation is avoided
simply in order to not disturb political calm or create tensions in
response to episodes of violence. In fact, there was generalagreement among the participants at the workshop that Asian
countries tend to lean towards retributive rather than punitive
justice. The choice of this form of justice was attributed to a greaterneed to maintain social and political calm rather than upset the
fabric of society based on past conflicts. Western countries, on theother hand, seem to prefer the utilization of punitive justice whichis meant to accord some punishment to the perpetrators of state
violence in order to achieve justice.
The findings of the workshop will be published internationallyin an edited book in order to publicize the research findings widely.
In this way other scholars will be able to utilize the knowledge
created and to build further upon it. The conveners of the workshop
are thankful to the other organizations that have provided
supplementary funding and administrative assistance for the
project. These are the Asian Political and International Studies
Association (APISA), the City University of Hong Kong (CUHK),
the Korean Institute for National Unification (KINU), and theKonrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) of Germany.
Narayanan Ganesan, Professor at HPI

New Publications from HPI
New publications are now available. Both are the products of HPI research projects that were reported in back issues of Hiroshima Research News.

Northeast Asia’s Difficult
Past: Essays in Collective
MemoryInternational Relations inSoutheast Asia: Between
Bilateralism and Multilateralism

Edited by Mikyoung Kim andBarry Schwartz

Edited by Narayanan Ganesan andRamses Amer

(Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)(Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2010)(Based on the 2005-2007 project “Politics ofRegret: Collective Memory in Northeast
Asia” reported in the July 2007 issue.)(Based on the 2007-2009 project “Bilateralism
versus Multilateralism in Southeast Asia” reported in
the March 2009 issue.)

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

7July 1 ‒ October 31, 2010
◆Jul. 9Mikyoung Kim attends a welcome reception for the mock UN
General Assembly meetings held at Pukyong National University in Pusan,
South Korea.
◆Jul. 10HPI President Motofumi Asai attends as a panelist Section I“The Current Situation of Japan-DPRK Relations and Issues” of the 9thInternational Symposium organized by the Ritsumeikan Center for KoreanStudies, held in Kyoto.
◆Jul. 11
Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture “Current Nuclear Issues: How
to Pass on Hiroshima” at a peace study meeting organized by the Hiroshima
Chapter of the AFS Japan Association Inc., held at the Hiroshima Youth
Center.
◆Jul. 13
Mikyoung Kim gives lecture “Border Man Genre: A Narrative
Analysis of North Korean Settlers in the South” at the Graduate School ofInternational Studies, Yonsei University, in Seoul, South Korea.
◆Jul. 17
Asai gives lecture “What to Do Towards Nuclear Abolition
Under a New Political Climate” at a public meeting organized by theHiroshima Association for a Non-Nuclear Government, held at theHiroshima Green Arena. ▽Mizumoto gives speech “Evaluation of the
NPT Review Conference: Toward Nuclear Abolition in 2020” at the 2nd
peace study meeting of the Hiroshima branch of New Komeito.
◆Jul. 18
Asai gives lecture “US Post-Cold War World Policy” at the
19th regular meeting of the Kansai Peace Study Group, held in Kyoto.
◆Jul. 19
Mikyoung Kim gives lecture “Hiroshima Memory and Japanese
Pacifism” at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Beppu, Oita Prefecture.
◆Jul. 22
Mizumoto gives lecture “Current World Situation of Nuclear
Weapons and Hiroshima” at the “Peace Education” Course of Hiroshima
International University.
◆Jul. 23
Mikyoung Kim attends the 24th Research Seminar on the
History Between Japan and Korea, with the theme of the Dokdo/Takeshima
issues, held at Hiroshima University.
◆Jul. 24
Asai gives lecture “What is Needed for Nuclear Abolition” at
the Anti-A and H Bombs Conference Commemorating the 65th
Anniversary of the Atomic Bombings, held in Kochi.
◆Jul. 25
Asai gives lecture “The Future Peace Movement” at a public
meeting organized by the Hiroshima Prefectural Bloc of the Japan
Teacher’s Union, held in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Jul. 26
Asai gives lecture “The World Situation Surrounding Nuclear
Abolition” at a study meeting of the “No Nuke Network from Hiroshima
High School and Junior High School,” held at the Hiroshima Youth Center.
◆Jul. 28
Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima and Peace” for a training
course for journalists organized by Hiroshima City, held at the International
Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 3Kazumi Mizumoto and Robert Jacobs give lectures“Hiroshima and Peace” and “Atomic Bombs in America” respectively, at
the Peace Seminar 2010 of Bowling Green State University, hosted by theInternational Center of Hiroshima Jogakuin University. ▽Mikyoung Kim
gives lecture “Hiroshima Memory Debates and the Japanese Pacifist
Movement” at Hiroshima Prefectural Women’s University.
◆Aug. 5
Asai participates in a working session of the 2010 World
Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, held in Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 5-6 Narayanan Ganesan and Sung Chull Kim host the workshop“State Violence and Political Transition in East Asia” and present
conceptual and comparative papers, in Seoul, South Korea.
◆Aug. 8-9 Ganesan presents paper “The Democratic Party of Japan’s
Impact on Japanese Foreign Policy” at the workshop “Japan Under the DPJ:
Regime Shifts and Regional Implications,” held in Manila, the Philippines.
◆Aug. 12 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 1st meeting of the
Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Aug. 14 Asai attends as a keynote speaker and panelist the 15th
anniversary memorial meeting of the Peace Constitution League, held inTokyo.
◆Aug. 23-Sep. 3 Ganesan trains NGO workers on public policy
formulation and research methods in Yangon, Myanmar.
◆Aug. 25-27
Mizumoto gives paper “Nuclear Dangers andDisarmament/Non-proliferation Education” during the 22nd UN Conference
on Disarmament Issues organized by the United Nations Regional Centre
for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, held in Saitama.
◆Aug. 26 Jacobs presents paper “Nuclear Doomsday and the Origins of
the Whole Earth” at the 35th Society for the Social Studies of Science
Conference, held at the University of Tokyo, in Tokyo.
◆Sep. 2
Mikyoung Kim chairs a session “The State and People’s
Movements” during the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Political

Science Association, held in Washington, D.C., US, during which she isalso elected as a co-editor of North Korean Review by the Association for
Korean Political Studies for the 2011-2012 period.
◆Sep. 4
Asai gives lecture to a student group of the Minka Economics
Study Group, Ritsumeikan University, held at the Aki Ward Community
Cultural Center.
◆Sep. 11 Asai gives lecture “Rethinking the Japan-US Security Treaty”
at the Peace Friendship Festival held in Kochi.
◆Sep. 12 Asai attends a memorial service at the cenotaph commemorating
Korean forced labor at the Kobo Dam in Miyoshi, Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Sep. 15 Asai gives lecture “Rethinking the Japan-US Security Treaty”
at the 14th general assembly of the National Network for US Base Issues,
held in Izunokuni, Shizuoka Prefecture.
◆Sep. 16 Mizumoto gives lecture “How to Live in the International Age:
Pursuing Nuclear Abolition and International Contributions from an ABombed City” at a seminar on human rights, held at Hatsukaichi-Nishi
High School, in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Sep. 18 Taeko Kiriya presents paper “Postwar Reconstruction throughthe Eyes of Hibakusha” at a conference organized by the Trans-border
Research Group, the Japan Association of International Relations, held in
Fukuoka.
◆Sep. 19 Asai gives lecture “Thinking about Hiroshima: Nuclear
Abolition and Article 9” to a group from the Kyoto Association for a NonNuclear Government, held at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Sep. 23 Asai attends as an advisor a discussion session of the “No
Nuke Network from Hiroshima High School and Junior High School,” heldat the Hiroshima Youth Center.
◆Sep. 25 Mizumoto gives lecture on the atomic bombs and nuclear
issues at the 2nd lecture of the Consortium Kanmon, held in Kitakyushu.
◆Sep. 27 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 2nd meeting of the
Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Sep. 28 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “Japan’s Anti-Nuclear Pacifism
and the Security Reality” at the Jeju Peace Institute, in Jeju, South Korea.
◆Sep. 30 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “ODA, Public Diplomacy and
Korea’s National Strategies for the 21st Century” at an international
conference organized by the Korean Association of Area Studies, held atYonsei University in Seoul, South Korea.
◆Oct. 1
Professor Mizumoto is appointed Vice-President of HPI.
▽Jacobs presents paper “Architectures of Annihilation: The Logic of
Building Japanese Houses at the Nevada Test Site” at the conference “Cold
War Cultures,” held at the University of Texas at Austin, in Texas, US.
◆Oct. 2
Mizumoto gives lecture on the atomic bombs and nuclear
issues at the 3rd lecture of the Consortium Kanmon, held in Kitakyushu.
◆Oct. 7
Mizumoto gives lecture “Hibakusha and the Danger of
Nuclear Weapons” at an accompanying lecture for the exhibition “TheLight: Portraits of the ‘Hibakusha’”, held at the Brunei Gallery of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of London.
◆Oct. 10-16
Mizumoto and Ganesan conduct benchmarking on Peace
Studies at the Rotary Peace Center at Chulalongkorn Univeristy in
Bangkok, Thailand, and the Center for Security and Peace Studies at
Gadjah Madah University in Jogjakarta, Indonesia.
◆Oct. 16 Asai gives lecture “Japan’s Nuclear Policy (Reliance on US
Nuclear Deterrence) and the Three Non-Nuclear Principles (Public
Sentiments)” at the 6th lecture of the Consortium Kanmon, held in Kitakyushu.
◆Oct. 17 Asai attends as an advisor a working session “The Making of a‘War-Mongering Country’ and US Bases, Local Governments and thePeople” during the 10th national meeting for study on local governanceorganized by the National Federation of Prefectural and Municipal
Workers’ Unions, held in Okayama.
◆Oct. 27 Asai gives lecture “The Senkaku/Daoyu Issue and Sino-Japanese
Relations” at a public meeting organized by the Rengo News Agency, heldin Tokyo. ▽Mizumoto gives lecture “How to Live in the International
Age: Pursuing Nuclear Abolition and International Contributions from an
A-Bombed City” at a seminar for international understanding, held at
Hatsukaichi High School, in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Oct. 29 Mizumoto gives lecture “Contribution to International Peace”
at a training program for Level III Certified Nursing Administratorsorganized by the Hiroshima Nursing Association. ▽Hitoshi Nagai presents
paper “The Philippine War Crimes Trials and Their Aftermath, 1947-1953”
at the annual convention of the Japan Association of International
Relations, held in Sapporo.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.2（November 25, 2010）Copyright 2010 HPI, All rights reserved●Published by●Printed by

8

Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University（Editor: Yuko Takahashi）
Ote-machi Heiwa Bldg. F9/10, 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan
Phone: +81（0）82 544 7570
Fax: +81（0）82 544 7573
E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.2, November 2010