Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

By Yuki Tanaka
Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) held an international symposium “Hiroshima and thePeace Constitution: Building on Our Past” at Hiroshima International Conference Centeron July 30, 2005. The symposium is featured in the first four pages of the newsletter: thesummary of the symposium (p.1) and speech summaries by four panelists (pp.2-3).

General Tomoyuki Yamashita won the sobriquet “Tiger of Malaya” dueto the swift victory of his military campaign in the Malay Peninsula andSingapore’s successful capture in February 1942. However, immediately
after the surrender to U.S. forces in the Philippines in June 1945,
Yamashita, as commander of all Japanese forces in the Philippines, wasarrested as a war criminal, charged with responsibility for atrocities
committed against civilians in Manila by Japanese forces under his
command. He was hanged in Manila on February 23, 1946.
His last words, dictated to Buddhist prison chaplain Shokaku
Morita, shortly before he was hanged, can be summarized in thefollowing points:
1) The Japanese people’s inability to make independent moral
judgments was the fundamental cause of war crimes, and this led people
in Asia and elsewhere to distrust Japan. The Japanese should nurture
their ability to make moral judgments in order to carry out their duties.
2) The only way to defend people against nuclear weapons is toestablish nations all over the world that would never contemplate the useof such weapons. Scientific knowledge should be used for peacefulpurposes to free human beings from misery and poverty.
3) The driving force of peace is in the heart of women. Japanesewomen should utilize their newly gained freedom effectively andappropriately and give full play to their unique feminine ability inbuilding peace.
4) It is necessary to educate Japanese youth to be able to live
independently, cope with various circumstances, love peace, appreciatecooperation with others and maintain a strong will to contribute to
mankind when they grow up. (Yamashita particularly emphasized theimportance of motherhood in educating children.)
It is remarkable that half of his final words were addressed to
women. Here we can discern Yamashita’s hope that the new Japanesesociety would be built on the principles of women, not those of men,
specifically power and violence. In hindsight it can be said that theunderlying philosophy of Yamashita’s last message preceded Japan’s
new Peace Constitution, which was promulgated eight months after his
execution. In this message we also find the prototype of what Professor
Carol Gluck calls the “heroic narrative,” i.e., “the postwar mission forpeace borne by the Japanese as the sole victims of atomic bombing.”
In considering the numerous social problems that Japan is currently
facing, including the “oblivion to the war memory,” I believe we areurged to revitalize this prototype of the “heroic narrative” and to truly
cultivate our moral judgment. In particular we must seriously
contemplate how we can stimulate young people’s imagination forbuilding an “open society” based on peaceful human relationships.
An increasing number of Japanese politicians now assert that thePeace Constitution should be amended as it no longer reflects Japan’s
real situation. It must be noted, however, that the Constitution is not

CONTENTSHPI International Symposium on July 30, 2005...
“Hiroshima and the Peace Constitution: Building on Our Past” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1〜3
Unsolved Issues of Hiroshima:...
The Sixty-First Year and Beyond by Kazumi Mizumoto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4〜5
German Pacifism in the 1920s by Makiko Takemoto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appraisal of the On-going Six-Party Talks by Sung Chull Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
HPI Research Forum...
Thoughts on How to Revitalize Popular Peace Movements by Makoto Oda . . . . . . . .6〜7...
Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7〜8
Hello from HPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

formulated in order to reflect existing conditions of our society, but toserve as an ideal norm for rectifying faults and building a better society.
If the reality does not mirror Article 9 of the Constitution, it is our moral
responsibility as Japanese citizens to reform the reality in accordancewith the letter of this article specifying that “land, sea, and air forces, aswell as other war potential, will never be maintained,” and that we“forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or
use of force as means of settling international disputes.”
As Professor Shoichi Koseki rightly points out, the fact that weJapanese live under this article means that we also have a special
responsibility in our relationships with foreign nations. Article 9 is ourpledge and the manifestation of our determination that we will neveragain conduct war and victimize the people of the Asia-Pacific. Yet, asProfessor Koseki argues, we have not sufficiently contemplated Article 9
in the context of the relationship between our past abhorrent militaryconducts and the unbearable war experiences our Asian neighbors
consequently endured.
It is of course appropriate to amend democratic constitution based
upon the will of the nation. Yet, suggestions given by our nationalist
politicians to amend the Peace Constitution have so far been advanced inconjunction with the remilitarization of Japan and expansion of Japanesemilitary capability under the U.S. global military strategy. Indeed this isfar from the will of the whole nation.
It is often said that Article 9 does not negate Japan’s right to defend
itself, an argument for legitimizing the possession of “Self-Defense
Forces.” It seems we tend to assume that “self-defense” must always
utilize military forces. It is crystal-clear from our recent experience ofterrorist attacks in New York, London, Egypt, and Iraq, that militaryforces are utterly incapable of protecting innocent citizens or building“self-defense” against terrorism. As Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy warns
us, we are now even facing the grave danger of terrorist attacks using
nuclear weapons.
Instead, we should contemplate the idea of “self-defense as acultural movement.” It is now urgent to establish a pacific culture, inwhich concern for others spontaneously emanates, thus removing hatredand antagonism between groups of people. A society based on thiscompassionate culture will naturally protect not just itself but also thelives and cultures of others. Building this gentle and open society will inturn lead to a veritable “self-defense.” Only through this kind of cultural
movement will it be possible to achieve the aim described in the prefaceof our Constitution “to occupy an honored place in an internationalsociety striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment oftyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from theearth.”As Professor Motofumi Asai correctly remarks, the citizens ofHiroshima bear the heavy and urgent responsibility of generating new
ideas to integrate the spirit of the Peace Constitution with the voice ofanti-nuclear movements. I believe that both this spirit and Hiroshima’s
desire for eternal peace can be summarized in one phrase: “no one must
be killed; one must not kill anyone.” We are living in an extremely
vulnerable society where our loved ones can be annihilated in a second
by a terrorist attack. Yet, U.S., British and Japanese governments areconstantly trying to counterattack and defeat the terrorists with lethal
weapons capable of killing large numbers of people, thus creating a
vicious circle of violence and carnage.
With the world in this chaotic state, it is the time for us not simply torekindle appreciation of the spirit of our Peace Constitution and the spiritof Hiroshima aspiring to eternal peace, but also to endeavor to utilize
these in our actual peace movements. We need to consider how we, as a
citizen of Hiroshima, could carry out this “moral responsibility.”−１−

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

Symposium(July 30)

Hiroshima and the Peace Constitution: Building on Our Past

The Natural History of Atomic Memory:

Article 9 of Japan's Constitution:

Legacies for Our TimeIts Historical Process and the People's Responsibility

By Carol Gluck

By Shoichi Koseki

Sixty years after the end of the conflict,war memory everywhere is now“fading” [fuka]in the face of politicaland generational change. To meet thedual challenge of transgenerational
Carol Gluck is professor at Columbia remembrance and responsibility, we
University, U.S.
need to understand how public memory
She has a Ph.D. from Columbia University
and specializes in Japanese history from the operates and how war stories havelate 19th century to the present.
changed, or not changed, over time.
The
ThePast
Past: Most war stories began as heroic narratives, tales told
in stark black and white, with villains and victims clearly marked,
focused on the nation and national people who were seen as victims
of war, not only in Japan but in many countries. Japan’s heroic
narrative included the “experience as the sole victims of atomic
bombings, which gave Japanese a mission for peace in the postwar
world.” Later this powerful but simple story was expanded throughthe efforts of activists in civil society. As a result, the humanexperiences of the hibakusha (and eventually of non-Japanese
victims as well) were included in the story. And the atomic
destruction of 1945 was closely tied to contemporary pacifist
politics and the anti-nuclear movement. For decades, atomic
memory had real impact both within Japan and around the world.
The
ThePresent
Prese : “Bomb consciousness” has ebbed significantly inthe past several years. In the United States nuclear weapons havebecome just another “weapon of mass destruction,” and the original
U.S. story __ “the atomic bombs ended the war and saved American
lives” __ now justifies U.S. unilateralism and military buildup.
Meanwhile Japan has seen the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
fade, as the state sets out in the name of “international contribution”
to project a new military profile and shift the boundaries ofcollective defense.
The Future
The
Future: Effective war memory must now do three things:
First, transcend the precincts of local experience. This means
carrying the experience of Hiroshima and hibakusha to the world,
not as an abstract message for peace but as the concrete humanhorror visited on ordinary people when nations make war. Second,broaden the frame of historical reference. This means, for example,
including civilian bombings from the destruction of Dresden to theso-called collateral damage in Iraq and the land mines that continue
to tear off the limbs of children around the world. Third, escape theconfines of national memory. This means recounting not only one’s
own experience but that of all the victims and perpetrators, all theactions and outcomes of total war.
For we must keep war in mind if
we expect people to hope, and act, forpeace. To maintain the resolution for“no more war” embodied in Article 9
requires more than debate overconstitutional revision. It requires newpolicies and renewed determination to
make the story of past war serve thecause of future peace. The true legacy ofHiroshima thus lies in our collective
capacity to “remember the future.”

Since adopting the postwar Constitution, the Japanese people have consistently opposed its revision, especiallyregarding Article 9, which renounces
war. This opposition has been steadfast,
Shoichi Koseki is professor at Dokkyo despite the ruling party’s repeated efUniversity, Japan.
forts to make revision of the Constitution
He has a Master of Law degree fromWaseda University and specializes in thea policy goal. Such opposition may behistory of Japan's Constitution.
attributable to “war weariness” among
the Japanese people based on painful personal experiences of WorldWar II. In those days, most Japanese were not aware of Japan’s war
responsibility and the damage inflicted on people in other countries.
Thus, the Japanese people have accepted Article 9, but considering the reasons why Article 9 was included in the JapaneseConstitution, we find a gap between their support for Article 9 andthe real intention behind its inclusion in the Constitution.
The Japanese Constitution was drafted under the supervision ofGeneral MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. It
was his opinion that proposed amendments to the existing Meiji
Constitution by the Japanese government could not satisfy the allied
nations. Therefore, he had General Headquarters (GHQ) draft
revisions to include three principles: 1) the Emperor as figurehead, 2)
the renunciation of war, and 3) the abolition of feudalism. It isthought that MacArthur’s inclusion of the renunciation of war was
closely linked to his decision to retain the Emperor system, more
precisely, to his desire not to bring war crime charges against theShowa Emperor.
MacArthur intended to avoid legal action against the Showa
Emperor and retain the Emperor system. Therefore, he concluded
that it was necessary to formally demonstrate that the Showa
Emperor voluntarily led the Japanese government to revise theJapanese Constitution and renounce all war and military force.
Without such a demonstration, he believed it would be quite difficult
to obtain international agreement, especially among the Allies, toretain the Emperor system. Knowing that in the post-World War II
era military air superiority would be paramount, MacArthur thought
it necessary to establish military bases in Okinawa for Japan’s
mainland security. He thus decided to separate Okinawa politicallyfrom mainland Japan.
In fact, the Japanese Constitution was an indispensable passport
allowing Japan’s return to international society after World War II.
Article 9 pledges to neighboring Asian peoples and to the world thatJapan will never again
participate in war. We have a
responsibility to retain Article
9, with recognition that the
militarization of Okinawa andnon-militarization of mainland
Japan are two sides of the same
coin.

Visit HPI’s web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−２−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

Symposium(July 30)

Hiroshima and the Peace Constitution: Building on Our Past

Agenda for Hiroshima:
Addressing the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons and the Peace Constitution

Is the Islamic Bomb Now Reality?

By Motofumi Asai

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

The Pacific War proceeded in tandem

Those who want a more peaceful world

with America’s development of atomic

today are forced to understand andweapons, which culminated in their use

confront both a militant American

against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For

imperialism and a violent Islamicnearly four years, the U.S. gradually put

radicalism. The future of nuclear weapons

Motofumi Asai is president ofHiroshima Peace Institute, Japan.

Japan on the defensive in the Pacific War

He worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
from 1963 to 1990. He specializes ininternational relations.

while developing atomic bombs, and did
not hesitate to drop atomic bombs to snuff

Pervez Hoodbhoy is professor at
Quaid-e-Asam University, Pakistan.
He has a Ph.D. in physics from
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

is also being determined by their clash,which becomes bloodier by the day.
The United States is the dominantmilitary power in the world. With 12 battle carrier groups and hundreds

out Japanese resistance.
The U.S. began its development of atomic bombs in Octoberof military bases spread around the world, the U.S. will spend $455

1941, and the Manhattan project was in full swing by June of the nextbillion on its armed forces in 2005, with another $82 billion marked foryear. Japan had already been put on the defensive late that year, andthe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is more than the total sum spent

the Showa Emperor had no prospect for victory from as early as

by the next 32 countries down the list, and is close to 50% of total

September 1943. But the Emperor clung desperately to the war, hopingworld military spending. In George W. Bush’s America, nuclear

in vain that Japan might gain an opportunity to make peace without

weapons have regained their salience and are now viewed as weapons

complete surrender after striking the enemy with a powerful blow. It

for fighting wars.

was only a day before the end of the battle of Okinawa in June 1945

On the other side of the divide, anger in Muslim countries at thethat he finally abandoned such hope and gave instructions to work for

United States has never been higher than today. The invasion andthe end of the war.

occupation of Afghanistan and then Iraq, the torture and abuse in Abu

The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26, 1945, soon after

Ghraib and Guantanamo by American interrogators, and instances ofthe successful atomic bomb test on July 16, 1945. The atomic

Quran desecration have added to already existing resentments. The

bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to a death sentence,oldest and bitterest of these is, of course, the unequivocal U.S. military,

and Japan had no option other than an unconditional surrender. The
Potsdam Declaration required Japan to disengage itself from militarism

economic and political support for Israeli occupation of Arab lands.
The desire for an atomic weapon to seek vengeance __ utterly

and be reborn as a democratic nation with full respect for humanimmoral, foolish and suicidal though it is __ is not limited to extremists.

rights. As Japan resisted these requirements, thus frustrating the GHQ,The Islamic bomb is an increasingly popular concept. However, thethe GHQ eventually decided to prepare a draft constitution embodying

danger of a nuclear conflict with the United States, and the West more

the principles of the Declaration. This is how the Peace Constitution

broadly, comes not from Muslim states, but from radicalized

was born. The point I am confirming here is that the Peace

individuals within these states.

Constitution exists as a catastrophic result of the atomic bombings.

The clash of two fundamentalisms comes during an epoch ofAmid today’s calls for the “revision” of the Peace Constitution, we

history when the making of atomic weapons, especially crude ones, has

have an urgent need to formulate persuasive new arguments forbecome vastly simpler than ever before. The physics of nuclear

upholding the Peace Constitution, which enshrines the painful

explosions can be readily taught to graduate students. By stealing fissile

memories of the atomic bombings.

materials present in the thousands of ex-Soviet bombs marked for dis-Japan’s movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons had its

assembly, or even a tiny fraction of the vast amounts of highly enriched

origin in the anti-A-and H-bomb signature campaign, which spreaduranium and separated plutonium present in research reactors andrapidly in the wake of the Lucky Dragon Incident in 1954. Due to its

storage sites the world over, it is unnecessary to go through complex

overemphasis on preserving political neutrality, the movement went so

processes for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing.

far as to disconnect itself from legitimate calls for preserving the Peace
Constitution. This was a grave error in light of the clear connection
between the atomic bombings and the birth of the Peace Constitution,

Today, the United States rightly lives in fear of the bomb it firstbrought into the world and tried to use to establish its dominance.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cruel demonstrations of raw power.
But more generally, the growth of technology has far outstripped

as described above.
The nuclear abolition campaign without embodiment in the Peace

humanity’s ability to use it wisely. Our best chance of survival lies inConstitution is doomed to lack persuasiveness internationally. If thecreating taboos against nuclear weapons, much as already exist for

Peace Constitution is “revised” and Japan becomes “an outright pro-chemical and biological weapons, and to work rapidly toward their

war nation,” the international society will be justified in not taking the

global elimination. To survive, the civilized world will have to subdue

Japanese seriously, including Hiroshima’s appeal for nuclear abolition.

the twin ogres of American imperialism and Islamic radicalism.

In this regard, Hiroshima bears the extremely heavy responsibility ofbuilding a conceptual framework that combines the lively wisdom of
the Peace Constitution with the lofty spirit of nuclear abolition.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

−３−

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

Unsolved Issues of Hiroshima:
The Sixty-First Year and Beyond
A New Challenge for Atomic Bomb Survivors
On August 6, 2005, 60 years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, three
atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki visited Tinian Island, apart of the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, toparticipate in an Annual Peace Ceremony. At the end of World War II, theisland was used as a base by the U.S. for the B-29 bombers that dropped theatomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Two years ago, an organizing
committee including city of Tinian representatives, began hosting the Annual
Peace Ceremony to commemorate the historic bombing. This year, thecommittee officially invited atomic bomb survivors for the first time. From
Hiroshima, two members of the “Association of the Teachers Conveying
Atomic Bomb Experience,” Mr. Keijiro Matsushima and Mr. Fumiaki
Kajiya, attended the Ceremony.
Another ceremony on Tinian organized for U.S. veterans took place on
the same day, and although the atomic bomb survivors were not invited, they
had some opportunities to talk with the veterans informally. The dialogue
revealed a big gap between the two groups regarding the justifiability of theatomic bombings, but both sides generally agreed that nuclear weapons
should never be used again.
During their visit to Tinian, the survivors visited an airfield originallyconstructed by the Imperial Japanese Navy but taken by U.S. forces,
ironically becoming the base from which B-29 bombers took off for theirtargets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also visited sites related to battles
fought during the U.S. landing operation in July 1944. A total of 8,000
Japanese soldiers and 3,500 civilians refused to surrender and lost their lives.
(The visit of atomic bomb survivors to Tinian was broadcast on NHK AM
radio channel 1 on August 6, 2005; program entitled “Another Peace
Ceremony: August 6th on Tinian, formerly a U.S. B-29 bomber base.” For
more details of the construction of the airfield and battles between Imperial
Japanese Navy and U.S. forces, please refer to Daihonei ni misuterareta
rakuen (A Paradise Abandoned by Japan’s Supreme Military Command:
Tinian, Island of Mass Suicide and Atomic Bombs) by Masao Inoue, Sakurai
Shoten, 2001).
Most of the atomic bomb survivors still suffer from psychologicaltrauma, which they rarely mention. Some even exhibit intense emotional
reactions on seeing a replica of atomic bomb. To stand on the runway fromwhich the bomber took off must have felt like a scalpel opening the wound intheir hearts. I personally admire the spirit of the three atomic survivors who
dared to visit Tinian. At the same time, I believe that their act suggests
important tasks Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to undertake.
Unsolved Issues in the Year of 60th Anniversary
On the A-bomb memorial day in the year of the 60th anniversary, many
citizens in Hiroshima share a sense of crisis. There are many unsolved issues
here, but the following are the most important: (1) how to communicate theatomic bomb experience to the next generation, and (2) how to deal with thedifferences in memories and interpretations in some foreign nations
regarding the atomic bombing. No immediate solution is obvious, but I
would like to present my personal suggestions.
< Communicating the Atomic Bomb Experience >The aging of the atomic bomb survivors who can describe their own
experiences has been regarded as the most urgent problem. However, theaging of witnesses is not peculiar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Everyhistorical event is subject to the passage of time. Therefore, the question is,
who is responsible for conveying the historical experience of atomic
bombing? Is it only survivors with direct experience? We have numerous
accounts, recordings of testimony, paintings, films, and other materials on
individual atomic bomb experience. However, most of this information isscattered and fragmented.

Furthermore, many questions regarding the atomic bombings havenever been answered, and new facts are still being discovered. Many of theunsolved mysteries can be investigated only by mobilizing scientifictechniques and academic expertise derived from medicine, physics, history,
international relations, sociology, psychology, the humanities, and so on.
Therefore, we need to concentrate more on finding better ways to solve
outstanding issues related to the atomic bombings than on simply deploring
the passage of time.
< Different Interpretations >Another important issue is the different views, memories, and interpretationsof the atomic bombing that hold sway abroad and annoy the people ofHiroshima. One example is the majority view of the U.S., which claims that“the decision to drop the atomic bomb was right” and “the atomic bombs
saved a million lives.” Another example is the opinion, shared by Asianneighbors China, South Korea, and North Korea, that “the atomic bombs
stopped Japan’s military invasion and harsh colonial rule” and “Japan always
emphasizes the atrocity of the atomic bombing without regretting its own
inhumane behavior during the war.” Many citizens in Hiroshima who havebeen engaged in peace activities are bewildered as to how to respond when
foreign visitors express such opinions.
Finding solutions to this issue is not easy, but a simple “black or white”
debate is meaningless. We have to start the debate from clear premises.
Regarding the majority view in the U.S., we have to focus on such specificpoints as “Is indiscriminate mass killing of civilians compatible withinternational law and humanity?” “What was the real effect of the atomic
bombings on Japan’s decision to surrender?” and “What is the basis of thecalculation that one million lives would have been lost on the ground war inmainland Japan?” Discussions should be carefully divided point by point andbased on historical facts and rational arguments.
In response to the arguments of Asian neighbors, the Japanese need toreview their own history of modernization and militarization after the Meiji
Restoration, the military invasion in Asia, and the colonization of the Korean
Peninsula, based on historical facts. Teaching at universities in Hiroshima, I
find that many young students have learnt almost nothing ––– not false history––– of the modern/contemporary Japan-East Asia relations and the historicalbackground of the war between the U.S. and Japan.
Based on a thorough historical review, the people of Hiroshima shouldmake it clear to their Asian neighbors that the purpose of telling the worldabout the A-bomb atrocities is in no way an attempt to justify Japan’s
inhumane acts of war but rather to prevent the reuse of nuclear weapons.
How to Build a Shared Understanding
Why and to whom do we communicate our atomic bomb experience? Wehave to seek a common understanding, to be shared by a majority of world
citizens, that the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians and radioactive
damage inflicted by nuclear weapons are inhumane. Our stance should bebased on humanity, beyond any particular nationality or nationalism. The
memory of the atomic bomb experience should be clearly separated from any
effort to justify Japan’s military invasions and colonization. However, ourduty is to reach out to overcome any misunderstanding or misinterpretation
between citizens of Japan and other nations, especially if we regard ourselves
as standing with humanity.
The attitude of the three atomic survivors who endured the opening of
psychic wounds to visit Tinian this year, confront an historical reality, andseek dialogue with U.S. veterans should serve as a model. Following in theirfootsteps, we have to make greater efforts to overcome the wall ofdifferences regarding the atomic bombing. This is our most vital mission forthe sixty-first year and beyond.
Mizumoto is associate professor at HPI

Visit
HPI’s
websitesite
http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm
Visit HPI
s web
at at
http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/−４−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

German Pacifism in the 1920s
By Makiko Takemoto
World War I broke out in 1914 after the Assassination at Sarajevo,
becoming a massive war between the Central Powers (e.g.Germany,
Austria-Hungary) and the Allies (e.g. Great Britain, France and Japan). It
lasted for four years and killed more than nine million people, ending in
1918 with the defeat of the Central Powers. In November, sailors andworkers revolted, causing the collapse of the German Empire. After that,the first German republic, the Weimar Republic, was born.
German pacifists were unable to prevent World War I, even though
the German Peace Society had been active since 1892. During the War, thepacifists were unable to take any action because they were suppressed andtheir activities were forbidden. After the War, they launched their peace
movement again. The terrible suffering they witnessed during the War andthe fear that new chemical weapons would be used led pacifists to assume
that the next war would be even more devastating. Widespread instability
in Europe at the time was another factor leading to more active
participation in the peace movement. Members discussed international law
and such related issues as the disarmament process, war crimes and theentrance of Germany into the League of Nations.
Two factors, fear of the next war and establishment of the Weimar
Republic, changed the character of German pacifism. The pacifists began
to discuss the integration of peace into education and promote the notion ofmutual understanding between different cultures. (They insisted that
schoolbooks should be free of vengeful expressions.) It is important to notethat the pacifists realized the need for a conscious reform of the German
way of thinking. This became known as “die geistige Revolution.” Tokeep the Weimar Republic stable, it was thought, the people had toabandon the “vassal consciousness” cultivated in the era of German
Empire, and they should actively contribute to peace as autonomous
human beings. Peace organizations sought this change of consciousness intheir programs. Before World War I, the issues of war and peace were an
extension of politics and matters of the state. After the War, pacifists
believed that the problem lay in the citizens of the Weimar Republic. It
was not just a problem of the state.
The “right to live” became a central demand and the basis of pacifism
in the programs of the peace organizations. The character of the peaceorganizations and the methods of the peace movement also changed at thattime. In the era when the peace organizations were established, the peace

Flight Path of the Enola Gay

movement was supported by the intellectual community. In the Weimar
Republic, it was supposed to be mass movement and all individuals were
to have opportunities to play leading roles.
The words of Carl von Ossietzky demonstrate the character ofGerman pacifism during this period. Ossietzky, Nobel Peace Prize laureate
for the year 1935, was a famous journalist and pacifist, who opposed
German militarism and Nazism. He insisted on creating an autonomous
body of people that no state or party could order to kill or to be killed. Hestated: “We defend the right to live. Of what good is honor to those whodied in the World War, when allegedly this honor was to be protected? Of
what use are monuments of unknown soldiers to the dead in war? First
people must live, then their honor can be protected.” Ossietzky worked forthe peace movement based on the “right to live.”
These words from Ossietzky are valid not only in the Weimar
Republic, but also to this day. They teach us how senseless war is. But inthose days, Ossietzky and other pacifists were not accepted in the Weimar
Republic where nationalistic policies were deeply rooted. Many
intellectuals understood and celebrated the war as the “father ofeverything” and expansionism was very popular, not only among the
supporters of Hitler and Nazism, but also among leading politicians.
Pacifists were a small minority in this society. They were regarded as“traitors” because of their endeavor to promote international
understanding, especially between Germany and France. Many pacifists,
including Ossietzky, were actually found guilty of “treason” or“espionage.” They were deprived of their freedom of speech andthreatened with assassination. After Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933,
they were sent into exile or killed in concentration camps.
Since the end of World War II, pacifism has been more widely
accepted in Germany and Japan. Pacifists are no longer interrogated or
punished for “treason,” but militarism and the war cult, which Ossietzky
criticized, are still widespread. We, as “autonomous” human beings, must
recognize this critically dangerous situation and listen to the voices of the
Weimar pacifists. We must continue to warn that there is nothing heroic
about war. It brings only fear, despair, destruction and death.
Takemoto is research associate at HPIPajaros

The distance from Tinian Island to
Hiroshima is about 2,740 kilometers.It
took the B-29 bomber six hours andthirty minutes one way.

on
AsunciAgrihan

NORTHERN MARIANA Islands

Pagan
an
AlamagTOKYO

Sarigan

HIROSHIMAn deFaralloaMedinillanAnatah

SaipanTinianRota

IWO JIMAAgana

TINIAN

Source:The Spirit of Hiroshima,
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

SAIPAN

Guam

0

200

400

600 kmGUAM

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

−５−

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

By Sung Chull Kim
The fourth round of the Six-Party Talks ended on September 19, 2005
with the adoption of the Joint Statement whereby North Korea agreed todismantle its nuclear program and in return receive security guarantees
from the United States. However, as soon as the North Korean delegates
led by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-kwan returned to Pyongyang,
the Korean Central News Agency aired a Foreign Ministry statementthat apparently undermined the Joint Statement. According to theForeign Ministry’s statement, North Korea would not dismantle its
nuclear facilities before the United States provides a light water reactor.
For North Korea, the light water reactor is physical evidence ofconfidence-building between the two countries. This new development
involves many contentious issues, even in the event that North Korea
commits itself to the Joint Statement.
I will briefly identify some of the related problems. First, time
matters, meaning that the economic burden will soar as time passes.
This is so because North Korea will try to continue the operation of
nuclear reactors and extract weapons-grade plutonium until the
dismantlement of all nuclear facilities. Second, North Korea intends tosnowball its economic benefit, which will bring to bear a huge burden
mostly to South Korea whether the latter volunteers it or not. Third,
despite the requirement of several steps to implement the dismantlementof nuclear facilities, there exists the possibility of the emergence ofdifferences between those who will bear the burden of the agreements
and those who feel free from it. In this respect, the problem regarding
North Korea’s demand for a light water reactor is far more complicatedthan it appears.
From the above-mentioned points, we can draw a few principles
that should be taken into account in the future rounds of the Six-Party
Talks. First, the participants should identify an optimal cost byconsidering the speed of the goal achievement. Any disagreement on aprocedural matter will extend the time to achieve the ultimate goal,
simply raising the burden and allowing unexpected interruptions.
Second, the following Six-Party Talks should take the issue of how
to stop progress toward plutonium-based nuclear weapons as the mosturgent consideration. In 2003, North Korean news agencies repeatedly
reported that North Korea was reprocessing spent fuel rods to extract
plutonium at the graphite-moderated reactors. Then, Pyongyang laidclaim to nuclear-weapon state status a week before the commemorationof Kim Jong-il’s birthday in February 2005. In view of all thedevelopments, it is probable that North Korea will try to continue toenhance its nuclear capability until the moment when an agreement is

actually implemented.
Third, a parsimonious approach to solve the issue of light water
reactor should be linked to South Korea’s ready-made offer of power
generation assistance. Just before the opening of the fourth round of the
Six-Party Talks at the end of July, Seoul already proposed electricity aid
amounting to two million kilowatts to the North. In view of both thesubstantial economic cost and the political implications of the electricity
aid, the South Korean government should consider connecting the two
projects in order to prevent doubling the cost.
There remains one more point. The North Korean nuclear crisis
may date back to a more fundamental, structural issue, that is, remnantsof the Cold War from the Korean Peninsula. The Joint Statement on
September 19, 2005, is the first historical declaration envisioning an end
to the Cold War. This declaration was arranged by all relevant parties
responsible for the situation. Therefore, we do not have to be pessimistic
simply because of North Korea’s demand for the light water reactor.
The Six-Party Talks should focus on the sequencing of thedismantlement of the nuclear weapons program, but if they makeprogress, it may facilitate a peace treaty discussion through a separate
channel. The Korean War that caused three million deaths has nevertechnically ended. The Armistice Agreement is the only mechanism
preventing armed conflict between the two Koreas. The transformationof the Agreement into a peace treaty is another necessary condition for
the removal of the sources of insecurity on the Korean Peninsula inparticular, and in Northeast Asia in general. Considering the fact that the
two Koreas, China, and the United States were belligerents in the
Korean War, this transformation will require serious and extensive
discussions between the four countries.
It is reported that at the 16th Inter-Korean Minister-Level Talks
held in September, the two Koreas discussed how to build a peace
regime on the Korean Peninsula, which practically means transformationof the Armistice Agreement to a peace treaty. On the one hand, if thisissue had been discussed in the Six-Party Talks, as North Korea had
insisted in the previous round, it would have plagued the negotiation
process in the Talks, blurring the focal point of North Korea’s nuclear
weapons development. On the other hand, the discussion of a peace
treaty is necessary in the sense that the treaty is a fundamental condition
for bringing an end to the Cold War on the peninsula.
Kim is associate professor at HPIHPI Forum
June 4, 2005

peace and war, including the nuclear weapons issue, which are profoundly

Title: Thoughts on How to Revitalize Popular
Peace Movements: What the Citizens ofHiroshima Need to Do

affected by his own childhood experience of the aerial bombing of Japanesecities conducted by U.S. forces in the last stage of the Asia-Pacific War.
The indiscriminate bombing of Japanese cities escalated rapidly after theinfamous Tokyo fire bombing on March 10, 1945. Other major cities such as

Speaker: Mr. Makoto Oda (Writer, Critic and Peace Activist)

Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe also became the targets of so-called carpet-

On June 4, 2005, a well-known writer, critic, andbombing: bombing from low altitude with a massive number of napalm

peace activist, Makoto Oda, gave a stimulating speechbombs. On March 13, in its first aerial bombing, Osaka was showered withon how the citizens of Hiroshima should promote

70,000 incendiary bombs resulting in the death of 3,000 civilians. By the end

anti-nuclear and peace movements in the face of theof the war almost 400 cities, towns and villages throughout Japan had been

current phenomenon: the “oblivion to the Hiroshima

attacked by U.S. bombers. Osaka was bombed eight times altogether, and Oda

memory.”thrice encountered and survived such aerial bombing in Osaka.

In his speech Oda presented his ideas about

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

It is widely believed that the U.S. aerial bombing of Japan concluded−６−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought about Japan’s

Hirohito.

surrender. In actual fact, the cities of Kumamoto, Oita and Miyazaki wereOda showed this was how he came to believe that the atomic bomb hadbombed on August 10, the day after the bombing of Nagasaki, and on August

been viewed, both by military leaders and by Japanese and U.S. politicians,

12, Kurume City was targeted. Osaka, however, was the target of the last U.S.

not as an extraordinary and decisive weapon, but simply as a more powerful

bombing in World War II, which occurred on August 14, the day before

conventional weapon. He further argued that many militarists and politicians

Japan’s official surrender. On this occasion, 700 tons of bombs (in the form of

still hold with this interpretation of nuclear weapons, and that, with thelarge one-ton bombs) were dropped on the complex of army arsenals built

availability of various “weapons of mass destruction,” the distinction between

within the walls of Osaka Castle, resulting in their complete destruction. Oda,

nuclear and conventional weapons is rapidly eroding. Therefore, he suggested,

whose house was located near the site, survived this fierce bombing, and learnt

it will be extremely difficult to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons

the following day that the war had finally ended.

through anti-nuclear movements alone. He rightly highlighted the need for a

Oda spoke of his discovery that the reason for the terrible end to WorldWar II lay in a political decision. After the war, he had tried hard to find out

new approach to the construction of peace and suggested widening grass-roots
civil movements against all types of arms including nuclear weapons.

why Japan did not accept the Potsdam Declaration immediately after the

In concluding his speech, he remarked that war is an act of sheer

bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why it was several days after theirmadness, and its absurd result was clearly shown in World War II: while Japan

total destruction before the Japanese government finally surrendered. While inadopted kamikaze-style suicidal attacks, the U.S. used atomic bombs to

the U.S. in 1959, Oda retrieved copies of the wartime New York Times andindiscriminately kill a large number of civilians. His speech was not simply acarefully studied reports on the process of the Japanese surrender. By

reflection of historical events but was highly relevant to the present worldcombining the information thus obtained with the relevant Japanese historicalsituation.

background, he discovered that the Japanese government had continued torefuse unconditional surrender, even after the bombing of Hiroshima andBy Yuki Tanaka, professor at HPINagasaki, until U.S. government authorities guaranteed the life of Emperor◆July 2 Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Current State and Tasks of Peace
Research” at training session for Level II registered nursing care managers organized
by Hiroshima Prefectural Nursing Association.
◆July 4 Hiroko Takahashi gives lecture on “Nuclear Tests in the Marshall Islands” forstudents from DePaul University (Chicago) at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆July 4-17 Christian Scherrer visits Bosnia on 10th Srebrenica commemoration,
meets NGOs/INGOs (U.N., OSCE, WCC).
◆July 6 Scherrer interviews Tokaca, Reserch-Documentation Center, Sarajevo.
Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Current State and Task of the NPT Regime and theRole of Hiroshima” at Workshop on NPT Issues organized by and held at Hiroshima
Bar Association.
◆July 9 Takahashi serves as commentator for Special Lecture “Fifty Year Anniversary of ‘Russell Einstein Manifesto’ and Nuclear Issue” organized by Peace
Society for the Lucky Dragon at Gakushi Kaikan in Tokyo.
◆July 13 Scherrer speaks on “Transitional Justice in Bosnia” at conference“Democracy and Human Rights in Multiethnic Societies,” Konjic.
◆July 17 Mizumoto gives lecture on “History, Current State, and Task of Peace
Education in Hiroshima” at public workshop “Making Use of Hiroshima’s Experiencein International Cooperation” organized by Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) Chugoku International Center at Hiroshima International Center.
◆July 23 Mizumoto attends as committee member 2nd conference of core membersof Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture at HPI.
◆July 23-27 Mizumoto participates in “55th Pugwash Conference on Science andWorld Affairs: 60 Years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Mizumoto gives presentation
on “The Role of Hiroshima in the 21st Century” in Working Group 1 (Legacy of theRussell / Einstein Manifesto and the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons).
◆July 27-28 HPI holds lectures in commemoration of 60th anniversary of atomic
bombing. Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan, gives
lecture on “What Will It Take to Stop Nuclear Proliferation?” on 27th; Professor
Carol Gluck, Columbia University, U.S., gives lecture on “Remembering the Future:
Hiroshima and the World” on 28th, Hiroshima City Plaza for Town Development
through Citizen Exchange.
◆July 29 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Hiroshima and Peace” for training program forjournalists organized by Hiroshima City at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆July 30 HPI holds international symposium, “Hiroshima and the Peace
Constitution: Building on Our Past” at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆Aug.2 HPI President Motofumi Asai makes remarks at plenary session of World
Conference Against A&H Bombs organized by Japan Council against A&H Bombs(GENSUIKYO) at Welcity Hiroshima.
◆Aug.3 Asai serves as panelist for International Symposium for Peace “Aiming at a
Nuclear-Free World—Japan’s Role in Northeast Asia” organized by Asahi Shimbun
Company at Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆Aug.4 Asai serves as chief judge of review panel for presentation contest “High
School Students Fostering World Peace” organized by Hiroshima Board of
Education at Hiroshima Prefectural Culture Center. Mizumoto serves as trainer for
Section Meeting 1 “Working Group 1 on ‘World Peace’” of “The 51st National
Convention of High School UNESCO Clubs” organized by National Federation of
UNESCO Associations in Japan and gives lecture on “The Current Situation of
Nuclear Weapons in the World” at Etajima City, Hiroshima.
HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

−７−

◆Aug. 5 Yuki Tanaka gives lecture on “Fire Bombing and Atomic Bombing” forAmerican students of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Research Trip organized by
Ritsumeikan University and American University at HPI. Takahashi makes
presentation on “The Nuclear Suffering Ignored by U.S. and Japanese Governments”
at Gensuikin Hiroshima International Conference, Toho 2001 Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 5-6 Asai serves as chair for Section Meeting 2 of 6th Mayors for Peace at
Hiroshima International Conference Center.
◆Aug. 6 Asai serves as commentator for Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK)radio program “Peace Memorial Ceremony,” live broadcast of Peace Memorial
Ceremony in Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 20 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Current Situation of Nuclear Weapons in
the World and Perceptions for Atomic Bombing” at 4th session of Peace Club for
Junior High and High School Students at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Mizumoto gives lecture on “From Praying for Peace to Creating Peace” in second
regular meeting in August, organized by Hiroshima Junior Chamber at Rihga Royal
Hotel Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 23-Sep. 14 Scherrer conducts field research in Rwanda on start-up of Gacaca
genocide courts in four provinces; interviews officials, survivors, NGO.
◆Aug. 24 Asai serves as coordinator for 60th Anniversary of Ukishima-maru
Accident East Asia International Peace Symposium, organized by Memorial Association of Victims of Ukishima-maru at MAIZURU Commerce Industry & Tourism
Center.
◆Aug. 25 Scherrer speaks to Chief Prosecutor Mucyo, initiating research.
◆S ep. 4-13 Mizumoto visits Phnom Penh and Siem Reap in Cambodia for ex-ante
adjustment of Reconstruction Support Project in Cambodia, organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture.
◆S ep . 6-8 Tanaka gives advice for analysis of Japan-related documents andconducts documentary research at Research Centre, Australian War Memorial.
◆S ep . 8-9 Sung Chull Kim presents paper entitled “Domestic Constraints on
Regional Cooperation in Northeast Asia” at the conference “Infrastructure ofRegional Coopeartion in Northeast Asia: Current Status and Tasks,” sponsored by
Korea Institute for National Unification, Seoul, South Korea.
◆S ep. 10 Scherrer interviews Rwandan Foreign Minister Murigande.
◆S ep. 11 Scherrer contradicts DesForges (Human Rights Watch) at Gacaca against
Belgian priest Theunis.
◆S ep. 12 Scherrer interviews Busingye, Minijust; Renaud, Chief of Investigation,
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
◆S ep. 13 Scherrer speaks to Chief Prosecutor Mucyo, concluding research.
◆S ep. 14 Tanaka gives lecture on “Terror from the Sky: A History of Indiscriminate
Bombing” for American students attending Meiji Gakuin University at Hiroshima
Aster Plaza.
◆S ep. 22 Narayanan Ganesan presents paper entitled “The Role of ASEAN in
Singapore’s Foreign Policy” at the conference “Cooperation within ASEAN and theGreater Mekong Sub-region,” Traders Hotel, Yangon, Myanmar.
◆S ep. 26 Tanaka gives lecture on “How Should We Approach the Problem of
Nuclear Arms?: Can We Abolish Nuclear Arms Simply through the Efforts of Antinuclear Movements?” in HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima.

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

Makiko Takemoto Research Associate

Mikyoung Kim Assistant Professor

Makiko Takemoto was born in Ibaraki Prefecture in
1971. She studied in the Graduate School of the
Humanities, Senshu University and at Carl vonOssietzky University, Oldenburg (Germany). From July
2003 to June 2005 she served as research associate in
the Center for Historical Studies/Institute forDevelopment of Socio-Intelligence, Senshu University.
She joined the Hiroshima Peace Institute in July 2005.
She specializes in modern and contemporary German history, German politicalculture in the 20th century, German pacifism and the peace movement.

Dr. Mikyoung Kim was born in Pusan, South Korea.
She began her work at the Hiroshima Peace Institute in
October 2005 after having taught at Portland State
University, U.S., as a Fulbright Visiting Professor. She
earned a Ph.D. in Sociology specializing in women’sstudies, international migration, and human rights. At
HPI, she hopes to continue her research on North
Korean women refugees. She would also like to study
Japanese military transformation in the rapidly changing political landscape ofNortheast Asia.

Takemoto states: “It is a great honor to join the Hiroshima Peace Institute, and I
am very glad to be here. I will do my best to contribute to peace studies in
Hiroshima. Until now my research has concentrated on the pacifism that appearsin German journalism from the 1920s to the 1930s and in the organized peace
movement of that time. Hereafter I would like to compare German history withJapanese history and clarify the implications for peace. I would also like to extend
my research on the peace movement from 1945 to today and consider themeaning of ‘Hiroshima’ in the world peace movement in the 20th century.”

Kim notes: “I am very fortunate to be in Japan now as the country is going
through a crucial transition. The city of Hiroshima is a poignant reminder that theworld should tirelessly pursue peace by not forgetting the brutality of violence.
Japan, as a responsible country, and Hiroshima, with its special collective
memory, have a unique place in our concerted efforts to hand over a better place
to live for future generations. On a personal note, I always wanted to live in aplace where river, ocean and mountains create a beautiful harmony. In
Hiroshima, fertile rivers meet the vast ocean as the blue sky envelopes thegorgeous mountains. The views from the streetcar tell me that I am in the place I
was looking for.”◆Oct. 1 Asai serves as panelist in the symposium “Article 9 of the JapaneseConstitution—My Opinion,” organized by Hiroshima Bar Association at Hiroshima
YMCA International Culture Hall.
◆Oct. 3 At meeting of HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima, Koji Hosokawa,volunteer guide of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (member of Hiroshima
World Peace Mission), gives lecture on “How to Convey the Atomic Bombing
Experience.”◆Oct. 6 HPI holds research forum. Dr. Sigrid Pöllinger, director, Center for Peace
Research, Vienna University, gives lecture on “The History of War and Peace inEurope.”◆Oct. 7 Ganesan presents paper entitled “Transparent Governance and EthicalBehavior for Public Officials” to the Vietnamese civil service, Hanoi, Vietnam.
◆Oct. 8 Yoshiaki Sato gives lecture on “Common-Lawyer Approach to International
Law” at Semi-Annual Meeting of Japanese Society of International Law at Hokkaido
University.
◆Oct. 15 Asai gives lecture on “Roles of Education in Japanese Conservatism’s 21stCentury Strategies” at Fukuyama Education Research Meeting organized by
Fukuyama Branch of All Hiroshima Teachers and Staff Union at Fukuyama City
Jutoku Elementary School.
◆Oct. 17 At meeting of HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima, Nanao Kamada,
Director of Hiroshima A-bomb Survivors Relief Foundation, gives lecture on “Late
Effects of A-bomb Radiation on the Human Body.”◆Oct. 18 Mizumoto attends as committee member 3rd conference of core membersof Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture (inHiroshima City).
◆Oct. 21 Mizumoto and Takahashi attend annual meeting of research group onreference materials at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Oct. 22 Asai serves as panelist for the symposium “Path toward Peace — Getting
Out of the Fear of War and Nuclear Weapons: What Should be the Role of Japan?” at16th Physicians Forum against Nuclear War and for the Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons, organized by Physicians against Nuclear War at Chukyo University in
Aichi Prefecture.
◆Oct. 24 At meeting of HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima, Yoshiro Matsui,
Professor of International Law, Ritsumeikan University Graduate School of Law,
gives lecture on “Legal Problems of the Use of Nuclear Weapons under International
Law.”◆Oct . 26-28 Second workshop of HPI Research Project “Myanmar Peace
Initiative” is held.
◆Oct . 30 Asai serves as commentator at “The 60th Anniversary of the Atomic
Bombings and End of World War II: Peaceful World” organized by Aichi Council
against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs at Nagoya Civic Assembly Hall.
◆Oct . 31 Takahashi gives lecture on “Concealed Hibakusha: Nuclear Victims
Spreading Worldwide” in HPI lecture series for citizens of Hiroshima.

—Visitors—◆July 5 Dr. Burton G. Bennett, former chairman, and Dr. Toshiteru Okubo,
chairman of Radiation Effects Research Center.
◆Aug. 1- 10 Elena Komleva, visiting research associate, Institute of Advanced
Studies, United Nations University.
◆Aug. 3 Di Piazza Pierluigi, director, Ernesto Balducci Onlus, and 5 other membersof Italian Peace Mission. Tadafumi Yamada, administrative director, Hiroshima Asian
Friendship Academy.
◆Sep . 13 Hisao Mitsuyu, professor, College of International Relations, Nihon
University and 18 students.
◆Oct . 4 Tadayuki Kusunoki, vice chairman, and Nobuo Takahashi, director-generalof Round Table Conference for Preservation of Remains of A-bombed Sites.
◆Oct . 12 Dr. Murat M. Auezov, director-general, National Library of the Republicof Kazakhstan.
◆Oct . 19 Dr. Monica Braw, journalist, Sweden.
◆Oct . 21 Agha Masood Hussain, journalist, Pakistan.

Additional DIARY entry for 22nd Newsletter◆May 25 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Task of Hiroshima: From Peace Movement to
Peace Building” at 9th Conference on National Development Strategy “Democracy,
Human Rights, Peace in Gwangju and Hiroshima” organized by Institute of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Honam University, Korea.

Correction
An article “HPI Research Project ‘The Real State of the Hibakusha Exposed by the1954 Bikini Nuclear Test’” in the 22nd issue of HPI Newsletter misrepresented the
explanation of a map in the fourth paragraph. The map that appears on the left of thepage rather than the one on the right was produced by the U.S. government.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWSVol.8, No.2 November 28, 2005
Copyright 2005 HPI All rights reserved●Publisher : Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor : Ayako Yoshida
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Ote-Machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-Machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan / E-mail:office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm●Printed by Sanko Ltd.

Visit HPI’s
web siteat http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm
HIROSHIMARESEARCH
NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005

−８−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.2 November 2005