Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

By Motofumi AsaiWith the end of the Cold War that cast a shadow overinternational relations throughout the late 20th century, webreathed a sigh of relief and hoped we were on our way to apeaceful world without war. But as if to suggest, “Things will
not be that easy,” the Persian Gulf Crisis and the succeeding war
occurred in 1990/1991. Subsequently, conflicts in various partsof the world intensified, producing serious questions about thevisions and methods required to build a new post-Cold War
world order. The fundamental question is whether theconventional concept of the international society, composed ofnation states, can survive and still be effective in decades tocome. The speed at which U.S.-led globalization has been
dominating the world, mainly in the field of international
economy, shows no sign of slowing down. The uncontrollable
progression and aggressiveness of globalization is so fierce that,
if unchecked, it may deprive us of the possibility of providing
international society with fresh and reinvigorating ideas. The
U.S., which has come, for good or for ill, to dominate the world
as the sole superpower, should be strongly urged to recognize its
responsibility for dealing with the basic challenges facing
international society mentioned above. Both the Clinton andBush administrations have completely failed to recognize such
responsibility. Since the September 11th attacks in 2001, theBush administration has focused its attention exclusively on its“war against terror” and pursued unilateralist policies
shamelessly, not showing the slightest readiness to deal withinternational relations from a comprehensive and global
perspective.
I have had confidence for years that Japan, which has apeace constitution based on the lessons learned from past warsof aggression, remains thoroughly committed to the philosophyof “peace not dependent on military force” (anti-power politics)
and could play a very important role in developing a newframework for international society after the Cold War. The key
is for it to realize its important position as the second-biggest
economy in the world and to act accordingly. If Japan is actively
engaged in this challenging task, I am confident that it will berecognized internationally as an effective counterforce to the
U.S., which clings to the philosophy of “peace dependent on

CONTENTS
Assuming the Presidency at Hiroshima Peace Institute by Motofumi Asai . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Symposium
A Re-examination of the NPT Regime:...
Proposals from Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2〜3
Research Project
The Real State of the Hibakusha Exposed by the 1954 Bikini Nuclear Test . . . . . . . . . 3
2005 NPT Review Conference-A Personal Report by Yuki Tanaka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Problems Relating to the Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming by Akimasa Sumi . . . 5...
Reforms of the United Nations for the 21st Century by Christian Scherrer . . . . . . . . .6〜7
Research Project
Myanmar Peace Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
HPI Research ForumNorth Korea under Kim Jong-il by Sung Chull Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Forthcoming International Symposium:“Hiroshima and the Peace Constitution:Building on Our Past” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Diary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

−１−

military force” (power politics). What Japan lacks today are (1)confidence in the moral and realistic relevance of the philosophyof its peace constitution, and (2) recognition of its internationalrole as the second-biggest economy in the world. Due to thislack of confidence and awareness, Japan cannot overcome its
diplomatic inertia and still blindly follows U.S. policies.
Moreover, at the request of the U.S., political momentum isbuilding in Japan to revise the peace constitution, which would
deprive Japan of the possibility to act as a counterforce to the
U.S.
Japanese citizens, whose country was forced to surrender by
the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, began a fullscale campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons in 1955,
triggered by the Lucky Dragon Incident in 1954. Their
movement has come to be recognized as an important base forthe international campaign against nuclear weapons. I believethat the very existence of Japan’s peace constitution has been
the backbone of our nuclear abolition campaign, helping to
expand its international influence. This can be immediately
understood by imagining what it would be like if the peaceconstitution is revised and Japan scraps its philosophy of “peace
not dependent on military force.” How convincing could Japanbe in appealing for nuclear abolition if it turns to the Americanled philosophy “peace dependent on military force” and more
overtly accepts the idea of nuclear deterrence as an integral partof that philosophy? In that sense, the current situation in Japan,
in which discussion of constitutional revision is overt, poses a
grave danger and challenge to Hiroshima, the leader of Japan’s
nuclear abolition campaign.
My basic analysis of the domestic and internationalsituation is as described above. To summarize, I feel a verystrong sense of crisis about these situations both at home andabroad. Because of this sense of crisis, I was very eager toaccept this job at HPI. I read the HPI Web page, understood thehistorical process of its establishment, studied its basic plans andobjectives and came to understand the direction HPI is taking.
Thus, I gained confidence in the raison d’etre of HPI, and I
resolved to do my best to help HPI fulfill its mission.
Though little time has passed since I started to work as apresident of HPI, I have already become keenly aware of theheavy responsibility of the post. Because HPI is a young
research institute, established in April 1998, the next several
years will be crucial to HPI’s effort to gain internationalrecognition as “the peace research institute based in Hiroshima.”
I will perform the duties of president to the best of my ability
and will try to create an environment in which excellent
researchers can exercise their abilities to the fullest. I will also
actively convey messages about domestic and international
problems such that HPI will become an institution in which
Hiroshima citizens can take pride. I hope we can count on yourguidance, support and cooperation.

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

Symposium(March 19-20)

A Re-examination of the NPT Regime: Proposals from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

HPI held a symposium called “A Reexamination of the NPT Regime:
Proposals from Hiroshima and Nagasaki”
at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
on March 19, in advance of the May 2005
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty(NPT)
Review Conference. Six researchers andpeace activists from Hiroshima andCoordinator,Yuki Tanaka, Nagasaki made presentations in the first
Professor at HPI
half of the symposium. In the second half,presentations were by experts from South Africa, Brazil, and
New Zealand, three nations of the seven members of the New
Agenda Coalition (NAC), which is actively involved innuclear abolition. Nearly 150 participants, mainly Hiroshima
citizens, listened to these presentations. Summaries of theirpresentations follow.

"For the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review
Conference: What Should We Do to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons?"

Yukio Yokohara, A Steering Committee Member,
Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition
The NPT regime has already become meaningless and empty.
We have to discuss at the most fundamental level whether the
NPT regime will be able to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Problems of the NPT regime include: the NPT is an unequal
treaty; Article 4 of the NPT grants to the NNWS the right to use nuclear energy forpeaceful purposes and allows the spread of nuclear technologies; the NPT has not beensuccessful in preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons even among parties to the NPT;the presence of a black market for nuclear weapons is tacitly approved; negative security
assurances obtained by the NNWS are insufficient. Weapons of mass destruction will
never be eliminated as long as wars and violent conflicts continue. In the current context,
where nuclear weapons are used as political insurance against international isolation, and“usable” nuclear weapons are considered necessary in the fight against terrorism, it isimportant to campaign internationally to eliminate war. Complementary measureseffective for nuclear nonproliferation, such as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT) and fissile material cut-off treaty, should also be undertaken while recognizingthat it will take some time to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

"South Africa's View on the NPT Regime""The NPT Regime and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons"

Mahlatse Mminele, Counsellor, Embassy of the
Republic of South Africa in Tokyo

Mitsuo Okamoto, Professor, Hiroshima Shudo
University

We are dissatisfied with the lack of progress toward the“unequivocal undertaking” by nuclear-weapon states(NWSs), which was resolved at the 2000 NPT Review
Conference. The possession of nuclear weapons does notenhance international peace and security. The complete elimination of nuclear
weapons is only the assurance that they will never fall into the hands of terrorists. In
the recent past, the sole emphasis has been placed on nonproliferation, while otherkey elements of the Treaty have been neglected. The NWSs have made politicallybinding security assurances to the state parties of the NPT and this politicalundertaking now needs to be given legal force under the NPT. It is necessary for the
Review Conference to establish Subsidiary Bodies so as to give particularconsideration to nuclear disarmament, security assurances and the 1995 Review andExtension Conference Resolution on the Middle East. South Africa’s involvement in
all issues relating to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament is informed by thesad memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. South Africa will continue to be an
advocate of nuclear disarmament for the sake of international peace and security.

The contradiction within the NPT regime, which approves the existing
NWS’s possession of nuclear weapons while prohibiting other nations
from having them, does, in a way, promote the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. If the NPT successfully prevented the “horizontal” spread of
nuclear weapons and the CTBT prevented “vertical” proliferation, the way toward the elimination of
nuclear weapons would be a steadier one. But under the NPT in 1995, nuclear weapons existed in a
total of 11 countries. As late as 2003 the U.S. and Russia together possessed the obscene number ofsome 30,000 nuclear weapons, and there is no guarantee that the U.S. will never again use nuclear
weapons. Meanwhile, the NAC represents the hope and belief of many citizens of the world, who
fervently desire the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In light of the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1996, the useof the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a violation of International Humanitarian Law.
If the U.S. is intent on undermining the “unequivocal undertaking” of abolishing completely all its
nuclear weapons, promised at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, the peace NGOs of the world must
consider radical measures in deciding what to do now. All relevant NGOs must seek to carve a path
toward “Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty” with solid determination to eliminate nuclear weapons.

"Brazil's View on the NPT Regime""The NPT and Nuclear Disarmament : What We Can Do"

Alexandre Kotzias Peixoto, Second Secretary,
Embassy of Brazil in Tokyo

Kazumi Mizumoto, Associate Professor, Hiroshima
Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University

Brazil supports multilateral negotiations on nuclear
disarmament and nuclear non proliferation. But
multilateralism has been weakened and relegated to asecondary position. Brazil joined the NPT in 1998 in order tojoin other parties in their efforts to correct its imbalance and contribute to its
universality and credibility. Because of the emergence of so-called “non-State actors,”
the limits of the basic principles of international law have been stretched and new
military doctrines including the use of nuclear weapons come into play. Restrictions
on non nuclear-weapon states (NNWSs) have been strengthened while NWSs show nowillingness to accept any curbs on their freedom of action, ignore multilateralnegotiation, and backtrack on previous nuclear disarmament commitments.
Agreements cannot be reneged on from one Review Conference to the next. We musturge North Korea to comply with the NPT. Brazil remains gravely concerned with
nuclear weapon possession by India, Pakistan, and Israel. But we must also insist on
complete and universal disarmament. The 2005 NPT Review Conference will be a testof the willingness of its parties to agree on ways and means to strengthen the Treaty.

The NPT has been an imperfect treaty from the timeof its inception, with the true aim of maintaining the“nuclear monopoly” by NWSs. The question now is
how to move toward the goals of both the 1995
Review and Extension Conference’s “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear
Non-proliferation and Disarmament,” and the 2000 Review Conference’s 13
Practical Steps for nuclear disarmament, including the “unequivocal
undertaking” to eliminate nuclear arsenals. The greatest obstacle to thisproblem is the U.S., and the Bush administration’s stance on the NPT andnuclear disarmament that darkens the outlook. However there are some brightspots, such as a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty in Central Asia, which was
finally provisionally signed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to humbly explore
ways to link arms with nations and races with different experiences, making
Japan’s ambiguous traditional nuclear policies more consistent, and ourexperience of the atomic bombing more directly relevant in the movement
toward global nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

"Disarmament and Nonproliferation: Upholding Both
Sides of the Bargain at the 2005 NPT Review Conference""What Can We Do to Resolve the Crisisin the NPT Regime?"

Tanya Ogilvie-White, Lecturer, University ofCanterbury, New Zealand

Akira Kimura, Professor, Kagoshima University

As the 2005 NPT Review Conference draws near, we areconcerned that the expectation gap concerning theconference held by NWSs and NNWSs might widen. The
U.S. stresses the need to focus on nonproliferation rather
than disarmament, an issue which it declared “does not exist.” NNWSs are interested
only in pursuing NWS responsibility for not implementing efforts toward nuclear
disarmament. The worst possible scenario would be a collapse of the NPT due to an
entrenched ideological divide between NWSs and NNWSs.
The purpose of the 2005 Review Conference is to evaluate the implementationof the NPT, along with the 1995 Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, and the Final Document of the 2000 Conference. The
prospect for progress in re-committing the NWSs to their disarmament obligations has
been significantly improved by the NAC, the NATO 8, Japan and South Korea. To
some extent, the success or failure of the Conference will depend on the ability of thisgroup to demonstrate a balanced approach during negotiations, one that promotes
progress on both disarmament and non-proliferation.

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

The NPT is on the verge of collapse. What should
individual global citizens do? It is important to discuss the
NPT issue at a fundamental level, premised on thecriminality and illegality of using atomic weapons. If
forced to choose between the “prohibition and preventionof nuclear proliferation” and the “duty to implement nuclear disarmament,” the latter
is more important. The collapse of the NPT regime would not necessarily bring about
uncontrolled nuclear proliferation. NNWSs that withdraw from the NPT would havethe option of establishing on their own a new “nuclear weapon convention” to put
pressure on NWSs. It is also necessary to question the relationship between nuclear
weapons, conventional weapons and war, as well as the close relationship between
the criminal use of atomic weapons and genocidal attacks on noncombatants throughthe use of new weapons. Specific agendas and clear schedules need to be established
for the realization of nuclear disarmament. The renunciation of first-use of nuclear
weapons by NWSs against NNWSs is especially important in the process of nuclear
disarmament. Japan must abandon nuclear deterrence theory, become independent of
the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and lead the nuclear abolition campaign.

−２−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

"As We Face the NPT Review Conference and After :A Proposal from Nagasaki""A Hibakusha's Opinion"

Hideo Tsuchiyama, Former President, Nagasaki
University

Akihiro Takahashi, Former Director, Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum

The NPT faces two dilemmas: 1) it is an unequal treaty,
but is the only treaty leading toward nuclear
disarmament, and 2) unlike the Treaty for the Complete
Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines, no progress will bemade until NWSs, the possessors of the targeted weapons, agree to give up theseweapons. These dilemmas are reflected in the U.S. statement that “Article 6 of the
NPT (obligation of nuclear disarmament) is not an issue.” The 2005 NPT Review
Conference is expected to deal with arguments between nuclear nonproliferationand disarmament. It is important for voices from A-bombed cities to be reflectedin the nuclear policies of the Japanese government. One solution is to work moreclosely with the seven NAC countries, as well as Canada and Australia. Anothersolution is to reject the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In that case, one security option
would be to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia, including
Japan. Our duty is to make the Japanese government change its attitude toward
the political inertia that results in continued dependence on the U.S. umbrella andto denuclearize both the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.

When I was hit by the atomic bomb at the age of 14, I was in aschoolyard located 1.4km from the epicenter. I was severely
burned, but after suffering from various illnesses for 18 months,
I narrowly escaped death. I am still fighting chronic hepatitis andmany other diseases which seem to be aftereffects of the bombing, while conveying my
Hibakusha experience to others . I have given more than 3,000 lectures to a total of over
300,000 people during the past 33 years. Last year, for the first time in 59 years, I saw theclothes of my friend, who fled with me right after the bombing. Seeing the clothes burned byheat rays, I could not hold back a flood of tears. The clothes rekindled my hatred against the
U.S. But you cannot erase hatred with hatred. I am determined that the death of thosemercilessly killed classmates shall not be wasted. I firmly believe it is my duty, as asurvivor, to convey to posterity the silent messages from the many killed by the atomic
bomb. Whether the 2005 Review Conference achieves success or ends in failure, it is theardent wish of atomic bomb survivors that others continue without ceasing our efforts for the
total elimination of nuclear weapons. For our part, we are determined to continue talking
about our experience of the atomic bombing until the last flame of the last life flickers out.

By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPIHPI Research Project

The Real State of the Hibakusha Exposed by the 1954 Bikini Nuclear Test

The Bravo Shot, a U.S. hydrogen bomb test, on March 1, 1954,
victimized a large number of innocent people, including MarshallIslands residents, American soldiers and crew members of the Lucky
Dragon. The full picture of radiation exposure from that test remains
unclear even today, half a century later.
On March 24 and 25, 2005, HPI held a workshop as part of theresearch project “The Real State of the Hibakusha Exposed by the 1954
Bikini Nuclear Test.” The purpose was to clarify the full extent ofradiation exposure caused by the U.S. nuclear tests in the South Pacific.
Project members include Dr. Yoshinobu Masuda, former directorgeneral of the Meteorological Research Institute, Professor Emeritus
Shoji Sawada of Nagoya University, Noriyuki Kawano, research
associate at the International Radiation Information Center, ResearchInstitute for Radiation Biology and Medicine, Hiroshima University,
Seiichiro Takemine, PhD student at Waseda University Graduate Schoolof Asia-Pacific Studies, and Hiroko Takahashi, the author of this article.
In February 2005, the writer, a historian, collected records on U.S.
nuclear tests in the U.S., focusing on documents related to the radiation
exposure caused by the Bikini H-bomb test. These documents, which
now belong to the U.S. National Archives, were originally held by the
Biological Medical Division of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
The documents collected by the writer were variously analyzed byproject members from the standpoint of their specialties.
One of the most significant outcomes of the workshop was theanalysis of a distribution map of radioactive fallout caused by the Bravo
Shot. The U.S. government released the map to the left, showing the
distribution and amounts of radioactive fallout created from the momentof the blast to two days later. The map to the right, which shows theongoing influence of radioactive fallout, was obtained by the writer fromthe U.S. National Archives and is made public here for the first time.
From local resident witnesses in the Ailuk Atoll and from U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission records, Takemine has revealed that people in the
Ailuk Atoll were exposed to radiation, even though the Ailuk Atoll islocated outside the area designated as “influenced by radioactive fallout”
in the map to the left produced by the U.S. government. Analyses of themap on the right by meteorologist Dr. Masuda and physicist Dr. Sawada
found that residents in the Ailuk Atoll have been exposed to radiation,and their findings are supported by Takemine. Kawano, whose specialty
is social medicine, is conducting field research at a nuclear test site in
Semipalatinsk, in the former Soviet Union. He pointed out thatepidemiological investigation based on these new records is necessary in
the Marshall Islands.
Based on the new findings brought to light for the first time at thisworkshop, the project members recognized the urgent need for field
investigations and joint research into the U.S. National Archives’
documents.
By Hiroko Takahashi, research associate at HPI

Map of radioactive fallout created from the moment of the blast to 2 days later

Newly discovered map of radioactive fallout
EF
160°

50r

NL

162°

164°

166°

168°

EF
200r
NL 12°

12°

Taongi

Isodose lines are inroentgen of infinity
dose

Bikar Atoll

500r
2,300r5,000r172°
16°

Fall-out from first shotof Castle Test
Operations

300r

170°

16°

14°

0.5R

14°

1R

800r

10R
5 0R
100R
3 00R

10r

12°
5000R

Utrik Atoll

5000R

Rongelap Atoll

50

100

150

Nautical Miles
166°

168°

10°

1R

Ujelang

200

Ailuk

50R
10R

10°
Wotho

0

Utrik

Rongerik
300R
100R

Rongelap

Bikini Atoll

10°

12°
1000R

Bikini

Eniwetok

Rongerik Atoll
Ailinginae Atoll

Bikar

1000R

Likiep
Wotje

10°
170°

0.5
R

Ujae

Lae

150

200

Erikub

Kwajalein
8°

8°0

Kwajalein Atoll

50

100

Nautical Miles

R=rem : a unit of ionizing radiation equal to the dosage that will cause thesame biological effect as one roentgen of X-ray or gamma-ray radiation.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

160°

−３−

162°

164°

166°

168°

170°

172°

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

By Yuki Tanaka
On a bright and sunny May Day morning, about 30,000 people,
including as many as 1,000 from Japan (105 from Hiroshima),
marched from the United Nations to Central Park in New York City,
chanting “No War, No Nukes.” At the Hecksher Ballfields in Central
Park, demonstrators formed a large human peace sign and held arally, which was addressed by the mayors of Hiroshima andNagasaki, together with many prominent peace activists from aroundthe world, as well as some Hibakusha. This event marked the start of
the 7th NPT Review Conference at the United Nations, an event held
once every five years since the NPT came into effect in 1970. The
number of participants this year was, however, notably smaller thanat previous events of this kind held in New York City-an indicationof a lack of interest in nuclear issues by the general populace.
At lunchtime on May 4, an NGO session was conducted in the
General Assembly Hall of the United Nations, where the mayors ofHiroshima and Nagasaki, representatives of several NGOs from antinuclear movements in Japan and other nations, and celebrities such as
Yoko Ono, were supposed to address the delegates of member
nations to the U.N. This was a rare opportunity for NGOs to appeal
directly to the U.N. for the immediate abolition of all nuclear
weapons throughout the world. Yet, the contrast between the General
Assembly Hall-which was all but empty-and the Public Gallery,
which was packed with a few thousand expectant people, wasastounding. It was indeed a sad scene to observe prominent speakers
each in turn give their presentation to this huge, vacant hall. Not
surprisingly, a dejected mood pervaded the gallery as people realized
the harsh reality of the difficulty of conveying these messages to all
the nations of the world, asking them to seriously discuss ways ofabolishing weapons of mass destruction.
During the first week of May, many workshops organized byNGOs working on various nuclear-related issues were held in the
U.N. building where lively discussions amongst peace activists took
place. In the corridors various free pamphlets and magazines preparedby NGOs as well as by some governments were displayed andhanded out to participants. One of them was a glossy brochureprepared by the U.S. government, entitled Foreign Policy Agenda
March 2005: Today’s Nuclear Equation. In this, there is a shortarticle titled “Controlling the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon” by
Stephen Rademaker, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control
and Acting Assistant Secretary of State for NPT. Rademaker claims
that the world’s most dangerous weapons are weapons of mass
destruction in the hands of terrorists such as al-Qaeda and those of socalled rogue states like North Korea and Iran. Referring to the 2005
NPT Review Conference, he writes “Never before have the membersof the treaty faced the scope of violations that occurred in recent
years.” Yet he makes no mention whatsoever of the obligation of thenuclear-weapon states to comply with nuclear disarmament as
stipulated in Article 6 of the NPT.
Today it is estimated that there are more than 12,600 nuclear
warheads in the world, of which 7,000 or 56% are owned by the U.S.
Clearly, the U.S. possesses the largest number of the “world’s mostdangerous weapons.” Yet, as far as its own nuclear policies areconcerned, the Bush administration refused to ratify the CTBT,
withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and is
promoting new types of “tactical nuclear arms.” Surely these policies
must be seen as inconsistent with the spirit of NPT. The U.S.
government regards North Korea as a “rogue nation” and a “threat to
the world,” but claims Pakistan is not a threat, even though it
provided North Korea with nuclear arms technology. The U.S. carriedout a preemptive strike against Iraq, claiming that America wasdefending itself against a nation that already possessed or wasdeveloping weapons of mass destruction including nuclear arms.
After the invasion and occupation, evidence substantiating theallegations is not forthcoming. Yet, it remains silent about the Israeli
possession of nuclear arms. Moreover, the U.S. government has no

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

hesitation in stating that it may use nuclear weapons against potential
enemy nations with no nuclear arms. Undoubtedly it is these kinds ofinconsistent “nuclear proliferation policies” that are responsible formaking the NPT defunct.
In the statement delivered by Japan’s Foreign Minister Nobutaka
Machimura at the U.N. on May 2, Japan urged North Korea and Iranto dismantle all their nuclear programs. Similarly, he asked India,
Pakistan and Israel to accede to the NPT and abolish their nuclear
weapons. Yet, he made no request that the U.S. and other nuclearweapon states also adhere to their international obligation-stipulatedby the NPT- to abolish such weapons. On the same day in New
York, together with other delegates of a Hiroshima-based NGO, theHiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, I met Kazuya
Ogawa, a member of the Japanese Government Delegation to theConference on Disarmament, and exchanged views on the NPT.
During this session I argued that Japan should cooperate closely with
the nations of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) to press all nuclearweapon states, including the U.S., to fulfill their obligation to abolishnuclear weapons. I also argued that Japan, as the only nation
victimized by A-bombs, bears a moral responsibility to lead the world
anti-nuclear campaign. His reply was that Japan, as a nation protectedunder the American nuclear umbrella, must take a different approachfrom the small countries of the NAC, which fall outside the U.S.
nuclear umbrella. His reply characteristically demonstrates a grave
contradiction in Japan’s nuclear policy. It is like asking an alcoholic
to stop drinking while constantly providing him with the opportunity
to obtain alcohol.
Having attended some of the workshops on various nuclear
issues organized by NGOs, I reconfirmed my own view that acompletely new approach is required to tackle the problem of nuclear
weapons. It is undoubtedly important to raise issues such as thedanger of the radioactive effects of depleted uranium (DU) weaponson civilians and the illegality of using and threatening to use nuclear
weapons. However, we must accept that it is almost impossible toeliminate nuclear weapons through grass-roots movements focusedsolely on abolishing nuclear weapons. It is quite natural for any
regime to want to possess weapons that will outdo those of a potential
enemy. Our aim, therefore, must be to develop a new, comprehensive
approach to consider how to reduce and eventually abolish all typesof arms, including nuclear weapons. At the same time ways should be
explored to increase understanding of the fact that killing civilians isa crime against humanity regardless of the asserted militaryjustification and regardless of the type of weapon used, whether
nuclear or conventional, a crime that should be punished on the basisof the Nuremberg and Geneva principles. However this effort will bea mammoth task necessitating the cooperation of many people fromaround the world.
The strength of popular grass-roots peace movements stems
from the fact that they can critically look at war and conflict from theviewpoint of the victims, and unite with one another through a sharedconcern for victims of war, irrespective of what weapons have beenused. It is therefore imperative, I believe, to utilize this strength to thefullest, in order to generate new ways to promote popular movements
to abolish all types of weapons.
To conclude this report on the 2005 NPT Review Conference, I
would like to quote a verse from John Lennon’s song, Imagine, withwhich Yoko Ono ended her speech at the U.N. General AssemblyHall.
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you will join us
And the world will be as one.
Tanaka is professor at HPI−４−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

By Akimasa Sumi
1. Introduction
After being pending for years, the Kyoto Protocol finally came into
force on February 16, 2005, leading to a resurgence in discussions
regarding global warming and the significance of the Protocol. The
Japanese government has begun preparing action plans for reducing thecountry’s combined emissions to six percent below the 1990 level.
Most people, however, have little awareness of the comprehensive
impact of global warming. In this article I will identify the mostsignificant problems relating to the Kyoto Protocol as a way of painting
a clearer picture of global warming.
2. Global Warming as a Political Issue
Global warming is commonly considered a political problem requiringextensive scientific knowledge. However, scientific and technologicalknowledge is essential for resolving problems related to pension
systems, food safety, and nearly all problems facing modern society.
Thus, global warming is far from being the only problem requiring
scientific knowledge. It is, however, the problem that has done themost to raise public awareness of the necessity to adopt a scientificapproach to political decision-making.
The problems of global warming and nuclear war have much incommon. Both represent a tremendous menace for future generations.
Both are global problems that inevitably affect everyone on earth.
Despite the similarities, however, nuclear war and global warming
have one outstanding difference. People everywhere share the fear ofhuman annihilation by a nuclear war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
demonstrated the horrors of nuclear war. In contrast, people havediffering opinions of the impact of global warming, which makes it
difficult to develop a consensus even in a single society, much less on a
global basis.
3. Significance of the Kyoto Protocol
Parties against the Kyoto Protocol argue that it lacks scientificgrounding. I admit that scientific studies of global warming are neither
perfect nor sufficient. However, the Kyoto Protocol is based on a wide
range of scientific results gathered by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations. It is, therefore,reasonable and sensible to prepare for future environmental risks inaccordance with the scientific knowledge available today.
Why then does the U.S. oppose this international framework? The
U.S. seems to be affected by its traditional policy of the Monroe
Doctrine. As stated in the U.S. Congress, Americans believe that the
future of Americans should be determined only by Americans, not byinternational conventions. In addition, Americans regard China andIndia to be emerging rivals in the 21st century. So long as these twocountries are not obliged to reduce their emissions, why should the U.S.
have to reduce its emissions? Another reason for not ratifying theProtocol is the rapidly increasing American population, which makes
the regulation of combined emissions unrealistic. Americans believethat everyone living in the “new world” should have an opportunity tomake his or her fortune. America ensures that all people can embracehope and ambition, even though they are likely to end up as mere
dreams. In short, rather than follow international conventions restricting
the freedom of its people, the U.S. intends to adopt its own approach toaddressing global warming.
Europe, on the other hand, seems to be motivated by a politicalstrategy that prioritizes environmental protection during the 21st
century. In Europe, environmentalists have considerable influence, as
evidenced by the Green Party. In addition, reducing CO2 emissions ismore feasible in Europe, particularly in East Europe, than in otherregions. European countries believe that by taking the initiative inenvironmental policies, they will be able to exert leadership in politicaland economic policies as well.
Meanwhile, China, which used to represent developing countries,
has begun to adopt environmental protection measures. Naturally, any
country that develops economically begins also to develop concern forenvironmental problems. Accordingly, we need to facilitate the

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

−５−

economic growth of developing countries, while at the same timeencouraging them to take measures to curtail energy consumption.
Thus, one of our most urgent tasks is to promote scientific research anddevelop technologies to pursue sustainable development.
I have discussed the approaches several countries have taken to
the Kyoto Protocol. These different approaches can be interpreted as
different tactics aimed at gaining hegemony in the 21st century. It is
within this context that the Kyoto Protocol established a newinternational framework, the “Kyoto Mechanism,” which is of historicsignificance. Although the mechanism was widely criticized initially, I
believe that it will eventually prove highly influential, as have othermechanisms.
Many corporations are particularly sensitive about the Protocol’s“emissions trading” regime. Since corporations can buy and sellemissions credits on a global basis, many countries are seeking toestablish a mechanism in favor of their enterprises. If this mechanism isestablished under Western leadership, Japanese companies are likely tofind themselves at a great disadvantage. Accordingly, the Japanese
government should actively participate in decision-making regarding
trading rules, so as to establish a practical mechanism that will protect
the interests of Japanese enterprises as well.
4. International Society in the 21st Century and Beyond
Finally, I would like to describe a likely future for international society.
Obviously, we cannot continue consuming energy and other natural
resources at current rates indefinitely. Oxygen concentration in theatmosphere is declining, a phenomenon attributable to increasing CO2.
If present emission levels continue, in 700 years the oxygen
concentration that is projected to decline to approximately 18%, is alevel harmful to human health. It is therefore evident that we cannot
pursue unlimited economic growth. The future survival of humankind
depends on finding a way to build sustainable societies. Since Japandepends on imports for 60% of its food consumption, it has no choice
but to seek mutual prosperity with the rest of the world. Exploiting
Japan’s advanced environmental technologies, Japan should exert its
leadership in promoting the vision of a sustainable international society,and should contribute to realizing that vision.
In my view, “optimists” who are not concerned about theworsening environment believe that environmental problems will affectonly the weak and the vulnerable. These optimists often refer to thelong history of evolution on this planet, mentioning “natural selection”
and “adaptation to environmental changes.” It is true that over the long
history of organisms on the earth, many species were screened and lost.
It is also true that the extinction of some species enabled the evolutionof others. I doubt, however, whether these optimists are ready forhuman extinction. Presumably, they believe that they and theirdescendants will survive the process of natural selection. If they were
truly aware of the risk of human extinction, they would certainly takemeasures to avoid that risk.
Various measures to avoid human extinction have been suggested.
First of all, we should stop wasting energy and resources. Many urban
problems, for example, typify problems derived from waste of energy
and natural resources. As a solution to the problem of urban
overcrowding, the Japanese National Diet adopted a resolution to
relocate Japan’s capital from Tokyo. Relocating the capital would
effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reduce the riskof earthquake damage. However, the relocation plan has long been left
pending, because the National Diet members are unable to decide
where the new capital should be located.
Many attempts to improve our present society would also be
effective in preventing global warming, and by taking measures toprevent global warming, we can resolve various other problems andensure a better future.
Sumi is professor of the Center for Climate System Research,
University of Tokyo

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

By Christian Scherrer
When Kofi Annan in his address to the General Assembly in September
2003 warned Member States that the United Nations had reached a fork in
the road, he was referring to the single most divisive issue in recent years,
the assault by the Anglo-Saxon powers on a disarmed Iraq, with its
population decimated, undernourished and weakened by a U.N. sanction
regime whose manipulators during 13 years were the aggressors
themselves.
At any fork in the road we must decide which path to take. In thiscase, one leads to utter international anarchy, impoverishment of vast
world regions, new imperialist aggression, instability, ecological fascism
and the threat of nuclear extermination. The other path would strengtheninternational law against the law of the jungle, eradicate poverty, sharelimited resources equitably, fulfill the U.N. Millennium Development
Goals, control global warming and pollution, firmly establish a world
peace order and outlaw illegal unilateral action.
Annan created the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges andChange to generate and assess ideas about policies and institutions
required for the U.N. to overcome the present crisis and effectively
maintain the world peace order. The panel submitted its report “A moresecure world: Our shared responsibility” in fall 2004. The section on amore effective United Nations (pp.75-94) kicked off widespread debate.
Iraq and the Decaying Global Peace Order
In September 2004 Annan explicitly but belatedly declared that the U.S.led war on Iraq was illegal. Illegal action should be prosecuted, which isthe purpose of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Half of the world’s
states are now parties to the Rome Statute, among them, almost all
democracies.
Speaking for Japan, Naoko Saiki declared that the ICC should“ensure that there will be no place on earth where perpetrators may
escape.” However, Washington, D.C. seems to be a safe haven for war
criminals. The ICC has failed to launch any investigation into the assault
and occupation of Iraq while keeping itself busy pursuing African villains,with pending cases in Congo, Uganda and Sudan. Its inactivity regarding
Iraq led global civil society to organize People’s Tribunals.
Changes without Coherent Concept
In his March 2005 report titled “In larger freedom: towards development,
security and human rights for all”-following-up on the High-level panel
report-Kofi Annan spoke of “a historic opportunity in 2005” to start areform process that will upgrade the system to meet the challenges of the
21st century.
Major changes will be made at a summit of the world’s leaders at U.N.
headquarters in New York in September, which marks the U.N.’s 60th
anniversary. What Annan calls for and my comment on them are as follows:* Expanding the Security Council- without mentioning the mostcontroversial issue, the veto, which ought to be abolished* Setting clear rules for legitimate military intervention-but almost no
mention of how to operationalize the prevention of violence (andgenocide in particular) or how to enhance conflict management ascentral requirements for future global governance* Strengthening the human rights regime-but not a word about the mosttricky rights, those for minorities* Equitable development and trade, with the Millennium Development
Goals to be met by 2015-without binding rules of how to finance such a
program* Member states to provide 0.7% of GNP for development aid and fulldebt relief to the world’s poorest countries-again more an appeal thansomething binding* More coherence and sweeping overhaul of the U.N. bureaucracy-without
touching upon the issue of how to finance and facilitate the increasingly
global process of governance.
Conclusion: Though representing the biggest U.N. reform proposal in
history, the proposed reform agenda remain too modest.
Maintaining the World Peace Order
Any promising method of conflict resolution requires, first and foremost,

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

political solutions geared to concrete situations, worked out in
consultation with all parties to the conflict, enforced by a graduated set of
instruments from preventive diplomacy, peaceful settlement via multiple
tracks, targeted political and economic sanctions (that target noncomplying governments without harming the people) and Chapter VII
peace-enforcement operations-as last resort.
Genocide cannot be viewed as an “internal affair.” Intervention
becomes a moral duty. The task of developing structural prevention of
genocide must receive the attention it requires. Despite the agreed
necessity-and the African Union’s right of intervention against rogue
states, as of now, nothing has stopped the genocidal killing in Darfur.
Since 2001 the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review has raised fears aboutlowering the threshold for using nuclear arms. The 2005 Review
Conference made it clear that the NPT regime is bound to collapse if thenuclear powers fail to agree on comprehensive disarmament. Indeed,among the most daunting challenges for the U.N. is the question of how tolimit and control military spending and imperialist-style aggression.
New Agenda for Peace and Change
Major well-known challenges confronting the international society
include: (1) need for peaceful settlement of intra-state conflicts vs.
restricted possibilities allowed now under international law (noninterference); (2) incalculable risks of irreparable destabilization of theworld economy if poverty continues to grow in the South; and (3) urgencyof measures to avert global climate catastrophe. In all three areas thedanger lies in the fact that effective responses get blocked and ultimately
come too late.
The major powers privileged under the existing order of global
institutions are politically short-sighted and resist serious reform to protect
vested interests. And yet global governance by a strengthened United
Nations is a non-starter without radical changes. Growing geopoliticalcontradictions may break the deadlock and overturn the present Eurocentric power structure. Enlarging the Security Council is a step in theright direction, with qualifications.
The main obstacles to much-needed reforms are clearly identifiable:
In the U.N. Security Council, the right of veto is still held by the five oldnuclear powers but not by India, Japan, Germany, Indonesia, Brazil, andNigeria.
Calls for reforms originate mainly from Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) countries, trying to keep the big powers from further attempts toinstrumentalize the United Nations. Today’s dominance of the Northernminority over the Southern majority must be broken-with China and theEast Asian tigers as emerging go-betweens.
More Radical Reforms are Needed
Radical proposals for reform call for upgrading and democratizing the
U.N. system and for increasing its efficiency. The United Nations neednot be “reinvented” but adjusted in line with new requirements. Missing
are clear practical modalities to overcome obstacles to reform. That said,
my list of proposed reforms would affect the entire U.N. system:* Abolish the Security Council veto and admit new permanent memberscountries from all major world areas and such regional bodies as theEuropean Union and African Union* Create a world welfare organization; establish global minimum
standards for human existence; a single world currency* Create a world central bank to check currency speculation on financial
markets* Abolish the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank;
incorporating their functions under the U.N. Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC)* Strengthen the General Assembly* Increase the democratic legitimacy of the U.N. system: world parliamentof elected representatives having powers to approve the annual budget
and dismiss the Secretariat if needed* Create an independent resource base fed by global taxes on financialtransactions (e.g. at 0.1%) and environmental emissions; “taxes insteadof contributions” would cure U.N. finances−６−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

* Expand membership in and activities of the International Criminal
Court; invigorate the International Court of Justice* Promote conflict-prevention measures as the core element of global
governance* Create a culture of peace to replace repressive measures and military
action* Global abolition of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction* Ban all arms sales* Promote and incorporate regional arrangements, which ought to be

HPI Research Project

integral parts of the U.N. system; include regional security councils andconflict-regulation mechanisms; regional peace-troops (solving theAfrican Union’s problems with destabilizing intra-state conflicts)* Constitute a world ecology and environmental council with the power toimpose economic sanctions* Involve civil society actors in all global bodies; high budgets and large
staffs made international NGOs global players in the 1990s; similarly,
NGOs will have increasing influence in the 21st century.
Scherrer is professor at HPIMyanmar Peace Initiative

The first workshop of the Myanmar Peace Initiative Project was held atthe Hiroshima Peace Institute from 16th to 18th March 2005. The
meeting brought together a number of scholars including Professor
David Steinberg and Dr. Robert Taylor, who are familiar with historicaland political developments in Myanmar. There were also a number ofMyanmar scholars from both within and outside the country. The aim of
the workshop was to review developments in state-society and civilmilitary relations in the country, especially the ethnic ceasefire
agreements with insurgent groups and the Constitutional Convention.
The workshop began with a roundtable discussion on recent trends andtrajectories in Southeast Asian state-society relations in general, thenmoved on to a historical treatment of the Myanmar situation, examining
the impact of British colonization and Japanese Occupation on the
country’s post-independence developments. Subsequent presentations
examined conceptions of political legitimacy, the role of the military,state-society relations and the country’s political economy. There werealso papers that looked at the Karen and Shan ethnic groups and theirplaces in the development of the country.
The first workshop resolved that there would be five additionalpresenters to make the project more wholesome during the second
phase. It was further resolved that developments pertaining to theKachin and Mon peoples will be examined in the second workshop.
Additionally, a presenter familiar with theories of ethnicity and theirrelevance for Myanmar will be included in the deliberations. Finally, thesecond workshop will commission two additional papers on statesociety and civil-military relations in Southeast Asia so the Myanmar
situation can be viewed from a comparative perspective. The second
workshop will be held from 26th to 28th October 2005.
During the first workshop, invited attendees included Professor
Michio Takatani from Hiroshima University and Professor Omar
Farouk from Hiroshima City University. Two of other attendees werefrom the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation that generously
supported the closing ceremony of the research project. Following thesecond conference, presenters will be given a final chance to revise theirpapers before the collection is published commercially. It is expectedthat the edited volume will be ready and available for purchase in early2006.
By Narayanan Ganesan, associate professor at HPIHPI Research Forum
April 25, 2005

：North Korea under Kim Jong-il: From Consolidation to
Title：
Systemic DissonanceSpeaker : Dr.Sung Chull Kim<Summary>
Since his appointment in 1973 to the position of secretary in chargeof organization and propaganda in the Korean Workers’ Party, Kim
Jong-il’s influence has never been limited to party affairs but has
extended to every aspect of society, from the military to ideology,
culture, and economy. His energetic and meticulous personality has
penetrated deep into daily affairs. Long before the death of Kim Il
Sung in 1994, the younger Kim already had a firm grip on power inthe party, the military, and the state apparatus.
During Kim Jong-il’s three decades of engagement in politics,
the reference points for national identity have been dramaticallytransformed. First, socialist values placing priority on public goods
have largely been discarded, not only because of the inefficiency of
central planning and collectivity but because of burgeoning unofficial
commercial practices. The July 1st Economic Measure was a kind ofreform targeting the uncontrollable unofficial sphere of activity.
Second, anti-imperialism, which began immediately after the divisionof Korea in 1945 and strengthened after the Korean War, had been
maintained for domestic political integration, but it changed
significantly in the early 1990s. To solve Pyongyang’s security
dilemma, North Korea has attempted to detour through South Korea,

Japan, and Western countries--which may be called detour
diplomacy--to approach the U.S. and, ultimately, to normalize
relations. Finally, the anti-Japanese guerrilla tradition, extolled in theprocess of intensifying Kim Il Sung’s personality cult, has been
replaced by “military-first politics” since 1995. Due to a decline inparty legitimacy, military-first politics garnered special attention in
and out of North Korea.
The above-mentioned transformation of reference points is
attributable to two conjoining phenomena plaguing North Korea inthe 1990s. On the one hand, the breakdown of Eastern Europeansocialist systems and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought
about a sharp decline in North Korea’s energy imports from its
socialist allies. On the other hand, inefficient agricultural practices
compounded by natural disasters from 1995 to 1997 caused extreme
famine in North Korea. The social impact of the lack of oil, food andother essential resources was enormous: minimal operation offactories, death by starvation, deurbanization, dissipation of the labor
force, and suspension of education and medical services.
The failure of North Korea’s detour diplomacy to access the
U.S. as well as the unfolding of domestic military politics lay thegroundwork for the second nuclear crisis that surfaced in 2002 andled to the declaration of nuclear state status in 2005. Time is a criticalfactor in resolving this crisis, especially to halt plutonium-based
weapon development. Given the volatility of the U.S.-DPRK bilateralframework, that is, the Agreed Framework of 1994, it is vital toarrange direct U.S.-DPRK talks within the Six-Party framework.
Such talks could create a practical mechanism for monitoring theimplementation process.
By Sung Chull Kim, associate professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005

−７−

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

I

N

F

O

R

M

A

T

I

O

N

International Symposium

Lectures

Hiroshima and the Peace Constitution: Building on Our Past

Prior to the International Symposium, lectures by twoof the panelists will be held in commemoration of the60th anniversary of the atomic bombing. Question andanswer session will be included in the last half hour ofeach lecture. We hope you will attend the lectures.

As a consequence of the devastation that resulted
from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japansurrendered unconditionally to the Allied Forces 60
years ago by accepting the Potsdam Declaration thatdemanded liquidation of its military forces and theintroduction of true democracy. Japan thus ended
the 15 year long war that had raged in various partsof the Asia-Pacific region. In 1946 the Japanesepeople widely supported the promulgation of thePeace Constitution that could be regarded as theembodiment of the Potsdam Declaration. This was
based on the pacifist idea that the nation would
never again take up arms nor wage war, no matter
what the reason. Today, however, the country faces
a critical dilemma, spurred on by the “weathering of
the Hiroshima experience” as well as a rising voice
demanding for “amendment of the Constitution.”
Faced with such a predicament, the Symposium will
focus upon the question of how to revitalize thepeace spirit of Hiroshima and Japan’s Constitution.

Panelists:
Carol Gluck
Professor, Columbia University, U.S.
Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor, Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan
Shoichi Koseki
Professor, Dokkyo University, Japan
Motofumi Asai
President, Hiroshima Peace Institute, Japan
Coordinator:
Yuki Tanaka
Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute
Date and Time: July 30(Sat.), 2005 1:30p.m.-5:00p.m.
Venue:
Himawari Room, second basement (B2)International Conference Center(Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park)
1-5 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima
Host: Hiroshima Peace InstituteCollaboration: Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation[Lecture A]
Date and Time: July 27 (Wed.) 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m.
Speaker: Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor at Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan
Title: “What Will It Take to Stop Nuclear Proliferation?”[Lecture B]
Date and Time: July 28 (Thu.) 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m.
Speaker: Carol Gluck
Professor, Columbia University, U.S.
Title: “Remembering the Future: Hiroshima and the World”
Venue: Multimedia Studio, 6th floor of Hiroshima City
Plaza for Town Development through Citizen Exchange.
(6-36, Fukuro-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima. Next toFukuro-machi Elementary School)

How to Attend: Contact HPI for reservations, which can be made by phone, fax, email or postcard
by July 25 (Lectures) and July 27 (Symposium). Write your name, address, telephone number, fax
number, and indicate desired event (Lecture A,B and/or Symposium).Up to 100 people for eachlecture and 300 people for the Symposium can be accommodated on a first-come, first-served
basis.

Tel: +81-82-544-7570
Fax: +81-82-544-7573
Email: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp

D I A R Y
March 1 - June 30, 2005
◆Mar. 14 Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture on “Nuclear Issues 60 years after the Drop
◆May 26-28 Second workshop of HPI Research Project “Contention and Cooperationof the Atomic Bomb: A Viewpoint from Hiroshima” at the monthly meeting of thein Northeast Asia: Analysis of Domestic-Regional Linkages” is held.
Hiroshima International Women’s Club at Mielparque Hiroshima.
◆May 27 Mizumoto gives lecture on “New Perspective Learned from ‘Hiroshima andNagasaki joint course’ to Improve Peace Education” for “Peace Education Course”◆Mar. 16-18 First workshop of HPI Research Project “Myanmar Peace Initiative” isorganized by Hiroshima City Education Center, held at Kanda Sansou, Hiroshima.
held.
◆May 30 HPI President Motofumi Asai attends as committee member Hiroshima◆Mar. 17 Mizumoto attends as committee member 4th conference of core members
meeting of Peace Memorial Facilities Utilization Council convened by Hiroshima Cityof Hiroshima International Peace Forum, organized in Tokyo by Hiroshima Prefecture.
at Hiroshima City Hall. Tanaka gives lecture on “Godzilla and the Bravo Shot: Who◆Mar. 19 HPI holds symposium “A Re-examination of the NPT Regime: Proposals
Created and Killed the Monster?” at the Joint Seminar 2005 organized by and held atfrom Hiroshima and Nagasaki” at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
Hiroshima Jogakuin University.
◆Mar. 24-25 Workshop of HPI Research Project “The Real State of the Hibakusha◆Jun. 4 Makoto Oda, writer, gives lecture on “Thoughts on How to Revitalize
Exposed by 1954 Bikini Nuclear Test” is held.
Popular Peace Movements: What the Citizens of Hiroshima Need to Do” at HPI◆Apr. 1-2 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Atomic Bombing in Hiroshima and Its Peace
Research Forum. Takahashi chairs “Global Hibakusha” sectional meeting organized byMovement: From Military Capital to Peace City” at the “4・3 Peace and Human Rights
Peace Study Association of Japan, held at Rikkyo University.
Forum: For the Peace Community in East Asia” sponsored by the Jeju 4・3 Institute at◆Jun. 4-7 Scherrer participates in biennial conference of the International Association
the International Center, Cheju National University, South Korea.
of Genocide Scholars in Boca Raton, Florida, speaks on the opening Round Table on◆Apr. 8 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Importance of Having a Dream” at “Spring
Genocide Research Abroad on his experience in Rwanda 1994, Burma since 1989 andBreeze” Camp, held in Kitahiroshima Town, Hiroshima, for freshmen of Hiroshima
Sudan since 1991; he gives two panel presentations “Genocides-in-whole and Their
Kokutaiji High School.
Aftermaths: Regime Change, Denial Accountability, Victims Rehabilitation and◆Apr. 20 Yuki Tanaka gives lecture on “Godzilla and the Bravo Shot: Who CreatedMemorialization” on 6th as well as on “Genocide by Sanctions: Review of theand Killed the Monster?” at Donald Keene Center of Japanese Culture, Columbia
Evidence” on 7th.
University.
◆Jun. 18 Tanaka gives lecture on “Japan’s War Responsibility and Hiroshima” at◆Apr. 21 Tanaka gives lecture on “Terror from the Sky: A History of Indiscriminate
Hiroshima/Nagasaki joint course “War and Peace in 21st Century” held at Waseda
Bombing” to Genocide Studies Program at Yale University.
University.
◆Ap r. 23 Hiroko Takahashi reported on “Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission and◆Jun. 23 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Activities for Peace Contribution fromthe Concealed Atomic Bomb Casualties” at 11th Meeting of the Study of A-and HHiroshima” at training program for teachers from Bosnia and Hertzegovina organized
Bomb Sufferers held by Japan Confederation of A-and H-Bomb Sufferers
by Hiroshima International Center and Japan International Cooperation Agency at
Organization (HIDANKYO) and the Japan Scientists’ Association at Nihon
Hiroshima Prefectural government.
University.
◆Jun. 25 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Atomic Bomb Experience and Japan’s Nuclear◆Ap r. 25 Sung Chull Kim gives lecture on “North Korea under Kim Jong-il: From
Related Policies” and serves as trainer and chair for group discussion at Hiroshima
Consolidation to Systemic Dissonance” at HPI Research Forum.
Peace Forum organized by Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and held at◆Apr. 26 Tanaka gives lecture on “Godzilla, Fire Bombing and Atomic Bombing” toInternational Conference Center, Hiroshima.
seminar for graduate students organized by History Department of California
University, San Diego.
--- V i s i t o r s t o H P I --◆May 2-4 Tanaka attends workshops pertinent to NPT Review Conference at the◆Mar. 2 Ershad Mahmud, research coordinator, Institute of Policy Studies, Pakistan.
U.N. headquarters in New York.
Hiroaki Okamoto, Third Division, Intelligence and Analysis Service, Ministry of◆May 12-17 Christian Scherrer conducts interviews with Hibakusha in Hiroshima
Foreign Affairs, Japan.
and Nagasaki.
◆Mar. 9 Dr. Kazuo Takahashi, professor, and Dr. Wilhelm M. Vosse, assistant◆May 15 Mizumoto gives lecture on “The Current Situation of Nuclear Weapons in
professor, International Christian University. Rumiko Aruga, coordinator, Rotary
the World” during training course for volunteer readers of A-bomb memoirs organized
Peace Center, International Christian University. Ms. Carla Fantini and 5 other Rotaryby and held at Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bombscholarship recipients.
Victims.
◆Apr. 7 Ratna Sarumpaet, representative, Jakarta Arts Council, Indonesia.
◆May 24-25 Tanaka gives lectures on “Godzilla and the Bravo Shot: Who Created◆Jun. 2 Kai F. Brand-Jacobsen, director, Peace, Action, Training and Researchand Killed the Monster?” on 24th and “A Re-examination of the NPT Regime” on 25th
Institute (PATRIR), Romania.
at symposium “Hiroshima: Memory and Threat” organized by Center for East andSouth-East Asian Studies at Lund University, Sweden.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWSVol.8, No.1 July 21, 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 site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−８−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.8 No.1 July 2005