HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace InstituteVol. 2 No. 3 December 1999

Forum report a solid basis
for nuclear disarmament

Overcoming confrontation-Europe
eyes new millennium of peace

Experts air views on proposals at Hiroshima symposium

Former foreign ministers from France and Poland, a leading
German journalist and the current German Ambassador to Japan
spoke of the importance of confronting past wrongs, at both
grassroots and government levels, and of forming newpartnerships, at a symposium held in Hiroshima on October 7,
1999. At the symposium, titled "Reconciliation in Europe: Theroad to regional cooperation and security," four panelists fromcountries with a tragic history of belligerence toward one anotherexplained how the people of those countries had overcome
lingering mutual distrust. The symposium, attended by about 250
people, was sponsored by the International House of Japan withsupport from the Hiroshima Peace Institute and otherorganizations. Mikio Kato, executive director of International
House, acted as moderator. (See pages 4-5 for summaries of the
speeches.)

People from Japan, the United States and France called on
nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon states to act on therecommendations of the Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at a symposium at theInternational Conference Center in Hiroshima on September 18.
Speaking under the title "Endeavors for the abolition of nuclear
weapons-What the Tokyo Forum has achieved and what still
remains to be done," five experts, including a cochairman andtwo other members of the forum, offered analyses of theinternational climate regarding nuclear weapons and commented
on the contents of the report. Most of them urged theinternational community to take steps toward realizing thereport's recommendations. The event, which was sponsored by
the Hiroshima Peace Institute, was attended by about 200 people.
(See pages 2-3 for summaries of the speeches.)

Tokyo Forum Report draws praise, criticism at United Nations
Concrete steps are desperately needed for shared objectives

By Masamichi Kamiya
The 54th U.N. General Assembly was inaugurated on
September 14, 1999. The recommendations of the Tokyo Forum
Report were discussed at the general debate of the General
Assembly, held from September 21 to October 2, and also at thegeneral debate of its First Committee, which met from October
11 to 22. Following is a summary of discussions at the twoforums.
A speech by Masahiko Komura, the then Japanese Foreign
Minister, was one of the most encouraging made by government
representatives at the general assembly debate. He said, "Japan
would like to actively consult with other countries with a view toimplementing the meaningful recommendations contained in the(Tokyo Forum) report."
At the First Committee debate, several countries referred to
the report. The representative from Myanmar said, "The report of
the Tokyo Forum, which outlined a range of important practicalmeasures to achieve nuclear disarmament, is welcome." His
Indonesian colleague said, "The report of the Tokyo Forum has
warned of the continuing dangers posed by (the possession of)
nuclear armaments and has projected its vision of how to resolve
nuclear issues." The representative from Croatia said, " I concurwith the Tokyo Forum conclusion that there is an urgent need for

CONTENTS
Symposium "Endeavors for the abolitionof nuclear weapons"････････２〜３
Symposium "Reconciliation in Europe"･･･････････････４〜５
Dialog key to improving political stability,
security in Central Asia･･････････６
Comments on the Tokyo Forum Reportfrom Japan and abroad･･････････７
Diary･･････････････････････････････････････････････８concerted action and a realistic dialogue so that recent setbacks
can be reversed."
Negative comments, however, were heard from North Korea
at the U.N. Security Council on September 3. A statement dated
August 30, made by a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman
via the country's permanent mission in New York, read: "TheTokyo Forum has not been recognized internationally as it wascooked up by Japan to seek to cover up its ambition" to develop
nuclear arms. Meanwhile, Shen Guofang, ambassador of theChinese Mission to the United Nations, said in a statement readout at the First Committee on October 13: "The Report of theTokyo Forum, for instance, is a report with quite lopsided andbiased view. Many of its arguments…deviate from the purposesof nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation."
A representative from Japan to the First Committee said
privately that U.N. member states were interested in the report,
even though few of them had made official comments on it,
adding that the measures envisioned by the report as a means ofachieving nuclear disarmament were appropriate. Proof of thiscan be seen in a change that was made to a draft resolution for
nuclear disarmament presented this year by Myanmar to the First
Committee with the support of the Non-Aligned Countries. The
draft, like the Tokyo Forum Report, made no mention of the needfor "a specific timeframe," a condition that had appeared in all
previous resolutions until 1998. It may not be wrong to say thateven the Non-Aligned Countries, which have long demanded
nuclear disarmament to take place within a specified timeframe,
are now beginning to recognize the weakness of such demands,
and are apt to acknowledge the importance of a pragmatic,
incremental approach to nuclear disarmament.

−１−

Continued on Page 7

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

symposium
Yasushi Akashi

Endeavours for the abolition of N-weapons

What the Tokyo Forum has achieved and what still remains to be done

Participants

Former president of the Hiroshima Peace Institute, cochairmanof the Tokyo Forum
Ryukichi ImaiDistinguished fellow of the Institute for International Policy
Studies, a member of the Tokyo Forum
Therese Delpech
Director of the Strategic Affairs, Atomic Energy Commission,a member of the Tokyo Forum
Thomas Graham,Jr. President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security
Coordinated by Prof.Toshiki Mogami of the International Christian University

The report mentions the persistent belief
among some countries in nuclearism, andmakes recommendations on the assumptionthat immediate action should be taken that is
effective and realistic. Some of therecommendations emphasize the importanceof a multilateral approach to disarmament.
Toshiki Mogami Yet I am aware of a fair amount of criticism
Mogami is a professor at
the International Christian against the report. The forum was initiated
University. He is also afollowing the nuclear tests by India andmember of the Academic
Council of the International Pakistan last year, with the intention of
Association of Lawyers
responding with urgent recommendations. So,
Against Nuclear Arms.
while putting aside the problems of the NonProliferation Treaty, the forum nevertheless discussed ways of
putting pressure on countries such as India and Pakistan, whose
behavior threatens the treaty. Another concern is the report's
reliance on gradual solutions to even the most urgent problems.
For example,
the
Tokyo
iminationrequiresreaffirmation proposed
F o r u m El
thatuteevilofN‑weapons States andtheUnited ofabsol
Russia reduce warheads deployed on strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles to 1,000 each, but did not set a timetable. There is a great
deal of anxiety over when the two countries will actually attainthis goal. According to the theory of nuclear deterrence, somecountries regard nuclear weapons as a necessary evil, while others
see them as a good thing. The recommendations made by theCanberra Commission in 1996 contained clear criticism of thetheory of nuclear deterrence, and took as their starting point theidea that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil. The Tokyo Forum
report searched for a way to abolish nuclear weapon while
steering a path between the aforementioned views. But one day
we will have to give up the idea that nuclear weapons havepositive qualities. We need to reconsider the purpose of nuclear
weapons if we are to succeed in bringing about their complete
eradication.

At the Tokyo Forum we discussed not
only global disarmament but also regional
disarmament, focusing on South Asia, theMiddle East and Northeast Asia. As part ofthe process toward nuclear abolition, theforum proposed that the United States andRussia reduce warheads on strategic nuclear
delivery vehicles to 1,000 each, and that the Yasushi Akashi
Akashi is the former
five nuclear weapon states adopt a multilateral president of the Hiroshima
Peace Institute, and coapproach to disarmament. The eventual aim is chairmanof the Tokyo
to bring the number of nuclear weapons down Forum. He is also theformerU.N.
to zero. In this sense, the report is very secretary GeneralUnderfor
ambitious. One of the most significant Humanitarian Affairs.
features of the Tokyo Forum was that it squarely grappled with
nuclear problems in China. India carried out nuclear tests to gain
recognition as a global power. At the Tokyo Forum, there was acommon anxiety that more countries might follow India's way of
thinking and aim to develop a nuclear capability. The reportaddresses, in minute detail, the issues of nuclear non-proliferation
as well as
nuclear
Reportafirststeptoward It holds thatdisarmament.
isticdisarmamentmethodologyto the NPT
a commitment realregime by non-nuclear-weapon states is a necessary condition for
nuclear-weapon states to abolish their weapons. Japan, while
preciously guarding its three non-nuclear principles, at the sametime depends on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. We should consider
whether to make that umbrella smaller, or turn what is anindependent umbrella into a universal one. Any efforts towarddisarmament should aim at filling the gap between anti-nuclear
principles and the protection offered by the nuclear umbrella. In
this regard, the report's recommendations are constructive, andrepresent the first step toward a realistic disarmament
methodology. Appeals to individual governments should bemade on the basis of the report. I believe the approach suggestedby the Tokyo Forum-which combines the wisdom of NGOs andexperts from around the world-will be very influential in the
future.

the START process, they began reducing weapons numbers for
economic, rather than humanitarian reasons. Although eachcountry has reduced the number of weapons it possesses to about
3,000, the problem of how to dismantle nuclear weapons in the
coming century has yet to be solved. It is said that a maximum of
From 1960s through the beginning of the
2,000 weapons (strategic and/or tactical) can be dismantled per
1980s, the United States and the former
year under the most prudent conditions. There also needs to be
Soviet Union built up huge nuclear arsenals.
discussion on the role of nuclear energy in the 21st century. At
Although a movement for nuclear abolition
the COP 3 climate-change conference in 1997, countries agreed
existed, little was known in Japan, at least
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Given this commitment,
about how to actually dismantle and dispose
reducing nuclear power generation would appear difficult. Theof existing nuclearof
nucleardcontinueuntilnuclearweaponsareeliminated issues
Ryukichi Imai
weapons.
The Ourworkshoul
disarmament and energy
Imai is a distinguishedgovernment kick-started theshould be discussed together in the future. We also have tofellow of the Institute for AustralianInternational Policy Studies movement for the abolition of nuclear
address the problem of contamination by radioactive waste. So
in Tokyo, and a member of
the Tokyo Forum. He is a weapons with the establishment of the
how do we bring about the realization of nuclear weapon-freeformer Ambassador of
Canberra Commission in 1995, and Japanworld? To find the answer, we must urge Japan and the rest of
Japan
to
the
U.N.
Conferenceo n took up that initiative and set up the Tokyo
the international community not to be content with the outcome
Disarmament, Ambassador
so far, but to continue where the Tokyo Forum Report left off
to Mexico and a member of Forum. The number of strategic warheads
the governing board at the possessed by the United States and Russia
and make concerted efforts toward total nuclear abolition.
Stockholm International
numbered about 80,000 in the 1980s. Under
Peace Research Institute.

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

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

The world faced a choice between the assured danger of could result in the consideration by the allianceproliferation or the challenges of nuclear disarmament, and of the adoption of a no-first-use policy. Efforts
ostensibly chose the latter. However, developments over the such as these are ways in which determined
years, and the continuing inability of nuclear-weapon states non-nuclear-weapon states can work toward(NWS) to negotiate further reductions in nuclear arsenals seem reducing the political value of nuclear
to be pushing the international community back toward the weapons. The Tokyo Forum correctly
former option. Several important steps need to be taken if the concludes that without significant reductions
world is to be moved back onto the right track. The NWS should in existing arsenals, nuclear nonproliferation Thomas Graham, Jr.
Graham is president of theagree to a no-first-use policy. This would emphasize their efforts are unlikely to succeed. Drastically Lawyers
Alliance forcommitment to
reducing
the World Security in the
United States. He served as
ngpoliticalvalueofnuclearweaponsthebestpathtowardstability number
thenegative Reduciof the special representativeof the President for Arms
security assurances and would send a firm message to would-be nuclear weapons in the world and strictly Control, Nonproliferation,
proliferators that the acquisition of nuclear weapons does not limiting their role solely to deterring their use and Disarmament, leading
U.S. government efforts toenhance the security or greatness of the state. Nuclear non- by others, coupled with practical steps by achieve
indefinite
extensionof the NPT andproliferation is not the preserve of the NWS. For example, all but NNWS to bolster the nonproliferation regime,
urge conclusion of CTBT
one NWS member of NATO abstained on a General Assembly is the best path toward security and stability in negotiations in Geneva.
Resolution sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition calling for the next century.
achieving a nuclear-free world. Similarly, due largely to theefforts of Canada and Germany, NATO agreed at its April
summit meeting to conduct a review of its nuclear doctrine that

Questions & Answers
One of the most significant features of theTokyo Forum Report is that it faced up toregional and international security. Unlike
most of its predecessors, the report develops afirmly grounded debate on international
relations, recognizing that they should takeprecedence if the recommendations should
Therese Delpech have any impact in the real world. The original
Delpech is director ofStrategic Affairs at the goal was to discuss ways to rebuild theAtomicE n e r g y international order of nuclear nonproliferation
Commission in France anda member of the Tokyo and disarmament after the nuclear tests in
Forum. She is a former South Asia. The report devotes additional
advisor to the French Prime
Minister for politico- analysis to two other crisis-hit regions that are
military affairs and a
consultant to the Policy causing concern: the Middle East and East
Planning Staff of the Asia. Second, nuclear disarmament should be
French Ministry of Foreign
comprehensive and linked to other
Affairs.
developments other than nuclear. The longneglected issue of tactical nuclear weapons was taken up andproposals for the reduction and eventual elimination of tactical
nucleareaponsRecommendationsavast wwritten
w e r einmprovementonexistingpolicies N u c l e a r
the report. idisarmament should also be linked to other spheres ofdisarmament, in particular to missile proliferation, and tochemical and biological disarmament. Third, the report makes it
clear that China should contribute to nuclear disarmament withdeeds and not only with words, by, for example, improving
transparency and accepting at least to commit itself not toincrease its nuclear forces. The Tokyo Forum Report has beenread in Europe. The recommendations go far beyond the scope ofpolicies currently being pursued by nuclear-weapon states, butthey give a direction to follow in order to improve the current
situation.

Comments by Japanese speakers translated by Mika Harland and Eiko Matsushima, HPI staff members

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

Member of Audience：Do you think abolishing nuclear weapons-the sincerest wish of the people of Hiroshima-is impracticable?
Delpech：I can understand that for the people living in Hiroshima, nothing is
acceptable but zero nuclear weapons. But in any view it is better to improve
the present situation with appropriate steps than to have a general and abstract
commitment to immediate elimination, which is not practicable and willremain empty words.
Member of Audience：The 15th paragraph of Part 4 of the Tokyo Forum
report could be read to mean that nuclear weapons would deter the use of other weapons of mass destruction.
Graham：The report makes it clear that nuclear weapons should have onerole and one role only, and that is to deter the use of other nuclear weapons.
And in order to make the pledges of no-first-use credible, it is important tohave changes in nuclear doctrine which reserves the first use of nuclear weapons, and which overtly implies that nuclear weapons are politically and militarily valuable.
Delpech：The report is very cautious concerning no-first-use. It does say thatcommitments are seldom reliable in this field. The best way to ensure the additional reliability of this pledge is to withdraw and abandon tactical nuclear
weapons, which could be battlefield arms.
Member of Audience：The Report says that the NPT Regime is in a criticalsituation. I think it attributes (that situation) to the lack of responsibility shownby nuclear-weapon states, which are parties to the NPT.
Akashi：The NPT rests on a core bargain between nuclear-weapon states andnon-nuclear-weapon states. The Report emphasizes the role of nuclear-weapon states in achieving disarmament, especially the responsibility of the U.S.
and Russia. Unless nuclear-weapon states that are parties to the NPT throw all
their energies into implementing Article 6 of the NPT, non-nuclear-weapon
states' commitments to the NPT might be weakened.
Member of Audience：The Report mentions the early realization of a denuclearised Korean Peninsula.Why did not it refer to the creation of nuclearweapon-free zone in Northeast Asia?
Akashi：Concerning a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia, there
would be far more difficult problems than in other nuclear weapon-free zones.
In other zones, nuclear weapons do not exist and nuclear weapon states havenot deployed any nuclear weapons in those areas. In Northeast Asia, China
and Russia are nuclear-weapon states, and the U.S. has a nuclear potential in
the area. So clearing the area of nuclear weapons is the first problem thatneeds solving. I think that is why we could not bring up in the report the issue
of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the region.
Delpech：Concerning Northeast Asia, the major problem would be about thescope of the nuclear weapon-free zone. What would be in particular the role of
China? Also, in Northeast Asia, the priority for us was to get a denuclearizedzone in the Korean Peninsula, or at least full implementation of NPT commitments and 1991 bilateral agreements.

−３−

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

symposium
Yasushi Akashi

Endeavours for the abolition of N-weapons

What the Tokyo Forum has achieved and what still remains to be done

Participants

Former president of the Hiroshima Peace Institute, cochairmanof the Tokyo Forum
Ryukichi ImaiDistinguished fellow of the Institute for International Policy
Studies, a member of the Tokyo Forum
Therese Delpech
Director of the Strategic Affairs, Atomic Energy Commission,a member of the Tokyo Forum
Thomas Graham,Jr. President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security
Coordinated by Prof.Toshiki Mogami of the International Christian University

The report mentions the persistent belief
among some countries in nuclearism, andmakes recommendations on the assumptionthat immediate action should be taken that is
effective and realistic. Some of therecommendations emphasize the importanceof a multilateral approach to disarmament.
Toshiki Mogami Yet I am aware of a fair amount of criticism
Mogami is a professor at
the International Christian against the report. The forum was initiated
University. He is also afollowing the nuclear tests by India andmember of the Academic
Council of the International Pakistan last year, with the intention of
Association of Lawyers
responding with urgent recommendations. So,
Against Nuclear Arms.
while putting aside the problems of the NonProliferation Treaty, the forum nevertheless discussed ways of
putting pressure on countries such as India and Pakistan, whose
behavior threatens the treaty. Another concern is the report's
reliance on gradual solutions to even the most urgent problems.
For example,
the
Tokyo
iminationrequiresreaffirmation proposed
F o r u m El
thatuteevilofN‑weapons States andtheUnited ofabsol
Russia reduce warheads deployed on strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles to 1,000 each, but did not set a timetable. There is a great
deal of anxiety over when the two countries will actually attainthis goal. According to the theory of nuclear deterrence, somecountries regard nuclear weapons as a necessary evil, while others
see them as a good thing. The recommendations made by theCanberra Commission in 1996 contained clear criticism of thetheory of nuclear deterrence, and took as their starting point theidea that nuclear weapons are an absolute evil. The Tokyo Forum
report searched for a way to abolish nuclear weapon while
steering a path between the aforementioned views. But one day
we will have to give up the idea that nuclear weapons havepositive qualities. We need to reconsider the purpose of nuclear
weapons if we are to succeed in bringing about their complete
eradication.

At the Tokyo Forum we discussed not
only global disarmament but also regional
disarmament, focusing on South Asia, theMiddle East and Northeast Asia. As part ofthe process toward nuclear abolition, theforum proposed that the United States andRussia reduce warheads on strategic nuclear
delivery vehicles to 1,000 each, and that the Yasushi Akashi
Akashi is the former
five nuclear weapon states adopt a multilateral president of the Hiroshima
Peace Institute, and coapproach to disarmament. The eventual aim is chairmanof the Tokyo
to bring the number of nuclear weapons down Forum. He is also theformerU.N.
to zero. In this sense, the report is very secretary GeneralUnderfor
ambitious. One of the most significant Humanitarian Affairs.
features of the Tokyo Forum was that it squarely grappled with
nuclear problems in China. India carried out nuclear tests to gain
recognition as a global power. At the Tokyo Forum, there was acommon anxiety that more countries might follow India's way of
thinking and aim to develop a nuclear capability. The reportaddresses, in minute detail, the issues of nuclear non-proliferation
as well as
nuclear
Reportafirststeptoward It holds thatdisarmament.
isticdisarmamentmethodologyto the NPT
a commitment realregime by non-nuclear-weapon states is a necessary condition for
nuclear-weapon states to abolish their weapons. Japan, while
preciously guarding its three non-nuclear principles, at the sametime depends on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. We should consider
whether to make that umbrella smaller, or turn what is anindependent umbrella into a universal one. Any efforts towarddisarmament should aim at filling the gap between anti-nuclear
principles and the protection offered by the nuclear umbrella. In
this regard, the report's recommendations are constructive, andrepresent the first step toward a realistic disarmament
methodology. Appeals to individual governments should bemade on the basis of the report. I believe the approach suggestedby the Tokyo Forum-which combines the wisdom of NGOs andexperts from around the world-will be very influential in the
future.

the START process, they began reducing weapons numbers for
economic, rather than humanitarian reasons. Although eachcountry has reduced the number of weapons it possesses to about
3,000, the problem of how to dismantle nuclear weapons in the
coming century has yet to be solved. It is said that a maximum of
From 1960s through the beginning of the
2,000 weapons (strategic and/or tactical) can be dismantled per
1980s, the United States and the former
year under the most prudent conditions. There also needs to be
Soviet Union built up huge nuclear arsenals.
discussion on the role of nuclear energy in the 21st century. At
Although a movement for nuclear abolition
the COP 3 climate-change conference in 1997, countries agreed
existed, little was known in Japan, at least
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Given this commitment,
about how to actually dismantle and dispose
reducing nuclear power generation would appear difficult. Theof existing nuclearof
nucleardcontinueuntilnuclearweaponsareeliminated issues
Ryukichi Imai
weapons.
The Ourworkshoul
disarmament and energy
Imai is a distinguishedgovernment kick-started theshould be discussed together in the future. We also have tofellow of the Institute for AustralianInternational Policy Studies movement for the abolition of nuclear
address the problem of contamination by radioactive waste. So
in Tokyo, and a member of
the Tokyo Forum. He is a weapons with the establishment of the
how do we bring about the realization of nuclear weapon-freeformer Ambassador of
Canberra Commission in 1995, and Japanworld? To find the answer, we must urge Japan and the rest of
Japan
to
the
U.N.
Conferenceo n took up that initiative and set up the Tokyo
the international community not to be content with the outcome
Disarmament, Ambassador
so far, but to continue where the Tokyo Forum Report left off
to Mexico and a member of Forum. The number of strategic warheads
the governing board at the possessed by the United States and Russia
and make concerted efforts toward total nuclear abolition.
Stockholm International
numbered about 80,000 in the 1980s. Under
Peace Research Institute.

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

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

The world faced a choice between the assured danger of could result in the consideration by the allianceproliferation or the challenges of nuclear disarmament, and of the adoption of a no-first-use policy. Efforts
ostensibly chose the latter. However, developments over the such as these are ways in which determined
years, and the continuing inability of nuclear-weapon states non-nuclear-weapon states can work toward(NWS) to negotiate further reductions in nuclear arsenals seem reducing the political value of nuclear
to be pushing the international community back toward the weapons. The Tokyo Forum correctly
former option. Several important steps need to be taken if the concludes that without significant reductions
world is to be moved back onto the right track. The NWS should in existing arsenals, nuclear nonproliferation Thomas Graham, Jr.
Graham is president of theagree to a no-first-use policy. This would emphasize their efforts are unlikely to succeed. Drastically Lawyers
Alliance forcommitment to
reducing
the World Security in the
United States. He served as
ngpoliticalvalueofnuclearweaponsthebestpathtowardstability number
thenegative Reduciof the special representativeof the President for Arms
security assurances and would send a firm message to would-be nuclear weapons in the world and strictly Control, Nonproliferation,
proliferators that the acquisition of nuclear weapons does not limiting their role solely to deterring their use and Disarmament, leading
U.S. government efforts toenhance the security or greatness of the state. Nuclear non- by others, coupled with practical steps by achieve
indefinite
extensionof the NPT andproliferation is not the preserve of the NWS. For example, all but NNWS to bolster the nonproliferation regime,
urge conclusion of CTBT
one NWS member of NATO abstained on a General Assembly is the best path toward security and stability in negotiations in Geneva.
Resolution sponsored by the New Agenda Coalition calling for the next century.
achieving a nuclear-free world. Similarly, due largely to theefforts of Canada and Germany, NATO agreed at its April
summit meeting to conduct a review of its nuclear doctrine that

Questions & Answers
One of the most significant features of theTokyo Forum Report is that it faced up toregional and international security. Unlike
most of its predecessors, the report develops afirmly grounded debate on international
relations, recognizing that they should takeprecedence if the recommendations should
Therese Delpech have any impact in the real world. The original
Delpech is director ofStrategic Affairs at the goal was to discuss ways to rebuild theAtomicE n e r g y international order of nuclear nonproliferation
Commission in France anda member of the Tokyo and disarmament after the nuclear tests in
Forum. She is a former South Asia. The report devotes additional
advisor to the French Prime
Minister for politico- analysis to two other crisis-hit regions that are
military affairs and a
consultant to the Policy causing concern: the Middle East and East
Planning Staff of the Asia. Second, nuclear disarmament should be
French Ministry of Foreign
comprehensive and linked to other
Affairs.
developments other than nuclear. The longneglected issue of tactical nuclear weapons was taken up andproposals for the reduction and eventual elimination of tactical
nucleareaponsRecommendationsavast wwritten
w e r einmprovementonexistingpolicies N u c l e a r
the report. idisarmament should also be linked to other spheres ofdisarmament, in particular to missile proliferation, and tochemical and biological disarmament. Third, the report makes it
clear that China should contribute to nuclear disarmament withdeeds and not only with words, by, for example, improving
transparency and accepting at least to commit itself not toincrease its nuclear forces. The Tokyo Forum Report has beenread in Europe. The recommendations go far beyond the scope ofpolicies currently being pursued by nuclear-weapon states, butthey give a direction to follow in order to improve the current
situation.

Comments by Japanese speakers translated by Mika Harland and Eiko Matsushima, HPI staff members

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

Member of Audience：Do you think abolishing nuclear weapons-the sincerest wish of the people of Hiroshima-is impracticable?
Delpech：I can understand that for the people living in Hiroshima, nothing is
acceptable but zero nuclear weapons. But in any view it is better to improve
the present situation with appropriate steps than to have a general and abstract
commitment to immediate elimination, which is not practicable and willremain empty words.
Member of Audience：The 15th paragraph of Part 4 of the Tokyo Forum
report could be read to mean that nuclear weapons would deter the use of other weapons of mass destruction.
Graham：The report makes it clear that nuclear weapons should have onerole and one role only, and that is to deter the use of other nuclear weapons.
And in order to make the pledges of no-first-use credible, it is important tohave changes in nuclear doctrine which reserves the first use of nuclear weapons, and which overtly implies that nuclear weapons are politically and militarily valuable.
Delpech：The report is very cautious concerning no-first-use. It does say thatcommitments are seldom reliable in this field. The best way to ensure the additional reliability of this pledge is to withdraw and abandon tactical nuclear
weapons, which could be battlefield arms.
Member of Audience：The Report says that the NPT Regime is in a criticalsituation. I think it attributes (that situation) to the lack of responsibility shownby nuclear-weapon states, which are parties to the NPT.
Akashi：The NPT rests on a core bargain between nuclear-weapon states andnon-nuclear-weapon states. The Report emphasizes the role of nuclear-weapon states in achieving disarmament, especially the responsibility of the U.S.
and Russia. Unless nuclear-weapon states that are parties to the NPT throw all
their energies into implementing Article 6 of the NPT, non-nuclear-weapon
states' commitments to the NPT might be weakened.
Member of Audience：The Report mentions the early realization of a denuclearised Korean Peninsula.Why did not it refer to the creation of nuclearweapon-free zone in Northeast Asia?
Akashi：Concerning a nuclear weapon-free zone in Northeast Asia, there
would be far more difficult problems than in other nuclear weapon-free zones.
In other zones, nuclear weapons do not exist and nuclear weapon states havenot deployed any nuclear weapons in those areas. In Northeast Asia, China
and Russia are nuclear-weapon states, and the U.S. has a nuclear potential in
the area. So clearing the area of nuclear weapons is the first problem thatneeds solving. I think that is why we could not bring up in the report the issue
of a nuclear weapon-free zone in the region.
Delpech：Concerning Northeast Asia, the major problem would be about thescope of the nuclear weapon-free zone. What would be in particular the role of
China? Also, in Northeast Asia, the priority for us was to get a denuclearizedzone in the Korean Peninsula, or at least full implementation of NPT commitments and 1991 bilateral agreements.

−３−

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

Europe's history during the past 1,000 years has
been a narrative of progress-from ignorance to theknowledge-based society, from destitution toaffluence, from parochial concerns to global
outreach. There is, however, a dark side to the storyof Europe's past 1,000 years. The millennium, which
is now drawing to an end, was one of almost
uninterrupted internecine warfare. Many feared that
Theo Sommer
Sommer is the publisher of Europe had reached the end of its history. Thanks to
Die Zeit magazine. He is
also a regular contributor to the wisdom of a handful of truly great leaders, things
NewsweekandThe
Yomiuri Shimbun. He is a turned out quite differently. Statesmen decided to put
former lecturer at the Europe back on the map, not as warring rivals, but by
University of Hamburg andserved as head of the creating a totally new Europe. Statesmen from France
planning
staff
under
and Germany became close partners in a bold venture
Defense Minister Helmut
Schmidt during the Brandt of reconciliation, and contributed to the cementing ofadministration.
the Franco-German relationship. We have been able
to become not only the core, but also the motor of progress in Europe.
The common project of European integration has stabilized the FrancoGerman relationship. That special relationship is continuously lubricatedby an abundance of meetings. I am confident that by focusing ourambition on Europe, we can likewise achieve reconciliation between
Germany and
Poland. But
1,000‑yearjourney
this is noteasy.
Inrom confrontationtoconciliation between therelations f
two, the Poles experienced agony at the hands of Germany for several
hundred years. In 1945 the tables turned. Hundreds of thousands ofGermans lost their lives during that turbulent time. The outbreak of theCold War did not help. The old images of those who constituted theenemy were powerfully reinforced by the rhetoric of the East-West
confrontation. There were, however, a number of important official
moves- the German-Polish Treaty of 1970, and textbook conferences
attended by German and Polish historians aimed at conveying an
objective picture of the past to the young generation. And in 1950, theOrder-Neisse line was recognized as the border between Poland andGermany. Reconciliation is difficult, but all the necessary prerequisites
are there. First of all, the Germans have faced up to their past. They did
not close their eyes, their minds, and their hearts to the misdeeds
committed by their fathers and grandfathers. Second, the European
project provides to all our nations a framework within which we can liveout our national destinies without giving offense to others. During thenext three or four years, Poland's accession to the European Union will
symbolize the end of 1,000 years of strife and confrontation.

symposium

Reconciliation in Europe

The Road to Regional Cooperation and Security
Theo Sommer
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski
Roland Dumas
Uwe KaestnerParticipants

Publisher of Die Zeit, Germany
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Poland
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, France
German Ambassador to Japan

Moderated by Mikio Kato Executive Director, the International House of Japan

Questions & Answers
Member of audience：Do you think it is possible forpeople to forgive others in any situation?
Bartoszewski：I cannot jump to conclusions. It depends
on the situation, the generations and the nations involved.
You have to think about the historical background and therelationship between nations. In unifying Europe (i.e. theformation of the European Union), we took the sameactions as other nations. We had the same motivation for
unification. It was a good chance to look for a way to coexist. Despite differences in culture, it is important tohave the same motivation and to cooperate with one
another for better conditions.
Sommer：Europe showed that it is possible. In unifying
Europe, it was important to have a common purpose withother nations and to make an effort to attain the same
goals.
Member of audience：I think the relationship between
Germany and France until the end of World War Ⅱ was
similar to that between China and Japan. And in terms ofthe damage caused by the war, the relationship between
Germany and Poland has something in common with thatbetween Korea and Japan. What advice would you give
Japan to establish closer ties with China and North andSouth Korea?

During World War II, I was imprisoned as a separation led to the emergence of a new society in which children
political offender in the Auschwitz death camp, had the opportunity to be educated in a different way and learn about
and given a tattoo identifying me as No. 4424. I the idea of reconciliation. Although it was not intended as a political
was released after seven months, and joined the remark, in 1965, when Poland was under communist rule, a Catholic
Resistance to help save the lives of Jews. In 1944, bishop in Poland said, in reference to Germany, "We will forgive you.
Poland was bombed on a massive scale, but I Please forgive us." Many Poles must have thought the same way. In
survived the bombings. Under these conditions, my Germany, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and a new government wasformed in Poland. In 1994, Roman Herzog, then president of the
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski hatred for Germany was a matter of course. I did
Bartoszewski was Poland's not consider Germany a partner. I even did notFederal Republic of Germany, apologized for the wrongs committed
Minister of Foreign Affairsby Germans. In April 1995, I became the first Pole in German history
from March to December think of reconciliation with Germany. But the time
1995.
Imprisoned
at
for
peace
did
to make a speech at the German
Auschwitz concentration
agetoconfronttruthmakesreconciliationpossibleBundestag. As the Foreign Minister,
camp during the war, he come.
Poland Courwas a co-founder of the
I apologized on behalf of the Polish people for having Germans"Zegota" Council for Aid had been tortured by other countries and had
to Jews. He was also active experienced great hardship for many years. For
exiled, and for making them suffer terribly after the war. In theinthe
Catholic
when Stalin was in power, he process of reconciliation, we not only overcame our hatred ofunderground organization, example,
the Front for the Rebirth ofmanipulated the people psychologically. We Germany but also formed partnerships with France and Germany
Poland. He was twice
imprisonedby
the wanted to lead our lives freely as human beings.
under the banner of NATO. In doing so, we resurrected the traditional
communists, and was later
relationship of the three Weimar countries of Germany, France andofficially recognized as a Even at that time, some Poles did not think thatvictim of persecution.
German citizens were to blame for the crimes of Poland. We need to search our conscience for the deeds we committed
the war. Why was it possible for them to think that way? The reason is in the past. Great courage is necessary to tell the truth. I believe thethat they understood Hitler's crimes had brought about the lengthy spirit of truth will make reconciliation possible.
separation of several million Poles and Germans. However, thisVisit HPI's web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−４−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

Dumas：Maybe the time is not ripe for that yet. But there
are several measures that should be taken to improve therelationship. I believe, for example, it is important tomake younger generations understand the concept ofreconciliation.
Kato：Reconciliation in Europe was achieved byovercoming the hatred between former enemies. For agenuine reconciliation, we need people to be courageous,
great leaders who are willing to make symbolic gesturesin a sincere way. We have to ask ourselves whether Japan
has had such attributes in the past.

Comments from the audience[Excerpts]"As residents of Hiroshima, we should think
more about the meaning of the word 'reconciliation.'
A Polish Catholic bishop once said: 'We will forgive
you. Please forgive us.' I think such sentiments can form
the basis of reconciliation."-Toshihiko Hayashi of Hiroshima, in reply to an HPIquestionnaire"I realized the importance of apologizing and making
symbolic gestures to advance the reconciliation process. As
Japanese citizens living in Hiroshima, we should not only
highlight the tragedy of war, but also the suffering we
inflicted during the war. We need to form close
relationships with other countries both byforgiving and by asking for forgiveness."-Kenji Kawaguchi of Kure, in an
e-mail to HPIHowever many treaties and agreements
diplomatic experts concluded, they could not avoid
wars. For instance, after WWI, the Treaty of
Versailles was concluded. People believed war would
not happen again in Europe, but then WWII brokeout. Therefore, they needed a different approach
toward avoiding wars. Now, let me share theexperiences of the French people after WWII. Rather Roland Dumas
was French Ministerthan promoting reconciliation, people in France, I Dumas
for Foreign Affairs, 1988remember, wanted to take revenge on Germany. I 1993. He is the formerofthewas a young Dietman at the time, elected in a town president
Parliamentary Committee for
Foreign
AffairsoftheFrenchthat had suffered extraordinary torture as a result of
National Assembly; Minister
the war. On top of that, my father had been shot dead for European Affairs;
for the Frenchby the Nazis after being taken prisoner, so I spokesman
government and Minister for
campaigned under the slogan, "Remember our External Relations.
victims. Settle their scores." Nevertheless, circumstances graduallychanged, and new sentiments came to the fore, such as "Say goodbye toour hatred for old enemies. Wars are not only ill-fated but also foolish."People such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, De Gaulle and otherhigh-ranking
politicians
Gesturesessentialparte a g e r l y
advocatedeconciliationinpostwarEurope showed thethat idea, and ofr
political will to realize reconciliation. They tried to promote thereconciliation process within the framework of a European community
rather than directly with Germany. From the economic point of view, theEuropean Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a good example. The
ECSC enabled Germany and France to jointly control coal and steel,both necessary for sustaining a war. The ECSC was followed by similarorganizations, culminating, today, in European Monetary Union. The
people of Europe are now trying to build a flexible structure based on
those principles in the form of the European Union. Symbolic gestures
were also indispensable to the advancement of the reconciliation
process. Polish people were genuinely touched when former chancellorof the Federal Republic of Germany, Willy Brandt, bowed before thegraves of fallen Polish soldiers in Warsaw. And the meeting between
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Francois
Mitterrand at the former battlefield of Verdun left a deep impression on
the peoples of Germany and France. People around the world who
witnessed those scenes on television saw more clearly the extent towhich the attitude of the German people had changed than could becommunicated by treaties and agreements.

unite, not divide countries. The term "earthquake
It is necessary for people in each country to make every effort diplomacy" has been heard often recently,
and to study how we can turn the hate of the past into the particularly since Turkey and Greece bothreconciliation of the future. Not only leading figures in government experienced great earthquakes. When one wasbut also citizens, prominent authors and artists have contributed to the distressed, the other helped, despite their history ofadvancement of the reconciliation process. Under the slogan "No hostility toward each other. In Poland, thereconciliation without truth," German and Polish historians have government outlawed the Solidarity workers'
Uwe Kaestnergathered materials and studied objective pictures of past wars and movement and proclaimed martial law. In
is the former
how they broke out. Reconciliation is a like an architectural plan, in response, Western countries imposed sanctions Kaestner
Directorfor
Latin
which people not only overcome the difficulties of the past but also against Poland, but the German people sent relief American Affairs at theGerman Foreign Ministry,
goods to Polish people Ambassador to Southbuild a common
T
r
u
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
h
i
n
d
n
e
w
Ge
r
ma
n
y
‑
Po
l
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Africaand the Kingdom of
via churches. Nothing Lesotho,
future. The young
Director forpost-war generation accepted such a principle with enthusiasm: is more precious than help when a country is in African Affairs andDirector-GeneralofEurope! The European Coal and Steel community was established in great difficulties. Last, but not least, symbolic Political Affairs, both at1952 under the concept that European countries would jointly control gestures are a prerequisite for advancing the the German Foreign
Ministry.
resources, such as coal and steel, which had hitherto been considered reconciliation process. For example, on September
essential for wars. The same idea also led to the establishment of the 1 this year, German President Johannes Rau shook hands with Polish
European Atomic Energy Community, which aimed to jointly develop President Aleksander Kwasniewski on the site of the battlegroundnuclear energy. Later, that idea helped forge the European Economic where WWII had broken out 60 years ago. After the reunification ofCommunity and the EU, which is now open to Germany's eastern Germany, Queen ElizabethⅡand Prince Philip visited Dresden andneighbors. Such major steps in the economic and political integration offered to contribute a crucifix to a church that British Air Forceof Europe have enabled us to overcome boundary problems between planes had destroyed during the war.
Germany and Poland. A boundary in the Europe of the future would
Translated from Japanese texts by Eiko Matsushima and Mika Harland, HPI staff members

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

−５−

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

Europe's history during the past 1,000 years has
been a narrative of progress-from ignorance to theknowledge-based society, from destitution toaffluence, from parochial concerns to global
outreach. There is, however, a dark side to the storyof Europe's past 1,000 years. The millennium, which
is now drawing to an end, was one of almost
uninterrupted internecine warfare. Many feared that
Theo Sommer
Sommer is the publisher of Europe had reached the end of its history. Thanks to
Die Zeit magazine. He is
also a regular contributor to the wisdom of a handful of truly great leaders, things
NewsweekandThe
Yomiuri Shimbun. He is a turned out quite differently. Statesmen decided to put
former lecturer at the Europe back on the map, not as warring rivals, but by
University of Hamburg andserved as head of the creating a totally new Europe. Statesmen from France
planning
staff
under
and Germany became close partners in a bold venture
Defense Minister Helmut
Schmidt during the Brandt of reconciliation, and contributed to the cementing ofadministration.
the Franco-German relationship. We have been able
to become not only the core, but also the motor of progress in Europe.
The common project of European integration has stabilized the FrancoGerman relationship. That special relationship is continuously lubricatedby an abundance of meetings. I am confident that by focusing ourambition on Europe, we can likewise achieve reconciliation between
Germany and
Poland. But
1,000‑yearjourney
this is noteasy.
Inrom confrontationtoconciliation between therelations f
two, the Poles experienced agony at the hands of Germany for several
hundred years. In 1945 the tables turned. Hundreds of thousands ofGermans lost their lives during that turbulent time. The outbreak of theCold War did not help. The old images of those who constituted theenemy were powerfully reinforced by the rhetoric of the East-West
confrontation. There were, however, a number of important official
moves- the German-Polish Treaty of 1970, and textbook conferences
attended by German and Polish historians aimed at conveying an
objective picture of the past to the young generation. And in 1950, theOrder-Neisse line was recognized as the border between Poland andGermany. Reconciliation is difficult, but all the necessary prerequisites
are there. First of all, the Germans have faced up to their past. They did
not close their eyes, their minds, and their hearts to the misdeeds
committed by their fathers and grandfathers. Second, the European
project provides to all our nations a framework within which we can liveout our national destinies without giving offense to others. During thenext three or four years, Poland's accession to the European Union will
symbolize the end of 1,000 years of strife and confrontation.

symposium

Reconciliation in Europe

The Road to Regional Cooperation and Security
Theo Sommer
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski
Roland Dumas
Uwe KaestnerParticipants

Publisher of Die Zeit, Germany
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Poland
Former Minister for Foreign Affairs, France
German Ambassador to Japan

Moderated by Mikio Kato Executive Director, the International House of Japan

Questions & Answers
Member of audience：Do you think it is possible forpeople to forgive others in any situation?
Bartoszewski：I cannot jump to conclusions. It depends
on the situation, the generations and the nations involved.
You have to think about the historical background and therelationship between nations. In unifying Europe (i.e. theformation of the European Union), we took the sameactions as other nations. We had the same motivation for
unification. It was a good chance to look for a way to coexist. Despite differences in culture, it is important tohave the same motivation and to cooperate with one
another for better conditions.
Sommer：Europe showed that it is possible. In unifying
Europe, it was important to have a common purpose withother nations and to make an effort to attain the same
goals.
Member of audience：I think the relationship between
Germany and France until the end of World War Ⅱ was
similar to that between China and Japan. And in terms ofthe damage caused by the war, the relationship between
Germany and Poland has something in common with thatbetween Korea and Japan. What advice would you give
Japan to establish closer ties with China and North andSouth Korea?

During World War II, I was imprisoned as a separation led to the emergence of a new society in which children
political offender in the Auschwitz death camp, had the opportunity to be educated in a different way and learn about
and given a tattoo identifying me as No. 4424. I the idea of reconciliation. Although it was not intended as a political
was released after seven months, and joined the remark, in 1965, when Poland was under communist rule, a Catholic
Resistance to help save the lives of Jews. In 1944, bishop in Poland said, in reference to Germany, "We will forgive you.
Poland was bombed on a massive scale, but I Please forgive us." Many Poles must have thought the same way. In
survived the bombings. Under these conditions, my Germany, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and a new government wasformed in Poland. In 1994, Roman Herzog, then president of the
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski hatred for Germany was a matter of course. I did
Bartoszewski was Poland's not consider Germany a partner. I even did notFederal Republic of Germany, apologized for the wrongs committed
Minister of Foreign Affairsby Germans. In April 1995, I became the first Pole in German history
from March to December think of reconciliation with Germany. But the time
1995.
Imprisoned
at
for
peace
did
to make a speech at the German
Auschwitz concentration
agetoconfronttruthmakesreconciliationpossibleBundestag. As the Foreign Minister,
camp during the war, he come.
Poland Courwas a co-founder of the
I apologized on behalf of the Polish people for having Germans"Zegota" Council for Aid had been tortured by other countries and had
to Jews. He was also active experienced great hardship for many years. For
exiled, and for making them suffer terribly after the war. In theinthe
Catholic
when Stalin was in power, he process of reconciliation, we not only overcame our hatred ofunderground organization, example,
the Front for the Rebirth ofmanipulated the people psychologically. We Germany but also formed partnerships with France and Germany
Poland. He was twice
imprisonedby
the wanted to lead our lives freely as human beings.
under the banner of NATO. In doing so, we resurrected the traditional
communists, and was later
relationship of the three Weimar countries of Germany, France andofficially recognized as a Even at that time, some Poles did not think thatvictim of persecution.
German citizens were to blame for the crimes of Poland. We need to search our conscience for the deeds we committed
the war. Why was it possible for them to think that way? The reason is in the past. Great courage is necessary to tell the truth. I believe thethat they understood Hitler's crimes had brought about the lengthy spirit of truth will make reconciliation possible.
separation of several million Poles and Germans. However, thisVisit HPI's web site at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−４−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

Dumas：Maybe the time is not ripe for that yet. But there
are several measures that should be taken to improve therelationship. I believe, for example, it is important tomake younger generations understand the concept ofreconciliation.
Kato：Reconciliation in Europe was achieved byovercoming the hatred between former enemies. For agenuine reconciliation, we need people to be courageous,
great leaders who are willing to make symbolic gesturesin a sincere way. We have to ask ourselves whether Japan
has had such attributes in the past.

Comments from the audience[Excerpts]"As residents of Hiroshima, we should think
more about the meaning of the word 'reconciliation.'
A Polish Catholic bishop once said: 'We will forgive
you. Please forgive us.' I think such sentiments can form
the basis of reconciliation."-Toshihiko Hayashi of Hiroshima, in reply to an HPIquestionnaire"I realized the importance of apologizing and making
symbolic gestures to advance the reconciliation process. As
Japanese citizens living in Hiroshima, we should not only
highlight the tragedy of war, but also the suffering we
inflicted during the war. We need to form close
relationships with other countries both byforgiving and by asking for forgiveness."-Kenji Kawaguchi of Kure, in an
e-mail to HPIHowever many treaties and agreements
diplomatic experts concluded, they could not avoid
wars. For instance, after WWI, the Treaty of
Versailles was concluded. People believed war would
not happen again in Europe, but then WWII brokeout. Therefore, they needed a different approach
toward avoiding wars. Now, let me share theexperiences of the French people after WWII. Rather Roland Dumas
was French Ministerthan promoting reconciliation, people in France, I Dumas
for Foreign Affairs, 1988remember, wanted to take revenge on Germany. I 1993. He is the formerofthewas a young Dietman at the time, elected in a town president
Parliamentary Committee for
Foreign
AffairsoftheFrenchthat had suffered extraordinary torture as a result of
National Assembly; Minister
the war. On top of that, my father had been shot dead for European Affairs;
for the Frenchby the Nazis after being taken prisoner, so I spokesman
government and Minister for
campaigned under the slogan, "Remember our External Relations.
victims. Settle their scores." Nevertheless, circumstances graduallychanged, and new sentiments came to the fore, such as "Say goodbye toour hatred for old enemies. Wars are not only ill-fated but also foolish."People such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, De Gaulle and otherhigh-ranking
politicians
Gesturesessentialparte a g e r l y
advocatedeconciliationinpostwarEurope showed thethat idea, and ofr
political will to realize reconciliation. They tried to promote thereconciliation process within the framework of a European community
rather than directly with Germany. From the economic point of view, theEuropean Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was a good example. The
ECSC enabled Germany and France to jointly control coal and steel,both necessary for sustaining a war. The ECSC was followed by similarorganizations, culminating, today, in European Monetary Union. The
people of Europe are now trying to build a flexible structure based on
those principles in the form of the European Union. Symbolic gestures
were also indispensable to the advancement of the reconciliation
process. Polish people were genuinely touched when former chancellorof the Federal Republic of Germany, Willy Brandt, bowed before thegraves of fallen Polish soldiers in Warsaw. And the meeting between
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Francois
Mitterrand at the former battlefield of Verdun left a deep impression on
the peoples of Germany and France. People around the world who
witnessed those scenes on television saw more clearly the extent towhich the attitude of the German people had changed than could becommunicated by treaties and agreements.

unite, not divide countries. The term "earthquake
It is necessary for people in each country to make every effort diplomacy" has been heard often recently,
and to study how we can turn the hate of the past into the particularly since Turkey and Greece bothreconciliation of the future. Not only leading figures in government experienced great earthquakes. When one wasbut also citizens, prominent authors and artists have contributed to the distressed, the other helped, despite their history ofadvancement of the reconciliation process. Under the slogan "No hostility toward each other. In Poland, thereconciliation without truth," German and Polish historians have government outlawed the Solidarity workers'
Uwe Kaestnergathered materials and studied objective pictures of past wars and movement and proclaimed martial law. In
is the former
how they broke out. Reconciliation is a like an architectural plan, in response, Western countries imposed sanctions Kaestner
Directorfor
Latin
which people not only overcome the difficulties of the past but also against Poland, but the German people sent relief American Affairs at theGerman Foreign Ministry,
goods to Polish people Ambassador to Southbuild a common
T
r
u
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
h
i
n
d
n
e
w
Ge
r
ma
n
y
‑
Po
l
a
n
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Africaand the Kingdom of
via churches. Nothing Lesotho,
future. The young
Director forpost-war generation accepted such a principle with enthusiasm: is more precious than help when a country is in African Affairs andDirector-GeneralofEurope! The European Coal and Steel community was established in great difficulties. Last, but not least, symbolic Political Affairs, both at1952 under the concept that European countries would jointly control gestures are a prerequisite for advancing the the German Foreign
Ministry.
resources, such as coal and steel, which had hitherto been considered reconciliation process. For example, on September
essential for wars. The same idea also led to the establishment of the 1 this year, German President Johannes Rau shook hands with Polish
European Atomic Energy Community, which aimed to jointly develop President Aleksander Kwasniewski on the site of the battlegroundnuclear energy. Later, that idea helped forge the European Economic where WWII had broken out 60 years ago. After the reunification ofCommunity and the EU, which is now open to Germany's eastern Germany, Queen ElizabethⅡand Prince Philip visited Dresden andneighbors. Such major steps in the economic and political integration offered to contribute a crucifix to a church that British Air Forceof Europe have enabled us to overcome boundary problems between planes had destroyed during the war.
Germany and Poland. A boundary in the Europe of the future would
Translated from Japanese texts by Eiko Matsushima and Mika Harland, HPI staff members

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

−５−

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

Dialog key to improving political stability, security in Central Asia
By Nobumasa Akiyama
Four Japanese geologists and several Kyrgyz were abducted by
Uzbek Islamic militants at the end of August 1999 in the southernpart of Kyrgyz in Central Asia. The crisis came to an end when theJapanese hostages were freed on October 25. However, the processthat led to their release taught us a great deal about the complexitiesof the region's political and security environments.
I visited Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in early
October-not long before the crisis was resolved-and exchanged
views with experts and government officials on security issues inCentral Asia. In this report, I would like to make a brief
investigation, based on the aforementioned discussions, on
intraregional relations while paying close attention to the states'
political differences, and to the ethnic and religious issues involved.
It is often said that Islamic extremism is the cause of politicalinstability in the region. However, that alone does not paint a
complete picture of relations between states, and the issues of
ethnicity and religion. The group of Uzbek rebels that held theJapanese geologists and other hostages had fled to neighboring
Tajikistan to escape an oppressive government back home. A closer
look at this group, the object of a domestic game of political footballin Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, reveals the complexity andvulnerability of the region's political and security structures.
The independence acquired by Central Asian states after thecollapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to cross-border ethnic
tensions. Former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had deliberately
fragmented the region's land and people as part of his divide-and-rulepolicy. As a result, areas populated by Uzbek, Kyrgyz and Tajikpeople intertwined to form a larger area that took in Fergana
Province in Uzbekistan, Osh Oblast in Kyrgyz, and northern andcentral Tajikistan. Following the disappearance of central authority inthe form of the Soviet Union, ethnic problems in those areas became
more difficult to contain. They remain one of the most difficult
intraregional problems facing countries in the region.
The collapse of the Soviet Union also accelerated the resurgenceof Islam in Central Asia. While tolerating and offering modest
support to Islam, whose roots run deep among the people of theregion, Central Asian governments are nevertheless keen to prevent
Islamic extremists from gaining a foothold by seizing upon people's
anxieties about political stability and living standards.
Notable among the influences on domestic politics in
Uzbekistan are "Makhalla"-local clans-and the antagonism thatexists between them. The Samarkand clan, of which President Islam
Karimov is a member, currently holds the reins of power, while theFergana clan, which held power during the Soviet era, has been
expelled from mainstream Uzbek politics. Extremist Fergana
elements that fled to Tajikistan to escape the oppression of the
Karimov government, continue to cast a shadow over relations
between Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Karimov has been closely monitoring the group, which
reportedly receives support from the Taliban in Afghanistan and theUnited Tajik Opposition (UTO), which centered around the Islamic
Revival Party. The Uzbek government, in seeking to keep Russian
influence in the region to a minimum, wishes to see Tajikistan end its
dependence on Russia in dealing with Islamic extremists. However,
the Tajik government under Emomali Rakhmonov suspects
Uzbekistan has been supporting Tajik antigovernment groups. It
wishes to maintain close ties with Russia to contain Uzbekistan, aself-declared regional power that is exercising influence throughcontrol of it's abundant energy supplies.

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

However, this year has seen several developments. The Uzbek
and Tajik governments, for example, have agreed to cooperate in thefight against terrorists, Islamic extremists and drug smugglers, andhave tentatively agreed to begin a new cooperative relationship on
regional security. In addition, soon after the Rakhmonov government
and the UTO formed a coalition government, the latter approved theagreements made between the two national governments oversecurity issues, a move that is seen as a major turning point fordomestic stability. As a result, Uzbek rebels have fallen silent now
that they are looked upon as the enemy, even by the UTO, theirerstwhile Islamic ally. Moreover, the Tajik government urged Uzbek
rebels to return home or face being disarmed and expelled. The
rebels' decision to take the former option led to the hostage crisis,
since they needed a means of securing a safe passage.
The structure of political and security problems in Central Asia,
which was characterized by the hostage crisis, is about more than
individual governments' attempts to fend off a perceived Islamic
threat. Muslim solidarity could, after all, crumble due to changes on
the domestic political scene. Similarly, the cross-border ethnic
problem could be pigeonholed by improvements in relations between
states in the region.
The isolation and unsettling of Uzbek rebels, brought about by
the formation of a coalition government in Tajikistan, is symbolic of
this framework.
The fact remains, however, that neither country has ademocratically elected government, and domestic affairs remain far
from stable. Such a political environment, combined with discontent
over the current despotic regimes, could open the door to Islamic
extremists to expand their sphere of influence.
Clearly, instability in one country could all to easily lead to apolitical and security crisis throughout the region.
Differences between individual countries in their attitude toward
Russia-an important element in the region's politics and securityalso give cause for concern. Although Uzbekistan has sought, since
the hostage crisis, to cooperate with Russia, it is still wary of its
former political master. By contrast, Tajikistan and Kyrgyz havemaintained a close relationship with Russia as a means of containing
Uzbekistan.
Given the above, the security environment in Central Asia
remains fragile, and there is little sign of a system emerging that is
capable of overcoming that crucial weakness. But it is also true thatsome progress has been made in establishing a framework forregional cooperation in the areas of security and the economy.
Shortly after the hostage crisis began, for example, the leaders of
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz, Russia and China met in Bishkek, theKyrgyz capital, and agreed to cooperate over regional security.
Yet there are signs that true regional cooperation will be an
uphill struggle. In April 1999, for example, Uzbekistan withdrew as asignatory to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Security
Treaty. In addition, it did not participate in a meeting held in Moscow
at the end of October, at which the leaders of Tajikistan, Kyrgyz,
Belarus and Russia agreed to bolster joint anti-terrorism measures. A
stable security regime in the region will depend on whether states canforge a relationship based on mutual trust, as well as faith in Russia
and China. Multilateral and multiple dialogs are the best way toaccomplish that goal. Still, much remains to be achieved before theycan establish the kind of regional cooperation necessary to resolve
other disputes.
Akiyama is research associate at HPI.

−６−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

Continued from Page 1

Non-governmental organizations at theUnited Nations also gave their response to
the Tokyo Forum report. On October 22, theU.N. Disarmament Week was organized by
the NGO Committee on Disarmament at the
U.N. headquarters with the support of the
U.N. Department for Disarmament Affairs
and the U.N. Department for PublicInformation. The NGO Committee is acoalition of U.N.-affiliated organizations andinstitutions concerned with disarmament.
The committee organized a panel discussion
on the New Agenda Coalition, the Middle
Power Initiative and the Tokyo Forum.
Takeshi Kamiyama and Hirofumi Tosaki
from the Japan Institute of International
Affairs (JIIA) and myself attended thediscussion. (The JIIA, along with theHiroshima Peace Institute, is a cosponsor of

the Tokyo Forum.)Space prevents the contents of the
discussion from being covered in detail. It
should be mentioned, however, that one of thepanelists, Jacqueline Cabasso, executive
director of the Western States Legal
Foundation, roundly criticized the report.
Cabasso described the report as "a stepback" from the report of the Canberra
Commission. She said the (Tokyo Forum)
report placed too much emphasis on the nonproliferation dimension; that its measures fornuclear abolition were unclear; that it did notchallenge the nuclear doctrine; that it did notdeal with the issue of the nuclear umbrella;
and that it lacked a sense of Japan's
responsibility as the only country to haveexperienced the horrors of nuclear attacks.
No doubt supporters of the forum will, in

Comments on the Tokyo Forum Report from Japan and abroad"The Australian Government strongly endorses a number of the key recommendations. Like the Canberra
Commission, I expect the Tokyo Forum report will make an important contribution to the debate on nonproliferationand disarmament issues."
Alexander Downer, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a media release dated July 27, 1999
"Despite its ambitious profile, the Tokyo Forum missed a marvelous opportunity to launch a fair and just Japanesediplomacy that is based on a healthy framework free of the Cold War way of thinking."
Fumiaki Nishiwaki, associate professor at the Defense University of Japan, in the September 14 issue of "Sekai
Shuho.""The report failed to create the impact, vision and enthusiasm necessary to foster a sense of hope."
Hiromichi Umebayashi, executive director of Peace Depot, in the October 1 issue of "Nuclear Weapon &Nuclear Test Monitor.""While nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous, it cannot be denied that the fear of nuclear weapons has forced
humankind to exercise self-control with regard to war. The reported explanation offered by a member of the forum
that the report means that (the nuclear-weapon states should reduce their nuclear arsenals) to within a step short ofzero is nothing but an illussion."
Tomohisa Sakanaka, president of the Research Institute for Peace and Security (RIPS), in the September issueof "RIPS Newsletter.""The dialogs and proposals among forum members, the Japanese government and NGOs have been by no meanspointless. Many of the proposals made by NGOs were reflected in the report's key recommendations. But is not its
stance of 'nuclear elimination through phased reductions' basically the same as the policy repeatedly proposed by theJapanese government? It cannot be denied that there is a gap between that aim and our call to initiate negotiations
for a Nuclear Weapon Convention before the end of the 20th century. We can only anticipate the next forum willachieve more."
Sadao Kamata, president of the Nagasaki Peace Institute, in the October issue of "Gunshuku Mondai Shiryo.""The report ends up lacking vision and proposes only incremental changes, the kind that might be acceptable tothose who have no real desire to change the status quo."David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, in comments carried on the foundation's Web
site in September.

Newspaper and other articles"Facing Nuclear Dangers: An Action Plan for the 21stCentury" Excerpts from the Tokyo Forum Report
Arms Control Today, Volume 29, No. 5, July/August
1999
The Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament [extracts]
Newsbrief published by PPNN; No. 47/3rd Quarter
1999"U.S. Undercuts Arms Control Efforts, Global Panel
Finds"
By Barbara Crossette, New York Times, August
4,1999"Nuclear experts urge Pak., India to sign CTBT"The Hindu, August 6, 1999

"Experts urge India, Pak to sign NPT, CTBT"The Indian Express, August 6, 1999
"The Threat from Nuclear Weapons Is Growing"
By Yasushi Akashi, International Herald Tribune,
August 11, 1999
"Blighted Disarmament"
By Brahma Chellaney, The Hindustan Times, August
11, 1999"Unrealistic and partisan"
By Jasjit Singh, The Hindustan Times, August 12,1999"An Obstacle-Ridden Path to Nuclear Disarmament"
By Brahma Chellaney, International Herald Tribune,
August 21-22, 1999

A draft resolution proposed by Japan and adopted on December 1 at the U.N. General Assembly contains
recommendations made by the Tokyo Forum in five of the resolution's 10 paragraphs, including the "…earlycommencement and conclusion of negotiations for STARTⅢ by Russia and the United States, and the continuationof the process beyond the STARTⅢ."HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

−７−

time, come up with powerful counter
arguments of their own. It is worth noting,however, that criticisms such as those madeby Cabasso provide useful lessons for those
who value the report's recommendations.
In short, the following three conditions
could be key variables through which people
can reach their own conclusions about thecontents of the report. The first concerns anunderstanding of the extent to which thereport made clear "the absolute evil" of
nuclear weapons; the second, of how
strongly the report envisions a world free of
nuclear weapons; and third, a decision onwhether the report's support forstrengthening the non-proliferation regime isindeed a retreat vis-a-vis nuclear
disarmament.
It goes without saying that the membersof the Tokyo Forum were in no doubt as totheir ultimate objective, namely the totalelimination of nuclear weapons. The paththat they chose, however, was one that firstexamines the unraveling internationallandscape surrounding the nonproliferation
regime and nuclear disarmament, and thensuggests pragmatic measures to reverse thetrend. The members' immediate aim was topresent measures the international
community would regard as feasible.
Cabasso said the report included noclear vision for nuclear disarmament.
However, paragraph 29 of Part IV of thereport states: "At a time of increasing nuclear
dangers, the Tokyo Forum believes that
actions are more important than words andpledges. Thus the Forum would place
primary emphasis at this time on concrete
steps to progressively reduce and eliminate
nuclear dangers." This paragraph forms thebasis of the Tokyo Forum's endeavors. In
addition, paragraph 21 of the same part says:"A process of verifiable, phased reductions
by all nuclear-armed states to one step shortof zero is a goal on which advocates ofabolition and deterrence might find common
ground and from which all states would reap
shared security gains." This paragraphclearly describes the vision of the Tokyo
Forum. Furthermore, forum members
pointed out in paragraph 1 of Part IV, and inparagraph 2 of Part V, that no other cities
must be put through the devastation of
nuclear explosions endured by Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. This fact must not be
neglected.
Indeed, U.N. Secretary General Kofi
Annan said he hoped the international
community would further examine therecommendations presented in the Tokyo
Forum report so that the nonproliferation
regime could be strengthened and moves
toward nuclear disarmament accelerated. We
desperately need to take concrete steps inthis direction based on our shared objectives.
Kamiya is a visiting research fellow at HPI.

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

D I A RY

September 1 〜 November 30, 1999
◆October 21◆September 9-10
Mizumoto and Naono take part in a seminar, "Hiroshima and Israel-towards
Masamichi Kamiya participates in a meeting, "Regional hearing for thethe 21st century," with the Fourth Delegation to Japan of the Israel-Japan
ESCAP region in preparation for the millennium assembly," sponsored by the U.N.
Intellectual Exchange Program, sponsored by the Japan Center for International
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), at the United
Exchange (JCIE).
Nations University in Tokyo.
◆October 25◆September 10
Akiyama attends a study group workshop on nuclear energy, held at the
Kazumi Mizumoto attends a study group meeting, "Exploring Japan'sInstitute of Applied Energy.
proactive peace and security strategies: the case of the 'nuclear umbrella,'"◆October 28
organized by the National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA), in Tokyo.
Mizumoto attends the "Forum on new thinking on security issues: Japan as a
◆September 11
middle power," held at and sponsored by the Tokyo Foundation.
Mizumoto acts as coordinator at a peace symposium, "Japan's security and◆October 28
nuclear umbrella," cosponsored by the Hiroshima Bar Association, the Hiroshima
Akiyama attends a workshop on Central Asia and Kavkaz at the Sasakawa
Prefectural Medical Association and the City of Hiroshima, at the medical
Peace Foundation.
association's hall.
◆November 2◆September 22
Mizumoto attends the 19th Afternoon Seminar, "Global nuclear disarmament
Mizumoto gives an overview of the Tokyo Forum Report at a regular meetingand nonproliferation: crisis or collapse?" sponsored by the Tokyo Foundation.
of researchers specializing in security studies, held at the graduate school of Toyo
◆November 5
Eiwa Women's University in Tokyo.
A delegation comprising Akiyama, Robert McNamara, former U.S. defense◆September 24
secretary; Gen. (Ret.) Lee Butler of the U.S. Strategic Command; Robert Green, a
Nobumasa Akiyama and Kamiya participate in the Yomiuri International
former British Royal Navy commander; and members of The Middle Power
Forum, "The future of East Asian security-how to deal with crises on theInitiative visits the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary
Korean peninsula," cosponsored by the Tokyo Colloquium and the Yomiuri
Fukushiro Nukaga and Tsutomu Kawara, director general of the Defense Agency.
International Economic Society (YIES), at the Palace Hotel in Tokyo.
◆November 10◆October 1
Mizumoto attends a study group meeting, "Exploring Japan's proactive peace
Mizumoto delivers a lecture on global nuclear issues and the peace movement
and security strategies: the case of the 'nuclear umbrella,'" organized by NIRA, inin Hiroshima to foreign trainees of the Hiroshima International Cooperation
Tokyo.
Program, at the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
◆November 11◆October 2-15
Akiyama makes a speech, "Recent trends in nuclear disarmament," at the
Akiyama visits Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to conduct research
Gotenba Rotary, Shizuoka Prefecture.
on the security environment in Central Asia.
◆November 18
Akiyama attends the 5th SPF-Issyk-Kul Forum, "Central Asia: in search of
Mizumoto attends the 22nd Afternoon Seminar, "The 1999 coup d'etat inglobal linkage" in Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan.
Pakistan: a political and economic analysis," sponsored by the Tokyo Foundation.
◆October 3◆November 19
Mizumoto delivers a report, "The accomplishments of the Tokyo Forum
Kamiya and Prof. Emeritus John D. Montgomery of Harvard University, who
Report and its remaining tasks," at a symposium titled "The challenge to nuclear
participated in Hiroshima's reconstruction right after WWII, discuss peace andnonproliferation and nuclear abolition," cosponsored by the Nagasaki Peace
related issues at Hiroshima International Conference Hall.
Institute and Nagasaki Institute for Peace Culture, held at the Nagasaki Atomic◆November 19
Bomb Museum.
Akiyama attends a Strategic Studies Fellowship Program seminar, "The◆October 5
Strategy of the U.S. Navy after the Cold War," sponsored by the Research Institute
Mizumoto, Kamiya and Akiko Naono discuss peace and related issues with 27
for Peace and Security (RIPS).
U.N. Disarmament Fellows at the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation.
Visitors to HPI◆October 18-21◆September 17
Akiyama acts as program coordinator at the 10th South Pacific Ocean
Prof. Lai Jeh-hang of the Institute of History and dean of the College ofseminar, "The Internet: information technology for the efficient delivery and
Liberal Arts, both at the National Central University in Taiwan
enhancement of the learning environment," sponsored by the Association for the◆October 6
Communication of Transcultural Studies (ACT) in Honolulu.
Marianne Peron, visiting research fellow at the Japan Institute of International◆October 19-25
Affairs
Kamiya participates in "Disarmament Week 1999 at the United Nations,"◆November 30
sponsored by the NGO Committee on Disarmament in cooperation with the U.N.
Arun Gandhi, founder and director of the M.K. Gandhi Nonviolence InstituteDepartment for Disarmament Affairs and the U.N. Department for Public
in Memphis, Tennessee
Information. He also visits the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Tokyo Forum Report now available in booklet form
A handy booklet version of the Report of the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear
Nonproliferation and Disarmament was published recently by the Japan
Institute of International Affairs (JIIA), a cosponsor of the forum.
The booklet, titled "Facing nuclear dangers: an action plan for the 21st
century," is available either in English, the language used in the originalreport, or in English accompanied by a Japanese translation.
The English version contains a preface, profiles of forum members andthe five sections comprising the report. The bilingual edition contains
comments in Japanese on the workings of the forum and the contents of thereport.
The English edition, 1,700 copies of which have been printed, costs
400 yen per copy, and the bilingual edition (2,500 copies) is 1,000 yen per
copy.
People wishing to buy a copy of the English edition should call JIIA at(03-3503-7262). Orders for the bilingual version can be made at bookstores.
The booklet is available only in Japan.

TOPICSHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS is a newsletter
published four times a year by the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
Readers are encouraged to submit comments or articles for inclusion in
HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS.
Articles should contain a maximum of 1,200 words,
and may be edited for length and clarity. Submissions can be sent
by fax, mail or, preferably, by e-mail. They should be accompaniedby the writer's name, address, telephone number and profession.
Unfortunately, submissions cannot be returned.

「HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS」 Copyright 1999 HPI All rights reserved
Vol.2, No.3 December 27, 1999

●Issued by Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University●Printed by Seikosha Ltd.

Hiroshima Mitsui Bldg. 12th Floor 2-7-10 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051 JAPANHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.2 No.3 December 1999

−８−

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

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