Vol.15 No.3 March 2013

Towards the Convening of a Conference on the Establishment ofa WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East
Hirofumi Tosaki
On November 23, 2012, the postponement of the “Conference
on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear
weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction” (hereafter the“Middle East Conference”), previously agreed to be held in 2012at the 2010 NPT Review Conference (RevCon), was formallyannounced. Only ten days after the announcement, on December
3, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling forthe establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the
Middle East by consensus. UN resolutions on the establishmentof an NWFZ in the Middle East have been adopted for almost 40
years and, by consensus, for more than 30 consecutive years. These
two conflicting events symbolize the reality of where the regional
states stand on the issue today: while sharing the ultimate goal ofestablishing an NWFZ or weapons of mass destruction-free zone
(WMDFZ) in the Middle East, they remain unable to take the firststep on the path towards its achievement.
The US State Department, one of the conveners of the Middle
East Conference as mandated by the Final Document of the 2010 NPT
RevCon, explained that the “present conditions in the Middle Eastand the fact that states in the region ha[d] not reached agreement
on acceptable conditions for a conference” led to its decision tocall it off. While no specific reasons were given, they very likely
included Israel’s and Iran’s ambiguous attitudes regarding theirattendance, the difficulties in how to deal with Syria which is in astate of civil war with the risk of the use of chemical weapons, anddisagreements over the agenda and modalities of the Conference.
The reasons behind the delay of the Middle East Conference
are closely tied to more fundamental factors that have prevented
the realization of a WMDFZ in the Middle East. Such a goal can beattained only if expectations among the regional states converge, but
this is far from being the case. For Islamic states in the Middle East,in particular Egypt, the principle aim of the creation of a WMDFZ
is to oblige Israel—the only non-NPT state in the region—to forego
its nuclear weapons option. Egypt has claimed that Israel’s nuclear
problem is the greatest obstacle to the establishment of a WMDFZ
in the Middle East and also to the convening of the Middle East
Conference. On the other hand, Israel, whose national security relies
on its recognized although not declared “deterrence capability,” hastaken a stance that the resolution of the overall security situation in
the Middle East, including the Iranian and other WMD issues, is aprerequisite for establishing a WMDFZ in the region. Israel has thus
rejected participation in conferences and other frameworks which
focused on its nuclear program.
Since the Cold War era, several countries in the Middle East,
where intra- and inter-state confrontations have recurred, have opted
for the possession of WMD as a vital means to ensure the survivalof their regimes and the states themselves. In an environment fed
by proponents of realpolitik and mutual distrust, few regional
states consider that they can entrust their national security to sucha zone. These states still seem to prefer relying on an independent
national defense over reinforcing their security through multilateralarrangements, including mutual relinquishment of WMD.
Moreover, for several Middle Eastern states, a WMDFZ is a means
to prevent them from compensating their unbalanced conventional
forces with WMD. Consequently, they tend to view their rivals’
proposal for creating a WMDFZ as ill-intended—and vice versa.
Furthermore, many countries in the region have been
undergoing domestic political instability. The rise of the so-called“Arab Spring” and a trend to turn inward in the Middle East has
reinforced the regional governments’ tendency to concentrateon their domestic affairs. Such a situation has, in consequence,
weakened the leadership of Egypt, a long-time advocate of a Middle
Eastern WMDFZ. It has also made it more difficult for the regional
Islamic states to make compromises or concessions on the Israeli
issue, for such unpopular measures may undermine the legitimacyof their own governments. Similarly, in Israel, given its perilous
security situation, it is unlikely that any concrete commitments
towards renouncing its nuclear option will receive domestic support.
Thus, as it currently stands, there are very few positive factorsthat support a successful holding of the Middle East Conference, notleast the creation of a Middle Eastern WMDFZ. However, efforts
towards convening it should not be put aside since the Conferenceis one of the few existing initiatives that have the potential to bolster
non-proliferation as well as the security environment in the region.
Since the Middle East peace process was virtually frozen in thefirst half of the 1990s, there has been no established framework inwhich all states of the region can discuss regional security issues.
The Middle East is a region where nuclear weapons and other WMD
are present, and the possibility of their proliferation to states or nonstate actors has been a significant concern. Moreover, the Middle
East is acknowledged as one of the most tense regions in the world.
Under these circumstances, it would surely be a great step forward
if all states in the Middle East could participate in the Conference todiscuss issues related to a WMDFZ and regional security.
In addition, the outcomes of the Middle East Conference
will have a tremendous impact on the future of the NPT regime.
The “successes” of the past NPT RevCons have been built upon
compromises with the Middle Eastern NPT states which view theirsupport for the Treaty’s indefinite extension in 1995 as a deal with theother NPT countries, particularly the United States, in adopting the
Resolution on the Middle East which calls for, among other things,
the establishment of a NWFZ in the region. The inclusion of the“convening of the Middle East Conference” backed by Egypt andothers in the Final Document of the 2010 NPT RevCon was no exception.
Egypt warns that the failure of the Middle East Conference may lead
Arab states to reconsider their commitment to the NPT. Althougha withdrawal en masse of Arab countries from the NPT is unlikely,
such a political U-turn would certainly endanger the NPT review
process and the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a whole.
Needless to say, it is unrealistic to pursue the creation of a
WMDFZ in the Middle East without dealing with the complicatedand difficult problems facing Middle Eastern countries. Nor is it
likely that the conclusion of a WMDFZ Treaty in the region willbring about an instant solution to these problems. The only feasible
approach would be to recognize the reality of the complex security
situation in the region and pursue a practical and graded approachaddressing both WMDFZ and regional security issues in an
integrated manner. In a region dominated by hostility and tension,as an initial step, the Conference should allow the regional states to
openly discuss issues under an agenda that accurately reflects theirconcerns. On that basis, the regional states should agree on, interalia: the adoption of a consensus document reaffirming participants’commitment to establishing a WMDFZ; the holding of subsequentconferences; the establishment of appropriate working groups andexpert meetings on specific issues; and the identification of areas ofpossible cooperation.
If the regional states can demonstrate cooperation and agree
on these key points, then the Middle East Conference would
become the first landmark event where Middle Eastern countries
could succeed in converging the regional states’ expectations. The
ultimate responsibility for the success of a Middle East Conference
rests on the regional countries; nevertheless, the Conference’s
conveners—the United Nations and the three NPT depositary states(Russia, the UK and the US)—and the facilitator, as well as othermajor states, including Japan, certainly have an important role to(Written on February 19, 2013)
play.		Senior Research Fellow at the Center for
the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation,
the Japan Institute of International Affairss website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’

1

Robert Jungk’s Message to
the People of Hiroshima:
On the Occasion of the Special Exhibition
on Robert Jungk
Makiko Takemoto
From February 15 to March 28, 2013, the special exhibition on
the centenary of Robert Jungk, “The man who told the worldabout Hiroshima: For a nuclear-free future,” is being held at theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. While some people mayhear his name with nostalgia, some others may wonder who heis and why he was chosen as the subject of this exhibition. In
fact, Robert Jungk is not necessarily well known in Japan today.
This exhibition is co-organized by the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum and the “Jungk Kaken Group.” As the
project leader of this group, the author will in this paper discuss
his life, and in particular, his relationship with Hiroshima andthe significance of the exhibition.
Robert Jungk was born in Berlin in May 1913. As a young
Jewish man, during the Nazi era, he was compelled to exile
himself to Paris, Prague, Zurich and London where heparticipated in anti-Nazi resistance. After WWII, he becamefamous as a journalist for his reports on the Nuremberg

Panels at the exhibition

Tribunal, publishing articles widely in the US and Europe. Even
though he obtained US citizenship, he later settled in Salzburg,
Austria. There, as well as in Germany, he became one of theleading figures in the anti-nuclear weapons and anti-nuclear
power plant movement that spread across Europe.

Contents
2（Source: The Robert Jungk Future Library）

Jungk made his first visit to Hiroshima in May 1957, after
publishing the book Heller als tausend Sonnen [Brighter Thana Thousand Suns] in which he portrayed the personal lives ofnuclear scientists who had participated in the developmentof atomic bombs such as Robert Oppenheimer. At that time,in West Germany, the issue of nuclear weapons was a highly
controversial topic. In fact, while Chancellor Konrad Adenauer
showed his inclination to arm Germany with nuclear bombs,
18 scientists submitted the Göttingen Manifesto opposing
Germany’s nuclear armament and the implementation of any
related experiments.
On his visit to Hiroshima, Jungk interviewed somehibakusha with the help of Kaoru Ogura who later served asa city official in charge of foreign affairs and Director of theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Even after Jungk returned
to Europe, Ogura continued to send him articles of the local
newspaper Chugoku Shimbun and records of interviews that
Ogura conducted himself with key persons of Hiroshima, almost
every week over two years.
With the support of Ogura, Jungk published the book
Strahlen aus der Asche [Children of the Ashes] in 1959. In thisbook he depicted the reconstruction process of Hiroshima andthe difficulties and hardship of young hibakusha such as Ichiro
Kawamoto who was active in peace movements, establishingthe “Orizuru Kai” (Paper Cranes Club). In addition to
Kawamoto, Jungk met several other key Hiroshima citizens: thefirst publicly elected city mayor, Shinso Hamai; the first directorof the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, Shogo Nagaoka;
medical doctors Fumio Shigeto and Michihiko Hachiya; andauthor Yoko Ota. The experience of meeting them had a large
influence on Jungk’s life.
Motivated by the success of the book, Jungk produced a
TV documentary titled Children of the Ashes, visiting Hiroshima
again in 1960 for its production. For this program, which wasco-organized with Bavarian Broadcasting, Jungk filmed various
scenes that he witnessed in the city, such as a demonstration
against the Japanese-US Security Treaty that took place inthe city center of Hiroshima, bustling streets, and a crowded
department store. At the same time, the program seemed to put
special emphasis on “dark” sides of the lives of the people ofHiroshima such as a jobless young male hibakusha wandering

Towards the Convening of a Conference on the Establishment of a WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East
Hirofumi Tosaki………………… 1
Robert Jungk’s Message to the People of Hiroshima: On the Occasion of the Special Exhibition on Robert Jungk
Makiko Takemoto… … 2-3
My Approach to Peace Studies Vol. 4 “The EU’s Winning of the Nobel Peace Prize”
Atsuko Higashino…………………………………… 4-5
Myanmar’s Rohingya Dilemma
Moe Thuzar… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2012) “Seeking Peace in Okinawa”… ………………………………………………… 7
HPI moved to HCU campus… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
Diary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.15 No.3, March 2013

around on a street, and nightlife in Hiroshima as represented bystreets illuminated with neon lights, a strip show, or a bar withthe staff dressed in military uniforms. It is possible that, as a
Jewish person who had survived the Auschwitz concentration
camp, Jungk intended to send a strong message that, despite
the prosperity that was brought about by the reconstruction, thepeople of Hiroshima who had survived the atomic bombing,and also the entire Japanese population, should remember what
happened on August 6, 1945, and develop and advocate their own
messages. His words in Children of the Ashes deliver a strong
message to us even today:
Hiroshima does not point the way towards peace because it
uses the word heiwa (peace) as a sort of trademark which it
attaches to everything and anything, but because it gives a
faint indication of what the world would look like after anatomic war. We may assume that what would be left after
such a war would not be totally dead desert without humaninhabitants, but rather a single huge hospital, a world inwhich everyone was sick and wounded. For decades andeven for centuries after the last shot had been fired thesurvivors would go on dying because of a quarrel whose
origins they and their descendants would have probably
forgotten long ago.
The monumental municipal buildings are not
Hiroshima’s memorial, but the survivors whose skin, bloodand genes are branded with the memory of “that day.” They
are the first victims of an entirely new sort of war, whichcannot be ended by an armistice or a peace-treaty, a “warwithout end” which, reaching forward from the present,
embraces the future as well in its circle of destruction.
(Robert Jungk, Children of the Ashes: The Story of a
Rebirth, translated into English by Constantine Fitzgibbon,
London/Melbourne/Toronto, 1961, p. 301)
Jungk’s next visits to Japan were made in 1970. He came toHiroshima twice during that year: in April, during a visit to Kyoto
to attend the International Futures Research Conference; andfrom the end of November to the beginning of December for the
purpose of attending the “Hiroshima Conference.” Under thetheme of “essential preconditions for peace in the contemporary
world,” the conference was attended by a number of important
figures such as physicists Hideki Yukawa and Shinichiro
Tomonaga, and anti-nuclear activists Barbara Reynolds andPhilip Noel-Baker. Jungk delivered a lecture in a session on peace
research and held a discussion on the establishment of a peace
research institute in Hiroshima.
In German-speaking countries, the anti-nuclear weapons
movement and the anti-nuclear power plant movement merged intoa single movement against both nuclear weapons and nuclear power
plants. At the beginning, Jungk, as the leader of the Austrian antinuclear weapons “Easter March Movement,” was not particularly
opposed to the “peaceful use” of nuclear energy. However, he
gradually became alarmed at its dangers in the 1970s. He wasactive in the anti-nuclear power plant movement, and pressed
for a referendum on the operation of a nuclear power plant in
Zwentendorf that took place in 1978 and led to the suspension of
the plant. As a result of the referendum, this nuclear power plantremains out of service today. In 1977, a year before the referendum,
he published the book The Nuclear State in which he discussed

not only the danger ofnuclear energy but alsothat of a totalitariansociety which cancontrol both nuclear
energy and its citizens.
In 1980 Jungk
visited Japan for thefifth time. One of the
purposes of his trip
this time was to visit
nuclear power plants （Source: The Robert Jungk Future Library）
in the country. From
January 23 through to February 15, Jungk delivered lectures andheld meetings in Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka, and he also visited
nuclear power plants in Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (Niigata), Tsuruga(Fukui), Noto (later renamed Shiga, in Ishikawa) and Ikata(Ehime). At the same time, when he visited the Cenotaph for
the A-bomb Victims in Hiroshima, he commented “My prayer
shall go not only to the victims of the atomic bombing, but also
to victims of radiation exposure who had worked for the nuclear
industry, and this prayer shall convey anger to nuclear energy,
too” (The Chugoku Shimbun, February 13, 1980). In Hiroshima,
he held an open forum with citizens in which he argued thatan increase in the number of nuclear power plants and that ofnuclear weapons were two sides of the same coin, and implored
the audiences that, “We should appeal to the world throughconsolidating the power of anti-nuclear power plant movement
which has its starting point in Hiroshima” (The Chugoku
Shimbun, February 14, 1980).
Following the Fukushima nuclear incident in 2011, Jungk’sbook Der Atomstaat [The Nuclear State], which was publishedmore than three decades earlier, caught the public’s attention again.
From his first visit to Hiroshima in 1957 through to his death at theage of 81 in July 1994, he tirelessly advocated about the dangers
of nuclear energy from the standpoint of a journalist, a researcher
and a peace activist. His motivations certainly came from his
experiences in Hiroshima. How people in Hiroshima perceived
his messages remains to be clarified. Research on Jungk would benecessary in order to find new facets of the history of Hiroshima
and also to investigate how “Hiroshima” has been perceived bypeople around the world. It may also be necessary to examine theoften overlooked roles that were played by those key persons in theanti-nuclear efforts in Hiroshima, such as Kaoru Ogura and Ichiro
Kawamoto, with whom Jungk had personal contact. It is hopedthat the latest exhibition will be a first step of such an endeavor.
* The Jungk Kaken Group is a simplified name of the research project“Towards peace studies as global history: Memories of Auschwitz
and Hiroshima” which is supported by KAKENHI (Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (B), 23320161) provided by the Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The author would like to express
her sincere gratitude to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum,
Ms. Shinobu Kikuraku from the museum, the Robert Jungk Future
Library, and the NPO “Japanese-German Peace Forum,” all of whom
supported the exhibition. Special thanks shall also go to the membersof the group (Eiichi Kido, Yoko Kitamura, Keiko Ogura and Yuji
Wakao) for generous support in general.

Assistant Professor at HPI

s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’

3

My Approach to Peace Studies

Vol. 4

The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the European Union (EU) which “has helped to transform mostof Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace” (Thorbjørn Jagland, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel
Committee). The present issue of My Approach to Peace Studies will examine “peace” in relation to the EU, with
Associate Professor Atsuko Higashino from Tsukuba University as the author.

The EU’s Winning of the Nobel Peace Prize
Atsuko Higashino
On October 12, 2012, news that the EU had won the 2012 Nobel
Peace Prize hit the headlines of newspapers around the world.
It may have been totally unexpected even by EU officials, asseen in the words of President of the European Commission
José Manuel Barroso at a press conference directly after theannouncement: “When I woke up this morning, I did not expect
it to be such a good day.”
The Prize Award Ceremony was held in Oslo on December
10, and on behalf of all EU citizens it was attended by Barroso,
President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy,
President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz and fourchildren selected from across the continent. The prize money of
930,000 euros will be allocated to projects that support children
who have been affected by war and conflicts.
The award, however, instigated an international controversy
as has been the case for a number of former Nobel Peace Prizes.
In 2009 when US President Obama was awarded after only
nine months since his first inauguration, his as yet insufficientachievements were the subject of criticism. In the case of the EU,on the other hand, it has been 60 years since the establishment
in 1952 of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC),
the forerunner of what is today the EU. This may suggest thatthe criticism directed towards the Nobel Peace Prize on thisoccasion is, unlike the case of President Obama, due to thefact that the prize was awarded to the EU despite it facing
economic and social difficulties on an unprecedented scale. It isnoteworthy that such critical voices are by no means a minority
even within the EU itself. In this context, this paper will examine
the criticism directed towards the awarding of the Nobel Peace
Prize to the EU, and will then expand the discussion in orderto demonstrate the importance of a critical examination ofEuropean integration in relation to the concept of “peace.”
The grounds for the decision to award the prize should
first be examined. The founder of the Nobel Prizes, Alfred
Nobel, stated in his will that the Noble Peace Prize is to go to aperson who has done “the most or the best work for fraternity
between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standingarmies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
On this occasion, the EU was recognized for its contribution
towards promoting “fraternity between nations” and “peace
congresses.” Although the EU is not an individual “person,” itis nevertheless not unusual for the prize to go to an organization
since the United Nations (UN), the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.15 No.3, March 2013

Change (IPCC) were awarded the prize in 2001, 2005 and 2007
respectively.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee which is responsible
for selecting Nobel Peace Prize laureates commented that themost significant reason for the award decision was the EU’s
contribution “for over six decades … to the advancementof peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in
Europe.” Regarding more specific grounds, the committeeemphasized two key achievements. The first was the“reconciliation between Germany and France which had fought
three wars over a seventy-year period.” The framework forEuropean integration was viewed as having been indispensablefor the “historical enemies” to become close partners “throughwell-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence.” Thesecond was the enlargement of the EU. Particularly important
were granting EU membership to Greece, Spain and Portugal in
the 1980s, and several Central and Eastern European countries
in 2004 and 2007; the planned admission of Croatia in 2013;
and the ongoing membership negotiations with countries such asMontenegro, Serbia and Turkey. It was recognized that by meansof this long-term enlargement process, “the division between
East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end,democracy has been strengthened, and many ethnically-based
national conflicts have been settled.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee further commented:
The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties
and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel
Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s
most important result: the successful struggle for peace andreconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The
stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transformmost of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.
Despite these grounds, the awarding of the prize is facing
criticism. There are three possible reasons for this.
The first relates to the fact that it is the current economic
difficulties rather than the EU’s postwar achievements of regional
peace and reconciliation that are currently drawing more attentionof EU citizens. The significance of the past achievements
which the Norwegian Nobel Committee mentioned, such as thereconciliation between Germany and France and the enlargementof the EU, is in itself not denied, although this should beanalyzed from a critical perspective as will be discussed later.

Nevertheless, in order for the ongoing economic and social
problems to be addressed, new goals and strategies rather than
the achievements of peace and reconciliation are more in demandthan ever. The surprise awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize
to the EU, which has yet to identify some concrete solutions
to its immediate problems, only served to confuse many EU
citizens. This phenomenon may not be entirely unrelated to
the generational shift among EU citizens. With the number ofpeople who have first-hand experience of WWII decreasing, it isunlikely that the EU will continue to symbolize reconciliation,
especially among the younger generation.
The second reason is the fact that at present the EU has yet
to gain a reputation as a peace builder in international society
as much as it may wish. It is noteworthy that the grounds forthe award announced by the Norwegian Nobel Committee did
not include the diplomatic achievements of the EU. The EU
has long aspired to secure a strong presence in internationalsociety, and has made efforts in various activities such as
carrying out structural reforms which include the establishmentof the European External Action Service (EEAS), providing
development assistance, and developing the Common Foreignand Security Policy (CFSP). Nevertheless, as suggested by theabsence of the EU’s diplomatic achievements in the grounds forthe recent award, these diplomatic efforts may have not beensatisfactorily recognized both within and outside Europe.
The third reason relates to the historical background of therelations between the EU and Norway, the latter of which beingof course the home of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Norway
has on two occasions rejected accession to the EU by nationalreferendum. In the eyes of many people it may be impossible
to understand or even highly ironic that the country awards theNobel Peace Prize to an organization which it refuses to join.
Further suspicion was aroused by the suggestion that the decision
may have strongly reflected the political inclinations of the Chairof the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjørn Jagland, who is aformer Prime Minister of Norway and an advocate of Norway’s
accession to the EU. Unlike other Nobel Prizes in the fields ofnatural sciences such as medicine and physics, the Peace Prizefrequently faces criticism for the possible influence of politicalbias on the part of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.
The recent award has been no exception.
Jagland commented on the recent award: “There is a real
danger that Europe will start disintegrating. Therefore, weshould focus again on the fundamental aims of the organization.”As these words may suggest, it can be argued that the award
was rather meant to be an “encouragement” for the EU whichis “missing good news these days” (Štefan Füle, European
Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood
Policy). Or viewed more cynically, the EU might have won the
prize due to its present economic and social difficulties.
Despite some negative evaluations of the EU’s winning of
the prize, it is important to revisit the actual significance of the
EU for the purpose of examining the relationship between peaceand regional integration. In so doing, particular attention needs
to be paid to two research agendas: a critical re-examination ofan approach which unquestionably equates regional integration
with peacebuilding; and a careful analysis of the current
economic and social difficulties which places these problems
within a broader historical context.
More specifically, the first research agenda is toanalyze closely the extent to which the EU has contributed
to peacebuilding in Europe. An issue which has been widely
discussed among experts on EU politics and EU officials is
whether the absence of war in postwar Europe can be attributed1
to regional integration. Regarding the causal relationshipbetween peace and regional integration, two perspectives exist:
whether the latter led to the former, or the other way round. A
similar interpretation exists regarding whether the reconciliation
between Germany and France came about as a result of not only
regional integration but also through “democratic peace theory”
which holds that democratic states are reluctant to engage inarmed conflicts with each other. The role played by internationalorganizations has also been far from insignificant. Commenting
on the recent award to the EU, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former
British Foreign Secretary, stated that “until the end of the Cold
War, it was NATO more than anyone else that kept the peace.”
Moreover, if the establishment and dissemination of humanrights and democracy are to be taken into account, it is vital also
to examine the significance of the roles that have been playedby the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe(OSCE) and the Council of Europe. However, such an objective
analysis of the actual contribution of the EU to peacebuildingin postwar Europe has been more often than not consideredsomething of a taboo. In this respect, some of the words in theaddress delivered by Van Rompuy at the Prize Award Ceremony
may be illuminating: “Of course, peace might have come toEurope without the Union. But it would never have been of thesame quality—a lasting peace.” As these various perspectives
suggest, it may be an important task for Peace Studies to examine
the extent of the (possible) contribution of regional integration
towards peacebuilding both within and beyond Europe.
The second research agenda is, as stated earlier, toundertake a careful analysis of the current economic and social
difficulties by placing the problems within a broader historicalcontext. The process of integration in Europe has come up
against difficulties on many occasions in the past. Nevertheless,
Europe’s political leaders have overcome these difficulties asa result of their unwavering belief that integration is vital for
Europe. These past difficulties were often related to differencesin specific methods and future visions for the integration among
the member states of the EU. However, on each occasion, themember states have “perfected the art of compromise” (Van
Rompuy), acquiring the techniques to resolve such differences inopinion somehow or other. Through these techniques, the ECSC,
and later the EU, have over the past 60 years succeeded inestablishing a huge common market encompassing 500 million
citizens, and also achieved “Europeanization” which has reachedalmost every aspect of people’s lives. There have been somemedia reports anticipating that the current crisis will lead to theend of the EU. However, it should be remembered that the EU
has faced a series of crises throughout its integration process,and every time it has encountered difficulties, the integrated
community has succeeded in overcoming the crisis.
It may be something akin to a suspension of thought tonaïvely equate regional integration with peacebuilding, or toabandon all hope for the future of the EU simply as a result of
the current crisis. Such a suspension of thought cannot bringabout any benefit to the pursuit of peace. What is required
instead is to analyze the achievements and problems of theintegration process of the EU and its relationship to peace froman objective and reasonably critical standpoint.
1 For example, Professor Anne Deighton of Oxford University has commented
that it is impossible to say whether European integration prevented
further wars. (Jack Ewing, “Despite prize, European Union loses muchof its appeal as unity eludes continent,” The New York Times, October
12, 2012.)

Associate Professor at the Graduate School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, the University of Tsukubas website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’

5

Myanmar’s
Rohingya Dilemma
Moe Thuzar
In late May 2012, several Muslim men raped and murdered a
Buddhist woman in Rakhine, a strongly nationalistic state of
Myanmar, a crime that later led to communal violence fraught
with racial and religious undertones that continue to simmer
today. Many inflammatory views on the issue of Rohingya—a Muslim community inhabiting in Rakhine—have since been
expressed on social media platforms, revealing many underlying
and deep-seated prejudices. This threatens the yet unconsolidated
stability in Myanmar under President Thein Sein’s reformminded administration.
This is not the first time the Rohingya issue has brought
Myanmar under international scrutiny. The present government
now has to deal with a complex problem, compounded bydecades of indifference by successive administrations, and ahistory of broken trust experienced by both Buddhist and Muslim
communities in Rakhine State.

The historical context

Muslims have been known to have settled in the then Arakan
kingdom since around 1430. They preserved their own heritage
within a Buddhist environment for many centuries, maintaining
an identity distinct from the majority Buddhist Arakanese.
The porous western border facilitated cross-border migration
between British India (mainly Chittagong which is now partof Bangladesh) and Burma’s Arakan (now Rakhine) State in
the colonial era. A rebellion flared up in April 1948, months
after Burma’s independence. Migration from Bengal continued
throughout Myanmar’s post-independence years, and wassometimes even encouraged during the parliamentary period (forpolitical expediency). The “othering” process (i.e. us vs. them)
was perpetuated by both Buddhists and Muslims. Several small
armed groups emerged under the banner of self-determination for
the Rohingyas. They used the exoduses of 1978 and 1991-92 tointernationalize the Rohingya cause.
The 1978 and 1991-92 exoduses were treated as an
immigration issue between Bangladesh and Myanmar by
the military governments of the time. On both occasions, theforeign ministers of both countries negotiated the repatriation
process. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR), whose presence highlighted thehumanitarian aspect of the situation, coordinated the process.
In 2009, groups of Rohingya refugees reached by boat theshores of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, after several days atsea. ASEAN turned to the Bali Process—created in 2002 to moveregional cooperation on human smuggling and trafficking—asa “viable option” to discuss the issue. Since the government of
Myanmar stated that anyone who could prove their citizenshipwould be readily accepted back, the ASEAN Secretariat was
tasked with conducting a census of Myanmar Muslims incountries such as Indonesia, India and Thailand.
The 2012 clashes have refocused the world’s attention
on the Rohingya issue. The razing of residences and publicbuildings prompted President Thein Sein to appeal directly tothe country on June 10, 2012. The President also declared a stateof emergency in Rakhine State. The government of Myanmar
and UN agencies such as the World Food Programme (WFP),UNHCR and the UN Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian
Affairs (UN OCHA) have been in Rakhine since June/July 2012.
The government of Myanmar showed no reluctance in admitting
Vijay Nambiar, the UN’s Special Advisor on Myanmar, andTomas Quintana, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights,
6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.15 No.3, March 2013

to visit the affected areas in Rakhine on June 13. Meanwhile, thegovernment of Bangladesh has maintained its position of keeping
the border closed.
These clashes have been characterized in the international
media as sectarian violence between Buddhists and Muslim
Rohingyas, depicting the Rohingya as a minority ethnic group.
The Burmese social media forums have accused the internationalpress of biased reporting while the local press was seen as
adhering to factual reports.
The essence of the Rohingya issue can be described asa clash of two contending interpretations over the perceived“overwhelming” presence of Muslims in Rakhine. The clashes
and periodic exoduses highlight the current “illegal” status of theRohingyas in Rakhine.

The Rohingya and the citizenship laws

In post-independence Burma, the 1948 Union CitizenshipAct specified the indigenous races of Burma as “Arakanese,
Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon or Shan race andracial groups as have settled in any of the territories included
within the Union as their permanent home from a period anterior
to 1823 AD (1185 BE).” (Note: BE stands for the Burmese Era.)
The 1948 Act allowed naturalization applications, but was noteffectively implemented. It was replaced in 1982 with a new
Citizenship Law, which categorizes citizens into: 1) full citizens
who are either descendants of those residing in the country since
before 1823, including the indigenous races listed in the 1948
Citizenship Act, citizens at the time of the legislation’s entry into
force, or those born of parents at least one of whom were citizens
at the time of birth; 2) associate citizens who had applied for
citizenship under the 1948 Citizenship Act; and 3) naturalized
citizens comprising persons “who have entered and resided in
the State anterior to 4th January 1948, and their offsprings born
within the State[, and who] may, if they have not yet applied
under the Union Citizenship Act, 1948, apply for naturalized
citizenship to the Central Body, furnishing conclusive evidence.”
After three generations, descendants of associate or naturalized
citizens would be considered full citizens. Under the current legal
framework, the Rohingyas have limited access to citizenshipstatus.

Challenges ahead

The Rohingya issue is a serious test for Myanmar’s reform
process. The rule of law requires addressing corruption, anddeveloping clear and precise laws with regard to citizenship.
The Rohingya issue may well prompt a revisiting of the 1982
Citizenship Law. A window exists in the nation-wide census
planned for 2014. This would enable Myanmar’s reformers toaddress the gaps and omissions of past administrations.
However, the deep anti-Rohingya sentiments in the country
need to be overcome first. The simmering tensions indicate a deep
division within the population that could worsen. Conflicts of thisnature highlight the need for “bridge-builders” and for building
the capacities of such individuals and organizations. While
awaiting the findings and recommendations of an investigationcommission (appointed in August 2012), humanitarian needs
continue in the areas affected by the violence. The Myanmar
government continues to work with the UN OCHA to addressthese needs. Beyond the immediate relief requirements, thegovernment (and international partners assisting the process) mustalso tackle broader concerns for rebuilding trust, and developing
the affected areas, especially regarding access to education,
health and livelihood opportunities. The role of political parties in
Rakhine State and legislators of these parties in the regional andcentral-level parliaments is also crucially important.
Researcher at the ASEAN Studies Centre,
the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (Singapore)

HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2012)

Seeking Peace in Okinawa
In 2012 Okinawa celebrated the 40th anniversary of its reversion to Japan. The latest HPI Lecture Series which was held
last fall focused on this southern-most prefecture which was under US administration for 27 years until 1972. Each of thefive lectures shed light on various issues concerning Okinawa, such as the Battle of Okinawa in 1945, the issue of the US
bases in the prefecture, and Okinawa as viewed from the perspective of Japanese modern and contemporary history. The
event as a whole offered participants an opportunity to gain new insights into the prefecture which is unique within Japan
both historically and culturally.

A Perspective on the Modern and Contemporary History

Lecture 1 of Ryukyu/Okinawa: Issues Surrounding Okinawa（October 19）

Masanao Kano, Professor Emeritus at Waseda University

In the first lecture, the origin of the expression“prejudice against Okinawa” was examinedbased on three main historical experiences of
Okinawa. The first relates to the fact that, before
and during WWII, Okinawa was treated as themost backward prefecture in Japan following
the dismantlement of the Ryukyu Kingdom. The
people of Okinawa struggled with a dilemma
over their identities of “Ryukyu” and “Okinawan,” and consequently
developed their own philosophy as a guidepost for carving out theirown way to the future. The second was the fact that during the war,
Okinawa was utilized as a bulwark against the Allied Powers inorder to protect the Japanese mainland, and as a consequence a large
number of local people were drawn into the Battle of Okinawa. The
third relates to the period of US occupation and that since Okinawa’s
reversion to Japan, during both of which Okinawa has been the US
military’s keystone in the Pacific Ocean since several US bases
are concentrated within the prefecture. This again has influenced
the development of an “Okinawa philosophy.” Kano emphasizedthat the most important concept throughout the development of
this “Okinawa philosophy” has been the right to life, or more
specifically, resistance to any form of violation of human life.

US Military Bases in Okinawa:

Lecture 2 Their History and Present Situation（October 26）

Toru Aketagawa, Adjunct Instructor at Hosei University

In the second lecture, Toru Aketagawa examined thecurrent political and social environment surrounding
the US bases in Okinawa. The Japanese media andpublic tend largely to focus on the nuclear issue
when discussing the negotiations over the return of
US bases to Okinawa. However, the main concerns
for the US have centered on whether they could
retain a free hand in their use of the bases and how
they could minimize their own financial burden. The US’ demands
regarding these concerns were negotiated and agreed between the
US and Japanese governments. Similarly, the deployment of Osprey,
military tilt-rotor aircraft, to the Futenma Base in Okinawa had been
a desire of the US for 20 years, and this was achieved through anagreement between the two governments. According to Aketagawa,the entire 20-year negotiation process illustrates a denial of Okinawan
people’s right to self-determination and also “structural discrimination
against Okinawa.” The deployment of Ospreys will obviously compel
Okinawan people to become more directly involved than ever in possible
emergencies in Northeast Asia. Aketagawa concluded the lecture by statingthat the year 2012 marked not only the 40th anniversary of Okinawa’s
reversion to Japan, but also the most difficult period in relations between
Okinawa and the Japanese mainland during the last four decades.

An Analysis of the Lawsuit over Proxy Signatures

Lecture 3 for Land Use for US Bases (1995-1996)（November 9）

Akihiro Kawakami, Assistant Professor at HPI

Kawakami examined the history of Okinawa after
WWII and stated that the construction of the US
bases in Okinawa was a violation of the Hague
Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of
War on Land, and also the Constitution of Japan.
According to him, it is this violation which led
the then Governor of Okinawa, Masahide Ota,
and Okinawa Prefecture as a whole to resist theaction of the Japanese government which had ordered the governor
to accept the use of local lands by US forces on behalf of individualmunicipalities of the prefecture. Kawakami analyzed that this orderand the subsequent lawsuits contested between the then Prime
Minister Tomiichi Murayama and Ota shed light on the following
three issues which have yet to be solved: i) the unconstitutionalityof the Japan-US Security Treaty and the expropriation of land by
the US; ii) the nature of “discrimination against Okinawa” which isrepresented by the excessive concentration of US bases in Okinawa
Prefecture; and iii) problems pertaining to the “agency-delegatedfunction system” which obliges local governors to act as agents ofthe central government.

Hiroshima and Okinawa:

Lecture 4 A Perspective from Hiroshima（November 9）

Takuma Higashi, Freelance Writer

The fourth lecturer was Takuma Higashi who
is a freelance writer based in Hiroshima andauthor of Hiroshima Dokuritsu-ron [Essay on
the Independence of Hiroshima] (Seidosha,
Tokyo, 2007). He raised the question of whether
a perspective from Hiroshima actually only
concerns the issue of nuclear (weapons) abolition,and emphasized the importance of holding
perspectives which are oriented towards Okinawa. According to
Higashi, through the experience of Okinawa we should investigate
and remember issues that are shared by both Okinawa andHiroshima, such as those related to war experience, the US bases
and sexual assaults committed by US soldiers. By means of this, we
can and should connect Hiroshima and Okinawa, thereby making
our joint voices heard. He also presented a film of the dancer Ms.
Tari Ito performing in front of the A-bomb Dome which was aimed
at warning people that sexual assaults committed against Japanese
females by US soldiers are being forgotten. Through this film, as
well as other films and musical works by other artists, Higashi
introduced efforts to connect Hiroshima and Okinawa whichconvey chimugurusa, or “agony” in the Okinawan language.

s Position in Postwar Japan
Lecture 5 Okinawa’（November 16）

Moriteru Arasaki, Professor Emeritus at Okinawa University

The final lecturer was Moriteru Arasaki who is anexpert on the contemporary history of Okinawa.
He first examined Japanese-US relations
and Okinawa in the postwar period within aframework of “systematic discrimination against
Okinawa.” He identified a trinity of factors whichhave together imposed US bases on Okinawa, andas a result stabilized Japanese-US relations at thecost of the people of Okinawa: i) the utilization of the Emperor as
the symbol of the state; ii) the demilitarization of and the subsequent
alliance with Japan initiated by the US; and iii) the separate militarycontrol imposed on Okinawa. He then analyzed how this systematic
discrimination against Okinawa has been reinforced in Japan throughthe reversion of Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty and revisions to
the Japan-US Security Treaty. With reference to important issues
such as the coming to power of the Democratic Party of Japan andproblems relating to the Futenma Base, he also illustrated how thepeople of Okinawa have resisted these circumstances particularly
following the end of the Cold War. Lastly, he introduced recent
exchanges between the peoples of Okinawa, South Korea andTaiwan, in order to emphasize crucial roles in efforts towards
peacebuilding that can be predicted from cross-border, regional
efforts and exchanges within a broader cultural sphere.

s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace_e/index.php
Visit HPI’7

ed to
v
o
m
I
HP
ampus
c
U
C
H

At the end of January, the Hiroshima Peace Institute moved to the campus ofHiroshima City University (HCU). We are now located on the 4th floor of theAnnex of the Faculty of Information Sciences. (See the HCU website:
http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/english/category0029.html) Our new contact
information is shown at the bottom of this page.

November 1, 2012 ‒ February 28, 2013

◆Nov. 1 Makiko Takemoto gives presentation “Floyd Schmoe
and the ‘Houses for Hiroshima’” for a public lecture which she,as part of a research project led by herself, co-organizes with
Hiroshima City and the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation,
held at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Nov. 5 HPI Vice-President Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture“International Contribution towards Peace from Hiroshima”
at the “Human Resource Development for Peacebuilding andReconstruction Course” of the Youth-Exchange Project with AsiaOceania and North America (Kizuna [bond] Project), organizedby the Japan Overseas Cooperative Association (JOCA), held in
Hiroshima.
◆Nov. 12 Mizumoto participates in the 3rd meeting of theHiroshima Prefecture-entrusted “Project for Promotion of the
NPT” organized by the Center for the Promotion of Disarmamentand Non-Proliferation, the Japan Institute of International Affairs,
held in Tokyo.
◆Nov. 14 Taeko Kiriya gives lecture “Reconstruction after the
Atomic Bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki” to a group of
students from the Lower Secondary School affiliated with the
School of Education, Nagoya University, held at HPI.
◆Nov. 19 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 13th meetingof the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Museum, held at the museum.
◆Nov. 29 Mikyoung Kim gives presentation “Japan-Korea
Co-registration of the Joseon Diplomatic Procession as World
Heritage” at the Economic, Trade and Tourism Forum, organizedby the Consulate-General of the Republic of Korea in Hiroshima,
held at RIHGA Royal Hotel Hiroshima.
◆Dec. 2 Mizumoto gives report “An Analysis of Recent Trends
and Debates on Nuclear Weapons” at a public lecture meetingorganized by the Advisory Research Committee of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum, held at the museum.
◆Dec. 7 Robert Jacobs presents paper “Networking Pacific
Hibakusha: Connecting Radiation-Affected Communities CrossGenerationally through New Social Media,” at the 20th PacificHistory Association Conference, held in Wellington, New Zealand.
◆Dec. 7-8 Mizumoto gives presentation “Japanese Perspectives”
at the International Workshop “Developing a Comprehensive
Approach to a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone” andan affiliated public symposium, organized by the Research Center
for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University, and otherorganizations, held in Nagasaki.
◆Dec. 7-17 Narayanan Ganesan conducts research andinterviews on civil society movements in Bangkok, Thailand, andYangon, Myanmar.
◆Dec. 19-20 Mizumoto conducts field trip to the Nagasaki
Atomic Bomb Museum in Nagasaki, Nagasaki Prefecture, andthe Kyushu National Museum in Dazaifu, Fukuoka Prefecture,organized by the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS● Published by● Printed by

8

Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Dec. 20 Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture “The Institute for
American Studies of Rikkyo University during the Second World
War” at Rikkyo University, Tokyo.
◆Dec. 27, 2012-Jan. 10, 2013 Ganesan conducts field researchin Yangon and other cities in Tanintharyi Region of southern
Myanmar.
◆Dec. 28 Kim participates as a panellist in the panel session“Leadership Changes in East Asia” during the annual conferenceof the 21st Century Political Science Association, held at Pukyong
National University, Busan, Korea.
◆Jan. 20, 2013 Mizumoto gives lecture “The Current Stateof Rehabilitation and Educational Tasks for Cambodia” at a
preparatory training course for the Study Tour to Cambodia,
organized by the Hiroshima International Center (HIC) and JICA
Chugoku, held at HIC.
◆Jan. 31 Mizumoto gives presentation “Prospects for Future
Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education” at Session VII“Disarmament and Non-proliferation Education” during the 24th
United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues in Shizuoka,organized by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs(UNODA) and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peaceand Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (UNRCPD), held in
Shizuoka.
◆Feb. 15 Ganesan gives presentation “Recent Political
Developments in Myanmar” at the New Zealand Asia Institute of
the University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
◆Feb. 15-Mar. 28 Takemoto, as part of a Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research (KAKENHI)-funded project led by herself,
co-organizes the special exhibition in the centenary of Robert
Jungk, “The Man Who Told the World about Hiroshima: Fora Nuclear-free Future,” with the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, held at the museum.
◆Feb. 17-23 Mizumoto conducts visit to Cambodia for several
projects including the Cambodia Reconstruction Support Project,
co-organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
◆Feb. 24 Kim participates as a panellist in the research forum“The Past, Present and Future of Towns on the Route of the
Joseon Diplomatic Procession,” held in Fukuyama, Hiroshima
Prefecture.
——Visitors——◆Nov. 5 Prof. Hiroshi Fujimoto and students from Nanzan
University.
◆Nov. 8 Director Yoshiko Shimabukuro and two staff members
from the Himeyuri Peace Museum, Itoman, Okinawa Prefecture.
◆Nov. 14 Students from the Lower Secondary School affiliatedwith the School of Education, Nagoya University.
◆Dec. 5 Mr. Yasuyoshi Komizo, former Ambassador of Japanto the State of Kuwait.
Vol.15 No.3（March 25, 2013）

Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University（Editor: Yuko Takahashi）
3-4-1, Ozuka-higashi, Asaminami-ku, Hiroshima 731-3194 Japan
Phone: +81（0）82 830 1811
Fax: +81（0）82 830 1812
E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.15 No.3, March 2013

狡Hiroshima City University 2013. All rights reserved.