HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

New Wine in a New Wineskin?:
Obama and the Framing of North Korea’s
Korea s Denuclearization
Sung Chull Kim
As the Six-Party Talks held in December 2008 ended without any progresson the issue of the verification of North Korea’s nuclear program,
skepticism prevailed again over whether the clandestine country is reallyinterested in negotiation to resolve the nuclear crisis and bring about
eventual denuclearization. North Korea refused to follow the U.S. demand
to record the protocol for the verification of its declared nuclear program.
North Korea was probably intending to start new negotiations with the
newly inaugurated Obama administration. It has been difficult to identify
North Korea’s real intent, and the identification of this intent will remain athorny question for the foreseeable future.
What should be noted is that the denuclearization of North Korea has
already entered a series of negotiations, albeit painstaking in nature, aimed
at exchanging political and economic incentives. In such quid pro quo
negotiations, a cumulative leveling-up process is expected as theparticipating parties implement fully what they have agreed upon. In
reality, however, these quid pro quo negotiations have undergone ups-anddowns due to continued distrust and hostility between the parties,
particularly between North Korea and the United States. Controversy has
continued over the sequence of exchanges between North Korea and thefive other parties, even though the Six-Party Talks of 2007 produced main
agreements on the actual exchanges: fuel aid, U.S. delisting of North Korea
as a terror sponsoring state and lifting the application of the Trading with
the Enemy Act, in compensation for the North’s disablement of its nuclear
facilities at Yongbyon and the declaration of its nuclear program.
Attention is now focused on the Obama administration. In view of thefact that during his presidential election campaign Obama expressed his
willingness to talk with leaders of “rogue states” like Iran and North
Korea, it is assumed that the Obama administration will take a different
approach with regard to the North Korean issue. The Obamaadministration’s approach, if it is taken, could be likened to a “newwineskin.” The remaining question is what the content of negotiations, as
the “new wine,” regarding North Korea’s denuclearization will be. New
wine and a new wineskin should go together. New incentives may work
better in a new frame rather than in an old frame; the new frame may
effectively work with new incentives.
The Obama administration’s stance on the nuclear issue in general andon the North Korean issue in particular will depend on its overall views
regarding U.S. security and foreign policy. Following the election, Obama

CONTENTS
New Wine in a New Wineskin?:
Obama and the Framing of North Korea’s Denuclearization ……… 1
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima ……………………………… 2
A Black Hole: North Korea’s Place in East Asian Energy Debates ……… 3<Reflections from Hiroshima vol.10> ……………………………………… 4-5
Poet Hiromi Misho and Physician Hiroshi Maruya
The Origins of the Image of the Whole Earth in the Hiroshima Bombing …… 6-7<HPI Research Project> …………………………………………………… 7
Bilateralism versus Multilateralism in Southeast Asia
Diary………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

announced the “Obama-Biden Plan” on the website of the transition team.
With regard to U.S. security and foreign policy, the plan notes thefollowing points: defeating terrorism worldwide, preventing nuclear
terrorism, protecting information networks, improving intelligencecapacities, strengthening the NPT, moving toward a nuclear-free world,and lastly but not least, renewing American diplomacy.
With regard to nuclear policy, it appears that the Obamaadministration is concerned more about nuclear proliferation than anuclear-free world, at least in the short term. Under the condition that theadministration will have to deal with the two ongoing wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the United States will need to make efforts to prevent nuclear
proliferation beyond borders by such states as Iran and North Korea, andalso non-state actors such as terrorist groups. The Obama administration’scommitment to both nuclear weapons reduction in the nuclear states and an
eventual nuclear-free world will be tested at the NPT Review Conferencein 2010.
As to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in particular, it
seems that there are both similarities and differences between the Bushadministration and the Obama administration. On the one hand, the U.S.
objective under the Obama administration remains the same as the policyof nonproliferation, the policy pursued actively by the Bush administrationin the Six-Party Talks during the past two years; indeed, Obama has
acknowledged Bush’s efforts in this respect. On the other hand, the Obamaadministration will likely adopt a new approach in dealing with North
Korea. While taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the SixParty Talks to induce the support of regional actors, it is highly probablethat the Obama administration will take a bold step to initiate a deal with
North Korea through high level talks.
Under this new approach, however, a substantial change is needed interms of the incentives that are on the table. Above all, it is necessary to set
an eventual goal, and a timetable if possible, for negotiations between the
United States and North Korea and at the Six-Party Talks as a whole. The
dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear program should be in exchange forthe normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. The Bush administration
reiterated an optimistic picture about a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, but
it did not clearly project this specific point as the ultimate goal. Due todeep-rooted distrust, both countries interpreted the agreed points in theirown ways. The United States took North Korea’s denuclearization for
granted whereas North Korea tried simply to maximize its economic andpolitical gains during the process. Thus, controversy between both parties
was centered around the condition that “you must keep your promise
before requesting my obligation.” The controversy in the quid pro quo
process has reinforced skepticism on both sides about the other’s real
intent. Now it is high time for the United States to present a big deal, while
adopting quid pro quo as the intermediary means to facilitate progress.
Here Japan should be prepared, in one way or another, for any abruptchange in U.S.-DPRK relations, a change that could be likened to the“Asakai nightmare” of the 1972 U.S.-China rapprochement.

−1−

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

2008 HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima

War and Nuclear Weapons of the United States
When discussing contemporary issues of war and nuclear weapons, thecrucial factor is the actions of the United States, the country which since 9/11
has pursued the War on Terrorism and which still possesses a hugely
powerful nuclear arsenal. By embarking on war in Iraq in 2003, in addition
to launching the development of new nuclear weapons, re-starting nuclear
tests and implying the possible use of nuclear weapons, the Bushadministration considerably changed the course of international cooperationbased nuclear disarmament. In spite of this, in the presidential election ofNovember 4th, 2008, the U.S. witnessed the historic victory of the African
American candidate Barack Obama who has stated his determination toabolish nuclear weapons.
The last HPI Lecture Series which was held in November 2008
addressed U.S. policy relating to war and nuclear issues. Each of the fivelectures sought to analyze U.S. policy from a variety of viewpoints ranging
from politics, military, diplomacy, to culture and the media. The analyses
examined historical development before discussing the prospects for the new
Obama administration.

2007 Vaughn-Ueda International Journalist Prize for his detailed reportingof the nuclear policy of the Bush administration. The third lecture deliveredby Ota discussed problems in the nuclear policy of the Bush administrationand the outlook for the Obama administration. The Bush administration
sought the development of usable nuclear weapons such as Robust Nuclear
Earth Penetrators (RNEPs) and mini-nukes of smaller than a third of a
Hiroshima-sized bomb. Nevertheless, this plan had to be withdrawn afterstrong resistance from Congress on the basis of the mounting cost of the evermore complicated war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism. One interestingobservation made in the lecture related to Dianne Feinstein, a senior
Democratic Senator, who kept in her drawer a photo of Hiroshima taken
immediately after the bombing and who was strongly opposed to theaforementioned nuclear development plan. Ota, whose life as a journalist
started in Hiroshima, concluded the lecture by emphasizing the importanceof tirelessly delivering the message of the A-bombed city.
Lecture 4 (November 28)

The U.S. Presidential Election and Nuclear Policy
in Historical Perspective

Lecture 1 (November 7)

U.S. Global Strategy: America’s War andthe Making of a Liberal World Order
Hideki Kan, Professor at Seinan Jo Gakuin University
Hideki Kan has recently published a book which has the same title as thatof the first lecture of the Series (Chuo Koron-sha, 2008). He argues that the
U.S. has shown two faces throughout the history of its diplomacy: one thatregards itself as a state which has a mission to spread freedom, democracy,
and capitalism around the world; and another that emphasizes moral
behavior where there is no need to resort to arms in order to promote asystem of the U.S. type, if the country continues to be a model state. The
former can be illustrated by the Bush Doctrine which adhered to militaryintervention worldwide, whereas the latter can be represented by thehuman rights diplomacy of Jimmy Carter in the post-Vietnam War era. A
Pentagon paper “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” was issued in the autumn
of 1991 during the Bush (Sr.) administration and excerpts from it weredisclosed under the name of the then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney inJanuary, 1993. When one analyzes the Bush (Jr.) administration, it isimportant to consider the preceding U.S. policy: the Pentagon paper
discusses possible preemptive attacks in the case of attacks against the U.S.
with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons; it indicates the strategic
importance of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf in respect of oil; and it
affirms a prospect for the U.S. to achieve hegemony in Europe and East
Asia through gaining control over oil reserves. In the lecture, Kan argued
that the war in Iraq which started in March 2003 under the Bush (Jr.)
administration needs to be understood as a manifestation of the preceding
Pentagon paper.
Lecture 2 (November 14)

War and Nuclear Weapons in the U.S. History
Hiroko Takahashi, Assistant Professor at HPIWhen one visits the National Museum of American History in Washington
D.C., one sees how the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki andnuclear weapons are depicted as symbols of the end of WWII and of victoryin the Cold War respectively. In a similar manner, the World War II
Memorial commemorates the war dead of WWII as representing the “pricefor freedom.” At the same time, however, there is no mention in the museumof the actual effects of the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or that ofnuclear tests. The second lecture of the Series looked at how nuclear
weapons has been placed as a symbols of victory in U.S. history in which
war has been understood positively as the “price for freedom.”
Lecture 3 (November 21)

U.S. Nuclear Policy andTasks for the New Obama Administration

Robert Jacobs, Assistant Professor at HPI
The fourth lecture was delivered by Robert Jacobs from HPI. Jacobs, who
was in his hometown of Chicago at the time of the 2008 presidential election,
examined what the new Obama administration may be able to offer to U.S.
nuclear policy. He predicts that, amid the recent economic turmoil, during
the first term the new administration will focus on domestic issues,particularly reform of the health care system. A second term, on the other
hand, is more likely to be spent leaving the administration’s stamp on U.S.
history, hence there is a greater likelihood of specific actions being taken
towards nuclear abolition. Jacobs observed that a call for nuclear abolition
voiced by Henry Kissinger and three other former foreign policy hawks
provided little aspiration nor inspiration because such calls can be interpreted
merely as a means for these figures to recover their own honors; more
important is to examine what they actually did during their incumbencies.
This reveals that the sluggish progress of nuclear abolition is in large part due
to the existence of the military-industrial complex which benefits from
nuclear development. To conclude the lecture, Jacobs stressed that a vitalstep towards achieving nuclear abolition will be to unveil and break up thisobstructive mechanism.
Lecture 5 (December 5)

Politics and War of America:
Prospects After the 2008 Presidential Election
Chieko Kitagawa Otsuru, Professor at Kansai University
Chieko Kitagawa Otsuru viewed the 2008 U.S. presidential election as
centering on the supreme commander who could guarantee U.S. national
security: in the general election, Barack Obama, who once opposed the war
in Iraq, not only avoided repudiating the War on Terrorism but also pledged
to dispatch more of the U.S. military to Afghanistan. Otsuru argued that,with the public attention shifting away from the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the U.S. has missed an opportunity to learn from the situationin Iraq and to question the fundamentals of U.S. society which has bothsignificant military influence in international society and major militaryindustry within. While the War on Terrorism continues to be justified and thecountry glorified by its own people, Otsuru holds hopes of grass-root
activities possessing the power to make the public perspective on the country
more relative and well-balanced.
Nuclear abolition requires the world to discard the idea of nuclear
deterrence. Nevertheless, the closer one examines the U.S., the more difficult
one realizes this is. The author hopes that the five lectures provided theparticipants with a good opportunity to examine both the prospects andpotential limits of the new denuclearization-championing Obamaadministration.

Masakatsu Ota, correspondent of Kyodo News
Masakatsu Ota is a correspondent of Kyodo News who was awarded the

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

Hiroko Takahashi, assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

A Black Hole:
North Korea’s Place in East Asian Energy Debates
Mikyoung Kim
North Korea occupies a dark place in Northeast Asia in a literal aswell as a figurative sense. A reliable energy supply is a prerequisite
for a nation’s economic growth and North Korea cannot be an
exception, despite Pyongyang’s juche ideology of self-sufficiency.
In order for North Korea to develop, it needs the three primaryelements of energy supply, environmental preservation and asustainable economy. Since the official dissolution of the Korea
Energy Development Organization (KEDO) in May 2006, thecountry’s future energy prospects look as bleak as ever. The DPRK,
with its chronic shortage of energy, is also the major stumbling
block for constructive energy flow within the region. North Korea’s
multifaceted “darkness” qualifies it to be seen as the vibrantregion’s “black hole.” The region’s energy challenges regarding
North Korea need to be addressed by means of a holistic approach.
This is an economic as well as a highly political issue.
Northeast Asia is a dynamic region cohabited by producers andconsumers of energy. With China’s dramatic turnaround as a net
energy importer amid its phenomenal economic growth, its thirstfor energy has had spill-over effects to the resource-richneighboring countries of Russia and Mongolia. Chinese energy
demands have been growing by an annual average of 16% in recent
years. Despite the declining demand for energy in Japan, risingconsumption in Korea implies a substantial net increase in theoverall energy demand of Northeast Asia. For instance, Japan’s
demand for heavy fuel oil is declining faster than for middle
distillates (The Japanese Institute of Energy Economics, 2006),
whereas primary energy consumption in South Korea has increased
at an average rate of 6.2% for the past 25 years from 1981 until 2005
(The Korea Energy Economics Institute, 2006). Considering thecompatibility of the resource endowments among the countries,
regional cooperation for energy security has become a matter ofmultilateral cooperation.
In recent years, the region’s heavy dependence on Middle
Eastern oil has become a serious concern. Three quarters of the oil
consumed in Northeast Asia is currently imported from the Middle
East. South Korea and Japan imported 78.1% and 90.2% of their oilfrom the Middle East in 2005 respectively. China, Korea, and Japan
have been increasing their investments in energy exploration in
Russia and Mongolia, while these cash-strapped economies havebecome active in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). The
Chinese government emphasizes the potential benefits fromcomparative advantage in Sino-Russia energy trade. The Institutefor International Economic Research in Beijing asserts that “energy
cooperation between China and Russia is a win-win deal not only
important to their trade relations, but also critical to their strategic
partnership.” By 2020 Russia will supply more than 40 billion cubic
meters of natural gas to Asia and Pacific countries, including China.
The Chinese government states that “importing Russian oil by landis economically efficient and politically safe, and it should be a
strategic priority for China’s long term energy solution” (Institute

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

for International Economic Research, NDRC, China, 2006). Russia
and China have completed a feasibility study for a Yakut-Sakha
Republic to China gas project. In addition, other multilateralprojects such as Russia-China pipeline construction and gas transferfrom Irkutsk’s Kovyktinskoye gas field to China and ROK havebeen under positive reviews. The caveat is that laws relating to FDI
enacted by the Khabarovsk Krai government, the central area of theRussian Far East, for instance, have been revised in order to tighten
the rules and regulations in recent years. The energy sector is not an
exception. The slogan of “Russian Energy for Russia First” hasgained more domestic currency now than in the 1980s when the
USSR was disintegrating. The region, therefore, has a great
potential for the creation of mutually beneficial relations throughthe linking of energy transportation and distribution systems (seeFigure 1).

Figure 1: Potential Energy Flow from Eastern Russia
Source: The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, 2005

However, the rosy scenario of such symbiotic relationshipactually faces a sour reality. Despite its desperate need for energy,
North Korea has been playing volatile political games. For example,
in 2006 the Pyongyang regime shook up the regional security
system by successfully launching missiles over the Sea of Japan andconducting a nuclear test. The country is also occupying a strategic
location for transportation interconnectivity within the region. The
geographical vacuum created by North Korea’s isolation is clogging
up this transportation artery and it is estimated that this will add
billions of dollars to the construction and operation costs of thetransportation system. The possibility of detours that avoid thenorthern part of the Korean Peninsula is under serious consideration,
against everybody’s rational calculations. A multilateral approachto engage with North Korea in order to open up its territory for an
optimal energy flow is urgently needed to promote regional
prosperity.

−3−

Kim is associate professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

＜Reflections from Hiroshima vol.10＞

Hiroshi Maruya

Poet
oet Hiromi Misho andPhysician Hiroshi Maruya
I interviewed Dr. Hiroshi Maruya, the honorary
director of Hiroshima Kyoritsu Hospital andthe famous poet Hiromi Misho. Misho wasborn in Iwakuni in 1925. (Misho is the name of
the birthplace of his mother, who passed away
early in his boyhood.) There are two earlymotivational experiences in his life: the first is
the sense of atonement he felt which wasderived from his experience of having been
engaged in the reclamation of paddy fields,
Hiroshi Maruya
when, as a middle school pupil, he wasmobilized as forced labor for the construction of the base of the Iwakuni
Naval Air Force, the predecessor of the present U.S. Iwakuni Base. The
other is his experience in A-bombed Hiroshima. He took an irregularly
running train from Iwakuni to Koi (Nishi-Hiroshima) on August 8, 1945,
two days after the A-bombing, to look for his girlfriend, classmates andrespected teachers. He wandered around within the city area for sometime, naturally without the slightest knowledge that he was being
exposed to radiation because the whole city was contaminated by residual
radioactivity. Having not found any acquaintances after a full-day’s
search, he returned to Koi in the evening to find a young, half-naked anddying man who had a gash on his chest. He looked at the gash that was
still oozing fresh blood and suddenly noticed a bloodstained fly crawlingout of the gash. The fly shuddered two or three times and was swallowedback into the chest together with the blood. Completely exhausted fromfatigue as a result of his vain efforts to find his acquaintances among
hundreds of doomed hibakusha and shocked by the traumatic scene,
Maruya lost his memory and could not recall how he got home to
Iwakuni.
Poet Misho is to be publicly honored in 2009 by the Japan Poets
Association, the most prestigious association of Japanese poets. In his
response to the notification of this public honor, Misho wrote that he was“willingly accepting” the honor as “an encouragement for my sincere
devotion to Korean hibakusha and Iraqi sufferers from depleted uranium(DU) weapons, as a physician resident in Hiroshima, and also as a poet
who has had the above-mentioned early experiences.”
I interviewed Maruya regarding these three points: being a physician
and a poet, the Korean hibakusha and the Iraqi sufferers from DU.

1. As both physician and poet
The professional obligation of a physician is to face up to life. I, as a poet,
would like to write poems in praise of the warmth of life. It isfundamentally the same thing to care for people’s lives as a physician andto convey the warmth of people’s lives as a poet. What is the warmth oflife? It is, for instance, the warmth of life or hope everybody feels when
one sees a newly born baby. As a physician and as a poet, my starting andguiding point has always been human life, and I have consistently faced
it squarely. From the specific viewpoint of writing poetry, it can be said
that life is composed of imagination and a critical spirit. These twoelements should also be regarded as the very fundamentals of civilization
because, without them, no civilization can exist.
I graduated from Hiroshima Higher School under the prewar
education system. As my elder brother (by two years) had been killed in
the war, my father pleaded with me not to go to war. I respected his
wishes and entered Okayama Medical College in 1945, thereby escaping
military service. I suffered from tuberculosis in April 1947 and spent four
years under medical treatment at National Iwakuni Hospital. While I was
confined to my bed, from where I had a panoramic view of the Seto
Inland Sea but with the U.S. Iwakuni Base in the immediate vicinity, I

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

By Motofumi AsaiInterviewed on November 21, 2008

contemplated the idea of poems and the fear of death.
The time of convalescence there marked the beginning of my poetic
wanderings. One day by chance I found a poetry magazine at a coffee
shop near the Atago railroad crossing, east of Hiroshima Station, andbecame acquainted with Sankichi Toge who, with some others, soon afterorganized the Society of Our Poems, and started a periodical Our Poems
to which I started to contribute from the third issue. I also organized apoetry circle, an Iwakuni Hospital branch of the Society, putting myself
in the maelstrom of poetry movements in post-war Hiroshima.
The Korean War started in 1950, and I was forced to witness at the
Iwakuni Base, the only U.S. Marine Base on the Japanese mainland, therepeated take-offs and landings of American fighters that were going onbombing missions on the Korean Peninsula. I was so infuriated to idly
watch them that I could hardly sleep at night and began to write Iwakuni
Suite, which was to be my maiden collection of poems. One of my antiwar poems, To a Lost Arm, from the Memo of a Wounded Soldier, wasregarded by the authorities as violating U.S. Ordinance No. 325(Ordinance on Obstructive Deeds against the Occupation Army), and I
was arrested in March 1951. In that poem I described U.S. jet fighters as“aircraft bugs” to be “knocked down by my iron arms,” and I waspersecuted for writing “an anti-American Military poem.” The caseagainst me was finally dropped as I insisted that there did really exist abug called an “aircraft bug.” Toge and my poetry comrades supported
and encouraged my fight most earnestly. Among them, I felt the strongest
sympathy with Toge who suffered from the same illness as I did.
My poem collections that have been published include the maiden
Iwakuni Suite (January 1952), Blind Autumn (January 1953), The Poem
Collection by Hiromi Misho (July 1987), The Second Poem Collection by
Hiromi Misho (June 1999), As I Became Little Atomic Dust (March 2004,
co-authored with Itsuko Ishikawa), Genkyo (Places Dear to My Heart)(October 2006), and My Native Place, Iwakuni (September 2008). I had
no publications between 1953 and 1977 because I completely devoted
myself to my work as a physician and so did not write any poems duringthat time. After I returned to Hiroshima and became the director of
Hiroshima Kyoritsu Hospital in August 1977, I resumed writing poems at
the earnest request of Munetoshi Fukagawa, a poet friend since thepublication of Our Poems, who passed away in April 2008 at the age of
87. This return to poetry writing led to the publication of The Poem
Collection by Hiromi Misho.
In contrast to this period, there were only two years between Genkyo
and My Native Place, Iwakuni. When I published Genkyo, I neverimagined that I would follow up with My Native Place, Iwakuni so soon.
However, I was so angered by the so-called realignment of U.S. Forces inJapan in general, and particularly by the transformation of the base in
Iwakuni, a city adjacent to Hiroshima, into a monster base 1.4 times
bigger than the Kadena Base in Okinawa (which has so far been thelargest in the Far East), that I began to wonder seriously if any message
would be sent out by someone in Hiroshima; people who, in my opinion,
as Hiroshima residents, should bear the heaviest responsibility to speakout for peace in Japan. I myself felt obliged to speak out when the time
was right. As I wrote in the postscript of My Native Place, Iwakuni, I took
up the task out of a sense of mission as a poet, thinking about “What kindof words I, a poet born in Iwakuni, could deliver to the 250,000 souls of
the victims enshrined in the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims.”
Fortunately the work has been so warmly received that I now have a great
sense of achievement.

2. Korean hibakusha
Munetoshi Fukagawa also played an important role in my getting−4−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

＜Reflections from Hiroshima vol.10＞

involved with Korean hibakusha. On August 6, 1945, Fukagawa endured
the A-bomb attack at a Hiroshima machine manufacturing factory of
Mitsubishi Heavy-Industries Ltd. where he worked as an instructor for
Korean drafted workers. Although many Korean A-bomb sufferers went
back to Korea after the war, some of them disappeared on their way homewhen their ship was wrecked in a typhoon. Fukagawa investigated thecase and found out that the cesium-containing remains unearthed on
Okinoshima Island in Fukuoka Prefecture since 1976 were actually thoseof more than 200 Korean workers. (According to the website of the
Association to Support the Court Struggle for Korean Ex-Forced
Laborers and A-Bomb Victims of Mitsubishi Hiroshima (ASK), the exact
number of the human remains was 241.) He also supported aconsequential lawsuit as one of the representatives of the Association thatdemanded that indemnity be paid by the government and the company.
(The Supreme Court ruled on November 11, 2007 that Circular No. 402
issued by the Ministry of Welfare (now the Ministry of Health, Labor andWelfare) was illegal as it excluded foreign hibakusha from legal
protection, and ordered the government, which was the defendant, tocompensate them.) His words and deeds gradually aroused my interest
and concerns about Korean hibakusha. In the meantime, the Japanese
government’s scheme to provide Korean hibakusha with medical
treatment in Japan was put into effect in 1981, following an agreement
between the governments of Japan and South Korea, but this was cut
short abruptly after only five years. My concern about Korean hibakusha
was only to grow as a result of these events, and in 1990 Hiroshima
Kyoritsu Hospital decided, under my guidance, to join the privateorganization, the Hiroshima Committee for South Korean-Resident
Hibakusha Receiving Medical Treatment in Japan (established in 1984
under the initiative of Kawamura Hospital). Kyoritsu Hospital has
accepted hibakusha not only from Korea but also, since 2002, those from
Brazil, the U.S., the United Kingdom and Mexico.
Among the many Korean hibakusha I have become acquainted with,
I felt the deepest affection for Sun-gi Lee as he, like me, took Hiroshima
as his second home. The title of my work Genkyo was partly inspired bythis common feeling. I first came to know him when he was hospitalized
at Kyoritsu Hospital as one of those who came to Japan from South Korea
for treatment in 1998. Two years later he visited Hiroshima again,
accompanying his niece who was A-bombed at the age of seven and whocame to Hiroshima this time to apply for the issuance of an A-bomb
health book. At that time, a laryngeal cancer was found in his throat andhe underwent an operation at Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital. When I
visited him at the hospital, he was so pleased after enduring lonelinessduring the operation and radiation treatment in a foreign country. After
his return to Hapcheon, South Korea, he frequently sent me letters. He
came to Hiroshima half a year later for a medical examination and tookback to Korea acorns that he found in the Peace Park. He planted them in
Hapcheon and they sprouted in 1999. He was hospitalized at Kyoritsu
Hospital again in January 2000 and in January 2001. In 2000, a stomach
cancer was found and he underwent another operation. In 2001, a
metastasis to the liver was found and he was told that it would be hard tocompletely cure it. He went back to Hapcheon the next day without
telling me beforehand. Several days later he sent me a letter in which hewrote, “For what crime should I be punished so harshly?” In my reply I
stated that a strong will was indispensable in his fight against the cancer,
and strongly recommended that he, as a means to encourage himself,
should write an autobiography from the time of the A-bomb. He did so,
giving it the title “Acorns from Hiroshima sprouted on the soil of
Hapcheon,” before his death in November of that year. (His
autobiography is compiled into We Wrote Torn Apart: Memoirs of

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

Korean Hibakusha co-edited by Hiroshi Maruya and Itsuko Ishikawa.)
Sun-gi Lee mediated the twinning between the Hapcheon branch of the
Korean Atomic Bomb Casualties Association in the Republic of Korea
and the A-Bomb Sufferers Association of Hiroshima Kyoritsu Hospital.
The agreement was concluded in April 2001, since when mutual visits
have been taking place.

3. Iraqi victims of depleted uranium
The first occasion in which I encountered Iraqi sufferers of depleted
uranium (DU) was in December 2002 when two professors, one from the
University of Bagdhad (Pediatrics) and the other from the University of
Basrah (Oncology), visited Hiroshima at the invitation of NGOs and hada meeting with me. They hoped to learn from Hiroshima’s experiences inorder to find out the causes for frequently occurring cancers in Iraq. At
their request, I expressed my opinion that a possible cause was duplicatedcontamination by radiation and heavy metals. But I was shocked to hear
their explanation that it was actually alpha rays that were responsible forcancers caused by DU. It is an established theory that the case ofHiroshima was that of external exposure to gamma rays which have arather long wavelength. In the case of DU, however, the radioactive rays
emitted from DU are alpha rays, which have very destructive energy(1,000 times stronger than gamma rays), although their effective distanceis extremely short (comparable to the thickness of a piece of paper, or 40
microns). A radiation dose in a tissue of a radius of 40 microns or less is
said to amount to as high as 100 sieverts per annum, reaching 100,000
times the permitted level. The DU was used in anti-tank shells during the
Persian Gulf War in 1991. It was dispersed into the air as metal vaporcaused by heat at temperatures higher than 1,000 degrees Celsius. Iraqi
people were then exposed to internal radiation by inhaling the DU metal
vapor. “In Iraq, the rate of increase in the number of patients sufferingfrom leukemia did not slow down, even ten years after the war. The
development of lung and breast cancers began after a latency period offive years, while it was 20 years in Hiroshima. These facts are very
different from the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was really struck
with horror by the fact of internal radiation caused by alpha rays.”(Hiroshi Maruya, “Crime of using DU shells in Iraq” in World Affairs
Weekly, October 21, 2003.) It is really incredible and outrageous to seethat the American and British governments, while having used DU shells,
flatly deny the possibility of internal radiation by emphasizing the little
degree of external radiation that the weapons convey. The United Statesagain resorted to war against Iraq in 2003 and used many DU shells. With
Itsuko Ishikawa, I published a poem collection As I Became Little Atomic
Dust in 2004 in order to lodge anaccusation against the use of DU
shells in Iraq.
Let me add one more thing.
In the case of the Hiroshima Abombing, only a small percentageof the bomb’s uranium exploded,
leaving a massive amount of
unexploded uranium to be scatteredinto the air emitting radioactivealpha rays. It was therefore highly
likely that many people in
Hiroshima were exposed tointernal radiation from alpha rays.
The so-called black rain may be
one result of this fact.
Asai is president of HPI−5−Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

The Origins of the Image of the Whole Earthin the Hiroshimaoshima Bombing

Robert Jacobs

The image of the Whole Earth is one of the most ubiquitous visual
icons of the late twentieth century. Much as our ability to see deeply
into space has revised our ideas about the nature of the universearound us, our ability to see our home planet from space has
fundamentally revised our concept of the Earth. Photographs of theWhole Earth entered culture in the late 1960s as a result of thedevelopment of satellites and manned space travel. But before there
were color photographs of the Earth from space, the visual image of
the Earth as whole was first expressed by political cartoonists in direct
and immediate response to the use of atomic bombs on the Japanesecities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. These cartoonists grasped
that the threat posed to human civilization by nuclear weapons
threatened the people of the Earth in a holistic way: threatening thevery existence of life on Earth. I believe that the first articulation ofthis idea as a visual icon did not have to wait for photographs of the
Earth from space; they were already present in the work of editorial
cartoonists by the end of the first week of the Atomic Age.
As a visual icon, the image of the Whole Earth as seen from spacecommunicates a very complicated set of ideas in a very simple image.
This iconology centers on the way in which the image unifies manyof the complexities of human society through a depiction ofwholeness. Hence the name, the Whole Earth. In this image there are
no visible borders on the landmasses, the only real division visible on
the Earth’s surface is between land and sea. It emphasizes that theborders between our nations are of human construction. It tells a story
about us all being from one place, Earth.
The other border that comes into sharp relief is the separation
between the beautiful blue planet and the cold darkness of space. Thisemphasizes the fragility of life on Earth. The Earth is seen as adelicate planet enveloped by a thin atmosphere in which all of life
exists, cast against the immensity and emptiness of space. The Earthseems vulnerable. Thus the core meaning of the Whole Earth icon isthat all of the creatures alive on Earth share a single common destiny.
If a nuclear war were to break out, the borders that are so important tohumans―those between the two sides in a conflict ―are seen to beillusory. The planet as a whole would be affected ―the victims of a
nuclear war would be all of the inhabitants on Earth. In this sense, thevictim of a nuclear war would be the Earth itself.
On Sunday August 12, 1945, The New York Times published thefollowing three editorial cartoons just as they are reprinted below.

All three cartoons, by three different cartoonists, offer visions of the
impact of the new atomic bomb on human civilization. The first one
shows a devilish character named “Future Threat of War” being
restrained from hammering the Earth by a hand named “Control ofAtomic Power”; the caption reads, “For a perfect earth.” The
statement here is that the future of war threatens the Earth as a whole,and that only the control of atomic power can keep that threat incheck. The second shows a man dressed as a scientist standing astride
the Earth who has a paper in his pocket titled “The Atom.” He isaddressing a baby named “Humanity,” offering the baby a ball named“Life or Death,” and asking, “Baby play with nice ball?” The
implication of this cartoon is clear: playing with “the atom” is a life ordeath game for immature humanity. In the third cartoon a heavenly
hand is striking the Earth with a lightning bolt named “Atomic
Power.” Here, the caption reads, “A new era in man’s understanding.”
Two pages further into thepaper, the first Sunday issue
following the bombings ofHiroshima and Nagasaki, we seein another cartoon a giant hand
named “Science” holding the
Earth, which is named “The
Future of Civilization.” Thecaption tells us, “In the palm of
his hand.” Much like in the
iconography of the Whole Earth,the fate of human civilization
appears to be a collective one.
While the specific focus of
the cartoons differs, a striking
Source: The New York Times,
August 12, 1945, Sec. 4, p. 6E.
continuity is their depiction of
the Earth. All of the cartoonsshow the Earth exhibiting visual content that perfectly foreshadowsthe later icon of the Whole Earth. The emphasis on the Earth as aplace of separate nations is gone; the Earth is present as a single entitythat is being forced to deal with the advent of atomic weapons. It isclear that the destiny of those on the Earth is a common destiny.
What we see in these political cartoons is the Earth as the targetof nuclear war. I would argue that this is the true origin of the icon we
have come to know as the Whole Earth ―as the feared victim of
nuclear weapons. The threatof nuclear war created anarrative of global death, of acollective death ignorant of
the political borders wehumans have fought and diedfor.
Albert Einstein advisedin 1945 that, “The situation
calls for a courageous effort,
for a radical change in ourwhole attitude, in the entire
political concept.... Otherwise
human civilization will be
Source: The New York Times, August 12, 1945, Sec. 4, p. 4E.
doomed.” i At first that vision(They are reprinted from three different newspapers, the first from Newark Evening News, the second from The New Yorkseemed dark and apocalyptic,
Times itself, and the third from St. Louis Post-Dispatch.)

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−6−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

but once the idea entered into our collective consciousness it started
to grow: we began to see that this vision of the Earth as one, as whole,carried with it some deep and ultimately empowering perspectives.
The political cartoons above answered this call even as it was being
made; they carried the first faint blue glow of the vision of the Whole
Earth forward into human culture.

i Albert Einstein, “The War Is Won But Peace Is Not,” Essays in

Humanism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), 65-8. This isreprinted from an address originally presented at the Fifth Nobel
Anniversary Dinner at the Astor Hotel, New York City, December
10, 1945.

Jacobs is assistant professor at HPI

HPI
ReseachProject

Bilateralism versus Multilateralism in Southeast Asia

The second workshop of the research project
entitled “Bilateralism versus Multilateralism in Southeast
Asia” was held from 3rd to 5th October 2008 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. A total of 11 papers were presented at the workshop
which were revised drafts of papers previously presented in
Hiroshima in 2007. Among the senior academics at theworkshop were Professor Etel Solingen from the University ofCalifornia at Irvine and Professor Sheldon Simon from the
Arizona State University. A conscious attempt was made toutilize indigenous scholars for the country studies withoutcompromising the quality of the papers. The fact that theworkshop was held in Malaysia greatly reduced travel costs formany of the participants.
The paper presenters were primarily academics, with the
exception of Dr. Nguyen Vu Tung who was from theVietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Of the papers
presented, one was a theoretical overview of International
Relations while another was on regionalism in Southeast Asia.
The remaining nine papers essentially examined bilateralrelations between geographically proximate states. Some of thesmallest countries in the region like Brunei, Laos andCambodia were not included in the project; nevertheless, bothmainland and maritime regions were well represented in the
countries chosen. The central question that the project aims toanswer is whether bilateralism and multilateralism represent
congruent processes or are fundamentally at odds with eachother, and if there is a preference among states for one forum
over the other. The responses to this question may provide
clues for future research.
In order to address the central question comprehensively,
the paper writers were asked to identify the most important
issues with respect to the bilateral relations of the countries
chosen. From amongst these issues, they were then asked to
identify those which had the propensity to lead to tensions.
Finally, the paper writers were asked to identify how suchtensions were routinely solved. The manner and location
through which these issues are resolved would also provide
preliminary ideas for conflict resolution and containment in the
future.
The preliminary evidence appears to indicate that countries
in Southeast Asia have a marked preference for bilateral over

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009

multilateral fora in the resolution of difficult and disputed
issues. This choice seems to be embedded in historical patternsof interaction which may well have preceded modern
statehood. Geographical proximity and the existence of regularchannels for dispute resolution also seem to favor bilateralism.
Furthermore, it would appear that bilateralism has been an
established practice even prior to the onset of multilateral
initiatives in the region. Bilateral venues also offer the
possibility for the discrete resolution of tensions, without
political posturing in the public domain. In cases where adifficult situation is not contained quickly, it has the tendency
to spiral out of control and create added complications. In thisregard, quiet and contained bilateral mechanisms appear tooffer clear advantages in reducing tensions and resolving
conflicts. In fact, it is rarely the case that disputants do not wanta difficult outstanding matter resolved. Nonetheless, it also
became clear that the countries often make use of more than asingle venue for dispute resolution. Hence, there is also anelement of conscious choice involved during the decision
making process.
This workshop benefited from generous financial andsecretarial support provided by the Asian Political andInternational Studies Association (APISA) in Malaysia. Twosenior regional scholars were also funded by APISA to serve as
commentators and lead discussions. They were Professor Johan
Saravanamuttu from University of Science, Malaysia, in
Penang and Dr. Lam Peng Er, Senior Research Fellow from theEast Asian Institute in Singapore. APISA also hosted both thewelcoming and closing dinners for the workshop.
At the conclusion of the workshop it was decided that therevised papers would be compiled into a volume forpublication. The author and Professor Ramses Amer from
Stockholm University who led the project will jointly edit the
publication. The preliminary venue of choice among the paper
writers is the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.
After all the papers are edited and compiled by March 2009, it
is expected that the edited volume will be refereed andpublished by the end of 2009.

−7−

Narayanan Ganesan, professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

October 19, 2008 - February 28, 2009
Constitution, organized by a branch of Kyoto Senior High School Teachers Union
at Yosanoumi School for Handicapped Children.
◆Dec. 21 Asai gives lecture “Hope for Hiroshima” at 11th general assembly of
Hiroshima branch of Peace Constitution League.
◆Dec. 22 Takahashi presents paper “Documents on the Victims of the Nuclear
Bombs in the U.S.” at 5th War and Peace workshop organized by the Graduate
University for Advanced Studies held in Tokyo.
◆Dec. 23 Mizumoto gives keynote speech “Viewpoints on Nuclear Issues: To
Avoid Fruitless Discussion” at conference “Youth Insights Toward Hiroshima”
organized by Japan-America Student Conference (JASC) held at Hiroshima
Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Jan. 8-10 Mikyoung Kim chairs session “Reconstruction and Reconciliation”
and presents paper “Memory War, History Textbooks and Reconciliation in
Northeast Asia” during International Conference on Heritage in Asia: Converging
Forces and Conflicting Values held at the Asia Research Institute, National
University of Singapore.
◆Jan. 14 Asai gives lecture “Wavering International Affairs and the Direction
That Japan Should Take” at 29th seminar organized by Study Group for Private
Nurseries Management held in Kanagawa.
◆Jan. 16 Takahashi gives lecture “War and Nuclear Weapons in the Context ofU.S. History” at public assembly held in Hiroshima.
◆Jan. 17 Asai gives lecture “Article 9 and the Direction That Japan Should
Take” at 2nd anniversary assembly of Okayama branch of Article 9 Associationof Journalists and Mass Media Workers.
◆Jan. 23 Mizumoto gives lecture “How to live in the international age: Pursuing
nuclear abolition and international contribution from an A-bombed city,
Hiroshima” at “Learning for Interaction with the World” held at HatsukaichiNishi High School, Hiroshima.
◆Jan. 24 Asai gives lecture “The Future of U.S.-Japan Relations and U.S.
Military Restructuring in Japan” at 2nd general assembly of Setouchi Net for a
Peaceful Environment, held in Iwakuni, Yamaguchi.
◆Jan. 29 Tanaka gives lectures “British ‘Humane Bombing’ in Iraq during theInterwar Era” and “Crime and Responsibility: War, Indiscriminate Bombing and
Mass Killing” at the History Department of Vanderbilt University, U.S.
◆Jan. 29-Feb. 8 Takahashi conducts research at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology in Washington D.C., U.S.
◆Feb. 1 Asai gives lecture “The Korean Peninsula and Peace Making inNortheast Asia” at seminar organized by Kanagawa Chamber of Commerce andIndustry under the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan. ▽Mizumoto gives lecture “Cambodia: History, Civil War and Rehabilitation” at
preparatory training course for Study Tour to Cambodia organized by Hiroshima
International Center (HIC) and JICA Chugoku, held at HIC.
◆Feb. 2 Tanaka gives lecture “Japanese Atrocities during the Asia Pacific War:
Causes of Their Brutality” at the History Department of DePaul University, U.S.
◆Feb. 3 Tanaka gives lecture “Crime and Responsibility: War, Indiscriminate
Bombing and Mass Killing” in the Japanese Studies Program at University of
Chicago, U.S.
◆Feb. 5 Tanaka gives lecture “Crime and Responsibility: War, Indiscriminate
Bombing and Mass Killing” in the East Asian Studies Program at Cornell
University, U.S.
◆Feb. 7 Asai gives lecture “Future of U.S. and Japan: A Perspective from ABombed Cities” at 2009 general assembly of Nagasaki Peace Institute. ▽Kawakami gives lecture “The present situation of peace and democracy in Japan”
at symposium organized by National Forestry and Allied Workers Union of Japan(FAW) held in Nagoya.
◆Feb. 14 Asai gives lecture “Situation on the Korean Peninsula and the Futureof Japan-DPRK Relations” at forum organized by Peace Movement Forum of
Yamaguchi Prefecture held in Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi.
◆Feb. 15-21 Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of Reconstruction Aid
Project in Cambodia organized jointly by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
◆Feb. 26 Asai gives lecture “Protection of the Constitution and Peace” at forum
organized by Hiroshima Chuo Health Coop.

◆Oct. 19-27 Kazumi Mizumoto visits Cambodia as member of Reconstruction
Aid Project in Cambodia organized jointly by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
◆Oct. 25 Hiroko Takahashi gives lecture “Public Documents for Citizens:Documents on Atomic Bombs and Nuclear Weapons at the U.S. National
Archives” at the Kanto bloc research forum for the 2nd Peace Award and Peace
Studies Encouragement Award organized by the Peace Studies Association ofJapan held in Tokyo.
◆Oct. 29-30 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “Japanese Human Rights Policy
towards North Korea” at Annual International Symposium held in Seoul, Korea.
◆Nov. 1 Robert Jacobs presents paper “Alone in the Flash: Duck and Cover andAtomic Alert” to the Film and History Conference in Chicago, U.S.
◆Nov. 4 Jacobs attends Obama election night victory celebration in Grant Park,
Chicago, U.S.
◆Nov. 7 HPI President Motofumi Asai, Kazumi Mizumoto and Hiroko
Takahashi attend 3rd meeting of the Basic Planning Committee for Renewal of
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. ▽Mizumoto gives lecture “Reconstruction
and Future of Hiroshima: Nuclear Abolition and International Contribution” at
HPI to students from the Lower Secondary School attached to Department of
Education, Nagoya University.
◆Nov. 10-12 Yuki Tanaka presents two papers “Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal:
Retrospective” and “The Atomic-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” at theInternational Symposium “The 60th Anniversary of the Judgment in the Tokyo
War Crimes Trial: Lessons for the Future of International Law” held at the Asia
Pacific Center for Military Law, University of Melbourne, Australia.
◆Nov. 10-18 Narayanan Ganesan attends a South-South training workshop foryoung Asian scholars, delivers two lectures on Asian Studies and research
directions, and attends the Executive Committee Meeting of the Asian Politicaland International Studies Association (APISA) held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
◆Nov. 17 Mizumoto attends 2nd study meeting of Hiroshima Prefecture-JICA
Cambodia Project held at Hiroshima Prefecture Hall.
◆Nov. 17-28 Tanaka gives public lecture “Japanese Atrocities during the Asia
Pacific War: Causes of Their Brutality” in Sydney, Canberra and Hobart as the2008 Sir Ninian Stephen Visiting Professor at University of Melbourne,
Australia.
◆Nov. 22 Akihiro Kawakami gives lecture “The present situation of theConstitution in Japan and our choices” at symposium organized by the Tokai blocof Peace Forum held in Gifu.
◆Nov. 25 Asai gives lecture “Japan-DPRK Relations” at forum organized by
Hiroshima Citizens’ Group for Japan-DPRK Friendship.
◆Nov. 27-29 Ganesan attends the conference “Prospects of Democracy in East
Asia for the 21st Century: Issues, Threats and Challenges” and presents paper“Appraising Democracy in Malaysia” in Jakarta, Indonesia.
◆Nov. 29 Asai gives lecture “Nuclear Abolition and Hiroshima” at 23rd general
assembly of Tokyo Association for a Non-Nuclear Government.
◆Dec. 3 Jacobs presents paper “Reconstructing the Perpetrator’s Soul by
Reconstructing the Victim’s Body: The Hiroshima Maidens in the American
Mind” to the Interrogating Trauma Conference held at Murdoch University,
Perth, Australia.
◆Dec. 4-16 Ganesan conducts a field research trip to Mandalay, Monywa andNaypyidaw in Myanmar.
◆Dec. 5 Tanaka attends the Japanese NGO Representative Liaison Conference
for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
held in Tokyo.
◆Dec. 6 Jacobs presents paper “Atomic Familiars: Animal Guides to theRadioactive Landscape in Early Cold War America” to the Annual Conference of
the Cultural Studies Association of Australia held at the Western Australia Schoolof Mines, Kalgoorlie, Australia.
◆Dec. 7 Mizumoto gives presentation “Analysis of Recent Trends and Debateson Nuclear Weapons” at public lecture meeting organized by Advisory ResearchGroup of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Dec. 8 Asai gives lecture “Today’s International Affairs and Our Tasks” at“12/8 No Road to War” Assembly in Kochi.
◆Dec. 9 Asai gives lecture “Prospects for Northeast Asia and Japan-DPRK
Relations” to Korean Students Society at University of Kyoto.
◆Dec. 18 Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture “Institute for American Studies of Rikkyo
University during World War II” at Rikkyo University, Tokyo. ▽Mizumoto
attends 3rd meeting of Sub-Committee for Building and Exhibition under the
Basic Planning Committee for Renewal of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Dec. 20 Asai gives lecture “Handicaps and the Basics of the Peace
Constitution: Human Dignity” at Forum on Retention of Peace and the Japanese−Visitors to HPI−
◆Nov. 7 13 students from the Lower Secondary School attached to Departmentof Education, Nagoya University.
◆Feb. 16 Noriko Koide of the Nassau County Board of Cooperative
Educational Services and 3 students from Valley Stream Central High School,
N.Y., U.S.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol. 11, No. 3 (March 26, 2009)
Copyright 2009 HPI, All rights reserved

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

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−8−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.3 March 2009