Vol.14 No.2 November 2011

The Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant,
and the Legal Responsibility of Tepco
1 Characteristics of the Fukushima disasteri. A disaster on an unprecedented scale
The first characteristic of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi (No.
1) Nuclear Power Plant, operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Co.
(Tepco), is its unprecedented scale.
In terms of the affected area, the exclusion and evacuation
zones together cover approximately 800 km2 which is equivalent tothe area of the 23 Special Wards plus Hachioji City of Tokyo
Metropolis. This vast area is now a scene of desolation which people
are forbidden to enter. In addition to this, another 500 km2 has beenhighly contaminated by radiation. The whole affected area covers
the entire Kanto region stretching as far north as Iwate Prefecture,
which represents an area with a radius of 200 km.
The total amount of radioactive material emitted into the air
was 770,000 TBq (terabecquerels) of radioactive iodine, which is 50
to 60 times greater than that released in the atomic bombings ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result, high levels of radiation of asmuch as 20 mSv (millisieverts) per year have been detected evenoutside the evacuation zone, such as in school playgrounds andparks in the cities of Fukushima and Koriyama which are both inFukushima Prefecture. Across the Kanto region, high levels ofradiation from 20 to 100 mSv per year have been detected in places
where objects accumulate radioactive contamination such as roofs,
gutters, areas of greenery, swimming pools, ditches, park benches,piles of leaves and garbage dumps.
Furthermore, within a few years it is expected that contaminatedseawater will spread out as far as the West Coast of the United States.
The number of affected people and business properties in theevacuation area amount to 90,000 people and 8,000 offices where atotal of 60,000 people were formerly employed. When counted
together with the wider area with relatively high levels ofcontamination, the number of affected residents exceeds 1 million.
This great number of people who have been forced to evacuate
their homes and offices, combined with the vast geographical area
affected, go towards explaining how the damage caused by theaccident is unprecedented and the most serious in the modern
history of Japan. The number of people and the total area affected
may become even greater if surrounding areas are included.

ii. The long-lasting effects
The second characteristic of the accident is its long-lasting effects.
It should be noted that the accident is by no means over yet. In
Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant,
the fuel rods have melted down, and have partially drained out of
their pressure vessels. As a result, they can no longer be cooled in
the conventional way, and are requiring many tons of water to berepeatedly poured over them. However, once these cooling efforts

Nobuo Kojima

cease, it is possible that further disasters could happen at any time,such as that of large amount of radiation spreading into the air,
induced by a hydrogen explosion or other causes.
At the same time, a large amount of cooling water is constantly
draining out of the facilities which is aggravating the pollution of sea
and groundwater. In most of the evacuation area and its surroundingarea, the surface of the ground has been found to be highly
contaminated with over 600,000 Bq/m2 of radioactive cesium which
has a half-life of 30 years. This level of concentration is as high asthat in the mandatory evacuation zone surrounding Chernobyl. Even
if the consequences of the explosions at the power plant can becontained, local people will not be able to return to their hometowns
unless a comprehensive cleanup of the area is carried out. However,this cleanup in itself is an extremely daunting task. In addition to thevast area of approximately 800 km2, the cleanup will inevitably
produce a large amount of highly radioactive waste that will need tobe disposed, such as soil, dust, used cooling water, building
materials and plant matters.
Considering all of these difficulties, the people affected by thedisaster may be compelled to live as evacuees for the next 10 years
or even longer.

iii. Normal life ruined completely
The third characteristic of the accident is the complete ruin ofpeople’s lives and the economy of the affected region.
In the evacuation area, 155,000 residents together with those
who had been engaged in some form of economic or agriculturalactivity were compelled to abandon the basis of their life and workand to evacuate the area entirely, leaving their land, farm animals,
forests, factories and shops behind. Local society, which was
founded on a close network of local businesses, consumers andworkers, was entirely destroyed.
The life and economy of the surrounding area were also
severely disrupted, affected as they were by the suspended
businesses, medical services and schools in the evacuation area. The
surrounding area itself is also highly contaminated with radiation,
and as a result mothers and children now live with constant worry or
have evacuated of their own volition. This has caused highly
stressful lives for the affected people and, in some cases, further
difficulties for those families in which the mothers and children haveevacuated while the fathers have remained. There have even beencases of farmers who have committed suicide as a result of being
unable to find a way out of the collapse of their businesses.
The Fukushima accident has completely destroyed thecomponent elements of local society and people’s lives, and theaffected families and individuals are enduring severe psychologicalstress. When society is founded upon a close network of local
people, the damage caused by disruptions to that society will not be
Visit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

1limited to individuals. The disruption of the interrelations within thatsociety itself is an additional severe damage.

2 Tepco s liability for negligence
As discussed above, the damages caused by the accident at
Fukushima were extremely severe, and without doubt the accident is
the worst case in the modern history of Japan. Consequently, can it
be argued that Tepco, the operator of the nuclear power plant, isliable for negligence with regard to the accident? This questionneeds to be examined with the particular intention of preventing theoccurrence of similar accidents in the future.
It is held that the scale of the earthquake and tsunami on March
11 should have been predicted. Notwithstanding this, Tepco
neglected to carry out any simulations or develop appropriate
contingency measures, assuming that a complete loss of the alternating
current power supply would not last for a long period of time.
Furthermore, the recent accident was not caused solely by thetsunami.
Firstly, the external power supply was completely severed by
the earthquake, which is to say before the tsunami reached the plant.
Despite the fact that the supply remained intact at the Onagawa
Nuclear Power Plant in Miyagi Prefecture which had also been severely
affected by the earthquake and tsunami, that at the Fukushima plant
was completely lost. This suggests that there was some fault on thepart of Tepco with regard to maintaining a secure power supply.
Secondly, immediately after the earthquake, the pressure andwater levels in the pressure vessel at Reactor 1 showed a sharp drop,
the pressure in the containment vessel showed an abnormal rise, andthe cooling system soon broke down. These phenomena suggest thatthe earthquake caused damage to some of the pipework used in thereactor. Should this prove to be the case, Tepco could be at fault foroverlooking the condition of pipework which was not sufficiently
resistant to earthquakes.
Considering these factors, Tepco is clearly liable for the
Fukushima accident, and as a consequence, it cannot be subject toexemption from liability for nuclear accidents in the case of a major
natural disaster, as stipulated in Article 3.1 of the Act onCompensation for Nuclear Damage.

3 The liability of the state and the issue
of a compensation frameworki. The liability of the state and the principle ofstate responsibility to focus
Article 4 of the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage limits the
responsibility for nuclear disasters to the operator(s) of the nuclear
facilities in question, thus exempting all other parties from liability.
In this case, therefore, is the state also exempt from any liability?
When it is recognized that some fault can be attributed to thestate in the exercise of its authority and that that fault led to theaccident, then the state should be recognized as a liable party basedon Article 1 of the Act.
Firstly, it may not be appropriate to exempt the state fromliability when there is a fault on the part of the state, and when thescale, duration and severity of the accident is taken into
consideration. Secondly, the exemption of the state from liability
may conceal its duty to devise appropriate safety measures, andContents2

consequently increase the risk of the occurrence of similar accidents
in the future. The exemption of the state may also lead to its
assuming an ambiguous responsibility for handling the post-accident
situation, as will be discussed in the following section.
As discussed earlier, clear faults can be identified on the part ofTepco for failing to implement appropriate safety standards andmeasures with regard to, for example, incorrectly predicting thepossible scale of the earthquake and tsunami, and not considering
the possibility of a complete loss of the power supply for a long
period of time. Moreover, Tepco has previously sought to cover upother nuclear accidents: for example, a criticality accident which
occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi (No. 1) Nuclear Power Plant in
1978, and another accident caused by a recirculation pump
breakdown at the Fukushima Daini (No. 2) Nuclear Power Plant in
1989. These occurrences may suggest the existence of serious
problems in Tepco’s technical capacity and safety systems. Despite
having knowledge of these past incidents, the state has allowed theplants to operate for more than 30 years which has exceeded theirinitially stipulated lifetimes. Considering this situation, the liabilityof the state for the recent nuclear accident becomes clear.
Consequently, it can be concluded that the state cannot escapefrom the liability defined in Article 1 of the Act on Compensation
for Nuclear Damage.

ii. The state s responsibility for dispute resolution
The state has a duty to take the necessary measures to support theoperator of the nuclear power plants in question in paying
compensation (Article 16 of the aforementioned Act). In addition, at
a time of nuclear emergency, it also has duties to prevent the further
spread of harmful consequences, stabilize the situation andreestablish normal conditions, as stipulated in Article 26.2 of the Act
on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness.
The duty stipulated in the latter clause is defined in Article 1 ofthe same Act which is aimed at protecting people’s lives and health.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the state is clearly obliged tofulfill this duty.

iii. The issue of a compensation framework
Article 16 of the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage binds
the state to provide the plant operator with assistance in providing
compensation payments. The key question at the present time isprecisely how the state should support the operator. Electricity bills
are currently paid based on the fully-distributed cost (FDC) method.
This means that Tepco’s future compensation payments will becovered by bills paid by its customers. This mechanism is nothing
more than shifting the burden onto ordinary citizens. It also allows
Tepco’s shareholders and creditors to evade their own responsibility,
and will likely not lead to investment in and financing for improved
corporate activities which would prevent the occurrence of similar
accidents in the future.
What Tepco should do is sell its current assets in order to cover
the costs of compensation. At the same time, it should also initiatecomprehensive cost reduction by carrying out appropriate legal
procedures, in order to minimize the burden on ordinary citizens,and to clarify the ultimate responsibility of its management,
shareholders and creditors.
Lawyer and a member of the task force on the Great East Japan
Earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear accident,
the Japan Federation of Bar Associations

The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and the legal responsibility of Tepco
Nobuo Kojima ……………… 1-2
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, black rain and death ash
Hiroko Takahashi ………………………………… 3
An American artist in Hiroshima
elin o’Hara slavick …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Experiences of anti-nuclear movements: differences between Japan and Germany
Makiko Takemoto ……………………………… 5
The 2011 Thai general election and its implications
Narayanan Ganesan ……………………………………………………………… 6
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (First Term 2011) “Thinking about Nagasaki” ……………………………………………… 7
Diary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.2, November 2011

The Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant Accident,
Black Rain and Death AshEver since the accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant, radioactive fallout has been emitted into the air.
However, it cannot be said that up until now the Japanese
government has been providing satisfactory information about theaccident. The information so far released by the government, which
is aimed at preventing damage caused by false rumors and removing
people’s fears, has been either far from adequate or has come toolate to minimize the effects of radiation exposure. Has this situation
been due to a haphazard attitude on the part of the government? The
author does not assume this to be the case and rather holds that thisrepresents a coherent attitude on the part of the Japanese government
which has overlooked the effects of black rain or death ash causedby the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and also
nuclear tests. In fact, the Japanese government has assumed theprevious standards for effects of residual radiation and internal
exposure to be fully “scientific.”
Recently, the Japanese government has lost a series of classaction lawsuits for recognition of A-bomb disease which first began
in April 2003. The government should have learnt from these losses
and devoted its attention towards a comprehensive and systematic
study of residual radiation and internal exposure in order to fullyrecognize the suffering of hibakusha and prevent the occurrence ofsimilar cases in the future. However, what the Japanese government
actually did following the accident in Fukushima was nothing morethan announce that there shouldn’t be any effects in the immediate
future, disregarding the real effects of residual radiation and internal
exposure. This reaction is similar to the announcement made by thegovernment immediately after the atomic bombings whichannounced that if one crouched down or hid behind a building, there
would be no need to worry about harmful effects from the newbomb (i.e. the A-bomb).
Following the Fukushima accident, some important
information was released later, which was data that came from the
System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose
Information (SPEEDI). Operated by the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the purpose of this systemis, “in the case of actual or possible emission of radioactive
materials in a large amount from a nuclear reactor, simulating andpredicting the distribution and concentration of the dose rate ofradioactive materials, based on information from the reactor inquestion, weather predictions around the reactor, and topographic
data.” A map of the predicted area affected by radiation was
publicized on March 23, followed by another on April 11, and from
April 25 an updated map has been publicized on a daily basis.
Nevertheless, the data from these maps only confirmed theoutcomes of separate research that had already been conducted in
Iitate Village, Fukushima Prefecture, which is located more than 30
km away from the Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. This research was
initiated by a group of scientists who have rich experience ofconducting research around Chernobyl, including Tetsuji Imanaka
of the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute and Satoru Endoof Hiroshima University. Therefore, the simulation data of SPEEDI
was publicized much later than the report produced by the scientists.
It may have been the case that the government could not avoid
publicizing the SPEEDI data because of the existence of theresearch report which preceded it.
At the same time, some overseas research institutes such as theNorwegian Institute for Air Research and the German

Hiroko Takahashi

Meteorological Service also publicized simulation data similar tothat of SPEEDI from mid-March 2011. In fact, following theaccident the author checked simulation data from these sources
every day in order to decide whether or not it was safe to go outside.
For some reason the aforementioned institutes stopped releasingdata on May 13 and July 29 respectively, but few people in Japan
were aware of such simulations anyway. The effects of radiation
exposure could have been minimized. However, the delayedannouncement of SPEEDI data and subsequent measures carried out
by the Japanese government have rather aggravated theconsequences of the accident.
Instead of the SPEEDI data, what the Japanese government
actually announced at an early stage was the following “caution on
rainfall”:
For people living in Tohoku and Kanto regions:
How to protect from radioactive rainfall
It’s possible that rain can contain a small amount ofradioactive substances when it rains in Tohoku and Kanto
regions. Even if you are exposed to rain, it doesn’t impose any
threat on health. If you are concerned, follow these
instructions.
1. Try not to go out unless it is an emergency.
2. Make sure of covering up hair and skin as much as
possible.
3. In case your clothes or skin is exposed to rain, wash it
carefully with running water.
This apparently optimistic announcement only served toincrease a sense of fear because it resembles an announcement madeby the US government in which it admitted for the first time thepossible harmful effects of radioactive fallout following the Lucky
Dragon incident at Bikini Atoll in 1954 in which the crew of theJapanese fishing boat and also residents on the atoll were exposed toradiation. On February 15, 1955, the United States Atomic Energy
Commission released a report entitled “The Effects of High-yield
Nuclear Explosions.” It states as follows:
If fallout particles come into contact with the skin, hair, or
clothing, prompt decontamination precautions such as havebeen outlined by the Federal Civil Defense Administration
will greatly reduce the danger. These include such simple
measures as thorough bathing of exposed parts of the bodyand a change of clothing (italics in the original).
Further harmful consequences from nuclear accidents will not
be contained without learning from the past. However, what theJapanese government has done so far is to repeat the rhetoric offormer Japanese administrations and the US, the latter of which has
repeatedly conducted nuclear tests, and this will therefore only leadto the repetition of past failures. It cannot be denied that there will
be a further spread of internal exposure caused by vegetables grownin the soil which contain radioactive materials subsequently passing
into the food chain. The damage caused by the accident inFukushima is being imposed on those people who have been
exposed to radioactive fallout by the government’s past negligenceof failing to carry out thorough research on black rain and death ash.
Assistant Professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

3

An American Artist in Hiroshima
War always kills more civilians than soldiers or terrorists. (Is there adifference between soldiers and terrorists?) Trying to address this isperhaps the most humanist (and futile) act an artist could perform
because it is about wanting to save lives. Unfortunately, too many
bodies have been deformed, radiated, broken, killed, maimed, lost,
disfigured and melted. It is for these bodies, these people, that I
make my work. Much of my work is an act of memorializing, donein the aftermath of events, documenting and re-presenting
memorials by others so that we may better understand history in thepresent to affect the future.
As you know, on August 6, 1945, the United States of America
dropped an A-bomb fueled by enriched uranium on the city ofHiroshima. Seventy thousand people died instantly. Another 70,000
died by the end of 1945 as a result of exposure to radiation and otherrelated injuries. Scores of thousands would continue to die from theeffects of the bomb over subsequent decades. Despite the fact that
the United States is the only nation to have used atomic weapons
against another nation, Americans have had little access to the visual
record of those attacks.
For the victims, the situation is quite different. Hiroshima is now
a City of Peace. Everywhere there are memorials to this catastrophic
event that inaugurated the atomic age. A-bombed trees continue to growand A-bombed buildings remain -------- marking history, trauma andsurvival. The city is dotted with clinics for the survivors and their
special pathologies. Names are added each year to the registry of thedead as a result of the bomb. It has been over 60 years since the Abomb was dropped, but the A-bomb is everywhere in Hiroshima.
The enormity of Hiroshima challenges the artist, especially theAmerican artist, in ethical and formal ways. For several years I
worked on a series of anti-war drawings of places the United Stateshas bombed, subsequently published as the book Bomb After Bomb:
A Violent Cartography (Milan: Charta, 2007), with a foreword byformer US air force bombardier and historian Howard Zinn. Aftermaking relatively abstract drawings from the bomber’s aerial
perspective that include no people -------- civilians, victims, soldiers orotherwise -------- I have now been on the ground, 60 years after thebomb was dropped, but still, on the ground.
The history of the atomic age is intertwined with that ofphotography. The discovery of the radioactive energy possessed bynatural uranium was via a photograph that launched the atomic age.
In 1896 Henri Becquerel placed uranium on a photographic plate,intending to expose it to the sun. However, because it was a cloudy
day, he put the experiment in a drawer. The next day he decided todevelop the plate anyway. To his amazement he saw the outline of
the uranium on the plate that had never been exposed to light.
Becquerel correctly concluded that the uranium was spontaneously
emitting a new kind of penetrating radiation and published a paper“On (in)visible radiation emitted by phosphorescent bodies.”
Following in the steps of Henri Becquerel, I worked incollaboration with the staff of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum during the summer of 2008 making cyanotypes (sun prints)of A-bombed objects: deformed glass bottles, hair comb, lunch box,
and metal and tree fragments. My work with autoradiography(capturing on x-ray film radioactive emissions from objects)
involved placing A-bombed objects on x-ray film in light-tight bags
for a period of ten days. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, abstract
exposures were made on the x-ray film -------- spots, dots, cracks andfissures. The lingering radiation in the metal and roof tile fragments,
split and burned bamboo, tree knots and glass bottles, appeared on
the x-ray film much like Becquerel’s uranium on photographic
plates. (It could be background radiation. It was not a very
controlled or scientific experiment.) I also made crayon rubbings on
paper of A-bombed surfaces: trees, the former Bank of Japan’s floor
and counters, the sidewalk at the hypocenter, the basement door of
the Rest House where a man survived the A-bomb, and the Koko
Bridge in the Shukkeien Garden. All of these photographic
processes involved exposures that produced ghostly images ofobjects that survived the bombing, evoking those that vanished.
From September 17 to October 17, I had an opportunity to holdan exhibition of my works, Hiroshima: After Aftermath, at the former

4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.2, November 2011

elin o Hara slavick

Hiroshima branch of the Bank of Japan. The exhibition was an
attempt to reshape how we think about and a protest against nuclear
war and the aftermath. Like the works contained in the book Bomb
After Bomb, those exhibited at Hiroshima: After Aftermath visuallyregistered warfare and faced the irreconcilable paradox of making
visible the most barbaric as witness, artist, and viewer. There are
now over 30,000 nuclear weapons in this world. Hiroshima andNagasaki are not past events. They are about today’s situation.

Left: Bridge (2009), silver gelatin contact prints of a rubbing of the Abombed Koko Bridge in the Shukkeien Garden. Right: The Koko Bridge photographed by Robert Jacobs.

It was an honor to be able to share my work with the people ofHiroshima in such a powerful place -------- the former Bank of Japanthat withstood the A-bomb. Even though this bank was only 380
meters from the hypocenter, it withstood the blast. It was used as abank until 1992. Now it is a cultural center for exhibitions, such as an
installation of over 1 million paper cranes from around the world,
along with a chronological photographic presentation of Sadako
Sasaki’s life and death. But the basement -------- with its thick vaults
and open safes, that were ironically made in New York City -------- andthe ground floor are usually empty, displaying cracked bank tellercountertops and uneven cement floors, space to be filled with how
we remember what once was. I rubbed these surfaces with crayon on
paper. It was critical for me to place the paper directly against thehistorical surface and to rub a black wax crayon on the paper to makea “negative.” Tracing and touching the sites of survival, destruction,
exposure and history, seemed to capture an essence of the trauma, aresidual radiation, a lingering energy of such a profound event. The
rubbings were then exposed in the darkroom as “paper negatives”
used to make contact prints on photographic paper. The result was aghostly trace, a negative index, as if the surface had been dustedwith light or memory, or as if the subject had been x-rayed.
Susan Sontag writes in Regarding the Pain of Others:
Remembering is an ethical act, has ethical value in and of itself.
Memory is, achingly, the only relation we can have with the dead.
Photographs of the suffering and martyrdom of a people are
more than reminders of death, of failure, of victimization.
They invoke the miracle of survival.
Howard Zinn gave a speech in 1999 about the meaning of the
Holocaust in which he explains how he was criticized for speaking
about other genocides in the context of the Holocaust. He said:
I would never have become a historian if I thought that it
would become my professional duty to go into the past andnever emerge, to study long-gone events and remember them
only for their uniqueness, not connecting them to events goingon in my time. If the Holocaust was to have any meaning, I
thought, we must transfer our anger to the brutalities of ourtime. We must atone for our allowing the Holocaust to happen
by refusing to allow similar atrocities to take place now -------yes, to use the Day of Atonement not to pray for the dead but
to act for the living, to rescue those about to die.
I offered this show as an apology, a memorial, a protest, and aform of witness, remembering and archive, atonement, a small
contribution to the ongoing struggle of people to remember the pastin the present to make a better future. May we know a better world.
Distinguished Term Professor at the Art Department,
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Experiences of Anti-nuclear Movements:
Differences between Japan and Germany
Makiko Takemoto
Since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on
March 11, 2011, questions have been frequently raised with respect
to why Japan has come to accept the existence of nuclear power
plants despite its experiences of the atomic bombing. These
questions have been heard not only within Japan but also from othercountries. The Japanese media has been increasingly focusing on
Japanese politics concerning nuclear power plants and also on
debates relating to nuclear energy in the Japanese anti-nuclear
movement. Particularly in Hiroshima, despite the powerful
opposition voiced against nuclear weapons, it has been questioned
with some regret as to why the A-bombed city has not opposed theuse of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants in the country.
In relation to this, the case of Germany draws much attention asa good example of a country which is moving towards denuclearization.
Recently, a number of articles have been written on German nuclear
politics, particularly relating to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s policy
shift following the Fukushima accident and the victory of the Green
Party in local elections. Similarly, many interviews have been
conducted with German environmentalists and anti-nuclear power
plant activists. In this context, the difference in policy between
Japan and Germany is said to have derived from a variety of factors:
the different levels of consciousness of environmental issues; in thecase of Germany, the power of the Green Party and the influence ofthe 1968 student movement which led to the formation of thatenvironmentalist political party; and different reactions to theChernobyl incident, to name but a few. However, the present article
will focus on the anti-nuclear movement in Germany during the
1980s, with a particular focus on West Germany, as one of theexamples of the differences between the two countries.
From the late 1950s to the 1970s, West Germany witnessed anupsurge of anti-nuclear movements such as the “Fight the Nuclear
Death” movement led by the Social Democratic Party and the EasterMarch movement which still continues today. However, most ofthese movements were often regarded as communist in nature andthus West German citizens distanced themselves from them.
Nevertheless, this situation changed during the period of the “New
Cold War” in the early 1980s. In reaction to the deployment by theSoviet Union of SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Eastern
Europe, the USA decided to deploy cruise missiles and intermediaterange ballistic missiles in Western Europe. Observing this situation,
many people thought that the world was on the brink of nuclear war
and instigated protests against the nuclear arms race between Eastand West, particularly with respect to NATO’s nuclear policy. At
the time, one of the slogans adopted was “Kein Euroshima!” (NoEuroshima!), which meant that Europe should not be turned into a
nuclear battlefield like Hiroshima. The protesters sought nuclear
disarmament and nuclear abolition in both East and West, as well as
the denuclearization of Europe.
Although similar movements existed in other countries such as
the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the German movement
attracted the support of people from a wider spectrum of fields. These
people were not only members of such groups as peace organizations,political parties, trade unions or Christian communities, but were also
citizens who did not belong to any particular organization: in effect,
it became a grass-roots movement in a literal sense. The participantsalso included members of the Green Party and environmentalorganizations such as the Bundesverband Bü rgerinitiativen
Umweltschutz e.V. (the Federal Association of Environmental Action
Groups), all of which were born out of the 1968 movement. Although
the anti-nuclear power plant movements had been relatively activein West Germany since the late 1970s, it was during the 1980s that,by means of these efforts, environmental and peace movements joined
hands for the first time in the history of the German peace movement
since the late 19th century. Around this time, the peace movements
were considerably diverse in terms of the issues which they addressed.

In fact, the participants opposed
not only nuclear weapons but
also war in general, Nazism,
fascism and imperialism.
They further discussed otherdiverse themes such as thoserelating to labor issues, theliberation of the Third World,and environmental protection.
The peace movements ofthe early 1980s were grounded
not on pacifism, but rather on a
consciousness of “opposition,”“resistance” and “disobedience” The globally recognized anti-nuclear
which were prevalent ideas at logo, the Smiling Sun. (Above is a
the time. They also called for German version.)
the elimination of the fear of
nuclear war between East and West. Within these movements, theconcept of “peace” was taken to mean more than an absence of war.
This provided impetus to seek to overcome the East-West
confrontation and the Cold War itself. This could be observed in theinteractions between the citizens of East and West Germany. At thattime, some activities dedicated towards peace took place in East
Germany, such as the “Berliner Appeal” led by Robert Havemann
and Rainer Eppelmann in January 1982. Mainly throughinterchanges and dialogues between churches, together with theincreasing interest being shown in the peace movements taking
place on the other side of the Berlin Wall, many citizens in West
Germany developed an interest in these movements in East
Germany. Furthermore, the central issues for the peace movements
in both East and West Germany came to include the achievement of
democracy and human rights in Eastern Europe.
While it is often observed that Japanese anti-nuclear weapon
movements are still influenced by a Cold War mindset, their German
counterparts went beyond the Cold War structure and sought“peace” across a broader spectrum which held various themes infocus, such as anti-nuclear power plants, environmental protection,
human rights and labor issues. Despite the fact that less progress indiscussions on “peace” has been achieved since, it can still be said
that the greater intensity of the German peace movements led to thedifferences between Germany and Japan today. These differences
can be seen in the different paths that the two countries took
regarding the development of anti-nuclear movements andGermany’s recent decision to abandon nuclear power plants, andeven the different attitudes towards social movements in general.
In Germany, where the study of the history of peace
movements is considerably more popular than in Japan (even though
it has yet to establish a firm position as a recognized field within
history scholarship), study of the peace movement since 1945, andparticularly during the 1980s, is making progress in parallel with studyof the Cold War. Outcomes of this study are being linked to theoverall history of Germany from the late 19th century to 1933, andare being analyzed in a critical and constructive way. Similar efforts
are also required in Japan. The history of the peace movement andthe historical changes which have occurred in the concept of “peace”
need to be critically analyzed in an environment which is unaffectedby political power competition that is constrained by a Cold War
mentality. As a part of this process, further analysis should beundertaken regarding the previous and future ideal roles of Japanesepeace movements with respect to not only anti-war movements
based on Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution or anti-nuclear
movements in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but rather a comprehensive
endeavor to realize peace in a broader sense which embraces such
issues as nuclear power plants, the environment and human rights.
Assistant Professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

5

The 2011 Thai
General Election
and Its Implications
Narayanan Ganesan

Thai citizens went to the polls on July 3, 2011, to elect a newparliament comprising 500 MPs. The Pheu Thai Party led byThaksin’s younger sister Yingluck Shinawatra won an
outright majority of 265 seats and quickly announced theformation of a coalition government with four smaller parties,
for a total of 299 seats in parliament. The confirmation of afew seats was delayed by the Election Commission, but to all
intents and purposes Pheu Thai has formed the new majority
coalition government in August, with Yingluck Shinawatra as
the first female Prime Minister of Thailand. She is new to thepolitical scene but has the support of Thaksin’s constituencies
and loyal MPs. Thaksin’s populist policies benefitted thepoorer rural areas in the country’s north and northeast which
also voted strongly for Yingluck’s party.
The election had been long overdue and had been
postponed by the previous Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva
from the Democrat Party. The reason for this is that his
majority in parliament had been obtained only after the earlier
defection of one of the faction leaders of the now defunctPeople’s Power Party (PPP) which was previously allied withThaksin. The PPP was a metamorphosis of Thaksin’s own
Thai Rak Thai Party which was dissolved by court order after
he was ousted in a military coup. Consequently, Abhisit’s
parliamentary majority was held to be suspect since it was not
obtained by means of an election, but rather from aparliamentary political defection.
The Abhisit government had also faced widespread
public protests from the United Front for Democracy Against
Dictatorship (UDD: Red Shirts) which is allied with Thaksin
and his supporters in parliament. The UDD felt a sense ofgrievous injustice for the manner in which Thaksin had been
removed from power and for how his party and thesubsequent metamorphosis in the PPP had been dissolved by
the courts. Additionally, two more Prime Ministers afterThaksin had been removed by the courts. And finally, thearmy-led political violence against the Red Shirts in April andMay 2010 resulted in the deaths of some 90 people, while
another 2,000 more were injured. The Red Shirts and thegovernment have pointed fingers at each other for theviolence.
The new government will certainly have its work cut
out. It has a large number of campaign promises to fulfill
which will cost the state dearly. These include providing freeeducation, highly subsidized medical care, removal of thecurrent levy on fuel, higher prices for rice purchases, asignificant increase in the minimum wage to 300 Baht per day
and significant outlays for infrastructure development. Theseseemingly populist policies will likely put severe pressure on
the new government’s finances.
In addition, there are also more sensitive political issues
to address. Thaksin’s former populist policies have led to the6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.2, November 2011

empowerment of the rural constituencies in the north andnortheast of the country which had not benefitted from thecountry’s ongoing development. Whereas these areas
provided rich pickings in terms of banks of voters and seats inparliament, the constituencies themselves remained very poorand subject to the vagaries of nature, such as droughts andfloods. This community which now provides the backbone of
the Red Shirt movement is anxious to expand its politicalleverage and reach.
The Red Shirts are in turn up against the traditional elite
based in Bangkok from where political power has
traditionally been obtained. These include elements of themonarchy, the military and the bureaucracy which are united
by a common goal to maintain established power structuresand practices in order to continue their control over thecountry and exercise power which is disproportionate to their
numbers. The traditional elite also had its own equivalent of amass movement in the form of the People’s Alliance for
Democracy (PAD: Yellow Shirts) which was involved inwidespread public protests against the Thaksin government
and its subsequent manifestations. In fact, elements of the
PAD called for a boycott of the recent election and for a
return to a more traditional form of government based on themonarchy.
One of Yingluck’s first tasks will be to rein in thesesocial movements which have become highly distrustful ofeach other and to provide some middle ground. In doing so
she will have to be careful not to alienate the military whichis keen to avoid being blamed for the large number of deaths
and injuries that occurred during its breakup of the Red Shirt
demonstrations in 2010. Interestingly, the Army commander
actually called on Thai citizens to vote in support of themonarchy. The commander, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, isextremely political unlike his predecessors. Consequently,
police and military appointments and their accompanying
assignments will also be carefully watched with the everpresent threat of another coup. Related to the management of
this schism and tension is how Yingluck deals with her
brother Thaksin’s legal case. He was previously found guilty
of corruption and sentenced to two years in jail in absentia.
The traditional elite is opposed to Thaksin’s return andamnesty. However, both the Red Shirt movement andYingluck are clearly indebted to Thaksin for their recent
victory and current political standing.
There are also a number of high profile international
developments which will have to be addressed by the new
government. These include how the country deals with
Cambodia in its ongoing dispute over the Preah Vihear
temple complex. International arbitration has called for a joint
withdrawal of troops and demilitarization of the area. This
spat has been subjected to rather nationalistic rants, especiallyfrom the Thai military which is interested in utilizing bilateralchannels in which it has greater leverage. Cambodia has
rejected this approach and has sought international mediation
for a more neutral resolution. Moreover, ASEAN-sponsoredIndonesian attempts to try to defuse the situation by means of
the deployment of monitors have so far been frustrated.
In conclusion, both internally and internationally, the
new Thai government clearly has its hands full, and will haveto chart a skillful course of action which will sustain its hardwon legitimacy and prevent it becoming trapped in domestic
political maneuverings. It remains to be seen whether
Yingluck will be up to this challenge.
Professor at HPI

HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (First Term 2011)

Thinking about Nagasaki
The recent Lecture Series examined problems related to the atomic bombing in Nagasaki from various points of view. All of
the lecturers but one were from Nagasaki, and they provided a valuable opportunity to consider these problems. The fivelectures were aimed at strengthening the solidarity between the two atomic-bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Introduction of Public Lecture Series:

Lecture 1 Hiroshima and Nagasaki in comparison and relation（May 27）

Taeko Kiriya, Assistant Professor at HPIKiriya first examined the differences between Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and identified two problems peculiar to Nagasaki: i) the “spatialproblem” in which the hypocenter was located some distance awayfrom the center of Nagasaki; and ii) the “temporal problem” in whichin narratives of the atomic bombings, Nagasaki always comes after
Hiroshima as the second atomic-bombed city. She then emphasized
an important point in relation to the issue of the atomic bombings
which is that a significant psychological gap exists between hibakusha
and non-hibakusha. This gap is felt more strongly among hibakusha
than non-hibakusha, behind which lies insufficient understanding
about, and prejudice and discrimination against, the former by thelatter. Kiriya further examined the “reconstruction” of Hiroshima andNagasaki as seen from the point of view of hibakusha, and also the
local administrations, the Japanese government, GHQ/SCAP and thesurrounding international political climate. She concluded the lecture
by stating that non-hibakusha should view the issue of the atomic
bombing as being their own and learn from the “philosophy” ofhibakusha which is born out of the latter’s A-bomb experiences.

The A-bomb experience and our responsibility

Lecture 2 for peace: a philosopher s view

（June 3）

Shinji Takahashi, Visiting Professor at Nagasaki University

Takahashi first cited an episode of a hibakusha with whom he ispersonally acquainted, upon which he introduced the contribution
made by Robert J. Lifton and Tadashi Ishida as examples of the“philosophization” of A-bomb experiences. Research carried out by
Lifton, who introduced a new concept of “death guilt,” was pioneeringin the study of the transition of hibakusha’s states of mind. In themeantime, Ishida described hibakusha’s ways of life as “a leap fromdrift to resistance,” and later advanced this concept in order to provesociologically that there were certain patterns in hibakusha’s
comprehension of their A-bomb experiences. Takahashi then presented
the definition of “peace responsibility” which is a new concept that headvocated at the turn of the millennium based on an analysis of global
war and A-bomb experiences. According to Takahashi, the definitionof “peace responsibility” consists of five factors: i) inscribing the dignityof human beings in our minds; ii) being conscious of declarations andgoals for action which are announced by international society; iii)
giving thorough consideration of new concepts of peace studies; iv)
standing up for the “right of peoples to peace” (as introduced at the
UNGA in 1984); and v) bearing the responsibility to improve the“quality of peace” both domestically and internationally. He alsomentioned peace movements in Nagasaki which represent an exampleof “bearing the peace responsibility,” although he did not go into
detail about this. To conclude the lecture, he cited the words of Jody
Williams who stated that if we ordinary citizens come together andwork together on one issue, we really can change the world.

Descriptions of the experience in post

Lecture 3 A-bomb literature in Nagasaki（June 10）

Toshihiro Tanaka, Professor at Kwassui Women s University

The focus of the third lecture was the characteristics of A-bomb
literature from Nagasaki and the development of its underlying
philosophy. Tanaka first explained the background to the birth of thecliché “Nagasaki of prayer.” He stated that this came about due to thefact that Takashi Nagai’s famous book Bells of Nagasaki was wellreceived by a wide readership who perceived Nagai’s Christianinfluenced attitude to life as representing that of Nagasaki citizens, which
added to the wide recognition of the cliché. Tanaka noted that the
hypocenter, Urakami, was an area where a large number of Christians
lived. He also explained that A-bomb literature began to be produced
in Nagasaki later than in Hiroshima due to the fact that major writersfrom Nagasaki were still young teenagers at the time of the atomic
bombing, and so they began writing at a later date. Furthermore, heexamined how writers deepened their thoughts in relation to the atomic
bombing. From her early to later works, Kyoko Hayashi revealed thedevelopment of her thinking about the issue, while Kan Yamada
developed a global perspective by expanding the motif of his work from
Nagasaki/Hiroshima to Auschwitz. Tanaka also analyzed Japanese
poems by Hiroshi Takeyama and Atsuyuki Matsuo. To conclude thelecture, Tanaka examined how works of A-bomb literature producedby the postwar generation, such as Yuichi Seirai, have introduced new
perspectives and the possibility of further development andtransmission of the philosophy of Nagasaki to the next generation.

Lecture 4 Multi-culturalism and other challenges facing Nagasaki（June 17）

Kouichi Funakoe, Professor Emeritus at Nagasaki University

Funakoe began his lecture by identifying an important issue currently
facing Nagasaki which is that of the “peace or war” dilemma. This
derives from the paradox in which, while appealing to internationalsociety for peace without nuclear weapons, the atomic-bombed city
has in reality become a major city in the country’s military industry
and it also accommodates a large US base. He also attributed thereason that Nagasaki became the target of the atomic bombing to thehistory of the city since the 16th century when it was opened to theoutside world during the era of the country’s self-imposed seclusion.
Nagasaki subsequently prospered as a multi-cultural city, however,
the modernization and wars in which Japan became engaged soon
brought militarism to the city. Consequently, it was transformed into a
center of the military industry and of xenophobia, later making it thetarget of the atomic bombing. Funakoe stated that Nagasaki should
abandon the military industry and aim to become a city of multicultural coexistence. In conclusion, he emphasized that in order toachieve true peace, it is not enough to abolish nuclear weapons orabandon war unless spiritual liberty is also achieved.

Lecture 5 Peace movements in Nagasaki（June 24）

Hideo Tsuchiyama, Former President of Nagasaki University

In the final lecture, Tsuchiyama presented the historical background of
the development of peace movements in Nagasaki. He first emphasized
the fact that Nagasaki being at one time the only port city in the country
aided the development of the generous-hearted and open-minded
temperament of the local people, which in turn aided the developmentof active peace movements in the city. He also examined the philosophy
developed by Tatsuichiro Akizuki which stressed that the inhumanityof the atomic bombing laid the foundation for peace movements in
Nagasaki, and contributed towards the departure from the cliché “Nagasaki
of prayer.” His efforts created the momentum for active peace movements
today which are led by citizens and also the younger generation, as seenin the “signatures of 10,000 high school students” movement. He also
described the Global Citizen’s Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons in Nagasaki as another example of the active peace movementsin the city. Tsuchiyama then stressed the importance of adopting an
attitude which sought not to exclude those who have different ideas,
but to listen to them and learn from their ideas as long as they arelooking towards the same ideal. At the end of the lecture, he described
the ideological conflict that exists in Hiroshima, and suggested that inorder for Hiroshima and Nagasaki to strengthen their solidarity,
middle-aged and older generations need to create an environment inwhich the younger generation can collaborate successfully with eachother, and that the two atomic-bombed cities should foster momentum
for cooperative and collective action towards their shared ultimate goal.
All of the five lectures were attended by a large audience which may
reveal that Hiroshima citizens are highly interested in issues relating
to Nagasaki. Crucial issues for the future are how the postwar
generation should address issues related to the atomic bombings, andwhat should be passed on to future generations. At the same time,
problems faced by humankind living in the nuclear age should be
addressed based on perspectives derived from both Hiroshima andNagasaki. Only by doing this will it become clear what should bedone in order to move towards a truly peaceful future.
Taeko Kiriya, Assistant Professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://www.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/modules/peace̲e/index.php

7

July 1 ‒ October 31, 2011

◆Jul. 11 HPI Vice-President Kazumi Mizumoto attends the Task
Force Meeting of “A Hiroshima for Global Peace” Plan, organized
by Hiroshima Prefecture, held at the Tokyo office of Hiroshima
Prefecture.
◆Jul. 13 Mizumoto attends the 3rd meeting of the Drafting
Committee of the Peace Education Program organized by theHiroshima Municipal Board of Education, held in Hiroshima City.
◆Jul. 14 Mizumoto gives lecture “The Atomic Bombing Experienceof Hiroshima and the Danger of Nuclear Weapons” at the “Peace
Education” Course of Hiroshima International University.
◆Jul. 16 Mizumoto gives lecture “How Should We Link the
Atomic Bombing Experience to World Peace?”, and chairs group
discussions, at the Hiroshima Peace Forum organized by theHiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and other organizations, heldat the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Jul. 21 Mizumoto gives lecture “Current World Situation of
Nuclear Weapons and Hiroshima” at the “Peace Education” Courseof Hiroshima International University.
◆Jul. 24 Hitoshi Nagai presents paper “The Battle for Manila as a
Symbol: An Analysis of US War Crimes Investigation and Its
Aftermath,” at the international symposium “The Truths and Memoriesof the Battle for Manila 1945,” held at Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo.
◆Jul. 28 Mizumoto gives lecture “On Hiroshima and Peace” for a
training course for journalists organized by Hiroshima City, held at
the International Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Jul. 29 Mizumoto attends as a panelist the special session“Dialogue with High School Students on Peace and Disarmament”
during “The 23rd UN Conference on Disarmament Issues in
Matsumoto,” organized by the United Nations Regional Centre for
Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, held in Matsumoto,
Nagano Prefecture.
◆Jul. 31 Mizumoto gives presentation “What Is Expected fromJapan Now?” at “The International Symposium for Peace 2011: The
Road to Abolition ------ What Civil Society Needs to Do Now,” organized
by Hiroshima City, the Asahi Shimbun and other organizations,
held at the International Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 2 Mizumoto attends the Task Force Meeting of “A
Hiroshima for Global Peace” Plan, organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture, held at the Grand Prince Hotel Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 3 Mizumoto gives presentation “The Meeting of ‘A
Hiroshima for Global Peace’ Plan,” organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture and other organizations, held at the International
Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 14-15 Narayanan Ganesan presents paper “East AsianRegionalism: Drivers and Directions” at the conference “Community
Building in East and Southeast Asia,” held in Manila, the Philippines.
◆Aug. 16 Ganesan attends the Executive Committee meeting of
the Asian and International Studies Association (APISA), held in
Manila, the Philippines.
◆Aug. 22 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 7th meeting of
the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, held at the International Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 25 Mizumoto attends an extraordinary general meeting of
the Advisory Research Group of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum, held at the museum.
◆Aug. 28 Robert Jacobs presents paper “Radioactive Fallout andGlobal Ecosystem Awareness” during the conference “Legacies of

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
●Published by●Printed by

8

the Cold War” held at the Hamburg Institute for Social Research in
Hamburg, Germany.
◆Aug. 29-31 Ganesan chairs two roundtable discussions on
Asian/Area Studies and International Studies at a training workshop
for young Asian scholars, organized by APISA, held in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
◆Sep. 1 Mizumoto attends the Task Force Meeting of “A
Hiroshima for Global Peace” Plan, organized by Hiroshima
Prefecture, held at the Tokyo office of Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Sep. 2 Mizumoto gives lecture “Contribution to International
Peace” at a training program for Level III Certified Nursing
Administrators organized by the Hiroshima Nursing Association.
◆Sep. 6 Jacobs participates in panel discussion “Nuking New
York: Relocating Ground Zero from Hiroshima to New York Cityin the American Imagination” at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, US.
◆Sep. 6-16 Jacobs co-curates exhibition “Nuke York, New York”
in the John Hartell Gallery at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, US.
◆Sep. 16 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima and the Danger of
Nuclear Weapons” at the California University Program of Meiji
Gakuin University, held at Aster Plaza, Hiroshima.
◆Sep. 20 Taeko Kiriya gives lecture “The Damage from the Atomic
Bombing and the Reconstruction of Hiroshima in the Postwar Era”
at the Public Meeting for Peace, organized by and held in Daisen City,
Akita Prefecture.
◆Sep. 22 Mizumoto gives lecture “How to Live in the International
Age: Pursuing Nuclear Abolition and International Contributions froman A-bombed City” at a seminar on human rights, held at HatsukaichiNishi High School, Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Sep. 29-30 Ganesan coordinates and hosts an international
workshop “Civil Society in Democracy and Democratic Transitions
in Southeast Asia,” held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
◆Oct. 17 Mizumoto attends a meeting on “A Hiroshima for
Global Peace” Plan, organized by Hiroshima Prefecture, held at theGrand Prince Hotel Hiroshima.
◆Oct. 18 Mizumoto attends as a panelist the international
symposium for peace “Towards the Realization of ‘A Hiroshima for
Global Peace,’” organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and the Japan
Institute of International Affairs, held at the International
Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Oct. 22 Mizumoto gives lecture “The Atomic Bombings in
Hiroshima & Nagasaki and World Politics after WWII: Part 1” at alecture of the University Consortium Kanmon, held in Kitakyushu,
Fukuoka Prefecture.
◆Oct. 26 Mizumoto gives lecture “How to Live in the International
Age: Pursuing Nuclear Abolition and International Contributions
from an A-bombed City” at a seminar for international
understanding, held at Hatsukaichi High School, Hatsukaichi,
Hiroshima Prefecture.
◆Oct. 29 Mizumoto gives lecture “The Atomic Bombings in
Hiroshima & Nagasaki and World Politics after WWII: Part 2” at alecture of the University Consortium Kanmon, held in Kitakyushu,
Fukuoka Prefecture.
――Visitors――◆Sep. 16 Mari Amano, Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary, Delegation of Japan to the Conference on
Disarmament

Vol.14 No.2（November 25, 2011）

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
Letterpress Co., Ltd.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.14 No.2, November 2011

狡Hiroshima City University 2011. All rights reserved.