HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Hiroshima Peace Institute Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

To Foster Peace Literacy at
the Kyoto Museum for World Peace
Since the opening of the Kyoto Museum for World Peace,
Ritsumeikan University, in 1992, I have been involved in the
management of the Museum, the only university-established peacemuseum in the world. Over the years, the number of visitors to theMuseum’s permanent and special exhibitions has reachedapproximately 900,000, including students from at least 4,000
elementary, junior high and senior high schools. These students
visited the Museum as part of their peace study programs. I believethat receiving such young students is particularly meaningful, sincemost adult visitors already share our vision for peace prior to actually
visiting our Museum.
In Japan there is currently a hot debate over whether or not toretain Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, (the Renunciation of
War). Those in favor of maintaining the Article have formed activist
groups, now reportedly some 6,800 in number. I am often called uponby such groups to give lectures at their seminars. On such occasions
I invariably find myself preaching to the converted, since mostaudience members believe that Japan should retain its present
constitution. The important issue, however, is to reach people who do
not attend such seminars. I recently discussed this problem during anhour-long dialogue with the eminent Norwegian peace activist, Dr.
Johan Galtung. At the Kyoto Museum for World Peace we should
receive not only visitors eager to promote world peace, but also those
who are uninterested in peace issues, and whose values and historicalperspectives differ from our own.
In this regard, I believe it is particularly meaningful that theMuseum is visited by young students who have yet to formulate theirown values and historical perspectives. In addition to increasing thenumber of young visitors, we must also prepare exhibitions that canappeal to young minds and inspire them to work towards promoting
peace.
In summary, I believe that we have to fulfill the following twotasks: 1) attract to the Museum many people who do not have clear
visions regarding world peace; and 2) hold a wide variety ofexhibitions and other events that are each designed to appeal tovisitors of a specific generation.
Concerning task 1) above, in addition to attracting moreelementary, junior high and senior high school students visiting
Kyoto on school excursions, we must also work to attract adult
tourists visiting Kyoto to our Museum. Some 48 million tourists visit
this ancient capital annually, vastly exceeding the city’s own

CONTENTS
To Foster Peace Literacy at the Kyoto Museum for World Peaceby Ikuro Anzai ………………………………… 1<Reflections from Hiroshima: The 8th in a Series>
The Mushroom Club and Questions on the A-bombing by Toshihiko Akinobu … 2<Comments and Responses to the Interview of Mr. Kaneko “The Other
Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations,” March 2008>
These Thoughts Offered Are for Historical Accuracy Only by Sunao Tsuboi … 3
Comments to Mr. Kaneko and Mr. Asai by Kenichiro Moritaki …………… 3
Confirmation and Apology by Kazushi Kaneko …………………………… 3
Response to Prof. Moritaki’s Comments by Motofumi Asai ………………… 3
The Next Phase of the Cambodia Support Project from Hiroshima
by Kazumi Mizumoto ……………………… 4~5
The Reality of Nuclear War Concealed by U.S. and the A-bomb Disease
Certification Class-action Lawsuits by Hiroko Takahashi ……………………… 6
Why Did the Germans Fail to Stop Hitler? by Makiko Takemoto …………… 7
Hello from HPI ………………………………………………………………… 8<Forthcoming International Symposium>
Approaching Nuclear Abolition from Hiroshima …………………………… 8
Diary ………………………………………………………………………… 7~8

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

By Ikuro Anzai

population of 1.46 million. The Kyoto Museum for World Peace issituated only 50 meters from Kinukake Road, which links Kinkakuji,
Ryoanji and Ninnaji Temples, all popular tourists destinations.
Despite the Museum’s favorable location, however, few tourists
actually venture inside. Although some overseas tourists drop in after
noticing the signboard on Kinukake Road, Japanese tourists seldom
enter since their primary objectives are to visit the famous historicplaces and to enjoy authentic Kyoto-style dishes. Accordingly, wemust work to promote our Museum as an essential element of Kyoto
tourism.
At the same time, I believe that Japan as a nation should foster aculture that inspires tourists to appreciate the intellectual cultures of
the respective regions, as well as their scenic spots and local
delicacies. This, I believe, is essential in fostering “Peace Literacy,”
which is the theme of the 6th International Conference of Museums
for Peace, to be held this autumn in Kyoto and Hiroshima. The term
“Peace Literacy,” which is not yet widely known, refers to liberal
education aimed at fostering world peace. Needless to say, it is vitalthat we prepare “must-see” exhibitions and events that are capable of
attracting tourists. In this regard, I envisage various ideas, including
a bridal kimono costume featuring the Onin war─the civil war which
turned Kyoto into a battle field, thus combining the war and Nishijinsilk, Kyoto’s local industry; additionally, a “non-nuclear peace bell”
tolling event, using a bell cast from discarded U.S. and Russian
missiles, for young people to toll on Coming-of-Age Day. Althoughnone of my visions have yet been realized, I am seriously consideringsuch plans in order to attract many more people to our Museum andto inspire them to contemplate the concept of peace.
Regarding task 2), holding a wide variety of exhibitions andother events each designed to appeal to visitors of a specificgeneration, I believe that we should seriously consider the following
two aspects. First, we must be very careful about exhibiting
photographs depicting extreme cruelty and brutality, which are liable
to implant in young minds a general distrust of humanity. If young
visitors come to believe that human beings can be so cruel to eachother, they are likely to feel that people will never be able to reconcile
and cooperate with one another. This would impede any museum
dedicated to world peace from fulfilling its mission. Following the
dispute over Japan’s history textbooks in 1982 for instance, South
Korea and China established the Independence Hall of Korea and theMemorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese
Invaders, respectively. In response to the Japanese government’s
approach to history education, “which refuses to admit historicalfacts,” these museums shed light on atrocities committed by Japaneseforces. However, such exhibits can very well serve to nurture grudges
in visitors’ minds. In this sense, a museum for world peace shouldtake a different approach from that of museums of history.
Second, in addition to imparting knowledge about past wars,
museums for world peace should also inspire visitors to contemplate
deeply what they themselves can do to foster peace. We must
investigate the ways through which we can fulfill this mission byseeking ideal methods of displaying and describing exhibits, as wellas methods for motivating visitors to participate in peace movements.
In conclusion, I am determined to fulfill these tasks by seeking
the support of the Peace Research Institute Network of WesternJapan, which was established under the leadership of Mr. Motofumi
Asai, President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute.

−1−

Anzai is director emeritus at Kyoto Museum for World Peace,
Ritsumeikan University

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

＜Reflections from Hiroshima: The 8th in a Series＞

Toshihiko Akinobu, Former Staff Member of the RCC Broadcasting Co., Ltd.

The Mushroom Club and Questions on the A-bombing
Interview and editing by Motofumi Asai
(Interviewed on April 15, 2008)

Mr. Toshihiko Akinobu, a former staff member ofthe RCC Broadcasting Co., Ltd., contributed
towards the campaign to bring the existence ofsufferers of microcephaly caused by the Abombing to public attention, and has been deeply
involved in establishing and maintaining theMushroom Club, an association of sufferers of thedisease and their parents. He is also well known
for asking a question about the A-bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki to the Showa Emperor
in 1975. Here we present a summary of his
interesting remarks.
Toshihiko Akinobu

1. Memories of the Mushroom Club

<Anticipating Solutions for Hibakusha’s Problems>
What was meant when the central government certified that the Abombing had caused the impairments of sufferers of microcephaly?
There was only one medical law in the 1960s, named the Medical
Treatment for Atomic-Bomb Victims Law. It was stated that this law would
only be applicable to those who required medical treatment. In the beginning,
officials of the then Ministry of Health and Welfare, which was responsible
for these matters, insisted that the sufferers of those disabilities were subjects
not for medical treatment but for welfare, and that therefore they could not be
dealt with administratively.
In response to this, we stated that their arguments were not credible sincecases of microcephaly were appearing only in medical theses and not in
welfare ones, and that the seven diseases recognized by the law plus
microcephaly were the only cases demonstrated as having been caused by the
A-bombing by contemporary medical research. Therefore the disease should
be recognized as being a subject for medical treatment. Admitting theincoherence of this policy, the Ministry’s response was swift: officials
expressed their sympathy and readiness to consider our appeal favorably
based purely on parents’ concern for their children, and independent of thepolitical influence of the then dominant anti-nuclear movement. We weretold, in effect, that the government would take appropriate measures, provided
that we kept our distance from the movement itself.
The Ministry organized an investigation team. During the course of theirinvestigation, an idea emerged to resolve the incoherence of the policy in theform of a “two Waza-ari score Ippon” decision like that used in Judo matches.
In other words, instead of trying to identify a specific symptom peculiar to
microcephaly, several symptoms could be combined to satisfy the conditionsof a disease that was stipulated in the law. As a next step, a new name for the
disease ─ “close-range, in-body, early-bombed syndrome,” was created, due
to the fact that “A-bomb microcephaly” was not regarded as an appropriate
medical name. In this way it was recognized as a disease that would becovered by the law.
Another problem followed immediately afterwards. As certification of
the disease was the indispensable condition required by the law, a patient wasthen requested to demonstrate that he/she was actually suffering from it; arenewal of this certification was also necessary. The Mushroom Club again
raised an objection, claiming that although the symptoms of their sons anddaughters’ disease might represent “two Waza-ari score Ippon,” the crux of
their impairment was not defined by medical curability, but by theirincapability to live their lives normally due to mental retardation. As wasoften the case, at this point politicians intervened and budgetary appropriation
was secured under the title of “microcephaly allowance” to cover a very
limited number of claimants. The requirement of submission of a renewal
document was also rescinded. In this way we secured a de facto annuity,which was later to be succeeded by A-bomb victims’ allowances.
The achievements of the Mushroom Club, such as securing certification
and annuity, could be characterized as anticipating solutions for A-bomb
victims’ various problems. Although our approach was sometimes criticized
as being the “work of burglars” in some quarters, we have not faced any open
criticism from other Hibakusha because they understood the extremely
difficult situations that members of the Mushroom Club faced. The members
had been A-bombed at close range and were then born in February or Marchof the next year. Some of them were forced to live in shanties that were lashedby strong winds. They had hardly anything to eat. Their mothers’ breasts weredry. Against a background in which even an ordinary person had a difficult
time in those days, it was really a miracle that the families of the Mushroom
Club managed to survive at all. Since Hibakusha understand this situation,
they never criticize the Mushroom Club people.
<“Work of Burglars” and Idealism>
The key demands of the Mushroom Club were threefold. The first wasfor microcephaly to be certified as an A-bombed disease. The second was forlife-long insurance to be granted to its sufferers. As described above, we have

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

achieved rather good results on these scores. The last demand was theabolition of nuclear weapons. In order to unite ourselves and to continue ourfight, we thought it necessary to set an idealistic objective.
The late Tomoe Yamashiro, a writer who was deeply involved in our
movement, often emphasized the importance of remolding oneself. While theMushroom Club pursued the cause of the “work of burglars,” she took a moreconciliatory stance. However, she didn’t dare to caution that such an approach
would inevitably get bogged down. She also took mothers of the club tofacilities for disabled people as she thought it important to join hands withthem, but unfortunately this was to no avail. The late Minoru Ohmuta, aformer writer at the Chugoku Shimbun who was also committed to the club,
once wrote that he planned an association of the club with patients sufferingfrom Minamata disease, but this initiative failed because the members were
too concerned with Hiroshima.
If and when Hibakusha, including members of the Mushroom Club,
begin to associate themselves spontaneously with non-Hibakusha sufferingfrom various illnesses and disabilities, I believe Japan can be changed.
Although we try to persuade Hibakusha to join hands with other war victims,
this has been very difficult to achieve since Hibakusha tend to think that they
are different from ordinary war victims and should be treated differently.
However, when I attended the 63rd birthday party of the club on March 22, I
was impressed by the attendance of brothers and sisters of sufferers of
microcephaly, which had not been the case in the past. It is very significant
that these brothers and sisters attended the meeting with the consciousness of
being members of one family. This development represents a significant firststep in them remolding their identities in line with the hopes of Yamashiro, as
they were attending the birthday party together with their loved ones.
2. Press Interview with the Showa Emperor

Shortly after I was transferred to the Tokyo branch of RCC in August
1975, a press conference was held with the Showa Emperor which wassponsored by the Japan National Press Club (JNPC), of which RCC was amember. Reporters attached to the Imperial Household Agency wereautomatically qualified to attend the conference, whilst member companies of
JNPC were allowed to be represented if they were successful in a lottery. RCC
won the right to attend and it was decided that I should represent them at thepress conference. Mindful that the A-bombing should be included in thequestions posed to the Emperor, I spoke to a member of JNPC’s secretariat on
the matter. His answer was that the questions were already pre-selected andthat a question about the A-bombing was not among them. I raised doubt
about omitting a question related to the A-bombing, and he suggested that I
raise my hand during the course of the press conference and ask a question as
an interpellation on a related issue. As a reporter from the Sunday Mainichi,
who just happened to be there, pressed me on the issue, I found myself in aposition from which I could not retreat.
I did have a sort of a sense of mission as I was the only reporter from
Hiroshima to attend the press conference. Had a question been included in the
pre-selected questions relating to the A-bombing, I would not have pushed thecase further, and actually hoped I would not have to raise such a question
myself. I did think, however, that it would be a shame for the entire Japanesejournalistic community to knowingly omit a question about the A-bombing due
to the fact that the Emperor was attending a press conference open to ordinary
journalists for the first time in the history of Japan. I had planned to ask him,
“When, from whom and how did His Imperial Majesty (HIM) hear about the Abombing?” after making introductory remarks about HIM’s visit to Hiroshima
in 1947 and his kind remarks to Hibakusha. After HIM’s answer, I further
planned to ask him, “What does HIM think about the present nuclear situation?”
The weather was rainy and I was shivering with cold although it was still
only October. I was very tense as it was my first time to enter the Imperial
Palace. I pondered if HIM would be able to answer my first question properly;
I thought that it would be very serious if he felt at a loss for an answer.
Instantaneously I changed my mind and instead asked him “On the occasionof the end of the war, how did HIM respond in relation to the A-bombing?”
His answer was, “Although it was regrettable, it was also unavoidable.”Every time I am asked about the Emperor’s press conference on that day,I always feel embarrassed. This was the first and last time that ordinary
reporters were able to ask questions at such a press conference. I wonder if myquestion that day was the correct one and tend to think that I should haveasked my original question. Had I raised that question, however, there could
have been a political storm surrounding a bewildered Emperor. Thinking thisway, I may console myself as having chosen a middle-way. I think thatJapanese reporters might have been regarded as good-for-nothing if they had
refrained from asking HIM anything about the A-bombing. Despite thenational call against the A-bomb, had there been no question to him about the
A-bombing, the matter would probably have become taboo.

−2−

Asai is president at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

Comments and Responses to the Interview of Mr. Kaneko“The Other Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations,” March 2008


TheseThoughts Offered Are for Historical Accuracy Only: Aged Man’s WisdomAnBy Sunao Tsuboi

There are more than a few controversial statements in the second chapter “TheHiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations” of “The Other Hiroshima
Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations,” an interview article of Mr. Kazushi
Kaneko, Director General, Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers
Organizations, or Kaneko Hidankyo, printed in the 30th issue of HIROSHIMARESEARCH NEWS.
Therefore, I met Mr. Kaneko in person and questioned him about his
remarks. He clearly stated and admitted the lack of explanation and existence of
missing links in his statements, and that he would like to issue a full apology to
relevant individuals and organizations that appeared in the article as well as toreaders of HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS.
I summarized our frank and concrete discussions below.
1. Tragedy of the Separation of the Hidankyo
The reason, or the truth, behind the separation was not a storm in a teacup
such as refusals of member registration of communist-leaning people or fights
over board membership in the organization as Mr. Kaneko stated.
The world’s trends over nuclear tests were almost destabilizing the antinuclear movement in those days. Finally, the Japan Council against Atomic andHydrogen Bombs and the Hiroshima Hidankyo were both forced to take a pathleading to decisive splits in each organization. Namely, the widely-known
controversy ─ “whether or not to oppose all nuclear testing regardless of whichcountry conducts it” ─ was aroused. An organization group in “opposition to all
nuclear testing regardless of which country conducts it” and an organizationgroup, which supported the nuclear tests by the former Soviet Union ─ China had
not conducted its nuclear tests yet ─ as “a righteous act against war forces,” did
not give up their convictions. This was the biggest reason of the splits of both theJapan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs and the Hiroshima Hidankyo.
This is a commonly believed reason of the splits as a historical fact.

Comments
to Mr. Kaneko and Mr. Asai
By Kenichiro Moritaki
Nuclear tests and missile-launching tests as well as intimidating “preemptive
attacks” which are conducted in honor of preventing the first two, create a crisis
situation in which actions to abolish nuclear arms ought to be intensified urgently.
Also, as the A-bomb survivors Hibakusha are aging, enormous effort must be
taken to reinforce the supports such as governmental recognition as a radiation
casualty. Consequently, unification of the campaigns against A- and H-Bomb andthe Hibakusha movements is strongly urged now more than ever.
Ichiro Moritaki, my father who passed away in January 1994, craved for theunification of the movements devoting himself thoroughly to the movements
against nuclear weapons and the Hibakusha movements. It is true that acting
under the conviction “Mankind and nuclear technology cannot coexist,” he was ona certain side of the confrontation over the slogan “Opposition to all nuclear
testing regardless of the country.”
He was, however, deeply grieved at the split of the movements that was
brought about by the confrontation over the slogan. Facing the peril that the splitof the campaigns against A- and H-Bomb might affect the unity of the Japan
Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, my father clearlystated in his diary on September 9, 1964, “We should definitely avoid affecting
the unity of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations
by the split of the campaigns against A- and H-Bomb.” Similar statements can befound in the diary several times in those days. Eventually, the split of the Japan
Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations was narrowly escaped.
He also devoted himself to reaching an agreement to work toward thereunification of the two organizations, the Japan Council against A- and HBombs and the Japan Congress against A- and H-Bombs in 1977 so as to heal the
split of the two anti-nuclear organizations. As my father stayed at my place inTokyo to attend the negotiation for the agreement, I witnessed his toil in theagreement process and also the retrograde acts against it.
However, Mr. Kaneko, Director General of the Hiroshima Council of A-BombSufferers Organizations, noted in the newsletter, HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
Vol.10 No.3 March 2008: “The Chugoku Shimbun Newspaper wrote on its web
page that the Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations split up
because communist-leaning members held their own conference in 1964. But what I

Both of the Hiroshima Hidankyo should be able to stand together without
much difficulty. But the unification of the two Hiroshima Hidankyo is not easy.
The only way to realize the unification is that the agonies of A-bomb survivors
will be shared and sympathized with and that both Hiroshima Hidankyo will
acquire strength to get over various issues. I believe that nominal unification isprone to collapse and the substantive unification is required.
Let us never give up!
2. Views on the Use of Specific Names

In 1997, for the first time in the history of our Hidankyo, I invited members of
Kaneko Hidankyo as our guests to the general assembly of our Hidankyo, which
was then led by Ms. Sakae Ito. I, on my own responsibility, invited them without
submitting the proposal to the board meeting. I was determined to resign if itcaused problems. I dared to invite them, because I deemed it necessary for
Hibakusha to stand together even if the unification of the two Hidankyo wasdifficult. I took great pains to talk Ms. Ito, who had strong anti-communist
sentiments, into attending the general meeting. But she made an effort to do hershare with the understanding of the importance of solidarity among A-bomb
survivors. From then on, we have invited the members of Kaneko Hidankyo to ourgeneral assembly without trouble. I simply want to express my gratitude to Ms. Ito.
It is inappropriate to make a light or partial assessment of people without theknowledge of their whole lives. Especially when one refers to the dead, I hope that
judgment is positive and based on correct information without prejudice. One
cannot be too careful in this issue.
I have been struggling to hold on to fairness as well as political neutrality. Sucha stance, I should say, might make people consider our Hidankyo as right-leaning.
The Japanese Trade Union Confederation (the Rengo) has its raison d’etre.
The reason that Mr. Kaneko described the Rengo as a right-leaning organizationneeds to be clearly explained. The Rengo is not an intolerant, narrow-minded group.
Adhering solely to one’s own belief does not always produce good ideas, orrather, keeps people away.
Tsuboi is chair, board of directors, at Hiroshima Prefectural Confederation of
A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations
learned from senior members of my council was that these members did notvolunteer to leave the Hiroshima Council, but were forced to leave, mainly because
Mr. Ichiro Moritaki, the then-President of the Hiroshima Council, refused to registercommunist-leaning people as members in 1964 when the Campaign against A- and
H-Bomb split due to the confrontation between socialist and communist members.
As a result, communist-leaning members ended up holding their own conference.”
As I have explained, my father, himself a Hibakusha, was in anguish over the
split of the anti-nuclear bomb movements and the Hibakusha movements andsought the unification of the movements more than anyone. He always taught us
as children that we should never accept the “Logics of exclusion.” So, the remarksof Mr. Kaneko above, I would have to say, have dishonored my father. As isevident from the phrase, “what I learned from senior members...,” Mr. Kaneko’s
statement, which affects my father’s honor, depends fully on hearsay information.
With the invalid evidence, the responsibility for “the main reason” of the split of
the Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations was imputed to anindividual. As is obvious from the expression “what I learned from...,” hisstatements depend on speculation. Is it justifiable from a moral perspective tospread inferential remarks to the public that would disgrace other’s reputation?
As we say, “The dead cannot speak in their own defense.” This is true for myfather.
Mr. Kaneko, you certainly knew that your inferential statements, totallydependent on hearsay information that affect the dignity of my father, would bemade public. I hereby protest your comments, which you made fully aware of
their likely impact.
I would also like to express my sincere grievance to Mr. Motofumi Asai,
President of the Hiroshima Peace Institute, who interviewed and edited hiscomments, for the publication of Mr. Kaneko’s derogatory remarks even though
they were obviously based on hearsay.
I do understand that both Mr. Asai and Mr. Kaneko have been making
contributions to world peace through their speech and actions. I feel a sharp regret
all the more deeply that this has happened, because now is the time we should beunited as one to promote campaigns for the elimination of nuclear weapons andthe Hibakusha movements.
I shall take this opportunity to offer to both of them my best wishes for the
future.
Moritaki is professor emeritus at Okayama University

I, Kazushi Kaneko, was quoted in the Vol. 10 No. 3 March issue of HIROSHIMARESEARCH NEWS as saying, “What I learned from senior members of my council
was that these members did not volunteer to leave the Hiroshima Council, but wereforced to leave, mainly because Mr. Ichiro Moritaki, the then-President of the Hiroshima Council, refused to registercommunist-leaning people as members in 1964 when the Campaign against A- and H-Bomb split due to theconfrontation between socialist and communist members. As a result, communist-leaning members ended up holding
their own conference.” These senior members, who had known the situation in the 1960s, have already passed away.
And I could not find any material evidence to prove the statement even after conducting some research from various
angles. I regret these words as thoughtless and would like to retract them, especially because I made such a statement
when the solidarity of both Hidankyo and Hibakusha are desperately needed with Hibakusha aging and nuclear
abolition and national compensation to them yet to be realized.
I believe that we all know that the controversy over the slogan “Opposition to all nuclear testing regardless ofwhich country conducts it” provoked the turmoil. Now that I have listened to Prof. Kenichiro Moritaki, a son of the lateIchiro Moritaki, I deeply understand that Mr. Moritaki yearned for the solidarity of Hibakusha and the unity of the two
Hidankyo.
Offering an apology, I promise to make my utmost efforts to fulfill Mr. Moritaki’s strong aspirations for unity of
the Hidankyo.
Kaneko is director general at Hiroshima Council of A-Bomb Sufferers Organizations

Confirmation and Apology

Response to Prof. Moritaki’s Comments

By Kazushi Kaneko

By Motofumi Asai
Regarding interview articles in
HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, which I
interview and edit, I adopt a policy of faithfully
printing the statements of interviewees asexactly as possible. I have known Mr. Ichiro
Moritaki’s activities through his book
Hiroshima 40 nen: Moritaki nikki no shogen [40years in Hiroshima: Witness by the Diary ofMoritaki]. I accept, with sincerity, the criticism
that “Mr. Kaneko’s remarks were obviously
based on hearsay.” At the same time, I would
like to abide by the above-mentioned policy.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

−3−

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

The Next Phase of the Cambodia Support Project from Hiroshima
By Kazumi Mizumoto
Teacher-training Meeting at an Elementary School

A teacher-training meeting was held on February 28, 2008 at
the Sasar Sdom Elementary School in the small Sasar Sdom
Village, which is located a one-hour drive from Siem Reap, theancient Khmer city famous for the Angkor ruins. The meeting was
the final important event co-organized by the school and Hiroshima
Prefecture to conclude the three-year Cambodia support projectfrom Hiroshima. A total of 100 participants, including local school
teachers, principals, staff of the education and health care officers ofthe district and provincial government, and specialists in educationand health care from Hiroshima gathered at the event.
As there was no classroom large enough to accommodate 100
people within the school, a huge tent was set up in the schoolyardwith tables, chairs, and whiteboards for the meeting. The colorful
red and yellow tent revealed the strong will of Mr. Chhin Kimchea,
the principal of the Sasar Sdom Elementary School, towards the
success of the meeting.
During the morning session, a demonstration mathematics classand demonstration health care class were taught by two teachers totheir students. During the afternoon session, lectures for principals
on school management were given by officials from the district andprovincial governments. Experts on education and health care from
Hiroshima made comments at each session. The meeting, whichbegan at 8 a.m., concluded with remarks from Mr. Ung Serei Dy,
deputy chief of the provincial education office. “We do expect that
Hiroshima will continue its support to Cambodia as before.” About
10 specialists, dispatched from Hiroshima, applauded him with afeeling of satisfaction.
Here follows a short report to review the three-year Cambodia
support project from Hiroshima and to introduce the new phase of
the project with some analysis of its importance and tasks.
Energize Cambodian School Project

The Cambodia support project from Hiroshima began as aninternational peace contribution activity to utilize human resources
and know-how in local institutions such as universities, local
governments, educational, health and medical organizations, andNGOs, based on a report entitled “Peace Contribution Plans from
Hiroshima,” published by Hiroshima Prefecture in 2003. After
holding several meetings with the central and local governments,
NGOs and other international organizations in Cambodia, weselected the Sasar Sdom Elementary School as the site for specificactivities, and decided that support for education and medical healthcare were the major priorities.
In order to secure financial resources, we applied for thePartnership Program of the Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA) in 2005, after which our three-year project was adopted. Its
title was the “Energize Cambodian School Project.” However, thebudget size only enabled us to send at most four or five specialists
in the fields of education and medical health care twice a year, forfour weeks at a time. This is why we decided to focus solely on one

elementary school in Sasar Sdom Village in Siem Reap Province;
this decision was based on advice received from the Cambodian
central and local governments.
However small the size of the project was, we hoped that if we
could energize a school in a small village, the achievement andknow-how could be applied to other schools at the district,provincial, or national levels through the cooperation of the local
and central governments.
Aiming at the Self-support of Cambodian People

As the main activities of the three-year project, four or fivespecialists in the fields of education and medical health care weredispatched to Cambodia twice a year in November and February. In
the field of educational support for Cambodia, fundraising forschool building is the most common activity in Japan. It is true thatmany rural school buildings are still made of wood and pine leaves,and that the lack of sturdy school buildings is serious. However, it
was felt that donating money for school building could not be seen
as “an international peace contribution utilizing the humanresources and know-how of Hiroshima.”
We had been repeatedly advised by the staff of the JICA
Cambodia office that a “one-way giving of money and goods leaves
nothing in Cambodia when it is over,” and that “to hand over knowhow that enables self-support for the Cambodian people is moreurgently needed.” Similar advice was received from representativesof NGOs prior to the start of our project.
In reality, about half of the “specialists” sent from Hiroshima
actually had no former experience in international cooperation
activities. However, once they set foot in a Cambodian village, they
immediately sensed the problems they had to deal with, foreducation and medical health care are universal human priorities,
irrespective of nationality.
The method adopted by the Hiroshima team was to giveintensive training to school teachers and principals during theirshort stay of four weeks in order to upgrade local teaching andmanagement skills. This was carried out to enable them to improve
the school environment and ultimately energize the school as awhole.
Actual Support Activities

Under the current school system in Cambodia, in each village
about a dozen elementary schools comprise a cluster which includes
a core school and many satellite schools. In principle, there are noclasses on Thursdays and children engage in activities such as
cleaning or planting in the school yard on that day. For the teachers,
Thursday is the day for the holding meetings and training, and all
the teachers of the cluster gather at the core school once a month fortraining.
For the Hiroshima team, making use of Thursdays was vital for the
success of our project. During our short stay, we planned a training
meeting on each Thursday. Due to limited time, we focused

Participants of the teacher-training meeting held in February 2008 at the Sasar Sdom Elementary School in Siem Reap Province, Cambodia.

Visit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm−4−

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

The Next Phase of the Cambodia Support Project from Hiroshimaon one subject ─mathematics, andtrained the teachersin how to create a
one-hour teachingplan for a class. For
the principals in thecluster, we offered
training in school
management
techniques, such as
how to guideyoung teachers andChildren using the “calculation blocks” donated by how to maintain achildren and parents in Hiroshima at the Sasar Sdom safe and sanitary
Elementary School in February 2008.
environment.
We planned two or three such training meetings on Thursdays
during the four weeks and carefully prepared them in cooperation
with the staff of the district education office and principals in thecluster. We also prepared materials in the Khmer language with thehelp of local assistants. To introduce know-how utilized in
Hiroshima without adjustment for Cambodian society isunderstandably sometimes not acceptable to Cambodian teachers,
and therefore frequent exchanges of views with them wereindispensable.
With regard to the field of medical health care, we implementeda system of regular physical examinations at the school which had
hardly been introduced in other Cambodian elementary schools
until recently. We also gave special classes on health care andhygiene to the children prior to the physical examinations. Children
learned their own height and weight for the first time and became
more aware of the importance of hand washing and cleanliness ofthe body. In addition to these activities which took place at school,
we also conducted medical checks for local stone workers who were
engaged in the rehabilitation of the approach to the famous Angkor
Wat, a historical temple complex located in Siem Reap, in response
to a request received from the Sophia Asia Center for Research andHuman Development of Sophia University. This Center provided usmuch additional support.

Regional Community Health Center, the Health Center of Kure
City, Hiroshima University, Yasuda Women’s University, the JapanRed Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing, and from otherorganizations.
During our mission, members of the Hiroshima team stayed ina small guesthouse in Siem Reap City where the room charge was
10-15 US dollar per night. Our team, including local translators,
used to leave the guesthouse at 6 or 7 a.m. for Sasar Sdom village,
return there in the evening, and sometimes work until 9 or 10 p.m.
together with the translator to prepare materials in the Khmer
language for the next training meeting. When we were in Hiroshima,
our team members had a regular study meeting once a month toprepare for the next dispatch.
Second Phase of Support Project

The three-year Cambodia support project was concluded in
March 2008, following the dispatch of six missions. The Hiroshimateam has again applied for the JICA Partnership Program and our
new three-year project has been adopted. The new field activities
will take place in Takeo Province in the southeast of Cambodia. Our
new mission is to support the Teacher’s Training School where
graduates from high school are trained for two years to become
elementary school teachers. Mathematics and science are thesubjects in which we have been requested to give training.
It has been estimated that 80-90% of school teachers were
killed during the Pol Pot regime from 1975 to 1979, and even now
the training of school teachers is an urgent priority within
Cambodian society. We will begin the second phase of the support
project in Cambodia capitalizing on the achievements of the last
three years in Sasar Sdom.

Hiroshima TeamThe international contribution activities from Hiroshimamentioned above represent a very unique initiative from a local
community. One of the positive aspects of the project is that
although many team members lacked personal experience inworking abroad, they were genuine experts in their own field ofwork within Hiroshima society. It is held that the real front line ofinternational cooperation exists in a local society within a country inneed. The Hiroshima project has shown that even without thecoordination of central government, local societies of a donor andrecipient country can work successfully together.
The most difficult aspect of the project was identifying andsecuring human resources in Hiroshima. There are many excellent
specialists in the city in their own respective fields. However, manyof them simply cannot leave their place of work for one or two
weeks to participate in an endeavor such as this. That is why we had
to approach institutions such as local government and universities inorder to select candidates and receive permission for them to join
our team.
Among other institutions, it is remarkable that the Hiroshima
Prefectural Board of Education clearly understood the importanceof our project and therefore sent a total of six teacher’s consultants(shido shuji) to Cambodia. Most of them had had no priorexperience working abroad, but once they entered the classroom at
the Sasar Sdom Elementary School, their instincts as educators
immediately came to the fore and they provided highly effective
training to the Cambodian teachers. A young researcher from
Hiroshima University supported them in their activities.
In the field of medical and health care, in our team we had many
experts from Hiroshima Prefectural Hospital, the Prefectural

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

A teacher and children at the demonstration class for health education, held aspart of the teacher-training meeting in the tent set up in the schoolyard of Sasars
Sdom Elementary School in February 2008.

In addition to the project being funded by JICA, the Hiroshima
Prefectural Government is now organizing another initiative
entitled the “Cambodia ‘We’ Project,” coordinating local
government, universities, medical and educational organizations,business circles and NGOs. One of the projects currently being
planned within this scheme is the editing of a sub-text book on
peace for elementary school, based on the experience of civil war
and mass killing, and the great need for reconciliation in Cambodiansociety, as well as the historical experience of Hiroshima. The
Cambodia Hiroshima House, built by an initiative of the HiroshimaCambodia Citizens’ Society for Interchange in the precincts of the
Wat Ounalom in Phnom Penh, is also expected to become a newcenter for the support and interchange project from Hiroshima.

−5−

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

The Reality of Nuclear War Concealed by U.S. and
the A-bomb Disease Certification Class-action Lawsuits
Classified Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The U.S. Nuclear Test and Civil Defense Program (Gaifusha, 2008)
The Mushroom
Club
andQuestionson Award
the ofA-bombing
Winnerof the2nd Peace
Study Encouragement
the Peace Studies Association of Japan

By Hiroko Takahashi
In February 2008 I published abook entitled Fuin sareta
Hiroshima/Nagasaki [Classified
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The
U.S. Nuclear Test and Civil
Defense Program] (Gaifusha,
2008).
This book reflects theresearch I have carried out in
Hiroshima since my appointment
at HPI, and the doctoral
dissertation which was submitted
to Doshisha University in 2003.
For this book I drew mainly upon
U.S. government documents
collected at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland
U.S.
Drawing upon Manhattan Project records and contemporary
newspaper articles, Chapter 1 examined the activities of the
U.S. government and military regarding the collection of
medical information in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and publicannouncements about the impact of the A-bomb during theperiod of the occupation of Japan.
As part of the Manhattan Project, in 1943 the U.S.
government set up the “Radioactive Poisons Subcommittee,”and conducted a study on the military use of radioactive
materials. A report of the subcommittee explained “the factors
involved in employing radio-active materials effectively” are“highly persistent and can contaminate an area for many
months. Immediate decontamination could take place only at
the sacrifice of personnel.”
Following the dropping of the A-bombs in Hiroshima andNagasaki, the Japanese government claimed that the A-bomb
was a more brutal weapon than poison gas which had beenprohibited by international law.
On September 5, 1945, following the start of the occupation,
Wilfred Burchett’s report published in the British Daily Express
stated that “People are still dying mysteriously and horribly─
people who were uninjured in the cataclysm─from an unknown
something which I can describe as the atomic plague.” On theother hand, Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell, deputy to the
Head of Pacific Command Major General L.R. Groves, “denied
categorically that it produced a dangerous lingering
radioactivity in the ruins of the town or caused a form of poison
gas at the moment of explosion.” (New York Times, September
13, 1945). That is to say, he denied the existence of residual
radiation which occurred one minute after the detonation of the
A-bomb.
The purposes of the U.S. government in making such astatement which underestimated the influence of the A-bombwere to reject the Japanese government’s claim that the use of
the A-bomb was against international law, and to makepracticable the landing of occupation troops in Hiroshima andNagasaki. On the other hand, the U.S. Military Joint
Commission for the Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic
Bomb in Japan and the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
collected, brought to the U.S. and classified many atomic bombmaterials.
Chapter 2 focused on the U.S. government’s
declassification policy of the A-bomb issue through the use of

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

documents from the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). Before the commencement of Operation
Crossroads, the U.S. nuclear test held in the Pacific in thesummer of 1946, Groves recommended the publication of theManhattan Engineer District Report, the U.S. Strategic
Bombing Survey Report and a report written by the British
Mission to Japan. However, at the same time he stated that “No
authoritative statement on radiation and its effects can be madeby anyone until the completion of the analysis of the available
data by the Joint Medical Commission.”
After the nuclear test was conducted, due to the serious
contamination caused by the second test, a further test wascancelled. It was recommended that “if it was desirable from a
Naval standpoint to do so, that all pictures and written material
be censored and edited by someone familiar with security andthe technical information involved.” U.S. Navy personnel
cleaned the contaminated battleships used for the test, but it wasnevertheless admitted that “Immediate decontamination could
take place only at the sacrifice of personnel.”
Chapter 3 discussed the Civil Defense Program of the early
1950s. The U.S. government explained how people could
survive a nuclear attack by means of a “Duck and Cover”
approach and ignored the issue of the impact of residual
radiation.
Chapter 4 discussed the 1954 Bikini Atoll nuclear test andthe subsequent Civil Defense Program, drawing upon
documents from the Federal Civil Defense Administration(FCDA) and AEC. Following the exposure of the Lucky
Dragon crew members to fallout from a nuclear test, the dangers
of fallout began to be widely understood. In 1955 FCDA and
AEC claimed that “You can survive” even the dangers fromfallout through inviting civilians to a nuclear test conducted in
Nevada. At the time, AEC was still denying the existence of
fallout (residual radiation) in the cases of Hiroshima andNagasaki due to the fact that the detonation of the A-bomb hadtaken place at high altitude.
Chapters 1 to 4 reveal that the U.S. government consistently
underestimated the influence of the radiation caused by the Abomb and based on such public statements, constructed the
Civil Defense Program.
Following the submission of this dissertation in March
2003, newspapers reported about A-bomb disease certification
class-action lawsuits toward the Japanese government. I wasvery surprised to learn that the so-called “science” which had
been produced by the U. S. government, and which ignored theinfluence of residual radiation, was still being applied in theJapanese government’s certification of A-bomb disease. The
standards and logic produced by the “perpetrator” were still
being actually applied to the “victims.”
It is clear that “data” collected from Hibakusha were being
collected for the purpose of preparing for future nuclear war. On
the other hand, their appeals were ignored in the name of“science” which did not recognize the existence of residual
radiation. Sixty-three years have already passed since thedropping of the atomic bomb. Now it is time to “judge” thisevent for the sake of human beings and not for militaristic
purposes. I hope that this book will contribute towards this“judgment” and eventually assist in the procurement of justice.

−6−

Takahashi is assistant professor at HPIHIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

Why Did the Germans Fail to Stop Hitler?
── A Study of the Failure of the German Peace Movement
Why did the Germans fail to stop the rise of Hitler and Nazism? Thisis the question most frequently raised in studies of post-World War
German history. Likewise, many researchers of the history of thepeace movement pose the following question: Why wasn’t the peace
movement in the Weimar Republic able to stop Nazism? In short, why
did the German peace movement fail?
Immediately after World War I, the German people experienced
an unprecedented surge in peace activism which involved many
people who had previously paid little or no attention to peace issues.
Many peace organizations that had been suppressed during the war
resumed their activities. Moreover, many new organizations wereformed by Christian groups, women’s groups, students’ groups and thelike. Such organizations, which were all seeking peace throughdifferent approaches, were loosely united under an umbrellaorganization called the German Peace Cartel. These organizations,however, started to quarrel amongst each other over the leadership of
the peace movement. Individual organizations strongly insisted on
their own visions of peace, which differed significantly from those ofothers. Lacking a methodology to coordinate different approaches topeace, these organizations were unable to combine their efforts, which
was essential if they were to confront the rise of Hitler effectively. In
other words, due to differences in political perspectives and visions ofpeace, these organizations failed to coordinate their efforts under ananti-fascist banner.
In addition to conflicts between organizations, peace activists
experienced internal conflicts within their organizations. The German
Peace Society, for instance, which gained as many as 30,000 members
and was the largest peace organization in the Weimar Republic,
suffered from internal conflicts between its moderate faction, radical
faction, and the so-called “Revolutionary Pacifist Group,” which
splintered from the radical faction. The political leanings of these threegroups were close to the politics of the German Democratic Party, theGerman Social Democratic Party, and the German Communist Party
respectively. Broadly speaking, the moderate faction primarily
supported the spirit of international law, the radical faction sought torealize socialistic policies, while the Revolutionary Pacifist Group
aimed to bring about world peace by means of social revolution. Overtime, Society members became increasingly aware of the differences
between their respective visions of peace, as well as of their politicalperspectives. Due to the insurmountable barriers that grew up between
these three groups, firstly the Revolutionary Pacifist Group withdrew
from the German Peace Society and established a new organization;(some members of this group were actually expelled from the Society.)
Subsequently, the conflict between the moderate and radical factions
developed into a dispute over the leadership of the German Peace
Society, which ended in victory for the radical faction. After themembers of the moderate faction withdrew from the Society, it
eventually lost both its left and right wings. As a result, the Society lostmuch of its influence.
While activists in the peace movement were embroiled in internal
conflicts, their real opponents, namely Hitler, the Nazis, and the

By Makiko Takemoto

conservatives within the Weimar Republic were prepared to suppress
the peace movement. By the 1930s, when the German Peace Society
finally began its anti-fascism campaign, it was already extremely
fragile due to the previous process of fragmentation. Although somepeace activists advocated the unification of left wing groups, the actual
political parties failed to unite, mainly due to antagonism between theGerman Social Democratic Party and German Communist Party.
Consequently, German peace activists lacked the means to prevent therise of Hitler and the Nazis.
I have thus far introduced the most common explanation of thereasons why the German peace movement failed to prevent the rise ofHitler and the Nazis. In my opinion, however, we should not simply
cast aside the German peace movement, regarding it as a failure.
Despite the surge of peace activism that emerged immediately
after World War I, post-war German society was not necessarily
favorable to the ideals of the peace movement. Many contemporary
German citizens embraced a strong desire for revenge against the
victorious Allied nations. In addition, the peace movement was often
described with hostility as a Jewish movement, due to the large
numbers of Jews who were among the progressive intellectuals
playing leading roles in the movement. Furthermore, peace activists
were forced to endure numerous hardships to gain public support andcontinue their activities─having to struggle against suppression of
freedom of speech and acts of violence committed against them,including even assassinations. In such an environment, continuingwith the peace movement in reality meant activists risking their lives.
Considering the circumstances, it is hard to categorize their efforts asa failure.
Rather than criticizing in this way, it is important to learn theessential lesson from the history of the German peace movement
which is that infighting between factions over their respective visionsof peace actually led to the disintegration of the peace organizations
themselves, which in turn diminished the influence of the movement
as a whole. This fact indicates the existence of multiple and variedinterpretations of the term peace and the difficulty of defining peace.
In the Weimar Republic, peace activists disputed amongst each otherabout the definition of peace, even though they all personally valued
peace and worked in pursuit of it.
Today, the meaning of peace is even more complex: whereas in
the past, peace was always understood to mean the antithesis of war,
today many wars are actually initiated in the very name of peace anddemocracy. Accordingly, whenever we hear the term peace, we mustfirst consider what is actually meant by the term, what kind of peace isbeing sought, and what approach is being taken in respective contexts.
Unless we can create a common recognition of the ultimate goal that
we seek and the obstacles that we confront, it is possible that the peace
movement may collapse from within due to the divisions within peaceorganizations themselves. This is the lesson to be learnt from thehistory of the German peace movement.
Takemoto is assistant professor at HPIMarch 1, 2008-June 30, 2008
◆Mar. 2 HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture on “Aspirations for Peace andHuman Rights of Persons with Disabilities” at Zenshouken 2008 Seminar on Students’
Security of Development, organized by Japanese Association on Disability andDifficulty (Zenshouken), in Kyoto.
◆Mar. 5-7 Narayanan Ganesan presented paper entitled “Worsening Schisms in Thai
Domestic Politics” at Asian Development Issues and Models Conference, Ewha
Womans University, Seoul, South Korea.
◆Mar. 9 Asai gives lecture on “Peace and Human Rights” at hands-on training
exchange meeting organized by Japan Association of Community Workshops for
Disabled Persons (Kyosaren) Hiroshima Chapter, held in Hiroshima.
◆Mar.13 Kazumi Mizumoto gives lecture on “Examining Nuclear Issues in
Hiroshima” at General Science Lecture Series organized by Junior & Senior HighSchool at Komaba, University of Tsukuba, Tokyo.
◆Mar.18 Asai gives lecture on “Issues Concerning Nuclear Weapons at Home andAbroad and Nuclear Freedom Kobe Method” at anniversary gathering organized byexecutive committee of 33rd Anniversary of Resolution of Nuclear Freedom Kobe
Method, in Kobe. ▽Mizumoto attends annual general meeting of Research Group on

Reference Materials of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum as a regular member.
◆Mar.21 Mizumoto gives report on “Peace Initiatives from Hiroshima” at 11th InHouse Seminar of Hiroshima University Partnership for Peacebuilding and Social
Capacity, entitled “Peacebuilding from Hiroshima,” held in Higashihiroshima City.
◆Mar.22 Asai attends celebration meeting of establishment of “Kinoko Kai”
(Mushroom Club), a group of people with microcephaly caused by atomic bomb, inHiroshima.
◆Mar.24-Apr.20 Mikyoung Kim collects data on Northeast Asian human security inSeoul, South Korea and Atlanta, GA., U.S.
◆Mar.26 Mizumoto gives report on “Rehabilitation Project of Peace Community in
Cambodia” at annual meeting and Cambodian section meeting of Hiroshima International
Contribution Network, in Hiroshima. ▽Hiroko Takahashi gives lecture on “Classified
Hiroshima & Nagasaki” at 58th Hiroshima Peace Study Meeting, in Hiroshima.
◆Mar.29 Takahashi reports on “Atomic Bomb Documents in the U.S.” at study
meeting of History of Hiroshima after WWII, held at HPI.
◆Apr. 4 Mikyoung Kim presents paper, “Interweaving Lived Experiences, Memory,and Labor Activism,” at Association for Asian Studies Meeting in Atlanta, GA., U.S.
continued overleaf

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS, Vol.11 No.1 July 2008

−7−

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

Hello from HPI
Akihiro Kawakami
Assistant Professor
Dr. Akihiro Kawakami was born in Toyama
Prefecture in 1972. He graduated from the Facultyof Law, Chuo University in 1995, completed theDoctoral Program in the Graduate School of Law,
Senshu University, earning a Ph.D. (Law) in 2005.
He joined HPI in April 2008.
He specializes in Constitutional Law, Political
Science, and the Theory of Local Autonomy. His
book entitled Nihonkoku kenpo daikyujo seiritu no
shisotekisingen no kenkyu [A Study of IdeologicalOrigins in the Formation of the Constitution ofJapan, Article 9] was published in 2006.

“The central theme of the research I have carried out
throughout my life has been ‘how can we abolish war from theworld?’ I think that it is necessary not only to renounce war, butalso to work towards achieving true peace through securing
people’s lives, their right to maintain a wholesome and cultured
existence, and their individuality. I think that Hiroshima is aunique place where such problems can be addressed from both alocal and a global perspective. From now on I intend to review
thoroughly the means to realize the security of peace and humanrights within the regional communities, from the perspective ofConstitutional Law Studies (Peace, Human Rights, and
Democracy).”Forthcoming International Symposium
Approaching Nuclear Abolition from Hiroshima: Empowering the World to Impact the 2010 NPT Review Conference
The Hiroshima Peace Institute and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku
Shimbun, one of Japan’s leading newspapers, will sponsor an international symposium
titled “Approaching Nuclear Abolition from Hiroshima: Empowering the World to
Impact the 2010 NPT Review Conference” on August 2. This is an event to commemorate
the 10th anniversary of the Hiroshima Peace Institute and the establishment of theHiroshima Peace Media Center this year.
The main purpose of the symposium is to pursue measures to revitalize themomentum toward nuclear disarmament/elimination that has been stagnant since the9.11 terrorist attacks and to examine actions that civil society and government shouldtake to invigorate the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
<Keynote Speakers>
Jayantha Dhanapala, President of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs, Sri Lanka
Rebecca Johnson, Executive Director of the Acronym Institute, U.K.
<Panelists>
Akira Kawasaki, Co-Director of Peace Boat (NGO), Japan

Steven L. Leeper, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, U.S.
Akira Tashiro, Executive Director, Hiroshima Peace Media Center, Chugoku Shimbun, Japan<Moderator>
Kazumi Mizumoto, Associate Professor, Hiroshima Peace Institute<Date & Time> Saturday, August 2, 2008. 13:00-17:00<Venue> International Conference Center Hiroshima, Himawari Room, B2
1-5 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima (Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park)<Organizers> Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima Peace Media Center/Chugoku
Shimbun<Support> Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation<To Attend> Apply to Hiroshima Peace Institute by mail, telephone, fax, or e-mail withyour name, address, and contact information (telephone/fax number or e-mail address).
<Deadline> July 30, 2008
<Address> Hiroshima Peace Institute, Ote-machi Heiwa Building, 9th Floor, 4-1-1 Otemachi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan
Tel. +81-82-544-7570 Fax. +81-82-544-7573
E-mail : office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp

continued from the previous page

March 1, 2008-June 30, 2008

◆Apr. 5 Akihiro Kawakami serves as panelist in symposium entitled “80thAnniversary of Treaty for Renunciation of War and Constitution of Japan,” organized byeditorial department of Monthly Law and Democracy, in Tokyo.
◆Apr.11 Asai, Mizumoto and Takahashi attend, as regular members, first meeting of basicplanning committee on exhibition and maintenance of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Apr.12 Asai gives lecture entitled “Now is the Time for Article 9” at establishment
meeting organized by Article 9 Association (A9A) Group of Nakahiro Junior HighSchool, in Hiroshima.
◆Apr.13 Asai gives lecture entitled “Now is the Time for Article 9” at establishment
meeting organized by A9A Group of Kannon Junior High School, in Hiroshima.
◆Apr.19 Asai gives lecture on “Perspectives that Adhere to Human Dignity” atZenshouken Seminar on Security of Development organized by Zenshouken, in Tokyo.
◆Apr.20 Asai gives lecture on “Historical Background of Article 9” at peace gatheringorganized by planning committee of Peace Gathering of Senogawa Area, in Hiroshima.
▽Takahashi chairs memorial symposium for publication of Marshall Island Handbook,organized by “Global Hibakusha” study meeting and Meiji University Institute for
Disarmament and Peace Studies, held at Meiji University in Tokyo.
◆Apr.21 Takahashi attends meeting for joint review of Classified Hiroshima &Nagasaki, organized by study meeting of Low Level Radiation, in Tokyo.
◆Apr.27 Takahashi attends meeting for joint review of Historie de la phirosophie vol
10 and Classified Hiroshima & Nagasaki, organized by Open City Hiroshima andCharivari Underground University, in Hiroshima.
◆Apr.29 Asai gives lecture on “In View of Civil Movements in Iwakuni” at Gathering
for the Future of Iwakuni, organized by Organization that Values Referendum, inYamaguchi Prefecture.
◆May 3 Asai gives lecture on “U.S. Global Strategy and the Japanese Constitution” at
Chiba Prefecture Constitution Meeting, organized by Chiba Prefecture Constitution
Association, in Chiba. ▽Kawakami gives lecture on “Peace Design for the Constitutionof Japan Article 9 to Consider from the Origin of its Formation,” in symposium
organized by Kanagawa Kenpo Forum (NGO), in Yokohama.
◆May 5 Asai serves as panelist for symposium “Nuclear Age and Article 9,”organized by Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War, in Chiba.
◆May 17 Asai gives lecture on “Perspectives that Adhere to Human Dignity II” at
Zenshouken Seminar on Security of Development, organized by Zenshouken, in Tokyo.
▽Mizumoto gives lecture on “Meaning of Studying the Hiroshima Experience” at 1st
meeting of Hiroshima Peace Forum organized by Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundationand guides group discussions, held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. ▽Mikyoung
Kim presents paper, “U.S. Human Rights Policy towards North Korea” at Korea Civil
and Ethics Society May Colloquium in Seoul, South Korea.
◆May 31 Robert Jacobs gives lecture on “Hiroshima from a Modern Perspective” toCouncil on International Education Exchange students, in Hiroshima. ▽Takahashi gives

lecture of “Issues for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapon” at Policy Planning Seminar ofSocial Democratic Party autonomy representation, in Hiroshima.
◆Jun. 7 Takahashi gives lecture on “Classified Hiroshima & Nagasaki” at Suzugamine
Girls’ High School, in Hiroshima.
◆Jun. 8 Asai gives lecture on “Article 9 and Japan’s Direction” at gathering for lecture andmusic of A9A Group in Tajimi City, organized by its executive committee, in Gifu Prefecture.
◆Jun.13 Mizumoto attends, as regular member, 1st meeting of Building andExhibition sub-committee of basic planning committee on exhibition and maintenanceof Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Jun.15 Asai reports on “Key to Engagement with International Society in the 21stCentury that Article 9 Indicates” at semi-annual conference organized by Peace Studies
Association of Japan, in Tokyo.
◆Jun.21 Mizumoto attends, as panelist, Symposium 2008 “Thinking of the Future of
Tibet” organized by Hiroshima International Peace Conference, held at RCC Culture
Center, in Hiroshima.
◆Jun.22 Asai gives lecture on “Article 9 & 25” at peace study meeting organized by
National Welfare Child Care Labor Union Hiroshima Chapter, in Hiroshima. ▽Takahashi
gives lecture on “Classified Hiroshima & Nagasaki” at supporting organization forcollective lawsuits by Hibakusha, in Hiroshima.
◆Jun.23 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Current Situation of Cambodia and Support from
Hiroshima” at Peace Study Meeting of Network Council of Regional Women’s Groups
in Hiroshima Prefecture, held in Hiroshima.
◆Jun.27 Mizumoto gives lecture on “Current State and Tasks of Peace Research” ateducational program for Level II qualified nursing care managers, organized by and heldat Hiroshima Prefectural Nursing Association.
◆Jun.29 Takahashi gives lecture on “Classified Hiroshima & Nagasaki: U.S. Nuclear
Tests and the Civil Defense Program” at 40th lecture meeting of Physicians forPrevention of Nuclear War of Okayama Prefecture, held in Okayama.
−Visitors to HPI−
◆Mar. 4 Dr. Ananda Shastri, associate professor, Department of Physics & Astronomy,
Minnesota State University and 13 students. ▽Masaki Ina, professor of ConstitutionalLaw, International Christian University (ICU), Mari Kotaki, coordinator, Rotary Peace
Center, ICU, and Jasson Aliperti and 10 other Rotary World Peace Fellows.
◆Apr. 7 28 students of Harvard University, U.S. and University of Tokyo on the
Harvard College in Asia Program.
◆Apr.22 Noriko Koide, Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 9 students ofValley Stream Central High School, U.S., and 4 students of Sanyo Girls’ School.
◆May 9 Dr. Diane Enns, associate director, McMaster University, Canada.
◆May 22 His Excellency Dr. Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, Embassy of the Islamic
Republic of Iran in Japan.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS

Vol.11, No.1 July 25, 2008
Copyright 2008 HPI All rights reserved●Publisher: Hiroshima Peace Institute, Hiroshima City University; Editor: Ayako Yoshida, Yukiko Yoshihara
TEL +81-82-544-7570 FAX +81-82-544-7573
Ote-machi Heiwa Bldg. 9F/10F 4-1-1 Ote-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0051, Japan. E-mail: office-peace@peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp●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.1 July 2008