Vol.13 No.3 March 2011

My Six Years at Hiroshima Peace Institute
When I assumed the presidency of the Hiroshima Peace Institute(HPI) in 2005, I wrote the following in my first article in
HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS: “[As] I feel a very strong sense ofcrisis about [the] situations both at home and abroad, […] I was very
eager to accept this job at HPI. [… And] I will perform the duties ofpresident to the best of my ability [in order] that HPI will become an
institution in which Hiroshima citizens can take pride.”
When comparing the international situation at the beginning of2005 with that at the end of 2010, it is still in such a chaotic statethat I cannot see an exit from this dark tunnel, but rather a sense offear for the future of humankind. When US President Barack Obamacame to the political arena in 2009, expectations for nuclear
abolition surged up on a global scale. However, these expectations
have proven to be ungrounded now that a year has passed. Within
Japan, at the same time, the neo-liberalist policies of the Koizumi
administration have severely damaged Japanese society. Even after
the power transfer from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to the
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the DPJ’s amateur administration
is further aggravating the situation and there seems no way to getback on track. To be honest, that “very strong sense of crisis” that I
felt in 2005 is even stronger in me today.
Sadly enough, during the course of my presidency I was unable
to realize my objective of transforming HPI into an “institution inwhich Hiroshima citizens can take pride.” On a number of occasions
I have felt that the expectations of Hiroshima citizens are by nomeans of little significance. The reason that I could not fully satisfy
their expectations was, I have to admit, simply down to my own
insufficient capability, for which I would like to express myapologies to the people of Hiroshima.
I have worked to reinforce the primary duties of HPI and I believethese efforts have born some fruits, including the following: improving
the amount and quality of research relating to peace; enhancing thecontents of the Lecture Series for Hiroshima Citizens by incorporating
the voices of citizens; holding an annual symposium now coorganized by the Chugoku Shimbun; and enriching the quality of thenewsletter. On the other hand, some initiatives that were focused on
sending out messages of peace achieved only limited success, forexample: establishing the Peace Research Institute Network ofWestern Japan; and strengthening the collaborative partnership with
Nagasaki through developing a Nagasaki-Hiroshima joint appeal
which expressed a strong demand for the enactment of the Three
Non-Nuclear Principles. The corporatization of Hiroshima City
University (HCU) in April 2010 has positioned HPI under the fullmanagement of the whole of HCU, therefore we the academic staff
are now required to participate in postgraduate teaching. Despite
these initiatives and changes, looking at the broader picture I have toadmit that HPI has yet to gain full recognition of Hiroshima citizens.
While expressing my apologies for my limited achievements
during the past six years, I would like to emphasize three points that
I think, based on my experiences here, are indispensable for HPI inorder for it to become a pivotal peace research institute in and for
Hiroshima in future.
The first point is that as a self-proclaimed “international peace
culture city,” Hiroshima should tirelessly pursue a solid and consistent

Motofumi Asai

“peace philosophy of Hiroshima,” which will then become the basis
for both Hiroshima and Japan in pursuing global peace. Hiroshima
should also set its primary objective to become a hub to send out that“peace philosophy” both within Japan and abroad. Hiroshima cannot
stand at the forefront of the nuclear abolition movement around theworld as long as, while advocating nuclear abolition, it hesitates tooppose the nuclear policy of the Japanese government which is so fullof contradictions. Whether it is on the Korean Peninsula or across the
Taiwan Strait, any war which involves Japan has the potential to develop
into a nuclear war. This means that if it is truly determined to tackle
the issue of nuclear abolition, Hiroshima should explicitly express its
objections to the US-Japan military alliance which is the real cause of
all these regional conflicts, and it should stand at the forefront of the
advocacy for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Regarding a more
specific issue, Hiroshima should recognize its heavy responsibility to
oppose the reinforcement plan of the US military base in its neighboring
city, Iwakuni, the plan which is a key part of the entire reinforcement
plan for the US bases across Japan. Hiroshima cannot remain
indifferent and overlook this plan. Hiroshima should establish its
own solid and substantial “peace philosophy” and apply that“philosophy” to specific issues in society. Only in tandem with these
efforts by Hiroshima can HPI also fulfill its duty which is consolidating
the “peace philosophy” by means of its academic expertise.
The second point is that as the parent institution of HPI, HCU
should develop a framework in which it can devote its utmost efforts
towards Hiroshima-originated peace studies. After the corporatizationof HCU, it has been working on the development of both Master’sand Doctor’s courses in Peace Studies. Nevertheless, what is more
important is to elevate Peace Studies even to the position of being
the raison d’être of HCU. To be more specific, this can be achievedin two areas. On the academic side, Peace Studies should become afundamental factor which interlinks HCU’s three faculties / graduate
schools of International Studies, Information Sciences and Art. On
the administrative side, the HPI President should assume a newlycreated post whose duty it is to oversee Peace Studies on the scale ofthe entire university. Furthermore, the HPI President should also be
included on HCU’s Executive Board as a standing member. In short,
Peace Studies should constitute the core of HCU in all respects.
The last point is that while the concept of “peace” can have anumber of definitions, Hiroshima, HCU and HPI should continue topursue a peace philosophy of Hiroshima, originating from this very
city, and that peace philosophy should have a universal appeal. After
13 years since its establishment in 1998, the research activities of
HPI are now centered around three areas which I think areappropriate for the institute: nuclear issues, peace philosophy, andarea studies focusing on East Asia. By means of research in theseareas, I strongly believe that HPI is expected to contribute towards
the establishment, enrichment and implementation of the “peace
philosophy of Hiroshima” which is based on the legacies of this“international peace culture city.”
I truly hope from the bottom of my heart that the day will comewhen HPI becomes a universal asset in which Hiroshima citizens
can take pride.
President of HPIContents
My Six Years at Hiroshima Peace Institute
Motofumi Asai …… 1
The Myanmar Elections of 2010
Tin Maung Maung Than ……………… 2
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2010)“The Amendment or ‘Implementation’ of the Present Constitution” … 3

Peace Born Out of Tolerance: A Legacy of Alfredo Bunye
Hitoshi Nagai …………… 4-5＜Reflections from Hiroshima＞ Vol. 16
Mitsuo Sato, Director of the Japan Peace Committee …… 6-7
Diary ………………………………………………………………… 8

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

1

The Myanmar
Elections of 2010
Tin Maung Maung Than
The recent elections took place 20 years after the controversial electionof May 1990 in which the National League for Democracy (NLD) led
by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi won more than 80 percent of
the seats but was denied the right to form a government by the ruling
junta. It was the fifth stage of the seven-step Road Map announcedin August 2003 by the then prime minister General Khin Nyunt who
was deposed in October 2004. This was the crowning achievementof the Myanmar military’s managed transition towards civilian
government, following the endorsement of the 2008 Constitution (inMay 2008) which ensured continued military control.
However, when the ruling State Peace and Development Council(SPDC) passed laws, bylaws and regulations governing political parties’
registration and elections, they were deemed discriminatory andrestrictive by the NLD (which refused to recognize the Constitution)and its pro-democracy allies at home and abroad. Subsequently the
NLD and four other existing parties refused to re-register and weredissolved by the Union Election Commission (UEC).
Some of the objections to these laws and regulations included:
high registration fees (around US$ 500 for each candidate); short
recruiting period (90 days) to attain the minimum membershipthreshold (1,000 for a nation-wide party and 500 for a provincial party);
exclusion of jailed personnel in the party membership list; ineligibilityof public service personnel to stand as candidates and party
members; campaigning restrictions and media restrictions; very short“window” for submitting candidates (less than three weeks after
UEC’s announcement of all constituencies); required submission of
campaign finances within 60 days after being elected; rejection ofinternational monitors/observers; and exclusion of over 3,000 villages
in Eastern Myanmar border regions for security concerns. In fact, theNLD and exiled activists advocated non-contestation and non-voting,arguing that the elections would not be “free and fair” and must be
regarded as a vehicle to legitimize continued military rule.
Nevertheless, altogether 42 parties were allowed registration, of
which 37 contested the elections for three different parliaments: Pyithu
Hluttaw (People’s Assembly or lower house), Amyotha Hluttaw(National Assembly or upper house), and Taing Daythagyi / Pyinnai
Hluttaw (Region/State Assembly or provincial parliament). Amongthe parties, the newly-formed Union Solidarity and Development
Party (USDP), recently converted from the military-sponsored Union
Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), was the largest
and richest with millions of members. It was regarded as a proxy forthe military. Its leader was the incumbent prime minister and it
fielded the entire cabinet and recently retired generals, garneringsome 1,100 candidates. With overwhelming resources at its disposal,
the USDP was expected to win, but the pro-democracy parties(including the National Democratic Front or NDF, a breakawayfaction of the NLD which produced 180 candidates), the National
Unity Party (NUP, the reincarnation of the former Burma Socialist
Programme Party, with over 900 candidates), and ethnic-based
regional parties were expecting substantial representation given thatthe military and the USDA were widely unpopular.
Amidst complaints of harassment of opposition parties andcandidates as well as the USDP’s misuse of state authority andresources, the elections were relatively peacefully concluded in allseven States (with majority non-Bamar ethnic population) and seven
Regions (with majority Bamar population) of Myanmar in which
3,071 contestants vied for 1,154 seats. Meanwhile, 55 constituencies
were walkovers as they only had one contestant.
Some 29 million eligible voters were registered for the elections
2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.3, March 2011

and although voting was not compulsory, there was a relatively highturnout (see Table 1 below).
Table 1: Voting on November 7, 2010
Total no. of No. actually
VotersValid votes
constituencies contested turnout (%) share (%)
People’s Assembly

330

325

77.3

93.1

National Assembly

168

168

76.8

93.6

Regional Assembly

673

661

76.6

92.5

Source: The Union Election Commission

There were altogether 82 independent candidates with 40
contesting the lower house, 7 the upper house and 35 the provincialparliaments, but only 6 of them were successful (1 each in the twonational parliaments and 4 in the provincial parliaments). Only 22
out of the 37 parties won seats in the polls and 16 of them are
ethnic-based regional parties. The USDP won a large majority in thetwo national parliaments as well as in seven out of the 14 provincialparliaments where the Bamar ethnic group formed the majority ofthe population. The NUP and other national parties fared poorly,
while the ethnic-based parties contesting in their respective regions
made some inroads, though not as much as they had anticipated. A
summary of these results is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Poll Results by Party Affiliation (% share)
Party

People’s Assembly National Assembly Regional Assembly

USDP

79.7

76.8

74.9

NUP

3.7

3.0

7.0

NDF

2.5

2.4

0.6

3 other national
parties combined

0.0

0.0

0.9

16 ethnic-based regional
parties combined

14.1

17.8

16.6

Source: The Transnational Institute, Burma Policy Briefing Nr. 4 (Dec. 2010)

According to the Constitution, the military is automatically entitledto 25 percent of the total number of seats in all three legislatures.
Military representatives would be nominated by the Commander-inChief of the armed forces. As such, the military quota comprising
one third of the total number of electoral constituencies would takeup additional seats in all of the parliaments. Apparently, the military
representatives and the USDP parliamentarians combined together
would form a super majority that could effectively block any
attempt by other political parties to change the Constitution or evento push for legislation of their bills.
What do these elections portend for the political future of
Myanmar? One should not expect accelerated political or economic
reforms in the short term. Myanmar will have a constitutional
government under an executive presidency. There will be some
opposition voices in parliaments but the executive branch will bedominated by retired and serving senior military officers or
technocrats chosen by the military. The SPDC has ensured thateverything is stacked in favor of continued military control andinfluence over vital functions of the Myanmar state.
Nevertheless, provincial parliaments may still be able to play asignificant role in the political governance of their respective areas;
especially in the six States where ethnic parties and their allies
would constitute some 30-50 percent of the total seats.
All in all, how the legislative process and governance at thecenter and the provinces unfold will depend upon how comfortable
the military is with the new structures and processes and how the“opposition” behaves in and out of parliament. The military remains
the key agency for change or otherwise.
Senior Fellow at the Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore

HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (Second Term 2010)

The Amendment or Implementation of the Present Constitution
The latest HPI Lecture Series (held from Jan. 7 to Feb. 4, 2011) examined the issue of constitutional amendments,
particularly as the Law on Constitutional Amendment Procedure has recently been enacted. The five lectures were aimed atproviding the audience with opportunities to consider related issues such as whether the Constitution should be amended
and whether the principle of the Constitution should be retained and implemented by means of changing politics instead of
the Constitution itself.

An analysis of a constitution and constitutional amendLecture 1 ments: from the perspective of constitutionalism(Jan. 7)

Akihiro Kawakami, Assistant Professor at HPI

Lecture 1 examined two fundamental questions related to a
constitution: “What is a constitution?” and “What are constitutional
amendments?” A constitution can be described as a “social
contract” by which the citizens, with whom sovereign power
resides, guarantee their own basic rights by establishinggovernmental organs and authorizing them to carry out
administration. Kawakami explained that regarding constitutional
amendments, they are by no means an equivalent of revolution orcoup d’état and the procedure must be constitutional. Therefore,
they cannot violate the “basic norm” of a constitution which
concern, among others, sovereignty or the purpose of a constitution,and it is a common argument within academic circles that
constitutional amendments have their own intrinsic limits. In thelecture Kawakami analyzed this argument of the limits ofconstitutional amendments and examined related issues particularly
for cases of possible amendment bills that go beyond these limits.

The Law on Constitutional Amendment

Lecture 2 Procedure(Jan. 14)

Shusaku Iguchi, Professor at Daito Bunka University

In Lecture 2, the newly enacted Law on Constitutional
Amendment Procedure was closely examined. Iguchi argued thatthe development of this law contained a number of problems
from the beginning. For instance, some people argued when thebill was first proposed that those who oppose constitutional
amendments should approve the bill itself since they can reject
proposed amendments later through a referendum when specificamendments are actually put forward. However, in Japan anamendment bill can be put to a referendum only after its approvalby the Diet. Therefore, the opposition side being able to oppose
the bill in the referendum means they can do nothing but standaside while the bill is passed by the Diet. Iguchi further argued
that the law itself also contains problems: for example, while it
imposes severe restrictions on national campaigns led by civil
servants and educationists, restrictions on public announcements
such as TV advertisements are rather slack, the effectiveness ofwhich increases according to the amount of money spent on them.

Peace as a human right and the Japanese

Lecture 3 Constitution(Jan. 21)

Miyoko Tsujimura, Professor at Tohoku University

The objective of Lecture 3 was to revisit the issue of peace by
examining the triangular relationship between human rights, peaceand gender. In terms of the relationship between the first two
factors, Tsujimura stated that arguments should always hold that
war itself is a violation of human rights, and the consolidation andtheoretical enhancement of the right to live in peace was essential,
as has been indicated by various recent academic arguments andcourt cases. Tsujimura then presented arguments which seem to be
problematic when analyzed from the perspective of gender studies.
These arguments include the notion that women are always

regarded as victims of war and are thus peace-oriented; that womenshould also have the right to participate in war as soldiers; andthat it is always men who are compelled to go to war for the state
and are thus required to kill on behalf of the state.

Possibility of the creation of an East Asian peace

Lecture 4 community and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution(Jan. 28)

Narihiko Ito, Professor Emeritus at Chuo University

Lecture 4 discussed the necessity of the creation of an East Asianpeace community by actualizing the peace principle contained in
the Japanese Constitution. Ito argued that the purpose of an East
Asian peace community should not be for exercising neoliberal
economic activities, retaining nation-states and national militaries,
or maintaining the power of the dollar. Instead such a community
should, modeled on the EU, become a true peace community inwhich various forms of cooperation across national borders are
expanded, a common currency created, disarmament implemented,
and military expenditures transferred to civilian use, thereby
removing the possibility of war and the necessity of maintaining
militaries. Ito also argued that in order to realize this ideal
community, what is essential is to expand a network connected
through a treaty of peace and friendship which prohibits thehegemony of a single country, and which should be modeled on
the 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship concluded between
Japan and the People’s Republic of China. He further held that it
is essential to cooperate closely with the network connected by
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

A-bomb experiences and a peace philosophy of Hiroshima:

Lecture 5 the Japanese Constitution for the 21st century(Feb. 4)

Motofumi Asai, President of HPI

In the final lecture, Asai first examined discussions by Masao
Maruyama and Sadako Kurihara on the atomic bombing in
Hiroshima, and then argued that, instead of isolating Hiroshima’s
A-bomb experiences from everything else, these experiences should
be linked to other debates related to the A-bomb and developed
into a universal philosophy. Hiroshima’s call for nuclear abolitionand peace was triggered by the 1945 atomic bombing; nevertheless,this call should be elevated to the level of a universal philosophy
which extends beyond personal emotions or local experiences.
For this purpose, the A-bomb experiences should not be
examined merely as victims’ experiences or local and past issues.
Rather, it is necessary to face up sincerely to the past and thepresent which have prevented some important issues from being
properly dealt with, such as Japan’s war responsibility, postwar
compensation for victims, and true implementation of the “Peace
Constitution.” Asai further stressed that it is also necessary torealize “peace by means of non-violence” from the standpoint ofrespecting human dignity and the “Peace Constitution.”
Each of the five lectures of the latest HPI Lecture Series attracted
a large audience who raised various interesting questions. It is
hoped that the five lectures together provided the audience with
opportunities to deepen their understanding of issues relating toconstitutional amendments.
Akihiro Kawakami, Assistant Professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

3Peace Born Out of Tolerance:
A Legacy of Alfredo Bunye
Hitoshi Nagai
On July 22, 1966, an elderly couple from the Philippines
arrived in Japan. Their visit was made possible thanks to an
invitation from former Japanese war criminals who had been
imprisoned in Muntinlupa but who had been granted a pardon
by Elpidio Quirino, the Philippine President. The name of the
gentleman who stepped out of the plane at Haneda Airport
before his wife was Alfredo M. Bunye, and he had been the
superintendent of a prison in the Philippines where the Japanese
war criminals served their term. In the prison, these former
Japanese soldiers cultivated a long-lasting friendship with thisformer superintendent who was in a position to guard andsupervise the Japanese war criminals. This article will examine
the background of this extraordinary episode through tracing
the life of Alfredo Bunye.

1. From a Student Living in Hardshipto a Prison Superintendent
Alfredo M. Bunye was born in Biñan in Laguna Province on
the Island of Luzon, the Philippines, on June 15, 1899. His
father, Ignacio O. Bunye, was once a captain during thePhilippine Revolution who fought against the Americans, andlater worked for the Alabang Stock Farm in Muntinlupa. The
first son of six children of a poor family, Alfredo lived with a
Swiss businessman as a houseboy in order to help with theliving costs of his family. The businessman took extraordinary
care of young Alfredo who was a good shoeblack boy, andinstead of giving him money, the man sent him to school as hehad hoped. After graduating from Manila High School inMarch 1921, Alfredo started his teaching career at Pasay
Elementary School. While working as a teacher, the diligent
Alfredo studied at the University of the Philippines and thePhilippine Law School. His hard work was recognized and at
the age of 24 he was appointed as Director of the Schools ofModern Oriental Academy in 1924.
In October 1928, he changed his vocation and joined the
Bureau of Prisons where he served as a teacher in the adulteducation class, a clerk, and then chief of the legal section. In
March 1937, at the age of 37, he was promoted tosuperintendent of the Bilibid Prison in Manila. He obtained alicense to become an attorney in February 1933. Then in April
1938, he undertook a visit to various prisons in Japan, including
Sugamo and Odawara, accompanied by Associate Justice
Masataro Miyake of the Supreme Court of Japan.

2. The Japanese Occupation and the
Death of His Father
When the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) was opened in Muntinlupa
in 1940, the prisoners at the old Bilibid Prison were transferredto the largest prison in the country in November of the same
year. Around the same time, Alfredo married the actress Sofia
V. Rivera and they began their new life in Muntinlupa.
4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.3, March 2011

In December 1941 the Japanese carried out air raids on thePhilippines, which was then under US control. The Japanese first
took control of its capital, Manila, in January 1942, and soon after
the whole country. However, the Japanese did not station troops at
the NBP which was therefore administered by Superintendent
Bunye and the Director of Prisons, Eriberto B. Misa. From around1944 Philippine guerrillas who had been convicted of anti-Japanese
resistance were transferred there. Therefore the NBP now oversaw
not only ordinary prisoners but also these “political prisoners.”
Early in the morning of June 24, 1944, the “political prisoners”
escaped from the NBP in a group. Seventy-eight members of the
Hunters ROTC Guerrillas raided the prison in order to help theirimprisoned comrades escape. The raid was conducted “like a flashin the night,” and more than 50 prisoners escaped. Director Misa
was ousted straightaway for his mismanagement, andSuperintendent Bunye was also removed from the post. It is said thatbehind their dismissals was pressure from the Japanese military; andfollowing this incident, approximately 20 Japanese soldiers were
stationed at the NBP.
The now deposed Bunye and his family left Muntinlupa andrented a house in Manila where their relatives lived. In February
1945, Manila became a fierce battlefield and in Muntinlupa a
tragedy struck the Bunye family: Alfredo’s father, Ignacio, wasabducted by the Japanese military authorities in Alabang, and thenkilled on February 3 at the age of 72. It was some time later that
Alfredo was informed of his father’s tragic death by a Filipino
collaborator who had cooperated with the Japanese during the war,and Alfredo himself subsequently attended the exhumation of
Ignacio’s body. Around the same time, in the NBP 31 Filipino
political prisoners were taken out of their cells by the Japanese andexecuted one by one on February 3 and 4. After the Japanese left the
NBP on February 5 due to the deterioration of the course of the war,
the members of the Hunters ROTC Guerrillas released theirremaining comrades in the afternoon of the same day. Soon after
that, Misa and Bunye returned to their posts at the NBP.

3. Creating Peace in the Prison
Following decisive victories in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October
1944 and in the Battle of Manila in February 1945, the US took
control of the entire country thanks to its overwhelming militarystrength. A majority of the surrendered Japanese soldiers met theanger of Filipinos, whether through stone-throwing or verbal abuse.
This expressed the outrage felt among Filipinos at the arrogant
behavior of the Japanese, which was symbolized by the Japanesetradition of slapping people’s faces for the purpose of discipline, andthe oppressive control that they had exercised during the occupation
period.
Immediately after the war, Japanese war crimes trials were
initiated in Manila. As in the trial of General Yamashita whichstarted in October 1945, these trials were at first conducted by theAmericans. In 1947, following the independence of the Philippines(July 1946), jurisdiction was transferred to the Philippine
government. War crimes trials conducted by the Philippines wereheld between August 1947 and December 1949 during which 151
former Japanese officers and soldiers were tried for the killing andtorturing of Filipinos. Approximately 90 percent of the defendants
were convicted, half of whom received the death penalty. The
charges that the Philippine people brought against the Japanese wereparticularly severe.
On December 1, 1948, the Japanese war criminals weretransferred from the American stockade in Mandaluyong, Rizal, to
the NBP to be dealt with by Philippine authorities. Soon after thetransfer, Superintendent Bunye came to the Japanese prisoners andtold them “You have come to this prison by destiny, for which I feelsorry.” He also said that at the NBP “we will take special care ofyou, on the Philippines’ honor,” and that they would work to ensure“humanitarian” management, therefore “we would like you to reportany cases of violence or mistreatment, and to express any demands
to which we should give special consideration.” A Japanese prisoner
wrote in his diary: “This superintendent must be a person of
extraordinary virtue.”
True to his word, Bunye was conscientious towards theJapanese prisoners, and there were rarely any incidences of torture,
abuse or slave labor at the NBP. The prisoners thought that the prison
guards were receiving training in virtue from the superintendent.
The Japanese prisoners enjoyed playing basketball, a popular sport
in the Philippines, with the prison guards acting as referees. The
days at the NBP were very tranquil for a prison containing war
criminals. There was no actual censorship of letters from families,
no restriction on parcels from Japan, and even no restrictions placedon the Japanese media regarding visits, the taking of photographs or
the recording of interviews with prisoners. A correspondent from the
Asahi Shimbun who tried to enter the prison with a camera wasstopped by a guard. However, he was touched by Bunye who soon
appeared and said to him, “You are not allowed to enter with acamera, but I guess you can take with you that funny device in yourhand” (italic by the author). He further said, “Please take nice photos
so that their families back home will be happy to see them.”
In the cells on death row, where two or three prisoners were
held in each cell, it was allowed to bring in an electronic stove, andthe prisoners made coffee and cooked some dishes. One day, aprisoner who had been sentenced to death and was very shortsighted
had his spectacles broken. As his only enjoyment in the prison was
reading, he was so depressed, being now unable to read. A few days
later, however, new spectacles were delivered to him––they were
given by Superintendent Bunye.
These episodes as well as other similar experiences made theJapanese prisoners feel a special affection and respect towards
Bunye, whom they perceived as a “most understanding andsympathetic person.” A prisoner in fact wrote in his diary that it was“the most fortunate for us, the Japanese prisoners,” that Bunye wastheir superintendent. The Japanese prisoners had felt distrust for thePhilippine people after the trials, and also felt isolated and were indespair living in prison in a foreign country. In such circumstances,
they saw a glimmer of hope in Bunye’s humane attitude.

Conclusion
Considering his father’s death at the hands of the Japanese military
authorities and all the bitter experiences that the people of his
country had suffered, Alfredo Bunye had sufficient grounds forhaving a strong aversion to the Japanese. It could not have been easy
for him to face up to the sort of past that he experienced, and hemust have had an inner struggle within himself. Nevertheless, he did
not choose revenge or retaliation as his way of treating the Japanese

war criminals. For his mild, benign character, Superintendent
Bunye came to be called the “father of Muntinlupa” by theJapanese. According to Bunye’s son, Ignacio R., his philosophyof treating the Japanese humanely was to try to “stop the cycleof violence or hate.” What was it that made him so tolerant?
It cannot be imagined that he felt no anger or uncomfortablefeelings towards the Japanese. However, it seems that he tried
to repress such feelings through rational thinking. He once said
that the fact that his father had been killed by the Japanesemilitary authorities “didn’t give me the right or provide thegrounds for retaliation.” This may indicate that it seems that he
was a rational and intellectual, rather than an emotional andsentimental, person. With his motto in life being “to live a lifeof humility and service to God and our people,” he believedthat as the war had ended, even former Japanese soldiers shouldbe treated as normal human beings, and he tried to control
himself so that his own grief and retaliatory feelings could becontrolled. When he visited Japan on his way to America inJuly 1952, he commented, “My father was victimized by theJapanese in the Infanta Case. However, I believe it was a step inthe process that the world resumes peace.” Such a mindset was
extremely rare in Philippine society at that time due to thepersistent anti-Japanese sentiment. Despite such circumstances,it seems that Bunye sought to liberate himself from a sense ofgrief and animosity by accepting his father’s death as a milestone
towards the creation of peace.
Superintendent Bunye always believed that the law should
be utilized for humanity and he always treated prisoners asnormal human beings. This humane personality of Bunye could
have developed from various aspects of his life: his innatecharacter; his 20 years of service at prisons; his past career as ateacher; and international perspectives regarding prison
management that he had acquired through inspections invarious countries, including Japan. At the same time, theofficers at the NBP were required by the Philippine President
and the Ministry of Justice to treat the Japanese prisoners in aparticularly sympathetic manner. Bunye’s own philosophy
together with the policy of the authorities may well have madeit possible for him to overcome his father’s death and attain an
attitude that enabled him to “stop the cycle of violence or hate.”“After three years of the Japs, after the mass tortures andexecutions, the looting, burning, raping –– Filipinos had ceased
to think of the Japanese as human beings, only as something to
be killed, to rid the earth of.” ––This is an excerpt from an
editorial in a magazine distributed in Manila in 1948, aroundthe time when the Japanese war criminals were transferred to
the NBP. In stark contrast to this retaliatory sentiment prevalent
among a majority of the Philippine people at the time, the staff
at the NBP were treating the Japanese prisoners in a completely
different manner. Instead of inducing hatred and distrust against
the Japanese among the Philippine people, Bunye tried torestrain such a strategy. The friendship between Superintendent
Bunye and the Japanese war criminals suggests the value andpotential power of tolerance in creating peace.
[Note] The author would like to express his gratitude to Mr.
Ignacio R. Bunye, son of Superintendent Bunye, for a generous
amount of advice on the present article. This article represents
part of a research project funded by the 2010 Special Academic
Research Fund, provided by Hiroshima City University.

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

5

＜Reflections from Hiroshima＞Vol. 16

Mitsuo Sato, Director of the Japan Peace Committee

By Motofumi Asai,
President of HPI

To Live for the Anti-nuclear
Peace Movement
１．Hardship in childhood
I was born in Mitaki, Hiroshima City, and lost my mother when I
was two and my father when I was five. After that I was raised by
my grandmother. In April 1945 when I was in the second grade ofelementary school, I was evacuated from Hiroshima with mygrandmother; therefore I did not get A-bombed. However, 13 of myrelatives who were A-bombed passed away by December of thatyear. (The remains of seven of them have not been found eventoday.) I returned to Hiroshima in 1947 to live with my sister who
did get A-bombed but escaped death and injury. She got married
and moved to Okayama, and so I started living with mygrandmother again. She passed away when I was 13, which caused
me to make a living on my own. I started living with my sister
again, who had returned to Hiroshima, but she too passed away in1955 as she suddenly succumbed to A-bomb disease. Following mysister’s death, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)
came to me and said they wanted to buy her cadaver. Having seen
and heard about some A-bombed friends who had been taken to
ABCC and suffered cruel treatments there, I rejected their request
as I had a strong aversion to them. In 1954 when I was in thesecond year of high school, I passed the screening process to
become a civil servant of Hiroshima City. At first I could not
become a full-time worker as I was still underage. However, thanks
to the efforts of members of the Hiroshima Municipal Workers’
Union such as Rikito Watanabe, I was able to become a temporary
worker. Since that time I worked for Hiroshima City for 20 years
until 1974 when I decided to work full-time for the union.

２．Life dedicated to the anti-nuclear
peace movement
I have participated in all of the past World Conferences Against
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, from the first one in 1955 to the mostrecent one, the 56th, which took place in 2010. As far as I know,
there are only three people, including me, who have participated in
all of these events. When I went to the first conference in 1955, I
did so only because I wanted to receive 20 yen and some breadwhich was offered as an inducement. Nevertheless, the hundreds of
red flags at the conference impressed me so much that I became
deeply involved in the anti-A and H bombs movement.
It was in 1958 that I became a member of the Japan Peace
Committee which had played a central role in organizing the first
World Conference and establishing the Japan Council Against
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo). I would like to talkbriefly about the history of the Japan Peace Committee.
During the intensification of the Cold War, the holding of theWorld Congress of Partisans for Peace in Paris and Prague, both inApril 1949, was initiated by some outstanding figures, including
Dr. Joliot-Curie. This then led to the establishment of the World PeaceCouncil. In Japan, where the dispatch of national representatives tothe World Congress was prohibited by the US which was still
occupying the country, another World Congress of Partisans for Peace
was organized in Japan itself, which was attended by approximately
1,200 intellectuals. It was accompanied by the establishment of theSociety to Protect Peace, which then developed into the Japan Peace
6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.13 No.3, March 2011

Committee on August 6, 1950. The committee played a significant
role in the initial stage of the peace movement in Japan during which
the following activities took place: a collection of signatures for the1950 Stockholm Appeal; a call for an all-party peace treaty in
opposition to the US-led Peace Treaty with Japan accompanied by
the US-Japan Security Treaty; and a series of anti-US base
movements which first began in 1953. Considering these pastenergetic activities, it was no wonder that the committee also playeda central role in organizing the first World Conference Against
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, and in establishing Gensuikyo.
I spent 30 years serving in the Hiroshima Municipal Workers’
Union before I moved to Tokyo at the end of 1989. During my 30
years in Hiroshima, I first served as General Secretary from 1962 to1974 (a period of 12 terms), retired as a civil servant in 1974 towork full-time for the union, and then served as Chairperson of theunion from 1974 to 1989. At the same time, I also participated inimportant meetings of the Hiroshima prefectural chapter ofGensuikyo (Hiroshima Gensuikyo), and in that capacity worked for
the World Conference every year, mainly in the role of mobilizing
people to participate in the event.
Two separate World Conferences Against Atomic and Hydrogen
Bombs were organized independently by Gensuikyo and the Japan
Congress Against A- and H-Bombs (Gensuikin) between 1964 and1976, and the two conferences were reunified as a single event
between 1977 and 1985. Nevertheless, the antagonism between
Gensuikyo and Gensuikin was always deep, partly due to thecomplicated background involving China and the USSR which were
opposed to each other, and which intervened in the anti-nuclear
movement in Japan and then caused the split between Gensuikin
and Gensuikyo. I particularly remember an episode in 1985 when I
participated in drafting the Hiroshima Appeal during the World
Conference. I, representing the Japanese Communist Party (JCP),
negotiated with the representatives from the Social Democratic Party
Japan (SDPJ) regarding the appeal. However, the real leaders ofboth sides were in fact in separate waiting rooms, and we, the actual
negotiators, had to go back and forth between the negotiation table
and the waiting rooms to discuss and report back during the night.
This 30th conference in 1985 was one of the only three conferencesin which the people of Hiroshima, whether socialist or communist,
were technically involved, with the other two occasions being thefirst and ninth conferences which were held in 1955 and 1963.
I came to attend meetings of Gensuikyo in Tokyo because of
the so-called “SDPJ-Komei agreement,” an agreement reached
between the SDPJ and the Komei Party on a number of politicalprinciples such as the formation of a coalition government that
excluded the JCP, and the maintenance of the status quo of the USJapan Security Treaty and the Self-Defense Forces. In response tothis move between the political parties, the General Council ofTrade Unions of Japan (Sohyo), which was the then Japanesenational trade union center, strengthened its anti-communist stance.
This led to the idea of forming a counterbalancing national center,
which was later established in 1989 as the National Confederationof Trade Unions (Zenroren). As a preparatory step for establishing
Zenroren, the Council of Labor Unions for the Promotion of LaborFront Unification (Toitsu Rosokon) was formed. I headed various
branches of Toitsu Rosokon in Hiroshima and as a result I had more
occasions to go to Tokyo in order to attend meetings of various
groups not only of Toitsu Rosokon but also of Gensuikyo and theJapan Peace Committee.

I put an end to my activities in Hiroshima in 1989. Since then,I have been based in Tokyo, serving as the Executive Director of
Gensuikyo and also, since 1992, the Director of the Steering Committee
for the World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.
In 1993, I also became Director of the Japan Peace Committee.

３．The previous achievements andfuture direction of the anti-A and H
bombs movement
Having been involved in the anti-A and H bombs movement since1955 and having participated in all of the 56 World Conferences
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, at the 2010 World
Conference I appreciated that public opinion and grass-roots
movements had become more influential than ever before ininternational politics. I believe that this is the most significant
achievement that the anti-A and H bombs movement has made sofar, particularly when nuclear abolition has become a real issue inthe global political arena today.
In terms of the global political climate, the most recent NPT
Review Conference held in New York in May 2010 has real
historical significance. During this international event which took
place on the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing, a Final
Declaration was adopted unanimously, including the five nuclearweapon states, which called for the future achievement of a world
without nuclear weapons. Approximately 2,000 Japanese people
traveled to the US for the conference, among whom wereapproximately 1,600 Gensuikyo-related people. We also submitted
to the UN signatures of 7 million people which included mayors
and council chairs of local governments across Japan.
An upsurge of anti-nuclear and anti-war sentiment amongpeoples around the world, including the Japanese people, characterizes
the first decade of the 21st century and reflects structural changes inworld politics. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), in which a
total of 118 out of 192 UN member states are enrolled (plus 18
observer countries as of the July 2009 NAM Summit in Egypt),proposed an Action Plan which targets the total elimination of
nuclear weapons by 2025. It is significant that some NATO member
states, especially those from Northern Europe, severely criticize
current US nuclear policy. Also noteworthy is that the current UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed a five-point plan for
nuclear disarmament on June 27, 2010, which includes the coming
into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. All these
efforts around the world together contributed to the development ofa global call for nuclear abolition which occurred prior to the 65th
UN General Assembly which started in September 2010.
During the General Assembly, 58 resolutions were adopted in
the UN First Committee on Disarmament and International Security(out of which approximately 20 concerned nuclear weapons). Oneof these resolutions, “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of theInternational Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Useof Nuclear Weapons,” was proposed by NAM countries and others,
and advocated negotiations to be initiated at an early date for the
total elimination of nuclear weapons. This resolution has been
adopted for 15 consecutive years. Another resolution, “Towards a
nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of
nuclear disarmament commitments,” stressed the importance of thecommitment made by the nuclear-weapon states at the 2010 NPT
Review Conference to accelerate concrete progress on steps leading
to nuclear disarmament, and urged the nuclear-weapon states toimplement their commitments.
Another occasion on which I appreciated the powerful
influence of grass-roots actions on a global scale was the mostrecent World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs
held in 2010. There were indeed some noteworthy and significant
achievements made during this conference.
One of these was the “peace parade” which took place prior tothe conference and which has taken place every year since 1958.
Today there are 11 parade courses such as Hokkaido-Tokyo, Fukui-Tokyo, Okinawa-Nagasaki and Hiroshima-Nagasaki, as well as themain course between Tokyo and Hiroshima from May 6 to August
4. The parade in 2010 was in fact a great success as it was joined by
100,000 people, covered a total of 8,000 kilometers, and ran
through three quarters of all the cities and towns in the country.
While some people point out that the World Conference is too
stylized these days, I don’t think that this is true. Anothersuccessful point of the event proves this: that is the fact that amajority of the participants are young people. A survey of major
local branches of Gensuikyo across the country reveals that those
who attended the 2010 conference for the first time accounted for
54%, and those who aged between 10 and 39 years old accounted
for 52%. The percentage of young participants was particularlyhigh for some prefectures: 85% for Yamanashi, 75% for Fukuoka,
74% for Nagano, 64% for Kyoto, 63% for Osaka and 57% for
Kagoshima. The problem with the young participants is the fact thatapproximately 40% of them were unemployed, while students ofthe same age group were likely to have been busy studying anddoing their part-time jobs. This means that the young people who
actually attended the conference will not necessarily become
central figures in the future anti-nuclear peace movement, forwhich some specific measures will be needed.
The third factor that proves the success of the recent World
Conference is visits to hibakusha by the conference participants
which first started in 2004. Arranged by 40 to 50 local people,
including members of the Democratic Youth League of Japan at
Hiroshima University, approximately 1,000 conference participants
meet hibakusha (approximately 90 people) on August 5 every year
to learn about their A-bomb experiences, either at their homes or atother places. Although it is possible for non-Japanese speaking
people to join these meetings, the difficulty for them is that they
have to arrange translators on their own.
An achievement specific to the 2010 World Conference was
the fact that its final declaration entitled “65 Years Since the Atomic
Bombing: actions to be taken with hibakusha towards a ‘world
without nuclear weapons’” specifically referred to the US-Japan
Security Treaty, which is the first time that this has happened in thehistory of the conference. The declaration stated that, with a firm
stance to reject war, invasion and military threats, the signatories ofthe declaration reject military alliances to counter hypotheticalenemies such as NATO and the US-Japan Security Treaty, andinstead support the creation of a peaceful world order based on the
UN Charter, as well as nuclear abolition and the denuclearization ofJapan. Underlying this statement is a historical perspective that
holds that the world today is no longer in an era in which a single
state dominates the world, but rather that a new world is emerging
which is being sustained by the active efforts of civil society.
The 2010 World Conference was indeed a success as
witnessed by these phenomena. At the same time, however, as aperson from Hiroshima I do recognize that significant participationin, and contribution to, the World Conference and the anti-A and H
bombs movement is lacking among the people of Hiroshima, although
they carry a responsibility on their shoulders. As I realize that the causeof this lies in a lack of common understanding between Hiroshima
and the central organizers of this event as well as the anti-nuclear
movement in general in Tokyo, I have to work and strengthen
voluntary participation on the part of the people of Hiroshima.
(Interviewed on December 24, 2010)

All 16 interviews of the series Reflections from
Hiroshima which began in the March 2006
issue have been compiled into a single book.

Reflections from Hiroshima――Bilingual Edition

Edited by Motofumi Asai
(Kamogawa Shuppan, 2011)

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

7November 1, 2010 ‒ February 28, 2011

◆Nov. 5 HPI President Motofumi Asai presents paper “The 21stCentury East Asia and Japan’s Roles and Responsibilities” at theinternational conference “The Twin Rise of China and Japan and the
Future of the East Asian Order” held at Lingnan University, Hong
Kong.
◆Nov. 6 Taeko Kiriya presents paper “Original Sceneries ofHiroshima and Nagasaki Through the Eyes of Hibakusha: within theissue of reconstruction” at the Peace Studies Association of Japan,
held in Mito, Ibaraki Prefecture.
◆Nov. 7 Asai gives lecture “Less-Abled People and the Importanceof Peace” at a Seminar on Guaranteed Development, held in Osaka.
◆Nov. 9 Asai gives lecture “The Issue of the Senkaku Islands andSino-Japanese and US-Japanese Relations” at a study session organizedby the Committee on Peace and the Constitution, the Hiroshima Bar
Association, held in Hiroshima.
◆Nov. 16 Asai gives lecture “Why Can’t the Secret Nuclear Pact
Be Abandoned?” at a study session organized by the Okayama
Prefectural Labor Union Congress and other organizations, held in
Okayama.
◆Nov. 18 Asai gives lecture “The Convention on the Rights of theChild” at a study session of the National Council of Support for
Disabled People, held in Sendai.
◆Nov. 20 Asai gives lecture “The Past, Present and Future of ‘China
Issues’” at a public lecture organized by the Hiroshima branch of theJapan-China Friendship Association, held in Hiroshima.
◆Nov. 21 Asai gives lecture “The Constitution of Japan and the
US-Japan Nuclear Military Alliance” at a study session organized
by Union Nagoya, held in Nagoya.
◆Nov. 27 HPI Vice-President Kazumi Mizumoto gives report “AnAnalysis of Recent Trends and Debates on Nuclear Weapons” at aworkshop organized by the Advisory Research Committee of theHiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Nov. 29 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “The Regional Implicationsof the Cheonan Incident: violence from within” at a seminar coorganized by the Korean Association of Area Studies and the Korea
Future Foundation, held in Seoul, Korea.
◆Nov. 30 Narayanan Ganesan organizes a workshop on East AsianRegionalism in collaboration with the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, andpresents paper “Regionalism in International Relations Theory”
held at HPI.
◆Dec. 3 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 3rd meeting of
the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum.
◆Dec. 7 Robert Jacobs gives lecture on American and Japaneseperspectives on the atomic bombing and holds discussions withstudents from DePaul University, US, held at HPI.
◆Dec. 14 Mikyoung Kim attends the meeting “Korea-Japan Tourism
and Trade Promotion Strategies after the Yeonpyeong Shelling”
organized by the Consulate-General of the Republic of Korea in
Hiroshima.
◆Dec. 17 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hibakusha and the Danger of
Nuclear Weapons” at a special lecture for the exhibition “The Light:
portraits of the ‘hibakusha’” held at Hiroshima City University.
◆Dec. 18 Asai gives lecture “The US-Japan Military Alliance and

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS
●Published by●Printed by

8

the Peace Constitution” at a plenary session of the Kinki branch of
the Peace Constitution League, held in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture.
◆Dec. 20 Jacobs holds discussion on nuclear history and nuclear
weapon policies around the world with students from Hitotsubashi
University, held at HPI.
◆Jan. 3-16
Ganesan conducts field research in Myanmar.
◆Jan. 5 Asai gives lecture “The Political Climate in East Asiaand the US-Japan Security Treaty” at a study meeting of the National
Association for Democratic Education, held in Tokyo.
◆Jan. 23 Jacobs gives lecture “Project Ichiban: completing the
ABCC dose reconstructions at the Nevada Test Site” at Tokyo Instituteof Technology, Tokyo.
◆Jan. 24 Mizumoto presents paper “Disarmament as Observed from
Hiroshima” at the Seminar on Disarmament, held at Kyoto Universityof Foreign Studies.
◆Jan. 25-Feb. 8 Jacobs conducts field research in the MarshallIslands for the Global Hibakusha Project.
◆Jan. 27 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “The US Presence in East
Asia” at the workshop “The US and East Asia” held at Ritsumeikan
Asia Pacific University in Beppu, Oita Prefecture.
◆Jan. 30 Mizumoto gives lecture “Cambodia: history, civil war andrehabilitation” at a preparatory training course for the Study Tour to
Cambodia organized by Hiroshima International Center (HIC) andJICA Chugoku, held at HIC.
◆Jan. 31 Jacobs gives lecture “US Nuclear Testing in the Pacific in
Global Perspective,” at the Nuclear Institute, the College of the
Marshall Islands, held in Majuro, the Republic of the MarshallIslands.
◆Feb. 1 Mizumoto gives lectures including “Support for Cambodia
from Hiroshima” at the youth training course “The Philippines: postwar rehabilitation and peace building” organized by JICA Chugoku
and other organizations, held at HPI.
◆Feb. 9 Mizumoto serves as the Vice-Chair at the 4th meeting of
the Exhibition Review Committee of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial
Museum.
◆Feb. 16-17 Mikyoung Kim attends the seminar “Reassessmentof National Space Exploration Policy,” co-organized by the Korean
Association of Area Studies and the Naro Space Center, held in
Goheung, Korea.
◆Feb. 17-26 Mizumoto conducts visit to Cambodia for several
projects including the Cambodia Reconstruction Support Project,
co-organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA.
◆Feb. 22-25 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “The Trend ofJapanese Tourism Bound for Korea after the Yeonpyeong Island
Shelling: the North Korean threats and implications for Korea
tourism strategies,” during a conference organized by the Asia
Business Management Association, held in Fukuoka.
――Visitors――◆Dec. 7 Associate Professor James Halstead, Assistant Professor
Yuki Miyamoto and students from DePaul University, US.
◆Dec. 20 Associate Professor Nobumasa Akiyama and students
from Hitotsubashi University.

Vol.13 No.3（March 25, 2011）Copyright 2011 HPI, All rights reserved

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.13 No.3, March 2011