Peace in Berlin, 2009
Germany will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the opening of the
Berlin Wall in November 2009. The Berlin Wall was built inAugust 1961 by the German Democratic Republic (East Germany:
the DDR) to prevent an outflow of capital and labor to the Federal
Republic of Germany (West Germany: the BRD). From then on,
the Berlin Wall stood for 28 years and came to symbolize the Cold
War and the divided Germany. It is well known that many East
Germans tried to flee across the wall and were shot to death in theprocess.
This summer I visited Berlin and found many open-air
exhibitions on the history of the wall in many parts of the city;
documentation centers had also been opened to remember the Cold
War legacy. The whole process from the demonstration for
democracy led by citizens of the DDR to the opening of the Berlin
Wall and then the reunification of Germany is known as the“Peaceful Revolution.” Although reunification was realized with
the BRD absorbing the DDR, which led to many problems such as
economic gaps and psychological barriers appearing between thetwo sides, the non-violent demonstrations by the DDR citizens andsubsequent peaceful overthrow of the DDR regime without the useof force is still remarkable, especially considering that the event
was preceded by the Tiananmen Square Incident of only fivemonths before. One of the key factors behind the peacefultransformation was the activities of the peace movements led byanti-regime DDR peace activists.
After the visit to the exhibitions on the Berlin Wall, I visited
the Anti-War Museum where an exhibition was being prepared tocommemorate the 120th anniversary of the birth of the pacifist
Carl von Ossietzky who was a Nobel peace laureate. The museum
was originally opened in 1925 by the German pacifist Ernst
Friedrich and is known as the first peace museum in Europe. After
World War II, it was re-opened by Friedrich’s grandson. Both
Ossietzky and Friedrich struggled against German militarism andseverely criticized the Reichswehr (the then German military)during the 1920s. They sent out repeated warnings against Nazism
even before Hitler’s rise to power and were both oppressed by the
Nazis.
In the post-war period, the peace movement of the pre-Nazi
regime has not been thoroughly appraised. Due to the concerted
oppression of the peace movement under the Nazi regime, peaceorganizations were dissolved and many pacifists were imprisoned
or forced to go into exile in the same manner as Ossietzky andFriedrich. When the war ended, many of them had already passed
away (either at the hands of the Nazis, through suicide or throughnatural causes) or they chose not to return to Germany. As aconsequence, the peace movement lost its momentum to asignificant degree. Although there were some efforts to revitalize
peace organizations, such attempts were on too small a scale tohave much impact. During the Cold War era, the DDR professed a“peace policy” in line with the Soviet Union and attempted to“inherit” the pre-war peace movement by means of adding an

Makiko Takemoto

exaggerated Communist tone. Contrastingly, in the BRD where“the fight against Communism” was pursued, the peace movement
was often alienated as an “ideology of East Germany.” In fact,
when the BRD was required to reveal its stance in order toovercome the Nazi past in the process of post-war reconstruction,
it strongly praised the assassination attempt against Hitler led by agroup of top military officers on July 20, 1944, describing it as aprominent case of the anti-Nazi movement, whilst at the same time
blacking out the resistance movements led by pacifists, socialists
and Communists. It further had the Bundeswehr (the present day
German armed forces) regarded as “the heirs of the past
courageous anti-Nazi fighters,” the logic of which was convenient
for elevating the status of the Bundeswehr. On the other hand, thisperiod also saw the rise of a new peace movement amongst
ordinary citizens, and slogans such as “swords into plowshares”
and “peace without arms” spread in both East and West Germany.
The peace movement in the DDR developed as an anti-regime
movement, with the Protestant churches at its core, and it
ultimately led to the Peaceful Revolution of 1989. In the BRD, on
the other hand, the peace movement developed as movements
against remilitarization and nuclear weapons, and through joining
forces with the Green Party, calls for environmental protection
were added to its manifesto. In the 1980s, the peace movement in
the BRD reached its culmination when it protested against the
Double-Track Decision of NATO.
Since reunification in 1990, the Bundeswehr now participatesin NATO’s “peacekeeping operations” in the name of“international contribution” and has expanded the scope of its
activities. Meanwhile, on September 8, 2009, a ceremony was held
for the unveiling of a new cenotaph which commemorates thesoldiers who had been killed during service for the Bundeswehr;
the inscription on the cenotaph reads “Our Bundeswehr’s Dead ---For Peace, Justice and Freedom.” The ceremony was held amidst
heated debate over the withdrawal of the Bundeswehr fromAfghanistan. The then President Köhler insisted that the cenotaph
is not meant to provoke a cult of heroes or war; nevertheless, its
erection has been criticized by leftists and peace organizations.
Even though the intention of erecting the cenotaph is not meant tocreate a cult of heroes or war, such an interpretation on the part ofsome may become unavoidable sooner or later.
The folly of “dying for a country” and the emptiness ofholding memorial ceremonies and erecting monuments andcenotaphs for fallen soldiers were already criticized by Ossietzky
and Friedrich in the 1920s. “Peace” means above all “to live.” Thehistoric change in 1989 is named the “Peaceful Revolution”
because it came about through the non-violent demonstrations of
its citizens. The exhibitions for the 20th anniversary of the openingof the Berlin Wall and the 120th anniversary of Ossietzky’s birthseem to ask us to rethink the meaning of “peace.”
Assistant professor at HPIContents“Peace” in Berlin, 2009 …………………………………………… 1
The New Trend of Nuclear Abolition and Challenges in the Future:
Towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference ………………… 2−3＜Reflection from Hiroshima＞ Vol. 12………………………… 4−5
Rikito Watanabe, Secretary-General of the Hiroshima Prefectural
Association to Support Class-action A-bomb Disease Lawsuits
HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (First Term 2009) … 6

HPI Research Forums ……………………………………………… 7
July 27: Atomicalia
September 16: The Importance of the Special Law for One Local
Public Entity
Forthcoming International Symposium …………………………… 8
Diary ………………………………………………………………… 8

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

1

The New Trend of Nuclear Abolition
and Challenges in the Future
Towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference
Kazumi Mizumoto

The course of international nuclear disarmament went into retreat following the nuclear tests conducted by India andPakistan in 1998. Ten years later, the world has started to move towards nuclear abolition once again. An immediate goal
is to achieve a concrete decision on this issue at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to
be held in May 2010. In this article I will examine several proposals for nuclear elimination which have been announced
in the last few years. Then I will focus on the task of making the 2010 NPT Review Conference a success.

1. Proposals for Nuclear Elimination〈The Final Report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction
Commission (the Blix Commission)〉
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission which was organizedthrough the support of the Swedish government at the end of 2003
published a final report entitled “Weapons of Terror: Freeing the Worldof Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms” (often referred to as the Blix
Report) in 2006. The Commission is composed of the chairman Dr. Hans
Blix, the former chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification
and Inspection Commission, and 14 commissioners including scholars
and diplomats from the US, Russia, Brazil, Japan and other countries.
The report proposed a total of 60 measures, some of which include theillegalization of all weapons of mass destruction, the de-alerting of
nuclear weapons, making deep cuts in the number of strategic nuclear
weapons, the removal of all nuclear weapons deployed by nuclear
powers on foreign soil, a ban on the production of fissile material for
weapons, no-first-use of nuclear weapons, and the entry into force of theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The establishment of the Blix Commission in 2003 was based on
the idea of Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala, the then Under-Secretary-General of
the United Nations, and Anna Lindh, the late Foreign Minister of
Sweden. In particular Lindh, the popular and highly-regarded Swedish
statesperson who was predicted to succeed the then Prime Minister, wasdeeply devoted to nuclear disarmament, giving a speech at the 2000 NPT
Review Conference. She was unfortunately assassinated in Stockholm in
September 2003. However, the Commission capitalized on her strong
will and commenced activities in December of that year. The
appointment of Dr. Blix as the chairman was also seen to be inaccordance with her intention.
Sweden, along with Mexico and Brazil, is one of the member statesof the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a group of seven countries which isactive in nuclear disarmament and which took the initiative at the 2000
NPT Review Conference. These efforts on the part of the Swedish
government are reflected in the Blix Report.
〈The Nuclear Abolition Proposal of four former senior US
officials〉
In 2007 and 2008, a proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons was
published in The Wall Street Journal. It was issued by four former US
political heavyweights ---- the former Secretaries of State George P.
Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William J.
Perry, and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Sam Nunn. As the four co-authors were all prominent conservative
politicians who had supported the policy of nuclear deterrence at theheart of the US administration, the proposal was reported by the world’s
media and provoked a huge response throughout the world.
Their proposal resurrected the unattained goal proposed at the USSoviet summit meeting held in Reykjavik in 1986. At that meeting, thethen US President Ronald Reagan proposed the elimination of all nuclear
weapons to the then General Secretary of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev,
saying “Let’s do it.” Gorbachev agreed, but he also insisted that the US
abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which the US wasplanning. However, Reagan rejected Gorbachev’s request, and as aconsequence the two leaders failed to realize the elimination of nuclear
weapons.
Shultz, now a Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution of
Stanford University, also attended the Reykjavik Summit. In the fall of
2

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.12 No.2, November 2009

2006, he presented the idea of holding a conference to review Reagan’s
proposal of twenty years ago to Perry and Sidney Drell, a professor
emeritus at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and an expert innational security who is also Shultz’s personal friend. The two were incomplete agreement.
In October 2006, a two-day conference was held at Stanford
University and approximately two dozen scholars and statespersons had
discussions on this issue. The outcomes were compiled into a proposal
for complete nuclear elimination three months later and were publicizedin January 2007, with Kissinger and Nunn as additional signatories since
they had participated in the compilation although they did not attend theconference itself. The proposal drew great interest from President Obama
who then reportedly invited the four former statesmen to the WhiteHouse for further intensive discussions.
〈Global Zero〉
Another international movement for nuclear elimination, the Global Zeroinitiative, began in December 2008. Attendees who were founders at its
inaugural conference in Paris included former US President Jimmy
Carter, former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and former JapaneseForeign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi; these senior figures proposed amovement for a phased reduction of nuclear weapons. This initiative isfunded by the UK entrepreneur Richard Branson, the founder of theVirgin Group. As of September 2009, more than 130 prominent figures
around the world have joined the movement. In June 2006, a four-phaseprogram for nuclear weapons reduction was announced:
Phase 1 (2010-2013): The US and Russia conclude an agreement to
reduce their stockpiles to 1,000 warheads each by 2018.
Phase 2 (2014-2018): The US and Russia conclude an agreement tofurther reduce their stockpiles to 500 warheads each by 2021. Other
nuclear states freeze their stockpiles until 2018, followed bycarrying out proportional reductions until 2021. A comprehensive
verification system is established.
Phase 3 (2019-2023): A global zero accord is negotiated between
all the nuclear states for the phased, verified, proportionate
reduction of all nuclear weapons to zero by 2030.
Phase 4 (2024-2030): The phased, verified, proportionate reductionof all nuclear weapons to zero is completed by 2030 and thereafter
the comprehensive verification and enforcement system iscontinued.
Based on this program, the Global Zero Commission will draft afinal project plan following consultations with individual governments,and finalize the program at a Global Summit Meeting to be held in
February 2010. As a first step, the group representatives met with
Russian President Medvedev in March 2009 and have also sent
correspondence to US President Obama.
〈The International Nuclear Non-Proliferation and DisarmamentCommission (ICNND)〉
The International Nuclear Non-Proliferation and DisarmamentCommission (ICNND), an initiative instigated by the Governments ofAustralia and Japan in September 2008, is expected to publish a report by
January 2010. The idea of this initiative was first proposed by Kevin
Michael Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, to Yasuo Fukuda, the thenPrime Minister of Japan, when he visited Japan in June 2008, and joint
sponsorship for the Commission was agreed between the two countries.

The Commission consists of prominent international figures: former
Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and former Australian
Foreign Minister Gareth Evans as the co-chairs; 13 other commissioners
from all parts of the world, including the five NPT-recognized nuclearweapon states, and India and Pakistan, the two South Asian countries thathave conducted nuclear tests; plus 23 specialists from around the world
who form an Advisory Board, including Blix and Kissinger.
The ICNND actually inherits the spirits of the Canberra
Commission and the Tokyo Forum, therefore it aims to issue a reportprior to the NPT Review Conference in May 2010 in order to exert
influence on the discussions to be held there. A final report is expected tobe drafted based upon meetings in Sydney in October 2008, and in
Washington D.C. in February, Moscow in June and then Hiroshima in
October, all in 2009.
One of the co-chairs, Gareth Evans, described a two-phase nuclear
reduction plan in his personal view: the first phase aims to achieve a“minimalist vantage point” by means of reducing the number of nuclear
warheads to the low hundreds, then pursuing de-alerting, nondeployment, and the adoption of a no-first-use policy, all of which shouldbe achieved by 2025 at the earliest; the second phase pursues the goal ofreaching absolute zero. This two-phase plan is the idea on which ICNND
bases its discussion.
In order for the opinions of NGOs to be reflected in the discussions,
ICNND held a meeting to exchange views with NGO workers at theJapanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in December 2008, and invited key
NGO workers including Akira Kawasaki, the co-director of Peace Boat,and Hiroshima Mayor Akiba Tadatoshi who is also the president of“Mayors for Peace,” an anti-nuclear weapon NGO in which as many as
3,104 cities from 134 countries are enrolled, as of September 2009.
However, some NGO workers have been critical about the stance of
the Japanese government. Kawasaki was told by Evans that the Japanese
government actually stands in the way of nuclear abolition on the
grounds that “nuclear deterrence is necessary not only against nuclear
weapons but also against biological and chemical weapons.” Evanshimself commented in an interview that “some of the countries that are
the strongest in their enthusiasm for nuclear disarmament are also themost nervous about actually getting to zero.” In a similar manner, there isa wide-spread, deep-rooted belief within the Japanese Ministry ofForeign Affairs that equal importance should be given to both Japan’s
three non-nuclear principles and the reliable extended deterrence (nuclear
umbrella) provided by the US from which Japan benefits.
〈The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol〉
At the second Preparatory Committee of the NPT Review Conference
held in Geneva in May 2008, the aforementioned Mayors for Peaceannounced a “Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol” which proposes theabolition of all nuclear weapons by 2020. In August 2009, the seventh
General Conference of Mayors for Peace was held in Nagasaki, to which
representatives from 134 cities of 33 countries were invited, and where
the “Nagasaki Appeal” was adopted which calls for such issues as the
adoption of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Protocol at the 2010 NPT Review
Conference, and the commencement of multilateral negotiations on theachievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world by 2020. Mayors for Peace
itself appeals for nuclear abolition in various cities across the world,
while organizing atomic bomb exhibitions in the US and other countries.

2. Tasks for the 2010 NPT Review Conference
The most important task for the 2010 NPT Review Conference is clearly
not to repeat the failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference which did
not produce any significant achievements. To be specific, it clearly needs
to capitalize on the decisions made at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review
Conferences, and to develop and agree on new decisions based on them.
The results of the two previous Review Conferences are as follows.
〈The 1995 NPT Review Conference〉
The significant outcomes of the 1995 Review Conference were: (1) thedecision on the indefinite extension of the treaty, and (2) the adoption of
the document “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-proliferation
and Disarmament” (hereafter “the Principles and Objectives”). The fivenuclear weapons states (P5), in particular the United States, are very
supportive of the former. However, if the indefinite extension of thetreaty does not lead to nuclear disarmament, retaining the unequal natureof the treaty, this initiative will be regarded as a failure by non-nuclear
weapons states.
However, the parallel decision on (2) left some hope for nuclear
disarmament in the future since the adoption of the document reflects
agreement on a number of important items:(A) universality (early treaty membership for non-member states);(B) reconfirmation of the obligation of achieving nuclear disarmament
stipulated in Article 6;(C) completion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-

Ban Treaty (CTBT) by 1996;(D) early completion of negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off
Treaty;(E) nuclear weapons reduction by nuclear weapon states, with theultimate target of the complete abolition of nuclear weapons;(F) expansion of nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties;(G) negative security assurance (prohibition of the use of nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapon states).
Of the above, item (C) actually resulted in the creation of the CTBTat the United Nations General Assembly in 1996. Unfortunately,
however, due to the fact that it has not been ratified by key states
including the United States, the treaty has yet to come into force. There
has also been no progress on the majority of the other items. In summary,it can be argued that the 1995 Review Conference concluded with bothmaking a few achievements and also identifying a greater number of
future challenges on the road to nuclear disarmament. These issues werethen carried over to the next review conference.
〈The 2000 NPT Review Conference〉
The main achievement of the 2000 Review Conference was, in short, theunanimous adoption of the conference’s Final Document. Specifically,
the document stipulated 13 Practical Steps for the execution of items (B)and (E) above, which were also included in the 1995 Principles andObjectives. The 13 Steps include the following:(H) early entry into force of the CTBT;( I ) a moratorium on carrying out nuclear test explosions until theentry into force of the CTBT;( J ) conclusion of the Cut-off Treaty within five years;(K) unequivocal commitment to nuclear elimination by the nuclear
weapons states;(L) early implementation and full entry into force of the US-Russia
Second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (STARTⅡ).
There was some concern over possible interruptions in the progress
towards nuclear weapons reduction since the 2000 NPT Review
Conference was preceded by the nuclear tests carried out by India andPakistan in 1998 and the refusal by the United States Congress to ratify
the CTBT in 1999. However, with the adoption of the Final Document
containing the above 13 Steps, the conference left a slim glimmer of hopefor the future.
〈The 2009 Preparatory Committee of the NPT Review Conference〉
During the three years that precede each NPT Review Conference, aPreparatory Committee meeting is held every year. The third Preparatory
Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference was held in New Yorkin May 2009, and the agenda of the 2010 Review Conference wasadopted in which the “Principles and Objectives” of 1995 and the Final
Document of 2000 were stated as important issues to be considered. In
other words, it was assured that, based on those achievements in previous
Review Conferences, productive discussions are expected at the next
Review Conference as a significant step towards nuclear disarmament, incontrast to the disappointing results of the 2005 NPT Review
Conference.

Conclusion
All of the movements for nuclear abolition mentioned above are expected
to be accelerated towards the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The mostinfluential figure in these developments is likely to be US President
Obama, who leads one of the nuclear superpowers.
The US leader, who publicly supported the proposals of the four
former senior US officials, gave a speech in Prague in April 2009
appealing for a world without nuclear weapons. In his speech heemphasized that, while maintaining nuclear deterrence as long as nuclear
weapons exist, the US will pursue a world without nuclear arsenals, andstressed the necessity of nuclear reduction by the US, Russia, and then allother nuclear states, the ratification of the CTBT, the conclusion of the
Cut-off Treaty, the strengthening of the verification system, and thetaking of decisive measures against North Korea and Iran, the countries
that are still clinging on to nuclear development.
President Obama further promised that the US will host aninternational summit meeting on nuclear security within a year. In thisrespect, it should draw the world’s attention to how far his policy towards
a world without nuclear weapons will be reflected in a “Nuclear Posture
Review,” a key document that will lay out a new US nuclear strategy
which will be submitted by the Department of Defense to Congress in
December 2009. Governments as well as civil society around the world
should seek to support this US-initiated move towards nuclear
disarmament.
Associate professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

3

＜Reflection from Hiroshima＞ Vol. 12
By Motofumi Asai,
President of HPIRikito Watanabe

Secretary-General of the Hiroshima Prefectural Association
to Support Class-action A-bomb Disease Lawsuits

1. The Class-action A-bomb diseaselawsuits and their significance〈Prelude to judicial action〉
In 1987 when I stepped down from my long commitment to theJapanese Communist Party, I initiated the formation of a neworganization of A-bomb victims (hibakusha). Through visiting andtalking to hibakusha and their families, I saw so many people who
were seriously ill or enduring harsh living conditions. For example,
among the members of a hibakusha organization of the Kannon
Area of Hiroshima City, 40 of them had passed away due to cancer
during the last decade or so. The illnesses that those hibakusha
suffered were not something simple; and I couldn’t find any
satisfactory explanation for them in a medical dictionary until about
seven years ago when I was informed by a medical doctor,
Shuntaro Hida, about internal exposure.
This new knowledge encouraged me to take the initiative to
file lawsuits to demand that the Japanese government recognize Abomb disease sufferers, and I also joined a study group on the Law
Concerning the Relief to Atomic Bomb Survivors (hereafterreferred to as the Relief Law). As we investigated the possibility ofbringing a class action, we agreed that a class action could not be
brought with only one of the two Hiroshima Prefectural
Confederations of A-bomb Sufferers Organizations (Hidankyo) as
the plaintiff. Therefore I initiated action to realize a suit with the
involvement of both Hidankyo groups. In the process of the classaction, we received great support from Dr. Yoshie Funahashi, an
emeritus professor of Hiroshima University, and the Association ofCounselors for Hibakusha which is led by Funahashi. I myself took
on the post of Secretary-General of the Hiroshima Prefectural
Association to Support Class-action A-bomb Disease Lawsuitsaround the New Year of 2003, upon request from Messrs. Sunao
Tsuboi and Kazushi Kaneko, the current heads of the two
respective Hidankyo groups. Within the year, the Association
announced its official formation in April, a plaintiffs group wasorganized on June 6, and the first trial was held at the Hiroshima
District Court on June 12.
〈Revealing the experiences of hibakusha〉
I have heard many horrible experiences from hibakusha, one ofwhom is Ms. Kamiko Oe from Miyoshi City which is located in thenorth of Hiroshima Prefecture. Ms. Oe and her fellows entered
Hiroshima to provide first aid to casualties at Honkawa Primary
School on August 19, 1945, the thirteenth day after the bombing.
After she arrived back home in Miyoshi, she suffered from serious
fatigue, epilation, and diarrhea. After she got married, sheunderwent repeated operations to treat synchronous multiple cancerof the ovary, uterus and long intestine. Her daughter, who is asecond-generation hibakusha, also underwent an operation forthyroid cancer when she was at university. When Ms. Oe
considered joining the class action, she was first concerned about
the possible negative influence on her daughter who had her own
family consisting of her husband and two children. However,ultimately, her daughter’s support encouraged Ms. Oe to decide to4

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.12 No.2, November 2009

join the organization.
I searched for all of the 23 members who had worked as aid
workers together with Ms. Oe, with the cooperation of Prof.
Funahashi and her group, and found that many of them had died ofcancer. According to the judgment of the Hiroshima District Court,
ten of them were still alive and 13 had died as of December 31,
2005, which makes a survival rate of 43%. This figure is far lower
than the average survival rate for 76-year-old women which is
83.7%, the figure taken from the 2004 abridged life table. Since thejudgment, another member has died of leukemia, the fourteenth
victim out of the 23. This whole situation is quite unusual whencompared with the conventional recognition standards for A-bombdisease sufferers.
Having fought the trials over six years, I realized that a great
number of hibakusha have gone through horrendous experiences,and you can find them throughout Hiroshima. When pressing for
nuclear abolition, one can do so from the viewpoint of thosehibakusha who are continuing to suffer, or view the whole picturefrom above in the manner of policy-makers and intellectuals. I
personally take the former stance, always hearing the gravity of
their appeals.
〈The significance of the judgments〉
When a scientist encounters a fact that contradicts theories he or
she has known, he or she usually asks “why” and tries to identify
some rules that can incorporate the new fact. This leads to progressin science; and the judgments of 19 A-bomb disease lawsuits
followed this same process. One important point to note is that the
judgments accepted that not everything experienced by hibakusha
can be explained by science at the level it has reached today. The
judgments then considered the overall conditions of hibakusha
starting from health conditions prior to the bombing, the situations
at the time of the bombing and up to health and living conditions
following the bombing. Upon that overall examination, if changes
after the bombing were highly likely to be attributed to the Abomb, that high probability was taken into account in order toofficially recognize the plaintiffs as A-bomb disease sufferers. Thisis a considerable achievement and shows that Japanese jurisdiction
is not hopeless.
Another important point is that the judgments recognized bothinternal exposure and exposure to residual radiation. The central
government has traditionally decided recognition based on the
distance from a hibakusha’s location to the hypocenter, from whichradiation dosage is calculated equally so as to determine thepossible degree of effect on the body; hence this distance decides
hibakusha’s eligibility for recognition. This calculation method iscalled DS86 or DS02, which is an advanced version of DS86.
However, this method does not take into consideration internal
exposure or exposure to residual radiation. The series of judgments
concluded that it is not appropriate to apply the standards of DS86
or DS02 straightaway. The consideration of internal exposure andexposure to residual radiation in the trials represents a breakthroughfor our activities as it reveals a long-held deception that has been
carried out by the US and Japanese governments.

I wonder how the series of judgments have been perceived by
the local scientists and medical doctors in Hiroshima who areenrolled in the Atomic Bomb Victims Medical Council under the
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW), behind which theRadiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) and MHLW hidethemselves. I cannot help but be suspicious of these people.
RERF’s stated objective is “to contribute to the enhancement ofhealth and welfare of mankind,” but they have never questioned thevalidity of the conventional recognition standards which is far fromreflecting the actual conditions endured by hibakusha. On thecontrary, the research data on hibakusha that they report areclaimed to be “scientific” despite their disregard for internal
exposure and exposure to radioactive fallout. I wonder how RERF
is viewing all 19 judgments. If they aim truly to work “forhibakusha,” shouldn’t they commit themselves to unearthing thereal effects of internal exposure and exposure to radioactive fallout?
And isn’t it the same for those local scientists who are enrolled in
the Medical Council? I truly want them to face the reality ofhibakusha’s lives with pride and authority as sincere scientists, andnot to sell their souls to ingratiate themselves to the US, the very
country that dropped the A-bomb, and the Japanese government
which follows the policies of the US.
On the 64th anniversary of the bombing, representatives of
Hidankyo and the then Prime Minister Taro Aso signed an accord
in Hiroshima to provide relief measures to all of the plaintiffs.
Despite the fact that some issues still remain unresolved (e.g.
support for the plaintiffs in other prefectures in their lawsuits,
provisional medical expense support for yet-to-be-recognizedplaintiffs, assessment of A-bomb disease recognition for 8,000
unassessed applicants, an official apology to be received from the
A-Bomb Victims Medical Council and a democratic reform of theCouncil and the recognition standards), the series of lawsuits are
finally coming to a conclusion.
〈My achievement〉
The 1955 Russell-Einstein Manifesto states:
If everybody in London, New York, and Moscow were
exterminated, the world might, in the course of a few
centuries, recover from the blow. But we now know,
especially since the Bikini test, that nuclear bombs cangradually spread destruction over a very much wider area than
had been supposed.
This statement tells the truth as witnessed here in Japan.
Hibakusha are continuing to die. I believe it is extremely importantto reveal this situation in order to realize nuclear abolition, and soin spite of my age of 82, I am steadfastly continuing my efforts. I
think I have opened an important door during the past six years oflegal battles. The result was very historic since the judicial systemof the A-bombed country had succeeded in preventing thecontinuation of the 60 years of evil. It also drew the curtain on myown mission, and I am satisfied with my contribution.

2. Unresolved issues
We must not forget those hibakusha whose cases have yet to beresolved through legal action.
〈Aid workers who did not enter Hiroshima〉
The first of these cases refers to aid workers who did not actuallyenter Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They were exposed to radiation while
giving treatment to victims; however, their eligibility forrecognition has not been recognized. They did not enter the Abombed sites, but cared for hibakusha, received residual radiation,
imbibed radioactive particulates into their bodies and later sufferedfrom cancer and other diseases. However, they are not subjects ofautomatic recognition in accordance with the Relief Law.
A female nurse who provided first aid at a hospital in
Nagasaki joined a plaintiffs group in the Kansai District; thisrepresents the only case in which an aid worker actually took legal
action. However, her appeal was dismissed. The judgment in hercase did recognize the effects of residual radiation, but her appeal
was dismissed because the plaintiff did not experience after-effects
such as epilation and diarrhea.
There is no place other than Hiroshima where one can fightlawsuits for A-bombed aid workers who did not enter the site
because the city is the only place where there are many people whohave been permitted to receive A-bomb health books, recognized as
Category 3 hibakusha, which includes A-bombed aid workers.
〈Hibakusha affected by radioactive fallout〉
Another issue to be addressed is that of hibakusha who were
exposed to radioactive fallout such as black rain and soot. A-bombdiseases caused by radioactive fallout have not been recognized andthere have so far been no plaintiffs for this kind of case.
There have been some cases in which A-bomb health books
were issued to those who were hit by black rain, but the areas inquestion are confined to those where a large amount of black rain
fell. However, the reality was that radioactive fallout fell across anarea covering a 40-kilometer radius and beyond.
I went to a meeting of the “Black Rain” Society in April thisyear and was told that following the bombing, plywood was carried
as far as Kake which is located in the northwestern area ofHiroshima Prefecture close to the prefectural border with Shimane.
Objects such as the signboard of the Hiroshima Prefectural Officeand paper documents from Nakashima National Elementary School
also reached this far from the city. This reveals that radioactive
fallout reached as far as the prefectural border with Shimane.
Consequently, the real number of hibakusha who received internal
exposure by radioactive fallout may potentially increase three- or
four-fold from what is estimated today.
〈Second- and third-generation hibakusha〉
To my knowledge, many second- and third-generation hibakusha
have experienced some type of A-bomb disease, thus their cases
represent another issue to be resolved. Those who come to ouradvisory office have particularly serious problems, so I feel theextra severity of the issue of second- and third-generation
hibakusha.
This is a rather sensitive issue. These people want to know thewhole truth, but at the same time are worried about whether they
have actually been affected by the A-bomb. Now we are putting
more effort into creating an organization for second- and thirdgeneration hibakusha. Specifically, we are negotiating with
Hiroshima City to issue A-bomb health books for these people.
Through holding the health book, they themselves will also
increase overall awareness as second- and third-generation
hibakusha, which will be a starting point.
Nevertheless, the response of Hiroshima City to this issue has
been rather slow, while there are some places where medical
expense support for second- and third-generation hibakusha has
already been implemented: for example, the Tokyo Metropolitan
Area, Kanagawa Prefecture, Settsu and Suita Cities in Osaka
Prefecture, and Tsushima City in Aichi Prefecture.
I believe that those second-generation hibakusha who havebeen diagnosed with cancer and other diseases should berecognized as radiation-affected people. This accords with theprinciple of the Relief Law and the spirit of us who advocate
nuclear abolition. It is totally unacceptable for them to be left aside
en masse simply because the real causes for their diseases cannot beclearly ascertained.
（Interviewed on July 15 and August 19, 2009）

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

5HPI Lecture Series for Citizens of Hiroshima (First Term 2009)

The Origin and Present Situation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
The theme of the Lecture Series on this occasion was “ The origin and present situation of Article 9 of the JapaneseConstitution,” the first HPI Lecture Series to address the Article 9 issue. In each lecture, the theory, policy, present
situation, and prospect of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution were explored in order to gain a deeper understandingof the Constitution.

Rethinking the Preamble and Article 9 ofLecture 1 the Constitution of Japan: The Reality and(June 12) Constructiveness of Article 9
Akihiro Kawakami, Assistant Professor at HPI

The first lecture focused on a fundamental question surrounding
the Japanese Constitution: “What is the pacifist spirit in theConstitution of Japan?” In this introductory lecture, thephilosophy of the preamble and Article 9 was examined.
The preamble to the Constitution of Japan states that peaceand democracy are inseparable concepts (Paragraph 1), and thatpeace and human rights are also inseparable, prescribing “theright to live in peace” of people all over the world (Paragraph 2).
Here, the union of three fundamental principles (peace, humanrights and democracy) of the Constitution of Japan is clearlystated. Moreover, Paragraph 2 prescribes to remove fundamental
causes of war from all over the world, as well as to guarantee
citizens’ security and to build true peace in order that people are“free from fear and want,” which shows the positive pacifism of
the Constitution.
Article 9, at the same time, stipulates the renunciation ofwar, the abandonment of any war potential and the denial of theright of belligerency. These provisions advance the idea of theoutlawry of war and disarmament developed since World War I,
and thus reveal both universality and innovativeness.
The lecture concluded that the provisions of pacifism in theConstitution of Japan declare thorough and positive pacifism.

Theoretical Issues of Article 9 of the
Lecture 2 Japanese Constitution: In Relation to the(June 22)

Guarantee of Human Rights

Toshihiro Yamauchi, Professor of the Law School, Ryukoku University

Prof. Toshihiro Yamauchi, who is the former Director of theJapan Association of Public Law and also former head of the
National Constitutional Research Group, is an expert inconstitutional studies and particularly well-known for his
theoretical research on pacifism. The second lecture led by
Yamauchi examined Article 9 and its relations to the right to livein peace, human security and humanitarian intervention.
Regarding the right to live in peace, theoretical analysis was
carried out by examining some judicial precedents, such as the
Naganuma Nike Base lawsuit (1973) and another at the Nagoya
High Court (2008) which pronounced the unconstitutionality of
the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) and the dispatch of the SDF to
Iraq respectively. Yamauchi compared the principle of the rightto live in peace that appeared in these two cases in detail. The
lecture also examined the relationship between pacifism in
Article 9 and the principles of “human security” andhumanitarian intervention; the meaning of non-military security
was also emphasized.
The lecture raised the audience’s awareness of the issues ofpacifism and conflict resolution in terms of the right to life andthe right to live in peace.

long been an advocate of theoretical debates on policy regarding
Article 9.
In the lecture, Kimijima emphasized the importance of theroles of citizens and civil society in national defense andinternational cooperation for peace. He also explained his own
theory of pacifism “by not acting” and pacifism “by acting.” Hisargument stressed the necessity of examining specific policy andimplementation regarding what citizens, the government, andinternational organizations should “do” in order to overcome
both direct violence such as war and structural violence.
He also emphasized that the Constitution of Japan is in linewith the efforts of global civil society in minimizing dependence
on the military in peace building and in trying to replace military
with civilian power, and that Article 9 actually lies in the heartsof people all over the world.

On Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
Lecture 4 and the Self-Defense Forces: Focusing on(July 3)the Position and Roles of Civilian Control

Atsushi Koketsu, Professor at Yamaguchi University

Atsushi Koketsu, who is an expert in the history of Japan andAsia and military issues, talked about the expanded roles of the
SDF in the recent international political climate, and thesignificance of civilian control over these organs.
He pointed out that, while there is some call for a stronger
alliance between Japan and the United States, this should be seen
not as a product of one-way pressure from the US and Japan’s
blind obedience, but instead as “positive obedience” withexpected “benefits” for Japan, such as securing its interests in
Asia and military influence in international society. He alsoemphasized the recent retrogression of civilian control in the
SDF which appears to be attempting to become a national
military. In relation to this issue, the mechanism of civilian
control such as the ombudsman system is certainly an importantarea to be addressed.

Article 9 and the Japan-US Security

Lecture 5 Arrangements(July 10)

Motofumi Asai, President of HPI

In the last lecture, Motofumi Asai, a specialist in diplomaticstudies and international relations, first introduced the history
and the present situation of the Japan-US Security Treaty. Thiswas followed by an analysis of the Obama administration’s
vigilance against China and Russia and the perception of North
Korea as a threat which has been the immediate catalyst fortension on the Korean Peninsula. He also discussed the meaningof pacifism in the Constitution of Japan which is contrary to suchfactors as militarization and the Japan-US Security Alliance. In
this way he emphasized the necessity of fully utilizing theprinciples of the Japanese Constitution ---- human rights,
democracy and pacifism ---- which assume peace will be achieved
through non-military means, and of making radical changes tointernational society.

Peace Policies of Article 9: NGOs andLecture 3 World Order Studies(June 26)

Akihiko Kimijima, Professor at Ritsumeikan University

Akihiko Kimijima, an expert in constitutional studies and peacestudies and a co-representative of the NGO, Nonviolent
Peaceforce Japan, advocates that the pacifism in the Constitutionof Japan should be re-examined from the viewpoint of NGOs inorder to allow the best application of the Constitution. He has

6

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol.12 No.2, November 2009

All five lectures were attended by a large audience of about 100
people. Many requests were received for a further Lecture Series
on the Constitution which shall be positively reflected in futureplanning.

Akihiro Kawakami, assistant professor at HPI

HPI Research Forums
A stroll through any supermarket or department store will findconsumer goods being promoted with nuclear symbols and icons,or self-consciously and nostalgically invoking the atomic age intheir marketing. Why are atomic icons so ubiquitous in modern
culture? What does it mean for someone to sew on a button with“atomic” needles, or to shave using an “atomic” safety razor? To
wear irradiated uranium glass earrings that glow under UV light, orAtomic Perfume dispensed from an A-bomb shaped cologne bottle?
These questions were explored during an HPI Research Forumpresented on July 27 by Dr. Mick Broderick, Associate Professor ofMedia Studies at Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia.
Speaking to an overflow crowd gathered at HPI, Dr. Broderickpresented an image filled examination of what he refers to as“atomicalia,” material culture items of all types and from many
countries that carry atomic symbols or labels. Dr. Broderick’s work
“seeks to discover how pervasive and how successful nuclear
images, iconography, themes, and identities have been at entering
our daily lives, often without conscious recognition.” Citing bothscholars of nuclear history and culture and also cultural theorists,
Broderick parsed the complex impulses and motivations behind the
production, and especially the consumption of such atomicalia.
Dr. Broderick also examined the recent growth of the act ofcollecting Cold War atomicalia objects, especially at online auction
sites such as eBay. He presented several case studies of atomic
items for sale on eBay and offered an analysis of the descriptions
that accompany these items and how they demonstrate a broadconceptualization of the items, embracing at times a crass
American patriotism, and at times a discomfort on the part of theseller to be trafficking in such items. Dr. Broderick presented theoriginal eBay sales pages for the audience to consider as heconducted his deconstruction of their image and text. He offered an
extended analysis of the motivations of collectors, and theunderlying dynamics of the desire to collect such items. He
concludes that “one of the reasons atomicalia and Cold War
material culture is becoming so attractive may be due to the

Atomicalia
Speaker: Dr. Mick Broderick, the School of Media
Communication & Culture, Murdoch University (Australia)

July 27

retrospective recognition of these mass culture objects as talismans
from the recent past ---- a past that paradoxically signifies thecontemporary occupation of a (previously dubious) future by apost-war generation, prepared for nuclear war, that did not expect
necessarily to inhabit any future. Hence atomicalia reminds us of
having lived beyond the unspoken traumas of the Cold War (i.e. theever-present prospect of nuclear oblivion) or the disappointing
cognitive dissonance of promised era of atomic plenty and anuclear utopia never achieved.”
In addition to the HPI Research Forum, Dr. Broderick also
displayed many of the items that he analyzed to the students
gathered for the Hiroshima & Peace summer intensive ofHiroshima City University, which included students from 17
different countries. He further presented a very well received guest
lecture to the Hiroshima & Peace students on the topic of “Animeand the Apocalyptic.” This year’s Hiroshima & Peace course
included graduate students for the first time, and they participatedin a graduate seminar with Dr. Broderick and Dr. Jacobs inassessing the importance of cultural items and cultural analysis topeace studies and the study of the bombings of Hiroshima andNagasaki.
Robert Jacobs, assistant professor at HPI

An “atomic” safety razor, left,
and “uranium” earrings, right.

September 16
The Importance of the Special Law for
One Local Public Entity:
On the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima
Peace Memorial City Construction Law
Speaker: Prof. Hiroshi Otsu, the Faculty of Law, Seijo University

This research forum was held to commemorate the 60th anniversaryof the Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law (hereafterreferred to as “the Construction Law”) which was enacted on
August 6, 1949, upon the holding of a local referendum and whichis the first “special law applicable to one local public entity”(hereafter “a special law for a local public entity”), in accordancewith Article 95 of the Constitution of Japan.
Article 95 of the Japanese Constitution reads:
A special law, applicable only to one local public entity,
cannot be enacted by the Diet without the consent of the
majority of the voters of the local public entity concerned,
obtained in accordance with law.
This is a special case of the principle of Article 41 which stipulates
the sole law-making power of the Diet. Article 95 reveals that theJapanese Constitution’s principle of popular sovereignty is morevalued than the absolute power of the central government and theDiet, thus guaranteeing the practice of local governance and direct
democracy.
By 1951, 15 special laws for local public entities had beenenacted in 18 cities in Japan; however, since then there have been
no further cases. The present HPI research forum explored themeaning and potential effects of Article 95 and the Construction
Law with Professor Hiroshi Otsu of the Faculty of Law, Seijo
University, as the guest speaker.
In the forum, Otsu first examined the background to thedevelopment of Article 95 and conventional interpretations of it inorder to clarify the grounds for the tendency to undervalue Article
95 and the Construction Law itself. He argued that in this case local
autonomy is understood to be “inherited” from state sovereignty,

therefore it is left to the Diet’s disposal ---- an interpretation called“the theory of institutional guarantee” ---- except with regard tosome autonomous rights that are specified in Chapter 8 of theConstitution (on “Local Self-government,” consisting of Articles
92-95). However, local autonomy should be understood within theoverall framework of the Constitution, with a particular focus on
popular sovereignty and the protection of human rights.
According to Otsu, the raison d’être of both national and local
government is to protect human rights, which provides local
governments with options to create their own ordinances for the
purpose of protecting the rights of the people, even if thoseordinances are actually against national laws. At the same time, theprinciple of popular sovereignty, which places importance on direct
democracy and the principle of subsidiarity, is designed to accept
the sharing of legislative power between the national and local
governments on certain conditions, and any ordinances which aim
to elevate autonomy and the uniqueness of a local government may
be exempted from national laws and rules if a local referendum
reveals local people’s own strong desire for autonomy.
In this respect, the promulgation of the Construction Law canbe seen as a legislative act by which the city’s own autonomous
status and rights were recognized by the national government bymeans of a local referendum, and it was passed for the purpose ofrespecting the unique will of the people of Hiroshima, that is topursue nuclear abolition and perpetual peace. In respect of thisanalysis, Otsu stressed that the value of the Construction Law
should therefore be re-evaluated. His logic has great importance inrelation to occasions when the need might arise for local
governments to create their own ordinances and policies related topeace independently of the national government.
Akihiro Kawakami, assistant professor at HPIVisit HPI’s website at http://serv.peace.hiroshima-cu.ac.jp/English/index.htm

7International Symposium

Hiroshima Strives for Nuclear Abolition: Pursuing measures to energize the 2010 NPT Review Conference
Hiroshima Peace Institute and the Hiroshima Peace Media Center, theChugoku Shimbun, will host a forthcoming international symposium.
To book your seat(s), please contact HPI. (HPI’s contact details at thebottom of this page.) The seating is limited to the first 500 applicants.
Date & Time : December 5, 2009 1300-1700
Venue: Conference Hall “Himawari” (B2F), The
International Conference Center Hiroshima
Keynote speakers: Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security
Institute (The United States)

Panelists

Coordinator

Sehyun Jeong, Vice Chairman of the Kim Dae-jung
Peace Center (The Republic of Korea): Yoshiki Mine, Senior Research Fellow at the Canon
Institute for Global Studies (Japan)
Arthur Binard, Poet (The United States)
Akira Tashiro, Executive Director of the Hiroshima
Peace Media Center, the Chugoku Shimbun (Japan): Kazumi Mizumoto, Associate Professor at
Hiroshima Peace Institute

July 1 ‒ October 31, 2009
◆Jul. 4
Hitoshi Nagai gives lecture “Japanese War Crimes Trials
Handled by a Small Country: The Case of the Philippines” at the Media
Center of Kanto Gakuin University, Yokohama.
◆Jul. 5
HPI President Motofumi Asai gives lecture “Changes andChallenges of the Japan-US Security Alliance” at a public meeting inOkayama. ▽Makiko Takemoto presents paper “Anti-Nazi Movements of
Exiled Intellectuals” at the annual meeting of the Japan Society forIntercultural Studies, held at Saga University.
◆Jul. 9Kazumi Mizumoto participates in a panel session “Political
Aspects” at the Symposium on the CTBT organized by the Japan Atomic
Energy Agency, held in Tokyo.
◆Jul. 11 Asai gives lecture “The Realignment of US Forces in Japan andthe Obama Administration” at a public meeting organized by the Citizens’Group of Western Hiroshima Prefecture, held in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima.
◆Jul. 12-16 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “North Korea’s Place in the US
Presidency: Ethos and Moral Judgments,” chairs a session “Protecting
Human Rights: A Major International Concern,” and is elected to serve on
the Executive Board of the Research Committee on Human Rights during
the congress organized by the International Political Science Association
held in Santiago, Chile.
◆Jul. 14 Asai leads a class entitled “Peace” at Nagisa Koen Primary
School in Hiroshima.
◆Jul.18 Mizumoto gives lecture “How Should We Link the Atomic
Bombing Experience with World Peace?” at the Hiroshima Peace Forumorganized by Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and others, and chairs agroup discussion, held at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Jul.19-21 Narayanan Ganesan presents paper “Myanmar and its Foreign
Policy Towards its Near Neighbors” at the conference “Political
Developments and New Challenges for International Relations in Southeast
Asia,” held at Yunnan University, China.
◆Jul. 23 Mizumoto gives lecture “Current World Situation of Nuclear
Weapons and Hiroshima” at the “Peace Education” Course of Hiroshima
International University.
◆Jul. 25 Mizumoto gives lecture “Contribution to International Peace” at a
training program for Level III Certified Nursing Administrators organizedby the Hiroshima Nursing Association.
◆Jul. 28 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima and Peace” for a training
course for journalists organized by Hiroshima City.
◆Jul. 29 Asai gives lecture “Thoughts on Peace and Article 9 of theJapanese Constitution” at a seminar organized by the Hiroshima Prefectural
Federation of Democratic Medical Institutions, held in Hiroshima.
◆Jul. 30 Asai gives lecture “How Should We See and Teach About
Contemporary International Relations?” at a national workshop of the
National Association for Democratic Education, held in Kobe.
◆Jul. 31 Mizumoto attends 5th meeting of the Basic Planning Committee
for the Renewal of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.
◆Aug. 6 Mizumoto comments on nuclear issues for a RCC Radio program
featuring the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony.
◆Aug.6-9
Mikyoung Kim presents paper “Securitization of Human
Rights in Northeast Asia: A Comparative Study of North Korean
Refugees,” and chairs a panel session “The North Korean Dilemma” at theInternational Convention of Asia Scholars, held in Daejeon, South Korea.
◆Aug. 9 Asai gives lecture “What We Should Do Now for the Abolitionof Nuclear Weapons” at a public meeting to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law, heldat the Hiroshima Central City Library.
◆Aug. 10 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima & Peace: From the Atomic
Bomb Experience to International Contribution 2” at a regular meeting of
the Hiroshima Southeast Rotary Club, held at ANA Crowne Plaza Hotel,
Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 18 Mizumoto presents paper “Local Governments and International
Cooperation/Contribution” at the Council of Local Authorities forInternational Relations (CLAIR) in Tokyo. ▽Mikyoung Kim participatesin a panel session “Changes Surrounding the Korean Peninsula” during aninternational conference organized by the Korean Global Foundation, heldin Seoul, South Korea.
◆Aug. 21 Mikyoung Kim presents paper “Ambivalence and Resistance: A
Comparison of Cultural Memories in Japan and Korea” at the workshop“The Japanese-South Korea Relationship,” organized by the European
Institute of Japanese Studies, held in Stockholm, Sweden.
◆Aug. 21-22 Ganesan presents paper “Bilateralism versus Multilateralism
in Southeast Asia” at the conference “Dispute Settlement and Conflict
Management in Pacific Asia,” held at Stockholm University, Sweden.
◆Aug. 22 Asai attends the symposium “Towards the Abolition of Nuclear
Weapons” as a panelist during the 7th North and South Asia Joint Regional
Conference of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War (IPPNW), held at the International Conference Center Hiroshima. ▽Akihiro Kawakami gives lecture “Rethinking the Preamble and Article 9 of
the Constitution of Japan” at a public meeting organized by the ChugokuShikoku Bloc of the Co-op Labor Union, held in Hiroshima.
◆Aug. 29 Mizumoto chairs a working group “The Frontier of Disarmament
Research” during the annual research meeting of the Japan Association of
Disarmament Studies, held at Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo.
◆Sep.3-6 Sung Chull Kim presents paper “Identity, Critical Junctures, andAdaptation: North Korea’s Path to Nuclear Diplomacy” at the annual
meeting of the American Political Science Association, held in Toronto,
Canada. ▽Mikyoung Kim participates in a working group “Women’s
Rights, Identity, and the State” and a panel session “Identifying Korea,
Othering Neighbors,” and is appointed Secretary of the Association of
Korean Political Studies during the annual meeting of the American
Political Science Association, held in Toronto, Canada.
◆Sep. 4 Mizumoto attends the 1st plenary meeting of the Cambodia
Support Project co-organized by Hiroshima Prefecture and JICA, held atthe Hiroshima Prefectural Office.
◆Sep. 5 Asai gives lecture “Tasks Necessary for the Abolition of Nuclear
Weapons” at a meeting of the Hiroshima Prefectural Bloc of the Japan
Teacher’s Union, held in Hiroshima.
◆Sep. 9 Asai gives lecture “Peace and Public Welfare” at the 47th
National Conference for Workers for Intellectually Disabled People, held at
the International Conference Center Hiroshima.
◆Sep. 10 Mizumoto gives lecture “Hiroshima & Nuclear Issues” at the
California University Program of Meiji Gakuin University, held at Aster
Plaza, Hiroshima.
◆Sep. 19 Asai gives lecture “Thoughts on the Japanese Constitution: In
Pursuit of Peace in East Asia” at a public meeting in Kitakyushu, Fukuoka.
◆Oct. 3 Asai gives lecture “The Convention on the Rights of the Childand the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” at a national
meeting of the National Council for Developmental Support, held in
Shizuoka.
◆Oct. 3-5 Ganesan hosts a workshop in collaboration with the Asian
Political and International Studies Association (APISA) and presents paper“Important Historical Conjunctures in Southeast Asian Politics,” held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
◆Oct. 17 Asai gives lecture “The Situation on the Korean Peninsula andthe Prospects for Japan-DPRK Relations” at a public meeting organized by
the Medical Association of Japanese-resident Koreans, held in Osaka.
◆Oct. 31 Mizumoto attends as an advisor the working session “Peace
Education” during the 56th Meeting for Education Research organized by
the Hiroshima Prefectural Bloc of the Japan Senior High School Teachers
Union, and gives presentation “Peace Education: The Atomic Bombing andthe Contemporary Peace Issues,” held at the RCC Bunka Center,
Hiroshima.
――Visitors――◆Aug. 5 Miroslaw Zasada, First Counsellor and Chargé d’Affaires fromthe Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Tokyo.

HIROSHIMA RESEARCH NEWS Vol. 12 No. 2（November 25, 2009）Copyright 2009 HPI, All rights reserved●Published by●Printed by

8

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.12 No.2, November 2009