After all, as Martin J. Sherwin argued in his classic work, “Hiroshima: A World Destroyed,” the second bombing had been allowed to proceed on a timetable set by military operations officers rather than one carefully controlled by the nation’s top officials. For such a revolutionary weapon as the atomic bomb, that seems a rather surprising delegation of authority, even for President Harry Truman who came into office praised by a home state newspaper as someone who would bring greater consultation to decision making than practiced by his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After the Aug. 6 bombing of Hiroshima, Truman spoke of the need for Japan to accept unconditional surrender, the longstanding U.S. policy, or face “a rain of ruin.” But, as Sherwin notes, Hiroshima and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, which Japan had long feared, had quickly led those in the Japanese government wanting peace to push for surrender. Emperor Hirohito was ready for peace, it was clear. He and likeminded leaders only wanted assurance that the emperor system would be allowed to remain, in some form.

Sherwin wrote: “By August 9, the decision to sue for surrender had become inevitable, though the tragedy’s Japanese protagonists needed time to recite their lines. If Washington had maintained closer control of the atomic bomb raids, the annihilation of Nagasaki could have been avoided. But as it happened the initiative had been left with the bomber command on the island of Tinian.” That’s a clear judgment, in a classic work, that the bombing of Nagasaki, with its perhaps 70,000 deaths then and in the following year or so, created horrible suffering while having no effect on the end of the war.

But the historical record of the final days of the war has continued to be examined and debated. And there are cases made for believing that the ensuing developments were, in fact, dramatic and the final course of action could be seen as considerably in doubt almost until Hirohito broadcast his famous surrender announcement on Aug. 15.

On the morning of Aug. 9, Tokyo knew that the Soviet Union had launched war against it. Around 10 a.m., according to “Hiroshima: The World’s Bomb” by Andrew J. Rotter, Emperor Hirohito had signaled to those around him that he wanted to surrender, accepting allied terms. A meeting of the prime minister and the top officers, the Supreme Council, got under way at 10:30 a.m., according to Herbert P. Bix in his outstanding biography, “Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.” (Bix, however, suggests that the foreign minister still had to persuade Hirohito that the allied surrender terms would allow him to stay before the crucial decision early on Aug. 10 to announce Japan’s readiness to accept defeat as long as the emperor and emperor system was to be maintained.)

In any case, the cabinet officers were already meeting when at 11:02 a.m. on Aug. 9, a U.S. bomber crew, struggling with cloudy weather to find Nagasaki, released the second bomb over a residential neighborhood. Sherwin wrote that, since the two bombings happened so close to one another, it’s impossible to know for sure whether Nagasaki made any significant difference in the decision to seek peace. “Yet,” he added, “the argument that the second bombing gave the Emperor the opportunity to convince the military that Allied surrender terms had to be accepted is not convincing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The surrender movement began soon after the fall of Saipan in September 1944 and on June 22, 1945, the day Okinawa was wrenched from Japanese control, the Emperor began his first cautious step toward undermining those committed to continuing the useless struggle.” At an imperial conference, he spoke of the need for alternatives to fighting to the end.

Yet, just because the emperor wanted to end the war and was, by the time the Nagasaki bombing took place making his wish known, it doesn’t necessarily follow that surrender would necessarily have occurred. Indeed, after the emperor got the decision made to press for peace on Aug. 10, the next several days saw further debate over an ambiguous U.S. response to Japan’s demand to preserve the emperor and an abortive military coup.

Rotter concluded there’s no definitive proof to show whether the two bombings influenced the emperor to finally become serious about ending the war. Rotter wrote, “It may be nothing more than a historian’s common sense to suppose that the infliction of death on many thousands – no one yet knew even roughly how many – by a mere two bombs was, along with Soviet intervention, decisive in ending the war.”

But let’s go back to Sherwin He noted that, early on Aug. 10, it still took the emperor’s intervention to break a division with the government’s Supreme Council on whether to surrender on terms the Allies might accept. He then wrote, “That unconditional surrender remained an obstacle to peace in the wake of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Soviet declaration of war – until the government of the United States offered the necessary (albeit veiled) assurance that neither the Emperor nor the throne would be destroyed – suggests the possibility, which even (U.S. Secretary of War Henry) Stimson later recognized, that neither bomb may have been necessary, and certainly that the second one was not.” Finally, after Japan’s initial statement, the secretary of state sent a note that at least allowed those in Japan who wanted to surrender to believe that the emperor would be maintained.

While I think you could debate whether we can judge the effects, if any, of the horror in Nagasaki on the peace process, Sherwin correctly raised a much larger point about the U.S. policy on unconditional surrender. It was, for various reasons, something that the government never modified before launching either attack.

The reasons, as Sherwin made clear, had nothing to do with malevolence and virtually everything to do with the pressures on U.S. policymakers; their political sense of what was domestically possible; the age and energy levels of some key leaders, including Stimson and President Roosevelt while he still lived; and President Truman’s inexperience when he took office after Roosevelt’s death. All of that led to what ought to be considered, I believe, a tragic lack of creativity in U.S. diplomacy (and probably among its allies) in the weeks and months leading up to the bombings.

As Bix and others have shown, Hirohito and most of his government displayed the same tendency and attitudes that ranged from the fanatical, in the case of the military, to the completely unrealistic. How they might have reacted to an earlier modification in the policy of unconditional surrender is a fair subject for debate. But the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so awful that a more robust U.S. diplomatic effort would have certainly been worth trying.

The memorial cenotaph and Atomic Bomb Dome in Hiroshima

Here’s an article I wrote for YES! Magazine (reprinted with permission):

In recognition of progress toward creating a safer world, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists turned back its famed Doomsday Clock by one minute. The clock now is set at 6 minutes to midnight.

In 1951, when the U.S. conducted this atomic test at the Nevada Test Site, the arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union had recently begun and the Doomsday Clock was set at three minutes to midnight.

That’s still dangerously close to midnight, the group’s longstanding image for the end of civilization—either through nuclear war or, more recently, a climate catastrophe so great as to put large populations at risk. The scientists say the new time reflects the continued urgency of the threats as well as signs that the world may be reaching a turning point in its efforts to come together to solve them.

The group’s leadership pointed to cooperation by major powers on nuclear arms reduction as well as international pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions. “These unprecedented steps are signs of a growing political will to tackle the two gravest threats to civilization—the terror of nuclear weapons and runaway climate change,” the board of the Bulletin said.

The Bulletin’s modest move seemed appropriate to nuclear expert and disarmament advocate Peter Kuznick, an associate professor at American University and director of the university’s Nuclear Studies Institute. Kuznick saw the decision as similar to Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, which “was more a sign of optimism and potential” than of concrete progress.

In their statement, the scientists also framed the change as representing an “opportunity” for progress, calling for “citizens everywhere to raise their voices and compel public action for a safer world now and for future generations.”

The group also called on world leaders to take action, noting that “a key to the new era of cooperation is a change in the U.S. government’s orientation toward international affairs brought about in part by the election of Obama.”

Kuznick agreed that Obama has made significant steps, including his speech in Prague envisioning an end to nuclear weapons, cooperation with Russia on continuing to reduce nuclear arms, and active leadership on nuclear non-proliferation discussions. But, pointing to the recent support of former Republican secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz for abolishing nuclear weapons, Kuznick called Obama’s Prague speech “positive but not exactly revolutionary.”

He also pointed out that not all of Obama’s actions have been positive—for example, discussions of maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons until everyone else has abolished their stockpiles, or the continued high state of alert for nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Bulletin’s announcement listed a host of steps necessary to keep progress moving, including actions by the U.S. and other major powers to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons, to complete arms reduction talks, and to maintain tighter controls on their nuclear weapons.

Lawrence Krauss, co-chair of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors and a professor at Arizona State University, noted that many people wrongly believe the United States has pledged not to make first use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, neither the U.S. nor the eight other nuclear powers have ever ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, a member of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors, said part of the credit for the one minute gain (the smallest in the clock’s history) goes to citizens of countries around the world who reject nuclear weapons.

For citizens and activists, making use of the positive potential the Bulletin sees will mean talking, writing, learning about nuclear issues, and marching, said Kuznick. To turn potential into progress, “We have to use everything.”

Joe Copeland wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Joe is an associate editor for the Seattle-based Crosscut.com. Last summer, he was a visiting researcher at Hiroshima Peace Institute on a Fulbright grant.

Or, in this case, “We think we can.”

On New Years Day, the Hiroshima Peace Media Center published an English-language report that the president of Japanese Olympic Committee had let the mayors know that the national group wouldn’t even accept a joint bid. That’s because the bureaucratic, image-conscious international Olympics movement has a rule that, at least as it is being interpreted, restricts bids to a single city. And, it is said, there’s simply no time to change the rule in time for bidding on the games.

The story, which was based on a newspaper article in the media center’s parent Chugoku Shimbun, certainly sounded like the cities’ effort had hit a dead end. Today, however, I found a report in USA Today that Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba and Tomihisa Taue want to continue their uphill effort. They are expected to meet this week with Chiharu Igaya, a longtime International Olympic Committee leader and a 1956 silver medalist in Alpine skiing, to seek his support.

As someone who has Winter Games experience, Igaya has undoubtedly noticed that the one-city rule seems to have some flexibility. Just to the north of Seattle, where I’m writing this, Vancouver, British Columbia, is about to host the Winter Olympic Games with many events a two-hour drive away in Whistler, if the roads aren’t too icy. But Nagasaki and Hiroshima? That’s apparently different. Admittedly, they are about three and a half hours or so apart by express train. But their common history certainly unites them in a way that is unique.

Hiroshima’s Mayor Akiba said it is possible his city could serve as host of the games but with some of the events held in Nagasaki. Taue has been quoted as saying that Nagasaki is too small to host the games on its own.

As challenging as the Olympics are for any city to organize, there would surely be some additional complications for the two cities, but also some additional resources in finances, organizational support and volunteer efforts. And they would have the power of the idea that, by 2020, the world should be celebrating the abolition of nuclear weapons or at least marking progress in non-proliferation and disarmament.

A couple of times this week, as I went back through notes from my research in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it struck me how much energy people would have to put into organizing for the Olympics. Shinji Noma, who spearheads Hiroshima’s small Amnesty International chapter, talked about the difficulty of getting people to involve themselves in the group.

During another interview, Abbey Pratt-Harrington, a student from Willmington College in Ohio who was doing a research project about 20th century peace activist Barbara Reynold’s life, mentioned how international visitors to the World Friendship Center, a bed-and-breakfast Reynolds established, particularly enjoy going to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park when volunteer interpreter Akiko Awa conducts tours. I had happened to be impressed with Awa’s energy, directness and passion for the city’s history when I spoke to a group of interpreters. But, going over the notes, it struck me again that there are not huge numbers of people available to take on extra efforts as volunteers.

Hiroshima is, after all, a city of a little over 1.1 million people; Nagasaki has about 450,000 residents. Even together, the population is a far cry from such potential rivals as New Delhi and Istanbul. But Budapest, another possible 2020 candidate, has only about 1.7 million people.

Whatever the challenges, Hiroshima and Nagasaki still are interested in pursuing the bid and putting on the games. They think they can, which seems good enough for now.

Joe Copeland, associate editor for Crosscut.com, was a visiting researcher at Hiroshima City University’s Hiroshima Peace Institute in 2009 as a Fulbright Scholar.

Copyright 2010, Joe Copeland

In an interview with Japan’s NHK public broadcasting network in advance of a trip to the Asian country this week, Obama said, “The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are etched in the minds of the world and I would be honored to have the opportunity to visit those cities at some point during my presidency.” After Tuesday’s broadcast, the mayors of the two atomic-bombed cities quickly welcomed the statement as a very positive sign.

In the United States, Associated Press reported the statement in terms of the possible political controversy at home. Some conservatives would try to make the president look like he was apologizing for the atomic bombings at the end of World War II and attempt to dismiss his pursuit of a nuclear weapons-free world as naïve.

Although an apology would be justified (as with so many actions on all sides of the war), it’s not going to happen when some 60 percent of Americans – especially those who are white and older – believe the bombings were justified. But thinking that something may have been justified in the context of the world’s worst war hardly eliminates the element of human sympathy most Americans can feel and their rational concern about nuclear dangers.

In any visit, Obama’s points would be to promote nuclear weapons nonproliferation, to mourn the tragic toll of hundreds of thousands of victims and to express the world’s hope that the August 1945 bombings remain the only atomic attacks. Across the political spectrum, most Americans would be in accord with the president. Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former secretaries of state in Republican administrations, are active in promoting the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as a matter of national security.

Obama made no promises. But his interview will raise hopes even higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where people young and old had launched petitions asking the president to visit. As leaders of the international Mayors for Peace (Seattle’s outgoing leader, Greg Nickels, is a member), Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba and Nagasaki’s Tomihisa Taue have directed a great deal of attention to making progress on nuclear abolition when the United Nations holds a major review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty next May. As Obama tries to contain and reduce nuclear dangers, a visit to Hiroshima or Nagasaki would be a powerful symbolic card to play.

Joe Copeland, a former Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial writer, was a visiting researcher at Hiroshima City University’s Hiroshima Peace Institute earlier this year as a Fulbright Scholar. Note: This item is cross-posted at former P-I foreign editor Larry Johnson’s new blog, Looking for Trouble.

The center is a part of Hiroshima’s daily paper, the Chugoku Shimbun. The writer for the article interviewed a journalist who has a recent book envisioning an Obama visit to Hiroshima and articulate, charming A-bomb survivor Emiko Okada, whom I interviewed in June. As the surprise over Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize illustrated, it’s hard for Americans to grasp the sense of hope that much of the world attaches to the more cooperative foreign policy the new president has advocated. When we talked, Okada pointed to Obama’s speech in Prague setting a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. “When I listened to President Obama’s speech, I was very moved,” she said. “I thought we were in a long tunnel and finally we saw light.”

Okada has traveled in many countries, including parts of Asia. She makes a point that it is important for her to talk to Asian visitors to Hiroshima about the suffering Japan caused during the war.

Rather startlingly, journalist Fumio Matsuo’s book, published in August, is called “The Day President Obama Lays a Wreath in Hiroshima.” In the Peace Media Center article, he expands on Japan’s relations wth Asia in enlightening ways. He properly contrasts Japan’s tendency to deny war responsibility with Germany. Among other things, Matsuo says, Germany worked with France on how the war is treated in textbooks, a stunning achievement compared to Japanese officials’ petulance when China and Korea criticize the dishonest accounts of history approved for schools. “We must have visits by the leaders of both Japan and the U.S. to each other’s nations to mourn the war dead and achieve reconciliation,” according to Matsuo. “And this must be linked to a historic reconciliation with the countries of Asia.”

Matsuo recognizes the political pressure that would block any apology by a U.S. president. But, like some U.S. scholars and politicians, he realizes that an apology isn’t the point; it’s the opportunity to share mutual sorrow for the tragic losses of war on all sides in a way that looks ahead to a more peaceful world. As he notes, representatives from various countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, came together in Dresden, Germany, for a 1995 ceremony commemorating the dead from a horrendous firebombing by British and American bombers.

There may be little or no chance that Obama will visit either city during a trip to Japan next month. But I think the title of Matsuo’s book, released in August, has a good chance of looking prophetic sometime soon.

Seattle-based journalist Joe Copeland visited Japan this year on a Fulbright-sponsored grant.

Copyright 2009 © Joe Copeland.

First, I want the site to keep current on some of the topics regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki that have U.S. interest. Those include relations between the two countries on nuclear issues, nonproliferation, President Obama’s upcoming visit to Japan and the desire of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to host the 2020 Summer Olympics. I will also be exploring some of the ways nuclear concerns are treated in this country, beginning with a post next week on the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History in Albuquerque. (I went to the Albuquerque museum in September, shortly after my visit to the military-glorifying Yasukuni museum in Tokyo, and I will have a chance to go back once more before writing the piece.)

I also would like to use this site to post transcripts of some of the interviews I conducted in Japan with atomic bombing survivors. Those transcripts will probably be set up as separate pages away from the main section of commentary and news here. I also envision putting those up without any copyright so that any students or researchers could use them in any way they might. I’m not sure how much the interviews will add to knowledge about survivors’ experiences, in part because many of them have been extensively interviewed by much better questioners than me. But it seems fitting in light of the survivors’ desire to have their experiences told in the cause of peace and the generous Fulbright support for the research to make the results as readily available as possible.

In addition, I received kind permission some time ago from The Herald in Everett, Washington, to reprint articles I did for them in 1987 from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since they produced before everything became readily accessible electronically, those still need to be reproduced in digital form. But I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, as soon as I get a chance.

I have resumed writing occasional commentary for the Seattle PostGlobe online site, which some of us started after the closure of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper last March. One of the pieces was on the Olympics discussion. You can find it here. In the future, I plan to post links to anything like that on this site.

Seattle-based journalist Joe Copeland visited Japan on a Fulbright grant from May through late August.

Copyright 2009 © Joe Copeland.

It’s been a pleasure to share here a little of what I have experienced during the Fulbright-sponsored research trip. I’m not sure exactly what I will do with this site as I switch to compiling dozens of interviews and writing more extensively about what I learned. But I hope to keep it active for some of what I do with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki material.

Before my return to Seattle on Wednesday, my final full day in Japan started with visit to a Tokyo museum that, like most of my research this summer, focuses on the dangers of nuclear weapons. It’s dedicated to telling the unhappy story of the Lucky Dragon 5, a tuna fishing boat that was exposed to large amounts of nuclear fallout from a 1954 U.S. nuclear test in the Bikini Atoll. The crew of 23 was sickened and one member died. The results of the test, as the museum notes, also continue to haunt the Marshall Islands today.

Later in the day, I went to see the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo and, in particular, its museum about the history of the Japanese military. Yasukuni is the site where the souls of Japan’s war dead are memorialized. Visits by top political leaders regularly inflame anger in China, Korea and other parts of Asia about the lack of reflection on Japan’s aggressive and often brutal conduct in World War II.

Much of the problem lies with Yasukuni’s honoring of convicted war criminals. But it’s also the sense among the neighbors that the political establishment in Japan has never come to grips at all with the nation’s responsibility for aggression.

As a Tokyo University professor had told me, the museum was put together with great skill. It has state of the art collections, lighting and displays. And the content had some high points: good context for 20th century events in displays about Western colonization of much of Asia, for instance, and some early reflections on warriors’ motivations and their distaste for the sufferings of war itself. But the displays of the pre-World War II period make the kind of slick argument the professor warned me to expect: Japan was maneuvered into the war by the United States. It was, indeed, a clever script, picking among U.S. documents to make warnings of likely Japanese aggression seem like proof that American officials were forcing Japan to start the war.

I went with a friend, an interpreter who had put aside a couple of days to help me. She said the frequent English displays simply translated the Japanese text they accompanied, something that fit with the rest of the professionalism.

But there were questions of content, tone and meaning that could hardly be softened by the smoothness of the presentation. Some displays glorified the Kamikaze fighters who undertook suicide missions late in the war. Perhaps there are lessons for, say, a future museum with a jihadist theme.

I have no idea how many people were buying into the museum’s version of history. At least three other visitors Tuesday afternoon seemed to be there as observers from a different viewpoint; my friend noted that they were speaking Chinese. A younger woman, perhaps in her 30s, seemed to be providing interpretation to her companions, a man and woman who looked like they could be in their 70s, perhaps her parents.

As the younger Chinese woman and I read one panel about Japan’s military in China during the 1930s, she laughed quietly. It discussed the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident, saying that even though Chinese-Japanese relations were stabilizing (in the wake of Japan’s forcibly installing a puppet government in Manchuria), problems had arisen. The display talked about “terrorism” incited by the Chinese Communist Party. The fight and the eight tragic years of all-out war that followed was blamed entirely on China: “The prevailing anti-Japanese atmosphere in China,” the museum says, helped turn “the small incident of Chinese shooting at the Japanese troops” into war across northern China.

A panel or so later, there was no laughing as the two Chinese-speaking women took considerable time to look at a display about the Nanking Incident, generally known elsewhere as the Rape of Nanking. It is generally regarded as a case of Japanese troops engaging in numerous acts of genocidal fury. Not at Yasukuni. “After the Japanese surrounded Nanking in December 1937,” visitors are told, “Gen. Matsui Iwane distributed maps to his men with foreign settlements and the safety zone marked in red ink. Matsui told them they were to maintain strict military disciplines, and that anyone committing unlawful acts would be severely punished.” One could conclude that only the Chinese did so, since, after noting a disorderly Chinese retreat, the display seems to return its attention to the city to report: “The Chinese soldiers disguised in civilian clothes were severely prosecuted.”

The museum has no problem with directing compassion toward some suffering. One of its final displays talks about the brutal hardships endured by Japanese troops after surrender at the hands of Soviet and Chinese captors: “Their fate was so cruel and their suffering was so great as to defy all description.” The difference between suffering deemed too great for description and that of Chinese victims deemed non-existent lies at the heart of Japan’s continuing and unncecessary troubles with its neighbors.

While Yasukuni is privately operated, it retains significance in part because of how closely it reflects the way considerable parts of the political establishment would like to view Japan’s history. I was glad to see it, both for the chance to get another view on history and to see what are often genuinely touching memorials to the good and decent people who fought for their country.

For all the troubling views Yasukuni sometimes represent, there are many encouraging aspects to how Japan looks at its modern history. The Lucky Dragon 5 museum also stands in stark contrast to Yasukuni. The ship museum is remarkable on a number of fronts, including how it captures the importance of one incident in sparking the anti-nuclear movement in Japan and even the world. Advocacy for nuclear abolition might seem to be a natural birthright in a nation that suffered the only atomic attacks in history, but the fate of the crew brought the issue to life in Japan. The museum, established by the Tokyo metropolitan government, is part of a network of museums dedicated to peace in Japan.

Perhaps more importantly, the evidence I saw suggests that, despite all sorts of ambivalence and differing opinions on national security issues, Japan is reasonably interested in playing a role for peace and nuclear disarmament. Public opinion blocks the conservative politicians who would like, for instance, to revise the constitution and wipe out its noble renunciation of war. And even under conservative governments, Japan has continued to advocate for non-proliferation and serious steps toward disarmament. As we go forward into a world with many dangers, including terrorism and nuclear proliferation, that remains a plus, maybe even something that will prove a blessing for everyone.

Joe Copeland visited Japan on a Fulbright grant.

It’s written by Yuki Tanaka, who is a research professor at Hiroshima Peace Institute, a chronicler of World War II crimes by Japanese troops and a leader in demanding that the United States admit the criminal nature of the mass killing of civilians in the atomic bombings. (He’s also a co-editor of an impressive new book, “Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History,” which traces how major military powers went from understanding the ethical problems with mass air attacks to merciless use of the tactic.)

Since the activist view doesn’t get the coverage of the politicians (and particularly since many Americans are, as a recent poll showed, still resolute in clinging to the official version of the end of World War II) here’s the whole text:

The 2009 Citizens’ Peace Declaration
August 6, 2009

Early this year, when President Barack Obama was inaugurated into White
House, there was great anticipation among the American people that positive
change may finally be possible. On April 5, in his speech in Prague, Obama
said: ‘As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United
States has a moral responsibility to act.’ Many people in the world, in
particular here in Hiroshima, felt these words gave reason to hope for the
abolition of nuclear weapons. We must remember however, that in the same
speech Obama also said, “As long as these weapons exist, the United States
will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.”
In other words, he intends to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide
in order to prevent terrorists from obtaining them, but also wishes to
maintain the U.S.’s nuclear deterrent against Russia and China.

Considering this situation, we need to emphasize the fact that the U.S.
clearly bears legal responsibility for the indiscriminate and mass killing
of Japanese citizens through the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
and that there is no such thing as “a safe, secure and effective arsenal” in
this world. We need to carefully monitor whether or not Obama keeps his word
to carry out the meaningful reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, ratify
the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty and to conclude the Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty. At the same time we should fully utilize the
current growing worldwide trend for nuclear reduction in order to achieve
the best results at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference
in New York next year. Meanwhile, we strongly protest against the U.S.
government for carrying out the indiscriminate bombing of many civilians in
Afghanistan and Pakistan as the result of its expanded “anti-terrorist
operations” in these nations.

Regrettably, the Japanese government clearly exposes its self-contradiction
on nuclear issues. While it claims that as the only nation that has
experienced nuclear attacks, it supports the idea of the “ultimate abolition
of nuclear weapons,” it contradictorily justifies and supports the U.S.’s
“expanded deterrence,” but strongly condemns China’s nuclear policy at the
same time. Recently, it was revealed that the Japanese government violated
its own Three Non-nuclear Principles by secretly agreeing to allow the U.S.
government to bring nuclear weapons into Japanese territory. Yet
unashamedly, the Japanese cabinet members as well as high-officials are
still denying the existence of such an agreement, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.

Moreover, the Japanese government is promoting policies which rely more and
more upon military power. These include the expansion of the U.S. military
bases in Japan, violating the Constitution by sending Self-Defense Forces
overseas (to supply oil to U.S. navy ships in the Indian Ocean and for
operations against Somali piracy), and justifying its missile defense policy
on the pretext of protecting Japan against possible North Korean missile
attacks. In order to bring the peace to this part of the world, we need to
establish the Nuclear Free Zone of North East Asia rather than employing
missile defense or nuclear deterrence. Every year Japan allocates a large
sum of taxpayers’ money for its military operations as well as to maintain
U.S. Forces on Japanese soil, while reducing the budget for real social
welfare necessities such as medical care and unemployment benefits. As a
result, the weakest members of the nation – pensioners, single mothers,
casual workers and the disabled – are suffering more and more from poverty.
We demand that our politicians and bureaucrats respect the Constitution, in
particular Article 9, the renunciation of war, and Article 25, the peoples’
right to maintain wholesome and cultured living.

We also demand that the Japanese government to immediately stop the use of
nuclear energy, which is directly linked to the possibility of producing
nuclear weapons. In particular, the nuclear recycling plant at Rokkasho in
Aomori, Monju Fast Breeder Reactor in Fukui, and the plutonium thermal use
planned at several nuclear power stations should be abandoned. Let us work
together to stop the Chugoku Electric Power Company’s plan to build a
nuclear power station at Kaminoseki on coast of the beautiful Inland Sea and
to promote instead the wise use of natural energy such as solar and wind
power.

As the number of A-bomb survivors rapidly diminishes, we need to keep alive
memory of the survivors, who have long endured much physical and
psychological pain. We support their demand for the expansion of the
official definition of A-bomb victims. In particular, we support the demands
of survivors who reside in overseas countries such as Korea and thus have
been neglected over many years.

In order to abolish all nuclear weapons on Earth, we must all accept the
basic principle that no one has right to kill or injure anyone at any time.
This philosophy is well expressed in the Preface of Japan’s Constitution:
“the Japanese people desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of
the high ideals controlling human relationships.” It is this spirit of peace
which is the driving force that can bring real “change” to the world.

Joe Copeland is a visiting researcher at the Hiroshima Peace Institute on a Fulbright program for journalists. The views are his own.

Speaking of nuclear abolition, Akiba concluded, “We have the power. We have the responsibility. And we are the Obamajority. Together, we can abolish nuclear weapons. Yes, we can.”

There are various views here on President Obama’s commitment to getting rid of nuclear weapons. But Akiba has taken the optimistic view that Obama meant what he said about working for nuclear disarmament and abolition. Not long after Obama’s speech on disarmament in Prague earlier this year, Akiba has used the word “Obamajority” to drive home the point that, worldwide, most people would love to be freed of nuclear weapons.

I happen to share the view that Obama means it. I also think that American University Associate Professor Peter Kuznick, who notes that Obama also wrote in favor of abolition in the 1980s, made perfect points in an outstanding Aug. 5 speech to peace activists here: Even if Obama is being rather timid in his attempts to reverse decades of pro-nuclear policy (or insanity, at some key times, as Kuznick argues persuasively) on the part of U.S. presidents, it is something to pay seize on. Obama, he said, cannot be allowed to fail. For that to happen, with conservatives and even some centrists already worrying about his stance, Obama will need all the support possible from anti-nuclear people in the United States, Japan and elsewhere if he is to achieve anything.

As Kuznick also said, with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger among those now saying that the world must be freed from the threat of nuclear weapons, there is “more momentum now toward nuclear abolition” than at any time since the 1980s. Obama has certainly done his part to fuel the hope expressed here today.