Foreign ministers’ meeting in Hiroshima raises hopes of new momentum for nuclear disarmament
Apr. 12, 2016
by Michiko Tanaka, Staff Writer
On April 11, the G7 Hiroshima Foreign Ministers’ Meeting closed in the A-bombed city. The Japanese government had put importance on the meeting to pave the way for success at the upcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit (Ise Shima summit). The meeting was also highly significant in that it brought the foreign ministers of nuclear nations, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, to Hiroshima and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park for the first time. However, the unprecedented care given to carrying out the meeting revealed solicitous attention to the nuclear nations. This can also be seen in the “G7 Foreign Ministers’ Hiroshima Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation,” which was released to convey the outcome of the meeting. These facts reflect the hard reality that the “common sense” of the people of Hiroshima, in appealing for the abolition of nuclear weapons on the basis of the devastation wrought by the atomic bomb, is not clearly grasped by the international community.
At a press conference held after the discussions had concluded, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida described how the foreign ministers had touched the consequences of the atomic bombing during their tour of the Peace Memorial Museum, and stressed, “The foreign ministers were strongly affected by their experience.” He added that this was a historical step for restarting momentum for a world without nuclear weapons.
The visit by the foreign ministers to the Peace Memorial Park was a highlight of the gathering. In addition to Mr. Kerry, Philip Hammond from the United Kingdom and Jean-Marc Ayrault from France were also visiting the park for the first time as foreign minister of their nuclear nations. “This visit would not have been realized without Mr. Kishida’s backing. Because it carried a huge risk, it would not have been considered by other government officials,” a senior official of the Foreign Ministry said.
State of high alert
A number of efforts were made to eliminate that risk. On the morning of April 9, just prior to the meeting, the glass-walled corridor between the museum’s main building and east wing was covered with a special sheet. According to an official from the municipal government, the Foreign Ministry decided to take this step to conceal the foreign ministers’ movement between the two buildings.
And when they toured the museum on April 11, the media was not permitted to enter. The Foreign Ministry provided photos of the foreign ministers writing in the museum guestbook, but no photos were made available of the visitors viewing the artifacts of the A-bombing.
Such efforts were driven by strong consideration for the United States and other nations. Despite the passing of 70 years since the end of World War II, many Americans still believe that the atomic bombings were justified in bringing the war to a swift end. A senior official of the Foreign Ministry disclosed the backstage concerns, saying, “A visit like this has political implications and that makes it different from visiting Itsukushima Shrine on Miyajima Island” and “It was the result of repeated adjustments as the U.S. side wants to avoid creating a perception of weakness in the midst of the presidential election.” In the end, a dialogue with A-bomb survivors was not realized.
Word “inhumanity” was removed
The hardened and contrary attitude by the nuclear powers toward nuclear disarmament was also reflected in the final draft of the Hiroshima Declaration. The appeal that the Japanese government has long been making, which emphasizes the “inhumanity of nuclear weapons,” these words were removed from the statement and replaced with “immense devastation and human suffering as a consequence of the atomic bombings.” This action was taken out of consideration for the nuclear powers and their aversion to the word “inhumanity,” as these countries have grown very cautious about the efforts of other nations to promote a legal framework for advancing nuclear disarmament on the grounds of the inhumanity of these weapons.
A senior official of the Foreign Ministry said, “The new wording could convey the horror of the atomic bombing better than the original language,” but then added, “It’s true that some nations don’t like the word ‘inhumanity’ because they feel it’s overemphasized.” This confirms that the nuclear powers are nervous when it comes to this word.
At Mr. Kishida’s press conference on April 11, he said that the Japanese government would seek to play an intermediary role between the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear nations, but also echoed “the importance of advancing realistic and practical efforts for nuclear disarmament,” the argument made by the nuclear powers.
Is the Japanese government truly on the side of the A-bombed cities? As long as Japan calls for the international community to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their attitude will continue to be questioned.
(Originally published on April 12, 2016)
On April 11, the G7 Hiroshima Foreign Ministers’ Meeting closed in the A-bombed city. The Japanese government had put importance on the meeting to pave the way for success at the upcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit (Ise Shima summit). The meeting was also highly significant in that it brought the foreign ministers of nuclear nations, including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, to Hiroshima and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park for the first time. However, the unprecedented care given to carrying out the meeting revealed solicitous attention to the nuclear nations. This can also be seen in the “G7 Foreign Ministers’ Hiroshima Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation,” which was released to convey the outcome of the meeting. These facts reflect the hard reality that the “common sense” of the people of Hiroshima, in appealing for the abolition of nuclear weapons on the basis of the devastation wrought by the atomic bomb, is not clearly grasped by the international community.
At a press conference held after the discussions had concluded, Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida described how the foreign ministers had touched the consequences of the atomic bombing during their tour of the Peace Memorial Museum, and stressed, “The foreign ministers were strongly affected by their experience.” He added that this was a historical step for restarting momentum for a world without nuclear weapons.
The visit by the foreign ministers to the Peace Memorial Park was a highlight of the gathering. In addition to Mr. Kerry, Philip Hammond from the United Kingdom and Jean-Marc Ayrault from France were also visiting the park for the first time as foreign minister of their nuclear nations. “This visit would not have been realized without Mr. Kishida’s backing. Because it carried a huge risk, it would not have been considered by other government officials,” a senior official of the Foreign Ministry said.
State of high alert
A number of efforts were made to eliminate that risk. On the morning of April 9, just prior to the meeting, the glass-walled corridor between the museum’s main building and east wing was covered with a special sheet. According to an official from the municipal government, the Foreign Ministry decided to take this step to conceal the foreign ministers’ movement between the two buildings.
And when they toured the museum on April 11, the media was not permitted to enter. The Foreign Ministry provided photos of the foreign ministers writing in the museum guestbook, but no photos were made available of the visitors viewing the artifacts of the A-bombing.
Such efforts were driven by strong consideration for the United States and other nations. Despite the passing of 70 years since the end of World War II, many Americans still believe that the atomic bombings were justified in bringing the war to a swift end. A senior official of the Foreign Ministry disclosed the backstage concerns, saying, “A visit like this has political implications and that makes it different from visiting Itsukushima Shrine on Miyajima Island” and “It was the result of repeated adjustments as the U.S. side wants to avoid creating a perception of weakness in the midst of the presidential election.” In the end, a dialogue with A-bomb survivors was not realized.
Word “inhumanity” was removed
The hardened and contrary attitude by the nuclear powers toward nuclear disarmament was also reflected in the final draft of the Hiroshima Declaration. The appeal that the Japanese government has long been making, which emphasizes the “inhumanity of nuclear weapons,” these words were removed from the statement and replaced with “immense devastation and human suffering as a consequence of the atomic bombings.” This action was taken out of consideration for the nuclear powers and their aversion to the word “inhumanity,” as these countries have grown very cautious about the efforts of other nations to promote a legal framework for advancing nuclear disarmament on the grounds of the inhumanity of these weapons.
A senior official of the Foreign Ministry said, “The new wording could convey the horror of the atomic bombing better than the original language,” but then added, “It’s true that some nations don’t like the word ‘inhumanity’ because they feel it’s overemphasized.” This confirms that the nuclear powers are nervous when it comes to this word.
At Mr. Kishida’s press conference on April 11, he said that the Japanese government would seek to play an intermediary role between the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear nations, but also echoed “the importance of advancing realistic and practical efforts for nuclear disarmament,” the argument made by the nuclear powers.
Is the Japanese government truly on the side of the A-bombed cities? As long as Japan calls for the international community to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their attitude will continue to be questioned.
(Originally published on April 12, 2016)
