Editorial: Upon conclusion of Hiroshima Summit, concrete actions called for
May 22, 2023
The themes tasked to this summit meeting of the G7 (Group of Seven industrialized nations) held in Hiroshima — such as exploring a path to the elimination of nuclear weapons, finding a way to halt Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and considering the world order going forward — were indeed daunting.
That is precisely why Hiroshima, the A-bombed city that has persistently conveyed the message that the horror of nuclear weapons is not simply a historical relic, was selected to host the G7 summit this year. Although the meeting was full of the unusual, including Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Japan for the meeting, the Hiroshima Summit should at least be given high marks for concluding without drama.
At a news conference at Peace Memorial Park held prior to conclusion of the event, Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his resolve. “We have a responsibility to continue to pursue a world without nuclear weapons,” said Mr. Kishida. However, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué, a final statement of the group’s deliberations, failed to illuminate a clear path forward. The leadership of the summit chair Mr. Kishida, as well as the resolve of the other leaders, is in question regarding the next steps to bridge the divide and achieve his stated goal.
It is of no small significance that Mr. Zelenskyy, a leader that continues to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons, has joined forces for a nuclear-free world. The G7 Leaders’ Communiqué and the Hiroshima Vision on nuclear disarmament express that the ultimate aim is a world without nuclear weapons and outline how a “realistic, pragmatic and responsible approach” to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will be explored.
Nevertheless, can the leaders truly take pride in such guidelines after their contact with the devastation wrought by the atomic bombing? The documents lack persuasiveness as long as the nuclear weapons in possession of three of the G7 member nations — the United States, the United Kingdom, and France — are disregarded.
The meeting should have resulted in emphasis on the reduced role of nuclear weapons, with the aim of breaking free of the nuclear deterrence theory, and the United States and other countries should have been pressed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to ensure its entry into force. They should understand that the gulf between the nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” will only continue to widen further.
The communiqué states that, given the importance of an international order based on the rule of law, the G7 will enhance partnerships with emerging economies and developing countries, described as the “Global South,” including numerous non-nuclear weapons states.
Cooperation from those nations is essential for the support of Ukraine and the tightening of sanctions against Russia. While many of the countries believe that Russia is acting in violation of international law, few are in agreement with the G7 about sanctions. Such nations, more than anything else, seek an end to the war as soon as possible.
Effort is needed for implementation of the prime minister’s proposal to “change the history of division into one of cooperation” to avoid inflaming the conflict between Russia, together with China, and the G7.
In this regard, it is natural that the summit discussions emphasized support for emerging and developing countries on issues such as climate change, food security, and the coronavirus among other pandemics. International cooperation is also necessary for such issues as those relating to artificial intelligence (AI) and gender.
Involving a response to China, the G7 leaders reaffirmed the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and expressed their vehement opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion.
The leaders called on China, a country that has taken the initiative in acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, to press Russia to halt its military aggression and withdraw its troops from Ukraine immediately, completely, and unconditionally. At the same time, the documents indicate the G7 is “prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China.” Dialogue with China is certainly essential for rebuilding the international order.
Civil Society 7 (C7), one of the official Engagement Groups that offered recommendations to the G7, did not rate the Hiroshima Summit highly, as is understandable. “The summit lacked concrete measures,” the C7 reported. Limitations of the G7 framework have also been raised. At minimum, the G7’s responsibility for the summit held in Hiroshima was to present a timeline for the realization of a final statement that includes agreements on nuclear disarmament and other issues and the creation of a verification framework.
(Originally published on May 22, 2023)
That is precisely why Hiroshima, the A-bombed city that has persistently conveyed the message that the horror of nuclear weapons is not simply a historical relic, was selected to host the G7 summit this year. Although the meeting was full of the unusual, including Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Japan for the meeting, the Hiroshima Summit should at least be given high marks for concluding without drama.
At a news conference at Peace Memorial Park held prior to conclusion of the event, Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his resolve. “We have a responsibility to continue to pursue a world without nuclear weapons,” said Mr. Kishida. However, the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué, a final statement of the group’s deliberations, failed to illuminate a clear path forward. The leadership of the summit chair Mr. Kishida, as well as the resolve of the other leaders, is in question regarding the next steps to bridge the divide and achieve his stated goal.
It is of no small significance that Mr. Zelenskyy, a leader that continues to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons, has joined forces for a nuclear-free world. The G7 Leaders’ Communiqué and the Hiroshima Vision on nuclear disarmament express that the ultimate aim is a world without nuclear weapons and outline how a “realistic, pragmatic and responsible approach” to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will be explored.
Nevertheless, can the leaders truly take pride in such guidelines after their contact with the devastation wrought by the atomic bombing? The documents lack persuasiveness as long as the nuclear weapons in possession of three of the G7 member nations — the United States, the United Kingdom, and France — are disregarded.
The meeting should have resulted in emphasis on the reduced role of nuclear weapons, with the aim of breaking free of the nuclear deterrence theory, and the United States and other countries should have been pressed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to ensure its entry into force. They should understand that the gulf between the nuclear “haves” and “have-nots” will only continue to widen further.
The communiqué states that, given the importance of an international order based on the rule of law, the G7 will enhance partnerships with emerging economies and developing countries, described as the “Global South,” including numerous non-nuclear weapons states.
Cooperation from those nations is essential for the support of Ukraine and the tightening of sanctions against Russia. While many of the countries believe that Russia is acting in violation of international law, few are in agreement with the G7 about sanctions. Such nations, more than anything else, seek an end to the war as soon as possible.
Effort is needed for implementation of the prime minister’s proposal to “change the history of division into one of cooperation” to avoid inflaming the conflict between Russia, together with China, and the G7.
In this regard, it is natural that the summit discussions emphasized support for emerging and developing countries on issues such as climate change, food security, and the coronavirus among other pandemics. International cooperation is also necessary for such issues as those relating to artificial intelligence (AI) and gender.
Involving a response to China, the G7 leaders reaffirmed the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and expressed their vehement opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion.
The leaders called on China, a country that has taken the initiative in acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, to press Russia to halt its military aggression and withdraw its troops from Ukraine immediately, completely, and unconditionally. At the same time, the documents indicate the G7 is “prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China.” Dialogue with China is certainly essential for rebuilding the international order.
Civil Society 7 (C7), one of the official Engagement Groups that offered recommendations to the G7, did not rate the Hiroshima Summit highly, as is understandable. “The summit lacked concrete measures,” the C7 reported. Limitations of the G7 framework have also been raised. At minimum, the G7’s responsibility for the summit held in Hiroshima was to present a timeline for the realization of a final statement that includes agreements on nuclear disarmament and other issues and the creation of a verification framework.
(Originally published on May 22, 2023)
