Mixed reactions to sister park agreement between Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Pearl Harbor National Memorial
Jun. 30, 2023
Hope, puzzlement among A-bomb survivors, anti-nuclear activists
Some “welcome” agreement, others ask, “Why now?”
by Kaori Ota, Staff Writer
A sister park agreement was signed between Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Pearl Harbor National Memorial in Hawaii on June 29. This move has caused mixed reactions among A-bomb survivors and anti-nuclear pacifist groups. Some welcome the agreement, while others ask, “Why now?” Will the parks, both of which evoke memories of the war between Japan and the United States, serve as bridges to reconciliation and friendship?
“Pearl Harbor is a painful place that reminds Americans of the war. I hope Japan and the U.S. will join hands and work together for peace,” said Shigeaki Mori, 86, welcoming the agreement. The A-bomb survivor living in Nishi Ward of Hiroshima has been conducting an investigation on American soldiers killed in the atomic bombing. He met with then U.S. President Barack Obama when he visited Hiroshima seven years ago.
On the other hand, Haruko Moritaki, 84, an advisor to the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition and a resident of Saeki Ward, condemned the agreement, saying it was an “insult to A-bomb survivors.” She said the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese military targeted military facilities, while the atomic bombing by the U.S. Forces indiscriminately took the lives of civilians. She said, “The historical backgrounds of the two parks will forever be different.
Toshiyuki Mimaki, 81, a resident of Kitahiroshima-cho and chair of the Hiroshima Prefectural Confederation of A-bomb Sufferers Organizations (Hiroshima Hidankyo), said, “This is the biggest news since the summit of the Group of Seven. I know there are pros and cons, but I think the results will be shown in 10 or 20 years. I hope the agreement will yield good results.”
Kunihiko Sakuma, 78, chair of the other Hiroshima Hidankyo, said, "I am not against getting along, but this is too hasty.” “Each park has its own history. I think it would be better (for citizens) to proceed while studying and reflecting on each other’s history.”
These three citizens’ groups had submitted written requests to the city government, demanding the agreement be put on hold or withdrawn.
(Originally published on June 30, 2023)
