Hiroshima speech by Obama lacking in clear resolve and concrete steps to advance nuclear abolition
May 28, 2016
by Yumi Kanazaki, Staff Writer
The speech made by U.S. President Barack Obama on May 27 in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was imbued with compassion for the countless victims who lost their lives when the atomic bomb flashed. But while his personal feelings were suitably conveyed, he offered no concrete steps to advance the abolition of nuclear weapons, long the earnest desire of the A-bomb survivors. He gave no indication, in fact, that there has been any substantial progress made toward this aim since his speech in Prague in 2009 when he first presented the vision of “a world without nuclear weapons.” His resolve, as the leader of a nuclear superpower achieving a historic visit to Hiroshima, was a source of great disappointment.
“Why do we come to Hiroshima?” To this question, President Obama responded by saying “to mourn the dead” (the A-bomb victims), including the Korean nationals and American prisoners of war in the city at that time. He also touched on the lives of the ordinary people of Hiroshima before the atomic bomb was dropped, saying, “The first smile from our children in the morning—we know that those same precious moments took place here seventy-one years ago.” The citizens of Hiroshima looked forward to this visit for so long and the president’s words lifted their hopes in thinking that a grasp of the human tragedy wrought by the atomic bomb will lead to the nuclear powers taking steps to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles.
President Obama said that we must pursue a world without nuclear arms, but he didn’t add the caveat that was included in his speech in Prague: “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”
As would be expected, President Obama could not say, in front of A-bomb survivors, that the United States will protect Japan with its nuclear arsenal. It was striking that, rather than stressing a stronger Japan-U.S. alliance, he pointed to “the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family—that is the story that we all must tell” as the means of avoiding war and the threat of nuclear arms.
In posing a fundamental question about human history, the president again expressed a philosophical side. War, he said, which was the precondition for the atomic bomb, has been waged repeatedly throughout history. Referring to scientific advances, he stressed, “Those same discoveries can be turned into ever-more efficient killing machines.” He underscored the danger of pursuing the kind of technology, devoid of moral or ethical value, that led to the development of the atomic bomb.
In this light, he should cast a critical eye on the fact that the United States uses the same sort of technology to preserve and maintain its nuclear capability, including the subcritical nuclear experiments and performance tests that it repeatedly conducts.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Defense Department, until last year, President Obama’s administration reduced the U.S. nuclear arsenal by just 702 warheads. By comparison, under former president George Bush’s eight-year administration, the nuclear arsenal was reduced by more than 5,000. This highlights the fact that the Obama administration has made the least progress in such reductions among the American presidents that have come before him.
It was also apparent that the U.S. approach toward the elimination of nuclear arms still contradicts current international efforts for nuclear abolition. The United States rebuffed the opportunity to take part in the U.N. open-end working group meeting in May on nuclear disarmament, and faced harsh criticism for this decision from the non-nuclear powers, but the president made no mention of this in his speech.
President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima is evidently part of a journey in which he has circled back to his original vision of seeking a nuclear-free world. And yet he has been in a position, for the past seven long years, to accelerate progress in nuclear arms reductions. If he takes no further action to advance nuclear abolition, his historic visit to Hiroshima will fade in significance.
(Originally published on May 28, 2016)
The speech made by U.S. President Barack Obama on May 27 in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park was imbued with compassion for the countless victims who lost their lives when the atomic bomb flashed. But while his personal feelings were suitably conveyed, he offered no concrete steps to advance the abolition of nuclear weapons, long the earnest desire of the A-bomb survivors. He gave no indication, in fact, that there has been any substantial progress made toward this aim since his speech in Prague in 2009 when he first presented the vision of “a world without nuclear weapons.” His resolve, as the leader of a nuclear superpower achieving a historic visit to Hiroshima, was a source of great disappointment.
“Why do we come to Hiroshima?” To this question, President Obama responded by saying “to mourn the dead” (the A-bomb victims), including the Korean nationals and American prisoners of war in the city at that time. He also touched on the lives of the ordinary people of Hiroshima before the atomic bomb was dropped, saying, “The first smile from our children in the morning—we know that those same precious moments took place here seventy-one years ago.” The citizens of Hiroshima looked forward to this visit for so long and the president’s words lifted their hopes in thinking that a grasp of the human tragedy wrought by the atomic bomb will lead to the nuclear powers taking steps to eliminate their nuclear stockpiles.
President Obama said that we must pursue a world without nuclear arms, but he didn’t add the caveat that was included in his speech in Prague: “As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”
As would be expected, President Obama could not say, in front of A-bomb survivors, that the United States will protect Japan with its nuclear arsenal. It was striking that, rather than stressing a stronger Japan-U.S. alliance, he pointed to “the radical and necessary notion that we are part of a single human family—that is the story that we all must tell” as the means of avoiding war and the threat of nuclear arms.
In posing a fundamental question about human history, the president again expressed a philosophical side. War, he said, which was the precondition for the atomic bomb, has been waged repeatedly throughout history. Referring to scientific advances, he stressed, “Those same discoveries can be turned into ever-more efficient killing machines.” He underscored the danger of pursuing the kind of technology, devoid of moral or ethical value, that led to the development of the atomic bomb.
In this light, he should cast a critical eye on the fact that the United States uses the same sort of technology to preserve and maintain its nuclear capability, including the subcritical nuclear experiments and performance tests that it repeatedly conducts.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Defense Department, until last year, President Obama’s administration reduced the U.S. nuclear arsenal by just 702 warheads. By comparison, under former president George Bush’s eight-year administration, the nuclear arsenal was reduced by more than 5,000. This highlights the fact that the Obama administration has made the least progress in such reductions among the American presidents that have come before him.
It was also apparent that the U.S. approach toward the elimination of nuclear arms still contradicts current international efforts for nuclear abolition. The United States rebuffed the opportunity to take part in the U.N. open-end working group meeting in May on nuclear disarmament, and faced harsh criticism for this decision from the non-nuclear powers, but the president made no mention of this in his speech.
President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima is evidently part of a journey in which he has circled back to his original vision of seeking a nuclear-free world. And yet he has been in a position, for the past seven long years, to accelerate progress in nuclear arms reductions. If he takes no further action to advance nuclear abolition, his historic visit to Hiroshima will fade in significance.
(Originally published on May 28, 2016)
