Editorial: How deep were people’s impressions of the Peace Declaration at the Peace Memorial Ceremony?
Aug. 7, 2019
Those in attendance at the Peace Memorial Ceremony yesterday, as well as users of other media, surely listened more closely than ever to the Peace Declaration read out by Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui.
Focus on Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
The focus was how the mayor would refer to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. While the Japanese government has taken a negative stance toward the treaty, Mr. Matsui had not directly asked the central government to sign and ratify the treaty until last year. But this year, some 30 groups, including organizations of A-bomb survivors, demanded that he clearly press the government to do so.
It appears that Mr. Matsui could not ignore their appeal. This year’s declaration called on the government “to accede to the hibakusha’s request” that the treaty be signed and ratified. In previous declarations, he showed deference to the government’s stance, but this year he went a different direction.
Yet he did not express his own ideas about the treaty. Some people may have found this unsatisfactory because the declaration was delivered in the name of the mayor; it was not a declaration written by citizens.
Quotations also came to the fore. In addition to quoting from the experiences of survivors, which he has included in each declaration, this year he added a tanka, a traditional Japanese poem. He also quoted the words of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian political leader and advocate of nonviolence. This made the declaration seem distant from the mayor’s honest words.
The Peace Declaration has been translated into nine languages and dispatched to the world via the city government’s home page. Are those words of Gandhi sufficiently powerful as a message from the A-bombed city? Also, translating the tanka, without compromising its appeal, is not an easy task.
As the Peace Declaration is meant to appeal to the world, there is room for improvement. Better use should be made of the group of experts who gathered to discuss the contents of the declaration as it was being drafted.
All the members of this group, though, were over 50 and many of them were from public bodies. If younger people and civil activists are involved and given the chance to share their views, new ideas for the declaration can emerge.
Make meeting public to improve declaration
Of even more importance is the idea of making some of the group’s discussions public. Mr. Matsui has said that he would prefer to keep these discussions closed so that the participants “can express their opinions frankly.” But what conversations concerning peace cannot be made public?
What ideas lie behind the mayor’s approach to writing his declaration? How are the members of the group interpreting Mr. Matsui’s ideas? Exchanging views in a lively debate would contribute to improving the contents of the declaration. This is an issue that must be addressed before next year, which will mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing.
Another problem exists: the noise from loudspeakers that are used on that day in demonstrations or rallies. The noise could be heard in the venue of the ceremony and did not stop, in some cases, even when those in attendance offered a silent prayer to the A-bomb victims at 8:15 a.m. Even if these messages are expressing opposition to war or nuclear weapons, they are interfering with the public’s silent prayers. It is natural that some people found this distressing.
The municipal government is considering the idea of regulating demonstrations and rallies. They checked the noise level at the venue for the ceremony and conducted a survey involving 4,000 people who were present yesterday. Based on the findings, the city will consider adopting an ordinance. In a survey conducted at the end of last year, 60 percent of the respondents said that the noise was disturbing, and 69 percent said the city should enact an ordinance.
Exercise discretion in regulating demonstrations
But demonstrations and rallies have been held for a long time. If they are now suddenly regulated with an ordinance, such action would be too hasty.
Reportedly, there are demonstrations, even jeering, against the current administration during the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Ceremony or Okinawa’s Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead. But these places have not created regulations. Containing such activities by enforcing an ordinance does not suit the spirit of a peace ceremony.
Survivors who experienced the bomb’s devastation naturally want to pray in a quiet setting. But it is noteworthy that four of the five survivors’ groups in Hiroshima are opposed to the idea of enforcement through regulation or are cautious toward taking such an approach.
What concerns them is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. They also do not want to create a situation where people cannot express their opinions freely, as occurred during the war. Organizations that sponsor such demonstrations or rallies should understand the survivors’ feelings and give them consideration so that they can pray in a quiet environment.
And did North Korea intentionally launch what are believed to be two short-range ballistic missiles prior to the start of the Peace Memorial Ceremony, on the day that marks the anniversary of the atomic bombing? An act of barbarism like this, perpetrated by someone who makes no effort to understand the horrific outcome of the use of nuclear weapons, is utterly unacceptable.
(Originally published on August 7, 2019)
Focus on Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
The focus was how the mayor would refer to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. While the Japanese government has taken a negative stance toward the treaty, Mr. Matsui had not directly asked the central government to sign and ratify the treaty until last year. But this year, some 30 groups, including organizations of A-bomb survivors, demanded that he clearly press the government to do so.
It appears that Mr. Matsui could not ignore their appeal. This year’s declaration called on the government “to accede to the hibakusha’s request” that the treaty be signed and ratified. In previous declarations, he showed deference to the government’s stance, but this year he went a different direction.
Yet he did not express his own ideas about the treaty. Some people may have found this unsatisfactory because the declaration was delivered in the name of the mayor; it was not a declaration written by citizens.
Quotations also came to the fore. In addition to quoting from the experiences of survivors, which he has included in each declaration, this year he added a tanka, a traditional Japanese poem. He also quoted the words of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian political leader and advocate of nonviolence. This made the declaration seem distant from the mayor’s honest words.
The Peace Declaration has been translated into nine languages and dispatched to the world via the city government’s home page. Are those words of Gandhi sufficiently powerful as a message from the A-bombed city? Also, translating the tanka, without compromising its appeal, is not an easy task.
As the Peace Declaration is meant to appeal to the world, there is room for improvement. Better use should be made of the group of experts who gathered to discuss the contents of the declaration as it was being drafted.
All the members of this group, though, were over 50 and many of them were from public bodies. If younger people and civil activists are involved and given the chance to share their views, new ideas for the declaration can emerge.
Make meeting public to improve declaration
Of even more importance is the idea of making some of the group’s discussions public. Mr. Matsui has said that he would prefer to keep these discussions closed so that the participants “can express their opinions frankly.” But what conversations concerning peace cannot be made public?
What ideas lie behind the mayor’s approach to writing his declaration? How are the members of the group interpreting Mr. Matsui’s ideas? Exchanging views in a lively debate would contribute to improving the contents of the declaration. This is an issue that must be addressed before next year, which will mark the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing.
Another problem exists: the noise from loudspeakers that are used on that day in demonstrations or rallies. The noise could be heard in the venue of the ceremony and did not stop, in some cases, even when those in attendance offered a silent prayer to the A-bomb victims at 8:15 a.m. Even if these messages are expressing opposition to war or nuclear weapons, they are interfering with the public’s silent prayers. It is natural that some people found this distressing.
The municipal government is considering the idea of regulating demonstrations and rallies. They checked the noise level at the venue for the ceremony and conducted a survey involving 4,000 people who were present yesterday. Based on the findings, the city will consider adopting an ordinance. In a survey conducted at the end of last year, 60 percent of the respondents said that the noise was disturbing, and 69 percent said the city should enact an ordinance.
Exercise discretion in regulating demonstrations
But demonstrations and rallies have been held for a long time. If they are now suddenly regulated with an ordinance, such action would be too hasty.
Reportedly, there are demonstrations, even jeering, against the current administration during the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Ceremony or Okinawa’s Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead. But these places have not created regulations. Containing such activities by enforcing an ordinance does not suit the spirit of a peace ceremony.
Survivors who experienced the bomb’s devastation naturally want to pray in a quiet setting. But it is noteworthy that four of the five survivors’ groups in Hiroshima are opposed to the idea of enforcement through regulation or are cautious toward taking such an approach.
What concerns them is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. They also do not want to create a situation where people cannot express their opinions freely, as occurred during the war. Organizations that sponsor such demonstrations or rallies should understand the survivors’ feelings and give them consideration so that they can pray in a quiet environment.
And did North Korea intentionally launch what are believed to be two short-range ballistic missiles prior to the start of the Peace Memorial Ceremony, on the day that marks the anniversary of the atomic bombing? An act of barbarism like this, perpetrated by someone who makes no effort to understand the horrific outcome of the use of nuclear weapons, is utterly unacceptable.
(Originally published on August 7, 2019)
