PEACE MOVEMENT IN JAPAN
Aspects of Peace and Security in Asia and the Pacific
QUARTERLY BULLETIN OF THE ASIAN EXCHANG FOR NEW ALTERNATIVES
VOL IV No. 2 & 3 January 1986
The peace movement in Japan can be divided into two distinct periods: the pre-war pacifist movement and the post-war peace movement. Here we are primarily concerned with the post-war period. But the pre-war pacifist movement is not without significance. The contemporary peace movement has been considerably influenced and draws strongly from the pacifist tradition of the pre-war years. In this sense the peace movement in Japan has an unbroken continuity that stretches from the Meiji period to contemporary times, upholding a tradition in favour of peace, democracy, anti-militarism and dis-armament.
The post-war peace movement itself is divided into three periods. The fist consists of the years immediately after the war and include the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings, Japan’s defeat, the first Hydrogen bomb test in the Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, and the Japan – U.S. Security Treaty in 1960. In this period the Peace movement focuses on and draws heavily from the experiences of the Japanese people as the first victims of atomic warfare. The popular appeal of the movement was summed up in the slogan, “No More Hiroshimas! No More Nagasakis!”
The second period is from the 1960s to the end of the Vietnam War. The Japan – U.S. Security Treaty and Japans tacit support to the U.S. in the Vietnam War re-awakened the anti-militarist tradition of the pre-war years. The struggles of the peoples of the Third World, their right to self-determination and the wars of national liberation brought an awareness of the larger dimensions of peace to sections of the peace movement. The post-Vietnam period of the late 1970s, and the 1980s mark the third period.
There is today a growing crisis feeling among the people. The increasingly rightward shift of the government, attempts to give legal recognition to the Yasukuni shrine – the focal point for right-wing nationalism, U.S. and West European pressure on Japan with its already eighth largest military budget in the world to re-arm and further develop its military capabilities, and the deployment of the Tomahawk cruise missiles in the Pacific have brought a new sense of urgency to the peace movement. In addition the growing anti-nuclear movement in Europe has encouraged and strengthened the movement in Japan.
FIRST VICTIMS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The peace movement in Japan is characterized by a victim and aggressor syndrome. Most of the movements have focused on the Japanese as victims of the most brutal forms of attack that human civilization has experienced. The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimized the peace movement, giving it considerable strength and power to mobilise public opinion. The testimonies of the ‘hibakusha’ (the atom bomb victims) have been used widely to awaken peace consciousness and for peace education. Dr. Arata Osada’s “Children of Hiroshima”, containing appeals and documents written by students who experienced the atomic bomb disaster, and Michihiko Hachiya’s “Hiroshima Diary” containing records from the standpoint of a doctor, of victims who sought treatment in the two months after the bombing, are some examples of the numerous publications available on the subject. Publications include documented information and data, novels, short stories, poems, and text book readers on peace education. Films, slides, paintings, photographs and comics were used with considerable success.1
In March 1954 a Japanese fishing boat the Daigo Fukuryumaru was exposed to radiation from the hydrogen bomb test conducted by the U.S. in the Bikini Atol, Marshall Islands resulting in the death of one crewman. A national committee composed of citizens groups, especially house-wives, collected 34 million signatures calling for the ban of hydrogen bombs. In 1955 the first Congress Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs was held in Hiroshima and thereafter became an annual event taking place in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Tokyo. The foundations were thus laid for a broad-based and strong national peace movement.
The movement achieved a position of strength and legitimacy unparalleled in the rest of the world. The peace movement drew support from labour, youth, feminists, intellectuals, environmentalists, politicians and political parties, religious organizations and some sections of the business community. A noteworthy feature was the degree of women’s participation, women very much being in the vanguard of the peace movement. Noteworthy because in spite of its rapid modernization Japan remains a very conservative society in which women are disadvantaged in the social, economic and political life of the country. Two other groups that played a vital role in the growth of the peace movement were the Japan Teachers’ Union and the Hibakusha (atom bomb victims). Beginning in 1951 the Japan Teachers’ Union made efforts to organize peace education at local and community levels rallying people under the slogan “Never send pupils to war again.” The testimonies of the Hibakusha touched the conscience of the people, and became a vital element for peace education in both schools and the community.
In the early 1960s strains were beginning to show within the movement against A and H bombs. This was the result of policy differences and the resulting friction that occurred between the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Differing interpretations were offered with reference to the partial nuclear test ban treaty. The Communist Party insisted that the movement distinguish between the nuclear arms of socialist nations and those of capitalist nations. The Socialist Party insisted that all nuclear arms be prohibited. The anti-nuclear movement split and the thereafter two separate conferences were held annually, one organized by Gensuikyo and the other by Gensuikin.2 This split no doubt weakened the peace movement considerably in the next two decades.
THE PEACE CONSTITUTION, MILITARIZATION AND TH ETHIRD WORLD
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clearly the touchstones of the peace movement in Japan; this is both strength and a weakness. The mobilizing issue is nuclear arms, but it has been difficult to translate this into effective opposition to the gradual development of Japan’s Self-Defense Force”3 The 1955 Hiroshima World Conference stated in its appeal that “a struggle against military bases has to be fought along with the movement against A and H bombs.”4 But in practice the anti-nuclear movement largely stressed the “victim consciousness” and tended to overlook the militaristic build-up that was taking place within Japan itself. This has been largely due to a multiplicity of factors. The high economic growth that has continued in the last two decades has made the people more conservative. The younger post-war generation of Japanese tends to be apolitical. The mainstream left movement has failed to develop the potential for opposition to militarization that exists among the people.
Nevertheless there exists a strong tradition among grassroots and peoples movements and among intellectuals legitimized by the “peace constitution” that focuses on the growing attempts to militarize Japan. Tabata Shinobu, President of Doshisha University was in the forefront of the anti-war and anti-militarist campaign in the post-war years. “His anti-war and anti-militarist campaign” says Katsumi Ueda, “emanates from his spirit of resistance, and this spirit originates in his conviction that progress in history lies on the side of those who resist power, authority, and dictatorship of the majority.”5 He was a prominent constitutionalist who campaigned in defense of the peace clause, article 9, in the Japanese Constitution. In the preamble to the Japanese Constitution is the following assertion that has become historic and remains fundamental to the peace movement in Japan.
“We the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honoured place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognise that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.” These ideals were given concrete expression in Article 9 of the Constitution. “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”
This “Peace Constitution” came out of the experience of Japan as aggressor as distinct from the experience as a victim of war referred to earlier. Three million Japanese and fifteen million other Asian people died as a result of Japan’s war of aggression in East and South East Asia. As Nishikawa Jun states, “the Japanese people have a deep sense of responsibility for war as well as painful experience as the victims of war. This unique Japanese sensitivity and experience helps to account for the fact that Japan possesses a Constitution which renounces war as a means of settling international disputes.”6 The Japanese people did have a unique sensitivity, an experience that was a complex blend of victim and aggressor. The question is how far, do they still retain this sensitivity. The experience of being aggressor has got blunted over the years. There is a growing trend among right-wing circles to look upon the Constitution as one that was imposed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP). Whether the Constitution was imposed or not is a matter open to debate. What is significant is that the “peace constitution” struck a responsive chord among the Japanese people. It has been stoutly defended by the opposition in the Diet and by the peace movement. Not only did Japan get a “peace constitution”, but SCAP also laid the way open for the re-emergence of a strong left movement which was one of the more constructive developments of the post-war years in Japan. SCAP perceived the role of the Socialists as a check on the rebirth of Japanese militarism.
The Socialists in the prewar years had been largely pacifists. They had opposed militarism and had paid a heavy price for it. They were not a party to Japanese Imperialist aggression in Asia. The Socialist Party and the Communist Party were now able to speak with a principled voice on behalf of peace, oppose militarization and reject rearmament. Their existence has helped to sustain democratic institution and encourage popular participation in politics in the face of increasingly rightwing and conservative challenges. As a result Japan together with India remain the two countries in Asia that retain the characteristics of an open society in which the Marxist left and socialists of all shades have a legal existence and the right to organize and function politically. The Socialist Party has advocated that Japan like India should adopt a neutralist or non-aligned position in relation to the U.S. and the Soviets
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution today remains a pious declaration, no better than the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; adhered to in theory but flouted in practice. Japan today has the eighth largest military budget in the world. Right-wing business leaders have called for a revision of the Constitution under the pretext of establishing an “autonomous constitution”. They have in addition suggested that the state introduce a military draft system, maintain a 1000 nautical mile sea lane defense in response to the US demand for a Japanese military buildup and to make the introduction of nuclear weapons accepted policy thereby nullifying the “Three Non-nuclear Principles – the non-possession, production, and introduction of nuclear weapons” promulgated in 1967.7
A hidden but steady militarization has been going on since 1950 when the Police Reserve Force was established and formally developed into the Self-Defense Forces in 1954. The United States – Japan Security Treaty became the focus for opposition especially in 1960. Today the Japan Socialist Party and other opposition parties have softened their opposition to both the Self-Defense forces and the U.S. – Japan Security treaty. The opposition today primarily focuses on retaining the expenditure on defence, which in reality is military spending to below the one percent of the GNP limit. The mainstream peace movement consisting of Gensuikyo and Gensuikin have increasingly tended to concentrate on nuclear disarmament issues seeking a national consensus, and have tended to play down issues such as the US-Japan Security Treaty and the Self Defence Forces.
While the mainstream movement has been primarily concerned with the nuclear threat which in many ways overshadows the peace movement in Japan there is nevertheless a conscious attempt being made by smaller groups and intellectuals to give a broader and more relevant definition to peace concerns in, Japan. In the forefront of this more recent trend are the Pacific Asia Resources Centre with its journal AMPO and SEKAI KARA and the Peace Studies Association of Japan. Both have primarily a research and opinion-building orientation, but have within their membership activists attempting to give a new dimension to the peace movement. This development takes place primarily in the seventies. As Yoshikawa Yuichi explains, “The anti-Vietnam war movement which flourished from the late 60s on to the 70s added a new character to Japanese activism. The peace movement hitherto had been built around the experience as victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Bikini: a movement of refusal to ever be victims of war again. In the anti-Vietnam war movement Japan ceased to be viewed a mere victim and recognised that it was also an aggressor. The Japanese government stated that. ‘As under the Security Treaty, Japan cannot remain neutral concerning the Vietnam War,’ clearly indicating that Japan was another enemy of the Vietnamese people.”8
Tsurumi Yoshiyuki has pointed out that looking at the rise of the no-nuke movement in the U.S., Europe and Japan, one finds that the South of the world is completely out of the picture. One wonders then whether there is no peace movement there. But from the view point of the people in the South, the peace movement in the advanced nations is somewhat arrogant. As he put it “The peace, democracy and prosperity we enjoy are partially supported by the conditions imposed on the third world – violence in their countries, oppression of their human rights and poverty. The peace movement is for us what anti-imperialism is for the Third World. Unfortunately, however, the awareness of this relationship is more clearly seen by the activists in the Third World.
Yukawa-Hirao Keiko looking at the post-war period from the view point of peace education notes that Japan is at the turning point, in the content of peace education. Peace education in Japan has remained past oriented and has focused on “peace” in contrast to “war”. “However, when we reflect on the outcome of research concerning ‘structural violence’ in society, we find it has begun to broaden its scope to include underdevelopment, pollution, poverty, discrimination, oppression and other ills of society which hinder the full development of the individual. Recently, teachers (although only a few) have begun to interest themselves in North-South relations, the structure of poverty, oppression by governments international and inter-cultural communication and so forth.”10
The Pacific – Asia Resources Centre (PARC) in a statement of its aims for the next decade has stressed the importance of solidarity movements launched by Japanese people concerned with Third World peoples. It has drawn pointed attention to the speed with which the Japanese government and business interests are establishing close links with the Third World, strengthening their partnership with repressive and authoritarian regimes in Asia in conformity with the U.S. global military strategy. It perceived in the increasing overseas ‘economic aid’ of the Japanese government which at the same time is increasing its military expenditure, an attempt to create a new ‘Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.’ Consequently PARC observes that, “Organized into this structure, we, the Japanese people and the people in the rest of Asia are divided, put into a situation equal and liberated mutual relationship which we aspire for. We must overturn this unequal and oppressive structure. We want to accomplish this with the power of the people, and the power of people’s movement. We reject the idea that the fate of the people of the world is fatalistically determined by the superpowers who divide the world and confront each other.”11
This growing concern in bringing Third World priorities into the peace movement is certainly welcome. But it is quite evident that Japan has a long way to go in this direction. While PARC through its journals does focus on Third World issues and perspectives most of the Japanese people do not know the things that are written about in AMPO. The information, or picture of the world, which is given to the Japanese public through the mass media is very different. In some ways the mass media in Japan has become the counterpart of American mass consumption society.12
The media is largely concerned with the sensational and when it comes to the third world – the curious, the exotic and fascinating sights and happenings. Establishing linkages and solidarity with Third World people’s movements within the framework of the struggle for peace is a challenge that the peace movement in Japan has to face. Even the existing Third World concerns of the few but deeply committed activists and intellectuals is largely confined to South Korea, the Philippines and the ASEAN group of countries. There are very, very little attempts made to understand and relate to South Asia. In fact the term South Asia itself is hardly used, the South Asian region being very often classified under South East Asia. Africa remains very much the ‘dark continent’ in the Japanese perception of the world.
1980s–THE CONTEMPORARY SCENE
After the split, that occurred among the two main groups in the peace movement in the 1960’s mass interest and support for the movement declined considerably. The 1980s however saw a spectacular revival. The issues that had been kept alive by citizens groups and people’s movements gained a new momentum. This arose from an acute feeling of crisis that the danger of a nuclear war was increasing in East Asia. It was widely believed that nuclear weapons were being deployed on a large scale in South Korea and the Pacific. It was strongly suspected that the three non-nuclear principles were being violated within Japan. The disclosure made by former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Edwin Reischauer in 1981, that the U.S. did not consider transit through territorial waters or port calls as ‘introduction’ of nuclear weapons lent credence to this suspicion. The port calls made by U.S. air-craft carriers suspected of carrying nuclear weapons fuelled these fears. Japanese Self-Defence Forces begin to participate in joint military exercises under the U.S. command in this period. The rapidly growing European anti-nuclear movement to some extent influenced the revival in Japan. The United Nations’ Special Sessions on Disarmament (UN SSDII) in 1982, provided the occasion for a massive signature campaign. An anti-nuclear petition bearing 80,000,000 names was submitted to the U.N. In Hiroshima 200,000 persons and in Tokyo 400,000 participated in anti-nuke rallies.
The aim of the movement as given below were however strictly limited to the nuclear threat. They were:
(1) To make known to the people of the world the terrible effects and suffering caused by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nuclear tests.
(2) Immediately to adopt an international convention outlawing the use of nuclear weapons as a crime against humanity.
(3) To expand nuclear-free zones in many parts of the world where production, possession, introduction or attack with nuclear weapons will be totally prohibited.
(4) To draft a treaty, for disarmament to be strictly implemented within a limited time-frame, in which measures for nuclear disarmament shall be given top priority.13
The movement failed to come to terms with the Japan – U.S. Security Treaty, the problem of the military bases and Japan’s own militarization. No attempt was made to confront the government with these issues, and to expose the contradictory posture it adopted in the United Nations, advocating peace and nuclear dis-armament on the one hand while expanding the Self-Defence Forces and increasing military expenditure. In fact several groups and organizations of a more conservative nature preferred to avoid these issues. The traditional left too fell in line in order to win maximum support among the people.
The anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s revealed the contradictory nature of the Japanese people’s approach to peace. A great majority of the people did not want war, and were in favour of retention of Article 9 of the Constitution. Neither did they want to forego the present affluence that in effect was based on the exploitation of the Third World. They were prepared to tolerate the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty as a deterrent to the USSR which was held in distrust but at the same time were apprehensive about rapid and massive US arms build-up that could aggravate the strains between the superpowers and spark another was in which Japan must necessarily be among the first victims.14
In 1984 once again differences that arose between the two major groups, the Gensuikyo and the Gensuikin, wrecked the preparations made for a joint peace march. This again is regarded as a manifestation of the rightward shift that has taken place among some of the major organizations. Citizens groups and grassroots movements that gave rise to the National Movement for the Non-Deployment of Tomakawks have persisted in demonstrations and protests particularly in the military base areas, attempting to give a new and relevant direction to the peace movement.
The peace movement in Japan is today at the crossroads. The direction it will take is based on the experiences of the past thirty years or more remains to be seen. The movement has had its periods of strength and militancy focusing on the peace agenda both for Japan and the world. It has had the reputation of being one of the strongest and broad based national peace movements in the world. No doubt it has had its periods of weaknesses, dis-unity and dissension. Differences and controversies on programmatic and organizational questions have occurred from time to time. But on the other hand new currents have emerged in the peace movement responding to the changing global situation and the Asian situation in particular. Objectives analysis and Third World perspectives are characteristic of these new trends.
There continues to be a deep and widespread aspiration for peace among the Japanese people. It is however a vague notion of peace inadequately articulated. In a survey of the attitudes of Japanese students to peace and democracy a researcher has arrived at the conclusion that students and parents in Japan gave importance to peace as a symbol and value. Asked to discuss their ‘ideal Japan’ and the role therein of democracy, capitalism and socialism, and despite the complete lack of any mention of peace when they were given the assignment to write the essay, 23 of the 43 students included “peace as an essential attribute of their ideal Japan, and most treated it as the sine qua non, prior to all other attributes.” Their ideal Japan was a country that always has peace, where there is no war and which does not go to war. This peace consciousness is strong among Japanese, young and old, to uphold and defend Article 9 of the Constitution and promote what they perceive as a special mission and rule for Japan in today’s troubled world.15
Opinion polls have shown that 44 per cent of the Japanese oppose any military alliance in comparison with 30 per cent who support the government’s Western alliance. 71 percent are in favour of using diplomacy and economic aid to maintain peace; while less than 20 per cent support a strengthening of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and closer military this with the United States. 78 per cent of the Japanese fear that it is U .S. military adventures which are most likely to draw Japan into armed confrontation. 75 per cent of those polled oppose any increases in the military budget and 51 per cent would like to see the military budget reduced. 16
Concerned intellectuals have warned that U.S. pressures on Japan could create the conditions for a return of authoritarian and militaristic patterns of rule that have been common in Japan’s history. Dr, Mushakoji, founder and former director of the International Studies Program at Sophia University and presently Vice-Rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo; has expressed the view that too much pressure from the United States on Japan could be counterproductive, undermining the very political stability of Japan itself. Kamo Takehito, Professor of Political Science at Waseda University, has warned that Nakasone may appear to the Reagan administration as pro-American, but his deepest commitments and connections are to traditional Japanese militarism. 17
Prof. Yoshikasu Sakamoto of the University of Tokyo discussing peace in East Asia has remarked that international relations in postwar East Asia has been determined by placing too much weight on what the United States and the Soviet Union decide, with little choice left to the other states. He suggests that his should be changed. “Who will play a leading role in changing it? It would be difficult for Japan or China to do it alone. If Japan seriously thinks about denuclearization and China seriously thinks about disarmament, both China and Japan should act as a peace axis in Asia.” He also stresses the need to legitimize, citizens movements and to find ways of giving “effective political play to their responsibility.”18
Meanwhile Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone has been increasingly advocating the need for Japan to boost its self-defenses capabilities to protect itself “as a member of the West against foreign aggression.” In a commencement speech recently before 390 graduates of the National Defense Academy he claimed that Japan’s efforts to promote a high quality and effective self-defense is helping maintain the security of democratic countries. He added that these efforts were contributing to the “peace and stability of Asia and the world.”19 This view directly contradicts the feelings of ordinary Japanese people who at the most accept the status quo relating to the Self-Defense Forces and the US-Japan Security Treaty, and do not favour strengthening them. The above statement also indicates how far the Japanese government has departed from the foreign policy formulated in 1956: such as the use of the UN as the main instrument of Japanese diplomacy, co-operation with the free nations and the promotion of Japan’s national interest as part of the Afro-Asian bloc.20
Chihiro Hosoya formerly Professor of International Politics at Hitotsubashi University and presently Vice-President International University of Japan expressed the following view in 1978 with reference to attempts at expansion of defense power : “There is something ominous in the fact that voices seeking the strengthening of defense power are becoming louder … The expansion of defense power, which will become linked with the revival of a ‘military big power’ Japan will disturb the stability of North East Asia. We must avoid the ‘dangerous road’ of making the various South East Asian nations recall the nightmare of Japanese militarism and of fanning their sense of guardedness towards Japan. “21
The question that looms large before the peace movement and those concerned with the future of Japan is which path will Japan take. Will it take the path laid before it by the long and sustained tradition of pacifism and peace; or will it proceed along the path of militarization that brought it enormous disaster not very long ago. Will those entrusted with power and authority persist in the theory of deterrence which professor Albert Legault in the Asahi International Symposium 1983 so pointedly referred to, as a theory which rest on immorality, and thereby become a party to the balance of terror which Professor Legault called “a form of international terrorism which is being practiced by the superpowers at the expense of the international community.” Or will the Peace movement succeed in putting Japan on a path where she will be in the vanguard for world peace and justice for its people.22
1. Peace Studies Association of Japan (PSAJ), Newsletter, No. 4, Sept. 1984, pp. 7-10. (Introduction to English Materials on Hiroshima and Nagasaki useful for Peace Education by Morishima Hiromu, Hiroshima Institute of Peace Education). See Resources section of his issue of Asian Exchange.
2. GENSUIKYO is the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs closely related to and supported by the Japan Communist Party. GENSUIKKIN is the Japan Congress against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs closely related to and supported by the Japan Socialist Party.
3. B. Jaye Miller, “The Nuclear Experience: Japan’s Unknown Peace Movement”., Socialist Review Number 78 (Vol. 14, No. 6) p.75
4. Yoshikawa Yuichi, “The Peace Movement in the ‘Victim Nation’ : What will ‘No Nukes’ mean in Japan in the ‘80s?”, AMPO: Japan-Asia Quarterly Review, Vol. 14. No. 2, Tokyo. p.6.
5. Katsumi Ueda, “Tabata Shinobu – Defender of the Peace Constitution”, in Nobuya Bamba and John F. Howes (ed.), Pacifism in Japan: The Christian Socialist Tradition, The Minerva Press, Kyoto, Japan, 1978, p.221.
6. Nishikawa Jun, PSAJ Newsletter No. 1, May 1979, p. 1.
7. Yoshikawa Yuichi, AMPO Vol. 14, No. 2, 1982, pp. 5-6
8. Yoshikawa Yuichi, “Japan’s Anti-Nuclear Movement: How Effective Can It Be – A Brief Report on the Conflicts in the Anti-Nuclear Movement in Japan”, AMPO Vol. 16, No. 3, 1984, P.29.
9. Tsurumi Yoshiyuki, “The Peace Movement and the Third World – Questioning the Peace Consciousness of Advanced Nations,” Mainichi Shimbun, Evening Edition, May 15, 1982., Quoted in Yoshikawa Yuichi, AMPO Vol. 14, No. 2, 1982, p. 7.
10. Yukawa-Hirao, Keiko, “Peace Education in Japan.” PSAJ Newsletter No. 4 Sept. 1984, p. 6.
11. “New Phase for the Pacific-Asia Resources Centre-Its Aims and Activities,” AMPO, Vol. 16. No. 3, 1984, p.57.
12. “Japan’s National Illusion Machine – What the World Looks Like through the Japanese Mass Media,” (Interview with Kogaea Tetsuo – Interviewer: Douglas Lummis), AMPO, Vol. 16. No. 4, 1984. P. 28.
13. Hitoshi Ohnsihi, “The Peace Movement in Japan,” International Peace Research Newsletter, Vol. XXI. No.3, 1983, Tokyo, Japan p. 26.
14. For a fuller discussion of the attitudes of the Japanese people see Yoshikawa Yuichi, AMPO, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1984. pp 28-29.
15. Joseph A, Massey, Youth and Politics in Japan, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, U.S.A., 1976, pp. 65-66.
16. B. Jaye Miller, Socialist Review, Number 78 (Vol. 14, No. 6.) November-December 1984, P. 78. Also see Ueno, Hirohisa “Japanese People’s Attitdue Toward Nuclear Weapons,”PSAJ Newsletter No. 3 Sept. 1983, pp. 4-8.
17. Ibid., P. 73.
18. Proceedings – Asahi International Symposium, “In Quest of nuclear Disarmament,” March 19-31, 1983. Asahi Evening News, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 123-124 and p. 128.
19. The Daily Yomiuri, March 18, 1985.
20. Radha Sinha, Japan’s Options for the 1980s, Charles E. Tuttle Co., Tokyo, 1982, p. 219. Quoted from S. Matsumoto, “Japan’s Voting Behaviour in the United Nations” in H. Itoh (ed.) Japanese Politics – An Inside View, P. 188, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1973.
21. Ibid., P. 216, Quoted from C. Hosoya, “Course for ‘All-Directors’, Japan to take,” CHUO KORON, Oct. 1978.
22. Proceedings – Asahi International Symposium, March, 1983, p. 46.
This was written in 1985 and published in 1986 while the “cold war” was still on. The conflict in Lanka had escalated into a full-fledged war. The writer was virtually in self-imposed exile from his country.
The editor of the ARENA Bulletin and Coordinator of ARENA Lawrence Surendra in his note on the contributors had this to say. “Santasilan Kadirgamar is a Tamil Sri Lankan History scholar who has taught at the Jaffna University. He now lives with his family in Japan. His stay in Japan is perhaps an expression of the existential realities of Conflict and the non Peace in most Asian societies today.
This Bulletin in its chapter on Resources: Information on Peace related activity in Japan (pp.117-134) carries a listing of thirty organizations involved in and concerned with Peace and Conflict issues at that time in Japan, and an extensive list of educational materials then available in Japan. These include research publications, text books, resource centres for films, slides, paintings and photographs for peace education. Visiting and or making contact with most of these organizations and centres was a remarkable and memorable experience for the writer.
The Bulletin opens with a quotable quote from Albert Einstein:
“the war is won but the peace is not. The great powers, united in fighting, are now divided over the peace settlements. The world was promised freedom from fear, but in fact fear has increased tremendously since the termination of the war. The world was promised freedom from want, but large parts of the world are faced with starvation while others are living in abundance. The nations were promised liberation and justice. But we have witnessed, and are witnessing even now, the sad spectacle of “liberating” armies firing into populations who want their independence and social equality, and supporting in those countries by force of arms, such parties and personalities as appear to be most suited to serve vested interests. Territorial questions and arguments of power, obsolete though they are, still prevail over the essential demands of common welfare and justice.”
Albert Einstein, from an address on the occasion of the Fifth Nobel Anniversary Dinner at the Hotel Astor in New York, December 10, 1945. Published in ‘Out of My Later Years’, New York, Philosophical Library 1950l