Hiroshima releases outline of peace declaration for 80th atomic bomb anniversary
Hiroshima on Friday released the gist of the peace declaration that Mayor Matsui Kazumi will read out at the ceremony on August 6. Hibakusha joined experts in drafting the statement.
The declaration will quote the phrase "never give up" that hibakusha Tsuboi Sunao repeated during his lifelong campaign to seek the abolition of nuclear weapons. Tsuboi, who was active at home and abroad, died four years ago at the age of 96.
It will also draw on the testimonies of other survivors to convey the importance of passing on their wish for peace.
The declaration will take note of the spreading idea that nuclear weapons are needed for national defense. It will ask world leaders if they've ever considered the possibility that their security policies are producing international conflicts.
Mayor Masui told reporters that the peace declaration will emphasize the hibakusha's wish for peace, to urge world leaders to establish security frameworks based on relationships of trust built through dialogue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Japan to ramp up measures against foreign election interference
Japan plans to enhance its surveillance and regulatory measures to prevent foreign interference in elections. The Cabinet Secretariat's National Cybersecurity Office will play a key role in identifying problems that must be addressed to create a system for dealing with threats in an integrated manner. In last month's Upper House election, foreign actors were suspected to be behind the spread of disinformation on social media. Election interference "poses a risk to democracy, but there's no specific body to handle it," cybersecurity minister Masaaki Taira told a news conference Friday, stressing the need to create a body to oversee measures. Election interference often involves information manipulation and propaganda aimed at influencing public opinion and policy decisions. By spreading disinformation and extremist discourse on the internet during elections, foreign actors seek to destabilize political systems through social divisions while supporting the campaigns of specific candidates and parties. Professor Takamichi Saito of Meiji University's Cybersecurity Laboratory said that election interference is "part of military strategy." Russia and China are suspected of meddling in Britain's 2016 referendum on whether to leave the European Union, in U.S. presidential elections since the same year and in the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election. In last month's Upper House election, some information was spread in an unnatural manner on social media, likely by automated bots. Some accounts on X linked to websites likely associated with Russia were frozen. Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kazuhiko Aoki told a news conference during the election campaign period that Japan "has become a target of influence operations" by foreign actors. Currently, the Cabinet Secretariat and the Foreign and Defense ministries are tasked with gathering and analyzing information, while the communications ministry is tasked with asking social media platform operators to address inappropriate posts. A cross-agency effort is becoming necessary as the threat of election interference grows. Key issues to be considered by the government include establishing measures to block content, such as the removal of problematic posts and bot accounts. The government faces a difficult challenge in determining how to conduct fact checks and regulate radical statements, including those labeling foreign nationals as enemies. A legal framework on the matter must be consistent with constitutionally protected freedom of speech, so designing such a system is expected to be a complicated procedure. "There are a wide range of issues to consider, such as how much obligation to impose on social media platform operators," a government source said. The National Cybersecurity Office was established last month to oversee active cyberdefense policy. The office will play a central role in investigating suspected interference in the Upper House race and measures other countries take against such interference.
Japan Today
9 hours ago
- Japan Today
Treaty to control nuclear risks under strain 80 years after U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
By Stephen Herzog Eighty years ago – on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945 – the U.S. military dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, thrusting humanity into a terrifying new age. In mere moments, tens of thousands of people perished in deaths whose descriptions often defy comprehension. The blasts, fires and lingering radiation effects caused such tragedies that even today no one knows exactly how many people died. Estimates place the death toll at up to 140,000 in Hiroshima and over 70,000 in Nagasaki, but the true human costs may never be fully known. The moral shock of the U.S. attacks reverberated far beyond Japan, searing itself into the conscience of global leaders and the public. It sparked a movement I and others continue to study: the efforts of the international community to ensure that such horrors are never repeated. Racing toward the brink The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cast a long shadow over global efforts to contain nuclear arms. The 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, was a powerful, if imperfect, effort to prevent future nuclear catastrophe. Its creation reflected not just morality, but also the practical fears and self-interests of nations. As the years passed, views of the bombings as justified acts began to shift. Harrowing firsthand accounts from Hibakusha – the survivors – reached wide audiences. One survivor, Setsuko Thurlow, described the sight of other victims: 'It was like a procession of ghosts. I say 'ghosts' because they simply did not look like human beings. Their hair was rising upwards, and they were covered with blood and dirt, and they were burned and blackened and swollen. Their skin and flesh were hanging, and parts of the bodies were missing. Some were carrying their own eyeballs.' Nuclear dangers increased further with the advent of hydrogen bombs, or thermonuclear weapons, capable of destruction far greater than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What had once seemed a decisive end to a global war now looked like the onset of an era wherein no city or civilization would truly be safe. These shifting perceptions shaped how nations viewed the nuclear age. In the decades following World War II, nuclear technology rapidly spread. By the early 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union aimed thousands of nuclear warheads at one another. Meanwhile, there were concerns that countries in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East would acquire the bomb. U.S. President John F. Kennedy even warned that '15 or 20 or 25 nations' might be able to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s, resulting in the 'greatest possible danger' to humanity – the prospect of its extinction. This warning, like much of the early nonproliferation rhetoric, drew its urgency from the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps the starkest indication of the gravity of the stakes emerged during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. For 13 days, the world teetered on the edge of nuclear annihilation until the Soviet Union withdrew its missiles from Cuba in exchange for the secret withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey. During those long days, U.S. and Soviet leaders – and external observers – witnessed how quickly the risks of global destruction could escalate. Crafting the grand bargain In the wake of such 'close calls' – moments where nuclear war was narrowly averted due to individual judgment or sheer luck – diplomacy accelerated. Negotiations on a treaty to control nuclear proliferation continued at meetings of the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee in Geneva from 1965 to 1968. While the enduring horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to drive the momentum, national interests largely shaped the talks. There were three groups of negotiating parties. The United States was joined by its NATO allies Britain, Canada, Italy and France – which only observed. The Soviet Union led a communist bloc containing Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. And there were nonaligned countries: Brazil; Burma, now known as Myanmar; Ethiopia; India; Mexico; Nigeria; Sweden, which only joined NATO in 2024; and the United Arab Republic, now known as Egypt. For the superpowers, a treaty to limit the spread of the bomb was as much a strategic opportunity as a moral imperative. Keeping the so-called 'nuclear club' small would not only stabilize international tensions, but it would also cement Washington's and Moscow's global leadership and prestige. U.S. leaders and their Soviet counterparts therefore sought to promote nonproliferation abroad. Perhaps just as important as ensuring nuclear forbearance among their adversaries was preventing a cascade of nuclear proliferation among allies that could embolden their friends and spiral out of control. Standing apart from these Cold War blocs were the nonaligned countries. Many of them approached the atomic age through a humanitarian and moral lens. They demanded meaningful action toward nuclear disarmament to ensure that no other city would suffer the tragic fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The nonaligned countries refused to accept a two-tiered treaty merely codifying inequality between nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots.' In exchange for agreeing to forgo the bomb, they demanded two crucial commitments that shaped the resulting treaty into what historians often describe as a 'grand bargain.' The nonaligned countries agreed in the treaty to permit the era's existing nuclear powers – Britain, China, France, the Soviet Union (later Russia) and the United States – to temporarily maintain their arsenals while committing to future disarmament. But in exchange, they were promised peaceful nuclear technology for energy, medicine and development. And to reduce the risks of anyone turning peaceful nuclear materials into weapons, the treaty empowered the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct inspections around the world. Legacies and limits The treaty entered into force in 1970 and with, 191 member nations, is today among the world's most universal accords. Yet, from the outset, its provisions faced limits. Nuclear-armed India, Israel and Pakistan have always rejected the treaty, and North Korea later withdrew to develop its own nuclear weapons. In response to evolving challenges, such as the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s, International Atomic Energy Agency safeguard efforts grew more stringent. Many countries agreed to accept nuclear facility inspections on shorter notice and involving more intrusive tools as part of the initiative to detect and deter the development of the world's most powerful weapons. And the countries of the world extended the treaty indefinitely in 1995, reaffirming their commitment to nonproliferation. The treaty represents a complex compromise between morality and pragmatism, between the painful memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and hard-edged geopolitics. Despite its many imperfections and its de facto promotion of nuclear inequality, the treaty is credited with limiting nuclear proliferation to just nine countries today. It has done so through civilian nuclear energy incentives and inspections that give countries confidence that their rivals are not building the bomb. Countries also put pressure on each other to obey the rules, such as when the international community condemned, sanctioned and isolated North Korea after it withdrew from the treaty and tested a nuclear weapon. But the treaty continues to face serious challenges. Critics argue that its disarmament provisions remain vague and unfulfilled, with some scholars contending that nonnuclear countries should exit the treaty to encourage the great powers to disarm. Nuclear-armed countries continue to modernize – and in some cases, expand – their arsenals, eroding trust in the grand bargain. The behavior of individual countries also points to strains on the treaty. Russia's persistent nuclear threats during its war on Ukraine show how deeply possessors may still rely on these weapons as tools of coercive foreign policy. North Korea continues to wield its nuclear arsenal in ways that undermine international security. Iran might consider proliferation to deter future Israeli and U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities. Still, I would argue that declaring the treaty to be dead is simply premature. Critics have predicted its demise since the treaty's inception in 1968. While many countries have growing frustrations with the existing system of nonproliferation, most of them still see more benefit in staying than walking away from the treaty. The treaty may be embattled, but it remains intact. Worryingly, the world today appears far removed from the vision of avoiding nuclear catastrophe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped awaken. As nuclear dangers intensify and disarmament stalls, moral clarity risks fading into ritual remembrance. I believe that for the sake of humanity's future, the tragedies of the atomic bombings must remain a stark and unmistakable warning, not a precedent. Ultimately, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty's continued relevance depends on whether nations still believe that shared security begins with shared restraint. Stephen Herzog is Professor of the Practice, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Middlebury. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
Japan Times
12 hours ago
- Japan Times
India aghast at Donald Trump's ‘dead' economy dig and 25% tariffs
Shock, dismay and angst swept across India as businesses, policymakers and citizens digested U.S. President Donald Trump's sharp remarks and a surprise 25% tariff rate earlier this week. While Indian government officials weighed a response and business groups tallied the cost of the trade barrier, the domestic social media flared up with users protesting Trump's comments and criticizing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for not speaking up. It started with Trump saying that India's trade barriers were the "most strenuous and obnoxious,' in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. He added the U.S. may also impose a penalty for New Delhi's purchase of Russian weapons and energy. Less than a day later, he ripped into India again for aligning with Russia, calling them "dead economies' in another post. With no imminent trade deal, the 25% tariffs kicked in as of Friday. India is hardly alone in facing Trump's trade wrath — and not the subject to the very highest rates — but the news left business and political leaders wondering how to cope with the fallout. 'Blunt-force' message "Overnight, the U.S.-India trade equation shifted from tense to turbulent,' said Akshat Garg, assistant vice president at Choice Wealth, a Mumbai based financial services firm. The levies "feel less like structured policy and more like a blunt-force political message.' Complicating the narrative around the India trade deal — or the lack of it — was the U.S. pact with its traditional rival Pakistan that came through on the same day. As the U.S. released rates across the world on Aug. 1, India's relative disadvantage to competitor exporting countries became more apparent, dampening moods and stoking tempers further. "The biggest blow is that Pakistan and Bangladesh got a better rate than us,' said V. Elangovan, managing director at SNQS Internationals, an apparel-maker in the south Indian manufacturing hub of Tirupur. "We were expecting something in the 15% to 20% range.' India's annoyance can be traced back in part to Trump declaring himself the peacemaker that helped broker a ceasefire in the armed conflict between India and Pakistan in May. The move was seen as an effort to upstage Modi and put the two South Asian neighbors on an equal footing, despite India's larger military and economy. The events of this week have cemented that impression further in the eyes of some Indian observers. When the tariff rate news first dropped late Wednesday evening in India, Ashish Kanodia recalls being "very disturbed.' A director at Kanodia Global, a closely held exporter that gets over 40% of its revenue from the U.S. selling home fabrics to toys, the entrepreneur already has two of its largest U.S. customers seeking discounts to make up for the levy. "The next six months are going to be difficult for everyone,' Kanodia said, adding that profit margins will be squeezed. If the pain continues for "months and months,' he said he'll have to start cutting his workforce. The U.S. is India's largest trading partner, with the two-way trade between them at an estimated $129.2 billion in 2024. Compared with India's 25%, Bangladesh was subjected to a 20% tariff, Vietnam got a 20% levy and Indonesia and Pakistan each received 19% duties. "We know that we have got a deal that is worse than other countries,' said Sabyasachi Ray, executive director at The Gem and Jewelry Export Promotion Council. "We will take it up with the government.' Trump's actions mark a 180-degree turn for New Delhi's hopes of preferential treatment over regional peers. It was among the first to engage Washington in trade talks in February, confident of hammering out a deal sooner than others. Trump had called Modi "my friend' in a Feb. 14 post on X and the bond between the two countries "special.' India is now weighing options to placate the White House, including boosting U.S. imports, according to people familiar with the matter, and many hope that the bilateral relationship and the tariff rate can still be improved. "It is a storm in the India-U.S. relationship at this moment but I think there's a good chance that it will go away,' said Vivek Mishra, deputy director of the Strategic Studies Program at Delhi-based Observer Researcher Foundation. Indian business and trade groups are supporting the government's stance on the deal as the negotiations for a U.S.-India trade deal continue. Negotiating tactic Jewelry businesses "are worried but they are not panicking' because they hope a more favorable deal can be worked out, said Ray of the gems export body. "The negotiation that should be happening should be a win-win, not a win-lose.' The abrupt announcement by Trump over social media when negotiations with India were ongoing "seems like a knee-jerk reaction,' according to Rohit Kumar, founding partner at public policy research firm The Quantum Hub. "This appears to be a negotiating tactic aimed at unresolved discussion points,' Kumar said.
