Behind the scenes at the conclave with Japan's Cardinal Kikuchi Isao
*The interview, translated from Japanese, has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Please describe the experience at your first conclave.
Cardinal Kikuchi Isao: I have been a Catholic Christian since I was a child, and I felt very nervous because this was an election to decide the head of the Roman Catholic church. Japanese Cardinal Kikuchi Isao attended the conclave.
There was little detail beforehand, so I was wondering when my smartphone would be taken away from me. When I arrived at the guesthouse in Vatican City just before the election, its usual entrance was closed, and I was instructed to enter via an underground parking lot. There were a lot of x-ray machines, like an airport's security inspection area.
Everyone's belongings were checked, and all electronic devices were taken away on the spot, including smartphones, personal computers and chargers. All those items were put away in special sealed envelopes. The security process took a long time.
They took away smartwatches as well. So, the cardinals who relied on their smartwatches were not able to tell the time or set their alarms. Some of them asked: "How will we wake up on time tomorrow morning?" A staffer rushed to a nearby souvenir shop to buy alarm clocks for them. Cardinals from around the world preparing for the conclave
How did the conclave make its choice?
Cardinal Kikuchi: We didn't have a clear front runner. Before the conclave, we had the General Congregation of Cardinals. During that, many of the cardinals demonstrated the qualities required. The chosen person should have deep experience in pastoral care. They also need to be a capable administrator and leader.
It is very difficult to find somebody who has both abilities, but Robert Francis Prevost, now known as Pope Leo XIV, really fit the requirements, because he was a missionary in Peru, a bishop in Peru, and he also served as Prior General of the Order of Saint Augustine. He was a prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. So he has both pastoral experience, and administrative experience.
From a religious perspective, he possesses a deep spirituality. So we are pleased that we found somebody very suitable. Window coverings shielded the room where the conclave took place
Cardinal Kikuchi: I have seen the movie "Conclave", and the reality was nothing like that. In the film, people are plotting, arguing and making accusations. These kind of things never happened during the conclave.
We didn't know each other well, so we spent a lot of time in the dining room talking over meals and drinks. We shared a lot of stories about ourselves so that we could get to know each other. They were the best moments.
In that process of getting to know one another, we were able to come to a conclusion ― based on the hopeful requirements expressed during the conclave and General Congregation ― what kind of pope we wanted. We found somebody who is extremely suitable, who fits the requirements. And that is Pope Leo XIV. Cardinals pray at the conclave.
Was it difficult to make a choice?
Cardinal Kikuchi: A two-thirds majority is not an easy thing to acquire. If there was something like a straw ballot, then we could narrow down the number of candidates, and move on more quickly. But there are no straw ballots, so we just start voting and it is very difficult to narrow down the candidates.
That's why we took so much time. In the end, I think that was a good thing…we had a plenty time to think it over and pray, and discern the real call from God. We had a result on the second day.
Was there a turning point?
Cardinal Kikuchi: Because there was no strong front runner among the cardinals, at the beginning it was very difficult to narrow it down to one or two people. But after some discussions over the dinners, and after the first vote on the first day in the evening, I think we had an idea about the suitable candidates, including Prevost and others. Cardinals gather on May 8 after Pope Leo XIV, pictured center in white, was elected. Cardinal Kikuchi Isao is pictured on the left.
Some observers were tipping an Asian or African pope, but the cardinals picked an American. What do you make of that?
Cardinal Kikuchi: I was really surprised that we made the decision to choose an American. But at the same time, because of his experience in Peru, the Latin American cardinals are very happy to have him. The new pope (a dual citizen of the US and Peru) comes after Pope Francis from Argentina. The American cardinals are also very happy.
For the Asians and African cardinals, we felt that our time has not yet come. Of course, before the conclave, in the media we saw some of the Asian and African cardinals' names mentioned. During our discussions at the General Congregation, we felt that maybe the time is not quite right for an Asian or African leader of the Catholic Church.
We talked about how the Catholic Church is really a European institution, based on Italian culture. The pope is also Bishop of Rome so he must understand Italian culture, be familiar with the Italian way of working, and be able to speak Italian. In a cultural sense, he must be 'Italian.' So I think there is still some way to go before the Catholic Church has somebody from Africa or Asia as a bishop of Rome. Cardinal Tagle, left, from the Philippines, and Cardinal Turkson from Ghana were considered leading candidates.
What happened when the new pope was elected?
Cardinal Kikuchi: During what turned out to be the final count, an official was calling out the cardinals' names. We were keeping a tally and the moment the number exceeded two thirds, everyone started applauding. Some cardinals were standing up.
I was watching everyone's faces, and from what I could see, they all looked happy as we had a new shepherd.
Prevost seemed to be looking down and praying for something. When he was asked, "Do you accept the result?", he replied, "Yes." He was asked, "What do you want to be called?" and he answered "Leo the fourteenth.' Right after that his demeanor changed. From a quiet cardinal, at that moment, he became filled with confidence.
Once somebody is chosen, it is not we who chose him. According to our belief, it is Jesus himself who appoints somebody to be the successor of Saint Peter. So that is why, whatever the difference of opinions among the cardinals, we will all support the new pope.
I don't know Pope Leo XIV very well, but I have met him before at conferences. He seemed very kind, quiet, and easy to talk to. Like many Americans, he likes to crack jokes, and he even enjoyed a laugh at his first press conference. In 2018 Pope Leo XIV was serving as a bishop in Peru.
How do you think Pope Leo XIV will deal with President Donald Trump, a fellow American?
Cardinal Kikuchi: I think Pope Leo XIV is trying to avoid getting involved in politics. Of course, he is from Chicago, but a great deal of his life has been spent in Peru. He has been in Rome for many years as a Prior General of the Order of Saint Augustine. He knows how to work in Rome, and he knows Italian culture.
From day one as a pope, he started speaking exclusively in Italian, using a little Spanish to greet to Peruvians. Whenever he appears before the people, he wants to show them that he is the Bishop of Rome. That is a priority for him.
At this moment, he's trying to avoid being involved in any politics. But in the future, we don't know. There will be a time for a meeting between Pope Leo XIV and the President of the United States, and we will see what will happen. Pope Leo XIV
Why did the new pontiff emphasize "peace" during his first speech?
Cardinal Kikuchi: Prior to the conclave, during the General Congregation of Cardinals, many of us spoke about the role of the Catholic church in building peace in the world, especially in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and other parts of the Middle East and Africa. There was a view that the new pope should be the one to take the lead on building peace. So that's why Pope Leo XIV is emphasizing that. He also wants to foster dialog, because that serves as a basic foundation for creating peace.
Some critics feel Pope Leo XIV is not as empathetic to the LGBTQ community as his predecessor. What do you think?
Cardinal Kikuchi: During the General Congregation and the conclave, we didn't talk much about specific issues like accepting the LGBTQ community, or allowing the ordination of women, or accepting divorced people for communion. They are all issues still being considered by a study group established by Pope Francis, and some recommendations are expected by the end of June. I'm sure that Pope Leo XIV is also waiting for those findings. Vatican
What are your hopes from new pope?
Cardinal Kikuchi: Everybody all over the world knows the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the history of the atomic bomb during World War Two. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the bombings, so we would welcome the Holy Father if he was able to come to Japan and make a strong appeal for peace. Pope Leo XIV
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
44 minutes ago
- NHK
New US tariff rate of 15% to come into effect Thursday
New tariff rates on trading partners of the United States come into effect at midnight Wednesday in Washington. That's 1 p.m., Japan time, on Thursday. Japan and the United States reached an agreement last month to impose a new 15 percent baseline import tariff rate on Japan. Immediately after the deal was clinched, the Japanese government explained that the 15 percent rate would be imposed on items currently subject to a lower rate -- and that nothing would change for those whose tariffs are already 15 percent or higher. But there was no mention of this in the executive order US President Donald Trump signed on July 31 or in related documents released by the White House. That's despite a flat 15 percent rate being set down in a similar agreement reached between the European Union and the United States. It also remains unclear when the US tariffs on Japanese autos will be lowered from the current 27.5 percent to 15 percent. Japan's top trade negotiator, Akazawa Ryosei, now in Washington, is calling on his US counterparts to lower tariffs on Japanese automobiles and car parts at an early date.
Japan Times
8 hours ago
- Japan Times
Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings necessary?
The order to attack Japanese cities with atomic bombs was issued on July 25, 1945, by acting U.S. Army Chief of Staff Thomas Handy to Gen. Carl Spaatz, commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces, to "deliver (the) first special bomb as soon as weather will permit after about Aug. 3, 1945. ... The target list: 'Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki.' " Further attacks on the above targets were authorized to proceed as soon as additional atomic bombs were delivered. The order explicitly confirmed that Chief of Staff George Marshall and Secretary of War Henry Stimson had approved it. U.S. President Harry Truman, of course, provided the ultimate authorization for dropping the bombs. Before the above order to attack was given, the U.S. Air Force had started practicing to use the atomic bombs from around mid-July through early August in Japan, dropping 49 mock bombs with conventional explosives, each weighing 6.5 tons, the same as the one used on Nagasaki, on 18 prefectures. The training was to learn the necessary trajectory for the real thing. The first uranium bomb (Little Boy) had been shipped earlier and arrived in Tinian on July 26. The plutonium implosion device (Fat Man) arrived in Tinian shortly thereafter. A third bomb of the Fat Man type would arrive in Tinian later in August. With two bombs in Tinian, both would be used. The Potsdam Declaration demanding Japan's surrender or face destruction was issued on July 26, 1945, around the same time as the order to deploy the atomic bombs. The declaration promised the Japanese that they could design their new government as long as it was peaceful and more democratic. There was debate on the U.S. side to suggest the imperial system could continue, as some knew this would be critical to a successful occupation, but the declaration was silent on this point. Diplomatic discussions were launched through Switzerland, a neutral and nonbelligerent power acting as an intermediary, to seek clarification on whether the imperial system could continue in the Asian nation's postwar government. In Japan's request for clarification on the issue, its communications did not specifically mention Emperor Hirohito, who, according to Imperial Household historical records, had resigned himself to abdicating to assume accountability. Soviet leader Josef Stalin chose to delay those discussions because he wanted the USSR to enter the war so it could grab territory. Yet, the U.S. did know from intercepted messages between Tokyo and Moscow that the Japanese were seeking a way to end the war starting in June 1945. And after the Potsdam Declaration was issued, the intercepted messages confirmed that Japan sought a clarification of the continuation of the imperial system in the new democratic system. The U.S. chose to interpret that request for clarification as a rejection of the Potsdam Declaration. At the Potsdam Conference, the Soviets had committed to attack Japan by Aug. 15. However, with confirmation that the July 16 bomb test in New Mexico had been a complete success, the Allies no longer needed the USSR's help to end the war without an invasion, nor did they want Stalin involved in the postwar aftermath. The U.S. and U.K. chose not to inform him about the bomb, but through his spy networks, he already knew all about the Manhattan Project. After the Hiroshima bombing at 8:15 a.m. on Aug. 6, the Soviet attack was brought forward. It commenced just after midnight on Aug. 9 Moscow time. Fat Man was dropped on the unlucky city of Nagasaki at 11:02 a.m. on Aug. 9 (Japan time). The bombing took place later than planned because the city of Kokura was the primary target that day, but cloud cover and smoke obscured the city, so after a delay, the Americans chose the secondary target. Was it necessary to drop the bombs on civilian population centers to demonstrate the power of the weapons? Months before the attacks, a special committee debated how to deploy the new weapons. An early proposal to stage a demonstration, possibly on an offshore island near Tokyo Bay, was rejected as officials believed only the shock of an actual strike would compel Japan to surrender. The committee ultimately settled on a "dual target" plan to strike a military facility located near a manufacturing hub with its workers. However, shortly after, a different committee set aside the "dual target" plan and proposed the cities of Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto as targets. Secretary of War Harry Stimson vetoed Kyoto so Nagasaki took its place. These cities were chosen mainly because, unlike other major Japanese cities, they had not yet been heavily bombed, which would help in assessing the damage and effectiveness of the attack. The question then is why the first atomic bomb was dropped just a week or so after the Potsdam Declaration. The evidence strongly suggests the attacks were timed to occur before the USSR could enter the war against Japan. With the "iron curtain" already descended on Eastern Europe, the U.S. and Great Britain wanted to check Stalin's influence in postwar Asia. Was it necessary to drop it in the morning hours when civilian populations would be most concentrated in the city center? With the change in U.S. bombing strategy in January 1945 from high-altitude precision targeting to low-altitude attacks on civilian centers with incendiary bombs, the distinction between military, industrial and civilian targets was cast aside. The objective became to destroy large sections of a city at once. Starting with the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, which took the lives of over 100,000 civilians, the use of napalm and white phosphorus incendiary bombs dropped by hundreds of bombers on major civilian centers continued over the following months, causing several hundred thousand more civilian deaths and leaving millions homeless. The issue of civilian casualties during this period was not a priority. Daytime raids allowed bombing crews to see their targets clearly and document the damage caused. Given the nature of the orders issued on July 25 and the fact that two bombs were expected to arrive in Tinian before Aug. 3, it's clear the plan was to drop both bombs to compare their effectiveness before Japan could mount a realistic response. The debate over the necessity of using such destructive weapons continues to this day. U.S. history books have long stated the bombings were needed to avoid an invasion of Japan that could cost up to 1 million American casualties. The fierce defense of Okinawa is cited as an example of what would take place in an invasion of Kyushu, which was expected to be the first U.S. target. The problem with that reasoning is that the invasion of Japan under Operation Olympic was planned to start in November, some three months after the atomic bombings. The U.S. knew with certainty that Japan was trying to end the war and believed surrender could likely be secured by accepting the recommendation of some American experts to signal support for a constitutional monarchy. The obvious alternative to using nuclear weapons was to wait for the USSR's planned attack on Japan, expected around mid-August. But Washington and its allies wanted to avoid Soviet involvement, so the U.S. saw using atomic bombs as the better option. There is some historical evidence that suggests the bombs were also intended to pressure Stalin to halt further advances into Europe and elsewhere. But that plan failed miserably — both bombs were dropped, the USSR entered the war and demanded full involvement in postwar plans for the Asian nation as a reward for its brief six-day fight before Japan announced its surrender. Every Aug. 6 and 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki update and announce the number of deaths caused by the atomic bombings. Radioactive fallout continued to cause cancers for decades after the attacks. As of Aug. 6, 2025, Hiroshima has recorded 349,246 names; Nagasaki will also add more names to last year's total of 198,785. Edo Naito is a commentator on Japanese politics, law and history. He is a retired international business attorney and has held board of director and executive positions at several U.S. and Japanese multinational companies.
Japan Times
11 hours ago
- Japan Times
The Japan-Australia frigate sale is a big deal. Here's why.
This week, the Australian government announced that Japan has won the hard-fought competition to provide the Royal Australian Navy's next surface warfare vessel and that it will purchase up to 11 Mogami-class frigates. The amount of money in the deal is a whopping 10 billion Australian dollars (¥950 billion) to be committed over about 20 years. While the price tag and length of the deal are substantial, they are only partly why this agreement is so significant. For Japan, it signals a key step in the evolution of its defense industry. For Australia, it offers a viable near-term solution to modernizing its navy while also supporting its own domestic shipbuilding industries. Equally important is what it means for the deepening relationship between the two countries based on the long-term commitment they are embarking upon together. Japan and Australia have dubbed their relationship the 'Special Strategic Partnership,' but it has taken time and effort from both sides to evolve it to this point, particularly in the realm of security. In the mid-1990s, the two governments started to routinize defense-related engagements. This accelerated after cooperation in the early 2000s in Iraq where Australian forces were directly responsible for protecting Japanese engineering units, as well as through burgeoning trilateral cooperation with the United States. The two governments recognized their mutual interests both in the region and abroad and signed their first joint declaration on security cooperation in 2007. By the mid-2010s, the Japan-Australian security relationship seemed to be on an irreversible path of alignment. Which is why it came as such a shock to the Japanese when the precursor to this frigate deal fell through. A decade ago, the Australian military was in the market for a new diesel-powered submarine to replace its aging Collins-class vessels. The deal came down to two options: the Japanese Soryu-class or the French Suffren-class. The Australian government opted for the French deal, in part because of guarantees on the amount that local Australian shipbuilding industries would be incorporated into the procurement process. The Japanese government felt slighted by the decision for two reasons: first, it believed the Soryu was the superior submarine; and second, it saw the deal as emblematic of deepening security ties. For the Australians, the submarine deal with France ended up collapsing anyway. Amid delays and cost increases, the government decided in 2021 that it would abandon diesel submarines altogether and move to acquire nuclear-powered vessels under the new AUKUS pact. The result is that Australia still has no new submarines almost 10 years after eschewing the Japanese option. Thus, one of the things that this deal does is erase the memory of the Soryu-class submarine deal gone wrong. With this frigate deal, Japan and Australia get a mulligan — that is, they have another opportunity at a big, multiyear procurement agreement with a guarantee for new vessels to be delivered in the near term. However, even this recent outcome was not guaranteed for the two defense partners. Like the last submarine competition, it came down to Japan and a European competitor — this time, it was the Germans. The German Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems A-200 Frigate held an early advantage based on the fact that Australia already had previous experience with procurement of its Anzac-class vessels from a Thyssen group subsidiary. But with an aim of guaranteeing near-term delivery, the Japanese Mogami-class prevailed. There are still additional steps that must be taken. Australia's Department of Defence must now engage Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Japanese government in negotiating and entering binding commercial contracts. Their aim is to complete this process next year, with the delivery of the first Mogami-class frigate to Australia by 2029. For the Japanese government, this will make for the largest defense export to date. It is a huge milestone that entices Japanese companies to invest more heavily into their defense-related industries. Up to this point, export controls and the Japanese government's inability to facilitate the conclusion of deals have hampered progress in achieving these kinds of deals even when Japan has had top-of-the-line products. While the Soryu-class submarine offers one salient example, another is the ShinMaywa US-2 rescue seaplane — a one-of-a-kind search and rescue craft that still has not been exported overseas despite foreign interest. The fact that the Japanese government has finally netted something of this magnitude may be the kind of signal to Japan's big conglomerates that this sector can promise a worthwhile return on investment. For Australia, this deal is significant because it accelerates the procurement of its next-generation frigates. The administration of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is touting that this new design will enable the delivery of the new frigate five years ahead of the previous government's designs. The successful integration of this new vessel will help modernize the Australian Navy as it continues its important efforts to preserve the rules-based international order in the maritime domain. Further, the deal allows for investment in local Australian manufacturers. While the final contours of the deal will be worked out next year, a key parameter for this recent agreement-in-principle is that the shipbuilding will eventually transition from Japan to Australian soil in cooperation with domestic shipbuilders. Thus, this is not just a deal that satisfies government interests but creates important and enduring links to private sector interests as well. As the Australian government announced, this deal will underpin a 20-year program of record, and that is not even including the longer-term sustainment initiatives. Considering that vessels operate for decades, this agreement signals long-term investment from both countries. As for interoperability between defense forces, the deal promises both information-sharing and like systems. Licensed assembly in Australia means that there will be a necessary transfer of information on defense technology and operational designs. Further, interoperability becomes easier when the systems being used are alike. And, if all goes well, there is potential for similar procurement options in the future. It also offers additional synergy with the U.S. ally. As the Japanese touted to the Australian government, the Mogami-class frigate is designed to operate principally with Japanese and American technologies (e.g., weapons targeting systems, radars, datalink systems, etc.), meaning that Australia can leverage its existing relationships with U.S. defense companies for long-term sustainment and potential future upgrades. Understanding all this, it is easier to recognize why this frigate agreement is such a big deal. With it, the growing Japan-Australia Special Strategic Partnership just added another foundational pillar. [bio]Michael MacArthur Bosack is the special adviser for government relations at the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies. He previously served in the Japanese government as a Mansfield fellow.[bio]
