On this day, the first A-bomb Memorial Day of the 21st century, I wonder how many people around the world, especially politicians in nuclear-weapon states, are giving any thought to the Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims in Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The words of condolence to the survivors engraved on that symbolic coffin are, "Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil." This pledge is clearly linked to "relief for the survivors" and to "banning A- and H-bombs" and the elimination of war and nuclear power. These are the points of departure for Hiroshima, and this inherited desire is now established as a goal for the 21st century. The central themes of the many events on and around August 6 were nuclear abolition and relief for survivors living overseas.

Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba, in today's Peace Declaration, called on the world to create a "century of peace and humanity." Nuclear weapons are not the only threat to the human family. We are surrounded by local conflicts fought with conventional weapons, environmental destruction, bullying and myriad other forms of violence. Without a change of heart among human beings, who threaten to destroy their "seed" by their own hand, there can be no hope of a peaceful society. This year's Declaration was clear and incontrovertible. Reconciliation, reason, conscience-only through humanity do peace and nuclear abolition become possible.

On the other hand, the overall tone was gentle. It lacked expressions of anger at the selfishness of the nuclear superpowers, and many people felt it should have been stronger. Compared to the Peace Declaration to be presented by the mayor of Nagasaki (August 9), which is reported to press hard for implementation of the internationally agreed "unequivocal undertaking to eliminate nuclear arsenals," the Hiroshima Declaration lacked concrete recommendations for confronting the situation of the world.

The declaration did demand that the Japanese government promote the creation of nuclear-free zones and a treaty banning nuclear weapons, and I have to give the mayor credit for making direct requests when he met with Prime Minister Koizumi. He demanded support for early effectuation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and peace diplomacy that builds confidence without relying on the nuclear umbrella. He also called for pressure to halt to the subcritical nuclear testing by the US and Russia and a skeptical approach to the star wars program.

However, the talk was only 25 minutes, consisting merely of the exchange of a previously prepared documents list of demands and an answering document from the national government. The prime minister, during the Peace Memorial Ceremony, promised to press for effectuation of the CTBT, but his prepared document stated that he did not oppose subcritical nuclear tests that do not involve explosions and that he "understands" the star wars program, which has always been his position. He went no further than to say he would strictly abide by the US-Japan Security Treaty, which does not provide an environment for creating nuclear-free zones, and he will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence. It was unfortunate that there was no time for any serious, deep discussion.

The prime minister comes to the A-bombed city only once each year. Next year, I would like to see this visit include some meaningful dialogue. In particular, he needs to be confronted about the contradiction between reliance on the nuclear umbrella and efforts to advance nuclear abolition overseas. In a recent opinion survey, the number of people saying "the nuclear umbrella is unnecessary" increased to 55%. Even Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka has expressed doubts. Hiroshima's issue is to get the policy of reliance on nuclear weapons targeted by the Koizumi Reforms.
During the prime minister's meeting with to hear the opinions of survivors, the main issue was the problem of relief for survivors living overseas. The prime minister and Chikara Sakaguchi, Minister of Health, Labor, and Welfare, are reviewing the survivor relief laws and have said that they will make a report by the commission by the end of the year and "institute appropriate measures." It is obvious that the survivor relief laws have no geographical restrictions, and application to Occupied Okinawa provides a precedent. I would like to see the campaign for equal application pick up momentum. The A-bombed nation has a responsibility to stay in touch with the situations of all A-bomb survivors. This responsibility must also extend to questioning the legality of the use of nuclear weapons and relief for the radiation-exposed, whose numbers around the world continue to grow.