The building is there, but something is missing. Oh, yes, how about the sincerity? The true attitude is hard to discern. Today, Hiroshima commemorated its 57th A-bomb Day. Despite some setbacks, the National Memorial Hall to the Atomic Bomb Victims opened on the 1st. On the other hand, earlier this year Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda raised, at least temporarily, the spectre of abandoning fundamental precepts for this nation, the three non-nuclear principles. Thus, feelings in the A-bombed city are mixed. After all, it is precisely through strong anti-nuclear policies that we want to etch Japan's intentions into hearts around the world.

Needed: a sincere response

The Memorial Hall in Peace Memorial Park, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, was built to mourn the victims and tell future generations about the A-bomb tragedy. The victims' photographs and A-bomb accounts are gathered, stored and publicly displayed there. Visitors are, in fact, led to question the atomic bombing and their own awareness of nuclear issues. The government officials attending today's Peace Memorial Ceremony will visit the new Hall. Inside, they will find a written message that includes "..the many lives sacrificed to mistaken national policy .." We hope they pick up on the implied national responsibility, because never before has our nation's attitude toward the atomic bomb, peace, and the nuclear problem been more in doubt.

Concretely, the issues are 1) Fukuda's statement about reviewing the three non-nuclear principles, 2) relief for survivors living overseas, and 3) standards for certifying A-bomb illnesses. The Memorial Hall is a national project built in accordance with the A-bomb Survivors Relief Law, which recognized that the A-bomb inflicted "special injuries different from other war injuries." The A-bombed cities and their survivors are looking for a good-faith response from their government.

Hold fast to the three non-nuclear principles

The three non-nuclear principles are among Japan's most basic policies. Yet, toward the end of May, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said that these national precepts (no possession, no production, no introduction of nuclear weapons) might be reviewed. He was forced to defend himself in the Diet, and in the end, thanks to public pressure, the three non-nuclear principles were confirmed. However, a price was paid in loss of trust both at home and abroad. This administration gives us the strong impression that, had there been no public outcry, those principles would be undergoing a review. In the debate over national emergency legislation, we are deeply concerned that the government could go out the window.

During the discussion in the Diet, Fukuda said, "I regret that my comment was taken to suggest the actual possibility of a review. That was not my true meaning." He added, "You can cut me anywhere and you will not find a bone in my body that wants to review these principles." Thus, it ended in a flourish of formal rhetoric. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi casually dismissed his secretary's comment with, "He didn't mean anything by it." The troubling thing is that no one said anything about any process for determining our national commitment to the three non-nuclear principles.

The anti-nuclear policies of the A-bombed nation were undoubtedly a crucial factor in preventing the use of nuclear weapons after the war. Given the nuclear deterrence between India and Pakistan and elsewhere in Asia, our grave concern regarding American nuclear development arising from US unilateralism since September 11, and the need to maintain Japan's international position of moral authority, we must eliminate the anxiety factor, lack of clarity regarding nuclear issues.

Consideration for survivors living overseas

Japan's attitude toward relief for A-bomb survivors living overseas is in question. The time of transition began last year. Since the bombing, survivors living in South Korea or Brazil have brought suits against the government and others one after another demanding application of the survivor relief law. In courts in Osaka and Nagasaki, the hibakusha have won two straight decisions, but the national government is appealing those decisions. About 5,000 survivors still live on the Korean Peninsula and in the Americas. At the end of July, seven hibakusha living in Brazil initiated a similar legal action.

"Survivors are the same wherever they live." The hopes of overseas hibakusha are the same as those in Japan. They want help with medical treatment and health management. The outcome of the suit is unpredictable, but the lower court decision opened the window to providing for overseas survivors the A-bomb Survivors Health Book benefits that are currently denied them. However, the national government, citing differences in medical standards, refuses to bend on the perverse idea that, "Equal support can be provided only within the country."

Some of those involved say the brakes are on due to spreading alarm over the "comfort women" and other demands for post-war compensation. If that is true, the lower-level decisions favoring the hibakusha, and the prospects of economic and diplomatic influence could open the door to the application of relief to overseas survivors. In that sense, the question here is political skill.

Respond to doubts about certification

Here in Japan, aging hibakusha looking for solid proof, have filed collectively for recognition of certain health problems as A-bomb disorders. On July 9, at a call from the Japan Federation of A-bomb Sufferers, 76 survivors around the nation filed a collective application. They are applying together for mutual support against the high wall built against them by the national government. "We just want it recognized that these diseases are due to the A-bomb." This is a heartfelt desire.

The present system for determining a cause-effect relationship between the illness and the atomic bomb revolves around the DS86 method of estimating radiation exposure. With recognition comes a special medical allowance. As of the end of March 2002, only 2,169 survivors, or 0.76% of the 285,620 survivors carrying A-bomb Survivors Health Books have certified A-bomb-related diseases. About 2,000 certifications in ten years does not show much movement. The annual certification rate is falling, and the reasons for rejection are rarely given in detail. No wonder many survivors express the cynical view that "The certifications are set to match the budget."

Behind the court finding that "DS86 is not absolute" lie strong criticisms of the mechanical decision-making process. How do we answer questions about the government's management of this system and appeals to "understand the suffering and anxiety of the survivors?"

Though he will attend the Peace Memorial Ceremony, Prime Minister Koizumi plans to skip the traditional "meeting to hear demands from survivors." The reason given was "pressing official duties," but the survivors are unanimous in responding, "But there is real meaning in local contact." On this day it is incumbent on the prime minister of the A-bombed nation to listen directly to the voices of Hiroshima. A recent New York Times reported "an erosion of support for pacifism" in Japan. Looking from the outside, the shaking of this fundamental axis is worrisome. On A-bomb Day, we need to think deeply about the attitude and responsibility of our nation with respect to the problems of the atomic bombing and nuclear weapons.