The reason the prime minister gave was, "As a former minister of health and welfare, I am well aware of the survivors' issues." He also pointed out that "I've come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki two years in a row. That's unprecedented." In other words, he knows a lot about survivor policies and doesn't feel he needs to hear their demands again. The minister in charge of such matters, Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Chikara Sakaguchi, did listen to the survivors, so what's the problem? It's just division of labor.

However, that is all prime ministerial logic. The survivors and many others look at it quite differently. Former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama also came to Hiroshima two consecutive years, leaving us somewhat confused by Koizumi's strong assertion that his coming was "unprecedented." More "unprecedented" is his decision not to attend the "listening meeting," which successive prime ministers have always attended, or visit an A-bomb nursing home. For the hibakusha, the "listening meeting" is their only chance to convey their demands directly to the prime minister. With a mix of strong feelings, they wait eagerly for this opportunity every year.

This year, a series of events has the survivors more eager than usual. One was the comment by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, which was interpreted by many as calling for a review of the three non-nuclear principles. In fact, when the prime minister was Health and Welfare minister, his controversial opinion was that the National Memorial Hall, which opened on the 1st, was "putting a roof on a roof." In addition, the stand-off continues between the nuclear-weapon states India and Pakistan, and the US appears on the verge of attacking Iraq.

What does the prime minister think about all this? He has often promised the Diet that Japan would hold fast to the three non-nuclear principles, and repeated it at Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Ceremony. But the Prime Minister's initial casual dismissal of Fukuda's remarks with, "He meant nothing by it," alarmed the hibakusha. It is entirely reasonable that they should want to ask him face-to-face for the real story and his true intentions.

They are bewildered by the contradiction between Prime Minister Koizumi's comment to the effect that "The more time passes, the more people will understand the importance of what the Memorial Hall provides" as opposed to his earlier appraisal of such a hall as "redundant." They also wanted to speak directly to the prime minister and hear his true feelings regarding such other specific issues as relief for overseas survivors and overly strict standards for certifying A-bomb diseases. This is a natural human desire. Did he think it would be too tedious to answer these demands one by one? This may not be the prime minister's true feeling, but we cannot ignore the fact that disappointment is spreading that "he's avoiding the survivors."

The most serious cause for concern is the prime minister's complacent claim to be thoroughly acquainted with the conditions and policies related to the survivors. Given that health and welfare were once his specialty, he undoubtedly has considerable knowledge of the survivor problem. However, great doubts have been raised regarding the extent to which he has been assertive with the US, which is threatening to resume nuclear testing and appears to have flung the rudder far toward nuclear military expansion. As leader of the A-bombed nation, if Koizumi is unable to display an unequivocal commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons, that bespeaks a more dangerous complacency.