(12)Are letters protesting nuclear tests effective?

Protesting from the ground of an atomic explosion

For countries who conduct subcritical nuclear tests, receiving letters of protest from a city that was bombed is probably a shock. Perhaps the letters are just thrown away without being read. I investigated this matter and tried to find out if these letters have any impact.

"We sometimes receive replies, so I assume our letters are being read," said Atsuko Sasaki of the International Peace Promotion Department of Hiroshima. She showed me two letters written in English, one from the US Ambassador to Japan, J. Thomas Schieffer, and the other from the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Great Britain, Kim Howells. These letters are the most recent replies that the city has received.

Both letters argued that the nuclear experiment conducted by the United States and Great Britain last February was needed "in order to maintain nuclear deterrence". Letters from Ambassador Schieffer were also sent to Hiroshima prefecture, Nagasaki prefecture, and the city of Nagasaki. Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Howells also sent a letter to the city of Nagasaki.

The first letter of protest was sent in 1968 after France conducted a test of a hydrogen bomb. Counting the most recent letter, sent after North Korea's nuclear test last October, there have been a total of 593 letters. These letters are normally addressed directly to the head of state or the country's ambassador to Japan.

Since 1974, there have been 21 responses with the most recent arriving last April. Although replies have been relatively few, these letters of protest have not been overlooked.

The content of the responses has changed over time. During the Cold War, the United States criticized the former Soviet Union, claiming "We are trying to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, but the Soviet Union isn't cooperating with us" (1983). But the former Soviet Union maintained "If the United States stops their nuclear testing, we will stop ours, too" (1987). It's clear these two antagonists were blaming each other for the impasse.

After the end of the Cold War, countries that conduct nuclear tests stopped criticizing one another by name. However, they now justify their testing with the argument that "experiments must be continued to confirm the viability of aging materials".

Nobuyuki Teshima of the International Peace Promotion Department of Hiroshima remarked, "We're pleased they responded to our letters, but we cannot accept their rationale for testing because we believe those experiments may lead to the development of new weapons." And so the city of Hiroshima will stand by its principle of protesting all nuclear tests.

At the same time, two citizen groups that support A-bomb survivors and work to abolish nuclear weapons have sent letters of protest but have never received a response. I wondered who made the decision whether or not to reply and so I asked the US Embassy in Japan.

I was told, simply, "The ambassador decides." Ambassador Schieffer visited Hiroshima in 2005 and it is believed his close relationship with President Bush permitted him to share the content of these letters from Hiroshima.

These letters of protest do have some power--I want to believe that. (Takashi Kenda, staff writer)