Sumiko Hatakeyama

Expectations were high for the G7 Summit to be held in Hiroshima. This was partly because Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, who considers nuclear disarmament to be his life’s work, had shown strong commitment to holding the summit in Hiroshima, where the atomic bomb was dropped. Many atomic-bomb survivors (hibakusha), who have long called for nuclear abolition, saw the summit as a uniquely valuable opportunity to move forward with nuclear disarmament, which has stagnated over the decades. I was involved in developing policy recommendations via the Civil 7 (C7) process, hoping to reflect hibakusha’s strong wish for nuclear disarmament in the summit’s communiqué. I was in charge of the nuclear disarmament working group within C7, and after half a year of discussions with 125 domestic and international organizations, we compiled a set of policy recommendations. Our recommendations first of all called for the G7 leaders to hear directly from hibakusha and to acknowledge the harm nuclear weapons cause to people and the environment. The recommendations then called for “An unequivocal condemnation of any and all threats to use nuclear weapons,” “A concrete plan for negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons,” “A cooperative stance toward the TPNW and a commitment to provide assistance to victims and environmental remediation,” “Support negotiations on a follow-on to the New START,” “Steps to reduce nuclear risks,” and “Importance of disarmament education for youth” to be included in the final communiqué.1

At the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, the G7 leaders visited the Peace Memorial Park and the Peace Memorial Museum and met with a hibakusha. It may not have been enough, but our appeal that they witness the reality of the atomic bombings was partly achieved. On the other hand, our other recommendations were scarcely reflected in the outcome document entitled “G7 Leaders’ Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament.” While the document articulates, “We reaffirm our commitment to achieving a world without nuclear weapons,” it is accompanied by the phrase “With undiminished security for all,” and what followed was a retread of what had been stated at the NPT Review Conferences and other meetings. Conversely, the statement “The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible” from the G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration in November 2022 was changed to “Threats by Russia of nuclear weapon use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia, are inadmissible.” I see this as a step backward in that it trivialized the nuclear issue into a Russian problem. Furthermore, I find it disappointing that not only were key phrases such as “Abolition of nuclear weapons” and “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” absent from the text, but the text included the phrase “Nuclear weapons, for as long as they exist, should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war and coercion,” which could be seen as an affirmation of nuclear deterrence.

The year 2023 was not only the year of Russia’s continued full-scale military invasion to Ukraine but also the year of Israel’s intensified attack on Gaza. As two nuclear powers wield the threat of nuclear weapons while depriving people of life and dignity, we ought to consider anew whether nuclear deterrence really works as a security policy. To this end, it is imperative to turn our attention back to the reality of the humanitarian and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons as well as of war more generally, as experienced by citizens around the world. In light of these facts, is nuclear deterrence still effective? We must accelerate our efforts to bring our voices to the Japanese government and world leaders. We are the ones who will move politicians toward a world without nuclear weapons.

 

 

Executive Committee, Peace Boat

---

 

1 “Civil 7 Communiqué 2023: Design and Implement Sustainable Policies for Peace, Prosperity, and Transparency,” April 2023, https://civil7.org/wpC7/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/C7_communique20 23_0412.pdf.