HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI 1977 Barbara Reynolds

On August 6, 1977, numerous strands of human concern came together in the city of Hiroshima. This is not to say that they were united, nor even tha t they had any significant contact with one another save for the inevitable cross-fertilization a s individuals drifted back and forth to observe o r participate in various activities before and after the memorial observances. Buddhists, who had come to Hiroshima from all over Japan (many of them hibakusha who had returned for the first t ime since 1945) held religious ceremonies in many pa r t s of t h e city in recognition of t h e traditionally significant 33rd anniversary of the passing of the dead. A t the same time, the Peace Memorial Ceremony drew more than 50,000 spectators to the Peace Park for the more widely publicized, city-sponsored event, heralded as the 32nd anniversary of t he bombing. The 1977 ceremony was given special importance by the presence of H. Shirley Amerasinghe, president of the 31st General Assembly of the United Nations, who gave an address stressing the need for all nuclear weapons to be eliminated from the earth. A message from U.N. Secre ta ry Genera l Kurt Waldheim, pledging cont inued suppor t for complete and total disarmament, was also read.

The ceremony in the Peace Park was perhaps the only event during the crowded first week of August that brought together the scores of foreign visitors who had converged on the city: those who had taken part in the Peace Walk from Tokyo, Osaka, o r Nagasaki; women from many countries who had ga thered for t h e In te rna t iona l Conference of W.I.L.P.F.; scientists and educators who had come to t ake p a r t in t h e N.G.O. Symposium on the Damage and Aftereffects of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the pacifists and activists who had come from 30 count r ies to par t ic ipa te in t h e “uni f ied” Conference Against A and H Bombs, jointly sponsored by the Communist-affiliated Gensuikyo and the Socialist-supported Gensuikin. It was the l a t t e r conference which d rew most of t h e a t ten t ion of t h e news media largely because efforts a t unification represented the ea rnes t des i res of the Japanese people, who have felt disi l lusioned and be t rayed by t h e sp l i t into hostile camps fourteen years ago of what had begun a s a t r u e grassroots movement against nuclear weapons.

Although a sincere effort was’made to keep. t he scientifically-oriented Symposium separate from t h e ideologically suspec t Anti A and H Bomb Conference, the press as well as most of t h e foreign par t ic ipants r ema ined confused.

Meetings in Hiroshima were hailed a s a great success, a “ turn ing point in t h e an t ibomb movement in Japan” and most of the overseas delegates went home in a glow of satisfaction. Those few who continued on to Nagasaki for the August 9 observances were less sanguine, however. Such issues a s nuclear proliferation, construction of atomic power and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, and the question (which caused the split in 1962) of whether to oppose all nuclear development by any country whatsoever, r ema ined unresolved. In Nagasaki, Gensuikin held an independent conference, centering part of its discussion on the production in Nagasaki by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. of sophisticated weapons capable of launching nuclear torpedoes.

According to the Asahi Evening News (Aug. 101, “Henceforth t h e biggest problem will be unifying t h e nation’s two major anti-bomb organizations . . . Leader s of t he two organizations agreed that unification should be realized hopefully by the end of this year, so talks to th i s e n d should begin soon.” The Mainichi Daily News of the same date, however, quoted Ichiro Moritaki, a leader of Gensuikin, a s stating, “I’ve no idea of establishing a consolidated new organization against a l l nuc lea r weapons by breaking u p Gensuikin.” The Mainichi also reported, “In this port city of Kyushu, Gensuikin and ano the r anti-bomb organization, Gensuikyo . . . fa i led to hold a unified rally against all nuclear weapons.”

All was not harmony, either, among those who participated in the Peace Walk, although most of the Americans who took par t expressed great satisfaction. An excerp t from t h e Peace Walk Diary of Wil l Scharfenberg gives some indication of t h e cu l tu ra l isolation in which overseas participants moved, protected from the tensions which were expressed by a number of Japanese whose repor t s a r e not yet aba i lab le in translation:

May 16 to May 20. .The daily pattern emerges: W e t rave l with t h e monks and nuns and followers from Nipponzan Myohoji - th i s g roup is ‘through walkers,’ t h e o the r folk (representing various anti-nuclear, communist and workers’ unions) are doing a relay thing, passing the i r banners on to folk in the next town. W e have l i t t l e contact with them . . . W e are asked sometimes for input, bu t w e don’t know any of t h e plans o r the facts being discussed. W e follow along. It’s okay . . . May 27 - Yesterday a meeting of t h e banne r -bea re r s (polit ical) and the

45 Peace 6 Change Volume V * Number I * Spring 1978

drum-beaters (religious) again . . . Nihonzan Myohoji expressed a d e s i r e to do more walking, less riding. The political folk want the maximum number of people to see the march, hence made a schedule of walking

only through cities. Reservations on the part of many concerning

the ideological orientation of the Japanese anti-bomb movement were car r ied over in the misgivings with which the N.G.O. Symposium was at first received. The juxtaposition of the two conferences; t he participation of many of t h e foreign “experts” and N.G.O. delegates in both events; and the featuring of many scientists, who had come to examine the findings of t he Symposium, as speake r s a t t h e an t i A and H bomb rallies resulted in considerable confusion in the minds of many. Regrettably, it may have resulted in an unjustifiable politicization of the reports of the Symposium which, I am convinced, are of utmost importance.

As an advisor to the social scientists of the International Investigating Team, I was greatly impressed by t h e s incere efforts of a l l of t h e participants to maintain a scientific and objective att i tude in the i r consideration of t he working papers which had been p repa red for us by Japanese scientists. For example, after examining the evidence se t before them and a f t e r questioning the i r J apanese colleagues, t h e physical scientists ( represent ing the U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S.A., Finland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia) were able to agree upon a statement setting the probable number of‘ deaths caused by the atomic bombings as 140,000 plus o r minus 10,000 in Hiroshima up to the end of 1945 and 70,000 plus or minus 10,000 dur ing the same period in Nagasaki. They also emphasized the need for further research in o rde r to de t e rmine t h e subsequent death rate, especially among those exposed to residual radiation. This alone is an important finding which should make it possible to set straight the widely varying estimates which have been quoted as being anywhere from 68,000 to as high as 240,000.

Equally important was the conclusion reached by the physical scientists tha t , cont ra ry to widespread reports, there has been no statistical evidence of an increase in “monsters” born to hibakusha. Genetic damage in t h e form of a variety of b i r th anomalies may exist , but t h e sampling to da te has been too limited and the iapse of time too brief for any valid predictions to be made. Again, the necessity for continuing research was emphasized, continuing a s far as possible to succeeding generations.

In the case of the social scientists, there was a genuine effort to deal a s objectively as possible with after effects which were less easily defined and, in the case of “mental anguish,” far more subjective. The findings presented in the working papers were based upon socio-economic investigations, reports from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and upon “life histories” of Peace & Change * Volume V Number 1 Spring 1978 46

hundreds of hibakusha. (This a lone was a n encouraging development in approaching the problem, for reports in the past - including the 1957 U.N. Report on Radiation Effects did not include hibakusha on the research panel nor did members of t he investigating team visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki. No wonder the hibakusha have felt tha t they a r e t rea ted a s laboratory an imals whose thoughts and feelings a r e irrelevant.)

Many of the findings corroborated what I have l ea rned through personal contac ts with many hibakusha during my years of involvement with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Too often, however, my repor t s have been d iscounted because I lack academic qualifications and because no publications existed in English to substantiate my claims. I t was heartening to see these findings tabulated and statistically verified by competent Japanese sociologists, economists, psychologists, and case workers, and se t forth in exce l len t translation. It w a s also encouraging to see the profound impression which these statist ics, backed up by the individual case histories, made upon the foreign investigating team.

Throughout the two weeks of the Symposium (first with t h e “exper t s” of Stage I and subsequently in the various commissions in which 400 delega tes , represent ing non-governmental organizations from 22 countries, examined and discussed the import of the findings), I am sure, the participants all grew in awareness of what a nuc lear war would rea l ly mean and how irresponsible, not to say insane, it is for anyone to claim that humanity could survive a massive nuclear attack.

“The atomic bombs destroyed the total ‘society.’ They destroyed ‘home,’ ‘workplace,’ ‘family,’ and even ‘community.’ Such a loss of the social milieu for sustaining human life was made total by the demolition of the regional community and suppor t system.” (Social Scientists’ Group Repor t , p.8.) “Even limited use of what - according to present terminology - a re called ‘tactical nuc lea r weapons’ would have such fa r - reaching harmful aftereffects (physical, mater ia l , social , psychological, etc.) t h a t the totality of the damage could not be fully assessed even many years a f t e r . . . When the social mechanics by which life is sustained is destroyed in a flash, human beings find themselves ruled by the instinct for self-preservation and they respond in ways that indicate a complete loss of moral values. Human beings become dehumanized. A-bomb damage affected every aspect of human life: physical, socio-economic, psychological, and moral . . . ”

Perhaps t h e most significant insight of the e n t i r e Symposium expe r i ence was t h e expe r i en t i a l unders tanding of t h e Scr ip tura l query: “What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his o w n soul?” As a n American, I felt powerfully that through the use of the atomic bombs, my country may have gained

power over the whole world but, in the process, we have become dehumanized a s truly as those who were directly exposed to the A bomb horrors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How e l se can w e expla in the ca l lous ind i f fe rence to human suffering which made possible the escalation of “conventional” weapons in Vietnam, the desens i t ized r e fe rences to “body counts,” “pe r iphe ra l damage” (in r e fe rence to human lives), or the neutron bomb?

In t h e closing a d d r e s s of t h e Symposium, Philip Noel-Baker sounded a ringing call:

W e a r e a l l Hibakusha, survivors of t h e Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs . . . Although w e did not experience the blast and burns, we carry in ou r bodies man-made radioactivity which would not be there but for those and o the r ex pl o s io n s w h ic h have fo 110 wed since . . . W e survived those bombs, b u t w e a r e threatened now by a hundred thousand bombs more powerful t han those which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 . . . Militarists say that peaceful co-existence is an empty d ream a n d tha t a rmaments a r e essential for the security and greatness of all nations. They call themselves the realists of the world who face the harsh facts of life. But they a r e t h e prophets of disi l lusion. The armaments they manufacture not only rob us

of o u r t rue national and cultural heritage, wherever w e live, but they c rea te the very insecurity they are supposed to dispel. They cause poverty, inflation, and social injustice everywhere. If we end the arms race, w e can build decaying cities and provide the homes, t h e work, t he schools, the hospitals which every nation needs. W e can wipe out preventable disease. W e can teach all to read and write and make life happy and noble for peopleeverywhere . . . The lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can save us if we are willing to learn them. But the time is short and w e must act now. Upon one point, all who made the journey to

Hiroshima in August of 1977 were agreed: that every effort should be made by peoples of the world to support the world N.G.O. Conference for Disarmament in Geneva in February 1978, so that governments may be obliged to listen to the will of the people and in the special session of the Uni ted Nations in May, s t a r t t h e process of demi l i ta r iz ing ou r social system with the determination to achieve general and complete disarmament.

Barbara Reynolds Hiroshima/Nagasaki Memorial Collection Peace Resource Center Wilmington College

AGENOR

AGENOR is an English-language publication of the group of the same name, a transnational socialist network whose aim is to “break down bar r ie rs to understanding and active solidarity among t h e forces of t h e progressive left in Europe.” The issues of agenor are topical - a series of pamphlets treating critical issues from an undogmatic socialist point of v i ew and analysis. It offers American r e a d e r s un ique access to critical thinking in the European left.

AGENOR, 13 rue Hobbema, Brussels 1040, Belgium Recent agenor publ ica t ions of in te res t include: No. 50 Story of agenor, 1967-1975, and index to nos. 1-49 No. 52 LARZAC: Farmers Against the Army No. 53 Signposts to Worker’s Control (eight key experiments in different countries)

No. 54 Spain: Towards the Break No. 56 Angola: Multinational Murder On November 5-8, 1975, t he agenor group

organized and financed a series of “European Hearings and Working Groups on Nuclear Energy” in the belief that massive nuclear power was being organized in western Europe without a full public debate over its implications and that informed, c r i t i ca l analysis was absen t i n t he progressive left and t r a d e unions. The background and results of these citizen-organized hearings have been published as agenor;

No. 55 Nuclear Power: Fuel for Debate No. 58 Nuclear Power: Hearings Report No. 59 Nuclear Power: Stop and Think No. 60 (Title unavailable a t press time, it covers t he Wyhl, Brokdorf, and Malville demonstrations)

47 Peace & Change Volume V * Number 1 t Spring 1978