Archive for the ‘声明’ Category

An Appeal by HANWA(Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition) to the 2010 NPT Review Conference

月曜日, 4月 19th, 2010

An Appeal by HANWA(Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition) to the 2010 NPT Review Conference

The fundamental issue for the citizens of Hiroshima when discussing nuclear issues is the incomprehensibly vast number of people affected by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima that occurred on August 6 1945. That morning, the atomic bomb instantly killed 70,000 to 80,000 civilians and by the end of 1945, 140,000 residents of Hiroshima had died as a result of the bombing. Many others have subsequently died – often after experiencing a lifetime of suffering – or are still suffering from various diseases caused by the blast, fire or radiation. Hiroshima’s anti-nuclear and peace movements are hence firmly embedded in the understanding that the indiscriminate and mass killing of civilians using nuclear weapons is genocide and that the use of nuclear weapons – under any circumstances – is therefore clearly a crime against humanity. We also regard nuclear deterrence policies to be crimes against peace as explicated by the Nuremberg principle, as “nuclear deterrence” effectively means planning and preparing to commit indiscriminate mass killing, i.e. a crime against humanity, using nuclear weapons. To fail to recognize these fundamental precepts would mean a complete loss of the momentum of our anti-nuclear and peace movements.
As advocates for nuclear abolition, as well as citizens of the first city to feel the effects of a nuclear attack, we have frequently been disappointed by the fact that many politicians, bureaucrats and academics engage in discussions on various nuclear issues, including nuclear deterrence and disarmament, neglecting this basic and indisputable fact – that these concepts in fact signify the massacre of a large number of human beings (and many other creatures) using a weapon of mass destruction. They tend to deal with nuclear issues mainly within the frameworks of the “balance of power” between the nuclear states and of international politics. We strongly urge all who engage these issues to place humanity at the center of the problem and never forget the extreme cruelty of atomic bombing when entering into discussions on nuclear issues.
“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.” Henri Verdoux, a murderer, makes this statement shortly before being hanged in the film Monsieur Verdoux, produced by Charlie Chaplin in 1947. It seems that many of us are still influenced by this way of thinking. Indeed, despite countless publications, films and talks on the brutality of atomic bombing over the last 64 years, there is still not a single law anywhere in the world that criminalizes the use of nuclear weapons.
We appreciate that, in his speech in Prague in April 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama, clearly expressed his desire to abolish nuclear weapons, stating that “as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” Yet the U.S. bears not only a moral responsibility, but also a legal one for having committed the indiscriminate mass killing of Japanese civilians with nuclear weapons. On the basis of a clear recognition of this legal responsibility, we need to establish a universal principle, as well as international law, in which anyone or any government official attempting to use nuclear weapons should be prosecuted as a war criminal. As the world push for the abolition of nuclear weapons has grown, we feel it is now time to take affirmative action to make concrete proposals to establish the Nuclear Weapons Convention.
To this end, we offer the following proposals and requests.
(1) Establish the Nuclear Weapons Convention
In July 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, which concluded that every nation has “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Encouraged by this ICJ opinion, in 1997 Costa Rica submitted the world’s first Model Nuclear Weapons Convention (hereafter “Model Convention”), which was circulated in the UN General Assembly by the Secretary-General. At the NPT Preparation Conference in April 2007, Costa Rica, in cooperation with Malaysia, submitted an updated version of the Model Convention, proposing the immediate establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Three NGOs, IALANA (International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms), IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War), and INESAP (International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation) also worked together to draft a comprehensive Model Convention. This Model Convention, which was updated in 2007, includes provisions prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as their elimination. ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) is now promoting this Model Convention worldwide.
Thus, the basic framework for a Nuclear Weapons Convention is already available in a concrete and comprehensive manner. We therefore urge all nations – both nuclear and non-nuclear states – to collaborate to speedily establish and ratify a Nuclear Weapons Convention based on the above-mentioned Model Conventions.
(2) A Proposal to Add an Article Prohibiting the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
Although we hope that many nations will soon take action to formalize the Nuclear Weapons Convention, it is expected that it will take at least five years for ratification. We therefore propose that as a step towards putting such a convention into effect, one of the existing international conventions be fully utilized to quickly criminalize the use of nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons such as DU (depleted uranium) weapons.
In particular, we believe that Chapters II and III of Part IV, Section I  “Civilian Population” of the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977” (hereafter “the Additional Protocol”) are well suited for this purpose. It is crystal clear that the use of nuclear and DU weapons are a violation of Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population) and Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) of this Additional Protocol. (Please see the attached copy of Articles 51 and 55.)
In fact, in 1957, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued “Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War,” which included an article prohibiting the use of incendiary, chemical, bacteriological and radioactive weapons. During the process of drafting the Additional Protocol, countries including Romania, Yugoslavia and North Korea suggested naming the specific types of weapons of mass destruction to be banned, e.g., nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, due to political pressures from nuclear powers, in particular the U.S., Britain and France, proposals to include such a provision were eventually rejected.
It is immediately obvious, on reading the Additional Protocol, that the use of nuclear weapons contravenes this Protocol. However, because of the above-mentioned destructive attitude of nuclear powers, we need to include a provision which clarifies the criminality of the use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons as well as all weapons of mass destruction. The provision could read, for example, “It is prohibited under any circumstances to use nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate damages.”  
Thus we would propose the addition of a straightforward and simple provision to the Additional Protocol, which would make the ban of the use of nuclear weapons a positive international law. It is uncomplicated and would therefore not require comprehensive discussion to draft the text of regulation. It only requires the political will of the majority of nations worldwide. We could then start drafting a more comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, including provisions to ban the production and testing of nuclear weapons.
We also urge the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN to take the initiative to immediately ban the use of nuclear weapons by utilizing the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions. This will certainly be a big step towards the abolition of nuclear weapons.
(3) A Proposal for Constructing “The North-East Asia Peace Community”
We believe that it is vital for the abolition of nuclear weapons to make North-East Asia a nuclear free zone. To this end, we strongly call on North Korea to immediately stop its nuclear weapons development program and China to eliminate all the nuclear weapons in its possession. However, to achieve this aim, it is necessary for the Japanese government to change its policy of relying on U.S. nuclear deterrence and accommodating U.S. military bases on Japanese soil. One of the Democratic Party’s campaign pledges during the September 2009 election was the establishment of an “equal partnership” with the U.S. based on Japan’s national “independence.” Yet, Japan’s new Democratic Party government is essentially using the same policies relied on for many years by the previous Liberal Democratic Party government and is still performing like a “vassal state” of the U.S.
It is essential for the construction of a nuclear free North-East Asia to create a stable and peaceful political environment in this region, in which North Korea would feel no need to wage war against neighboring nations. In other words, the construction of “the North-East Asia Peace Community” is a prerequisite for the construction of a nuclear free North-East Asia. We believe that the U.S. and Japan, two nations who together possess extremely powerful military strength that is directed against North Korea, must take the initiative to ease North Korea’s fear of attack by abolishing the U.S. nuclear deterrence policy as well as withdrawing American military forces from Japan, in particular from Okinawa and Iwakuni.
We therefore propose to hold a Six Nation NGO Conference in Hiroshima, instead of the Six Party Talks of governmental officials, in which various grass-root civil groups and organizations from the six nations meet and discuss what should be done in order to construct “the North-East Asia Peace Community.”
(4) Support for Constructing “The Nuclear Free European Community”
The U.K. possesses 160 nuclear warheads and France possesses 300. However, as the Cold War ended many years ago, the role of these nuclear weapons as deterrents against Russian attacks on Western Europe has long been obsolete. In fact there is no longer any strategic necessity to keep nuclear weapons in Europe. Moreover, the majority of British citizens do not think that replacing the existing submarine-based Trident weapons system at huge cost is justifiable. British citizens want to abolish their nuclear missiles. Germany has started working to remove U.S. nuclear weapons from its territory, and a bill calling on the U.S. to withdraw its nuclear weapons from the country was proposed at the Belgian Parliament last year.
In short, if the British and French governments move boldly to abolish all nuclear weapons in their countries’ possession, the EU could become a nuclear free zone. We believe that the establishment of a nuclear free EU would have enormous moral and political impact on the U.S., Russia and other nuclear powers, as well as nations currently seeking to possess such weapons of mass destruction. We therefore urge the British and French governments to immediately eliminate all their nuclear weapons. At the same time we wholeheartedly support the nuclear abolition movement promoted by European civil organizations such as CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament).
(5) A Demand to End the Use of Nuclear Energy
We believe that the abolition of nuclear weapons cannot be achieved so long as the so-called “peaceful use of nuclear energy” continues. Some claim that the use of nuclear energy is a good strategy to tackle global warming caused by human-made carbon dioxide. However, we need to consider the many problems associated with the use of nuclear energy, including the enormous cost of the construction and operation of nuclear power stations and other related facilities, the question of dealing with large quantities of radioactive materials including the problem of storing high-level radioactive waste over many hundreds of years, the uneconomical and dangerous “recycling of nuclear fuel,” and the danger of nuclear accidents which would cause great harm to human beings and the natural environment.
If we take these problems into account, it becomes clear that there is no credibility in the argument for the so-called “economic advantage” of nuclear energy. We therefore believe that the use of nuclear energy, which is directly linked to the production of nuclear and DU weapons, should be stopped immediately, and that the huge sum of money currently allocated for nuclear energy should be redirected towards the development of various alternative and environmentally friendly energy sources. The creation of a safe environment is an important part of our peace movement, as is the protection of the natural environment that secures the harmonious co-existence of all creatures on this planet.
(6) A Proposal for the Elimination of Structural Violence instead of The War Against Terrorism
It is often said that there is a danger that terrorist groups may acquire nuclear weapons, and President Obama also repeats this possibility in his public speeches. Indeed, Obama has essentially inherited Bush’s “war against terrorism” without any fundamental changes, and is hence conducting military operations for this purpose in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, the largest number of victims of these operations are not the so-called terrorists but ordinary civilians. Many civilians have been killed or injured by aerial bombings conducted by U.S. forces in these countries, and as a result, these people, who have lost their families and relatives, have become refugees. We, the citizens of Hiroshima, the city that experienced one of the most horrific of indiscriminate bombings, cannot remain silent about the similar bombing of civilians conducted by countries like the U.S. and Israel.
It is clear that so-called “structural violence” – poverty, discrimination and the abuse of human rights, for example – is the real cause of terrorism. The war against terrorism, which inevitably creates a large number of civilian causalities, makes more civilians poverty-stricken and creates massive numbers of refugees. The desperate and demoralizing social conditions thus created are becoming further incentives for terrorist activities. The best tactic to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear weapons is therefore not waging a war against terrorism but eliminating the source of this “structural violence”. We therefore call on countries such as the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K., China and Japan to reallocate their large military budgets to helping the huge number of people in the world who are in desperate need of assistance for their survival. Although this kind of policy may give the impression of being a round-a-bout way of tackling the problem of terrorism, we believe that building a peaceful and stable society is the best and most effective approach to this serious problem.
The above-mentioned demands and proposals are all essential for the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons. Yet we strongly believe that they are all achievable, provided we place humanity at the center of our activities. As the NPT Review Conference approaches, we are determined to work together with all groups and peoples actively involved in anti-nuclear and peace movements all over the world, fully utilizing our experience as residents of the city that fell victim to the world’s first and deadliest nuclear attack.

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977
Art 51. – Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Art 55. Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.


月曜日, 4月 19th, 2010

—「核廃絶をめざすヒロシマの会」HANWAからの提言 —








1996年7月、国際司法裁判所が核兵器の威嚇または使用に関して、国際法の観点から勧告意見を出し、その結論において、「(全ての国が)厳重かつ効果的な国際管理の下における、あらゆる点での核軍縮に導かれる交渉を誠実に遂行し、かつ完結させる義務が存在する」ことを確認しました。これに触発された形で、1997年、コスタリカが初めて作成した「モデル核兵器禁止条約」(以下「モデル条約」と略)が国連総会で配布されました。前回、2005年のNPT再検討会議では、マレーシア、コスタリカなど6カ国が国際司法裁判所の勧告意見のフォローアップとして、「核兵器のない世界の構築および維持のために求められる法的、技術的及び政治的要素」と題する作業文書を提出し、核兵器禁止条約の速やかな設置を求めました。さらに、2007年の「2010年NPT運用検討会議 第1回準備委員会」に、コスタリカはマレーシアと共同でモデル条約の改訂版を提出しています。















HANWA(Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition)


1. いかなる武力紛争においても、紛争当事国が戦闘の方法及び手段を選ぶ権利は、無制限ではない。
2. 過度の傷害又は無用の苦痛を与える兵器、投射物及び物質並びに戦闘の方法を用いることは、禁止する。
3. 自然環境に対して広範な、長期的なかつ深刻な損害を与えることを目的とする又は与えることが予想される戦闘の方法及び手段を用いることは、禁止する。

1. 文民たる住民及びここの文民は、軍事行動から生じる危険に対して一般的保護を享有する。この保護を実効的なものとするため他の適用可能な国際法の規則に追加される次の規則は、いかなる状況の下においても、遵守するものとする。
2. 文民たる住民全体及び個々の文民は、攻撃の対象としてはならない。文民たる住民の間に恐怖を広めることをその主たる目的とする暴力行為又は暴力による威嚇は、禁止する。
3. 文民は、敵対行為に直接参加していない限り、かつ、その期間はこの節に規定する保護を享有する。
4. 無差別攻撃は、禁止する。無差別攻撃とは、次の攻撃であって、それぞれの場合に、軍事目標及び文民又は民用物に区別なしに攻撃を与える性質を有するものをいう。
(a) 特定の軍事目標を対象としない攻撃
(b) 特定の軍事目標のみを対象とすることのできない戦闘の方法及び手段を用いる攻撃
(c) この議定書に規定する限度を超える影響を及ぼす戦闘の方法及び手段を用いる攻撃
5. とくに次の攻撃は、無差別とみなす。
(a) 都市、町村その他の文民若しくは民用物の集中している地域に所在する多数の明白に分離した別個の軍事目標を単一の軍事目標として取り扱うような方法及び手段を用いた砲爆撃による攻撃
(b) 予期される具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益との比較において、過度に、巻き添えによる文民の死亡、文民の傷害、民用物の損傷又はこれらの複合した事態を引き起こすことが予測される攻撃

1. 戦闘の方法として文民を餓死させることは、禁止する。
2. 文民たる住民又は敵対する紛争当事国に対し、食糧、食糧生産のための農業地域、作物、家畜、飲料水の施設及び供給設備並びに灌漑設備のような文民たる住民の生存に不可欠なものを、生命の維持手段としての価値を否定するという特別の目的のために攻撃し、破壊し、移動させ又は役に立たなくすることは、文民を餓死させるためであるか、文民を退去させるためであるか、その他の動機によるものであるかを問わず、禁止する。

1. 戦闘においては、広範な、長期的なかつ深刻な損害から自然環境を保護するため、注意を払う。保護には、自然環境に対してそのような損害を与え、住民の健康もしくは生存を害することを目的とする又は害することが予想される戦闘の方法又は手段の使用の禁止を含む。


火曜日, 8月 4th, 2009








 以上の観点から私たちは、日本会議広島に抗議し、8月6日開催予定の田母神講演会を中止することを要求する。そして、市民の皆さんに共に抗議する声をあげることを呼びかけるものである。                              以上。



●社会福祉法人 備後の里
●’79 女たちから
●NO DU ヒロシマ・プロジェクト
●労協 国際ツーリストビューロー


●秋山 史 (神戸市)
●石川幸枝 (保育士/広島市)
●岡田春美 (アジア戦災孤児救済センター主任研究員)
●梶野 宏 (東京都)
●北中一永 (日本中国友好協会東京都連合会副理事長)
●北西 允 (広島大学名誉教授)
●小俣三郎 (東京都)
●桜井大子 (東京都)
●澁川慧子 (東京都)
●白井篤子 (神戸市)
●平 志朗 (広島市民)
●田尾健一 (広島市議会議員)
●武田靖彦 (被爆者)
●竹原陽子 (福山市)
●田中和恵 (千葉県)
●田中慶子 (千葉県)
●寺尾光身 (埼玉県)
●寺尾安子 (東京都)
●寺尾浩次 (東京都)
●豊島耕一 (佐賀大学教授)
●長澤正隆 (カトリックさいたま教区民)
●二見伸吾 (広島県労働者学習協議会講師)
●舟越耿一 (長崎大学教授)
●三浦精子 (児童文学者/広島市)
●三木郁子 (尾道市議会議員) 
●宮澤 哲 (神奈川県)
●水村和子 (詩人) 
●武藤 徹 (早稲田9条の会代表委員) 
●村上啓子 (エッセイスト・被爆者/茨城県)
●山内正之 (毒ガス島歴史研究所)
●山口 響 (東京都)
●米澤鐵志 (京都・被爆体験証言者)

各団体の皆様へ 下記の「日本核武装論と侵略戦争正当化を主張する8.6田母神広島講演会


各団体の皆様へ 下記の「日本核武装論と侵略戦争正当化を主張する8.6田母神広島講演会
—————————- 各団体の皆様へ

==== 切り取り線 ====

団体名 :代表者名:連絡先 : 公表可否:   可・ 不可一言  :


Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition
岡本三夫 河合護郎 森瀧春子
広島市中区本川町二丁目6番11号第7ウエノヤビル 5F
TEL 082-532-1311(HANWA専用)
fax 082-232-8100




金曜日, 7月 27th, 2007


内閣総理大臣 安倍 晋三 殿
                        岡本三夫 河合護郎 森瀧春子
 日米両政府やその他の国々が北朝鮮の核兵器保有を憂慮しているのは当然だが、ジョゼフ特使のような原爆善玉論こそ核拡散の元凶であり、核兵器は凶悪な犯罪兵器だという認識を世界市民が共有しない限り今後も核拡散の流れを防止することはできないだろう。1997年に行われた米国での世論調査でも、核兵器がない方が国は安全という意見は84%に、核兵器廃絶を望む米市民は87%に達した(世論調査専門のLake Sosin Snell & Associates社の調査)。


金曜日, 7月 6th, 2007



内閣総理大臣 安倍 晋三 殿
防衛大臣    小池百合子 殿



〒730-0012 広島市中区上八丁堀8-23林業ビル4F 広島県生協連合会気付 
Tel 082-502-3850  Fax 082-502-3860  


水曜日, 2月 14th, 2007

要 請 書



この要請書の目的は、国連軍縮局 (DDA) を今後も維持するよう日本政府が緊急に行動して下さるよう要請することにあります。これまで独自の任務と担当事務次長を有して活動してきたDDAが政治局に吸収されてしまうかもしれないという最近の情報に接して、私たちは大変憂慮しています。この情報通りになるとすると、これは、国連がその任務を全うする面においても、また政府間の会合や条約上の組織に奉仕する面においても、好ましくなく、不必要な変化であると思います。

私たちは、昨年末にアナン前国連事務総長が、「核兵器は人類が直面している最大の脅威であるにもかかわらず、それに対処すべき共通戦略が完全に欠如している」と訴えた演説に強い感銘を受けました。また今年になってからも、元米国政府高官であったキッシンジャー氏らによる「核兵器のない世界を」と題した署 名論文が掲載され(ウオール・ストリート・ジャーナル、2007年1月4日付け)、核兵器廃絶への世論が形成されようとしています。核兵器のみならず、その他の大量破壊兵器、また小火器によってもたらされる問題が増大しているいまの時期に、国連は組織内における軍縮の地位を低めるべきではありません。DDAは、冷戦後の軍縮問題に取り組むために設置されたものですが、今まで以上にそれは必要とされているのです。さらには、現在、世界的な軍縮の仕組み、規範、また体制が争点になっています。DDAという、国連の決定を履行する責務を有する第一義的な世界的機関の地位を低下させることは誤った方向であります。


核兵器廃絶をめざすヒロシマの会 共同代表
      連絡先:広島県広島市中区上八丁堀8-23 林業ビル

5 Feb., 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY USA

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

We are writing to you on behalf of The Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA), a non-governmental and non-profit organization committed to education, research and information on peace, consisting of major peace organizations in Hiroshima. Especially we have been working for nuclear abolition and to establish a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone.

This letter is intended to ask Secretary-General to keep an independent Department for Disarmament Affairs (DDA), with its own mandate and Under-Secretary-General. We are seriously concerned about the recent reports that DDA might be subsumed under the Department for Political Affairs. If this happens, we believe that the UN will go through a shift that is unfavorable and unnecessary, both in terms of the UN’s fulfilling its mandate and servicing inter-governmental meetings and treaty bodies.

Disarmament is one of the central tasks of the UN, as evidenced by the first UN General Assembly resolution calling for nuclear disarmament, and the UN Charter’s vision for “the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources” (Article 26). The UN must live up to its mandate and prioritize disarmament in the Secretariat, maintaining the independent DDA instead of subordinating it to other agendas.

We are deeply impressed with a speech given by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, late last year. In speaking of the danger of the nuclear weapons, he said, “The one area where there is a total lack of any common strategy is the one that may well represent the greatest danger of all: the area of nuclear weapons.” In addition, the signature article (The Wall Street Journal, Jan.4, 2007 )that titled “A world free of Nuclear Weapons” by Kissinger et al who were former U.S. Government high official is carried in this year, and the public opinion to Nuclear Weapons Abolition is going to be formed. The UN should not reduce the stature of disarmament within the UN at a time when such dangers posed by nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction and small arms, are escalating. DDA, designed to address post-cold war disarmament issues, is more necessary than ever before. Moreover, the world’s disarmament machinery, norms and regime are embattled right now; thus, reducing the stature of the primary global institution responsible for implementation of UN decisions is the wrong course.

It is important for DDA to remain its own entity with its own mandate and Under-Secretary-General whose primary concern is disarmament. It is also important that a department dealing with nuclear disarmament serves to an Under-Secretary-General from a non-nuclear weapon state. This allows DDA to make independent assessments with disarmament as the goal. DDA houses years of expertise and institutional memory which are invaluable to governments and civil society, and which could be quietly lost under a different department. Furthermore, disarmament is very technical; having a disarmament–focused department actually allows decision to be made more quickly than having them processed through a department dealing with disparate concerns and less familiar with the issues.

Department for Disarmament Affairs must not lose its unique identity, mandate and its ability to directly servicing the Secretary-General through its own Under-Secretary- General. The quantity and technical nature of the Department’s work is sufficient for the UN to warrant a dedicated department, and the issue the Department covers is sufficiently urgent to justify expansion rather than absorption.

As citizens of Hiroshima, we would like to submit the above request with all sincerity. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,



月曜日, 10月 16th, 2006




(Directors: Dr. Mitsuo Okamoto, Mr. Goro Kawai, Ms. Haruko Moritaki)
Office: c/o Hiroshima Consortium of Co-ops
4F, 8-23 Hacchobori, Naka-ku, Hiroshima 730-0012
Tel. +81 82 502-3651

We, Hiroshima citizens, together with our hibakusha who are still suffering from radiation disease after sixty-one years of the atomic bombing, strongly protest against DPRAK’s nuclear weapon test which was conducted on Monday 9th October.
We can never tolerate the possession of nuclear weapons as they deprive humanity of its future. The Government of Mr. Kim Jong Il claims, “the success of nuclear weapon test will guarantee the security of DPRK and contribute to world peace.” However, the reckless testing of nuclear weapon will not only play havoc with DPRK’s national security and seriously undermine the ordinary life of its people, but will escalate tension in North-East Asia and accelerate nuclear arms race of the world.
DPRK should give up the belief in nuclear deterrence and turn its policy toward the immediate halt of nuclear-weapons R&D in order to build peace and stability of the nation and the region.
At the same time, we condemn the five nuclear weapons states which have failed to disarm their own nuclear arsenal, as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and not only gave DPRK the mistaken idea that possession of nuclear weapons will increase its security, but have been engaged in developing “usable” nuclear weapons themselves.
We must note that the policy of pressure and economic sanctions of the US and Japan may have driven DPRK to go nuclear. Furthermore, we warn that a military intervention, reported to be planned by the US and Japan in accordance with Ch. 7 of the UN Charter, if carried out, would only aggravate the situation. We propose rather that an alternative policy should be adopted to dissuade DPRK from the pursuit of its nuclear ambition by means of guaranteeing its security and alleviating the hunger of its people through a renewed negotiation within the Six Party Talks.
Economic sanction, as amply proven by the sanctions against Iraq after the Gulf War that caused the death of millions of Iraqi children, would only destroy the life of ordinary North Koreans leaving their political leaders unharmed whatsoever.
We demand that Japan should become the champion of abolition of nuclear weapons by promoting to set up the North-East Asian Nuclear Free Zone following the example of The Central Asian Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which was concluded on 8th September of this year. Further economic sanctions and reinforcement of the Japan-US Security Treaty with the nuclear umbrella must be avoided, not to speak of nuclearization of the Japanese SDF.
We conclude by reiterating our most strong demand for DPRK to abandon its nuclear program and Japan’s self-imposed restraint of economic sanction against DPRK and utmost efforts of all nuclear weapons states to make the Planet Earth absolutely free from nuclear weapons.              13 Oct.2006




共同代表 岡本三夫  河合護郎  森瀧春子
730-0012 広島市中区上八丁堀8-23 林業ビル4F
Tel 082-502-3651


水曜日, 9月 20th, 2006



               共同代表 岡本三夫



             18 September 2006
 Your Excellency
 The Most Honorable President of
 The Republic of Uzbekistan

   Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA)

        Message of Solidarity and Gratitude

Representing the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA), we would like to congratulate you on the establishment of the Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty last Friday to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the US power centers in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001.

At the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May 2000, the world seemed to have taken a significant step when the Nuclear Weapons States adopted a historic final document promising an “unequivocal undertaking” to totally “eliminate their nuclear arsenals.” However, influenced by the US policy of “war on terror” occasioned by the events of 9/11, the NPT Review Conference in 2005 not only failed to adopt concrete measures to fulfill that promise, it actually regressed markedly from the commitment to nuclear weapons abolition agreed upon in 2000.

The regress can be observed in the matter-of-fact recognition of the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, India, Pakistan, and even North Korea, seriously jeopardizing the NPT regime. Humanity finds itself still in a precarious situation, unable to find a path toward the abolition of nuclear weapons even sixty years after the dawn of the Nuclear Age.

On behalf of the citizens of Hiroshima, HANWA wholeheartedly welcomes the signing of the Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty and congratulates the five Central Asian Countries involved in the historic signing at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan. Coming as it does when other efforts toward a nuclear-weapon-free world appear deadlocked, this Treaty is certainly an epoch-making contribution to the cause of nuclear weapons abolition.

The four previous Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, together with the Antarctic Treaty, make almost the entire southern half of the globe nuclear-weapon-free. It is an urgent task of humanity to spread the NWFZ’s to the northern half of the globe where the nuclear-weapon states are located. Therefore, the establishment of the Central Asia Nuclear Free Weapon Zone Treaty, for which your government and others have worked so long and so hard, marks a major milestone in the denuclearization of the rest of the world.

The expansion of NWFZs signifies a Herculean effort to defend peace and security not by military means of “nuclear umbrellas” but by non-military “non-nuclear umbrellas.” Encouraged and empowered by your historic achievement, we promise to make every effort to establish a North-East Asian NWFZ Treaty inclusive of Japan at the earliest possible date.

Nonetheless, we deplore the fact that the Cold War political structure has not ended but survived in our region with the immediate presence of three nuclear-weapon states and their contradictory strategies. But our region is characterized by the many hibakusha, or Atomic Bomb survivors, who lead their daily lives here and fervently desire to totally eliminate these most inhumane, criminal, and heinous weapons. We are convinced that global denuclearization will be precipitated if a North-East Asian NWFZ Treaty can follow close on the Central Asia NWFZ Treaty.

We would like to conclude our message from the Historic City of Hiroshima by pledging our solidarity and unwavering cooperation with you and all progressive governments and citizen initiatives around the world seeking to make our entire planet a NWFZ, thus fulfilling responsibility to the future to abolish nuclear weapons and guarantee the peaceful co-existence and co-prosperity of the human family.

  Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA)

  Directors: Prof. Dr. Mitsuo Okamoto
        Mr. Goro Kawai
        Ms. Haruko Moritaki


木曜日, 7月 20th, 2006

                             2006年5月12 日




 2006年度の米国の核兵器予算において、いわゆる核バンカーバスター(強力地中貫通型核兵器、RNEP)の研究開発予算が消え、代わりに信頼性代替弾頭(RRW=Reliable Replacement Warhead)計画の予算が増えました。議会がRNEPに否定的な見解を示したことは歓迎すべきことです。しかし、RRW予算に関しては、国家核安全保障管理局(NNSA)が935万ドルを要求したのに対し、議会は大幅に増額して2500万ドルを支出することを決定しました。これに勢いを得て、2007年度大統領予算はRRW計画に2770万ドル(約33億円)を要求しています。







土曜日, 4月 15th, 2006



             抗 議 声 明


Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition(HANWA)
共同代表:岡本三夫 河合護郎 森瀧春子
TEL 082-502-3651 FAX 082-502-3860