Survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima have reacted angrily to an agreement that links the city’s peace park with a memorial in Pearl Harbor.
The sister-park agreement, signed this week by US Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel and Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui, is designed to promote peace and friendship between the former Pacific war enemies.
“Nobody can go to Pearl Harbor, and nobody can go to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial and enter the front door, walk out the exit door and be the same person,” Emanuel said at a signing ceremony at the US embassy in Tokyo.
“I think the hope here is that we inspire people from all over the United States and all over Japan to visit Hiroshima Peace Memorial and to visit Pearl Harbor so they can learn the spirit of reconciliation,” he said.
The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and the Pearl Harbor National Memorial in Hawaii would promote exchanges and share experiences of restoring historic structures and landscapes, as well as in educating young people and tourism, media reports said.
“The sister arrangement between the two parks related to the beginning and end of the war will be a proof that mankind, despite making the mistake of waging a war, can come to its senses, reconcile and pursue peace,” Matsui said.
However, representatives of hibakusha — survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki — condemned the agreement as inappropriate, saying that while the Pearl Harbor attack targeted a naval base, the bombing of Hiroshima indiscriminately killed large numbers of civilians.
Haruko Moritaki, an A-bomb victim and adviser to the Hiroshima Association for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, said the agreement was an “insult” to survivors.
“The historical backgrounds of the two parks will forever be different,” she told the Chugoku Shimbun.
Several groups wrote to the Hiroshima city government asking Matsui not to sign the agreement, saying that the two wartime attacks were “not something we should forgive each other for,” the Nikkei Asia reported.
“They are historic lessons to learn from and never repeat,” they said.
Hiroshima Prefectural Confederation of A-bomb Sufferers Organization chairman Kunihiko Sakuma said that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had been unnecessary.
“It did not end the war and save the lives of American soldiers, as the US claims,” he told the Nikkei. “It was clear that Japan was going to lose. Unless that fundamental issue is addressed, we can’t just focus on the future.”
More than 2,300 US service personnel were killed in Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, bringing the US into the Pacific war.
About 80,000 people died instantly in the Hiroshima bombing on Aug. 6, 1945, with the death toll rising to 140,000 by the end of the year.
Another 70,000 people died in Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, six days before Japan surrendered.
Emanuel said he was aware of the objections raised by hibakusha groups.
“I understand anguish and angst is an emotion, but I don’t think you should be trapped by that,” he said, adding that reconciliation between the US and Japan “is the example of what I think this world desperately needs right now.”
The two sites have been associated with reconciliation since Barack Obama became the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima, in May 2016. Then-Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe made a reciprocal visit to Pearl Harbor in December the same year.
In a statement to mark the sister-park agreement, Obama said his and Abe’s visits had been the “key steps in deepening the alliance between our two nations,” and described the Hiroshima-Pearl Harbor agreement as “another historic accomplishment.”
“By connecting our two peoples to our shared past, we can build a shared future grounded in peace and cooperation,” Obama said.
Shigeru Mori, a hibakusha who met Obama in Hiroshima, said he welcomed the agreement.
“Pearl Harbor is a painful place for Americans to remember the war,” the Chugoku Shimbun quoted him as saying. “I want Japan and the US to join hands and do their best to work for peace.”
Additional reporting by AP
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past