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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS