Since August 6, 1945, Hiroshima's mission
has been to educate the world about the cruelty and disaster caused by the use
of atomic weapons. Hiroshima has been so successful in their mission that,
after almost 70 years since the destruction, atomic weapons have never been
used during war. As Nobel laureate and economist, Thomas Schelling, pointed out
in his acceptance speech, Hiroshima's legacy has prevented atomic weapons from
being used in the world.[1]
However, the surge of terrorist attacks has
forced us to change this notion. Human beings may again suffer gigantic
destruction and its lingering consequences. Graham Allison, who analyzed the
Cuban missile crisis in his book, warned the world about the upcoming threat of
nuclear terrorism. Allison is not alone; George P. Schultz, William J. Perry,
Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn have also earnestly insisted that the world
needs to be free from nuclear weapons facing emerging challenges posed by state
and non-state actors.[2]
Regardless of Hiroshima's legacy, the
development of information technology and the resulting access to information
have made it easier for anybody to learn how to make nuclear weapons and,
consequently, erode our ability to avoid catastrophe. Currently, the NPT regime
itself is not in good shape. Further action is urgently needed. And the
Hiroshima Report, in which 19 countries' performances on nuclear disarmament,
non-proliferation and nuclear security are evaluated based on the objective
data, would have a potential to play a role in promoting efforts toward a world
without nuclear weapons. However, the Report needs to do more work, and I would
propose a ranking of countries to be evaluated.
According to the Hiroshima Report,
evaluation of the three areas (i.e. nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and
nuclear security) for the three groups of countries (i.e. nuclear-weapon
states, non-NPT parties, and non-nuclear-weapon states) was made separately
because of their different characteristics as well as different set of
criteria. However, such a way of evaluation, composed of nine categories, could
make it less clear to identify which country can be evaluated positively and
vice-versa, and then weakens the impact of the Report. My recommendation for
the upcoming Hiroshima Report is to integrate three areas as well as three
groups, and to rank countries evaluated under the headlines of decreasing the
threat of nuclear weapons.
This would be a bold synthesis, but such
integration and a ranking would give the Report explicit power to convey the
message. All three areas relate to a grand purpose: decreasing the threat of
nuclear weapons. Thus, a one-scale ranking would signify which country can be
considered as the most well-deserved performer with regard to such a grand
purpose. Introducing such ranking is an essential way to extend an influence of
the Report.
Some may feel uncomfortable when they are
ranked by others. Such unpleasantness of the study's evaluation and comparison
for the countries should be taken into consideration, and the potential for
backfires should be anticipated. Nonetheless, the benefit of communicating the
predominant values in our society mandates that the ranking be carried out. One
article points out that the act of ranking is a part of human instinct.[3] At
the same time, ranking would be one of the valuable means for those who would
like to spread what they consider significant and relevant, such as values and
norms.
For instance, when Transparency
International, an international NGO based in Germany, issues rankings on
corruption throughout the world, its intention is to highlight and eliminate
worldwide corruption. Another example is the effort made by the United Nation
Development Program (UNDP) which created the human development index, with
ranking countries on their efforts to improve citizens' social and economic
development. If it had not been for goal that people should live humanely
healthy, the result would not have been so controversial. Similarly, when
institutions want to construct or understand a norm in the world, they take
advantage of rankings. Rankings are one of the most powerful weapons to
construct and convey common values in the world.
Nonetheless, the Hiroshima Report avoids
compiling rankings for 19 countries involved in the study. One may conclude
that the current version of the Hiroshima Report lacks concrete ideas on how to
spread its messages to the world.
Another proposal is to use the Report to
encourage discussion on promoting disarmament of nuclear weapons through, for
example, convening a conference on August 6 when representatives of many
countries all over the world gather in Hiroshima to participate in the
Hiroshima Peace Ceremony. To date, a conference discussing nuclear issues with
participation of those representatives as well as governors and mayors has not
been held on that day.
The peace ceremony itself represents calm
prayers for renewing their determination that the tragedy of the nuclear
bombing shall never be repeated. However, the fact that there has never been a
dynamic discussion on nuclear issues may give an impression to the participants
of the Hiroshima Peace Ceremony that Hiroshima's desire on disarmament is
insufficient. Furthermore, lack of opportunity to discuss the issue among
representatives may weaken their perceptions on importance of nuclear
disarmament. In fact, following the ceremony of 2013, a participant of a senior
Israel governmental official posted critical comments in cyber space about the
ceremony. If this participant had an opportunity to discuss the nuclear issue
in Hiroshima, in other words, if he had actually
participated in the ceremony, he may not have written such comments.
Hiroshima should convene a public and
dynamic Hiroshima Peace Forum to energize and enhance Hiroshima's voice, with
using a Hiroshima Report ranking. Let's think about the World Economic Forum in
Davos. It utilizes some rankings to describe economic conditions in the world
and has dynamic discussions based on those rankings. Why cannot Hiroshima have
an influential forum likewise?
Although the Hiroshima Report 2010-2012
does not have such ranking, I would expect that the next version, or at least a
future version, of the report would include the ranking. Perhaps, based on the
resulting data as well as effective and workable discussion for the sake of
nuclear disarmament, a raking will lead the ceremony to the Hiroshima Peace
Forum.
Takanori Mikami, Professor, Hiroshima Shudo University
[1] Schelling, Thomas C. “An Astonishing Sixty Years: The Legacy of
Hiroshima,” The American Economic Review,
Vol. 96, No. 4, 2006.
[2] George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam
Nunn, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," The Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007 and George P. Schultz,
William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, "Toward A Nuclear Free
World," The Wall Street Journal,
January 15, 2008.
[3] Peter Campbell and Michael C. Desch, “Rank Irrelevance--How
Academia Lost Its Way,” Foreign Affairs,
Snapshot, September 15, 2013,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139925/peter-campbell-and-michael-c-desch/rank-irrelevance.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment?