Workshop4　

Peace Education Forum

Introduction: Greetings and an Appeal from the Coordinators
Tsutomu Mizota (Professor, Nagasaki University)

People in Japan have viewed peace education as something administered with a bias in favor of certain specific ideologies (political philosophies or religious creeds) according to the judgement of institutions such as the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Board of Education. As a result, they have treated it as a kind of false education, as the antithesis of curricular education. That is why even the teachers in our schools in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which experienced the bombs, seem to distance themselves somewhat from our programs. Citizens and NGOs are carrying on their appeals for the abolition of nuclear weapons in that same social environment. That is why their appeals are lacking in impact, and why there is concern that the truths held by the people who actually went through that experience will be eroded, and fail to be passed on to the next generation. Even if not, Japan is still a country where the social climate has shown a considerable leaning to the right over the past decade. This social climate has reached the stage where people are reconsidering peace education, which presupposes demilitarization, the Basic Law on Education, and even the Constitution itself.
In order to increase the number of sympathizers and well-wishers in the international community who are looking toward nuclear disarmament, what is needed is learning about the problems of poverty, conflict, human rights, the environment, and even infectious disease, in terms of peace education. Beyond that, it is also crucial to take the approach that we can think about these common problems together.
There is a signature drive to in Nagasaki to obtain the signatures of 10,000 high school students who seek the abolition of nuclear weapons. There is also another drive to donate writing materials to developing countries. Peacemaking programs and movements have also become more diverse. Still, however, there is a great shortage of human assets to serve as volunteers. I certainly hope that the opinion leaders at international conferences and other such occasions in the near future will emerge from among those people who have experienced Nagasaki as the atomic bombing site. I would like to create more opportunities and occasions for people to receive training, so that we can produce well-qualified people.

The Standpoint of this workshop

We intend to take this time, now that 61 years have passed since the end of the war, as a point of new departure. Nuclear weapons are looming larger in the world as a deterrent force, and are also presenting the world with the threat of new nuclear proliferation. We are faced with a variety of questions: As concerns are voiced about how the nuclear bombing experience is fading away, how are we to inherit and pass on the peace issue that comes from having been there? How is the culture of peace to be nurtured and built up? Here from Nagasaki, an atomic bomb site, we would like to present the following three perspectives on the situations and issues related to peace education in Japan and other countries. These perspectives can serve as central supports for our discussion, so that we can explore these matters at greater depth.

(1) Why the atomic bomb is presented as essential instructional material for peace education and study. This is more than just a matter of a victim mentality caused by being attacked with a nuclear bomb. The production and use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction could lead to the extinction of humankind. This is a universal issue that must be presented as the foundation motive of the movement.

(2) Talking about the atom bomb does not in itself constitute peace education. The developing countries today face numerous problems of poverty, the environment, disease, human rights, and so on. It may seem too far out of our way to turn our attention to these problems and explore possible solutions. Ultimately, however, this should be a way of increasing the number of people who understand the nuclear weapons issue and cooperate with the movement. Participation and cooperation depend on how close the issues are to the lives and survival of the people concerned.

(3) Right now we are depleted of capable people who can contribute to peace. What peace education and study should be is being questioned. On the other hand, of course, there are certain problems that have been disturbing people in Japan: They are bullying, refusal to go to school, and suicide. By no means can we tolerate this kind of violence and self-abuse. The home, the school, and society must join together in creating an environment without violence. School is where young people learn how to live in society. On the other hand, however, the Board of Education should not be the kind of centralized authority that it is today. Methods of administration should be made better by rooting them more deeply in the locality so that they reflect the human voices of the people who are there on the spot. This approach should be proposed as an integrated component of peace education.
We would like to adopt these as the common goals for our workshop.

In this workshop today, we have globally distinguished peace activists from New Zealand and the United States here with us. We even have an official of the United Nations organization in charge of disarmament matters. We will hear from them about the current state of peace education that is known as disarmament education and nuclear non-proliferation education. At the same time, they will also introduce us to a variety of practical examples, including specific educational methods and a wealth of instructional materials used in regions overseas. We also have in attendance some experts, teachers, and students who are engaged in actual education in Japan. They will report to us on the awareness and purpose of this inheritance of the bomb experience, and on the unvarnished doubts, issues, and questions they encounter on the front lines of education.
The university and lower school students and other young people will be coming into their own in the near future. Peace education and studies are directed to them, and in that sense these are an integral part of the Forum for Youth that will take place this afternoon. This morning, therefore, we would like to approach our subject primarily from the perspectives of citizens who are adults, of individuals who are responsible members of society, and of NGOs.
Now I would like to reiterate some of our advance information.

Coordinators:	Tsutomu Mizota (Professor, Nagasaki University)
	Kate Dewes (New Zealand, Former Vice-President of the International Peace Bureau)
Speakers (in order of their speaking):	Akira Kimura (Professor of Kagoshima University)
	Tsutomu Ishiguri (Director of the UN Regional Center for Peace & Disarmament in Asia & the Pacific)
	Toshiro Kusano (Teacher at Kwassui High School)
	Kazuyoshi Ito (Student of Siebold University of Nagasaki)
	Kathleen Sullivan (Coordinator of Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project)

Speakers (in order of their speaking): Akira Kimura (Professor of Kagoshima University)
Tsutomu Ishiguri (Director of the UN Regional Center for Peace & Disarmament in Asia & the Pacific)
Toshiro Kusano (Teacher at Kwassui High School)
Kazuyoshi Ito (Student of Siebold University of Nagasaki)
Kathleen Sullivan (Coordinator of Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project)

Dr. Kate Dewes
The speaker's home country has carried out a variety of programs that make good use of advice derived from the research results on disarmament education and nuclear non-proliferation education that were compiled by experts directly connected with the UN in 2002. Among those programs were urban and community development involving peace concerns, projects conducted through museums and libraries, production of films and printed works, puppet plays, development of parks, and so on. There have also been traveling exhibits of atomic bombing photographs, a human portrait of non-violence as seen in Gandhi, programs relating to depleted uranium ammunition and other such destructive weapons. She described the 20th anniversary celebration of New Zealand's declaration that it would join the nuclear weapon-free zone movement, and the recreations and expositions of World Court proceedings presented at museums, schools, and universities in New Zealand. In speaking of these and other matters, she communicated the enthusiastic involvement of her country's government and people in activities for global peace. She also touched on the content of the Japanese-language edition of Peace Education in the Schools, which is a pamphlet with guidance for teachers.

Professor Akira Kimura
The speaker described how the decision was made to drop atomic bombs on the pretext of hastening the end of World War II and saving millions more lives. He examined the historical record, verified the facts, and announced the results. One of the things he revealed was the irony of the historical myth that is forever being used as an explanation in arguments for nuclear deterrence. According to the speaker, the two atomic bombs were used to (1) prevent expansion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war and (2) as an experiment in new weaponry, and he affirmed that this was the case without doubt. The speaker also commented on the matter of passing on the heritage of the atomic bomb victims' experience, something that forum participants referred to frequently. He emphasized that there was much to be learned from that very process of inheritance by the next generation, and said that this was the highest priority task for the atomic bombing locations. The speaker further stated that dual atonement, for the war and for the atomic bombing, needed to be made by the Japanese government. He called on us to reject the idea of nuclear deterrence, and declared that the manufacture of nuclear weapons is wrong under international law, as well.

Director Tsutomu Ishiguri
The speaker gave capsule descriptions of the various activities carried out by the UN Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament in the Asia and Pacific region. He pointed out how suggestions derived from research on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation education were, however gradually, being moved into actual implementation. The events he described include conferences organized by Japan and Indonesia, support for writing textbooks and other development of instructional materials, and incentives for research into disarmament education. Then, in 2005, the UN General Assembly put together as many as 18 disarmament resolutions. These even called for monitoring of the voting activity in each of the countries taking part. The speaker described the background to Japan's support for 10 of those resolutions. He also described the enthusiasm for peace promoting activities shown by political leaders around the world, and proposed that movie stars (such as Michael Douglas, who missed an earlier chance to visit) be called on to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Toshiro Kusano, Teacher at Kwassui High School
This speaker described peace education programs at the high school where he had been working for many years, and introduced cases of actual implementation of those programs. He described how, with the advent of the media society, the culture of violence had recently come to hold power in all respects. The schools are becoming the final fortress holding out against this movement. His school has asked people who experienced the atomic bombing to come teach social studies classes, and they used works of atomic bomb literature as the texts in Japanese language and literature classes. They also supported a project to translate lectures and other material they dealt with into English in order to promote dialogues with foreigners. Outside the school, meanwhile, they cooperated with activities like the 10,000 high school student signature drive and drafting peace declarations. The speaker also described their support for programs at the Nagasaki City Peace Promotion Office, and their pursuit of volunteer activities such as organizing a Youth Forum and Peace Museum programs.
The speaker discussed the reexamination of the premises of peace education. He described how it appears that the OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) of 15-year-olds is being misdirected for "reevaluation of the integrated study program" in the Japanese education community. As a result, peace education is losing its place in high school classrooms. The speaker explained how, with events like these, the struggle started over again by engaging the "improvement of learning resources" and "creation of curriculum" approaches.

Kazuyoshi Ito, Student of Siebold University of Nagasaki
The speaker was born and reared in Nagasaki, and spoke about his own involvement with peace education during the course of his life there. He was taught about nuclear weapons during his time in elementary school and junior high school, but he and his friends never showed any interest in the subject among themselves. He began to take interest in it when he was involved in helping organize a peace assembly during his time in high school. Then, as a university student, he founded a peace circle. Now there are 36 active members in his group. The members regularly engage in fundraising activities, hold film screenings, make study tours of historical remains, and take part in events like the present international conference as general assistants. The speaker and his friends are working to develop methods of conducting peace education that will last, and he believes that this will be an encouragement to many university students. Here in peaceful Japan, there is a risk that suddenly showing people images of blackened corpses will just make them reject what they see and want to stop watching. People must treat those emotions with care, as well, and continually interrogate their own motives for engaging in peace studies. He spoke about how important it is for students and teachers to explore these matters together, and how the process of finding one's own answer to the question can be a touchstone for determining whether or not to continue with active involvement in the future.

Kathleen Sullivan, Coordinator of Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project
This speaker gave an effective presentation by engaging the audience in a give and take while showing them photographs of activities she had taken part in. She used the sound of plastic balls called "bee bees" dropped onto a metal plate to let the participants hear, with their eyes closed, the difference between the period of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki and the present in terms of the quantity of nuclear weapons in existence. She then elicited responses from the participants about their impressions. This derives from her claim that the point is not just to give people knowledge. It is also important to appeal to their senses and emotions. In relating her reaction to this sound, one woman who was an atom bomb survivor expressed a suffering so extreme that others could hardly understand it. This kind of experimentation gave participants a heightened sense of how important it is to have such opportunities to share one's own sense of receptiveness and sensibility regarding individual ways of perceiving nuclear war. Coordinator Sullivan spoke about her present preparations for (1) a United Nations cyber school, (2) a total nuclear test ban treaty, and (3) organization of an exhibition at the International Red Cross Museum of photographs relating to nuclear weapons and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, among other activities. Activities that contradict the views expressed by government have become particularly difficult to conduct in the United States since the September 11 terrorist attacks. On the other hand, Japan has actively suggested that the United Nations implement measures for education relating to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. The speaker remarked that the Japanese government should not just talk to the United Nations about this. Rather, Japan should foster the notion that Japan is the very place for conducting such learning on-site. She noted that the Japanese government responds differently to matters inside and outside the country, and pointed out where the school classrooms and NGOs in this country are lacking in enthusiasm.

Questions, Comments, and Suggestions Posed by Participants
The seven presentations, including those by the coordinators, were followed by a dialogue among the participants. The substance of the questions prepared and written out in advance is shown below.
(1) The first and second times this forum was held, the phrase "culture of peace" was included in the title of a workshop. This choice of a workshop title was no doubt of crucial importance in terms of peace education and studies oriented toward the building of a culture of peace as the polar opposite of the culture of violence, which is identified by "nuclear" weapons.

(2) The United Nations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs work in terms of disarmament education and nuclear non-proliferation education, which are very distinct. When I examine what is in talks and documents, however, the substance always seems to be about international conferences and training for diplomats, and things of that sort. There is hardly anything at all about the actual condition of peace education, which is a part of it. If this is just a matter of terminology, than I would like the term nuclear disarmament education used when coming from a place that experienced the atomic bombing. It's a waste of money to hold UN disarmament conferences in Japan every year using subsidies from the national government and local governments. Those conferences are for the benefit of UN employees. Their impact for the public and for NGOs is extremely limited.

(3) When the teachers at public schools try to promote peace education, they come under adverse pressure from local governments and the central government ministries concerned that is applied through the Board of Education. The peace education carried out in the localities that experienced the atomic bombing will only become meaningful when it takes the atomic bombing as its starting point.

(4) What kinds of things do people usually learn in New Zealand and the United States (for example, in school education)? When they are learning, how do the teachers handle it? What do they think of the confusion in Japanese education today?

(5) University students in Nagasaki really are experiencing peace studies in many different ways. For example, they take part in Stonewalk (the commemoration of the nameless civilians killed in war, where people symbolically haul a memorial stone), and they use the English subtitled versions of animated feature films for their language study.

(6) As being one of the hibakusha, I have been giving the opportunity for some peace education to elementary grade children who come to Nagasaki on school trips. On those occasions, I have begun to feel that it is not enough just to give them a description when I am explaining the power of nuclear weapons. I feel (a) that nuclear weapons and humankind cannot possibly coexist, and (b) that I have to tell them, as fact, that Japan also has a history of harmful aggression under the ideology of state centrism.

(7) It seems that teachers at public schools who try to further peace education face difficulties that are different from those in private schools. Even so, it is strange that the vocabulary of peace studies used in common by the Board of Education and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology does not contain the terms disarmament education and nuclear non-proliferation education. They do not appear anywhere. In fact, I personally encountered these words through UNESCO. It doesn't seem as though the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the central government level in Japan are doing anything at all about reconciling matters like these. There is a great discrepancy between what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs says to the United Nations and foreign countries and what it is actually doing in the way of peace education here in Japan. On this point, we will be misunderstood by people who are looking from other countries, and this is giving rise to confusion. This was even apparent in some of the speakers' comments this time (such as Coordinator Sullivan), and this bears out what I am saying.

(8) The state of teachers at elementary and junior high schools in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the Board of Education there, is fatal when it comes to discussion of peace education and studies. When it comes to passing on the truth of the actual atomic bomb experience, I think they should definitely give more weight to the testimony of the people who experienced the atomic bomb.

(9) It is no good if the amendments to the Basic Law on Education foster a narrow-minded patriotism. In terms of social trends, that would end up moving in a direction that takes us farther from world peace and nuclear disarmament. Rather than that, we need to think about why the subjects of peace and disarmament cannot be built into social studies and other such courses. As things stand now, the whole country is wondering whether some subject will be included in the entrance examinations, or whether a subject is required or not, and getting caught up in the mass media coverage, until the situation has even produced suicides over it.

(10) I am putting together a systematic summary of peace education for my senior thesis. A questionnaire survey that I did showed a radical divide between public school and private school teachers regarding peace education initiatives. I also noticed a conspicuous decline, although a gradual one, in the number of materials available for use in the educational setting under the subject headings of atomic bombing, human rights, terrorism and conflict, and disarmament and security.

(11) Professor Kimura referred to a passage about "being able to protect the national polity" in the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War. I would like to hear some more details about this. This is of great importance for understanding the thought patterns of Japan's policy-makers at that time.

(12) What examples might there be of everyday activities carried on by citizens or by our children's generation that could point the way for peace education in the future? For the past year, there has been a small volunteer program to pick up trash from the Urakami River inside the city of Nagasaki. Could something like this be considered an activity for peace?

(13) The elementary and junior high schools in Nagasaki have a school day that is for peace studies. Is something like this done in other prefectures? There must be some original, ingenious way to focus on peace studies, even in the limited time available.

(14) A program of atomic bombing testimony is being carried on in Fukuoka, mainly oriented toward elementary school students there. I am very keenly aware that the heritage of those who know the actual reality of the atomic bombing is passing out of existence. Peace education must not be something short-lived. There is something uncertain about the question of how to continue carrying on peace activities itself. Yes, the government has been giving support to atomic bomb survivors, but the dropping of the atomic bombs should never be glorified or prettified by a skillful use of words or phraseology. The mission of this education is to convey as many facts as possible to posterity.

(15) The lack of interest or concern with the atomic bombing and peace issues is an obstacle to participation as a member of society in the first place. People can't continue conducting peace education with any enthusiasm unless new ways of motivating them are continually devised. We want constant new incentives for equal participation.

(1) Atomic bomb site initiatives have included some activities with a marked NGO character have been a conspicuous presence in Nagasaki up to now. In this workshop, we have been made keenly aware that we have taken on a great mission. We must take a positive stance toward the task of examining the past history and current circumstances of nuclear weapons in a way that will be meaningful for the future. This year, as we embark on the 61st year after the atomic bombing, we have made a new departure. The fact that we have explored concrete means for seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons jointly with participants from other countries of the world also represents the start of something new. The question of how to sustain the issues of the atomic bombing experience and peace education in a meaningful way for the next generation is a major problem we face.

(2) While taking into account the two previous times that a Global Citizens' Assembly has been held, and the results and reassessments reached in preparatory meetings, this workshop has made the participants the main actors. Specifically, efforts have been made to give opportunities to speak to as many of the participants as possible. The coordinator, Professor Mizota, has accordingly served, apart from his opening remarks, as a facilitator for the proceedings, and the sub-coordinator, Dr. Dewes, has acted as the recorder. The seven speakers and the participants have engaged in a two-way dialogue, and as a result we have gained various ideas and approaches from more of the speakers. In other words, we have come to know the current state of the international community as it embodies more constructive possibilities. Looking back, the coordinators realize more keenly than ever the importance of advance coordination with the speakers regarding the three core perspectives that we named as tasks for this workshop, and regarding the order and arrangement of the speakers' talks and the main points they were making.

(3) As Coordinator Sullivan so appropriately pointed out, Japan is the only country to have experienced nuclear bombing, and as such, Japan seeks to be known in other countries, and in the United Nations, for its active engagement in disarmament education and nuclear non-proliferation education. Domestically, however, that image is not accompanied by actual substance, but is kept at arm's length at the level of peace education and studies. This is the case not only in public education, of course, which is centered mainly on the schools, but also in social education and in the opportunities for lifelong education for members of the public. It was apparent also in the views expressed from the audience that the main reason for this lies largely with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, which is in charge of school education in Japan, and particularly of public education, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is in charge of international negotiations, including those with the United Nations. Between them, these two ministries have not engaged in information exchanges or discussions using this kind of language or even using this particular terminology. This is the actual state of affairs, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed. The fact is that the information being communicated in the international arena and the substance of the programs implemented domestically are dealt with as though they belonged to completely different spheres, and this in itself is a matter that should be taken very seriously.

(4) The matter of passing on the truth of the atomic bombing experience is a very old concern as well as a new problem that further involves such complex, thorny issues as the aging of society that are difficult to resolve. The fact is, however, that the enthusiasm for peace studies among citizens at large and young people alike, as well as their activity, is determined by the extent to which they feel that these matters are intimate parts of their own lives. This is precisely why it is not sufficient to merely convey knowledge to the young people who will bear the burden of peacemaking in the future. It is important to have approaches that appeal to them in visceral terms, through their emotions and their sensibility. This is particularly the case under circumstances such as we see today, where peace education is conducted amid inflammatory handling by the mass media and restrictions imposed by political considerations. To put this in clear terms, and without reservation despite the risk of being misunderstood, this is an activity that unlooses tragedy, but it still must also be a pleasurably inspiring kind of activity that evokes a desire to take action.

(5) The proposal that peace education and studies be made part of the curriculum for Japan's future public education is worth consideration. If something of that kind is not done, then we will fail to resist the trend toward education defined by entrance examination priorities and competition over admissions. To that end, we should accumulate a body of exemplars for social studies, foreign languages, and other subjects that take the form of collaboration on social education and lifelong learning. The establishment of a base for such collaboration in the form of a Peace Education and Studies Program Promotion Center (provisional name), in particular, which could be infused with regular, ongoing effort to make it a center of pilgrimage for peace education, would add further enhancement.

(6) In light of the above, we decided to insert the following sentence in the text of the Appeal: "To promote peace education and learning, we call for the establishment of public education systems which incorporate the recommendations of the United Nations Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education, using a variety of teaching methods and content, to suit each sector of society, including youth, university students, the general public, opinion leaders and decision makers."