Hi! I’m Yasuaki Otake. Last Tuesday, Mr. Takeda(from ministry of foreign affairs) came to our seminar and taught us about “disarmament education”. That was very fantastic and after listening to his talk, two questions occurred to me.
First, ”The negotiations among countries for disarmament will actually lead to world peace? ”
Related to this matter, Mr. Takeda said ”Today, the activities for disarmament are taken all over the world. However, it’s not sure that the disarmament leads to world peace”. And in my opinion, even if many countries disarm, it will not always lead to world peace. It is sure that disarmament seems to be fantastic for people today, but there are not only countries but also many other organizations (like NGO,UN and so on ) which act as the subjects in the world. And the country can’t always control the people in that country. Also, the country can’t always control the whereabouts of weapons cut. Then, after the disarmament, many subjects (including terrorists) may have a mighty military strength and the might of the country may fall down, moreover that may arouse people’s anxiety.
So, that’s why I think so.
Second question is as follows, “About disarmament conference, there is a common humanity?”
Mr. Takeda said, “When we negotiate other countries, we often appeal to the heart of the other party.” However, about the negotiation of disarmament, is it possible? For example, there are many countries which are about to start the war against the next countries, or there are many countries which regard the revenge or the holy war as the humanity. Can we persuade such countries to throw away their weapons? I think it is difficult to appeal to the heart of those who have other senses of values.
Anyway, his talking was very interesting and I got interested in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thank you for your reading.
Hello. I’m Yuta Ikeda.
As Mirai wrote here, We were lucky to listen to Mr. Takeda on Tuesday. I’ll write two points which impressed me.
First, the Japanese government is now trying to systemize a lot of activities of NGOs, universities, city offices, and mass media, and so on, using the system like “Special Communicators for a World without Nuclear Weapons”. Those actors have been independently tackling the problem about disarmament, telling wartime memory, etc. What the government can do is, as Mr. Takeda said, to amplify these activities as whole. By collecting information and connect each activity organically, the activities will be so efficient. I have been thinking that everyone wants to somewhat take action, and that, in fact, there are many kinds of activities, but that each is so independent that they don’t have ebough power. I was impressed by the idea that the government can use the private power.
Second, I have been wondering whether being emotional telling the experience of the war works good or not. Is being an argument based on emotion effective so as to tell the story or to improve disarmament? Being emotional has both good and bad aspects, but, as Mr. Takeda said, the role of hibakushas may be to move others’ emotion. After all, diplomacy is both logical and emotional. So, hibakushas dispassionately speaking their experience is moving, which is one of the effective tools to hand stories down from generation to generation and from Japan to all over the world.
We are thinking about how to tell hibakusha stories. I think hibakusha story is more or less sentimental. It is true that stories won’t be common if they are too emotional and ideological. However, being emotional and, at the same time, moving is what is needed, which is rather effective to tell the story.
I’d like to think about these themes farther.