Interviews with US experts (3)

September 19, 2015

INTERVIEW/ William Perry: Obama should visit Hiroshima to underscore inhumanity of nuclear weapons

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201509190025

By MASATO TAINAKA/ Staff Writer

Editor's note: This is part of a series of interviews with U.S. experts on whether the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

* * *

HIROSHIMA--Former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says President Barack Obama should visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki “not to apologize” but to use the experience of being at ground zero of the 1945 atomic bombings as a “vehicle” for getting his message across on the inhumanity of nuclear weapons.

“An apology isn’t the issue. We want to look forward and not back, and looking forward is that we can use the example of Hiroshima as a vehicle for conveying his message that nuclear weapons should never be used again,” Perry told The Asahi Shimbun in an interview here.

Perry has launched his “20-21 project” to educate young people on nuclear issues about “what happened, and how that could affect their lives in the future.”

“While they were not living when nuclear weapons were used and were developed, the nuclear weapons are still here and still can affect their lives, so they need to put it not in the back of their minds, but put it in the front of their minds that these weapons are real,” he said.

Excerpts of his interview follow:

* * *

Question: In 2007, you published a commentary, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” with former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger and former Senator Sam Nunn. As one of the four authors credited with laying the groundwork for Obama's speech of “a world without nuclear weapons” in Prague in 2009, would you advise the president to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perry: If he asked, I would tell him he should come. And then, if he should ask me, "What should I say when I come?" I would say, "You do not come to apologize." Many historians argue--and I also believe--that had we not dropped the bomb, had we instead invaded Japan, there would have been perhaps one million American casualties and many, many millions of Japanese casualties, so many more would have died.

But in a sense, that is kind of missing the point because the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki made it seem OK. It gave it legitimacy. Happily, no country, including ours, has chosen to repeat that example, so now we have gone 70 years without the use of nuclear weapons, which is good. But the danger is always there, and the precedent has been set.

What I think he should say if he comes to Hiroshima is that Hiroshima stands as an example of the inhumanity of the weapons, and that if we and all nations make a commitment that they will never, ever be used again, then we must take the actions that are necessary to ensure that that happens.

Q: You said you would advise him to come to Hiroshima, not to apologize, but to emphasize the inhumanity of nuclear weapons and to urge the people of the world that nuclear weapons will never be used ...

A: His coming to Hiroshima would evoke the symbolism of Hiroshima, and he could use it as a vehicle for getting his message across that nuclear weapons should never be used again.

Q: But why not apologize and go to the people? Is it because of the political confusion in the United States due to opposition from veterans? What is the stumbling block for Obama to just come over and say what he wants to say?

A: I said that an apology would not be appropriate because most Americans believe, and many historians all over the world believe, that in fact, the use of the atomic bombs saved the lives of millions of people. Had we gone ahead with the alternative of invading--the American military estimates--there would have been one million American casualties and many, many millions of Japanese.

In a sense, in a strictly numerical sense, the bomb saved lives. But it’s hard to think of it that way, when you see the devastation of Hiroshima and when you think of the lives lost and the lingering effects to the survivors here.

An apology isn’t the issue. We want to look forward and not back, and looking forward is that we can use the example of Hiroshima as a vehicle for conveying his message that nuclear weapons should never be used again, and that there is no way of using nuclear weapons that is not an offense to humanity. So, they should never be used again.

Q: Some American historians say the bombings did not save so many lives, and that it was the Soviet declaration of war that was decisive. Maybe both were needed to finish the war. What is your perspective on this?

A: The historians who look at this issue, if they consider the two alternatives--bombing versus invading--nearly all of them will conclude that the bombing saved lives. But some historians will raise the question, "Wasn’t there a third alternative?" and "Isn’t there a third choice?" They speculate on the possibility of some other course of action. It’s only speculation now.

We cannot know whether any third course of action would have been successful. But I think it is a fair question. I think that is what historians do, they discuss and debate. But I think there is no significant issue that an invasion would have cost many more lives than the bomb.

Q: The perspective on nuclear weapons seems to be changing among the American people. The poll the Pew Research Center conducted this spring found that while the overwhelming majority of people over 65 years old support or justify the atomic bombings, the younger generation has a different mind-set. Maybe they are more objective and maybe they don’t know much about history. What is your view?

A: Most young people don’t think about the issue at all, and so their opinions don’t carry much weight if they haven’t really thought about it. If they are not educated on it and if they don’t understand what happened in history, then they don’t have the visceral concern about nuclear weapons because they did not live through the Cold War.

Given that view, one of my main objectives is to try to educate the young people about what happened, and how that could affect their lives in the future. While they were not living when nuclear weapons were used and were developed, the nuclear weapons are still here and still can affect their lives, so they need to put it not in the back of their minds, but put it in the front of their minds that these weapons are real. There are thousands of them in the world and they can cause a huge catastrophe. My goal is to try to advance those ideas so the young people do think about them and understand and learn more about what nuclear weapons are. We have set up a project that we called “20-21.” The 20th part of the project focuses on the history and education. The 21st part of it focuses on the decisions we face today in the 21st century.

Q: What perspective do you include in your project as far as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned? How would you educate young people in the project?

A: Before they can make intelligent decisions about the 21st century, they have to know what happened in the 20th century. The history is important. Hiroshima is part of that history. It is a very important part of that history. They have to be educated about what has happened, and then what dangers what have happened pose to the world in the future. You looked to the past so you can learn about what you should be doing for the future.

Q: Should the reason why the United States dropped the bombs be included?

A: Yes, I think that should be.

Q: What is that reason in your project? How do you explain that history?

A: By looking at what historians say about what happened and why it happened in the context of what was going on in 1945.

Q: There are revisionist theories and also the traditional approach.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you include both approaches?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: I have heard that U.S. and Japanese officials have been discussing a proposal called “reconciliation swap” that calls for Obama to come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to go to Pearl Harbor, with both leaders apologizing to each other's country. What do you think of the idea?

A: I myself don’t see the benefit a symmetrical exchange of views. I think Obama using Hiroshima as a symbol for the dangers of the future is entirely appropriate. In my mind, Hiroshima stands as a symbol for the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, and an argument for why they should never be used again. It stands independently of other political issues in the world today, and in a sense it is not directly related to the questions of Pearl Harbor and other issues.

* * *

William Perry, born in 1927, served as U.S. defense secretary from 1994 to 1997 during the first Clinton administration. He visited Hiroshima in August to attend the Eminent Persons Group Meeting to accelerate the ratification process of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the U.N. Conference on Disarmament Issues.