Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama: Visit Hiroshima
President Obama has talked a lot about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. He won a Nobel Peace prize largely on the strength of those words. Now, he needs to translate words into actions and vindicate the Nobel committee's decision. When he goes to Japan this month, the president should make an unprecedented visit to Hiroshima.
For over six decades, no sitting American president has visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, much less apologized for dropping the bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Former President Jimmy Carter visited the city, but he waited until he was out of office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is the highest-ranking American to go to Hiroshima, but she remained publicly silent while there. When the new U.S. ambassador to Japan recently visited Hiroshima, the city's mayor conveyed an invitation to Obama to come when he travels to Japan on November 12. The president should accept.
In visiting Hiroshima, Obama wouldn't question the service and sacrifice of American veterans. The purpose wouldn't be to make America or Americans feel guilty about the past. Rather, he could begin putting into action his talk of a world free of nuclear weapons. Hiroshima is a stark reminder of the incomparable destruction wrought by nuclear weapons. Americans still believe that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was good and necessary. This misleading account surrounds nuclear weapons with an aura of usefulness. We must instead focus on the consequences of the bomb's use-in civilian lives lost and ruined.
Obama is ideally suited to alter the conversation on Hiroshima. He has changed America by reintroducing hope into the political and social conversation during a time of financial crisis and war. We continue to expect him to challenge issues-racial politics in America, relations with the Muslim world-that no leader in recent memory has dared address. He can add to this already remarkable record by honestly confronting America's use of nuclear weapons.
A failure to do so would weaken our attempts to lead discussions of nuclear nonproliferation, and persuade countries like Iran and North Korea to give up their programs. By paying his respects to those who died in Hiroshima, Obama can show both Japan and the rest of the world that Americans take this history seriously, that we say in one voice "never again."
The U.S. president can also help inaugurate a new era in relations between Washington and Tokyo. The new Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, stood at the United Nations last month and invited leaders to understand the need for a world free of nuclear weapons from the perspective of those who were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Hatoyama did so not to blame Americans for this history, but rather to articulate Japan's responsibility as the only country to be devastated by such bombs: Others must never know such suffering. The new Japanese prime minister is also promising a forthright examination of Japan's role in World War II. It's time for President Obama to make this a joint endeavor.
As the president wrestles with the intricacies of Afghanistan's future, recognizing America's past history should be fairly straightforward by comparison. His visit would give him and the United States credibility to move forward in setting the tone for discussions of nuclear nonproliferation, weapons reduction, and, ultimately, their abolition. We can only focus on this future if we deal honestly with the past.
Put differently, if Mr. Obama cannot visit Hiroshima, why would the leader of any other country believe he or any American could turn words about a non-nuclear world into action?
- Posted in
7 Comments so far
Show AllA very well written article. However, the authors believe that Obama "has changed America by reintroducing hope..." Unfortunately the writers of this article did not think to inquire if the Afghans and the Pakistanis feel any hope after seeing their children and grandmothers being ripped to pieces by America's bombs and drone missiles.
Regarding the "hope" that Obama may visit Hiroshima, that is probably a desire mired in wishful thinking as it is extremely doubtful if any American president would ever deign to ponder the destruction of that city that came about due to an American nuclear bomb. The last thing that Obama would ever think about, it would seem, are the many Japanese whose lives were forever altered when their relatives and friends were incinerated by the Americans. An American president expressing regret for its actions? As the writer Barbara Tuchman would have observed, that would be the height of folly to actually think that an American president would admit that the United States was wrong in what it did to those people. Grief, lamentation, sorrow, contrition are not things that the United States has ever been eager to do.
Now that the alleged silver in Obama's forked tongue has proven to be mostly tarnish, as some of us recognized in the first place, Your Obedient Servant dreads the prospect of a Commander Performance Live at Hiroshima.
Think of the Japanese people, and especially the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
Haven't we Amerikans done ENOUGH? Must we encourage the Unitary Executive to add a new atrocity to the historic ones by staging a second-term campaign appearance using war crimes victims as a backdrop-- as PROPS?
Doesn't Amerika EVER leave bad enough alone?
· Yr Obd't Servant
why was using the atomic bomb on japan wrong? because any nation holding the more lethal force could always justify its use to shorten the hostilities and minimize casualties. the us used this excuse for hiroshima, but the russians could have used it in afghanistan as well, before losing over 11,000 soldiers there. also, japan was on its knees. we had them totally blockaded and were incinerating their cities night and day with conventional bombs, though i think we were throwing in some napalm more than just now and then. what do other readers of this article think? is the use of such weapons ever justified? why did we do it twice in three days to japan? can the nuclear genie, once out of its bottle, ever be put back in? what about the theory that we did it just to impress upon the russians the dangers of challenging our dominance in europe? did we ignore japanese peace overtures in our headlong rush to demonstrate new weapons of awesome intimidation? i surely don't know all the answers, but i'd like to have some from the other readers.
johnny u - I've been writing all day and I have to go somewhere; otherwise, I would answer your questions. But the information you want is on the internet and in a marvelous history book available at your library from 1932 through Watergate in 1972 by William Manchester. Look up Manchester on Amazon or google, and you'll find the book. ... The Truman Library, available on the Net is a motherlode, as is Eisenhower's Library. Atomic Energy for peace or Atoms for Peace unbelievably in Ike's time was a short-lived program that used A-bombs in this country to make craters for dams and other construction. Then it was realized the radiation was a little dangerous. A little dangerous?
The second bomb on Nagaski was a standing order. Truman was on the high seas and communication was primitive. He might very well have not ordered that bomb dropped. His secretary of defense [Henry Stimson, I think (don't have time to look it up)] gave the order. Truman took responsibility for dropping the second bomb. When he got back to D.C. and saw the the results of the droppings of the bombs, he turned white, and said, THESE TERRIBLE WEAPONS MUST NEVER BE USED AGAIN! The decision to use the bomb was, Truman believed, a way to save American soldiers' lives as the Japanese -- men, women and children -- did not want to surrender and they were entrenched all over Japan, even though The Emperor and particular military were sending out feelers about surrender. Truman was probably right about enormous numbers of American casualties if the soldiers fought their way across Japan. And perhaps in the bombs being dropped, as weapons fully ready to go always seem to have to be tried out, the world was forever changed and the horrible results of these fearsome weapons imprinted the fear of them in everyone on the globe. That fear of total annihilation has certainly been a deterrent.
The fire-power of bombs used in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, are equivalent or more lethal than the Hiroshima bomb, but they are not nuclear bombs.
Frankly, I think the leaders of the human species, predominantly male, are crazy. How much smarts does it take to figure out, given the proper and careful planning and the sincerity and good-heartedness to do it, that there is still enough on this globe to make sure everyone has enough and everyone can have a safe and secure life.
How come we are still so unevolved and still have learned nothing? That is my question.
History is marvelous to read, and of course, there are differing viewpoints, but go after the stories. They are all there, and all the reasons -- absolutely stupid and insensitive and sometimes, once in a while, a leader comes along who is truly a good leader or suddenly sees further, but he/she is invariably assassinated:
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived — yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)
++++++++++++
Perhaps we will stop worshipping Mammon one day -- if there is still enough time left to us as a species -- even as too many hate-filled people pretend they are worshipping a God of Love.
HYPOCRISY seems to be in the genes of too many humans.
++++++++++++++++++++
There ... I answered several of your questions anyway, but go find out more yourself. History is a living, fascinating journey, and one can learn much. And we better start learning fast.
peace, cm
johnny-The Japanese would have surrendured with dignity; jus don't dis the emperor.
I've read Truman wanted to show Stalin (b4 Yalta?) how the bomb looked up close and personal. Seeking strategic influence (fear) w/ the guy Stalingrad was named for.
Stalin was a pig, harry a racist hick.
The Japanese? Forced into the war when we helped starve them for oil on the world stage.
azjoe November 12th, 2009 5:59 pm
azjoe: johnny-The Japanese would have surrendured with dignity; jus don't dis the emperor.
==============
cm: Likely not. The Emperor was a gentle, weak man, controlled by the military. And they had been itching a long, long time for war.
++++++++++++++
azjoe: I've read Truman wanted to show Stalin (b4 Yalta?) how the bomb looked up close and personal. Seeking strategic influence (fear) w/ the guy Stalingrad was named for.
==============
cm: He might have. Where did you read that? But essentially, I think his reasoning was sincere about saving the lives of American soldiers. However, he nor no one else knew the results of the dropping of the bomb. It was truly spectacular on the Test Site, but weapons that are ready are always used, and he evidently was truly horrified when he saw the devastation.
++++++++++++++
azjoe: Stalin was a pig, harry a racist hick.
==============
cm: Stalin was a cruel, ruthless, unpredictable, dangerous, devious, untrustworthy nut case and perhaps an alcoholic, who, remember, originally signed a pact with Hitler that the Soviet Union would remain neutral. Hitler's mistake, as always through history it was a mistake, was to attack Russia or the Soviet Union. Napoleon and his army sure found that out as did others. Stalin then joined with the United States and the Allies as far more expedient since they were starting to win. But over-all the Soviets fought well, and they were part of TO THE VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. The Soviet casualties of WWII were above 20 million people, more than any other country.
And, yes, Harry Truman used racist language that he grew up with in Missouri, and other language that was very colorful. But he was no hick. It was he who put his re-election at risk by desegregating the military services by Executive Order. The Dixiecrats, who were traditionally Democrats, walked out on him. But he had a great sense of justice. He was very decent in so many ways. He was intelligent and amazingly well-read, and had military experience, including as an artillery captain up from the ranks. He was all for doing the right thing for the people and the nation, that he far surpasses anyone who has come after him. He once was seen as a little bit of a clown and a hick, but because of his record and his decisions, he is considered among the greatest presidents. Considering that less than four weeks into his Vice Presidency, Roosevelt suddenly died, Truman did a remarkable job that very few could have done at that time.
Truman truly did want to help the Jews of Europe after the war was over, but he neglected or did not see that the Palestinians hadn't had a choice about who was to come into their country, let alone set up their own state/nation, cheat them out of their ancestral homes and lands and shut them out of the new government, and much of that was before WWII.
The British or the French hadn't given the Palestinians a choice. It was all about the value of the Persian Gulf Region, shipping lanes and oil. "The White Man's Burden" of all those brown people with the funny religions translated from India to the rest of the Mid-East and to Africa. It is a total arrogance that still is in place and manifesting all the time around the world, despite the election of a racially mixed president. The old Colonial powers still persevere, but I would speculate that they themselves are restricted and harnessed in a way by "Who Controls the Money Controls the World" - The Rothshilds' legacy and all the financial alliances and networks that are also controlling the United States.
It was not understood by Truman that there was a difference between the Zionists who had not been through the Holocaust and the European Jews who considered themselves good citizens of their countries that then turned on them when Hitler seized power and got his armies rolling all over Europe and Africa and created his insane policies of exterminating Jews and those considered inferior or defective members of the human species in order to develop a pure Aryan race as leaders of the world.
The secular Zionists were different because of political leanings and what they wanted ultimately.
For the majority of Jews a return to Palestine/Israel and the creation of a nation of Israel was not a burning issue. Most didn't want to live there. But they were turned away from the U.S. and Great Britain after the war and other Western countries. And eventually the idea of a return to the biblical Homeland and their claim from thousands of year before when many of their purported ancestors still lived there became the justification for much that is questionable, such as the abysmal treatment of the Palestinian people from the get-go.
Truman helped the Jews by recognizing the State of Israel and helped it become accepted by the United Nations. However, he changed his mind. He got irritated from the constant badgering, and he stated something like: You give these people one thing and the next day they want ten more things. He also said: "They evidently call themselves The Chosen People. I think God would have had more sense."
A Rabbi banged on the desk in the Oval Office and demanded that Truman do whatever it was he and his people wanted. Truman let him have it verbally to the effect that one did not demand of the President of the United States nor bang on his desk, and he was clear that it was time for the Rabbi and his group to vacate the premises.
Racist or a refusal to buy into a singular kind of arrogance?
++++++++++++++++ MORE ++++++++++++
++++++++++CONTINUED++++++++++
azjoe: The Japanese? Forced into the war when we helped starve them for oil on the world stage.
++++++++++++++++
cm: Intelligence indicated the Japanese were gearing up for war and attack. The expectation was that they would attack the Mariannas. All the ships and planes in Pearl Harbor were assembled, but like sitting ducks, to head for the Mariannas. Some believe the intelligence then indicated they were going to go for Pearl Harbor and Roosevelt knew that and let it happen so that the American people would get out of their isolationist mindset and be rarin' to go. Despite the lend-lease program and other help from the U.S., Great Britain was in danger of going down to the Nazis. Roosevelt and Churchill were very tight, and that was unthinkable to both of them.
So Roosevelt pulled the maneuver of cutting off oil to Japan, and that likely was an on-purpose trigger to get them into the war, and once war was declared on Japan, the immediate step afterwards would be to declare war on Germany. However, the Japanese ambassador had an appointment with Roosevelt the same day Pearl Harbor was attacked. He kept the appointment and then left. But there is a time difference between the East Coast and the Atlantic Ocean and the West Coast and the Pacific Ocean, and it possible because the Japanese ambassador was calm, Roosevelt may have been fooled into not expecting the Pearl Harbor attack that day.
########
Growing up in WWII, it seemed an interminable length of time, but the war was four years. Compare that to the expending of monies and lives on a 15-year Vietnam excursion and now more than eight years in Afghanistan.
The requirements of WWII were well-defined. Defeat Hitler. Defeat the Japanese. The aftermath was to rebuild and to help. The Japanese surrender was treated with great dignity by General MacArthur, and with great expertise he helped them head toward becoming a prosperous nation, and The Marshall Plan supplied what was needed to rebuild a grateful Western Europe as fast as possible.
That kind of largesse to a defeated enemy was a step in the right direction, and the U.S.'s reputation as a generous and good nation soared.
However, shortly thereafter, Ike became President and by the time he left office he was well aware that the U.S.'s burgeoning power both militarily and financially was potentially dangerous to the country. And he warned about the miitary/ industrial / [congressional] complex in the draft of his farewell address in April 1961. "Congressional" was removed, but he was evidently well aware of the hands in the till and the greased palms of some members of Congress who were already on-the-take with the military-industrial complex.
##########
None of us can know what transpired minute-to-minute or hour-to-hour back then. The personal papers and letters of the Presidents leave their clues, and I do know this, right now I sure would rather have a modern-day Harry S. Truman at the helm than what has passed for presidents in the last forty-some years.
There never has been a perfect president and there never will be. But since JFK's assassination and LBJ's incredible record of getting legislation passed, including Civil Rights legislation that helped the people, but with the advent of Vietnam it's been downhill ever since.
A booming economy and military strength are not the reasons for a nation to be considered great, not when it loses its heart and soul.
However, the original people of this land who have been treated the worst and whose needs always came last and still do, are the ones, I believe, that carry that heart and soul of both the land and the earth itself.
One day soon it might be wise for us to really pay attention to their ancient wisdoms:
Treat the earth well.
It was not given to you by your parents,
it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,
we borrow it from our Children.
Ancient Indian Proverb
peace, cm