水本 和実（広島平和研究所教授）
＊この記事は『Hiroshima Research News』61号に掲載予定のものです。
ニューズレター過去号はこちらから。
はじめに
広島市立大学に広島平和研究所（平和研）が創設されて今年で24年目になる。平和研が発足した1998年4月1日に最初の研究員として採用された私は、今年度末で定年退職する。私以外の研究員で在籍期間が最も長い者でも2002年4月採用であり、設立当時の平和研を知る者は私だけである。2022年3月の退職を前に、平和研の足跡を歴代所長ごとに振り返り、今後の役割や存在意義について考えてみたい。
広島平和研究所の設立
広島平和研究所の沿革は、広島市長が平和宣言で「平和と軍縮に関する国際的な研究機関」の設立を提唱した1982年8月に遡る。その後、1991年7月の広島市企画関係者会議において、平和に関する学術研究機関を3年後に開学する広島市立大学の附置研究所として設置することが決まった。1994年の開学後は、国内の第一線の研究者らによる設置準備委員会が設けられ、その傘下に国際学部の教員を主体とする専門委員会を置き、4年後の1998年2月に『広島平和研究所（仮称）基本構想』を策定した。
平和研が正式に設置されたのは1998年4月である。『基本構想』策定からわずか2カ月で発足できたのは、国連事務次長としてカンボジアPKO活動などに実績を残していた明石康氏が初代所長を引き受けたことが要因としてあげられる。平和研の設立は長年の広島の願いを実現する出来事だと考えた平岡敬市長は、所長候補として世の中にアピールできる著名な人材を求めていた。国連で国際政治の現実を知りつつ理想主義を掲げ、国際的にも知名度が高い明石氏は、広島の新しい顔として適任だと市長は考えたのである。
明石康所長（1998年4月～1999年2月）
明石氏はさっそく、一挙手一投足がメディアの注目を集めた。明石氏が平和研として目指したのは、核軍縮や国際紛争など、今起きている国際問題について政策提言を行なうシンクタンクであった。国際的な人脈を生かして内外の第一線の専門家による国際会議を招集し、自身が議長を務めて議論を煮詰め、提言をまとめるのが明石氏のスタイルだ。研究員の人材も大物は不要で、フットワークが軽く、会議の裏方をこなせる若手・中堅を求めた。研究の成果は英語で発信しなければ世界に届かないという持論から、所内の会議は原則英語で実施。研究員は能力本位で採用し、若手は限られた年限で競争を促すため、助手・講師には任期制を導入した。こうして1年目に助教授以下4人の研究員を採用した。
明石氏を遇するため、広島市も最大級の配慮をした。平和研は市内中心部のオフィスビルを借り上げ、事務室には次長、主幹、主事の3人の市職員に加え、英語に堪能な嘱託職員数名を配置。手厚いスタッフに支えられ、平和研は発足当初から国際シンポジウムの開催やニューズレターの発行に力を入れた。
だが、明石氏の所長時代は1年も続かなかった。1999年４月に行われた都知事選への出馬を自民党から強引に打診され、受諾したからである。その背景には明石氏の最大のサポーターであった平岡市長が、直前の1月の市長選に不出馬を決め、市長が交代するという出来事があった。平岡氏に全幅の信頼を置いていた明石氏にとり、突然の市長の交代は、所長の仕事の見通しを困難にしたようだ。そして明石氏の辞任は、平和研に負の遺産を残した。最大のものは、被爆者や市民からの根強い不信感である。
だが明石氏の辞任はプラスの遺産も残した。その一つは、研究機関としての平和研が国際的に認知されたことである。1998年5月の印パの核実験を受けて小渕外相の主導により、日本国際問題研究所（国問研）と平和研の共催で始まった国際会議「核不拡散・核軍縮に関する東京フォーラム」は、明石氏の所長辞任後も継続された。残されたスタッフは一丸となって実務をこなし、1999年7月に完成した報告書は国連にも提出された。この時の働きは、国問研や後援した外務省からも評価され、所長不在の危機に遭遇した平和研のスタッフに自信を与えた。
福井治弘所長（2001年4月～2005年3月）
明石氏の辞任後、2年のブランクを経て2代目の所長には、米国カリフォルニア州立大学サンタバーバラ校名誉教授の福井治弘氏が就任した。最大の任務は、平和研の人員を増やして活動を軌道に乗せることであった。福井氏の方針は、平和研は個人研究者の集合体にし、研究員は国内や海外から広く公募で採用する、研究分野も広い意味で平和に接点があればOK、というものだった。着任した2001年に行なった2回の公募には、内外からいずれも100人前後の応募があった。福井氏の意向で審査委員会のメンバーも国内・海外の一線の研究者に依頼し、採用面接を海外でも行った。
その結果、平和研には日米欧豪アジアから多種多様な研究者が採用された。専門分野も社会科学（政治学、国際関係）に加え、歴史学、社会学などに広がり、研究員は所長を含めて10人近くに増え、所内では日々活気ある議論が行われた。連続市民講座や研究フォーラムなどの市民向け事業、平和研スタッフが交代で担当する学内での講義、所内の研究プロジェクトなど、今日の平和研の活動の原型がこの時期、ほぼ出来上がった。
浅井基文所長（2005年4月～2011年3月）
平和研の組織固めに尽力した福井所長が4年の任期を終えて退任した後、3代目の所長には、外務省出身の元外交官浅井基文氏が就任した。浅井氏に期待されたことの一つは、個人研究者の集合体の性格が強かった平和研に、チームワークを持たせることだった。浅井氏は被爆地に寄り添う研究所を目指し、個性の強い研究員に対しても、良識と協調性を求め、その重要性を教授会でも対話を通じて理解させようとした。
また市民に関心の高い日本国憲法や被爆体験、平和運動などを扱う研究者が必要だと考えて採用した結果、研究員は12人に達した。浅井氏は被爆者に寄り添う姿勢を貫き、国際シンポジウムの企画内容の一部に被爆者団体から反対の意思が示されると、中止の決断を下したこともあった。所長着任前から個人のブログで政治・外交・社会問題について積極的に発言しており、ヒロシマへの思いは今も発信されている。
吉川元所長（2013年4月～2019年3月）
4代目の所長に就任した吉川元氏は、平和研の存続自体が危機にあるとの認識から、早急に取り組むべき目標として、①大学院平和学研究科の設置、②平和・安全保障に関する事典および「アジアの核」の状況を分析した年鑑の発行を掲げた。①は吉川氏の所長在任中に準備手続きが完了し、2019年4月開設にこぎつけた。②は、2016年3月に『平和と安全保障を考える事典』を、2019年2月に『アジアの平和と核』をそれぞれ発行し、実現を果たした。吉川氏は内外の研究機関とのネットワークづくりにも積極的で、長崎大学核兵器廃絶研究センター（RECNA）、韓国世宗研究所、韓国ソウル大学統一平和研究院、遼寧大学日本研究所などと包括協定を結び、研究交流活動を拡大した。
大芝亮所長（2019年4月～現在）
2019年4月に大芝亮氏が所長に就任し、平和研は新たな活動に着手した。まず着任と同時に大学院平和学研究科修士課程が発足した。3年目の今年は博士後期課程もスタートした。コロナ禍の中、国内の学生に加え、留学生や社会人学生の獲得に力を入れている。また平和研の全研究員が執筆に参加した初の論文集『広島発の平和学』を2021年8月に出版した。研究員も15人に増え、チームワークによる共同研究と個人研究の両方で成果を出しつつある。
平和研究所の存在意義とは
平和研は大学付属の研究機関である以上、一般に大学が果たすべき役割とされる「教育」「研究」「社会貢献」を、平和研も果たすべきである。なかでも平和研の設立経緯や市民の視点から見て重視すべきなのは社会貢献であろう。具体的には、①地元広島への貢献と、より広く②国内や国際社会への貢献があるが、②を行う主体も広島に数多く存在するので、①について考えてみたい。広島には次のように多種多様な主体による平和活動がある。あえて整理すると、広島市や県、各自治体（平和行政）／平和記念資料館や国立原爆死没者追悼平和祈念館、その他の資料館（被爆体験や記憶の継承）／平和首長会議、UNITAR広島事務所、JICA中国（国際協力・国際貢献）／広島市教委、小中高、教員組合等（平和教育）／メディア(平和報道)／被爆者団体、NPO・NGO（平和運動）などに分けられよう。
私はこれまで在任中、「平和」と名の付くあらゆる活動について、関係者から相談があれば、それに応じるのが平和研の役割だと考え、大半は個人としてであったが、可能な範囲で対応してきた。その過程で学んだことも実に多かった。私の拙い経験から言えば、その役割こそが、平和研に期待される最重要の任務であり、それを果たすことこそ平和研の存在意義であると考える。教育や研究の重要性は言うまでもないが、とりわけ社会貢献の分野において、「平和を目指すあらゆる活動」に関する相談や支援の要請に対し、研究所の門戸を開いて研究員の誰かがきちんと受け止め、対応することこそ、これからの平和研に期待される最も重要な働きだと思う。
Open the Door to Every Activity That Strives to Realize “Peace”
Hiroshima Peace Institute’s History and Raison d'Etre
Kazumi Mizumoto (Professor at HPI)
Introduction
This year marks the 24th anniversary of the establishment of the Hiroshima Peace Institute (HPI) at Hiroshima City University (HCU). When the HPI was founded on April 1, 1998, I was employed as the first researcher, and I am due to retire at the end of this academic year. As the researcher with the next longest career at the HPI was hired in April 2002, I’m the only one who knows about the HPI at the time of its establishment. Prior to my retirement in March 2022, I would like to review the HPI’s achievements under each of the past Directors, and consider the institute’s future role and raison d'être.
Establishment of the Hiroshima Peace Institute
The history of the HPI can be traced back to August 1982, when then Mayor of Hiroshima City proposed in the Peace Declaration that “an international institute for research on peace and disarmament should be established.” Afterward, it was decided at Hiroshima City’s planning meeting, held in July 1991, that an academic research institute on peace would be founded as an affiliated organization of HCU, which was scheduled to open three years later. After the university was opened in 1994, an establishment preparation committee, comprising researchers active on the frontlines in Japan, was formed. Under the committee was an expert committee whose main membership comprised teaching staff from the Faculty of International Studies. Four years later, in February 1998, the HPI (Tentative) Basic Concept was formulated.
The HPI was formally established in April 1998, only two months after the formulation of the basic concept. Such a quick establishment was achieved largely thanks to Yasushi Akashi’s assumption as the HPI’s first Director. He had demonstrated great achievements as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, including those related to the UN Peace Keeping Operations in Cambodia. Believing that the establishment of the HPI would be an event symbolizing the realization of Hiroshima’s long-anticipated wish, then Mayor of Hiroshima Takashi Hiraoka was seeking a renowned Director candidate who could appeal to society. The mayor believed that Mr. Akashi would be appropriate as a new representative of Hiroshima, because he knew the reality of international politics through his work at the UN, but still upheld the idealism and had a high profile in the international arena.
Director Yasushi Akashi (April 1998 – February 1999)
Every move Mr. Akashi made drew attention from the media. He aimed to develop the HPI into a thinktank that presented policy recommendations on ongoing global issues, such as nuclear disarmament and international conflicts. Utilizing his global networks, he called international conferences attended by experts active on the frontlines both at home and abroad, served as the chair for such events, and boiled down the relevant discussions before presenting recommendations. That was his style. He did not need big names but young or mid-level researchers with light footwork who could support conferences behind the scenes. Believing that research results would not reach the global arena if they were disseminated in a language other than English, he ensured that all the meetings within the HPI were conducted in English, in principle. In addition, he employed researchers on merit and introduced a fixed-term employment system for assistants and lecturers in order to encourage young staff to compete to produce favorable outcomes within a limited timeframe. In the first year, four researchers were employed, including an associate professor.
For its part, Hiroshima City showed the utmost consideration to Mr. Akashi. The city ensured that the HPI could rent an office building located in the city center, and that the institute’s secretariat consisted of three city officials – the Deputy Director General, the Senior Officer, and the Officer – plus some contract workers who were fluent in English. Supported by such an excellent staff, the HPI focused on holding international symposia and issuing newsletters from its early days.
Nevertheless, Director Akashi’s tenure did not last even a year. This was because he was aggressively urged by the Liberal Democratic Party to run in the Tokyo gubernatorial election to be held in April 1999, and he accepted the offer. Behind his decision lay the fact that then Mayor Hiraoka of Hiroshima City, who was Mr. Akashi’s most trusted supporter, had decided not to run for the Hiroshima mayoral election to be held in January, immediately prior to the Tokyo gubernatorial election, and had been replaced with a new mayor. This sudden replacement apparently made Mr. Akashi, who had every confidence in Mr. Hiraoka, feel it would be difficult to fulfill his responsibilities as HPI Director. Mr. Akashi’s resignation left negative legacies with the HPI. The most serious of these was a deep-rooted distrust from A-bomb victims and citizens.
At the same time, Mr. Akashi’s stepping down also left positive legacies, including global recognition of the HPI as a research institute. In May 1998, India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests, causing then Minister of Foreign Affairs Keizo Obuchi to play the leading role in organizing the international conference, the “Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.” This international conference, co-organized by the Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA) and the HPI, continued even after Mr. Akashi stepped down as Director. All the remaining staff members were united in performing practical work. They completed a report in July 1999 and submitted it to the UN. The way they worked for the conference was recognized and highly regarded by the JIIA and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which supported the event. This evaluation boosted the HPI staff members’ confidence at a time when they were experiencing the crisis of the vacancy in the position of Director.
Director Haruhiro Fukui (April 2001 – March 2005)
Following a two-year vacancy in the directorship after Mr. Akashi’s resignation, Dr, Haruhiro Fukui, Professor Emeritus of the University of California, Santa Barbara, assumed the position of the second Director. His most important responsibilities were to increase the staff of the HPI, and place the institute’s activities on track. He believed that the HPI should become an aggregation of individual researchers, that researchers should be selected from among applicants solicited widely both at home and abroad, and that the researchers should be allowed to engage in their research topicsrelated to peace in a broad sense. In 2001, when he took up the new position, two open calls were launched, with each drawing approximately 100 applicants from both Japan and abroad. In accordance with Dr. Fukui’s request, the HPI asked prominent specialists in Japan and overseas to form a screening committee, and organized employment interviews both in Japan and abroad.
This led the HPI to employ a wide variety of researchers from Japan, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Asia. The range of the institute’s specialized fields extended to cover not only the social sciences (politics and international relations), but also history, sociology and other fields. The number of researchers increased to nearly 10, with lively discussions held every day at the HPI. It was around this time when the prototypes of the HPI’s activities today were mostly established, such as citizens lecture series, research forums, and other events as well as lectures given by the HPI staff in turn at HCU and the HPI research projects.
Director Motofumi Asai (April 2005 – March 2011)
After Director Fukui completed his four-year term, Mr. Motofumi Asai, a former diplomat became the third Director. One of the expectations placed on Mr. Asai was to bring teamwork to the HPI, which was characterized as an aggregation of individual researchers. He aimed to develop the HPI into a research institute considerate of the feelings of the A-bomb victims. While calling on the HPI’s researchers, each of whom had strong individualized research agendas, to show common cause and cooperation, he tried to make the importance of these values understood at the researchers staff meetings through dialogues.
In addition, he believed that the HPI needed to hire researchers specializing in the Constitution of Japan, the experience of the atomic bombing, peace movements, and other themes that could draw significant attention from citizens. As a result, the number of the HPI’s researchers reached 12. Mr. Asai always maintained his stance of considering A-bomb victims. For example, he even decided to cancel an international symposium when a group of A-bomb victims expressed their opposition to part of the program. Before serving as HPI Director, he actively posted his comments on political, diplomatic and social issues on his own blog. He is still disseminating his opinions on Hiroshima.
Director Gen Kikkawa (April 2013 – March 2019)
The post of the fourth Director was assumed by Dr, Gen Kikkawa. Based on the recognition that the HPI’s existence was threatened, he set the following targets to be worked on as early as possible: 1) to establish a Graduate School of Peace Studies; and 2) to issue an encyclopedia on peace and security and a yearbook analyzing the nuclear situation in Asia. For 1), the necessary preparation was completed by the end of Director Kikkawa’s tenure, and the school was opened in April 2019. Regarding 2), the Encyclopedia for Peace and Security was released in March 2016, while Peace, Nuclear Weapons and Governance Issues in Asia was released in February 2019. Director Kikkawa also actively formed a network with research institutes both at home and abroad. The HPI concluded comprehensive partnerships with the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, Nagasaki University (RECNA), Sejong Institute in South Korea, the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies of Seoul National University, the Institute of Japan Studies of Liaoning University in China, and other entities, thereby expanding the scope of its research interaction activities.
Director Ryo Oshiba (April 2019 – Present Day)
In April 2019, Dr. Ryo Oshiba assumed the position of Director, and the HPI embarked on new efforts. At the same time as his assumption of the position, the HPI launched an M.A. Program at the Graduate School of Peace Studies. In April 2021, a Ph.D. Program has also been initiated. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the graduate school is focusing on drawing not only students in Japan, but also international students and working professionals. Moreover, the HPI released A Hiroshima Approach to Peace Studies, the first collection of papers written by all the HPI’s researchers, in August 2021. The number of the institute’s researchers has increased to 15, with important outcomes being generated both in joint research entailing teamwork and in research by individuals.
HPI’s Raison d’Etre
I’ve made a brief review of the HPI’s history as above. The earlier the period, the longer my description. This is because, as the only researcher who knows the situation right after the institute’s establishment, I would like the present staff to refer to the descriptions of the HPI’s early days. Finally, I would like to explore the roles to be played by the HPI and its raison d'être.
Since the HPI is a research institute belonging to a university, it should fulfill the roles that are generally expected to be fulfilled by universities, namely education, research and social contribution. Considering the background to the establishment of the HPI and from the perspective of citizens, particular focus should be placed on social contribution. Specifically, the HPI’s contributions can be categorized into two types: 1) contribution to the hometown of Hiroshima, and 2) more extensive contribution to Japan and international society. Since there are many groups working for 2) in Hiroshima, I would like to consider 1).
In Hiroshima, there are a wide variety of entities committed to peace, and they can be divided into the following groups: Hiroshima City, Hiroshima Prefecture and other local governments (peace administration); Peace Memorial Museum, Hiroshima National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims, and other museums (handing down the experiences and memories of the atomic bombing); Mayors for Peace, UNITAR Office in Hiroshima, and JICA Chugoku Center (international cooperation and international contribution); Hiroshima City Board of Education, elementary schools, junior and senior high schools, Teachers’ Union, etc. (peace education); media (peace coverage); and A-bomb victims’ organizations, NPOs, and NGOs (peace movements).
I believe it is the HPI’s role to support everyone who seeks advice on his/her activity related to peace. Based on this belief, since I started my career at the HPI, I have provided as much cooperation as I can, though I have done so personally in most cases, and I have learned a lot through this process. My humble experience has convinced me that this role is the centerpiece of the responsibilities the HPI is expected to discharge, and that the HPI’s raison d'être lies precisely in fulfilling this role. It goes without saying that education and research are important. Particularly in the field of social contribution, however, the HPI should open the door to every activity that requires consultation or support to realize peace, and ensure that all the researchers face and respond appropriately to such needs. I feel that this is the most important mission that the HPI is expected to complete.