The writer is a well-known journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

An anti-nuclear organisation in Japan, Gensuikin, hosted an international conference in Tokyo on the menace posed by atomic and thermonuclear weapons on August 1 to 2 and its national annual anti-nuclear conferences in Hiroshima (August 4 to 6) and in Nagasaki (August 7, 8 and 9). In all one spent a good nine uplifting days in the company of over a dozen anti-nuclear campaigners from the US, Netherlands, Denmark, South Korea, China, Russia and Moruroa Island. This experience is worth talking about.

First the host organisation. Gensuikin, is a movement - specifically directed at the evil represented by mass destruction weapons of nuclear kind and their delivery vehicles, the ballistic missiles - that grew out of the Japanese labour movement. It is ideologically rooted in the democratic Left and it distinguishes itself from another movement of the same kind that is associated with hard (communist) Left. But it remains fiercely anti-nuclear and it criticises the Japanese government for not being thorough enough and not going far enough in promoting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. It even opposes nuclear power generation and is apprehensive about the huge accumulated stockpiles in the country of fissionable plutonium from civilian reactors.

Gensuikin's international conference in Tokyo was a very serious affair. The numbers seemed modest by our standards. But to have an attendance of well over 100 persons in Tokyo on two consecutive working days was, on reflection, quite impressive. More so, when one noted their quality and seriousness by the way they were all there at the start on the dot and stayed there till the conference rose for the day. And who were they? All specialists of the subject from universities, institutes and newspapers. None of them appeared to be other than a studious and punctilious scholar of the subject. Invited foreign delegates were no more than 14- a reflection of funds constraints of the organisers; Gensuikin was after all an offshoot of the trade union movement. The quality of Japanese participants was the principal reason why foreigners were so impressed; one felt so good being associated with them in the cause we all held dear.

But one began by using the expression 'uplifting'. So the experience was. But it especially refers to the plenary session-cum-public rally on August 5 evening in Hiroshima; the venue was a huge sports stadium. It was full except for its two upper sections out of a dozen or so. The huge floor space was jam-packed. They had come out in their thousands at prime entertainment time: for a 6.30 to 8.30 pm rally. This showed the depth of the common Japanese citizen's feeling. That mammoth but well-behaved crowd was an inspiring sight; the memory of that August 6 morning 56 years ago has not dimmed amidst their notable prosperity and new problems.

But in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the conferences were national in character. Their structure and methodology was even more interesting and challenging: it was Gensuikin's various local constituents - individuals as well as NGOs and young persons from local trade union units - being exposed to foreign delegates for two meaningful days of intensive discussions on the various nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation topics. And a very stimulating and satisfying experience it was: often quite young men and women showed a level of awareness that was impressive, not to mention the chance they afforded us foreigners of gauging the depth of pacifist and anti arms race feeling among the Japanese people.

The two days leading up to 9th of August in Nagasaki - the day the US dropped the second atomic bomb in 1945 - were devoted to similar intensive study circles with Gensuikin's local constituents and were to be followed by a big popular march on the morning of August 9 which was to culminate in joining the Nagasaki city government's official ceremonies commemorating the tragic event 56 years ago. But the storm that broke that morning forced the organisers to cancel the march. But harsh weather - hard rain and exceptional thunder - did not lead to either postponement of the official ceremonies or their abbreviation. Both the Mayor, as head of an obviously vigorous government and the Prime Minister, the chief guest, went through their motions and duties as if nothing abnormal was happening, with their flunkies running after them with umbrellas. The seated public stayed dry thanks to extra strong plastic awnings held up strongly by high but temporary steel girders. Electricity did not go, as it never does in any developed country. In organisation and punctuality one had thought the Germans and Swiss were the notable guys. After these 11 days in all in Japan, one tends to put Japan somewhat ahead of Europe in these things. As for the high-tech nature of civic amenities, not to mention the standards of cleanliness, Japan surpasses Britain and the US.

What was specially instructive was the perspective that Gensuikin seemed to share with most Japanese official or non-officials: it was displayed in the national composition of foreign invitees: six from the US, two from South Korea, one each from Russia, China, Netherlands, Denmark, Pakistan and Moruroa. Apparently they always invite one person from South Asia, either an Indian or a Pakistani, thanks to resource constraints. But it clearly brings out their view of the relative weights of the countries concerned. This is by no means a criticism. Only one has to appreciate how do the Japanese see the world and if America looms so large on their horizon, there are good reasons for it.

It makes one pleased to report that one's endeavour of emphasising the need for a truly global peace and nuclear disarmament movement. It was received with much interest and sympathy. One also put in a plea not to underrate the danger in, and from, South Asia's no less hectic nuclear and missile races, if also on a relatively smaller scale. Here one must note two things: delegates from the US and Europe were gravely perturbed by the fizzling out of Europe's vigorous peace movement of 1980s in the excitement and aftermath of Soviet Union's demise on their own. Secondly, they were all too keen about it on their own.

One, once again, heard the quaint observation from the Europeans: perhaps the fledgling peace movements in India and Pakistan may provide a fillip by their growth to a renewed international peace movement. One had first heard this from two British participants in the founding convention of India's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) in November 2000 in New Delhi. It was strange to hear leading members of British CND and now from Europeans of much the same vintage saying this to the two fledglings: the Indian CNDP and our PPC. They are veterans. But if they think that these two new comers can help by the urgency that the new threat imparts they should also think of helping us in South Asia through closer cooperation.