On May 10, the White House announced that President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima when he visits Japan to attend his final G7 Summit in Ise-Shima. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will accompany Obama on his visit to Hiroshima.
Since Secretary of State John Kerry visited the Peace Memorial Park and Museum during his visit to Hiroshima for the G7 foreign ministerial meeting in April, the prospect for Obama’s visit to Hiroshima has been receiving renewed attention.
The question of whether a sitting U.S. president should visit Hiroshima is extremely politically sensitive. On the one hand, Obama’s visit would demonstrate his enduing personal commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world, which he proudly advocated in his speech in Prague in April 2009. On the other hand, a presidential visit could reopen the discussion within the United States regarding whether the use of atomic bomb—not only on Hiroshima but also on Nagasaki—was justified, given the massive civilian casualties. As Jennifer Lind articulates in her article in Foreign Affairs on April 8, 2016, a strong case can be made both why Obama should and why he should not visit Hiroshima as a sitting U.S. president.
Read the full article here.
Japan
On May 10, the White House announced that President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima when he visits Japan to attend his final G7 Summit in Ise-Shima. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will accompany Obama on his visit to Hiroshima.
Since Secretary of State John Kerry visited the Peace Memorial Park and Museum during his visit to Hiroshima for the G7 foreign ministerial meeting in April, the prospect for Obama’s visit to Hiroshima has been receiving renewed attention.
The question of whether a sitting U.S. president should visit Hiroshima is extremely politically sensitive. On the one hand, Obama’s visit would demonstrate his enduing personal commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world, which he proudly advocated in his speech in Prague in April 2009. On the other hand, a presidential visit could reopen the discussion within the United States regarding whether the use of atomic bomb—not only on Hiroshima but also on Nagasaki—was justified, given the massive civilian casualties. As Jennifer Lind articulates in her article in Foreign Affairs on April 8, 2016, a strong case can be made both why Obama should and why he should not visit Hiroshima as a sitting U.S. president.
Read the full article here.
Photo credit: U.S. Government Work via Flickr
Recent & Related
Made in the Gulf, Designed in America: How the Iran War Has Incentivized Drone Production in the GCC
The Orphan of the Summit of the Future: The Declaration on Future Generations
Experts React: Takeaways from the Trump-Xi Summit
Kabuki Diplomacy Between US and Iran at UNGA
Is the Iran War Worth It? Six Months Later, Still No
Why Iran-Backed Iraqi Armed Groups Are Hedging on Disarmament
9 Issues to Watch at UNGA 81
Why the Houthi Capture of Mocha Matters Far Beyond Yemen
Nuclear Disruption: The US-Saudi 123 Agreement and the Future of Nuclear Cooperation in the Middle East
The Nation Is Not Alone. We Need Reflexive Multilateralism
“No, History Begins Today”: Why Washington Could Not Reshape Pakistan’s Interests After 9/11
What if the US Had Made Peace With Iran After 9/11?
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.