An interview with the Venerable Gijun Sugitani

On January 29, when the 2010 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was approaching, Dharma World interviewed Ven. Gijun Sugitani, a Japanese Tendai cleric and the chairperson of the International Standing Commission on Disarmament and Security of Religions for Peace, on religion's role in making the abolition of nuclear weapons a reality.

What is your frank opinion of American President Obama's speech in Prague on nuclear weapons in April of last year?

Inasmuch as he expressed his hopes for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, the tide toward disarmament has temporarily swelled. It was a statement that gave people hope. In October the First Committee of the UN General Assembly [Disarmament and International Security] discussed a draft resolution proposed by Japan for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. For the first time, America was among the countries cosponsoring such a resolution. Among matters that were debated were an early date for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to enter into force, and arms control. So there has been movement in the direction of eliminating nuclear weapons. The political world has come alive in response to Obama's speech. I think the groups that are active in the field of nuclear weapons elimination were encouraged, feeling a push from behind.

After World War II, America defended its dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, justifying their use by saying that it was not a mistake, that it was necessary to bring the war to an end quickly and avoid increasing the number of American and Japanese victims.

President Obama said that America "has a moral responsibility" to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons. Although the Japanese mass media have stressed only that phrase, he was actually saying that America has a moral responsibility, as the only nuclear power to have actually used nuclear weapons, to take action to eliminate nuclear weapons. If that is the case, however, I wonder if America doesn't also have a moral responsibility for using nuclear weapons on a general population under the pretext that it was necessary to end the war. Be that as it may, Mr. Obama's statement that America "has a moral responsibility" has had a huge impact on the campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

What do you think is the most important thing for realizing the elimination of nuclear weapons?

If we don't correctly understand what nuclear weapons really are, the elimination of nuclear weapons becomes simply an arms control issue. If it's only done in a manner based on the similar concept of conventional weapons reduction, the elimination of nuclear weapons cannot be accomplished. It's necessary to firmly grasp this ethical basis - nuclear weapons are the ultimate evil that negates human existence itself. Unless many people, not just survivors of the atomic bombs, share an awareness of the dire consequences brought about by nuclear weapons, I don't think the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons will go well.

Of course, when it comes to nuclear weapons, America always bears the brunt of criticism. It's the only country to have dropped an atomic bomb, and it has the most clout in the world. But although it's important to try to influence America and seek action from it, there is also the question of how to retain the cooperation of the other nuclear powers in eliminating nuclear weapons. In particular, we people of religion living in the world of today have not discussed the issue of nuclear weapons very much before now.

For certain, the world's people of religion have held conferences before the meetings of the G8, and have made many proposals aimed at the G8 participants. Particularly at the 2008 Summit at Toyako, Hokkaido, we made a proposal, from a Japanese standpoint, regarding nuclear disarmament. But at different times there have been seemingly more "timely" issues, and many previous conferences have been centered on issues of the environment, or issues of global climate change. Even when nuclear weapons issues were put on the table, the discussions never got into much depth, and the statements opposing nuclear weapons were simply rehashes of prior proclamations.

What is the role of NGOs in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

For the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] to work, it's essential that there first be a policy to get rid of the nuclear weapons that now exist, and for that, the issues of safeguarding the nuclear weapons arsenals have to be well in hand.

At the Sixth NPT Review Conference in 2000, for the first time the entire committee adopted the Final Document, which included a clear promise of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It didn't go so far as to set a date for their elimination, but compared to prior conferences, this was big progress. Now it becomes essential to determine the schedule for it. The reaching of an agreement at the Sixth Conference was due in no small way to the negotiating strength of the New Agenda Coalition and the strong support of NGOs.

As the chairperson of the International Standing Commission on Disarmament and Security of Religions for Peace, I hosted a symposium at UN Headquarters during that conference, inviting influential panelists such as Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. As the U.S. special representative to the United Nations in 1995, Graham played a leading role in the decision to extend the NPT indefinitely. We worked from the sidelines on consensus building for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The fact is, things took a turn for the worse at the Seventh NPT Review Conference in 2005. This was because international tensions became immediately heightened by the simultaneous terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

Many other provocations happened, such as North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and its nuclear weapon tests, Iran's suspected nuclear weapon development, as well as the issue of nonintervention with nuclear states such as India that haven't signed the NPT. As a consequence, the conference failed to produce a Final Document, and broke up without any resolutions, which was the worst possible result.

You can't consider the issue of Iran's suspected nuclear weapon development without also considering the fear such weapons held by Israel are causing for Iran. The fact is, America looks the other way when it comes to Israel's nuclear weapons. America is employing a double standard, telling Iran that it can't continue suspected weapon development while remaining silent about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. America's inconsistent policies for world peace in its responses to war in the Middle East or terrorism by Islamic extremists show up symbolically in the very serious matter of suspected nuclear weapon development. There is antipathy toward America's peace policies. Without also resolving these issues, unilaterally saying no to Iran is not very persuasive.

As to nuclear weapons already being kept, there must be inspections under the NPT to verify that these are safely under control and accounted for until there's an agreement that results in their elimination.

People of religion are primarily total pacifists, for whom possession of military power is in itself not desirable. At one time, in rural Japan, villagers lived with a sense of security, trusting all the people in their village as neighbors, and any house could be left unlocked. In the same way, if the world was one where, if anyone had trouble, others would come to help, then there would be no need for military force. In reality, there are places where that was possible some time ago, and there are such regions even now, so we must set our goals high. The question, however, is how to close the gap.

For today's Buddhists, what should the attitude be toward the elimination of nuclear weapons?

Looking back on history, we see that the developed countries have come to routinely guarantee freedom and equality. In the field of human rights, for example, the right to vote, which was restricted in the past, has become available to everyone. History is definitely moving in the right direction, toward the ideal.

Religion is not all contemplation and pondering; it is being asked to expound upon, now, the realities of the future. There are things that cannot be completed in our lifetime alone, of course. It's important to build up, step by step, what will become a reality in the future. I think that is what it means to live in reality rather than the ideal world. Religions teach the existence of heaven and life after death, but that does not mean it's all right for people of religion to do nothing; we have to think of doing things that move the present world closer to the Pure Land.

The Lotus Sutra contains the words "the purifying of the buddha-lands, and the perfecting of all living beings." I think the "buddha-lands" are a world in which all living things can accomplish their purpose of living and their existence. People of religion should pray for living things to accomplish, if only a little, the purpose of living their finite lives, but at the same time they must also endeavor to change reality for that purpose.

At present, Religions for Peace is rolling out a global petition drive for the elimination of nuclear weapons, called the Arms Down! campaign. It is also, through its peace activities, telling the world of a new approach to security called Shared Security. There is a need, from now forward, for further cooperation, such as building up religious leagues dedicated to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Since its founding forty years ago, Religions for Peace has built a track record of religious dialogue, but it has yet to set up a system for people of religion to quickly gather on nuclear issues. I think it is possible, since there is the example of the gathering in New York after the 9/11 attacks.

Buddhism teaches that the three poisons are greed, anger and ignorance. "Ignorance" refers to a state in which a lack of wisdom causes trouble. In other words, it is essential to know other viewpoints and to know the world, and by knowing these you can see things through others' eyes, and then there can be dialogue. That's the principle, the general rule, of religious dialogue. Knowing other viewpoints and showing respect - aren't those the first steps toward peace?

It's important, if one is to eliminate nuclear weapons, to first know how they can be brought under control. To do that, although controlling the number of nuclear weapons is important, the teaching of the three poisons shows that it is also important to control our hearts and minds, and ultimately, of course, it is important that we influence people to join us in such efforts. The process of getting there, of putting together a movement to eliminate nuclear weapons that causes the people of the world to listen and say, "Oh, that's why it's not good to have nuclear weapons" - that is where the wisdom of the people of religion is really needed.