I assumed the position of Director of the International Peace Research Institute at the milestone of eighty years since the end of the war. Our institutional journal, PRIME, also took up “Eighty Years after the War” as a central theme.

Is a span of eighty years simply too long for the living memories of human beings to be passed down? Public interest in the Asia–Pacific War seems to fade with each passing year. Whereas the statements issued by Prime Minister Murayama at the fiftieth anniversary of the war’s end, by Prime Minister Koizumi at the sixtieth, and by Prime Minister Abe at the seventieth each provoked considerable political debate, Prime Minister Ishiba’s “reflections” issued at the eightieth anniversary passed without major controversy. The subsequent Takai­chi administration even appears intent on deliberately consigning them to silence.

Efforts to pass on firsthand accounts of the war do continue, and their importance has only increased. Yet the number of people who possess living memories is steadily diminishing. Moreover, most of those memories are limited to experiences of “victimhood” from childhood. Those who can speak about why the war was initiated, why it could not be prevented, or—still more—about experiences of “perpetration,” have almost all already passed away. The realities of perpetration can now only be reconstructed through the memories of victims. Precisely because living memory is fading, the study of history becomes indispensable. Memory must be preserved as record through the efforts of those who study history. This is why it remains essential for us to address unresolved questions of responsibility for colonial rule and war.

The passage of eighty years is itself already an object of historical inquiry. Clues for understanding the future can be found only in history. What kind of world are we heading toward? What consequences did the relentless strengthening of military power, the assertion of “peace through force” as political “realism,” and the scapegoating and exclusion of foreigners and ethnic minorities as the causes of social contradictions once bring about in the world?

In a parliamentary address marking eighty years since the end of the war in Europe, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned against calls to “draw a line under our history and responsibility.” In Japan as well, efforts to bring “apology and reflection” to an end carry the same inherent danger. The words spoken by President Richard von Weizsäcker in his fortieth-anniversary speech—“Those who close their eyes to the past become blind to the present”—take on even greater significance when we consider the future. President Steinmeier has likewise stated, “Those who face the past do not abandon the future.”

If we are to avoid repeating tragic mistakes, we have no choice but to learn from the past—so that eighty years after the war does not become a new “prewar.”

Motoi MIYAJI
Director, 2025.4-

In April 2024, I assumed the position of Director of the International Peace Research Institute, an institution with a long and distinguished history. This is by no means an expression of false modesty, but at the outset, I truly questioned whether I was a person worthy of serving as the head of such a venerable institute. Although I had been elected to the position, I wrestled with many conflicting thoughts before accepting the appointment.

As a researcher, my academic specialty lies in early modern Eastern European history, with a particular focus on Hungary. I have no formal training in peace studies, international law, international politics, or international relations.

Nevertheless, as circumstances increasingly compelled me to accept the position, I took the opportunity to reflect anew on what “peace” truly means.

If not for this experience, I might have continued to regard peace as something somewhat distant—important, yet belonging to others. But I have come to realize that “peace” is not limited to the grand, capital-letter Peace we often invoke. There also exist smaller, more personal forms of “peace,” written in lowercase, each with its own genuine significance and value.

This may seem like a modest “discovery”—one that falls within the realm of common understanding for those who specialize in peace studies. Yet, just as Johan Galtung once opened our eyes by distinguishing between negative peace (achieved through the absence of direct violence) and positive peace (realized by overcoming structural violence such as poverty and discrimination), this small realization has, for me, opened an inner eye of its own.

With this renewed awareness, I hope to engage sincerely and humbly with the many diverse dimensions of “peace” that exist in our world.

Hiroshi TOYA
Director, 2024.4-2025.3

PRIME was established with the aim of “researching the conditions necessary for the realization of world peace and promoting interdisciplinary exchanges among peace researchers, NGOs, and peace movement practitioners both within and outside the university.” As our former director, Professor Takahara, has pointed out (see below), the antonym of “peace” is “violence.” PRIME has consistently engaged in efforts to minimize the forms of violence that threaten human dignity. In the face of today’s realities—where human rights and freedoms are gravely suppressed and acts of aggression are openly carried out—we must further explore what we can and must do.

A central and enduring theme for PRIME has been the issue of nuclear weapons. Situated in a country that has suffered the unparalleled tragedy of both military and so-called “peaceful” uses of nuclear power, PRIME places particular importance on continuing research on this subject.

In addition, we hope to advance studies on peace movements—especially those concerning modern forms of the right to resist. Across the world, countless ordinary people devote themselves wholeheartedly to resisting the dark forces that threaten freedom. In Japan as well, there are individuals who continue to confront persistent violence that endangers fundamental human rights, guided by their conscience. We wish to deepen our understanding of the realities of such civic resistance to unrestrained brutality, and to refine the theoretical frameworks that illuminate these struggles.

In light of current global circumstances, we also seek to expand our academic and practical understanding of the relationship between refugee protection and peace.

One of the activities that has greatly expanded during former Director Takahara’s tenure is peace education. Courses such as “Contemporary Peace Studies,” the Peace Studies Summer Program, the WILL2LIVE Cinema (Refugee Film Festival), and Café du PRIME have created multiple avenues for student engagement. In an age where values such as safety, security, hygiene, and cleanliness are especially emphasized, the importance of peace education—which reminds us of the social and political dimensions of human existence—has become ever more evident.

As we continue to live in uncertain times, we must sharpen our sense of direction. We must strengthen our connections with people in society and our research networks across borders. We must also, when necessary, raise dissenting voices and engage in open debate without hesitation. The stance that PRIME has steadfastly upheld—of engaging earnestly with the challenges of our time from a historical perspective—has become all the more vital in a society that tends toward closure. We remain committed to continuing this sincere pursuit with renewed determination.

Kohki ABE
Director, 2022.4-2024.3

The severe situation of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant since March 2011 reminds us that we must not only eliminate nuclear weapons, but also must reconsider our life style so that we may relinquish our reliance on the so-called “peaceful use” of nuclear energy. We inherit the spirit of late Professor Toshiyuki Toyoda, the first Director of PRIME, who strenuously fought against complacency shared by the majority, and dishonesty of those “experts” who are immersed in vested interests. We now know that humankind barely survived the Cold War, and numerous symptoms still hinder our efforts to uphold peace and human dignity in the 21st century. The sword of Damocles is still hanging over us.

We at PRIME shall continue to seek what peace research can do to make steps towards a convivial world without war and all forms of violence.

Takao TAKAHARA
Director, 2014.4-2022.3

The explosion of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on March 2011 has taught us that there is a need not only to dismantle nuclear arms but also to rethink our life style which heavily relies on nuclear energy.

We inherit the wishes of Professor Toshiyuki Toyoda, the late first director of PRIME, who lamented the future of humankind and continued to oppose nuclear energy throughout his life. Today we see collisions over resources and nationalism in the never-ending quest of materialistic wealth in various parts of the world. “Resources and violence” is one of PRIME’s crucial research agenda.

At PRIME, we analyze and study those factors which threaten international peace, and share our research results on campus and with the public. We continue to seek what peace studies can do for an ecologically viable world without war.

Makoto KATSUMATA
Director, 2012.4-2014.3