On August 1, 1975, the head of European states, the USSR, the USA, and Canada, with the notable exception of Albania, met and signed the Helsinki Final Act in Finlandia Hall in Helsinki, Finland. At that time, no one could gauge the full significance of the Helsinki Final Act or the Eastern Camp’s affinity for this act. Notably, Vatican was one of the main actors to insist on the importance of “freedom of religion” during the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Small states such as the Vatican are sometimes regarded as “lesser power states.” Although the Vatican is the smallest state in the world, it is a significant power in world politics. Even though a number of CSCE-like summits were held during the 1980s, the principle of freedom of religion did not become hegemonic. Other than the Vatican and the USA, no other state sought to advance this political principle.

However, the situation changed drastically after Gorbachev’s ascension to power in the Soviet Union in 1985. In the Vienna Follow-up Meeting (1986-1989), the Soviet Union recognized that it was important to advance the principle of freedom of religion to alleviate its political situation. The principle was also adopted by other Catholic states, such as Hungary and Poland. Notably, after the Eastern European Revolution in 1989, no state, including the Eastern Camp states, denied the importance of freedom of religion. This turn of events is a reminder of the Vatican’s “soft power.”

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007. The concept of indigenous peoples often challenges the history of “unrecognised” colonialism, and the implementation of their rights has been considered an extension of the decolonisation process. In Japan, Ryukyuan/Okinawan advocates have also claimed their rights as indigenous peoples since the 1990s, especially at U.N. human rights bodies. The U.N. bodies in turn have recognised their status as indigenous peoples. Domestically, however, there have been disputes over the concept of indigenous peoples in relation to the Ryukyuan/Okinawan community. Notably, the disputes intensified in the aftermath of a statement issued by Takeshi Onaga, the Governor of Okinawa, concerning “Okinawan’s right to self-determination.” The governor issued this statement at the Human Rights Council in September, 2015.

This study explores aspects of their advocacy for the rights of indigenous peoples at the U.N.; it also discusses the recent domestic disputes surrounding the concept of indigenous peoples. By doing so, this study analyses the significance and challenges of protecting the rights of Ryukyuan/Okinawan people. In particular, the study focuses on the ways in which this indigenous community has attempted to assert and safeguard its rights. It also focuses on the community’s reactions to Onaga’s statement. Through the analysis, the study shows that the assertion of indigenous peoples’ rights has served to shed light on the history of colonialism in and around Ryukyu/Okinawa Islands. However, it also shows that the concept of indigenous peoples has not been fully understood or accepted in Japan. Therefore, it is important to create awareness about indigenous peoples’ rights, especially in relation to their colonial situation. Moreover, since the UNDRIP is based on the “modern” notion of human rights and international law, it is necessary to recognise that its implementation could be related to the exercise of “modern” power. Therefore, it is equally important to be cautious and persistent in our efforts to facilitate further decolonisation, which is central to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights.

This study focuses on the activities of the U.S. non-governmental organization, “Hibakusha Stories.” The organization is known for presenting testimonies of Abomb survivors to the public, especially to American high school students. This study aims to examine the impact of survivors’ testimonies on students’ perception of nuclear weapons. To this end, the researcher directly observed the organization’ s activities in 2014 and 2015. In addition, American high school students were also participated in a survey designed to gauge the impact of the organization’s activities. In total, results for 1,014 students were analyzed for this study. For instance, after Lee Jong-gun, a South Korean A-bomb survivor, spoke at Calhoun School in New York in 2015, students were asked the following question: “Have your views about atomic bombs and survivors changed?” In total, 49 students responded to this question, and 13 (26.53%) students reported that their outlook had “changed significantly.” On the other hand, 16 (32.65%) students reported that their outlook had only “changed slightly.” Similarly, when Shigeko Sasamori, an A-bomb survivor who lives in Los Angeles, spoke to 58 American students from the same school in 2014, nine students (15. 52%) reported had “changed a lot”, while 29 students (50.00%) answered that their views had only changed “a bit.”

When students who reported some form of psychological change were asked, “How would you characterize the changes?,” many answered, “I didn’t know the real impact of the atomic bomb.” Some students answered, “I just knew the dangers of the atomic bomb.” Moreover, in response to the question, “How do Americans perceive atomic bombs and atomic bomb victims?,” one student answered, “There is no place to discuss nuclear weapons in the U.S.,” thereby calling into question the issues behind history education in U.S. schools. Another student answered, “We Americans should be ashamed.” It was evident that the testimonies of A-bomb survivors had urged students to consider the “negative” aspects of nuclear power and atomic bombs. Most students tended to regard atomic bombing as an inhumane act, although many Americans continue to believe that the atomic bomb was a necessary evil to end the Second World War.

On August 1, 1975, the head of European states, the USSR, the USA, and Canada, with the notable exception of Albania, met and signed the Helsinki Final Act in Finlandia Hall in Helsinki, Finland. At that time, no one could gauge the full significance of the Helsinki Final Act or the Eastern Camp’s affinity for this act. Notably, Vatican was one of the main actors to insist on the importance of “freedom of religion” during the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Small states such as the Vatican are sometimes regarded as “lesser power states.” Although the Vatican is the smallest state in the world, it is a significant power in world politics. Even though a number of CSCE-like summits were held during the 1980s, the principle of freedom of religion did not become hegemonic. Other than the Vatican and the USA, no other state sought to advance this political principle.

However, the situation changed drastically after Gorbachev’s ascension to power in the Soviet Union in 1985. In the Vienna Follow-up Meeting (1986-1989), the Soviet Union recognized that it was important to advance the principle of freedom of religion to alleviate its political situation. The principle was also adopted by other Catholic states, such as Hungary and Poland. Notably, after the Eastern European Revolution in 1989, no state, including the Eastern Camp states, denied the importance of freedom of religion. This turn of events is a reminder of the Vatican’s “soft power.”

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted in 2007. The concept of indigenous peoples often challenges the history of “unrecognised” colonialism, and the implementation of their rights has been considered an extension of the decolonisation process. In Japan, Ryukyuan/Okinawan advocates have also claimed their rights as indigenous peoples since the 1990s, especially at U.N. human rights bodies. The U.N. bodies in turn have recognised their status as indigenous peoples. Domestically, however, there have been disputes over the concept of indigenous peoples in relation to the Ryukyuan/Okinawan community. Notably, the disputes intensified in the aftermath of a statement issued by Takeshi Onaga, the Governor of Okinawa, concerning “Okinawan’s right to self-determination.” The governor issued this statement at the Human Rights Council in September, 2015.

This study explores aspects of their advocacy for the rights of indigenous peoples at the U.N.; it also discusses the recent domestic disputes surrounding the concept of indigenous peoples. By doing so, this study analyses the significance and challenges of protecting the rights of Ryukyuan/Okinawan people. In particular, the study focuses on the ways in which this indigenous community has attempted to assert and safeguard its rights. It also focuses on the community’s reactions to Onaga’s statement. Through the analysis, the study shows that the assertion of indigenous peoples’ rights has served to shed light on the history of colonialism in and around Ryukyu/Okinawa Islands. However, it also shows that the concept of indigenous peoples has not been fully understood or accepted in Japan. Therefore, it is important to create awareness about indigenous peoples’ rights, especially in relation to their colonial situation. Moreover, since the UNDRIP is based on the “modern” notion of human rights and international law, it is necessary to recognise that its implementation could be related to the exercise of “modern” power. Therefore, it is equally important to be cautious and persistent in our efforts to facilitate further decolonisation, which is central to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights.

This study focuses on the activities of the U.S. non-governmental organization, “Hibakusha Stories.” The organization is known for presenting testimonies of Abomb survivors to the public, especially to American high school students. This study aims to examine the impact of survivors’ testimonies on students’ perception of nuclear weapons. To this end, the researcher directly observed the organization’ s activities in 2014 and 2015. In addition, American high school students were also participated in a survey designed to gauge the impact of the organization’s activities. In total, results for 1,014 students were analyzed for this study. For instance, after Lee Jong-gun, a South Korean A-bomb survivor, spoke at Calhoun School in New York in 2015, students were asked the following question: “Have your views about atomic bombs and survivors changed?” In total, 49 students responded to this question, and 13 (26.53%) students reported that their outlook had “changed significantly.” On the other hand, 16 (32.65%) students reported that their outlook had only “changed slightly.” Similarly, when Shigeko Sasamori, an A-bomb survivor who lives in Los Angeles, spoke to 58 American students from the same school in 2014, nine students (15. 52%) reported had “changed a lot”, while 29 students (50.00%) answered that their views had only changed “a bit.”

When students who reported some form of psychological change were asked, “How would you characterize the changes?,” many answered, “I didn’t know the real impact of the atomic bomb.” Some students answered, “I just knew the dangers of the atomic bomb.” Moreover, in response to the question, “How do Americans perceive atomic bombs and atomic bomb victims?,” one student answered, “There is no place to discuss nuclear weapons in the U.S.,” thereby calling into question the issues behind history education in U.S. schools. Another student answered, “We Americans should be ashamed.” It was evident that the testimonies of A-bomb survivors had urged students to consider the “negative” aspects of nuclear power and atomic bombs. Most students tended to regard atomic bombing as an inhumane act, although many Americans continue to believe that the atomic bomb was a necessary evil to end the Second World War.