Peace Through Dialogue: A Time to Talk

The problems confronting humankind are daunting in their depth and complexity. While it may be hard to see where to begin—or how—we must never give in to cynicism or paralysis. We must refuse the temptation to passively accommodate ourselves to present realities, but must embark upon the challenge of creating a new reality.

The human spirit is endowed with the ability to transform even the most difficult circumstances, creating value and ever richer meaning. When each person brings this limitless spiritual capacity to full flower, and when ordinary citizens unite in a commitment to positive change, a culture of peace—a century of life—will come into being.

Humanity is charged with the task of not merely achieving a “passive peace”—the absence of war—but of transforming on a fundamental level those social structures that threaten human dignity. Efforts to enhance international cooperation and the fabric of international law are, of course, necessary, but even more vital are the creative efforts of individuals to develop a multilayered and richly patterned culture of peace, for it is on this foundation that a new global society can be built.

How, then, are we to go about the task of creating an enduring culture of peace? What is really meant by a culture of peace?

Culture manifests two contrasting aspects. One resonates with the original sense of the word “culture” and involves the cultivation of the inner life of human beings and their spiritual elevation. The other is the aggressive, invasive imposition of one people’s manners and mores on another.

When we look at how specific cultural values have been diffused and how different cultures have encountered one another, it is clear that the process has not always been peaceful. One example is the cultural imperialism that accompanied the European colonization of much of the world in the modern era. Some of the negative aspects of such an approach can be counteracted through a stance of cultural relativism. But if this remains a merely passive tolerance of other cultures, it cannot equip us to deal with globalization. A culture of peace must provide a basis on which a plurality of cultural traditions can creatively interact, learning from each other toward the dream of a genuinely inclusive global civilization.

Peace is a vital and energetic arena of life-activity, won through our own volitional, proactive efforts. Our success in generating a culture of peace hinges on several factors. We must transcend the excessive attachment to difference that is deeply rooted in the psychology of individuals; and we must conduct dialogue on the basis of our common humanity.

To be maximally effective, legal and structural reforms must be supported by a corresponding revolution in consciousness—the development of the kind of universal humanity that transcends differences from within.

We must resist the temptation to assign good exclusively to one side, and evil to the other. In fact, we need to reexamine the very meaning of good and evil. The external manifestations of good and evil are relative and transmutable. They only appear absolute and immutable when the human heart is in thrall to the spell of language and abstract concepts.

From the Buddhist perspective, the true aspect of life is found in its incessant flux, the way that experiences are generated by the interaction between inner tendencies and external circumstances. In other words, what we experience as good and evil are not fixed, but depend on our attitude and response. Good and evil are not unchanging entities: indeed, good contains within it evil, and evil contains within it good.

The Buddhist understanding of life can help us translate the ideal of an inner transcendence of difference into the actualities of daily life. Overcoming negative forms of attachment to difference—discrimination—and bringing about a true flowering of human diversity is the key to generating a lasting culture of peace. And dialogue is the means.

Especially important is the role that women play. Throughout the long history of humanity, women have suffered the most whenever society has been wracked by war, violence, oppression, abuse of human rights, disease and famine. But it has been women, in spite of this, who have persevered in turning society in the direction of good, in the direction of hope and in the direction of peace.

What, then, are the specific steps we can take toward building a new century of peace and creative coexistence?

Within the framework of the sovereign state system, crises have long been defined as territorial issues, and many states have concentrated their efforts on military buildup. But the global issues now confronting us cannot be addressed using conventional approaches. The most crucial challenge is therefore to strengthen the UN, so it may serve as the rallying point of humankind’s joint struggle.

Peace and security must be considered, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged in his annual report last year, from a standpoint of the transition from a “culture of reaction” to a “culture of prevention.” A culture of prevention is an approach that accords utmost importance to preventing problems before they happen and thereby minimizing consequent damage, rather than reacting to them after they have taken place.

It is therefore essential to reexamine the role that the UN can and should play in the prevention of conflict. One key proposal is to establish a conflict prevention committee as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly with a mandate to continuously monitor regions threatened with conflict or war, provide preventive recommendations and afford protection to noncombatants.

We also need a global people’s council that will function as a consultative body to the General Assembly, mandated to advise the General Assembly on themes for deliberation and call its attention to potential threats. Taking full advantage of NGOs’ expertise in information gathering and firsthand experience in their fields of activity, such a council could contribute to the General Assembly’s deliberations by promoting advance discussion of key issues. This is crucial from the perspective of democratization, that is, how to ensure that the views and concerns of ordinary citizens are heard at the UN.

In this connection, the “New Diplomacy,” collaborative efforts between civil society and governments committed to fundamental reform, has emerged as an important new force in the world. One of the key challenges to be addressed under the framework of the New Diplomacy is the promotion of nuclear disarmament, particularly in the form of a campaign to accelerate the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

From a Buddhist perspective, there is a deeper significance to nuclear weapons and the need for their elimination. It is more than a matter of disarmament. It is a question of fundamentally overcoming the worst negative legacy of the twentieth century—distrust, hatred and the debasement of humanity. We need to face head-on the limitless capacity of the human heart to generate both good and evil, creation and destruction.

Furthermore, the eradication of poverty is a humanitarian challenge of great urgency. We need ever more bold thinking in this regard, a total commitment to enabling societies to raise themselves out of poverty—a program to be implemented with determination and consistency, equivalent, perhaps, to a “Global Marshall Plan.”

Finally, we need to work for the realization of peace in Northeast Asia. Relations between the two Koreas are improving after many twists and turns. Unfortunately, however, these countries still technically remain in a state of war today. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, and all sides should seize this opportunity to put an end to the state of cold war, and make the transition to genuine peace. A Northeast Asia Peace University, established in cooperation with the UN University, could contribute to peace and stability in the region on a long-term basis by fostering capable individuals committed to grassroots exchange and peace-building.

The SGI is committed to advancing all of these causes. The SGI has always been committed to empowerment—of the people, by the people, for the people—a process we describe as human revolution. The essence of empowerment is to fully unleash the boundless potential inherent in every human being, based on that the Buddhist understanding that our own happiness is inextricably linked to that of others.

Peace Through Dialogue: A Time to Talk

Thoughts on a Culture of Peace

by Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2000

To commemorate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to set down some thoughts on the prospects for intercultural dialogue and peace as we enter the third millennium.

The last years of the twentieth century have proven to be a period of dramatic change and transformation. At the start of this period, it seemed that the end of the Cold War heralded far brighter prospects for humanity’s future. Those hopes were soon dashed, however, as the world was wracked by a series of regional and internal conflicts. It was almost as if a Pandora’s box had been pried open, unleashing the demonic forces of war and violence that now plague the world.

It is estimated that in the ten years following the end of the Cold War in 1989, more than fifty states underwent the wrenching drama of violent conflict, division or independence. These wars claimed some four million lives.

The dread reality of contemporary conflicts is that it is not unusual for ninety percent of the victims to be unarmed civilians; a horrific number of these are children. Survivors are often forced into a precarious existence as refugees or internally displaced persons. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that some twenty-three million people worldwide are in need of international protection and assistance.^[1]

As part of the global effort to transform the tragic legacy of the twentieth century, the United Nations has declared 2000 the International Year for the Culture of Peace, and has designated the first decade of the new century (2001–2010) the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World.^[2] In this sense, we have a truly unique opportunity to muster the will of the international community and to initiate action that will transform the age-old “culture of war” into a new culture of peace.

In its annual report, the State of the World’s Children 2000,^[3] the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reaffirms the possibility of overcoming entrenched patterns of structural violence, poverty and discrimination within a single generation, and urges our commitment to realizing this.

We cannot afford to lose heart in the face of challenging realities or look on passively at problems which do not directly affect us. We must not overlook the ills of society, but instead look for ways to act, with a clear set of goals in sight.

At this moment in history, we should determine to eliminate all needless suffering from this planet that is our home. It is in our efforts to realize this goal that we will find the key to ensuring that the new century does not mimic the last, but becomes a genuine departure toward an era of peace and hope.

A commitment to peace

Humanity is charged with the task of not merely achieving a “passive peace”—the absence of war—but of transforming on a fundamental level those social structures that threaten human dignity. Only in this way can we realize the positive, active values of peace. Efforts to enhance international cooperation and the fabric of international law are, of course, necessary. Even more vital, however, are the creative efforts of individuals to develop a multilayered and richly patterned culture of peace, for it is on this foundation that a new global society can be built.

The members of the SGI worldwide are actively engaged in the work of fostering a culture of peace. For example, in 1999, the youth membership of SGI-USA launched a “Victory Over Violence” campaign to help young people uncover and counteract the root causes of violence in their lives. It encourages young people to respect their own lives, respect all life and inspire hope in others.^[4] Similarly, SGI representatives participated in the NGO (nongovernmental organization) conferences held at The Hague in May and in Seoul in October, on both occasions organizing symposiums to explore various aspects of the culture of peace. The SGI-affiliated Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC) held a series of conferences and consultations on this theme in the first part of 1999.^[5] Linking all of these dialogues was the question of how the deeply ingrained and culturally reinforced psychology of confrontation and hatred can be transformed into an even more robust psychology of peaceful and harmonious coexistence.

The SGI has long supported UNHCR’s efforts to protect and rebuild the lives of refugees and displaced persons. These are the people who have suffered not only the immediate scourge of war and destruction but have also been forced by violence and fear to flee their homes. Their long-term needs must be addressed.

The youth members of the Soka Gakkai in Japan have held twenty fund- and awareness-raising campaigns, starting with that organized for Vietnamese and West African refugees in 1973. Since 1980, we have dispatched fourteen observation and information-gathering missions in order to provide up-to-date information to donors and the general public on the living conditions of refugees and the status of relief efforts. In 1999, for example, SGI representatives observed and publicized refugee repatriation efforts in war-ravaged Kosovo, and camp conditions for refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and Rwanda. We intend to continue and expand such activities, which we are convinced are integral to the vital humanitarian and social mission of Buddhism.

When the SGI was founded, on January 26, 1975, on the island of Guam, representatives from 51 countries and territories were present. Since then, our grassroots activities for peace, education and culture, based on the humanistic outlook of Nichiren Buddhism, have expanded to 148 countries and territories. This is indeed a movement for peace that is of, by and for the people, and which seeks to transform human history—so filled with misery and suffering—into a new era of peace and hope.

Persons of Concern to UNHCR, January 1, 1999, by Category

REGION	REFUGEES	ASYLUM SEEKERS	RETURNEES	IDPs & OTHERS	TOTAL
Africa	3,270,860	63,350	1,296,770	1,653,970	6,284,950
Asia	4,744,730	27,610	317,180	2,385,220	7,474,740
Europe	2,667,830	576,970	285,500	2,682,320	6,212,620
Latin America/ Carribean	74,180	360	7,860	20,000	102,400
North America	659,800	645,600			1,305,400
Oceania	74,310	5,200			79,510
TOTAL	11,491,710	1,319,090	1,907,310	6,741,510	21,459,620

Refugees: International law defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country and cannot return because of a well-founded fear of persecution, or who has fled because of war or civil conflict.

Returnees: Refugees leave their homes under extreme duress, and most of them want to return as soon as circumstances permit. UNHCR helps them reintegrate and monitors their well-being for up to two years.

Asylum Seekers: This category refers to persons who have left their countries of origin and have applied for recognition as refugees in other countries.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and Others of Concern: UUNHCR extends protection or assistance to certain groups who were not included in the Office’s original mandate, but whom the UN secretary-general or the General Assembly has requested UNHCR to assist.

Building a culture of peace

How, then, are we to go about the task of creating an enduring culture of peace? What is really meant by a culture of peace? Here I would like to discuss the differences between the culture of war and the culture of peace and attempt to chart a path from one to the other.

In the time-honored contrast between the sword and the pen, it is of course the latter that is associated with culture, and which typically evokes an image of peace. But is it really so simple? When we look at how specific cultural values have been diffused and how different cultures have encountered one another, it is clear that the process has not always been peaceful. As the British historian Arnold Toynbee described it, “the reception of a foreign culture is a painful as well as a hazardous undertaking … “^[6] As history demonstrates, such encounters are often laden with power struggles and unleash forces that give rise to violence and bloodshed as one culture attempts to subjugate the other. In a sense, the incessant strife that we see in the world around us is proof that humanity has yet to transcend destructive modes of intercultural encounter.

I will not attempt here to delve into the difficult question of whether such violence is inherent in the nature of culture, or is the result of deliberate distortion and manipulation. Let it suffice to say, however, that culture manifests two contrasting aspects. One resonates with the original sense of the word “culture” and involves the cultivation of the inner life of human beings and their spiritual elevation. The other is the aggressive, invasive imposition of one people’s manners and mores on another, inscribing there a sense of resentment and sowing the seeds of future conflict. In this case, culture serves not the cause of peace, but the cause of war.

Cultural imperialism

One of the classic examples of this invasive, aggressive aspect is the cultural imperialism that was intertwined with European colonial policy in the modern era, embellishing it and supplying its justifications. The term “cultural imperialism” emerged during the 1960s against the backdrop of the global process of decolonization and through the sub- and counter-culture movements in the West which questioned the legitimacy of received traditions and values. But the reality and experience the term describes date back to the earliest days of European exploration and expansion and are coextensive with the five-hundred-year history of modern colonialism. In essence, it is an ideology that justifies the subjugation and exploitation of other peoples by unilaterally defining them and their cultures as primitive or barbaric.

This is an example of the violent potential of culture in both intent and application. Here culture functioned as the forerunner and as the ideational basis for the war and violence of colonial domination; it served to cover and conceal simpler and more raw forms of collective egotism. Now, at a time when almost all colonies have won independence, it may seem that this veil has been stripped away, and culture is no longer being put to such political uses. The ruptures and struggles that continue to affect every region, however, suggest that this is by no means the case.

Last year, I initiated a dialogue on José Martí, the great nineteenth-century essayist, poet and leader of the struggle for Cuban independence, with Cintio Vitier, president of the Center for José Martí Studies in Havana.^[7] These discussions brought back to me the degree to which the strong distrust toward the United States that Martí noted more than one hundred years ago remains a firm presence in the minds of the Cuban people today. Nor, I believe, can we dismiss these fears as unjustified.

The Palestinian-born cultural critic Edward Said writes in his book Culture and Imperialism, regarded by many as a key work of postcolonial analysis: “[T]he meaning of the imperial past is not totally contained within it, but has entered the reality of hundreds of millions of people, where its existence as shared memory and as a highly conflictual texture of culture, ideology and policy still exercises tremendous force.”^[8]

As we follow Said’s carefully developed and copiously illustrated argument, we discover the depth to which the ideology of cultural imperialism had taken root in the hearts and minds of “decent men and women”—the educated classes of the imperial powers. At the core of Said’s argument is his analysis of such literary works as Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park and Rudyard Kipling’s Kim. At the same time, he looks at the underlying attitudes of those intellectual lights—among them de Tocqueville, J. S. Mill, Hegel and Marx—who shaped modern thought and left their imprint on the intellectual life of modernizing Japan, itself a later colonizer which wreaked great suffering on the peoples of Asia. He reveals how these great thinkers, consciously and unconsciously, and with an astonishing freedom from any sense of culpability, supported the goals of cultural imperialism. For example, the French philosopher Ernest Renan (1823–1892) could on the one hand write a work such as the Life of Jesus and at the same time be a proponent of racial theories rivaling those of the Nazis. 

As one final example of these attitudes, I would like to quote a statement by Albert Schweitzer, famous for the hospital he operated in equatorial Africa for many decades. “The negro is a child, and with children nothing can be done without the use of authority. We must, therefore, so arrange the circumstances of daily life that my natural authority can find expression. With regard to the negroes, then, I have coined the formula: ‘I am your brother, it is true, but your elder brother.'”^[9]

It is hardly surprising that Schweitzer’s reputation declined rapidly with the rise of independence movements among peoples subjugated by colonialism. And the fact that these words were written with apparent goodwill toward their referents only intensifies our sense of revulsion at the elitist, discriminatory sensibility they reveal. 

Cultural relativism

Cultural relativism is an important intellectual legacy of the latter half of the twentieth century. It grew from the pioneering work of cultural anthropologists who sought to balance and redress the arrogant imperialist assumptions that had insinuated themselves into the Western cultural outlook. It is based on the view that specific practices must be understood and appreciated within the context of a culture as a whole; it denies attempts to judge one culture by the values of another or to rank them according to some hierarchical scheme.

There is much to respect in the earnest endeavor to relativize one’s own culture and to accord value to traditions that had been looked down upon as savage or primitive. These efforts have done much to ameliorate the noxious effects of cultural imperialism.

I question, however, whether this understanding is adequate as a response to the challenges of globalization—the economic and technological unification of the world. In other words, I fear that an attitude of merely passive recognition or grudging acceptance of other cultures cannot deal with the destructive aspects of culture, which perpetuate a logic of exclusion and confrontation. Unless transformed, these aspects can render culture, in Said’s words, “a battleground on which causes expose themselves to the light of day and contend with one another … ” rather than “a placid realm of Apollonian gentility.”^[10]

In my discussions with Johan Galtung, the pioneer of peace studies, he described the fragility of this kind of cultural relativism as its “tendency to take the form of passive tolerance instead of active attempts to learn from other cultures.”^[11]

Disputes concerning the universality of human rights between Western countries (in particular, the United States) and countries of the developing world have as their background the attempt to relativize the political culture of the West, from which the modern human rights tradition grew. Attempts on the part of Western countries to criticize the political systems and practices of developing countries are invariably met with countercharges of interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. Equally typical is the rebuttal that the West’s attempts to assert the universality of human rights, while ignoring differences in political culture, the history of colonial domination and the resulting disparities in economic development, are at best hypocritical and at worst a continuation into the present of the arrogance of the “Great Powers.” 

Any attempt to unravel differences and confrontations as complex as these must be grounded in something far more solid than passive acceptance or tolerance. Such attitudes cannot possibly provide the basis for a culture of peace or a new global civilization that will enrich the lives of people far into the third millennium.

Peace cannot be a mere stillness, a quiet interlude between wars. It must be a vital and energetic arena of lifeactivity, won through our own volitional, proactive efforts. Peace must be a living drama—n Spinoza’s words, “a virtue that springs from force of character.”^[12]

Passive cultural relativism does not offer a viable alternative to the high-handedness of cultural imperialism. One necessary aspect of a culture of peace is that it must provide a basis on which a plurality of cultural traditions can creatively interact, learning and appropriating from each other toward the dream of a genuinely inclusive global civilization. Without this kind of overarching goal, we run the risk of being inadequately equipped to meet the challenges of globalization or, worse, of lapsing into a cynical paralysis.

From cultural internationalism to cultural interpopulism

In this connection, I would like to examine the rich possibilities found in the tradition of “cultural internationalism” and to attempt to broaden and deepen this concept.

Akira Iriye, professor of American history at Harvard University, has written of the cultural internationalism that emerged in the latter years of the nineteenth century. This movement viewed culture as a vehicle for building cooperative relations across national boundaries and defusing the underlying confrontations that were propelling the world toward a suicidal arms race. Starting with efforts such as those to promote the exchange of information among scientists and medical practitioners, and to standardize systems of measurement, its proponents sought to lay the foundations of peace through educational and cultural exchanges. These networks of exchange were able to survive through two global conflicts and were in fact foundational in the postwar efforts that took form in the UNESCO Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two key documents that express the common aspirations and conscience of humankind.^[13]

In recent years, this same thread has been taken up by the global activities of NGOs and what is known as global civil society. I believe that these activities are the first signs of an emerging trend toward what might be termed cultural interpopulism, a movement for cultural interaction in which ordinary citizens are the protagonists. I am convinced that this approach will play a key role in the work of building a new culture of peace.

Ryosuke Ohashi, professor of philosophy at the Kyoto Institute of Technology, has pointed out that in intellectual circles in Europe the term international has in recent years been largely supplanted by the concept of the intercultural. Ohashi describes our contemporary world as the intersection of “the vertical axes of a multiplicity of local cultures and the horizontal axes of technology that seeks universality and standardization.”^[14] There is a growing, if unspoken, agreement that the realities of such a world can be better grasped by focusing on the deeper issues of cultural identity rather than the more superficial layers of political definitions and concerns.

Indeed, if we are overly entangled in the national dimension, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that national identities are often quite deliberate constructs created for political ends. The greatest danger, of course, lies in falling into the trap of reifying these constructs, that is, viewing them as unchanging entities or essences, with an absolute ontological standing.

At the same time, we must recognize that the frameworks of the state—the national level—are not, in the near term at least, likely to disappear and that states will continue to retain an at least functional necessity. However, we must also confront the reality that there is a deepening crisis of identity that afflicts people everywhere and is driven by what Toynbee termed the “deeper, slower movements of history”^[15] which are not amenable to remedy through purely political means. It is on this profound level that a paradigm shift toward an intercultural perspective is called for. 

Global civil society has a key role to play in this. In the arenas where cultural internationalism thrived, it was still to a large extent governments and national elites that took the initiative. The main actors of cultural interpopulism, by contrast, are the many civil society organizations, the NGOs and international NGOs (INGOs), which are propelled by a powerful spirit of volunteerism among the people themselves. Here we see not the carefully constructed facade of governments and states, but the richly diverse faces of humanity. I believe that there is great potential for this kind of cultural interpopulism to interact with and support forward-looking political initiatives, based on a sense of appreciation and recognition of the respective roles and strengths of each. This is one of the avenues we should be exploring; it can equip us to respond to the complex demands of our diverse and rapidly evolving multicultural world. 

The power of character

We must never lose sight of the fact that, however much communication technology may advance, people still count. It is the individual—it is the character of each individual—that is decisive as the creator and protagonist of culture.

Thus, whether the kinds of popular movements we see today can be successful in generating a culture of peace hinges on several factors. We must first succeed in transcending the excessive attachment to difference that is deeply rooted in the psychology of individuals; and we must conduct dialogue on the basis of our common humanity. I believe that only by confronting this intensely difficult challenge can we transform ourselves and our societies. 

Looking back, we see that the twentieth century was an era in which different ideologies, competing views of justice, vied violently for ascendancy. In particular, we have seen ideologies that were fixated on external differences and distinctions—such as race, class, nationality, custom or cultural practice. These ideologies have claimed that such factors are the key determinants of human happiness and that the obliteration of differences is the most certain path to eliminating the evils and resolving the contradictions of society. The history of the twentieth century is written in the blood of the victims of these deluded ideas.

In June 1945, immediately after the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies, C. G. Jung addressed these words to “those parts of the body of the German people which have remained sound.”

Where sin is great, grace doth “much more abound.” Such a deep experience brings about inner transformation, and this is infinitely more important than political and social reforms which are all of no value in the hands of people who are not at one with themselves. This is a truth which we are for ever forgetting …^[16]

At the time Jung’s comment attracted little attention. From the perspective of the present, however, it is impossible to suppress astonishment at the historical depth and precision with which this man of wisdom dissected the pathology of our age. 

Jung’s dismissal of political or social reforms as having “no value” may seem somewhat extreme. We have only to remember, however, the nightmarish misery wrought by those in power who undertook political and social “reforms” without any sense of their own need to reform themselves or of the humanity of their victims. Stalin comes to mind. In contrast, in cases where there are prominent individuals who have successfully confronted themselves—for example, Zhou Enlai in the Chinese context or José Martí in Cuba—even the horror of the bloodshed and violence of revolution may be somewhat mitigated and the process of social reform win support from the citizens over the long term.

The positive aspects of the Chinese Revolution, for example, can nearly all be traced to the extraordinary qualities of Zhou Enlai. Likewise, through my discussions with Cintio Vitier mentioned earlier, I have gained a renewed appreciation for the role which José Martí’s legacy has played as the spiritual source and font of the Cuban Revolution.

When we look back over the twentieth century, it is easy to focus exclusively on the negative heritage of that age. But some great achievements toward overcoming social ills must also be acknowledged. One that particularly stands out is the civil rights movement in the United States, which brought about dramatic reforms including the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the bold experiment of affirmative action that followed.

To be maximally effective, legal and structural reforms must be supported by a corresponding revolution in consciousness—the development of the kind of universal humanity that transcends differences from within. It is only when a renewed awareness of our common humanity takes root in individuals throughout society that the dream of genuine equality will be realized. There must, in other words, be a creative synergy between internal—spiritual, introspective—reforms within individuals, and external—legal and institutional—reforms in society. I believe that this is one of the lessons that can be drawn from this dramatic era of change and the sometimes frustrating lack of progress that has followed.

There is perhaps no better illustration of the phrase “universal humanity” than the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. This finds expression in his words spoken one year before the adoption of the civil rights legislation. “I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by  content of their character.”^[17]

These stirring words express a profound faith in the power of character. In this sense, they resonate with the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, who asserted that one is not noble through one’s birth, but through one’s actions and deeds. José Martí,during the struggle for the independence of his homeland Cuba, declared his true homeland to be all of humanity.^[18] He also asserted that there can be no hatred between races because “there are no races”—that is, race is an artificially constructed concept.^[19]

In the end, laws and institutions are created by human beings; it is humans who implement and operate them. If we neglect the work of deepening and developing the inner character of individual human beings, even the finest system cannot be expected to function.

I firmly believe that the key to resolving all forms of conflict among ethnic groups lies in discovering and revealing the kind of universal humanity that was so powerfully embodied in M. L. King, Jr.—America’s conscience—and José Martí—Cuba’s conscience. Any attempt to resolve these issues without treading this challenging path will, I am afraid, be no more than a postponement of the problem.

The inner conquest of difference

When I had the opportunity to speak at Harvard University in 1993, I referred to a story about Shakyamuni Buddha in which he is described as saying that he perceived an invisible arrow piercing people’s hearts. In my talk I interpreted this as the “arrow” of excessive attachment to difference and asserted that overcoming this kind of attachment is crucial to the creation of peace. As I spoke, I had in mind the special difficulties of resolving interethnic and communal strife, and was gratified by the positive reaction that this aspect of my presentation elicited.

To return to Jung, as he wrote in The Undiscovered Self, “If a world-wide consciousness could arise that all division and all antagonism are due to the splitting of opposites in the psyche, then one would really know where to attack.”^[20] Jung is stressing the fact that we must not be focused solely on that which is external to ourselves. We must resist the temptation to assign good exclusively to one side, and evil to the other. In fact, we need to reexamine the very meaning of good and evil.

The external manifestations of good and evil are relative and transmutable. They only appear absolute and immutable when the human heart is in thrall to the spell of language and abstract concepts. To the extent that we can free ourselves from this spell, we can begin to see that good contains within it evil, and evil contains within it good. Because of this, even that which is perceived as evil can be transformed into good through our reaction and response. We can even come to understand the confrontation of good and evil as elements of the semantic network of the human heart which, mediated through language and symbols, embraces the entire cosmos. From this perspective, even division and confrontation can be appreciated as ultimately indicative of our connectedness to each other and to the universe.

We must not allow ourselves to fall captive to perceived differences. We must be the masters of language and ensure that it always serves the interests of humanity. If we force ourselves to review the nightmares of this century—the purges, the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing—we will find that all of them have sprung from an environment in which language is manipulated to focus people’s minds solely on their differences. By convincing people that these differences are absolute and immutable, the humanity of others is obscured and violence against them legitimized.

In this connection, I would like to quote the words of Chingiz Aitmatov, the gifted author from Kyrgyzstan. In the preface to the dialogue we published together, he expressed a truly profound insight into the nature of language, the relation between people and their words.

There are no “homeless” words. Humans are the homes of words, their sovereign masters. Even when people turn to God with the secret desire of hearing God’s voice, it is themselves that they hear in their own words. Words live within us. They leave and return to us. They serve us devotedly from the moment we are born until we die. Words carry the burden of the world of soul and of the vastness of the cosmos.^[21]

I can keenly appreciate what motivated Aitmatov to examine the function of language with such depth and poignancy. He lived most of his life under the Soviet regime, in an era when humans were never the sovereign masters of words. For people of his generation, words and disembodied concepts were the “sovereign masters” and humans were forced—from birth to death—to serve them devotedly.

The work of questioning this inversion was not limited to literary figures, but was the pressing concern of any sensitive and aware person who lived through that time. 

Needless to say, communism was a system entranced by and obsessed with the concept of a “classless society,” one which sought to overcome difference and distinctions through purely external, “objective” means. The destructive enchantment of language, its domination of human realities, distorts the processes of the inner life, and causes people to relegate inner-driven transformation to a secondary importance. In this way, it makes people vulnerable to appeals to the efficacy of external force—the use of violence.

Aitmatov survived a profound and bitter experience of the kind of ideologically dominated linguistic culture that accepts or even encourages violence. It is for this reason, I believe, that he has been drawn to the Buddhist approach, which rejects violence in all its forms and is unwavering in its commitment to dialogue and the prioritization of human realities.

A world in constant flux

From the Buddhist perspective, the true aspect of life is found in its incessant flux, the way that experiences are generated by the interaction between inner tendencies and external circumstances. In other words, what we experience as good and evil are not fixed, but depend on our attitude and response. Good and evil are not unchanging entities. To give a simple example, anger can function for good when it is directed at those things which threaten human dignity; in contrast, anger under the sway of self-serving egotism functions as evil. Thus, anger, which is typically thought of as an evil, is, in its essence, neutral.

Writing in thirteenth-century Japan, Nichiren, the Buddhist thinker whose teachings inspire the activities of the SGI, described this as follows: “To turn from evil is good; to turn from good is evil. Good and evil are not found outside our own hearts and minds. The intrinsic neutrality of life is found in its detachment from good and from evil. Our lives are only to be found in these three properties—good (zen), evil (aku), and the underlying neutrality (muki) with respect to good and evil. No reality is to be found other than in our hearts.”^[22]

This perspective, which focuses on the relativity of good and evil, can help free us from our enthrallment to the conceptualization of good and evil as fixed, external entities, and the corresponding tendency to label others as evil.

Neutral, however, does not mean void or empty. Far from being vacant or void, our lives are manifestations of the cosmic life itself, eternal and filled to overbrimming with the energy of creation.

Nichiren says of the true aspect of life that it “cannot be burned by the fires at the end of a kalpa, nor swept away by floods, nor cut by swords or pierced by arrows. It can fit into a mustard seed, and although the mustard seed does not expand, there is no need for life to shrink. It can fill the entire universe. The cosmos is neither too vast nor life too small to fill it.”^[23]

What is described here is a perfectly clear, pellucid state of life, indestructible and adamantine. 

The Buddhist understanding of life can help us translate the ideal of an inner transcendence of difference into the actualities of daily life. In other words, we can achieve a state in which we are no longer caught up in or constrained by our awareness of difference.

In this connection, I am moved to refer to the words of my mentor, the second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda, spoken in the period immediately following the end of World War II. Here he described the process by which it is possible for an individual to transform even the most deeply rooted tendencies, or karma. According to Buddhism, every aspect of who we are—nationality, skin color, family background, personality, gender—is the present result of causes we ourselves made in the past. The law of cause and effect that governs the generation of these differences and distinctions operates consistently over the three realms of past, present and future.

Practicing Nichiren’s Buddhism, Toda said, “is the means by which we can transform our karma. When we do this, all intermediary causes and effects disappear, and we can reveal the aspect of the common mortal enlightened since time without beginning.”^[24]

What Toda refers to as “intermediary” are causes which we have enacted and which generate distinctions on the phenomenal plane—differences of capacity, physical, mental and spiritual differences and the resulting differences in circumstances such as education and occupation. These are, together, the distinctions that make each of us the unique being we are.

When Toda spoke of these intermediary causes and effects “disappearing,” he did not mean that the distinctions between people would somehow be obliterated and we would all lapse into sameness or uniformity. This could, of course, never happen. Just as no two people will ever have exactly the same face, differences are an integral, natural and necessary aspect of human society.

For Toda what “disappeared” was our attachment to differences, our negative, limiting reactions to differences. This is an example of how a practice of faith can enable the inner transcendence of difference.

An unadorned, primordial state of life

The goal of embracing Buddhism is to experience within our lives the state that Toda described as “the common mortal enlightened since time without beginning” (kuon no bompu). In his own writings, Nichiren elucidated the concept of kuon—time without beginning—as meaning to be unadorned, in one’s primordial, original state.^[25] Thus, when we relinquish all artifice, and unleash the natural splendor that is inherent in our being, we are able to rise above our differences and see them in perspective, freeing ourselves from excessive attachment to them.

Metaphorically, intermediary causes and effects can be thought of as the stars and moon that grace the night sky, and the common mortal enlightened since time without beginning as the sun. When the dawning sun rises in the east, those celestial bodies which had been such a vivid presence through the night immediately fade into seeming nonexistence. They don’t, of course, cease to exist, but are simply overwhelmed by the light of the sun, which represents our innate vitality and wisdom. This, I believe, is the function of religious faith and practice. When I wrote earlier of a “pellucid state of life, indestructible and adamantine” and described our lives as “manifestations of the cosmic life itself, eternal and filled to overbrimming with the energy of creation,” I had in mind these treasured words of my mentor, Josei Toda.

The Buddhist law of causality—that every aspect of who we are is the result of causes we ourselves have made—and the emphasis on an inner transcendence of difference in no way mean that we should passively accept discriminatory practices. The Buddhist idea of inner causation and responsibility should never be allowed to degenerate into the kind of fatalism that causes people to turn a blind eye to real social ills. It is our natural duty to challenge such practices and prejudices and the social structures that give rise to them. Any time religion renders people passive and powerless, it deserves the dishonorable title of “opiate.”

On the most basic human level, even if the ideal of a society completely free of all discrimination were to be realized, human differences would persist. The Buddhist terms for the world which we inhabit are all words for difference, distinction and distance, reflecting an understanding that these are the elements that comprise experiential reality.

Dialogue and human diversity

Overcoming negative forms of attachment to difference—discrimination—and bringing about a true flowering of human diversity is the key to generating a lasting culture of peace. And dialogue is the means. The Buddhist approach outlined here can, I believe, loosen the shackles of abstract concepts and language that can be so destructive. Thus freed, we can use language to the greatest effect, and can engage in the kind of dialogue that creates the greatest and most lasting value. Dialogue must be pivotal in our endeavors, reaching out to all people everywhere as we seek to forge a new global civilization.

As Nichiren wrote, “Encountering various conditions of good and evil, our minds generate different dharmas“—in this case, language—”of good and evil.”^[26] This indicates a philosophical stance that is active and engaged, whose praxis is the kind of dialogue through which even negative, destructive circumstances or conditions can be transformed into positive, creative realities and experiences.

To put this into actual practice, I have sought to promote dialogue among civilizations, meeting with individuals from every continent on Earth. I have held discussions with intellectual leaders coming from various religious backgrounds—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.—and these conversations have often been published. Based on years of such experience, I am keenly aware of the possibilities of open dialogue and the importance of its implications in society.

SGI organizations around the world are carrying out activities to create a peaceful society in their respective areas in accordance with one of the principles of the SGI Charter: “The SGI shall, based on the Buddhist spirit of tolerance, respect other religions, engage in dialogue and work together with them towards the resolution of fundamental issues concerning humanity.”^[27] The SGI has also promoted interfaith dialogue by sponsoring symposiums and other forums with institutions such as the European Academy of Sciences and Arts and other bodies.

Last year, our representatives attended the Parliament of the World’s Religions (PWR) in Cape Town, South Africa, and they are scheduled to participate in the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders to be held in August.

The Boston Research Center for the 21st Century has published Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in Religious Traditions, a collection of essays by scholars representing various religions that discusses the philosophies of nonviolence found in eight of the world’s religious traditions, and ways to overcome conflict.

In addition, the Institute of Oriental Philosophy has been making multidimensional efforts toward dialogue among religions. The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research is planning to hold an international conference on the theme “Dialogue of Civilizations: A New Peace Agenda for a New Millennium” in February 2000 in Okinawa, gathering together experts to discuss major civilizations and their underlying religious dimensions.

SGI Affiliates

Boston Research Center for the 21st Century (BRC)—The Boston Research Center (founded in 1993) serves as a conference center, publisher and forum for dialogue o topics such as nonviolence, human rights, economic justice and environmental ethics.

Institute of Oriental Philosophy (IOP)—
Established in 1962, the Institute of Oriental Philosophy aims to find, in the philosophical heritage of the Asian tradition, a rich reservoir of wisdom for the entire world.

Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research—
The Toda Institute, based in Tokyo and Honolulu, was founded in 1996. It brings together peace-researchers, policy-makers, media and community leaders focused on peace, disarmament and nonviolent conflict resolution; sustainable development, employment and the environment; and human rights, the United Nations and global governance.

In 2001, designated as the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations and also the International Year of Mobilization against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, a UN-sponsored world conference (the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance) is to be held in July in South Africa.

I feel compelled to urge that humankind seriously tackle, based on the bitter lessons of the twentieth century, the challenge of how to build a society of peace and coexistence. Building on our tradition of awareness-raising activities around the world, including the “Toward the Century of Humanity: Human Rights in Today’s World” exhibition and “The Courage to Remember: Anne Frank and the Holocaust” exhibition in support of the UN Decade of Education in Human Rights (1995–2004), the SGI is committed to actively working for the success of this conference.

UNESCO, which is responsible for coordinating the activities of the International Year for the Culture of Peace, is currently taking the initiative in a worldwide awareness-raising movement called Manifesto 2000, aimed at submitting to the UN Millennium Assembly one hundred million signatures to a pledge to put into practice the values, attitudes and forms of behavior which inspire the culture of peace.

The SGI supports the ideals of Manifesto 2000, and will back up the movement in various areas, including public information. To date, the SGI has supported the International Literacy Year (1990) in consonance with the goals of UNESCO, and “The World Boys and Girls Art Exhibition” has been shown in numerous countries as part of our efforts to develop an awareness of the culture of peace.

Women lead the way to a culture of peace

I would especially like to stress the role that women can play in creating a culture of peace. Throughout the long history of humanity, women have suffered the most whenever society has been wracked by war, violence, oppression, abuse of human rights, disease and famine.

It has been women, in spite of this, who have persevered in turning society in the direction of good, in the direction of hope and in the direction of peace. Women hold the key to opening a future filled with hope, as Mahatma Gandhi emphasized: “If by strength is meant brute strength then, indeed, is woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power then woman is immeasurably man’s superior. … If non-violence is the law of our being, the future is with women.”^[28]

Manifesto 2000—Peace is in Our Hands

Because the year 2000 must be a new beginning, an opportunity to transform—all together—the culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.

Because this transformation demands the participation of each and every one of us, and must offer young people and future generations the values that can inspire them to shape a world based on justice, solidarity, liberty, dignity, harmony and prosperity for all.

Because the culture of peace can underpin sustainable development, environmental protection and the well-being of each person.

Because I am aware of my share of responsibility for the future of humanity, in particular to the children of today and tomorrow. I pledge, in my daily life, in my family, my work, my community, my country and my region, to:

• Respect the life and dignity of each human being without discrimination or prejudice;
• Practice active nonviolence, rejecting violence in all its forms: physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social, in particular towards the most deprived and vulnerable such as children and adolescents;
• Share my time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic oppression;
• Defend freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving preference always to dialogue and listening without engaging in fanaticism, defamation and the rejection of others;
• Promote consumer behavior that is responsible and development practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of nature on the planet;
• Contribute to the development of my community, with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order to create together new forms of solidarity.

The SGI has a number of women-focused projects such as a series of publications recording women’s experiences of war, exhibitions for awareness raising and various lecture series. An SGI-sponsored symposium entitled “Women Leading the Way to a Culture of Peace” was held at the 1999 Seoul International Conference of NGOs last October.

Reviewing various problems confronting humankind from women’s perspectives, the Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, the publisher of Women’s Views on the Earth Charter, plans this year to hold a two-part event, “Creating Connections: Peace with Self, Sister and Society,” to examine women’s role in creating peace.

A special session of the UN General Assembly, “Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the Twenty-First Century,” will be held in June, in which the SGI is scheduled to participate. I have great hopes that this gathering will stimulate intensive discussions on this theme.

Peace in daily life

In addition to these efforts, it is equally essential to work to create in concrete, tangible ways a culture of peace in daily life.

Elise Boulding, a renowned peace studies scholar, stresses that cultures of peace are to be found in each individual’s process of tenaciously continuing peace-oriented behavior. She attaches particular importance to women’s role in this aspect.

Peace is not something to be left to others in distant places. It is something we create day to day in our efforts to cultivate care and consideration for others, forging bonds of friendship and trust in our respective communities through our own actions and example.

As we enhance our respect for the sanctity of life and human dignity through our daily behavior and steady efforts toward dialogue, the foundations for a culture of peace will deepen and strengthen, allowing a new global civilization to blossom. With women leading the way, when each and every person is aware and committed, we will be able to prevent society from relapsing into the culture of war, and foster and nurture energy toward the creation of a century of peace.

The SGI has always been committed to empowerment—of the people, by the people and for the people—a process we describe as human revolution. The essence of empowerment is to fully unleash the boundless potential inherent in every human being based on the Buddhist understanding that our own happiness is inextricably linked to the happiness of others.

It is our belief that through active engagement with others and the process of mutual support and encouragement, individual peace and happiness will be realized, and the foundations for world peace will be further solidified.

It is my great joy and pride that SGI members, committed to the inconspicuous but steady practice of empowerment by encouraging friends who are suffering and bringing out their courage to live and to hope, have built a people’s solidarity through their movement of peace, culture and education as good citizens of their respective countries and communities.

I would like to affirm once again that it is the forging of personal relationships based on trust and respect that is exactly the culture of peace put into practice. I am convinced that a culture of peace can truly be realized on a global scale and become permanent when peace takes root in the mind of every single person.

Global public goods

Next I would like to examine specific steps toward building a new century of peace and creative coexistence.

Humanity needs to leave behind the era of war and division. Looking far into the future, we must embark on the challenge of removing the causes of war. We must abolish the institution of war itself and make the twenty-first century the start of an era where war is renounced throughout the world.

Globalization has brought to the surface problems that easily cross state borders, such as environmental destruction, poverty, and a distressing increase in the numbers of refugees and displaced persons. Likewise, with greater travel, infectious diseases are spreading in new and disturbing patterns. We urgently need to come up with measures to deal with these issues. Within the framework of the sovereign state system, crises have long been defined as territorial issues, and many states therefore have concentrated their efforts on military buildup. But the global issues now confronting us cannot be addressed using conventional approaches. In fact, it is these problems that, when left to fester, are causing internal conflicts and wars in many regions.

Former Israeli premier and key player in the Middle East peace process Shimon Peres described the present era as a transition from a world full of enemies to a world full of threats. Drawing on the example of Europe, he stated that as we pursue economic development based on interdependence, balance-of-power politics and the struggle for hegemony become irrelevant.^[29] Faced as we are today with an escalation of global crises, what we need is an outlook that is focused not on the supremacy of national interest and security, but on the interests of all humanity, and encourages us to face our common problems.

In 1999, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), famous for its advocacy of the concept of human security as an alternative to state-centered security, issued a report entitled “Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century.” The term “global public goods” is the application to the global level of the standard economic term “public goods,” which refers to goods that benefit all, such as a legal framework, justice system, healthy environment or education. Global public goods have benefits that are shared across nations, generations and population groups. In other words, they indicate the direction of a completely new international community that will not exclude any state, social stratum or individual, or harm future generations.^[30]

The UNDP report points out three problems to be resolved in realizing global public goods: a jurisdictional gap, a participation gap and an incentive gap. 

The jurisdictional gap refers to the gap between the global boundaries of today’s major policy concerns and the national boundaries within which policy-makers operate. The participation gap points to the fact that international cooperation is still primarily limited to an intergovernmental process even though there are numerous nongovernmental actors in the world. The incentive gap means that moral justifications alone are insufficient to persuade concerned states to change their policies and build cooperative relationships.

New roles for the UN

I believe that the United Nations is the only body capable of bridging these three gaps and laying the foundations for a framework of concerted action based upon the interests of humankind. As we stand at the threshold of a new millennium, we must draw up a grand design worthy of the advent of a global era, and begin to take action toward realizing it. The most crucial challenge is therefore to strengthen the UN, so it may serve as the rallying point of humankind’s joint struggle.

This year will be a great opportunity to focus public attention on this matter. The UN has designated its 55th General Assembly, scheduled to open in September 2000, the Millennium Assembly of the United Nations, and aims to “articulate and affirm an animating vision for the UN in the new era” and “provide an opportunity to strengthen the role of the UN in meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century.”^[31]

A Millennium Summit of the United Nations, attended by world leaders, is also scheduled to be held as an integral part of this. The overall theme of the summit will be “the United Nations in the twenty-first century,” with the subtopics of (1) peace and security, including disarmament; (2) development, including poverty eradication; (3) human rights; and (4) strengthening the United Nations.

I would like to offer some concrete proposals in line with these four subtopics here.

Peace and security

It is my belief that peace and security must be considered, as Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged in his annual report last year, from a standpoint of the transition from a “culture of reaction” to a “culture of prevention.” A culture of prevention is an approach that accords utmost importance to preventing problems before they happen and thereby minimizing consequent damage, rather than reacting to them after they have taken place.^[32]

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is engaged in advocating, coordinating and promoting humanitarian assistance in crises and emergencies such as famine caused or complicated by internal war or international conflict, as well as natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. OCHA is acting in close cooperation with other international agencies and NGOs in numerous countries and regions including, so far, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, the site of intense conflict, and disaster-stricken Bangladesh and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.^[33]

Nevertheless, the reaction to an already present and severe emergency is inevitably limited in terms of the area that can be covered and the range of available measures. Such interventions must be highly focused and are extremely expensive in terms of time and effort. The UN has played a primary role in coordinating humanitarian assistance, but it must become more involved in preventing conditions that lead to emergencies.

It is therefore essential to reexamine the role that the UN can and should play in the prevention of conflict.

The settlement of disputes is one of the UN’s central functions as specifically provided for in the Charter, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to respond to the growing number of internal conflicts in the post-Cold War era. 

In fact, during the Kosovo crisis, the UN’s inability to prevent the situation from worsening was followed by an aerial bombardment by NATO, waged in the name of humanitarian intervention and without the endorsement of a Security Council resolution.

After this, the principles to govern a cease-fire were discussed at the G8 Cologne Summit. The summit welcomed the deployment in Kosovo of international civil and security presences in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution of June 10, 1999. Although the Security Council’s adoption of this resolution enabled the UN to coordinate the resolution of the conflict in its final stages, the issues surrounding military action undertaken without the sanction of the Security Council and the criteria for humanitarian intervention remain unresolved.

Against this backdrop, the Cologne Communiqu stressed the need to “recognize the important role the United Nations plays in crisis prevention and [to] seek to strengthen its capacity in this area.”^[34] We must remember the fact that under the Charter of the United Nations military action can only be used as a last resort, and this makes it all the more critical that the UN build a preventive system based on what is known as “soft power.”

That leads me to join my voice in support of proposals to establish a conflict prevention committee as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly with a mandate to continuously monitor regions threatened with conflict or war, provide preventive recommendations and, further, to afford protection to noncombatants.^[35]

To prevent a situation from worsening, the function of early warning is crucial, for it is impossible to take effective measures without a system capable of discerning potential triggers for conflict and indications of escalating confrontation. It will also be essential to create a system for sharing with the public the information and analysis accumulated through these ongoing monitoring activities. The sharing of information is a prerequisite for encouraging more states—including those that are not members of the Security Council—and NGOs to become concerned and participate in generating a solution, and to offer ideas for promoting peace.

Another role for such a conflict prevention committee to play would be to take exhaustive measures to protect noncombatants in order to minimize suffering.

Under the current framework of international law, human rights are secured by international human rights law in peacetime and by international humanitarian law in times of armed conflict, with both legal regimes mutually complementing each other.

But conflicts of recent years have been characterized by the targeting of civilians, as seen in genocide and “ethnic cleansing.” Acts which violate humanitarian law have become the objective of war rather than the outcome.

During a period of protracted social disorder as is found with an internal conflict, it is difficult to accurately designate when a state of war has emerged. This tends to engender a vacuum in which both human rights law and humanitarian law are disregarded. As a result, many citizens fall victim to open violation of the human rights that should be protected at all times.

In order to stop conflict areas from being reduced to anarchy where basic human rights are violated with impunity, it is essential to maintain surveillance to ensure a prompt transition from protection by human rights law to protection by humanitarian law, and to call for steps to guard noncombatants against attack. To achieve this, a conflict prevention committee—as a neutral observer body—could be responsible for officially determining whether or not the area in question has entered a state of war triggering the application of humanitarian law, and thus seek to ensure that human rights are safeguarded at all times.

This committee should be mandated to dispatch fact-finding missions to determine the realities of a conflict, to receive and consider appeals from individuals affected by conflicts, and to hold public hearings to air the grievances of all parties.

I find public hearings to be particularly critical. Once an armed conflict has escalated, it is not easy for the parties concerned to sit down at the same table, even if areas for discussion still exist. It would be very meaningful for the UN to provide a forum for the mutual exchange of views before the situation deteriorates that far. If they have voiced their opinions and assertions to the international community in this way, the concerned parties’ subsequent actions might be more restrained.

The Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research is considering holding an international conference, in cooperation with other NGOs, to discuss basic outlines of such systems as a conflict prevention committee. By holding such a conference in Africa or other parts of the world which have been plagued by conflict, the conference would be able to incorporate into its discussions the voices of people experiencing actual conflict, thus beginning to fulfill the function of public hearings as discussed above.

Development and human rights

Next I would like to examine ways of strengthening the UN’s roles in the areas of development and human rights.

The eradication of poverty, one of the four specific subtopics of the Millennium Summit, is a humanitarian challenge of great urgency. One effect of globalization has been an ever-growing gap between rich and poor. While people in a few countries consume a disproportionately massive amount of resources and enjoy affluent lifestyles, fully one quarter of the world’s population subsists in extreme poverty. For these people, human dignity is under constant assault. We must eliminate these obscene imbalances if we are to fulfill our responsibilities for the new millennium.

It is not impossible to achieve that goal. According to an estimate by UNDP, the costs of eradicating poverty would be about one percent of global income and no more than two to three percent of national income in all but the poorest countries. Cuts in military spending, with the savings channeled to poverty reduction and measures for human development, would realize a considerable alleviation of the problem.^[36]

Poverty is one of the key causes of conflict, as it destabilizes societies. Poverty gives rise to conflict, which in turn further aggravates poverty. Choosing to sever this vicious circle would simultaneously lead to the eradication of one of the causes of war and resolve this global injustice. Removing the causes of war and poverty that menace human dignity will enhance enjoyment of human rights.

The 1999 Cologne Economic Summit adopted the Cologne Debt Initiative to speed up debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). The initiative seeks to ensure that resources made available by debt relief will be invested in poverty alleviation and social development in areas such as education, nutrition and sanitation and health care.^[37]

I welcome this as one tangible step toward the eradication of poverty, and call for ever more bold thinking in this regard. We need a total commitment to enabling these societies to raise themselves out of poverty—a program to be implemented with determination and consistency, equivalent, perhaps, to a “Global Marshall Plan.” The UN should be at the center of efforts to take the summit’s agreements further—to a deeper level—toward a global community that protects and nurtures all members of the human family.

The World’s Most Indebted Countries (Numbers in US$ millions as of 1998)

Top 10 by total debt stock Country	Amount of debt	Top 10 by % of GNP Country	Debt as % of GNP
01. Brazil	232,004	01. São Tomé & Principe	685%
02. Russia	183,601	02. Guinea Bissau	504%
03. Mexico	159,959	03. Republic of Congo	307%
04. China	154,559	04. Angola	297%
05. Indonesia	147,475	05. Mauritania	273%
06. Argentina	144,050	06. Guyana	249%
07. Korea	139,097	07. Mozambique	223%
08. Turkey	102,074	08. Zambia	217%
09. India	98,232	09. Dem. Republic of the Congo	208%
10. Thailand	86,172	10. Lao PDR	199%

Regarding the promotion of human development on a global level, I would also like to call for the extension of the functions of UN Houses, which are centers to coordinate various UN programs and agencies in each country. The original purpose of the UN Houses was to improve cooperation between UN agencies engaged in development and related projects. The plan sought to bring together the various bodies active in each country into a common building called a UN House, to encourage coordination of their activities under the banner of the UN.

It is my suggestion that the role of UN Houses be broadened one step further, that they function as a UN Embassy in each country and thus play a comprehensive role as a local center for the promotion of substantive programs as well as public information activities.

Efforts at poverty eradication and human development require in particular that plans be based on a thorough understanding of unique local circumstances. By bringing together and giving a permanent standing to the avenues of communication with governments, implementation of such plans would surely become more smooth.

Strengthening the United Nations

On the fourth subtopic, strengthening the UN, I would like to make a proposal from the perspective of democratization, that is, how to ensure that the views and concerns of ordinary citizens are heard at the UN.

I believe that the driving force for bridging the jurisdictional gap, the participation gap and the incentive gap—the three problems to be resolved in realizing global public goods mentioned above—consists of grassroots solidarity in support of the UN and broad and multidimensional NGO activities.

It has already been proven that NGOs’ united efforts to broadly stir up public opinion can give rise to a force that can move the international community forward.

NGOs have taken up themes that are often neglected within the framework of a state-centered international system, and have been pioneers in addressing ways to solve such problems—their achievements are truly great. I see tremendous promise in the way NGOs can channel the people’s power to overcome the gaps that states alone cannot bridge. NGOs have won greater prominence thanks to their role in a series of world conferences starting with the Earth Summit of 1992.

In September 1994, then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali noted that “Non-governmental organizations are now considered full participants in international life,” and that “NGOs are an essential part of the legitimacy without which no international activity can be meaningful.”^[38]

Recently NGOs are frequently referred to as civil society organizations (CSOs). Instead of the conventional name, which focuses on what they are not, the new name emphasizes their active role as sustainers of the global community.

Although the significance of NGOs is growing in this way, their officially recognized interaction with the UN is limited to certain specified channels such as consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.

I have previously suggested plans for the establishment of a UN people’s assembly consisting of representatives of civil society. Reform of the UN requires that it listen to the voices of ordinary citizens and work with ordinary citizens. Although creating such a people’s assembly will of course be difficult, I believe it is essential to establish some means whereby the people’s voices reach the UN.

I would therefore like to propose on this occasion the creation of a global people’s council that will function as a consultative body to the General Assembly. This council would be mandated to advise the General Assembly on themes for deliberation from the standpoint of realizing global public goods, and also call its attention to potential threats. Taking full advantage of NGOs’ expertise in information gathering and firsthand experience in their fields of activity, such a council could contribute to the General Assembly’s deliberations by promoting advance discussion of key issues.

With the completion of the cycle of UN-sponsored world conferences on critical global issues, the focus has now shifted to the follow-up of past conferences at five- or ten-year intervals. In light of this, I believe that it would be very significant for such a council to consistently monitor the implementation status of past agreements. Another important contribution could be to serve as the focus for networking among NGOs and member states and as a venue for sustained discussion toward enhancing global cooperation.

One of the subthemes for the NGO Millennium Forum scheduled to be held in May as a lead-up to the UN Millennium Assembly is “strengthening and democratizing the United Nations and other international organizations.”^[39] I sincerely hope that the Forum will deliberate meaningful plans for strengthening and reforming the UN from a people’s perspective.

NGOs—Upcoming UN Conferences & Events

• Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century—Vienna, Austria, April 10–17, 2000
• Millennium Forum—United Nations headquarters, May 22–26, 2000
• Beijing +5 Review: Special Session of the General Assembly to Review the Implementation of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women and of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action—New York, June 5–9, 2000
• World Summit for Social Development and Beyond: Achieving Social Development for All in a Globalized World—Special Session of the General Assembly—Geneva, Switzerland, June 26–30, 2000
• Millennium Summit of Religious Leaders—New York, August 28–29, 2000
• World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance—South Africa, 2001

In this connection, the “New Diplomacy,” collaborative efforts between civil society and governments committed to fundamental reform, has emerged as an important new force in the world. In a sense this corresponds to the creative synergy between inner, spiritual reform and external, institutional reform I referred to earlier. Its greatest success to date is the adoption of the Landmine Ban Treaty (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction) in 1997.

This was reaffirmed in one of the Ten Fundamental Principles which emerged from The Hague Appeal for Peace (HAP) Conference held in May 1999, which declares that “all states should integrate the New Diplomacy, which is the partnership of governments, international organizations and civil society.”^[40] The Conference initiated new campaigns including the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and the Global Ratification Campaign for the International Criminal Court, and called for an end to the use of child soldiers. I have discussed these issues in my past proposals, and the SGI will give active support and cooperation to these campaigns.

It is particularly critical to sever the intergenerational perpetuation of the culture of war by stopping the use of child soldiers. It is a welcome and great advance that a draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, which ensures that persons who have not attained the age of eighteen years are neither voluntarily nor compulsorily recruited into the armed forces, was finally adopted in January 2000.

Campaign for the ratification and entry into force of the CTBT

In addition to these campaigns, I believe that one of the challenges to be addressed under the framework of the New Diplomacy is the promotion of nuclear disarmament. First I would like to propose a campaign to accelerate the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The CTBT was adopted by the UN General Assembly by an overwhelming majority in September 1996 as a complementary treaty to the Nuclear-Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These two treaties have as their goals, respectively, the prevention of vertical proliferation (increase in the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons) and horizontal proliferation (increase in the number of nuclear weapon states). The CTBT has not, however, entered into force yet. That is because only twenty-six of the forty-four nuclear weapon states and nuclear weapon-capable states, whose ratification is required for the Treaty to enter into force, have ratified it.^[41]

Out of the five permanent members of the Security Council—all nuclear weapon states—only the United Kingdom and France have ratified the Treaty. It has not been signed by India or Pakistan, which both conducted nuclear weapons tests in 1998, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a country whose nuclear weapon policies and program remain unclear. What greatly set back the prospect of the CTBT entering into force was the rejection of the ratification bill by the United States Senate in October 1999. The Treaty’s prospects will be greatly jeopardized if the impact of this discourages other states that have yet to sign or ratify it.

During 1999, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that urges the ratification of the Treaty. But a breakthrough will be almost impossible unless global public opinion in favor of ratification is aroused.

The SGI intends to promote an international network for the promotion of CTBT ratification, consistent with our longheld stance in support of nuclear disarmament. Such a network would generate momentum to press states that have not yet ratified the Treaty, using the New Diplomacy technique of working together with other NGOs and those governments that are committed to promoting ratification.

I believe that this campaign should not only encourage each state to ratify the CTBT, but also advocate two additional points in order to enhance the CTBT’s effectiveness.

Status of the Forty-four States Whose Ratification is Required for the CTBT Treaty to Enter Into Force*

States yet to ratify

1. Algeria	2. Chile	3. China	4. Columbia
5. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea	6. Democratic Republic of the Congo	7. Egypt	8. India
9. Indonesia	10. Iran [Islamic Republic of]	11. Israel	12. Pakistan
13. Russian Federation	14. Ukraine	15. United States of America	16. Viet Nam

States which have already ratified

1. Argentina	2. Australia	3. Austria	4. Bangladesh
5. Belgium	6. Brazil	7. Bulgaria	8. Canada
9. Finland	10. France	11. Germany	12. Hungary
13. Italy	14. Japan	15. Mexico	16. Netherlands
17. Norway	18. Peru	19. Poland	20. Republic of Korea
21. Romania	22. Slovakia	23. South Africa	24. Spain
25. Sweden	26. Switzerland	27. Turkey	28. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The first of these two points is to seek the understanding and cooperation of all states toward obtaining the financing required to create the kind of verification regime stipulated in the CTBT. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization is currently setting up a verification regime that includes facilities, scattered throughout the globe, for detecting nuclear tests. These efforts, which work to the common advantage of all signatory states, should be continued regardless of the status of progress toward ratification.

The second point is to build consensus for the establishment of a mechanism to determine if subcritical experiments, not explicitly prohibited by the CTBT, run counter to the Treaty’s intent. (The CTBT’s preamble clearly states that its intention is to take effective measures toward nuclear disarmament and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects.) With many nonnuclear weapon states frustrated with the carrying out of subcritical experiments, the establishment of such a mechanism would go a long way toward responding to these frustrations and enhancing the effectiveness of the CTBT.

One notable recent development has been the campaign for enactment of a treaty banning nuclear weapons advocated by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a group of states actively seeking nuclear disarmament, and the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI), a coalition of NGOs. Both groups were launched in 1998. The MPI was an outgrowth of the Abolition 2000 campaign, a global network of NGOs for the abolition of nuclear weapons. 

Since the NAC was formed with eight states, more and more countries have supported its goals, and it is now the core of a new movement for the promotion of nuclear disarmament. For example, sixty states sponsored the draft resolution calling for a new agenda toward a nuclear weapon-free world submitted to the UN General Assembly in December 1999. The NAC’s immediate priority is to reinforce nuclear disarmament within the framework of the NPT. But if the NPT Review and Extension Conference, slated for April-May 2000, achieves no positive results, the NAC will shift its focus to the enactment of a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

To move beyond this impasse, it is essential that nuclear weapon states and their allies fundamentally rethink their reliance on nuclear weapons. Ultimately, nuclear disarmament cannot be significantly advanced unless the deterrence mentality is overcome. In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, then Soviet general secretary, was already declaring that no country could find real security in military power, either for defense or for deterrence. It must be recognized that security based on deterrence is rooted in mutual distrust; it will always be accompanied by an arms race, making it inherently unstable and dangerous.

In fact, a majority of citizens support the abolition of nuclear weapons, even in nuclear weapon states like the United States and the United Kingdom, and their allies. This was discovered in opinion surveys conducted by NGOs using research agencies in countries participating in the Abolition 2000 campaign.^[42] The nuclear weapon states cite their citizens’ support as part of their justification for the possession of nuclear weapons, but the findings of this research disprove their assertions.

It has been pointed out that nuclear weapon states and states aspiring to join the nuclear weapons club seek in nuclear weapons a confirmation of their national prestige, in addition to national security. Therefore, a starting point for achieving change is to interrogate these perspectives and the power mentality from which this definition of prestige springs.

In that sense, the efforts of the NAC and the MPI, utilizing the strengths of soft power and seeking to fundamentally change people’s attitudes, exactly meet the demands of our time. As such campaigns gain ever greater support from the people, a new superpower of trust and solidarity will be born, replacing nuclear-dependent superpowers driven by deterrence and threat. 

This common goal—the enactment of a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons—can only be achieved by strengthening the solidarity of citizens.

Toward a treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons

In The Geography of Human Life, published at the beginning of the twentieth century, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, the first president of the Soka Gakkai, described shifts in modes of national competition—from military, to political, to economic. Moving from the descriptive to the predictive, he set out a vision of what he termed “humanitarian competition,” which represents a profound qualitative transformation of competition itself, toward a model that recognizes our interrelatedness and emphasizes the cooperative aspects of living. He envisaged a time in which people and countries would compete—in the original sense of the word of “striving together”—to make the greatest contribution to human happiness and well-being.

From this context, he stated that the ultimate goal of a state lies in the accomplishment of humanitarianism, and asserted that nations should always adhere to noncoercive, intangible (i.e., nonmilitary, noneconomic) means to strive to expand their sphere of influence. In this sense, Makiguchi could be said to have identified with foresight and wisdom what we now know as soft power, the ability to win naturally the hearts and minds of people.

As a Buddhist, I feel compelled to stress the deeper significance of nuclear weapons and the need for their elimination.

It is more than a matter of disarmament. It is a question of fundamentally overcoming the worst negative legacy of the twentieth century—distrust, hatred and the debasement of humanity—which was the final outcome of a barbaric, hegemonic struggle between nations. It requires that we face head-on the limitless capacity of the human heart to generate both good and evil, creation and destruction.

This year marks the birth centennial of my mentor, Josei Toda, the second president of the Soka Gakkai. In his declaration against nuclear weapons in September 1957, he condemned nuclear weapons as an absolute evil that deprives humanity of its right to exist. From a profound understanding of the innermost processes of the human heart, he keenly discerned the true nature of nuclear weapons and declared his determination to transform the demonic aspects of humanity that gave birth to them.

As heir to Toda’s vision, the SGI has constantly sought ways to spread this message throughout the world. Initiated in the middle of the Cold War, the SGI’s touring exhibition “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” has been shown in twenty-five cities in sixteen countries around the world, including nuclear weapon states such as the United States, the former Soviet Union and China. SGI members have collected more than thirteen million signatures in support of Abolition 2000. These campaigns are entirely based on a conviction that there is no other way to achieve this daunting task—the abolition of nuclear weapons—than to build people’s solidarity, transcending national and ethnic differences. They are also an expression of a resolute determination never to yield to the power of nuclear weapons, but rather to consistently challenge the gnawing sense of resignation and powerlessness they engender, which corrodes the human spirit.

Peace in Northeast Asia

Lastly, I would like to address the issue of peace in Northeast Asia, one of my long-cherished hopes. My concern stems from the belief that trends in Northeast Asia are not merely a local issue, but a matter of great gravity that will determine the future direction of the world in many ways.

Patrick M. Cronin, director of the Research and Studies Program at the United States Institute of Peace, made an intriguing point regarding this issue. Predicting that Northeast Asia will be a center of political, economic, technological, social and military activity in the twenty-first century, Cronin asserts that peace and security in Northeast Asia is the key to determining whether the international community can enter an age of harmony based on cooperation.^[43]

Peace in Northeast Asia has been my sincere hope in light of the potentials the region possesses. I am also motivated by a profound regret for the great suffering Japan’s war of aggression caused throughout the region. I have made a number of proposals for peace in the Korean Peninsula, in particular. These include: North-South summit talks (1985 proposal), a mutual non-aggression and non-belligerence treaty (1986), conversion of the demilitarized zone for peaceful and cultural purposes (1986), the establishment of a reunion center for divided families (1994), and building a relationship of mutual trust through projects such as railway and other transportation links (1995).

Relations between the two Koreas are improving after many twists and turns. Unfortunately, however, these countries still technically remain in a state of war today, confronting each other across the demilitarized zone since reaching an armistice in July 1953. I have consistently urged that this unnatural condition be resolved.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War, and I urge all sides to seize this opportunity to put an end to the state of cold war, and make the transition to genuine peace. To create such an environment, it is essential to initiate dialogue and foster trust throughout the region. From this standpoint, I called for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Northeast Asia in my 1997 proposal, and for a Northeast Asia Peace Community involving the two Koreas and neighboring countries in my 1999 proposal.

The latter in particular is a vision for promoting dialogue in Northeast Asia, which at present lacks a regional cooperation organization. The SGI sponsored a symposium at the International Conference of NGOs in Seoul in October 1999, working toward the realization of such a community, and we plan to set up similar opportunities for discussion in the future.

As I mentioned earlier when considering conflict resolution, I believe it crucial to maintain a forum for discussion, instead of excluding parties, to keep tension from escalating into military conflict. At the Seoul Conference, the creation of links between Chinese, Korean and Japanese NGOs was discussed. It would be very meaningful to secure dialogue channels on a civil society and a government level.

I would like to propose that a Northeast Asia Peace University, an institution similar to the European Peace University, be established in cooperation with the UN University as part of such regional exchange—possibly in Mongolia. I suggest Mongolia as a candidate for the following reasons: it is a peace-oriented country whose nuclear weapon-free status was recognized by the UN in 1998, and, like Russia and China, it is one of the countries in the region which maintains diplomatic relations with both Koreas.

Wherever it is established, a Northeast Asia Peace University could contribute to peace and stability in the region on a long-term basis if it provides a place for fostering capable individuals committed to grassroots exchange and peacebuilding.

One can also envision something on the lines of the Socrates program, an educational exchange program promoted by the European Union, in Northeast Asia in the future. Soka University, which already has a tradition of actively promoting educational exchange in the region, would definitely contribute to any such educational and youth exchange programs.

One of the topics on the agenda of the G8 Okinawa Summit 2000 is peace in Asia. I hope that this opportunity for the topic to be discussed in depth from a broad perspective will be fully utilized so that the Northeast Asia region, the Korean Peninsula in particular, will be able to make a significant advance toward peace.

Unleashing the power of the human spirit

If we take to heart the lessons and warnings of the tragedy-filled twentieth century, we must make “action” and “solidarity” the keywords for the twenty-first.

The problems confronting humankind are daunting in their depth and complexity. While it may be hard to see where to begin—or how—we must never give in to cynicism or paralysis. We must each initiate action in the direction we believe to be right. We must refuse the temptation to passively accommodate ourselves to present realities but must embark upon the challenge of creating a new reality.

The human spirit is endowed with the ability to transform even the most difficult circumstances, creating value and ever richer meaning. When each person brings this limitless spiritual capacity to full flower, and when ordinary citizens unite in a commitment to positive change, a culture of peace—a century of life—will come into being.

People are the protagonists in this grand adventure. The SGI will continue to promote empowerment—of the people, by the people, for the people—with ever deepening commitment and energy. Through broad-based dialogue and collaboration, we are determined to open a path toward peace and hope in the new millennium.

Value Creation for Global Change: Building Resilient and Sustainable Societies

by Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2014

To commemorate January 26, the anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to offer thoughts on how we can redirect the currents of the twenty-first century toward greater hope, solidarity and peace in order to construct a sustainable global society, one in which the dignity of each individual shines with its inherent brilliance.

Last year saw certain hopeful developments, such as signs of recovery in the world economy and a trend toward reductions in military expenditures. At the same time, however, international and domestic conflicts have given rise to humanitarian crises of increasing severity. Further, natural disasters and extreme weather events have caused enormous suffering in numerous locations throughout the world.

Of particularly grave concern has been the ongoing civil war in Syria, now entering its fourth year. This brutal conflict has forced more than 2.3 million people to seek refuge in other countries and displaced 6.5 million people within Syria.^[1] Every effort must be made toward the earliest realization of a cease-fire so that humanitarian assistance can reach all those in need and negotiations toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict are pursued.

In November of last year, the Philippines was struck by the largest, most powerful typhoon in recorded history, leaving in excess of 6,000 people dead and forcing more than 4 million storm victims from their homes.^[2] The international community must expand its efforts to respond to such humanitarian crises, preventing a further deterioration of conditions and bringing relief to refugees and those otherwise affected.

Together with such response capabilities, and in light of the increasing incidence of disasters and extreme weather events in recent years, there has been growing stress on the importance of enhancing the resilience of human societies—preparing for threats, managing crises and facilitating recovery.

Resilience is, of course, a term originally derived from physics, describing the elasticity or ability of a material to return to its original form after having been subjected to an external stress. By analogy, resilience has come to be used in a wide range of fields to express the capacity of societies to recover from severe shocks, such as environmental destruction or economic crisis. In the case of natural disasters, improving resilience means enhancing the entire spectrum of capacities—from efforts to prevent and mitigate damage to measures that aid the afflicted and support the often long and laborious process of recovery.

To this end, policy and institutional responses—such as strengthening the seismic resistance of structures and renewing outdated infrastructure—are of course important. But the human element is also critical. As the American writers Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy have written, “In our travels, wherever we found strong social resilience, we also found strong communities.”^[3]

We need to recognize the importance of fostering, on a day-to-day basis, the “social capital” of interconnection and networks among people living in a locality. More than anything, the will and vitality of the people living in the community are key.

Resilience is one of the topics in my ongoing dialogue with the peace researcher and activist Professor Kevin P. Clements. We agree that it is not enough to respond after the fact, as is often the case with natural disasters; it is necessary to effect a transformation of the very foundations of society, to move from a culture of war to a culture of peace, as has been called for by the United Nations.

If we are to realize the rich possibilities inherent in the concept of resilience, we will need to expand and recast our understanding of what it means. Resilience, in other words, should not be thought of as simply our capacity to prepare for and respond to threats. Rather, we should think of it in terms of realizing a hopeful future, rooted in people’s natural desire to work together toward common goals and to sense progress toward those goals in a tangible way. It should be seen as an integral aspect of humankind’s shared project to create the future—a project in which anyone anywhere can participate and which lays the solid foundations for a sustainable global society.

When I think about this challenge, the words of the great twentieth-century historian Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) come to mind: “But we are not doomed to make history repeat itself; it is open to us, through our own efforts, to give history, in our own case, some new and unprecedented turn.”^[4]

To me, this is the challenge of creating value—the process by which each of us, in our respective roles and capacities, strives to create that value which is ours alone to realize in order to benefit our fellow citizens, society as a whole and the future.

On the occasion of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), I emphasized that a renewed focus on humanity, reforming and opening up the inner capacities of our lives, is key to enabling effective change and empowerment on a global scale.

This is what we in the SGI call human revolution. Its focus is empowerment that brings forth the limitless possibilities of each individual. As such, the full significance of human revolution is not realized while it remains confined to a change in the inner life. Rather, the courage and hope that arise from this inner change must enable people to face and break through even the most intractable realities, a process of value creation that ultimately transforms society. The steady accumulation of changes on the individual and community levels paves the path for humanity to surmount the global challenges we face.

As this process of global transformation advances, smiles return to the faces of those who had been sunk in suffering. People thus empowered to realize the full scope of their possibilities willingly unite in solidarity to confront global issues. The challenge of value creation is that of linking the micro and the macro, the individual and the societal, in ways that reinforce positive transformation on both planes.

In this proposal, I will focus on three aspects of value creation, through which we can not only enhance social resilience but also enable progress toward a sustainable global society:

• Value creation that always takes hope as its starting point;
• Value creation of people working together to resolve issues; and
• Value creation that calls forth the best in each of us.

Value creation that always takes hope as its starting point

On April 2, 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the landmark Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty, which will regulate the international trade in conventional arms from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships, is the first global legally binding regulation of the arms trade.

Once again, the concerted and united efforts of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) played an important role in the process leading up to the adoption of the treaty, as was the case with the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions. These are inspiring examples of how, when civil society joins hands in efforts to realize a clear mission, it is possible to give history “some new and unprecedented turn.”

Over the years, I have repeatedly stressed the need for establishing an international framework to regulate the arms trade. As such, I strongly hope that the Arms Trade Treaty will enter into force and be implemented as soon as possible.

The unrestricted trade and proliferation of weapons has contributed to unspeakable atrocities and grave violations of human rights. Our planet continues to be wracked by violent conflict, civil unrest and violence perpetrated by armed groups or organized crime; every day, countless people are robbed of their lives or suffer serious physical and mental harm.

Two years ago, Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman for speaking out in favor of education for girls in her native Pakistan. Despite sustaining near-fatal injuries, she made a miraculous recovery and has since continued to speak out for women’s rights and education for girls. In her speech at the UN Headquarters in New York on July 12 last year, she expressed her unwavering resolve as follows:

Nothing changed in my life except this: weakness, fear and hopelessness died; strength, power and courage were born. … I am the same Malala. My ambitions are the same, my hopes are the same, my dreams are the same.^[5]

Malala Yousafzai

Malala Yousafzai was born on July 12, 1997, in Mingora, Pakistan. As a child, she became an advocate for girls’ education in the face of the Taliban’s suppression of women’s rights. This resulted in the Taliban issuing a death threat against her, and on October 9, 2012, a gunman attempted to assassinate Malala as she was traveling home from school.

On her sixteenth birthday, July 12, 2013, she addressed the UN Youth Assembly where she called out: “Let us pick up our books and our pens. They are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world. Education is the only solution.” In that same year, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite the persistent threats she receives, Malala is inspired to persevere by the fervent wish that the countless women and children who continue to suffer from abuse, violence and oppression will be able to stand up and speak for themselves.

When people are exposed to calamities and disasters—unanticipated dangers such as natural disasters and economic crises, or persistent dangers such as political oppression and violations of human rights—there is a risk that they will succumb to despair out of overwhelming fear, grief and pain. However, if we relinquish hope and are paralyzed by helplessness, we not only allow the problems to persist but can inadvertently contribute to the proliferation of similar problems elsewhere.

The Austrian psychologist Viktor E. Frankl (1905–97), known for his book Man’s Search for Meaning about his experiences in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, asserted that suffering becomes meaningful when it is endured for others, for some greater purpose—only then can we find within ourselves the light of humanity to dispel the darkness of despair.^[6] What is important, he stressed, is one’s attitude and the manner in which we face the cruel blows of unavoidable fate: human beings have the inherent capacity to uncover and grasp the meaning of life until they draw their last breath.^[7] Frankl called this act of mustering the resources of the human spirit in response to misfortune “attitudinal value” (Einstellungswerte).

In other words, if one can rise to the challenge of enduring the most terrible afflictions and situations, maintaining the faith that life has meaning, one can transform personal tragedy into a triumph for humanity. This is the work of creating value.

At the same time Frankl was struggling to survive the Nazi death camps during World War II, Soka Gakkai founding president Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944) was arrested and imprisoned for refusing to submit to the thought control imposed by the Japanese militarist government. In terms of the light it casts on the capacities of the human spirit, Frankl’s idea of attitudinal value resonates with the thinking of Makiguchi, who emphasized that the purpose of education was to cultivate what he called “character value” (jinkaku kachi).

The term “Soka”—value creation—used in the title of Makiguchi’s major work Soka kyoikugaku taikei (The System of Value Creating Pedagogy), arose from a discussion with his closest disciple Josei Toda (1900–58). Toda was an educator, like Makiguchi, and became the second president of the Soka Gakkai after the war. Next year will mark the eighty-fifth anniversary of the book’s publication.

Makiguchi described a person who possesses character value as the kind of individual whose presence is always sought after and appreciated in times of crisis even if they may not otherwise attract much attention. Such people always function as a unifying force in society.^[8]

Former South African President Nelson Mandela, who passed away last year, manifested just such character value. His life served as a beacon of hope and courage to people around the world.

President Mandela was incarcerated for standing up against the notorious system of racial discrimination known as apartheid. During his twenty-seven-year imprisonment, from which he emerged triumphant, he faced periods of near utter despair. At one point, he was informed of his mother’s death, shortly followed by the news that his wife had been detained and that his eldest son had died in an “accident.” However, even under such extreme circumstances, he remained undefeated. In a letter intended for a friend he wrote, “Hope is a powerful weapon even when nothing else may remain.”^[9]

Some years later, when his granddaughter was born, he named her Zaziwe, meaning hope—the hope that had been his constant companion over the 10,000 arduous days he spent in prison. He later wrote, “I was convinced that this child would be a part of a new generation of South Africans for whom apartheid would be a distant memory—that was my dream.”^[10] He vowed to fight until the day that dream would become a reality, enduring all with a tenacious spirit.

I fondly recall that on the two occasions I had the privilege of speaking with President Mandela, we exchanged views on ways to build a society in which all people are treated with dignity and respect, a cause we both held close to our hearts as we walked our respective paths in life. I was particularly struck by his strong assertion that the abolition of apartheid, which opened a new chapter in the course of history, was in no way something he accomplished on his own, but rather a culmination of the determined efforts of countless individuals. I believe that this conviction is expressed in the following words from the speech he gave in May 1994, just before his election as president of South Africa was announced:

You have shown such a calm, patient determination to reclaim this country as your own, and now the joy that we can loudly proclaim from the rooftops—Free at last! Free at last!^[11]

I would say that the qualities President Mandela manifested represent hope that is rooted in character value—a capacity that is not limited to extraordinary individuals but can be realized by any person. For his part, Frankl manifested the hope of attitudinal value—our ability to choose and experience meaning in even the most severe circumstances until the last moment of life. The challenge of value creation is imbued with and arises from both these aspects of hope.

The power of hope

The Buddhist philosophy embraced by members of the SGI—specifically, that of the thirteenth-century Buddhist reformer Nichiren (1222–82)—urges people to live with a sense of purposefulness that can be expressed as a commitment to fulfilling a profound pledge or vow. It encourages people to regard their immediate surroundings as the arena for fulfilling their mission in life, even when beset by great difficulties, and to aspire to create personal narratives that will be a source of enduring hope.

This is the way of living, the way of perceiving life, that Nichiren taught his followers. Even within the political and social strictures of feudal Japan, he loudly proclaimed spiritual freedom as an inviolable right, asserting: “Even if it seems that, because I was born in the ruler’s domain, I follow him in my actions, I will never follow him in my heart.”^[12]

At that time, Japan was wracked by a series of natural disasters including earthquakes and typhoons, as well as famine and epidemics, which together inflicted immense suffering on the people and led to tremendous loss of life. Nichiren, determined to alleviate that anguish, repeatedly admonished those who held power within the military government, calling on them to rectify their ways of thinking and their approach to governance.

As a result of his staunch opposition to the authorities, Nichiren endured armed ambushes, was sentenced to death and banished twice. However, as evidenced in his words “not once have I thought of retreat,”^[13] he remained unperturbed in the face of these persecutions and persevered in his efforts to ease the suffering of the people.

In Nichiren’s day, three prevalent currents of thought about human existence had gained acceptance among the many people whose lives were devastated and who were on the brink of despair following the calamities that ravaged the country. These currents of thought encouraged escapism, denial and passive submission to fate. Nichiren condemned such ways of thinking while extending his wholehearted encouragement to the suffering people, declaring: “It is like the case of a person who falls to the ground, but who then pushes himself up from the ground and rises to his feet again.”^[14] He sought to awaken each person to the inherent power that could enable them to overcome even the direst of situations.

The first of these ways of thinking encouraged an escapist approach to reality, leading people to believe they could attain happiness in some distant realm detached from the harsh realities of their lives. Nichiren vigorously refuted this idea, emphasizing that the place where we confront reality and transform our lives is the place where we are right now. “There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds.”^[15]

The willingness to challenge hardships taps the power within human beings to transform even a place of tragedy into a stage for fulfilling one’s mission. Nichiren encouraged his followers to lead a life in which they squarely confront their troubles and, through their own example of doing so, restore hope to those facing similar distress.

The second way of thinking that Nichiren criticized was one that encouraged people to deny reality. This produced an attitude of disengagement, with people becoming closed within their private world and insulated from the grievous tragedies of the day.

It is true that in some Buddhist scriptures we can find teachings in which Shakyamuni (c. 560–480 BCE) expounded ways to distance oneself from the worldly attachments that give rise to suffering and delusion. However, these were employed as “expedient means” to temporarily mitigate the distress of those immersed in misery. In Nichiren’s view, they are provisional teachings that do not fully represent Shakyamuni’s intent. Therefore, when Nichiren lectured on the passage from the Bodhisattva Medicine King Chapter of the Lotus Sutra that reads, “It [the Lotus Sutra] can cause living beings to cast off all distress,”^[16] he proposed that we interpret the words “cast off” as “perceive the true nature of.”^[17]

To banish thoughts of present problems as if they do not exist only postpones the inevitable task of tackling them to some time in the future, allowing them to fester and grow worse. In contrast, Nichiren advocated a way of life in which people confront painful realities, identify root causes and seek means of resolution. He believed that through this process people can create a society that enjoys even greater peace and happiness than it did before tragedy struck.

The third way of thinking that Nichiren harshly critiqued was one that encouraged people to passively submit to reality, causing them to accept even an intolerable status quo as immutable. Condemning this approach, he maintained that human beings are capable of bringing forth inner strength in direct proportion to the depth of the confusion and predicament they face.

He explained this using the analogy of lotus flowers blooming in muddy water: just as lotus flowers rise unsoiled from the muddy water, human beings have the power to unleash their previously untapped potential even while mired in the struggles of everyday life. By engaging with a reality that is filled with troubles and confusion, wrestling with problems one by one, we can transform all these experiences into nourishment that strengthens and revitalizes our lives. Nichiren sought to inspire his followers to a way of life in which they strive to make their existence shine like a sun of hope and to effect meaningful change in society.

In our world today, there is a tendency for people to avert their eyes from pressing problems; this tendency becomes stronger the more serious the problems are. Even among those who are aware, for example, of the threat posed by nuclear weapons or the dangers of environmental destruction, people are apt to give up without trying, convinced that their efforts would not be meaningful.

More than anything, breaking the shackles of denial, powerlessness and apathy requires a deep sense of mission and commitment based on a personal vow. This idea was expressed by President Mandela throughout his life. In his autobiography, he voiced the heartfelt cry: “Men, I think, are not capable of doing nothing, of saying nothing, of not reacting to injustice, of not protesting against oppression, of not striving for the good society and the good life in the ways they see it.”^[18] The same sentiment is evident in the words of the founder of the Green Belt Movement, Dr. Wangari Maathai, articulating the pledge that consistently guided her actions: “We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds.”^[19]

The reference to lotus flowers in muddy water was originally used in the Lotus Sutra to describe the emergence of the Bodhisattvas of the Earth. These are bodhisattvas who had vowed to Shakyamuni that, throughout their lives, they would work for the sake of people mired in despair and were willing to be born in times of confusion and social unrest in order to do so.

The Lotus Sutra and Bodhisattvas of the Earth

The Lotus Sutra is said to have been compiled between the first and second centuries. It contains the teachings of Shakyamuni, the historical founder of Buddhism, and was recorded in text form following his death. Like many Mahayana sutras, the Lotus Sutra spread through the “northern transmission” route, reaching China in the third century. A core theme of the sutra is the idea that all people equally possess Buddha nature.

The Bodhisattvas of the Earth are described as “an innumerable host of bodhisattvas who emerge from beneath the earth,” to whom Shakyamuni entrusts the propagation of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra following his death. They are depicted in the fifteenth chapter of the Lotus Sutra and represent those who embody the qualities of wisdom, courage and compassion and who strive without cease for the happiness of others.

To live one’s life committed to fulfilling a pledge or vow is fundamentally different from an attitude of passively waiting for others to take the initiative and plaintively hoping for change. Neither is it the kind of promise that is forsaken when conditions make it difficult to honor. It is, rather, proof that we are leading a meaningful existence, an undertaking that we carry out with our entire being, pursued in the face of every adversity or tribulation, no matter how long it takes to accomplish.

SGI members aspire to live our lives as Bodhisattvas of the Earth. This is a life dedicated to fulfilling one’s vow, something that Nichiren identified as an essential aspect of Buddhist practice. Striving to fulfill our personal vow enables us to realize our inner strength, creating positive value in even the most challenging circumstances. This way of living also means to stand by the side of those who are distressed, to seek to build happiness for both oneself and others, supporting and encouraging each other.

On a societal plane, as representatives of civil society, the SGI has consistently supported the United Nations and its various activities to address global issues of pressing concern. In December 1989, during a meeting with UN Under-Secretaries- General Rafiuddin Ahmed and Jan Mårtenson, I expressed the resolve that motivates our efforts to support the global organization as follows:

The Buddhist philosophy which teaches peace, equality and compassion is in keeping with the spirit of the UN. Therefore, to support the United Nations is for us inevitable. Otherwise, we would be betraying our mission as Buddhist practitioners.^[20]

Truly sweeping visions and goals cannot necessarily be realized in one person’s lifetime. However, as the examples of President Mandela and Dr. Maathai attest, those who have lived with a sense of mission and vow at the core of their being can continue to inspire others even after their passing. Their lives shine as a model for all eternity for those who would follow in their footsteps. Based on the same principle, Nichiren exhorted his disciples to triumph over life’s adversities, stating: “Could there ever be a more wonderful story than your own, one that will be recounted by future generations?”^[21]

The power of hope that is available to any person, under any circumstance, and which can inspire future generations—this is the foundation of the effort to create value. I believe that this will surely provide a platform on which we can unite our strengths to confront the serious threats and problems facing humanity. This in turn will become a bridge toward the creation of a society where all people can enjoy peace and harmonious coexistence.

Value creation of people working together to resolve issues

The second aspect of value creation I would like to consider is how it brings people together to resolve issues.

As research into the nature of resilience has advanced in recent years, the importance of a number of factors has come into clearer focus. Zolli and Healy, for example, describe their findings:

Resilient communities frequently relied … on informal networks, rooted in deep trust, to contend with and heal disruption. Efforts undertaken to impose resilience from above often fail, but when those same efforts are embedded authentically in the relationships that mediate people’s everyday lives, resilience can flourish.^[22]

The difficulty, however, is the continuing erosion of social capital—the interwoven fabric of human relationships. For it is this fabric that provides a necessary site for the fostering of networks rooted in the deep trust that mediates people’s everyday lives. It fulfills a crucial buffering function, without which individuals are directly exposed to the impacts of various threats and challenges that confront society as a whole. Absent this social capital, people are forced to face these threats in isolation—whether with despairing withdrawal or steely determination to prioritize personal welfare.

The economic philosopher Serge Latouche has called for a more humane society (une société décente), one that will help restore the dignity of those who have been left behind in the midst of cutthroat economic competition. To this end, he stresses the importance of an ethics of conviviality, the simple taking of pleasure in each other’s company.^[23]

The Buddhist teachings contain a phrase that resonates with this concept: “Joy means delight shared by oneself and others.”^[24] The vision that we must place at the heart of contemporary society is one in which, through the sharing of joy, we create a world more noted for the warm light of dignity than the cold gleam of wealth, a world of empathy marked by the resolute refusal to abandon those who suffer most deeply.

Effecting this kind of fundamental change in society would be difficult under any circumstance, and it may seem virtually impossible in view of the increasingly attenuated bonds between people evident at all levels. To overcome this, I think we need to reaffirm our confidence in the true nature of human society. Perhaps no one expressed this more aptly than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) as he struggled for the cause of human dignity:

We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. … We are made to live together.^[25]

The Buddhist concept of “dependent origination” resonates with Dr. King’s call. However tenuous our connections may appear on the surface, this does not change the fact that the world is woven of the profound bonds and connections of one life to another. It is this that makes it at all times possible for us to take the kind of action that will generate ripples of positive impact across the full spectrum of our connections.

The writer Rebecca Solnit, who has traveled to disaster sites throughout the world, declares that “the constellations of solidarity, altruism, and improvisation are within most of us and reappear at these times. People know what to do in a disaster.”^[26] The key question then becomes, how do we enable and encourage people to bring forth these capacities, which typically remain dormant except in times of crisis, from within the processes of normal daily life?

In April 2012, Ms. Solnit was interviewed by the Seikyo Shimbun, the newspaper of the Soka Gakkai in Japan. She cited the following conditions that make it more likely that people will engage in mutually supportive activities in the face of disaster: “You have to feel like part of a community, that you have a voice, agency, that you are able to participate.”^[27]

These conditions are at the same time crucial to calling forth—both in times of crisis and its absence—the aspect of humanity that Dr. King described when he said that we are made to live together. And they are the conditions for creating an expanding solidarity of action toward the resolution of problems.

Here I am reminded of an exchange between the second Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld (1905–61), and his longtime friend, the American novelist John Steinbeck (1902–68). When asked at a dinner what he could do to support him and the UN, Hammarskjöld told Steinbeck: “Sit on the ground and talk to people. That’s the most important thing.”^[28]

To me, these words embody the spirit of this courageous man, who worked ceaselessly for the resolution of conflicts around the world, undeterred by difficulties, and who continues to be revered as the conscience of the United Nations. Further, they were spoken just weeks before Hammarskjöld set out to negotiate a truce in the Congo, a trip that would end in the plane crash that claimed his life.

These simple words convey his conviction that even in tackling the problems confronting the UN or humankind as a whole, the longest journey starts with a single step, which is to engage in frank conversation with the people in our immediate environment—the place where we have set down the anchor of our lives—and to take concerted action with them. This points to the invaluable role that dialogue plays in enabling each individual to feel that they are part of a community.

At the same time, there is no need for us to be rigid or to overburden the act of dialogue with expectations, with the idea for example that, once started, it cannot stop until a definite resolution has been reached. As the warm tenor of Hammarskjöld’s words suggests, the significance of dialogue lies in the process, in sharing thoughts and taking pleasure in each other’s company.

For my part, I consider the many exchanges I have shared with others—conversations through which we have come to know each other deeply—to be a source of unparalleled joy. For all of us, to expand the circle of dialogue within our community is to expand the space of comfort and security, the space where we know that we are accepted and have a place.

Further, dialogue has the power to help people reach across barriers, enabling them to come together around common concerns. The joy of discovering, through dialogue, that there are those who embrace the same aspiration naturally fosters solidarity toward the resolution of such issues. The truly limitless possibilities of each individual can only fully manifest themselves through our connectedness and our collaborative efforts. It is this solidarity, developed through dialogue, that makes possible the kind of open exchange by which we can find the means to break through the impasses we inevitably confront. In this way, we are empowered to celebrate each seemingly small victory as we continue to advance toward our goal.

With regard to the other condition Ms. Solnit mentions—the awareness that one has an active role to play in a community—nothing is more important than working with others to overcome shared suffering.

At present, I am engaged in a dialogue with the environmentalist Professor Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, co-president of the Club of Rome. Among the topics we have examined is the idea of “self-motivated labor” (Eigenarbeit), which he defines as spontaneous actions taken for the sake of those in our immediate surroundings or for future generations. What is important about this concept is that it is not limited to exerting ourselves on behalf of others but includes the idea of forming and creating a better self, opening the possibility for a virtuous circle.

The Club of Rome

The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist. It is an informal association of people from various fields sharing a common concern for the future of humanity and the planet who are interested in contributing in a systemic, interdisciplinary and holistic manner to bettering the world. It first rose to global prominence with the 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, which explored how exponential growth interacts with finite resources, and has continued to issue indepth reports over the subsequent years.

There can be up to 100 Full Members of the Club of Rome. Together, they currently represent over thirty countries in five continents.

Human dignity does not shine in isolation. It comes to full brilliance through our efforts to cast a bridge connecting the opposing banks of self and other. In the teachings of Buddhism we find these words: “If you light a lantern for another, it will also brighten your own way.”^[29] Actions taken to illuminate the dignity of others inevitably generate the light that reveals our own highest aspects. However difficult our situation or profound our anguish, we always retain the capacity to light the flame of encouragement. This light dispels not only the darkness of others’ suffering, but also that which envelops our own heart. This is a core message of Buddhism.

I am confident that community activities, volunteer and NGO undertakings—as well as the simple act of people who are themselves suffering reaching out to others in need—can all generate an upward spiral of joy. Together with the kind of dialogue touched on above, these efforts can propel us toward the establishment of a society in which all people’s dignity is fully realized.

As Helen Clark, administrator of the UN Development Programme (UNDP), has emphasized: “If all seven billion people in our world were working together to find solutions to our shared problems, what a difference that would make!”^[30]

The foundation for making a truly meaningful difference in efforts to resolve the issues facing our communities and humankind as a whole is to be found in solidarity based on the sharing of joy with others. The challenge ahead of us is to find ways to create value based on that solidarity.

Value creation that calls forth the best in each of us

The final aspect of value creation I would like to explore is value creation that calls forth and awakens the best in each of us.

This year is the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, an event that, among other things, marked the start of a profound transformation in the nature of warfare. This took the form of increasingly indiscriminate targeting of civilian populations as the power of industrial production made it possible to conduct attacks over great distances, undeterred by geographic limitations. The distinction between the actual battle lines and the “home front” was blurred. Attacks against the civilian populace came in the form of the aerial bombardment of cities and unrestricted submarine warfare.

At the same time, ever more ruthless means were used to inflict harm on the enemy. With the enormous scale of the war and the overriding imperative to produce victory in individual battles as quickly and efficiently as possible, the belligerents began using poison gas and other particularly cruel and inhumane weapons.

These strategies were the inevitable outcome of the idea of total war, in which the entire weight of a country’s human and material resources is brought to bear in order to overwhelm the enemy. The result was that World War I saw numerous civilian deaths as well as the massive military casualties. This trend further accelerated in World War II, when there were an estimated 34 million civilian deaths compared to 17 million combatant fatalities.^[31]

In the years since World War I, warfare has become increasingly indiscriminate. The ultimate manifestation of this is nuclear weapons, which embody the readiness to exterminate the entire enemy population. Also symbolic of these trends are unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. This new class of weapon, the most highly evolved form of long-distance military attack, has become the focus of debate within the international community.

Drone attacks—remotely operated strikes to eliminate members of terror organizations, armed groups or those in some other way seen as a threat—are a form of execution conducted outside the scope of normal judicial procedure, one in which the accused is provided no opportunity to offer a legal defense. They are premised on the inevitability of collateral damage—an anodyne term for the deaths of innocent civilians who have the misfortune to find themselves in the target area. These aspects of drone attacks have attracted deepening concern, and last year a special inquiry into drone strikes was conducted at the request of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).

Both nuclear weapons and drones share a disregard for the spirit of humanitarian norms and human rights. At the deepest level, they are rooted in an eliminationist attitude that considers it unacceptable to permit the continued existence of those who have been deemed enemy and will use any means and inflict any form of death or destruction to achieve that end.

What kind of impact does such a radical bifurcation of good and evil have on the human spirit? The ethicist Sissela Bok offers an analysis of an essay by the poet Stephen Spender (1909–95) about his experience in the Spanish Civil War. In this essay, Spender writes:

When I saw photographs of children, murdered by Fascists, I felt furious pity. When the supporters of Franco talked of Red atrocities, I merely felt indignant that people should tell such lies. … I gradually acquired a certain horror of the way in which my own mind worked. It was clear to me that unless I cared about every murdered child impartially, I did not really care about children being murdered at all.^[32]

In other words, according to Bok:

His perception had been distorted by the intensity of his concern for the threatened lives of those on his own side of the conflict and by his horror and distrust of the fascists’ tactics. He had lost all concern for the children on the fascist side and had come to see any reference to their suffering as mere propaganda.^[33]

The Spanish Civil War

The Spanish Civil War (1936–39) was a military revolt against the Republican government of Spain by a rebel faction, referred to as the Nationalists. They consisted primarily of landowners and businessmen and were supported by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The Republicans, who were loyal to the established Spanish Republic, consisted predominantly of urban workers, agricultural laborers and the educated middle class and were backed by the Soviet Union and International Brigade, which attracted many idealistic young people from Europe and America. It was in many ways a proxy and prelude for the forces that would confront each other in World War II. The war was won by the Nationalists, and their leader, Francisco Franco (1892–1975), ruled Spain for the next thirty-six years.

The idea that one’s own side has a monopoly on good and that one’s opponents are the very embodiment of evil was at the heart of the ideological confrontation that divided the world throughout the Cold War. It continues to persist in various forms more than two decades after the end of that conflict. We see this, for example, in assertions that all those who practice a particular religion represent a danger in the form of the threat of terror, or in acquiescence with hate speech and hate crimes directed at a particular ethnicity or culture because of fears of social instability, or in willingness to restrict people’s freedom and prioritize surveillance over human rights in the name of national security.

Even if we acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns about terrorism, social instability or national security, so long as our efforts to respond are rooted in a worldview that classes people into fixed categories of good and evil, the inevitable outcome will be to further fan the flames of fear and mistrust, deepening divisions within society.

All too often, those who are convinced of their own goodness end up mirroring the very qualities—a disregard for humanity and human rights, for example—that they find so repugnant in those they have labeled evil.

Here again, we must learn from Nelson Mandela, from the words he declared to the world upon becoming president:

We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender, and other discrimination. Never, never, and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.^[34]

Efforts to deal with the threat of terrorism, the challenge of social instability and legitimate security concerns must remain rooted in the principle that any form of oppression directed at others is unacceptable. Only then will our attempts to repair the frayed fabric of society produce the results we seek.

The Buddhist teaching of “the mutual possession of the ten worlds” can provide a way of thinking that moves beyond the radical bifurcation of good and evil. It teaches that even those who are experiencing a positive life state (goodness) still bear within them the potential for evil intent and action; it admonishes us to be on guard against the influences that will sway us in this direction. At the same time, it teaches that even the most destructive state of life (evil) is not a fixed or immutable condition; all people at all times retain the capacity to manifest goodness through a fundamental change in their inner resolve.

In Buddhism, the parable of the eye-begging Brahman illustrates the former case. In a past life, when Shariputra, one of Shakyamuni’s ten major disciples, was engaged in bodhisattva practices that entailed selflessly serving the needs of others, he encountered a Brahman who asked for his eye. When Shariputra complied with this extreme request, the Brahman not only failed to thank him but threw the eye on the ground and stomped on it, claiming to be disgusted by its smell. Aghast, Shariputra decided that leading such people as this Brahman to salvation was beyond him; as a result he abandoned the practice he had pursued for so long.

The key message of this parable is not the great difficulty of offering another person one’s eye, but the fact that Shariputra was unable to endure the rejection of that offering. In the moment that he saw his eye being trampled into the earth, the center of gravity of Shariputra’s life reverted from an altruistic concern for others to an isolated pursuit of his own enlightenment. As a result, he sank into the painful darkness of egotism for an unimaginably long time.

Nichiren cites this story first to stress the vulnerability of all people to negative influences. Then, urging his disciples to make a “great vow,”^[35] he emphasizes the necessity of continually renewing a pledge to work for the happiness of others as the means to counteract that vulnerability.

The inner transformation undergone by the ancient Indian ruler King Ashoka (304–232 BCE) illustrates the inverse proposition: that the potential for good exists even in the hearts of those engaged in evil acts.

As ruler of the Mauryan Empire, Ashoka waged war against the state of Kalinga, conquering it around 261 BCE. The war had left 100,000 people dead, with 150,000 taken captive. Lamentations of the survivors rose from the smoldering ruins of people’s homes, filling the air. Confronting this portrait of hellish suffering, Ashoka felt the torments of a biting regret. He repented his cruelty and vowed never to wage war again. Over the remaining decades of his reign, he dispatched peaceful emissaries to other countries, encouraged cultural exchanges and had stone pillars engraved with edicts—such as admonitions against the taking of life—erected throughout the land.

In a dialogue I conducted with the Indian scholar Dr. Neelakanta Radhakrishnan, renowned for his research into the life and ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, he stated:

Within himself, Ashoka changed from a feared tyrant to a pacific leader. Gandhi saw an Ashoka inside every human being, all of whom are therefore capable of the same reformation.^[36]

It was this example from history, coupled with his own relentless confrontation with inner evil, that made it possible for Gandhi to declare his “undying faith in the responsiveness of human nature”^[37] and to maintain his commitment to nonviolence (ahimsa). In consequence, he was able not only to march forward himself but to bring his opponents along with him.^[38]

The teaching of the mutual possession of the ten worlds encourages us to refrain from labeling others as evil, condemning or rejecting them. It urges us instead to a way of life in which we strive together to counter those societal evils in which we are all to some degree complicit. To do this, it is vital that we never lose sight of our own potential for evil, as we strive to bring out the best from within our own and others’ lives.

Even if there are those within another group who are oriented toward violence and intolerance, matters are only made worse and the spiral of hatred accelerated when we view that entire group as our enemy. What we need to do is to unite across our differences to establish clear and universal opposition to all acts of intolerance or violence. The SGI’s efforts to build a culture of peace and a culture of human rights—goals promoted by the United Nations—arise from our conviction that they can contribute to fostering this kind of human society.

As one of the heirs to Gandhi’s thinking and a leader in the fight for civil rights in the United States, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned that the three greatest stumbling blocks to the attainment of freedom were not the direct attacks of bigots but people who are “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice,” “the appalling silence of the good people” and “the ‘do-nothingism’ of the complacent.”^[39]

The true significance of a culture of human rights is not exhausted in the act of warning against those attitudes that have the effect of promoting social evils. It resides in creating a society in which each of us is empowered to bring forth our inner goodness and to strive proactively to protect the rights of all. Together, we can work to promote and strengthen the enjoyment of human rights throughout society.

The Human Rights Council has determined that the focus of the third phase (2015–19) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education will be on media professionals and journalists. Its emphasis will be on education and training in equality and nondiscrimination, with a view to combating stereotypes and violence and fostering respect for diversity. The SGI has consistently supported the World Programme since its initiation in 2005; we will continue to support these efforts, working with relevant UN agencies and fellow NGOs. And we will continue to advance in the challenge of value creation that seeks to call forth the best from within each of us.

Education for global citizenship

Next, I would like to offer proposals focusing on three key areas critical to the effort to create a sustainable global society in which the dignity of each person shines.

The first relates to education, with a particular focus on young people. I discussed earlier the challenge of value creation by the people and for the people with reference to Dr. Arnold Toynbee’s vision for the future: “It is open to us, through our own efforts, to give history, in our own case, some new and unprecedented turn.” Education is the key source of empowerment that enables people to take up this challenge.

When I met with Nelson Mandela in Tokyo in October 1990, we focused on education and youth development as the most crucial themes for creating a new era. President Mandela, who had been released from prison in February of that year, believed that a new South Africa must be built upon a foundation of education. I expressed strong agreement, noting that education is an essential driver of national development whose positive impact extends centuries into the future. Through this exchange, I believe we both deepened our conviction that education is the source of light that enables people’s dignity to shine.

Education holds the key to the future not only of a nation but of all humanity. President Mandela was able to endure over twenty-seven years of imprisonment because he continued to educate himself, nurturing the great dream of healing conflict to create a society of peace and coexistence for all. He wrote these words from prison:

It is only my flesh and blood that are shut up behind these tight walls. Otherwise I remain cosmopolitan in my outlook; in my thoughts I am as free as a falcon. The anchor of all my dreams is the collective wisdom of mankind as a whole.^[40]

He read classical Greek drama to find inspiration and the inner strength to persevere under adversity. By turning Robben Island into a “university,” he and his fellow prisoners strove ceaselessly to develop their capacity to transform their ideals into reality.

The world today needs the kind of education that can develop the capacity to create value, underpinned by indomitable hope and the spirit of learning from the collective wisdom of humankind. This is especially true for those who are suffering in the face of various threats, those who are committed to making the world a better place and members of the younger generation upon whom the future depends.

Last September, the UN General Assembly held a Special Event toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), laying out a schedule for the post-2015 development agenda. A process of intergovernmental negotiations will begin in September this year, and a summit slated to take place in September 2015 will adopt a new set of development goals, widely referred to as sustainable development goals (SDGs).

In recent proposals, I have suggested that targets related to the transition to a zero-waste society, disaster prevention and mitigation, human rights, human security and disarmament be incorporated in the SDGs. I would now urge that targets related to education also be included: specifically, to achieve universal access to primary and secondary education, to eliminate gender disparity at all levels and to promote education for global citizenship.

To set in motion efforts regarding the third of these targets, I would urge that a new program of education for global citizenship be launched in collaboration between the UN and civil society. This would serve as a follow-up to the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) which ends this year.

I have consistently stressed the importance of education for global citizenship in the dialogues I have conducted with leaders and experts from throughout the world, starting with my discussions with Dr. Toynbee more than four decades ago. Likewise, in my peace proposal for 1987, I called for efforts to promote education for global citizenship focused on universal values with emphasis on the four key areas of environment, development, peace and human rights. This proposal was based on the conviction that learning is indispensable in the search for solutions to global problems.

This long-cherished belief underlies such awareness-raising efforts undertaken by the SGI as the “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” exhibition, first held at the UN Headquarters in 1982 and subsequently in cities around the world in support of the World Disarmament Campaign. As a civil society organization, the SGI has continued to engage in grassroots public education through such exhibitions as “War and Peace” (1989), “Toward a Century of Humanity: Human Rights in Today’s World” (1993) and “Building a Culture of Peace for the Children of the World” (2003). These have been shown around the world in support of the UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004) and the UN’s efforts to promote a culture of peace starting in 2000.

Working with other NGOs, the SGI was an early proponent of the DESD and has called for the continuation of an international framework for human rights education while working to promote the DESD and the World Programme for Human Rights Education since they were launched in 2005. Additionally, the SGI provided support to the drafting process of the Earth Charter, a document elucidating principles and values for a sustainable future, and for many years has worked to help instill its spirit in the hearts and minds of people throughout the world.

In June 2012, the SGI and NGOs with whom we have developed collaborative relations over the last three decades cosponsored the interdisciplinary roundtable “The Future We Create,” an official side event at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A follow-up roundtable is scheduled to be held next month in New York to discuss the theme of global citizenship and the future of the UN.

What became clear through the Rio roundtable is the importance of a process of education that does not end with a deepened understanding of problems, but that serves as a catalyst empowering individuals to realize their unlimited potential and exercise leadership for change. Building on past experience and achievements within the UN system, the next step must be to start exploring a new educational framework whose emphasis will expand from individual empowerment to a collective effort to create value.

I would like to suggest three key elements that could form the basis of an educational program for global citizenship. Such education should:

• Deepen understanding of the challenges facing humankind, enable people to explore their causes and instill the shared hope and confidence that such problems, being of human origin, are amenable to human solutions;

• Identify the early signs of impending global problems in local phenomena, develop sensitivity to such signs and empower people to take concerted action; and

• Foster empathetic imagination and a keen awareness that actions that profit one’s own country might have a negative impact on or be perceived as a threat by other countries, elevating this to a shared pledge not to seek one’s happiness and prosperity at the expense of others.

This kind of comprehensive education for global citizenship should be integrated into secondary and tertiary curricula in each national setting. Also, civil society should take the initiative to promote it as an integral aspect of lifelong learning.

In 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched the Global Education First Initiative identifying the fostering of global citizenship as one of three priority areas. I am deeply encouraged by the UN’s engagement with this issue.

The contribution ESD can make to education for global citizenship will be among the central topics at the World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development scheduled to take place in Nagoya, Japan, in November, which will also discuss the future agenda in this endeavor. The achievements and the issues identified through these processes should be taken into consideration in the development of a new educational program for global citizenship.

Youth empowerment toward a sustainable future

Along with education, another area that I suggest should be a focus of the SDGs is the empowerment of youth.

Young people make up one-fourth of the world’s population.^[41] They are the generation that will be most affected by the SDGs, and at the same time, the generation that will most powerfully shape the effort to achieve them. Steps to enable young people to engage in value-creating activities to build a better society should be integrated into the new goals.

Specifically, I suggest the following objectives be considered in establishing the SDGs:

• For all states to strive to secure decent work for all;

• For young people to be able to actively participate in solving the problems facing their societies; and

• For the expansion of youth exchanges to foster friendship and solidarity transcending national borders.

According to some estimates, 202 million people are unemployed in our world today, while some 900 million remain below the US$2 a day poverty line.^[42] The situation surrounding young people is particularly severe. They are often out of work for long periods of time; and even when employed, they are faced with low wages, poor working conditions, unstable contracts and gender disparities. If such conditions persist, they will severely wound the dignity of many young people, depriving them of hope for the future and eroding their will to live.

To tackle this situation, the International Labour Organization (ILO) is encouraging governments to promote steps to ensure decent work for all. Including this among the SDGs would solidify momentum in this direction.

Young people’s participation in the process of solving the problems facing the world is absolutely essential. That this recognition is shared by the world’s young people was affirmed in the declaration adopted at the Global Youth Summit held in Costa Rica last September.

The Global Youth Summit

The BYND 2015 Global Youth Summit, held in San José, Costa Rica, from September 9–11, 2013, and organized by the International Telecommunications Union of the UN, provided a platform for young people from around the world to consolidate recommendations to be fed into discussions on the UN’s post-2015 global development agenda. BYND stands for Broadband and Youth Networking Dialogues, but also for the word “beyond.”

In particular, the youth discussed how technology can drive socioeconomic development in order to help shape the sustainable development agenda in the post-2015 era. In addition to the 700 participants, over 3,000 young people around the world logged in to contribute their ideas over the Internet using a unique crowdsourcing platform and other social media channels.

Active engagement of young people in problem solving is something I called for in my proposal to the UN in 2006. I therefore welcome the UN’s Online Platform for Youth launched last August and further development of similar measures to reflect the voices of young people in countries around the world.

To date, youth exchange programs have mainly focused on students. The expansion of youth exchanges should be included in the SDGs as an expression of the consensus of international society to ensure the broader involvement of young people. The significance of youth exchanges goes beyond even the deepening of mutual understanding; friendship and ties nurtured through exchanges serve as a bulwark against attempts to incite the collective psychologies of hatred and prejudice.

Increasing the number of individuals, especially young people, who embrace an awareness of global citizenship and thus refuse to seek the happiness and prosperity of their own country at the expense of others will counteract dependence on military might and the politics of exclusion. These individuals can play an essential role in building a peaceful and humane society. Friendship cultivated by spending time together face-to-face is an unsurpassed treasure for humanity in the sense that it can kindle a vow against war in the hearts of the rising generation in each country, leading to collaborative efforts to solve global problems.

This year, the Soka Gakkai in Japan launched SOKA Global Action, a campaign to inspire young people’s shared action to address problems facing society. Working with other NGOs and civil society bodies, we are determined to create a broad movement that enables young people to take the lead in tackling the urgent issues confronting our world.

SOKA Global Action campaign

The SOKA Global Action campaign, an initiative begun by youth members of the Soka Gakkai in Japan, was launched in 2014. It consists of three action areas:

(1) Efforts to build a culture of peace and to work together with SGI youth around the world toward nuclear abolition, with a specific focus on the year 2015, which marks the seventieth anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

(2) Promotion of goodwill within Asia through grassroots cultural exchanges between Soka Gakkai youth and young people in South Korea and China.

(3) Assistance for reconstruction efforts in the aftermath of the March 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, with a focus on young people directing their energy into caring for the individuals who were affected by the disaster.

Regional cooperation for resilience

The second key area I would like to discuss relates to international cooperation to minimize the damage caused by extreme weather and other disasters.

According to a report of the World Meteorological Organization issued last July, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate events during the first decade of the twenty-first century, including Hurricane Katrina, floods in Pakistan and drought in the Amazon Basin.^[43] Extreme weather events have continued with unabated frequency into the current decade. In 2013 alone, Typhoon Haiyan caused severe damage in the Philippines and Vietnam, heavy rain brought flooding in central Europe and India, and much of the Northern Hemisphere experienced record high temperatures as a result of heat waves. In addition to the direct damage, climate change seriously impacts sectors vital to the livelihood of countless people around the world, including agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The worldwide financial impact of weather- related damage is estimated at US$200 billion a year.^[44]

The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has begun to address the loss and damage associated with climate change as a separate issue from the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The nineteenth session that took place in Warsaw, Poland, last November agreed upon the Warsaw International

Mechanism for Loss and Damage. Under this mechanism, developed countries will be asked to provide financial assistance to developing countries impacted by climate change. The mechanism lacks legally binding force, however, and the next opportunity for review will not be until 2016, so there are questions about its actual effectiveness.

Last November, the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security issued a report, warning: “Current levels of adaptation and mitigation efforts are insufficient to avoid negative impacts from climate stressors.”^[45] Clearly, a new and more effective approach is an urgent priority.

Here, I would like to propose the establishment of regional cooperative mechanisms to reduce damage from extreme weather and disasters, strengthening resilience in regions such as Asia and Africa. These would function alongside global measures developed under the UNFCCC.

There are three aspects to the response to extreme weather events and other disasters: disaster preparedness, disaster relief and post-disaster recovery. It is not uncommon for relief assistance to be provided by other countries, but international cooperation in the other two areas still tends to be the exception. Even when there has been abundant emergency relief assistance in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, it remains extremely difficult for a country to recover post-disaster and strengthen preparedness relying only on its own resources. Establishing a mechanism for mutual assistance based on lessons learned from shared experiences is therefore an urgent priority.

At present, the UN engages in conflict prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery as an integrated process under the auspices of the Peacebuilding Commission. In the same way, disaster preparedness, disaster relief and post-disaster recovery need to be treated as an integrated process. To this end, I would like to suggest that neighboring countries set up a system of cooperation for responding to extreme weather and other disasters. Such systems should be built on relations among neighboring countries because, unlike relief efforts immediately following a disaster, preparedness and recovery require sustained cooperation. Such cooperation is facilitated by geographic proximity, as is the sharing of lessons and knowledge on preparedness among countries exposed to similar threats.

This alone would be significant, but it could bring immeasurable value to an entire region once cooperation regarding extreme weather and disasters among neighboring countries begins to fully function—the possibility of transforming countries’ understanding of and approach to security.

A report released at the International Conference on Climate Security in the Asia-Pacific Region held in Seoul, Korea, in March 2013, found that at least 110 countries around the world consider the effects of climate change to represent a “serious national security issue.”^[46] This constitutes an important change as, in the past, many governments viewed climate change as just another environmental issue and accorded it a low priority. This has changed in recent years, and more and more governments now see the need to treat it as a threat to national security.

Noteworthy here is the fact that measures to enhance security in line with this new perception will not lead to what has been called the “security dilemma,” a vicious cycle in which the steps a state takes to heighten security are perceived by other states as an increased threat, causing them to respond with similar measures, only leading to further mistrust and tension.

Above all, the unpredictable nature of extreme weather and natural disasters and the sense of vulnerability they provoke open the door to empathy and solidarity across national borders. Numerous countries have demonstrated this in their willingness to help those in need, rushing relief teams and offering assistance to the affected country in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

This is a point I discussed in the dialogue I am conducting with the renowned peace scholar Professor Kevin P. Clements. Both our countries were hit by earthquakes around the same time in 2011—New Zealand by the Christchurch Earthquake and Japan by the Tohoku Earthquake. Professor Clements described the wide-scale international cooperation he witnessed on that occasion, and noted:

It underlines the ways in which we all know in our heart of hearts that there is a common humanity that unites all of us irrespective of our cultural, linguistic, or national differences. It’s a pity that this common humanity is often only realized in times of crisis. It is important, therefore, that we maintain this “disaster spirit” in normal times as well.^[47]

Indeed, as neighboring countries make sustained efforts to cooperate in strengthening resilience and recovery assistance, the spirit of mutual help and support can become the shared culture of the region.

The knowledge, technology and know-how that facilitates cooperation in these areas is such that its value to all parties is enhanced through sharing. This is in contrast to the secrecy that typically surrounds military-based technologies and information. The more that countries share information and technology in resilience-related fields, the greater the opportunity to minimize damage, which in turn reduces disaster risk and enhances security throughout the region.

This is in line with the concept of “knowledge as a global public good,”^[48] described by the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz employing the following words of Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), the third president of the United States: “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”^[49]

Disaster resilience consists of four elements: robustness (the strength of systems to withstand stress without loss of function); redundancy (systems that allow for substitution); resourcefulness (the capacity to mobilize society’s physical and intellectual resources); and rapidity (the capacity to identify priorities to prevent further disruption and speed up the process of recovery). We can receive ideas about these elements from others without in any way lessening their capacity, as Jefferson’s analogy makes clear.

I urge that the pioneering initiative for such regional cooperation be taken in Asia, a region that has been severely impacted by disasters. A successful model here will inspire collaborative work to strengthen resilience and recovery assistance in other regions.

A foundation for this already exists: the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), whose members include the ASEAN countries as well as China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea. Making disaster relief one of its security priorities, ARF has in place a framework for regularly discussing better ways of cooperation. ARF has conducted three disaster relief exercises to date, consisting of civil-military coordinated drills involving medical, sanitation and water supply teams from various countries.

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established as a result of agreements reached at the Twenty-Sixth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting and Post Ministerial Conference, held in Singapore from July 23–25, 1993. The inaugural meeting of the ARF was held in Bangkok on July 25, 1994. The objectives of the forum are to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest and concern, and to make significant contributions to efforts toward confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region.

The current participants in the ARF are: Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, the United States and Vietnam.

In his 1903 book Jinsei chirigaku (The Geography of Human Life), Tsunesaburo Makiguchi called for a transformation from zero-sum military competition to “humanitarian competition.” The exercises conducted by ARF may foreshadow this kind of transition.

In an era dominated by imperialism and colonialism, Makiguchi observed a transition in the arenas of competition among states from the military to the political to the economic. He called for a departure from these modes of competition, which seek to secure one’s own prosperity at the expense of others, advocating instead that states direct their efforts to achieving the objectives of humanitarian competition.

Makiguchi explored the possibility of a qualitative transformation of military, political and economic competition, a shift to “engaging consciously in collective life” by choosing to “do things for the sake of others, because by benefiting others, we benefit ourselves.” Makiguchi described his humanitarian perspective as follows: “What is important is to set aside egotistical motives, striving to protect and improve not only one’s own life, but also the lives of others.”^[50]

More than a century after he made this call, ARF’s disaster relief exercises can be seen as an opportunity for states to pursue a qualitative transformation in the nature of military competition.

As countries continue to work together to strengthen cooperation for disaster relief, resolving mistrust and ill feelings toward one another in the process, they can develop collaborative relationships robust enough to be extended to post-disaster recovery operations. As a means to promote this, I would like to propose an Asia recovery resilience agreement, as a framework drawing on the experience of the ARF.

One important avenue for promoting disaster preparedness, an integral aspect of resilience, is face-to-face exchanges and cooperation among local government bodies in various countries through sister-city agreements. I urge that Japan, China and South Korea take the initiative in mutually strengthening resilience through such sister-city relationships.

Currently, there are 354 sister-city agreements between Japan and China, 151 between Japan and South Korea and 149 between China and South Korea. Further, the Japan-China-South Korea Trilateral Local Government Conference has taken place annually since 1999 to further promote this kind of interaction.

Building upon this foundation, ties of friendship and trust could be made even stronger through collaborative efforts to strengthen resilience, including disaster prevention and mitigation. Members of the younger generation should take the lead in this. Sister-city exchanges and cooperation would then evolve into collective action connecting cities across national borders, eventually creating spaces of peaceful coexistence throughout the region.

If we are incapable of making sincere efforts to cultivate friendly relations with our neighbors, how can we presume to speak of contributing to global peace? The spirit of mutual aid demonstrated in times of disaster should be the basis of day-to-day relations among neighboring countries.

I strongly urge that a Japan-China-South Korea summit be held at the earliest opportunity to initiate dialogue toward this kind of cooperation. Ideally, this should include cooperation on environmental problems along the lines I proposed last year. The 3rd World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction to be held in Sendai, Japan, in March 2015, should serve as an impetus for further talks to explore the modalities of concretizing such cooperation.

By taking up this challenge, we have the opportunity to generate new waves of value creation—not only in Asia, but throughout the world.

For a world free of nuclear weapons

The third area I would like to explore regards proposals for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunami are characterized by the fact that, while it may be possible to lessen their impact, it is impossible to prevent their occurrence. This is in sharp contrast to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, whose use would wreak devastation on an even greater scale than that of natural disasters but which can be prevented and even eliminated through the clear exercise of political will by the world’s governments.

In August last year, chemical weapons were used in Syria, resulting in the deaths of many civilians. This act was met with strong condemnation from the international community, with the UN Security Council adopting a resolution underscoring that “no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons”^[51] and mandating the prompt destruction of any such weapons in Syria.

This use of chemical weapons renewed people’s awareness of the inhumane nature of weapons of mass destruction, and the Security Council sternly affirmed the principle that no one is permitted to possess or use chemical weapons.

It is incomprehensible that this same principle has yet to be applied to nuclear weapons.

In its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice warned:

The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.^[52]

As this suggests, the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons would be incomparably more catastrophic than even those of chemical weapons.

For many years, the predominant logic of national security in international politics blunted the political will to confront and debate the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The Final Document of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, which expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons,”^[53] sparked a change in the terms of the debate.

In March last year, the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons was held in Oslo, Norway, representing the first time in the almost seven decades since the start of the nuclear era that the international community has sought to reassess these weapons from a humanitarian perspective. A key objective of the conference was to make a scientific assessment of the impact. Among the key findings was a reaffirmation that “It is unlikely that any state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those affected.”^[54]

These findings have helped put the wind at the back of efforts by a growing number of governments urging that the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons be given a central place in all discussions of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Since May 2012, these governments have repeatedly issued Joint Statements on this topic, and the fourth such statement, issued in October last year, was signed by the governments of 125 states, including Japan and several others under the nuclear umbrella of nuclear armed allies.

This movement focusing on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapon use emerged against the backdrop of widespread grassroots efforts by the world’s people, including the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have long raised their voices in the cry that no one must ever again experience the horror of nuclear war. It is a development of profound significance that two- thirds of the member states of the United Nations have confirmed that:

It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed.^[55]

Similarly, at the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, Soviet General-Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) held frank discussions in pursuit of an agreement on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, something made possible by a shared concern about the catastrophic consequences of their use. Reflecting on this, Gorbachev later recalled:

Without Chernobyl, Reykjavík would not have happened. Without Reykjavík, nuclear disarmament efforts would not have moved forward. … If we were unable to deal with the radiation released from a single nuclear reactor, how would it be possible to deal with the radioactive contamination unleashed by nuclear detonations throughout the Soviet Union, the United States and Japan? It would have been the end.^[56]

Although in the end it proved impossible to bridge differences regarding the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and talks broke down just short of an agreement on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, Reagan had from before this meeting embraced a vision of a nuclear-free world, stating:

I have a dream of a world without nuclear weapons. I want our children and grandchildren particularly to be free of these weapons.^[57]

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)

In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan initiated the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also known as Star Wars, as a means of countering the Soviet nuclear threat. The idea behind SDI was to create a defense technology that could shield the US against incoming ballistic missiles by destroying them in flight before they reached their targets. Although SDI was never deployed, it put economic pressure on the Soviet Union to develop countermeasures.

While Reagan considered SDI to be essentially defensive in nature and even offered to share the technology, GeneralSecretary Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union saw it as destabilizing the deterrent balance and therefore threatening. Failure to agree on the nature of SDI testing that would be allowed under a new agreement contributed to the breakdown of talks on an agreement for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The following year, 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the first bilateral agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union eliminating an entire class of nuclear weapons, was signed.

In his June 2013 speech in Berlin, US President Barack Obama offered this apt summation of current conditions: “We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe.”^[58]

The possibility of an accident involving nuclear weapons, an attack launched on the basis of misinformation, or even nuclear terrorism is a constant concern as it would produce catastrophic humanitarian consequences. These dangers are compounded by the increasing number of countries possessing nuclear weapons.

A careful examination of both the differences and the commonalities between the present situation and the Cold War can generate new insights into the path to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the most striking difference is that it has become increasingly difficult to imagine the kind of full-scale nuclear exchange that was feared during the Cold War era. At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the reduced military utility of nuclear weapons in responding to contemporary threats such as terrorism.

In other words, we have moved from an era in which the danger arose from the existence of conflict to one that is made dangerous by the continued existence of nuclear weapons. The intense confrontation of the Cold War provoked a sense of crisis, giving rise to a stance of mutual deterrence in which the two sides threatened each other with nuclear arsenals of unimaginable destructive capability. In contrast, today it is the continued existence of nuclear weapons in itself that gives rise to insecurity, pushing new states to acquire nuclear weapons while leaving existing nuclear-weapon states convinced of the impossibility of relinquishing these arms.

The global economic crisis that began six years ago has eroded the fiscal standing of virtually every national government, and yet the global cost of maintaining these increasingly inutile weapons is an astonishing US$100 billion per annum.^[59] More and more people are coming to see nuclear weapons as a burden weighing down national finances rather than an asset that enhances national prestige. In light of all these factors, the motivation of the nuclear-weapon states to take proactive steps to reduce the threat posed by the continued existence of these weapons should increase.

In terms of commonalities or continuities between the Cold War era and the present, there is the singular fact that, in the sixty- eight years since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no leader of any country has ordered a nuclear strike.

In this regard, it is useful to remember the following words of US President Harry S. Truman (1884–1972), spoken in 1948, some three years after he made the decision to use nuclear weapons against those two Japanese cities:

You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon. … It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses. We have got to treat this differently from rifles and cannon and ordinary things like that.^[60]

In making this statement, Truman was urging restraint and acknowledging America’s special responsibility as a nuclear-armed nation. The following year, the Soviet Union conducted its first successful nuclear test explosion. Since then, the world has lived under the shadow of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. The experience of being in possession of the “nuclear button” that would launch a devastating strike has in gradual and imperceptible measures impressed on several generations of leaders the reality that nuclear weapons are not like other armaments, that they are not military weapons. This in turn has served as an effective restraint against their use.

Last year, an open-ended working group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons was established on the basis of an earlier UN General Assembly resolution. At a meeting held in June, the Austrian government, which played a leading role in securing passage of the resolution, submitted a working paper that posed the following question:

All States are united in the universal objective to achieve and maintain a world free of nuclear weapons. However, there are different perceptions as to the path that would most effectively lead to achieving the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. How can this perception gap be bridged?^[61]

In my view there is a simple sentiment that can bridge differences between, on the one hand, the signatories of the Joint Statements on the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and, on the other hand, the leaders who, like President Truman before them, still feel compelled to rely on nuclear weapons to realize national security objectives even while sensing that they are fundamentally different from other weapons. And that simple sentiment is the desire never to witness or experience the catastrophic humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.

In September 1957, as the nuclear arms race was accelerating, my mentor, Josei Toda, issued a declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, denouncing them as an impermissible threat to the right of the world’s people to live. Leading up to that statement, on January 1 of the same year, he declared: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.”^[62]

It may be that there are a number of political leaders for whom the phrase “under any circumstances”—as it appears in the Joint Statement—provokes concerns about restrictions on military options needed to achieve national security goals. For them, perhaps rephrasing this to clarify that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should not be visited “on any human being”—refocusing on individual victims—will reduce the urge to establish exceptions that could justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons, whose core function is to wipe out unarmed populations, exist on the far side of a line which must not be crossed. As Toda’s vehement denunciation made clear, it is impermissible to inflict such catastrophic humanitarian consequences on any human being. I believe this recognition holds the key to transcending the very idea that nuclear weapons can somehow be used to realize national security objectives.

To date, I have repeatedly called for a nuclear abolition summit to be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki next year, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of those cities. Such a meeting would be a gathering of the world’s people, transcending questions of nationality or political status, where a shared pledge is made to take steps that will lead to a world without nuclear weapons.

Specifically, I would hope that representatives of the countries that signed the Joint Statement, of global civil society and, above all, youthful citizens from throughout the world including the nuclear-weapon states will gather in a world youth summit for nuclear abolition to adopt a declaration affirming their commitment to bringing the era of nuclear weapons to an end. The greatest significance of such a summit and declaration would lie in the spur they provide to future action.

A nuclear weapons non-use agreement

Concurrent with this, I would like to make two concrete proposals.

The first is for a nuclear weapons non-use agreement. This would be a natural outcome of placing the catastrophic humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons use at the center of the deliberations of the 2015 NPT Review Conference, and it would be a means of advancing the implementation of Article VI of the NPT under which the nuclear-weapon states have committed to pursuing nuclear disarmament in good faith.

Since the 1995 decision to indefinitely extend the NPT, the need for a legally binding instrument providing negative security assurances (guarantees against nuclear attack) to the non-nuclear-weapon states has been stressed. A nuclear weapons non- use agreement, in which the nuclear-weapon states pledge, as an obligation rooted in the core spirit of the NPT, not to use nuclear weapons against states parties to the treaty, would be a means of responding to this need. Such an agreement would have the effect of greatly reducing the instability produced by the existence of nuclear weapons in different regions. It would also be a significant step toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security arrangements.

The Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, after listing a series of measures that should be taken by the nuclear-weapon states, calls on them to report on their progress to the 2014 Preparatory Committee meeting, and notes that the 2015 NPT Review Conference will “take stock and consider the next steps for the full implementation of Article VI.”^[63] Among other measures, the document calls on the nuclear-weapon states to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security arrangements. An agreement on the non-use of nuclear weapons that includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council would represent a substantive move in that direction.

The 2016 G8 Summit is scheduled to be held in Japan. An expanded summit dedicated to realizing a world without nuclear weapons could be held in conjunction with this and would provide an opportune venue for making a public pledge to early signing of such an agreement.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit held two years ago, the leaders of the participating states expressed the shared view that “The circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.”^[64] As this shows, the perceived utility of nuclear weapons continues to decrease.

Now is the time for the nuclear-weapon states to muster the political will to fulfill their obligations under the NPT regime and to give it form as a non-use agreement.

In the late 1960s, UK Secretary of State for Defence Denis Healey offered this analysis of the nature of extended nuclear deterrence during the Cold War: It required only 5 percent credibility of American retaliation to deter a Soviet nuclear attack, whereas 95 percent credibility was needed to reassure the European states.^[65] As this would suggest, the policies of the countries that have relied on the nuclear umbrella of their allies have been one major factor sustaining the current excessive level of nuclear armament.

The establishment of a non-use agreement would bring an enhanced sense of physical and psychological security to such states, opening the way to security arrangements that are not dependent on nuclear weapons. This would in turn create the necessary conditions for a reduced role for nuclear weapons. Regions such as Northeast Asia and the Middle East, which are not currently covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones, could take advantage of a non-use agreement to declare themselves “nuclear weapon non-use zones,” as a preliminary step to becoming nuclear-weapon-free.

Even as it remains under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, Japan recently signed the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons. It is my strong hope that Japan will rediscover its original motivation as a country that has suffered the tragedy of atomic attack and will join with other countries in taking the lead toward the establishment of such a non-use agreement and ultimately of non-use zones.

Strategies for nuclear prohibition

My second specific proposal is to utilize the process that is developing around the Joint Statements on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons to broadly enlist international public opinion and catalyze negotiations for the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons. Needless to say, this should be parallel with and complementary to efforts carried out within the NPT framework.

In my proposal two years ago, I explored the possibility of a two-stage approach to nuclear weapons prohibition and abolition. This could take the form of a treaty expressing the commitment, made in light of the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, to the future relinquishment of reliance on these weapons as a means of achieving security, coupled with separate protocols with strict conditions for entry into force defining concrete prohibition and verification regimes. Such an approach, I argued, would mean that even if the entry into force of the separate protocols took time, the treaty would express the clear will of the international community that nuclear weapons have no place in our world. Such a declaration would, in my view, open the way to finally ending the era of nuclear weapons.

In this context, I would like to suggest that the formula adopted in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which will only enter into force when a series of stringent conditions have all been met, be considered as a possible model for the protocols of a nuclear prohibition treaty. This would be meaningful because the purpose of such a treaty is not to sanction or punish the use of nuclear weapons, but to establish and universalize the norm for their prohibition.

In addition to the 125 countries that signed the Joint Statement, I believe there are a number of governments that share this concern but, for various security-related reasons, find it difficult to accept a prohibition on use. For such countries, the inclusion within the treaty’s basic structure of institutional assurances such as I have been discussing could serve to ease these concerns, lowering the threshold for more countries to sign and ratify a nuclear prohibition treaty.

Regardless of the specifics of the approach used, it is important to remember that even a non-use agreement is only a beachhead toward our ultimate goal—the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons. That goal will only be realized through accelerated efforts propelled by the united voices of global civil society.

In that regard, the period from this February, when the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons will be held in Mexico, through the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 2015, will be critical. During this crucial time, the SGI will continue working with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and other like-minded groups to bring together and amplify the voices of the world’s citizens—of youth in particular—calling for a world free of nuclear weapons.

In April of last year, the youth members of the SGI conducted a public opinion survey of young people in nine countries regarding nuclear weapons and their humanitarian consequences. The results, which were forwarded to Cornel Feruta, chair of the NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee, found that 90 percent of respondents considered nuclear weapons inhumane and some 80 percent supported a treaty outlawing them.^[66]

The work of building a world without nuclear weapons signifies more than just the elimination of these horrific weapons. Rather, it is a process by which the people themselves, through their own efforts, take on the challenge of realizing a new era of peace and creative coexistence. This is the necessary precondition for a sustainable global society, a world in which all people—above all, the members of future generations—can live in the full enjoyment of their inherent dignity as human beings.

If we think of this as the work of value creation through the unified efforts of the inhabitants of the twenty-first century, it becomes clear that the key role must be played by the world’s youth. When the young people who will bear the hopes and burdens of the coming era unite in the determination that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist, and that the horrors of nuclear weapons must never be visited upon anyone again, there is no obstacle that cannot be overcome.

The members of the SGI are determined to continue striving to eliminate nuclear weapons and other causes of misery on Earth, and to further our efforts for value creation, working together with the world’s youth and all those who are committed to a hopeful vision of the future.

Value Creation for Global Change: Building Resilient and Sustainable Societies

To commemorate January 26, the anniversary of the founding of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to offer thoughts on how we can redirect the currents of the twenty-first century toward greater hope, solidarity and peace in order to construct a sustainable global society, one in which the dignity of each individual shines with its inherent brilliance.

In light of the increasing incidence of natural disasters and extreme weather events in recent years, as well as severe humanitarian crises caused by international and domestic conflicts, there has been growing stress on the importance of enhancing the resilience of human societies. In the broadest sense, resilience can be thought of in terms of realizing a hopeful future, rooted in people’s natural desire to work together toward common goals.

Reforming and opening up the inner capacities of our lives can enable effective reform and empowerment on a global scale. This is what we in the SGI call human revolution. Its focus is empowerment that brings forth the limitless possibilities of each individual. The steady accumulation of changes on the individual and community level paves the path for humanity to surmount the common issues we face.

The challenge of value creation is that of linking the micro and the macro in ways that reinforce positive transformation on both planes.

The Buddhist philosophy embraced by members of the SGI urges people to live with a sense of purposefulness that can be expressed as a commitment to fulfilling a profound pledge or vow. It encourages people to regard their immediate surroundings as the arena for fulfilling their mission in life, even when beset by great difficulties, and to aspire to create personal narratives that will be a source of enduring hope.

Education for global citizenship

I would like to offer specific proposals focusing on three key areas critical to the effort to create a sustainable global society. The first relates to education with a particular focus on young people.

A summit slated to take place in September 2015 will adopt a new set of global development goals, widely referred to as sustainable development goals (SDGs). I urge that targets related to education be included among these: specifically, to achieve universal access to primary and secondary education, to eliminate gender disparity at all levels and to promote education for global citizenship.

An educational program for global citizenship should deepen understanding of the challenges facing humankind; it should identify the early signs of impending global problems in local phenomena, empowering people to take action; and it should foster the spirit of empathy and coexistence with an awareness that actions that profit one’s own country might have a negative impact or be perceived as a threat by other countries.

Another area that should be a focus of the SDGs along with education is empowering youth. Specifically, I suggest the following guidelines be included in establishing the SDGs:

• For all states to strive to secure decent work for all;
• For young people to be able to actively participate in solving the problems facing society and the world; and
• For the expansion of youth exchanges to foster friendship and solidarity transcending national borders.

Youth exchanges, in particular, help nurture friendship and ties that serve as a bulwark against the collective psychologies of hatred and prejudice. As such, their inclusion in the SDGs would be of great significance.

Strengthening resilience

Second, I would like to propose the establishment of regional cooperative mechanisms to reduce damage from extreme weather and disasters, strengthening resilience in regions such as Asia and Africa.

Disaster preparedness, disaster relief and post-disaster recovery should be treated as an integrated process. To this end, I would like to suggest that neighboring countries establish a system of cooperation for responding to disasters. Through such sustained efforts to cooperate in strengthening resilience and recovery assistance, the spirit of mutual help and support can become the shared culture of the region.

I urge that the pioneering initiative for such regional cooperation be taken in Asia, a region that has been severely impacted by disasters. A successful model here will inspire collaboration in other regions. A foundation for this already exists in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which has a framework for discussing better cooperation. I call on countries in the region to establish an Asia recovery resilience agreement, a framework drawing from the experience of the ARF.

Further, efforts to strengthen resilience through sister-city exchanges and cooperation provide an important basis for creating spaces of peaceful coexistence throughout the region. I strongly urge that a Japan-China-South Korea summit be held at the earliest opportunity to initiate dialogue toward this kind of cooperation, including cooperation on environmental problems.

Abolition of nuclear weapons

The third area I would like to discuss regards proposals for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

The Final Document of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference and the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo, Norway, last year have helped encourage efforts by a growing number of governments to place the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons at the center of all discussions of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.

Since May 2012, these governments have repeatedly issued Joint Statements on this topic, and the fourth such statement, issued in October 2013, was signed by the governments of 125 states, including Japan and several other states under the nuclear umbrella of nuclear-weapon states.

The shared recognition that nuclear weapons fundamentally differ from other weapons, that they exist on the far side of a line which must not be crossed, and that it is unacceptable to inflict their catastrophic humanitarian consequences on any human being–this recognition holds the key to transcending the very idea that nuclear weapons can be used to realize national security objectives.

I have repeatedly called for a nuclear abolition summit to be held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki next year in 2015, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of those cities. Specifically, I hope that representatives of the countries that signed the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, as well as representatives of global civil society and, above all, youthful citizens from throughout the world, will gather in a world youth summit for nuclear abolition to adopt a declaration affirming their commitment to bringing the era of nuclear weapons to an end.

Concurrent with this, I would like to make two concrete proposals. The first is for a nuclear weapons non-use agreement. This would be a natural outcome of placing the catastrophic humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons use at the center of the deliberations for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, and it would be a means of advancing the implementation of Article VI of the NPT under which the nuclear-weapon states have committed to pursuing nuclear disarmament in good faith.

The establishment of a non-use agreement, in which the nuclear-weapon states pledge, as an obligation rooted in the core spirit of the NPT, not to use nuclear weapons against states parties to the treaty, would bring an enhanced sense of physical and psychological security to states that have relied on the nuclear umbrella of their allies, opening the way to security arrangements that are not dependent on nuclear weapons.

The 2016 G8 Summit is scheduled to be held in Japan. An expanded summit dedicated to realizing a world without nuclear weapons could be held in conjunction with this and would provide an opportune venue for making a public pledge to early signing.

My second specific proposal is to utilize the process that is developing around the Joint Statements on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use to broadly enlist international public opinion and catalyze negotiations for the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons.

It is important that we remember that even a non-use agreement is only a beachhead toward our ultimate goal–the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons. That goal will only be realized through accelerated efforts propelled by the united voices of global civil society.

The members of the SGI are determined to continue our efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons and all other causes of misery on Earth, to further our efforts for value creation, working with the world’s youth and all those who are committed to a hopeful vision for the future.

On March 8, Inés Vázquez González of Soka Gakkai Spain represented the Buddhist Union of Spain at an interfaith symposium on women, leadership and religion in Madrid. Commemorating International Women’s Day, the event was organized by the Foundation for Pluralism and Coexistence that is affiliated with the Prime Minister’s Office. Ms. Vázquez joined a panel discussion with five other female religious practitioners and presented a Buddhist perspective on gender equality.

Soka Gakkai organizations in Panama and Mexico held events to commemorate March 8, International Women’s Day. On March 8, SGI-Panama organized an online seminar on gender equality featuring three guest speakers that spoke on the importance of women having the freedom to choose their roles at home and in society, and the significance of inner-motivated transformation. On March 11, Soka Gakkai Mexico held an online gathering on the theme of women’s empowerment in a century of humanism.

A Shared Pledge for a More Humane Future: To Eliminate Misery from the Earth (2015)

Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2015

On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to offer some thoughts on ways to generate greater solidarity among the people of the world for peace and humane values and for the elimination of needless suffering from the Earth.

The future is determined by the depth and intensity of the vow or pledge embraced by people living in the present moment. As human beings, we possess the capacity to take steps to ensure that no one else, including future generations, must endure the sufferings that afflict us today.

In the seventy years since its founding, the United Nations has expanded the horizon of its activities to confront a range of global issues. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted in 2000 with a target date of 2015, were designed to improve the conditions of people suffering from hunger and poverty. Last July, the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—new goals which will continue the efforts initiated under the MDGs toward a 2030 target date—released a proposal that contains much of interest. In particular, such phrases as “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” and “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages”^[1] express the commitment to protect the dignity of all people without exception.

The world’s efforts to achieve the MDGs produced important successes such as reducing the number of people living in conditions of extreme poverty by 700 million and achieving a major reduction in the disparity between boys and girls receiving primary education. However, many regions and populations have yet to experience concrete improvements. Aware of these issues, the Open Working Group sought to establish certain universal minimums. Having urged in past proposals and elsewhere that the new international goals for the post-2015 development agenda leave no one behind, I welcome this stance.

I recall that my mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda (1900–58), moved by the suffering of the people of Hungary in the wake of the unsuccessful 1956 uprising, stated: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.”^[2]

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) famously declared: “Justice is indivisible.”^[3] This was also Toda’s conviction, derived from his experience of being jailed along with first Soka Gakkai president Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944) for resisting the thought control policies of the Japanese militarists during World War II. He understood that peace and security, prosperity and happiness, are things that cannot be enjoyed by one group of people while others suffer from their lack. When the Korean War was escalating, he expressed a deeply personal concern: “because of this heinous war, so many have lost husbands and wives, and so many must now search for their missing children or parents.”^[4]

The basis for his actions was the spirit of empathy with the suffering of ordinary people. He expressed this in his vision of “global nationalism”—that human beings have the right to live in peace and happiness, regardless of where they live or what their nationality. At the core of this vision was an intense desire to rid the world of misery, and this continues to animate the SGI’s activities in the fields of peace, culture and education and in support of the United Nations.

The effort to achieve the inclusiveness of “all people everywhere” that runs through the proposal by the Open Working Group and to enlist further cooperation to this end will be fraught with difficulty. It is therefore vital that we return to the spirit of the UN Charter, which admits no exception in its pledge—inscribed in the Preamble—to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person” and to promote “the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

I would now like to discuss three priority themes for promoting the achievement of the UN’s new international development goals and accelerating efforts to eliminate misery from the face of the planet.

The rehumanization of politics and economics

The first priority theme is the “rehumanization of politics and economics” as a means of removing the causes of human suffering.

In August of last year, the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, which I founded to honor my mentor’s legacy, held a conference of senior research fellows in Istanbul, Turkey. The conference analyzed such areas of concern as the Syrian civil war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the situations in Iraq and Ukraine and heightening tensions in East Asia. At the same time, the conference placed emphasis on emerging positive trends and exchanged views on how to support and reinforce them. In addition to such critical issues as the strengthening of the UN and other international agencies and developing the powers of empathy, imagination and creativity among members of the younger generation, there was an important focus on the rehumanization of politics making its prime motivation the alleviation of the suffering of individuals.

The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) have made clear the role of states in protecting basic human rights, and yet states are often the main source of threats to people’s lives and dignity. This is a concern about which I have exchanged views with Toda Institute Secretary-General Dr. Kevin Clements, the organizer of the conference.

The most grievous example of this is war. In the years since the end of World War II only a handful of countries have been entirely able to avoid involvement in armed conflict. Further, in all too many cases, human rights and civil liberties have been constrained in the name of national security, and the prioritization of enhancing national strength has often come at the expense of the more vulnerable members of society. In recent years, various crises such as natural disasters and extreme weather events have exposed people to conditions of sudden deprivation. Responding to such suffering is one of the core responsibilities of any political system. The same applies to the realm of economics.

Two years ago, Pope Francis issued a widely cited challenge to our current economic system: “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”^[5] Indeed, the fixation on such macro indices as rates of economic growth often ends up marginalizing concern for the life, dignity and livelihood of individuals, such that the increased pace of economic activity fails to alleviate the struggles people are facing on a daily basis.

The English word “politics” is derived from the Greek term politeia, which among its meanings indicates the role of citizens within the state. The term for “economics” in Japanese is an abbreviation of a four-character Chinese expression meaning “to bring order to society and ease the suffering of the people.” Today, the original senses of these words have been obscured, and the driving principles of political and economic action seem only to create even greater suffering for those in already difficult circumstances.

This brings to mind the concept of dharma, which, according to early Buddhist teachings, was stressed by Shakyamuni as the fundamental path by which people should live. Dharma, which is derived from the root dhṛ, is a Sanskrit term meaning “that which supports or upholds.” In Chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures, this was rendered into terms meaning “the law” or “the way.” In other words, it expresses the idea that as individuals we require something which supports or upholds us; that, as explained by the Buddhist scholar Hajime Nakamura (1912–99), there are paths and principles that we as human beings must observe and maintain.^[6]

While it is only natural that specific aspects of economic and political practice should change in accordance with the times, there are principles that must be adhered to and standards of behavior that cannot be ignored. In his teachings during the final stages of his life, Shakyamuni encouraged his followers to live their lives at all times in accord with this underlying dharma. He compared dharma to an island, by which he sought to express the idea that it functions in the midst of the realities of society as an island does during a flood, protecting people’s lives and providing a place of refuge. Extrapolating from this, we could say that it is the role of politics and economics to offer in times of crisis a space of security, especially for the vulnerable, a basis from which people can regain the hope needed to live.

If we reconsider the origins of politics from the viewpoint of ordinary people, we find the almost prayerful hope that through their one vote or participation they can make society a better place. Likewise, the origins of economics are to be found in the strong desire of ordinary people to play a useful role in society through their work or occupation. When politics functions on a grand scale, however, we encounter what has been described as a “democratic deficit,” in which the popular will is not reflected in policy. The corresponding phenomenon in the realm of economics would be the kind of excesses of the financial sector in which uncontrolled speculation wreaks destruction on the real economy.

What, then, are the principles we must embrace if we are to restrain these trends and effect the necessary course adjustment to our present political and economic systems?

I think the following words Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) wrote to a friend are relevant here: “Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”^[7] What Gandhi is urging us to keep in mind when making crucial decisions is the suffering of the real people with whom we share this world, rather than a particular political dynamic or economic theory.

I feel that this is deeply congruent with the idea of the Middle Way taught in Buddhism. The Middle Way does not mean simply avoiding extremes of thought or action. Rather, it refers to the process of attaining the way; that is, of living and making one’s mark on society while constantly interrogating one’s own actions to ensure that they accord with the path of humanity. In encouraging people to rely on the dharma as an island, Shakyamuni also urged them to rely on themselves. In doing so he was pointing to the true significance of the Middle Way: not to unthinkingly follow one’s every whim but, rather, as Hajime Nakamura has stated, “to rely on one’s authentic self, the self that we can believe in and be proud of at all times.”^[8]

The Middle Way

The Middle Way is a Buddhist term with rich connotations. In the broadest sense it refers to the Buddha’s enlightened view of life, and also the actions or attitude that will create happiness for oneself and others. It transcends the duality that underlies most thinking. For example, Buddhism describes life as “an elusive reality that transcends both the words and concepts of existence and nonexistence. It is neither existence nor nonexistence, yet exhibits the qualities of both.” In other words, life itself is the ultimate expression of the harmony of contradictions. The wisdom arising from an enlightened view of life leads to an ability to reconcile apparently contradictory positions, to transcend the extremes of opposing views, root oneself in the profound reality of life and thus discern a path toward peace.

When each of us considers all those who will be affected by our actions and reflects on the weight of our responsibility, this provides an opening for the revelation of our authentic self and for polishing our humanity. By sustaining this effort, we can ever more deeply explore the meaning and role of political and economic systems and create the conditions within society for their rehumanization. Such is the essential dynamism of the Middle Way.

Decisions made on this basis may be met with criticism or dismissed as running counter to the mood of society or the current of the times. But failure to remain true to one’s convictions is not simply a passive failure to do good; far worse, it can invite the kind of evil that will bring suffering to large numbers of people. This was the fervent assertion of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, the founding president of the Soka Gakkai.

Makiguchi directly challenged through his words and actions the militarist fascism of wartime Japan and its thought-control policies. Starting around 1940, the meetings of the forerunner of the Soka Gakkai, the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai (Value-Creating Education Society), were subjected to surveillance by the Special Higher Police. The organization’s periodical, Kachi sozo, was forced to cease publication in May 1942 and, from July 1943, Makiguchi was detained and interrogated.

The Soka Kyoiku Gakkai and Religious Oppression during World War II

The Soka Kyoiku Gakkai (Value-Creating Education Society) was founded by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda in 1930. It was originally a small group of educators dedicated to educational reform. However, the group gradually developed into an organization with a broader membership that promoted Nichiren Buddhism as a means to reform not only education but society as a whole. This brought the group into direct conflict with the militarist government of the time that saw education as a means of molding people into servants of the state and imposed the State Shinto ideology as a way of justifying its wartime aggression. During the late 1930s and throughout the war, members of the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai were subject to increased police surveillance and harassment. Due to government oppression, the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai was effectively crushed. Both Makiguchi and Toda were arrested as “thought criminals” in 1943, and Makiguchi died in prison in 1944. Toda was released from prison in 1945 and reformed the organization as today’s Soka Gakkai.

He is recorded as having given the following response to one of the interrogators’ questions:

Sometimes people, overly concerned about the opinion of society, satisfy themselves with a way of life in which they do no real good or bad, or in which what good they do is very limited. In extreme cases, this leads to the view that it is acceptable to do anything so long as it is not prohibited by law. I consider all such ways of life a form of slander against the Buddhist dharma.^[9]

By slander, Makiguchi is referring to actions that run counter to the teachings of Buddhism; but in a more expansive sense, he is encouraging us to reflect on all actions that are not in harmony with the path of humanity. Underlying the many instances in which political and economic activity results in real misery, we find an indifference to the pain of others and an eagerness for self-justification, such as Makiguchi condemned. So long as this way of thinking prevails, even apparent success at achieving prosperity will not prove sustainable but will instead yield to the misery provoked by an egocentric après-moi-le-déluge attitude.

The prevalence of such attitudes makes the challenge of refocusing political and economic activities on the alleviation of human suffering—its rehumanization—all the more important.

Some movement in this direction can be seen. For example, 110 countries have now established national human rights institutions along the lines called for by the United Nations Human Rights Council and others. These institutions encourage the establishment of legal frameworks for the protection of human rights and for human rights education. In my 1998 peace proposal, I urged that NGOs be included in constructive partnerships to find the optimal modalities for such institutions.^[10]

In the field of economics, in May of last year, eleven members of the European Union agreed on the joint implementation of a financial transaction tax. Reflecting the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis and the grave blow it dealt to the world economy, this would establish a rate for the taxation of financial transactions as a means of discouraging excessive speculation and generating revenue for redistributive programs. It could be implemented as soon as 2016. In my proposal six years ago, I called for the wider implementation of such international solidarity levies to support the achievement of the MDGs. I suggested that ideas such as a financial transaction tax could be elements within a positive competition by which states vie with each other to develop new ideas and visions for the future.^[11] Realization of the SDGs demands even more creative thinking of this kind.

The most important driving force for the rehumanization of politics and economics is the solidarity of ordinary citizens who have raised their voices based on an unyielding commitment to our collective future. In an early work, Makiguchi stressed that the animating spirit of a society does not exist apart from each individual and that a new social consciousness arises from the communication and spread of a change of awareness in individuals.^[12]

When I exchanged opinions with the peace scholar Elise Boulding (1920–2010) regarding the methodologies of social transformation, she declared: “I have long believed that a wholesome, peaceful world is possible if we devote all-out effort to the development of each member of the community.”^[13] She also maintained that the future direction of society is in fact determined by the 5 percent who are active and committed. This 5 percent ultimately transforms the culture in its entirety. I draw great hope from her confidence.

In this sense, it is not mere numbers but the strength and depth of our solidarity that will put us on a path toward the rehumanization of politics and economics. Generating solidarity, domestically and internationally, among ordinary citizens who desire to see that no one suffers in misery is the key to transforming the direction of history.

A chain reaction of empowerment

The second priority theme I’d like to explore is what I call “a chain reaction of empowerment,” by which people develop the capacity to transcend and transform suffering.

In recent decades, natural disasters and extreme weather events have inflicted severe damage and given rise to humanitarian crises the world over. Among these are the Kobe earthquake (1995), the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (2004), the Haiti earthquake (2010), the East Japan earthquake and tsunami (2011) and Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines in 2013. According to UN statistics, 22 million people were displaced by natural disasters during 2013, a number some three times greater than those driven from their homes by armed conflict.^[14]

The deep sadness of losing one’s home is something I also have experienced. During World War II, my father’s ill health and the conscription of my four older brothers undermined the family’s finances, forcing us to sell my childhood home. The house we lived in after that was torn down to create a firebreak, and immediately after we moved into our new home it was struck by an incendiary bomb and burned to the ground.

Because of these experiences, I can easily imagine the sadness and despair afflicting those who have lost loved ones and been forced to leave their long-accustomed homes. This is the pain of losing the world in which one has lived. The true challenge of restoration and recovery must be to restore hope and the will to live of all the victims. To this end the seamless support of society as a whole is essential.

This experience of losing one’s place—the sense of belonging and community—is, in fact, prevalent everywhere, although often in less dramatic form. Again taking the example of Japan, it is estimated that one in five people over the age of sixty-five lives in poverty and one in six children experiences deprivation, including food insecurity.^[15] For many, the pain of this economic deprivation is compounded by a sense of social isolation.

In the search for solutions to this problem, I think we can gain insight from the views of the American political philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum. Nussbaum has noted that traditional conceptions of the social contract were formulated without including women, the elderly, children and persons with disabilities. She also cites the influence of utilitarianism as a reason why the suffering of certain people is overlooked. She states:

Thus one person’s great pain and misery can be compensated for by a plurality of people’s exceeding good fortune. Here a moral fact of paramount importance—that each person has only one life to live—has been effaced.^[16]

Nussbaum urges us to move beyond the idea of mutual advantage as the sole organizing principle for society and calls for a reconfiguration on the basis of a concept of human dignity that excludes no one. She asserts that every one of us, for reasons of ill health, age or accident, may at some point require the assistance of others to live. She urges that we all consider the question of a new direction for society as a matter of profound personal concern.

Nussbaum’s thesis has a great deal in common with Buddhism, which takes as its core concern the question of how we face the suffering that inevitably accompanies the life stages of birth, aging, sickness and death. As the famous story of the four encounters symbolizes, prior to entering the religious life Shakyamuni was grieved—even more intensely than by the reality of aging and illness—by the fact that people were forced to confront these sufferings in isolation, dying alone on a roadside or lying stricken with illness without attention or care. He appears to have been particularly moved by the rupturing of contact with others and the isolating nature of the experience of suffering.

The Four Encounters

The story of the four encounters appears in various Buddhist scriptures as Shakyamuni’s motivation for renouncing the secular world and pursuing a religious life. Shakyamuni was born a prince and led a secluded life within the palace, shielded from exposure to human suffering. On three rare excursions outside the palace walls he encountered a man withered with age, a person wracked with sickness and a corpse. Through these encounters, Shakyamuni awakened to the four sufferings of birth, aging, sickness and death. The fourth encounter was with a religious ascetic whose air of serene dignity inspired Shakyamuni to embark on a spiritual quest to understand how the sufferings of the human condition could be overcome.

In point of fact, alongside his activities as a teacher, Shakyamuni regularly nursed and cared for such people, and he harshly admonished his disciples if they turned a blind eye to such conditions. There is a teaching to the effect that “When need arises, pleasant [it is to have] friends.”^[17] Neither illness nor aging in any way diminishes the essential value of our lives. Despite this, people become increasingly desperate when they are alienated from others and unable to experience a sense of connection and being accepted as they are. This was something Shakyamuni could not ignore.

One of the key teachings of Mahayana Buddhism is the idea of dependent origination, that the world is woven of the relatedness of life to life. This understanding of interconnection can enable us to make even the painful experiences of illness and aging into opportunities to elevate and ennoble our lives and the lives of others. But mere intellectual awareness of interconnection is not enough to effect this positive transformation.

“When we bow to a mirror, the figure in the mirror bows back to us in reverence.”^[18] As this quote illustrates, it is only when we sense and treasure in others a dignity as valued and irreplaceable as that in our own lives that our interconnection becomes palpable. It is then that the tears and smiles we exchange spark in each of us a courageous will to live.

The psychologist Erik H. Erikson (1902–94), famous for his work on the conceptualization of identity, has offered a vision that closely resembles the dynamism of dependent origination:

Here, living together means more than incidental proximity. It means that the individual’s life-stages are “interliving,” cogwheeling with the stages of others which move him along as he moves them.^[19]

Here, I would like to reference Erikson’s ideas as I explore the infinite possibilities that arise from the teaching of dependent origination, namely, the capacity for self-empowerment which can enable people burdened by suffering to illuminate their community and society as a whole with the light of their inner dignity.

The first of Erikson’s ideas I would like to reference is that the mature person needs to be needed.^[20] I understand this to mean that whatever our condition, so long as we are made to feel necessary to others, we will be moved by the desire to respond. This desire awakens the inner capacities of life, keeping alive the flame of human dignity.

This brings to mind the example of Elise Boulding, whom I quoted earlier, and the way she lived her final years. Some years before her passing, Dr. Boulding was visited by several SGI members. Already past eighty, she explained that while she no longer had the energy to undertake book-length works, she was able to contribute forewords to books written by friends and students, and happily responded to such requests.

After entering a care facility as her condition worsened, she spent each day motivated by the thought that there must be something she could do, despite the limitations she faced. Her student Dr. Kevin Clements recalls that she told him that she felt she could bring good to those around her by smiling and being complimentary to others and thanking the medical staff for their kindness. She continued, until just prior to her passing, to welcome visitors with a beautiful spirit of hospitality, just as she had always shown visitors to her home.

As Dr. Boulding demonstrated, we are always capable of maintaining a sense of connection with others, and through this can offer moments of authentic happiness to those around us, bringing our humanity to an ever-greater luster. These moments become the living record of our being, held in our own hearts and the hearts of others. This noble inner brilliance of life is the manifestation of an empowerment that persists under any circumstance.

Another element of Erikson’s thought is the idea that the effort to reconfigure meaning has the power to prevent suffering from spreading and generating destructive cycles. We cannot redo our lives. But by recounting to others the steps that have led us to the present moment, we can reformulate the meaning of past events. Erikson considered this a source of hope.

This can be seen in the practice of the SGI’s faith activities, in particular the sharing of personal experiences, through which practitioners together develop deepened confidence. This tradition of holding small group discussion meetings dates back to the time of the Soka Gakkai’s founding president, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi.

Here people speak of what brings them happiness and how they find meaning in life, as well as such trials as the deaths of family members, illness, financial struggles, difficult work and family situations, the experience of discrimination or prejudice. It is a place of collective recognition of the weight and irreplaceable nature of each individual’s life journey, a place where tears of joy and sadness are freely shared and people are encouraged in the struggle to transform suffering.

Through such sharing, the speaker develops a clear awareness that any and all experiences were in fact milestones in the formation of their present self, enabling them to use those experiences as fuel for their future progress. For listeners, the shared experience can help bring forth the courage needed to confront their own challenges. This chain reaction of empowerment, based on empathy, is at the heart of our practice of faith.

What I would also like to stress is the far-reaching impact of the life story of a single individual who has succeeded in discovering a sense of purpose from within the depths of personal suffering. These life stories transcend national boundaries, connect generations and offer courage and hope to many.

Erikson saw such a life in Gandhi and considered him an exemplar of his philosophy, even going so far as to write a biographical portrait. Erikson describes the young people who gathered around Gandhi as follows:

These young people, then, highly gifted in a variety of ways, seem to have been united in one personality “trait,” namely, an early and anxious concern for the abandoned and persecuted, at first within their families, and later in a widening circle of intensified concern.^[21]

This process no doubt mirrored Gandhi’s own motivations. His experience of being discriminated against in his youth led to his struggle for human rights in South Africa and, eventually, his dedication to the nonviolent movement for Indian independence. His greatest desire was for all of humanity, without a single exception, to be liberated from oppression. It was this intense passion that moved the young people who worked with Gandhi.

After Gandhi’s death, his example served as a guiding star for those struggling for the cause of human dignity, among them Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela (1918–2013). When I met President Mandela in July 1995, we discussed an article about Gandhi’s experience of being incarcerated that Mandela had contributed to an academic journal commemorating the 125th anniversary of Gandhi’s birth, to which I had also contributed an essay. He stated:

So endured Gandhi the prisoner at the beginning of our century. Though separated in time, there remains a bond between us, in our shared prison experiences, our defiance of unjust laws and in the fact that violence threatens our aspirations for peace and reconciliation.^[22]

That Gandhi had already trodden this path of trials was no doubt an important source of strength for Mandela as he remained unbowed through an imprisonment that lasted more than twenty-seven years.

Fifty years ago, I began writing the multivolume novelization of the history of the Soka Gakkai, The Human Revolution, whose core theme is that a great revolution in just a single individual can help achieve a change in the destiny of an entire society and make possible a change in the destiny of all humankind. This encapsulates the idea of a chain reaction of empowerment whose limitless possibilities expand in space to cross national borders and in time to link different generations.

The expansion of friendship as the basis for ending war

The third priority theme I would like to discuss is the expansion of friendship across differences in order to build a world of coexistence.

In recent years, there have been important changes in the nature of conflicts that have raised new concerns. There has been an increasing incidence of the internationalization of internal conflicts as other countries and groups become active participants. Such developments have, for example, greatly complicated any prospect for a truce or peace in the Syrian civil war.

Further, the objective of military action has gradually shifted. The purpose of war as defined by the German military thinker Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831) is to compel the opponent to accept one’s will. Now, however, there is more emphasis on the elimination of any group considered to be the enemy. In conflict areas it has become all too common for remotely controlled military strikes to harm or kill civilians, including children. One can only speculate as to the final outcome of military action undertaken so unhesitatingly, with no thought of the humanity of the enemy or of the possibility that they also have a right to exist.

The horrors that result from dramatic advances in weapons technology combined with an eliminationist ideology not only run counter to the letter of International Humanitarian Law but, more fundamentally, are impermissible in light of the path of humanity.

Last year, the UN initiated debate on the threat posed by Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), or “killer robots.” We need to take full cognizance of the fact that we stand at the threshold of the full-scale automation of war.

At the same time, we should recognize that eliminationist ideologies are not limited to conflict areas but have taken root in various places around the world. In December 2013, the UN launched the Human Rights Up Front initiative, which aims to heed the warning implicit in individual human rights violations and respond to these before they escalate into mass atrocities or war crimes.

Hate speech, for example, is becoming a serious social problem in many countries. Even when it does not lead to the direct violence of hate crimes, it arises from the same malevolent urge to harm others. As such, it is a human rights violation that cannot be ignored. There is no one who would find violence or oppression based on prejudice directed at them or their families acceptable. But when it is directed at other ethnicities or populations, it is not unusual for people to consider it justified by some fault or failing on the part of the victims.

To prevent such situations from escalating, the first step is to develop the means of bringing oneself face to face with the other, free from this kind of collective psychology. To this end, an episode from the Vimalakīrti Sutra describing the interactions between Shakyamuni’s disciple Shariputra and a female deity is instructive.

Shakyamuni urged his disciple Manjushrī to visit the home of the lay believer Vimalakīrti, who was suffering from illness. Another of his leading disciples, Shariputra, decided to accompany him. The visit occasioned a far-reaching discussion between Manjushrī and Vimalakīrti on the Buddha’s teachings.

When this discussion reached its climax, a goddess who was among the listeners adorned everyone with flowers as an expression of joy. Shariputra, saying that such flower petals were not appropriate to a practitioner of the way, attempted to brush them off, but they stuck to him. Seeing this, the goddess said, “Flowers do not have a discriminatory consciousness; yet you discriminate among people,” thus pointing out the attachments that held Shariputra in their grasp.

Shariputra recognized the truth of what she said, but as he continued to question her, the goddess used her magical powers to change Shariputra into her form and herself into his. She continued to point out to the baffled Shariputra the depths of his discriminatory consciousness, and then returned them both to their original forms. Through this astonishing sequence of events, Shariputra realized that we must not allow our hearts to become caught up in external appearances and that all things are without fixed form or characteristics.

What I think is significant here is how this experience of exchanging forms made it possible for Shariputra to become vividly conscious of the discriminatory gaze he had been directing against this female deity, and that as a result he was able to become deeply aware of his error.

With the advance of globalization, there is more and more movement across borders, and many people, through the experience of visiting or living in another country, have been forced to recognize the kind of discriminatory gaze that they had unconsciously cast on other groups when they were living in their country of origin. This makes it all the more important that people exert themselves to understand the other and see things through their eyes.

Without such efforts, particularly in times of heightened tensions, it is all too easy for our own ideas of what constitutes peace or justice to become a threat to the lives and dignity of others. This is why the reversal of perspectives experienced by Shariputra is so important. It opens us up to seeing the threat implicit in the gaze we direct at others. It encourages us to actively imagine the threats felt by others to themselves and their families and subverts our assumptions and assertions.

When Shariputra was first encouraged by Shakyamuni to visit the ailing Vimalakīrti, his initial response was one of hesitation, and when he arrived with Manjushrī, he was first concerned about the fact that there was no place for him to sit. For his part, Vimalakīrti, when asked the cause of his illness by Manjushrī, responded, “Because all the living beings are ill, I am ill also.” He went on to say that his visitors, if they were truly concerned for his well-being, would best express that by caring for and encouraging others suffering from illness. Thus while Shariputra was occupied with an obsessive concern for himself, Vimalakīrti was focused on the reality of suffering experienced by all people, regardless of circumstance and the distinction between self and other.

When we look at current conditions in the world through the lens of the contrast portrayed in this sutra, we can extract the following lesson: While peace and justice should be experienced as a common good, when they are rendered divisible by an excessive concern with the self they can serve to justify violence and oppression against other groups with whom we find ourselves in conflict.

This is why expanding human solidarity based on a shared concern for the threats faced by all of us—such as the increasing incidence of extreme weather events accompanying climate change or the catastrophic damage wrought by the use of nuclear weapons—holds the key to the alleviation of human suffering.

The one thing any of us can do at any time to contribute to building that solidarity is to generate a broader network of friendship through dialogue. In my exchanges about Islam and Buddhism with the late Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid (1940– 2009), he stressed that dialogue gives a human face to those who may be from a different ethnic, cultural or historical background. Through encounters and repeated interaction, we become attuned to the narratives of each other’s lives. Even as we recognize and appreciate the great importance of such attributes as religion or ethnicity, we do not allow that to become the sole focus of our encounter. The shared feeling and trust fostered through these encounters give rise to unique melodies that can only be woven by these two lives. This, I believe, is the true value and meaning of friendship. Or, as the historian Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975) put it, “Such glimpses of the real world are gleanings of priceless value.”^[23]

Friendship evolves freely when we refuse to be overly concerned with our respective attributes and instead see the other in the brilliant light of their humanity. Starting with my dialogue with Dr. Toynbee forty-three years ago, I have since had the privilege of engaging in exchanges with leading figures from many different cultural, ethnic, religious and national backgrounds. The linking thread has always been a shared concern for the human future, and through our exchanges we have developed richly rewarding friendships.

The members of the SGI have, through friendship and one-to-one exchanges, worked to realize the transition from a culture of war dominated by ideologies of exclusion to a culture of peace in which differences are celebrated as the source of human diversity and there is a shared vow to defend one another’s dignity.

By promoting cultural and educational exchanges, we have created opportunities for people of different countries and regions to meet face to face, to build trust and extend friendship. It has been our hope that such bonds of friendship will counteract any tendency toward xenophobic ideologies that could arise, particularly in times of heightened tensions between states. In this way we have sought to build robust societies resistant to the negative forces of collective psychology. Even when political or economic relations have chilled, we have worked to keep the pathways of dialogue and communication open, an effort that has spanned generations.

Last year, the Min-On Concert Association, which I founded in 1963, established the Min-On Music Research Institute. Based on Min-On’s five decades of experience promoting musical and cultural exchange with troupes and institutions in 105 countries and territories, this new research institute will explore the role and potential of music and the arts—the power of culture—in creating peace.

Further, through interfaith and cross-civilizational dialogue events organized by different SGI national organizations, we have sought to share lessons about means of disrupting entrenched cycles of hatred and violence. Taking the determination to alleviate human suffering as our point of departure, we have engaged in discussions of shared concerns in order to bring forth the wisdom fostered within each cultural and religious tradition and clarify the ethics and behavioral norms that can break through impasses.

The following words of former Czech president Václav Havel (1936–2011) in 1996 are germane here: “The only meaningful task for the Europe of the next century is to be the best it can be, that is, to resurrect and imbue its life with its best spiritual traditions and thus help to shape creatively a new pattern of global coexistence.”^[24] Here, if in place of “Europe” we read our respective civilization or religion, Havel’s appeal describes a model for the type of dialogue we seek. Through dialogue, we share the vital energy of the best in our respective spiritual traditions; we hone the vision that enables us to experience the fullness of our humanity; we learn to initiate shared action based on our best selves. This is the true significance of interfaith and cross-civilizational dialogue.

Through all these activities, we have sought to help people refuse complicity in violence and oppression, to enhance the magnetism of an ethos of coexistence and build bulwarks against war. We have worked to forge human solidarity based on the shared determination to prevent the misery we would never wish for ourselves from being visited on anyone else.

In the Vimalakīrti Sutra, there is a scene describing the appearance of a jeweled canopy that covers the entire world. Five hundred youths had gathered around Shakyamuni, each holding their own jeweled parasol. This magnificent canopy came into being when the individual parasols held by each of the youths joined together in an instant, symbolizing their desire to create a society of peaceful coexistence. Their respective parasols no longer served just to protect each of them from wind and rain or the burning rays of the sun. Rather, these youths who had each traveled their separate path in life, rose above their differences in a single shared determination, and it was this that brought this vast protective canopy into being. I see this as a beautiful symbol of the limitless possibilities of human solidarity.

The Vimalakīrti Sutra

The Vimalakīrti Sutra is a Mahayana Buddhist sutra. Vimalakīrti, the protagonist of the sutra, is a wealthy and prominent citizen of Vaishālī during Shakyamuni’s time. Vaishālī is thought to have been located in the present-day northwestern Indian state of Bihar. Vimalakīrti had mastered the Mahayana doctrines and was skillful in imparting them to others. He represents the ideal Mahayana lay believer. The sutra relates various accounts of how Vimalakīrti had demonstrated a better understanding of the Buddhist teachings than Shakyamuni’s ten major disciples. Among the teachings that the sutra expounds are the ideal of the bodhisattva, which is to draw no distinction between self and others, and non-duality or the oneness of seemingly diametrically-opposed phenomena such as life and death and good and evil.

I believe that such solidarity is also expressed in the new international development goals to be adopted by the United Nations toward the year 2030—the determination to protect the lives and dignity of all people on Earth from every form of threat and misery—and it is through such solidarity that these goals will be realized.

The creative evolution of the UN

Next, I would like to offer specific proposals on issues that urgently require a creative approach that goes beyond the scope of conventional thinking if we are to eliminate misery from the face of the Earth.

As I recall the seven-decade history of the United Nations, I am reminded of the words of the second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld (1905–61) in his annual report of 1960:

The United Nations is an organic creation of the political situation facing our generation. At the same time, however, the international community has, so to say, come to political self-consciousness in the Organization and, therefore, can use it in a meaningful way in order to influence those very circumstances of which the Organization is a creation.^[25]

Despite the structural constraints and limitations it faces as an organization composed of sovereign states, the UN has over the years fostered and nourished the self-consciousness of the international community, and it is this that can provide it with the impetus to fulfill its original mission.

In fact, through its efforts to realize the spirit of the Charter, the UN has influenced the policies of governments by clearly laying out a set of principles that no nation should undermine. One example is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Following the end of World War II and reeling from its atrocities, the international community decided to create a document that would detail and guarantee the rights and freedoms of every individual everywhere, always. This task was taken up at the first session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1946, and the work of drafting a Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was entrusted to a formal drafting committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962). The drafting committee consisted of members of the Commission on Human Rights from eight states, taking into consideration their geographical distribution. During the twoyear drafting process, input and inspiration was also drawn from distinguished thinkers representing a wide range of values, belief systems and political ideologies from different cultures and societies across the globe.

The UDHR was adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948, and, today, is available in 440 languages.

Jacques Maritain (1882–1973), the French philosopher who was deeply involved in the drafting process of the UDHR, stressed that people mutually opposed in their theoretical conceptions can come to a practical agreement regarding a list of human rights.^[26] The drafters of the UDHR could not have come to consensus across the differences of their ideological and cultural assumptions were it not for the power of the common platform provided by the UN.

Over the years, the UN has drawn public attention to urgent issues by formulating such concepts as sustainable development and human security and by designating International Years and UN Decades. It has also organized international measures to tackle violence against women and child labor, serious problems that might otherwise not be given adequate attention in domestic contexts.

The scope of protections guaranteeing people’s lives and dignity has been steadily expanded, making international law applicable to not only states but also individuals through building “overlapping consensus” about such issues and focusing attention on the problems confronting the oppressed. I believe that only the UN can play such an indispensable role.

In adopting a new set of development goals to address the challenges facing us with a more ambitious remit than that of the MDGs, we should work together toward the creative evolution of the UN, in the spirit of tackling our problems “without the armour of inherited convictions or set formulas”^[27] in Hammarskjöld’s words.

In what could be a harbinger of such efforts, the inaugural UN Environment Assembly was held in Nairobi, Kenya, in June 2014 with the participation of all member states as part of the structural reform of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). It was attended by a large number of stakeholders including representatives of civil society organizations engaged with environmental issues as well as representatives of the business community.

I have consistently emphasized two prerequisites for the resolution of global problems: the participation of all states and collaboration between the UN and civil society. It is necessary to develop shared action underpinned by these two pillars to confront not only environmental challenges but also the full range of threats to people’s lives and dignity. This, I believe, should be at the heart of the creative evolution of the United Nations as it marks its seventieth anniversary this year.

In view of the UN’s mission, I would like to make specific proposals in the following three fields in which I think there is urgent need for shared action to eliminate the word misery from the human lexicon:

1. The protection of the human rights of displaced persons and international migrants;
2. The prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons; and
3. The achievement of a sustainable global society.

Protecting the human rights of displaced persons

The first field for shared action is to protect the human rights of refugees, displaced persons and international migrants. I would like to propose the inclusion of specific protections for the rights and dignity of all such people in the SDGs slated for adoption by the General Assembly this fall.

As I mentioned above, what my mentor Josei Toda had in mind when he expressed his desire to rid the world of misery was the large numbers of refugees and their unspeakable suffering following the Hungarian uprising of 1956.

It was the political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–75) who called the twentieth century a century of refugees. She wrote:

Something much more fundamental than freedom and justice, which are rights of citizens, is at stake when belonging to the community into which one is born is no longer a matter of course and not belonging no longer a matter of choice.^[28]

The foundation of human dignity is the existence of a world in which we can fully experience and express our identity; to be cut off from this world and all the human rights associated with it is the source of the suffering of displaced persons.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was originally established in 1950 as a temporary agency with the mandate to protect refugees in Europe in the aftermath of World War II. In addition to the flood of refugees sparked by the Hungarian uprising, further refugee crises arose in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world, requiring the repeated extension of the UNHCR mandate. In 2003, the General Assembly adopted a resolution that removed “the temporal limitation on the continuation of the Office … until the refugee problem is solved.”^[29]

UNHCR has made major contributions in assisting refugees, and the SGI has worked to support these activities in various ways. But the refugee problem stubbornly defies solution in today’s increasingly chaotic world—a total of 51.2 million people are currently refugees, internally displaced persons or asylum-seekers, and half of these are under eighteen years of age.^[30]

Of particular concern are protracted refugee situations, where people have been forcibly displaced from their country of origin for five years or longer. Such people account for more than half of the refugees covered by UNHCR’s mandate, with an average displacement period of some twenty years.^[31] This means that not only these individuals but also their children and grandchildren may be forced to live in extremely unstable political, economic and social circumstances.

Equally alarming is the problem of statelessness, which is estimated to affect more than 10 million people around the world.^[32] Being stateless means being denied such services as health care and education, or in some cases being forced to conceal one’s status and live in the shadows in order to protect one’s family. More and more children whose parents have fled violence and human rights oppression are born stateless, with no access to legal documentation. In November 2014, UNHCR launched a global campaign to eradicate statelessness within the next ten years.

In his 1903 work The Geography of Human Life, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi argued that people’s identity can be developed on three levels: as a citizen of a local community in which their life is rooted, as a citizen of a national community within whose borders their social life takes place and as a citizen of a global community with an awareness of their connections with the world. He stressed that the unique potential of the individual could be most richly expressed when we fully develop this kind of multilayered identity.

In this sense, protracted refugee situations and statelessness not only deny individuals the opportunity to participate in the social life of the nation: They are also prevented from building bonds with their neighbors in their local community and from taking shared action with people of other countries toward the creation of the kind of world in which they want to live. In other words, they are denied the chance to fully be themselves.

Positioning the alleviation of the suffering of such people as a key objective of the creative evolution of the United Nations is necessary if the inclusiveness of “all people everywhere”—sought for in the new SDGs—is to be realized. And this fully accords with the ideal of universal human rights to which the UDHR so powerfully aspires.

Likewise, the human rights situation of the world’s 232 million international migrants demands urgent attention.

In countries undergoing prolonged economic recession and heightened social unrest, there is a growing tendency to view migrant workers in a negative light and subject them and their families to discrimination and hostility. As a result, their opportunities for regular employment and their rights to education and medical treatment may be severely limited, and all too often society turns a blind eye to the unjust treatment they face in daily life.

As migrant workers and their families are becoming increasingly marginalized and isolated, the UN has initiated efforts to counter misunderstanding and prejudice. At a High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development held in October 2013, governments agreed that the important relationship of migration to development should be reflected in the new SDGs.

Here, I would like to propose that this issue be considered not only within the context of development; that the goal of protecting the dignity and basic human rights of migrant workers and their families be explicitly included in the SDGs with a stress on alleviating the suffering they face.

Policies designed to protect international migrants need to be strengthened. This should include but not be limited to existing frameworks: the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (which was adopted in December 1990 but only ratified by a limited number of countries) and the Decent Work Agenda developed by the International Labour Organization.

I would further like to propose the development of mechanisms by which neighboring countries can work together for the empowerment of displaced persons, particularly in regions that have accepted large numbers of refugees.

In addition to armed conflicts, in recent years natural disasters and extreme weather events have forced many people to flee their homes and seek refuge. In this context, I would like to draw attention to the regional consultations in advance of the World Humanitarian Summit to be held in Istanbul, Turkey, in 2016. The summit aims to explore ways in which the global community can best come together to address humanitarian crises caused by conflict, poverty, natural disasters and extreme weather events.

The regional consultation held in July 2014 in Tokyo had a particular emphasis on response to disasters. The importance of ensuring that those afflicted by disaster are given a central role in the humanitarian process was consistently emphasized, as was the need to bolster efforts toward their empowerment in order that they might live in dignity.

This has also been the approach taken by the SGI in the course of assisting the recovery of communities affected by natural disaster. People who have experienced deep suffering themselves can better understand and share the pains of the afflicted. Such networks of empathy can provide invaluable support to people in need and bring forth from within the will to move forward.

The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction is scheduled to be held in Sendai in northeast Japan in March 2015, the fourth anniversary of the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami. Among the side events, the SGI will cosponsor a symposium on “Enhancing Resilience in Northeast Asia through Disaster Risk Reduction Cooperation,” where civil society representatives from China, South Korea and Japan will explore the possibilities for deepened collaboration in the area of disaster prevention and recovery. Local Soka Gakkai youth members will also organize a symposium on disaster risk reduction and the role of young people and will participate in discussions on the role of faith-based organizations in disaster risk reduction.

These events will focus on empowering people who have been affected by disaster so they can play a key role in enhancing the resilience of society. This is of equal importance in efforts to ensure the dignity and human rights of refugees as more and more of them find themselves in prolonged displacement situations. The fundamental nature of the suffering experienced by people in humanitarian crises remains the same, regardless of the cause: They are driven from their homes, the foundations of their lives destroyed. What matters most is how such individuals can discover renewed sources of hope.

The fact that more than 80 percent of the world’s refugees are being hosted by developing countries heightens the relevance of the steps being taken in Africa to deal with the issue of protracted displacement. Efforts to build a framework for regional cooperation have been made through the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

There is interesting research that suggests that, in response to prolonged displacement situations in Africa, progress is being made in de facto integration, which has been defined as when people (1) are not in danger of deportation, (2) are not confined to camps, (3) are able to sustain livelihoods and support themselves and their families, (4) have access to education, vocational training and health care, and (5) are socially networked into the host community through ceremonies such as weddings and funerals. The research suggests that this kind of “de facto integration” can be observed in several agricultural regions.^[33]

Following the call made by the ECOWAS Council of Ministers in May 2008 for equal treatment between refugees and other ECOWAS citizens, displaced persons living in Nigeria and elsewhere were issued passports by their home countries. As a result, many of them have been able to establish a new status as migrant workers, opening a way for them to formally settle in the host country.

The Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, whom I have the honor of considering a friend, has stated that using imagination to put oneself in another’s place is the foundation of justice.^[34] I think one key to a solution to the refugee issue can be found in the spirit of Africa, a continent with a long history of movements among people and a tradition of tolerance toward people of different cultures.

Here I am reminded of my first visit to the United Nations Headquarters in New York, in October 1960. Struck by the fresh energy of representatives of newly independent African nations, I gained the conviction that the twenty-first century would be the century of Africa.

The struggle for human rights of former South African president Nelson Mandela and the tree-planting movement led by Kenyan environmental activist Wangari Maathai (1940–2011) provide examples of groundbreaking initiatives that could herald the arrival of a keenly sought twenty-first century of peace and humanitarianism which have originated in Africa.

Despite numerous challenges, African nations have continued to explore ways of addressing the problem of forced displacement through regional cooperation. As the UN prepares to adopt a new set of development goals, the wisdom and experience of Africa can, in the words of the South African anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko (1946–77), contribute to “giving the world a more human face.”^[35]

I would like to call for greater regional cooperation—along the lines of the African example—in the Asia-Pacific region, host to a large number of displaced persons, and in the Middle East, where there has been a sharp increase in the number of refugees resulting from the Syrian civil war.

As one element of such initiatives, I would like to suggest that neighboring host countries collaborate to promote the empowerment of refugees. Specifically, I would like to propose regional joint empowerment programs by which educational and employment assistance projects include both the refugee population and the youth and women of the host country. This would provide opportunities for members of the refugee and host country populations to develop deeper bonds, creating a sustainable framework for refugee support and enhancing the resilience of the region as a whole.

Abolishing nuclear weapons

The second field for shared action I would like to consider is toward the realization of a world without nuclear weapons.

The first resolution taken up at the first session of the newly established UN General Assembly in January 1946 addressed the problem of atomic weapons. During the process of drafting the UN Charter, the existence of atomic weapons was yet to become public knowledge and discussions were more focused on security than disarmament. However, just a little over a month after the adoption of the Charter in late June 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As news of this shocking event spread throughout the world, there were increasingly urgent calls for the UN to respond promptly to this new challenge.

Through the resolution, which called for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction,”^[36] the General Assembly unanimously sought the complete elimination of such weapons, without any exception.

This call was nearly forgotten amidst the steady heightening of Cold War tensions. However, the 1950 Stockholm Appeal gathered millions of signatures from around the world and was said to have had an impact on the decision not to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War, while the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were established in 1957 by scientists from both sides of the East-West divide to address the threats posed by nuclear weapons. These and other civil society efforts generated momentum for an international legal framework on nuclear weapons.

Combined with lessons from incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war, this finally resulted in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970. Signatories to the NPT committed themselves to the good-faith pursuit of nuclear disarmament, the unfinished project first taken up by the UN at its inception. Today, however, forty-five years after the treaty’s entry into force, the abolition of nuclear weapons has yet to be realized and progress on disarmament has stagnated.

Recently, the movement calling for a world without nuclear weapons has taken a new form. Last October, a total of 155 countries and territories signed a Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons. Through this, more than 80 percent of the member states of the United Nations clearly expressed their shared desire that nuclear weapons never be used under any circumstances.

The humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons have now been the theme of three major international conferences, starting with the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in March 2013 in Oslo, Norway, followed by international conferences in Nayarit, Mexico, and most recently in Vienna, Austria, in December last year.

Among the findings revealed in this series of conferences, I believe the following three points are particularly important:

1. It is unlikely that any state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those affected.
2. The impact of a nuclear weapon detonation would not be constrained by national borders, would cause devastating long-term effects and could even threaten the survival of humankind.
3. The indirect effects of a detonation would include the hampering of socioeconomic development and ecological disruption, with the effects being most concentrated on the poor and vulnerable.

At the Vienna Conference, the United States and the United Kingdom, both participating for the first time, publicly acknowledged the complex debate being conducted on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. As this demonstrates, the effects of any nuclear weapons use are such that the realities must be faced by all, including the nuclear-weapon states.

However, when it comes to how to proceed from here, opinions are divided. The majority of the conference participants share the view that the only certain way to avoid the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons use is their abolition. In contrast, among countries possessing nuclear weapons and their allies is the deeply rooted idea that deterrence must be maintained and the best way to realize a world without nuclear weapons is through a gradual step-by-step process.

While the gulf between these two positions may appear great, they are actually connected by a bedrock of shared concern over the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. This is a concern held both by those who have signed the Joint Statement and those who have not. I therefore believe that it is important to take this concern as our point of departure in the search for shared action toward a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Based on this understanding, it is crucial for the nuclear-weapon states to consider what kind of initiative is needed to prevent irreparable damage for not only themselves and their allies, but for all countries. Here, I would like to examine from a variety of perspectives the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons above and beyond their sheer destructive capacity. It is these aspects that distinguish nuclear weapons and make them fundamentally different from other forms of weaponry.

The first aspect I would like to examine concerns the gravity of their impact—just what they are capable of instantaneously obliterating.

I was struck by the following words contained in the Report and Summary of Findings of the Vienna Conference: “As was the case with torture, which defeats humanity and is now unacceptable to all, the suffering caused by nuclear weapons use is not only a legal matter, it necessitates moral appraisal.”^[37] This appeal echoes the point that my mentor, Josei Toda, emphasized in the declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons that he made in September 1957, at a time when Cold War tensions were rising and the nuclear arms race was accelerating. In the declaration, Toda urged:

Although a movement calling for a ban on the testing of atomic or nuclear weapons has arisen around the world, it is my wish to go further, to attack the problem at its root. I want to expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons.^[38]

Buddhism teaches that the most serious threat to human dignity is the evil arising from the fundamental delusion inherent in all life known as paranirmitavasavarti-deva or the devil king of the sixth heaven. This is a state manifesting the willingness to reduce the existence of each individual to insignificance and rob life of its most essential meaning. Toda asserted that what is hidden in the depths of nuclear weapons is this most extreme form of evil.

The Devil King of the Sixth Heaven

The Sixth Heaven of the World of Desire, also known as the Heaven of Freely Enjoying Things Conjured by Others, is the highest of the heavens located in the World of Desire in the Buddhist cosmology. It is here that paranirmitavasavarti-deva, the devil king of the sixth heaven, resides, sapping the life force of others and taking advantage of their efforts. He is said to harass practitioners of Buddhism to dissuade them from their practice and prevent them from attaining enlightenment.

Therefore, he urged that we must go beyond the prohibition of the testing of nuclear weapons and reject the logic of nuclear deterrence, which is predicated on the readiness to sacrifice the lives of vast numbers of people. This is the fundamental solution to the threat of nuclear weapons and must be pursued in the name of the right of all the world’s people to live.

Dr. Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005), who long played a central role in the Pugwash Conferences—which were established in 1957, the same year Toda made this declaration—once shared with me the following appraisal:

Two approaches to nuclear weapons have been taken. One is the legal approach, and the second is the moral approach. Mr. Toda, as a religious person, took the latter.^[39]

There is an absolute normative prohibition against torture, which deems the act unjustifiable under any circumstances. Likewise, the time has come to challenge nuclear weapons from a moral perspective.

After World War II, following in the footsteps of the US, the Soviet Union successfully developed nuclear weapons; the UK, France and China followed suit. Nuclear weapons proliferation has continued even after the NPT entered into force, and the global nuclear standoff has come to be seen as an unchangeable and unmovable reality within the international community. Underlying this is the policy of nuclear deterrence, which, reduced to its simplest terms, accepts the possibility of annihilating an enemy population while enduring extensive damage in return.

As Toda laid bare, this goes beyond any distinction between friend or foe, instantly negating all the achievements of society and civilization, erasing the evidence of each of our lives, stripping all existence of meaning.

Masaaki Tanabe, who leads a project to recreate images of Hiroshima as it was before the atomic bombing, states: “There are things that just cannot be recreated even with the most advanced computer graphics technology.”^[40] His words vividly illustrate the irreplaceable nature of that which has been lost.

A world of nuclear deterrence—a world secured by the prospect of imminent destruction—renders everything fragile and contingent. The absurdity of this situation generates a nihilism that has a profoundly corrosive effect on human society and civilization. This cannot be tolerated.

Additionally, as was discussed at the Vienna Conference in December 2014, there is always the danger of an accidental nuclear detonation through human error or technical fault, or of a cyber attack. Not only is this problem unanticipated by deterrence theory, it is a danger that increases in direct proportion to the number of countries that adopt or maintain a policy of nuclear deterrence.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the leaders of the US and the Soviet Union had thirteen days to seek ways to defuse the crisis. Today, if a missile carrying a nuclear warhead were to be accidentally launched, it could be as little as thirteen minutes before it reached its target. Escape or evacuation would be impossible, and the targeted city and its inhabitants would be devastated.

No matter how much effort people may have expended trying to live happy lives and no matter how long the span of time over which their culture and history may have developed, all of this would be rendered instantly meaningless. It is in this inexpressible absurdity that the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons is to be found, quite apart from the quantifiable measures of their enormous destructive power.

The second aspect of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons I would like to examine is the structural distortion that is generated by continued nuclear weapons development and modernization.

At the Vienna Conference, the impact of nuclear tests was included in the agenda for the first time. The term hibakusha is nowadays applied to all those who have suffered from radiation poisoning caused by nuclear weapons, and this of course includes those affected by the more than 2,000 nuclear tests that have been conducted worldwide.

It has been estimated that the Republic of the Marshall Islands experienced the equivalent yield of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs every day throughout the twelve years that nuclear tests were being conducted.^[41] This fact testifies to the actual effects wrought by the policy of nuclear deterrence despite its claim to have prevented the use of nuclear weapons. That is, the nuclear deterrence policy in which threat is met with threat provoked a nuclear arms race resulting in an enormous number of nuclear weapons tests, generating, in the words of Marshall Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs Tony deBrum, “a burden which no nation, and which no people, should ever have to carry.”^[42]

Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, the number of tests involving nuclear explosions has dropped to almost none. However, the fact that the CTBT has not entered into force despite having 183 signatories renders this de facto moratorium fragile.

Moreover, the CTBT does not prohibit the modernization of nuclear weapons, and as long as the policy of nuclear deterrence persists there is a structural incentive for one country to follow the modernization of another with modernization efforts of its own. Annual spending related to nuclear weapons, which already has reached US$105 billion worldwide,^[43] is expected to increase further. If this enormous sum were to be directed at improving health and welfare in the nuclear states and at supporting developing countries where people continue to struggle against poverty and deprivation, the lives and dignity of huge numbers of people would be enhanced.

The continuation of nuclear weapons development not only goes against the spirit of Article 26 of the UN Charter, which calls for the “least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources,” but also results in the inhumanity of perpetuating a distorted global order in which people whose lives could easily be improved are forced to continue living in dangerous and degrading conditions.

The third aspect of the inhumanity of nuclear weapons I would like to touch upon is that the maintenance of a nuclear posture locks countries into continuous military tension.

At the 2010 NPT Review Conference, as one of the items for prompt action, the nuclear-weapon states committed to “further diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies.”^[44] They reported on their progress last year, but there has been little substantive change. Many leaders of the nuclear-weapon states acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to imagine situations where nuclear weapons would be used and that it is the nature of most contemporary threats that they cannot be countered by nuclear weapons. Yet adherence to policies of nuclear deterrence hinders the fulfillment of this commitment to disarmament.

At this point, it is perhaps difficult for the nuclear-weapon states to completely free themselves from concerns that they or their allies may be threatened by a nuclear attack. Despite such concerns, however, priority should be placed on the step-by-step removal of the underlying causes of tensions and working to create conditions in which response through the threatened use of nuclear weapons is no longer seen as the only option.

As was clarified in the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, not only the use itself of nuclear weapons but also the threat of use would generally be considered illegal.

Judge Ferrari Bravo, in a Declaration appended to the Advisory Opinion, commented that “the gulf separating Article 2, paragraph 4, from Article 51 [of the UN Charter] has widened, as a result of the great obstacle of deterrence which has been cast into it.”^[45] As this indicates, the continuance of nuclear deterrence policy has transformed the understanding and practice of the right to self-defense from the way it was originally conceived by the framers of the Charter. While Article 2, paragraph 4, stipulates that the threat or use of force is in principle illegal, the existence of nuclear weapons has made necessary continual preparations for individual or collective self-defense, which are defined under Article 51 as a temporary measure to be taken until the Security Council is ready to act. Thus what was to be an exceptional measure has become regular practice, subverting the intent of the Charter.

Even after the end of the Cold War, this structure has not changed. Even without any armed clash or hostility between countries, the threat of use on which nuclear deterrence is premised continues to generate military tensions that implicate a large number of countries.

The nuclear-weapon states and their allies are drawn into an obsession with secrecy and security to protect the classified information related to their nuclear weapons and associated facilities. At the same time, states that feel threatened by the nuclear-weapon states are incentivized to develop their own nuclear weapons and pursue military expansion. In the worst case, this spiral leads to serious consideration of preventive military action.

The proponents of nuclear deterrence have consistently identified it as the key to preventing the use of these weapons. But when the framework for considering the nature of nuclear weapons is expanded to take in the full implications of life in the nuclear era, the enormity of the burden imposed on the world as a result of these policies becomes painfully clear.

I believe that the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in wartime since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be attributed more to an awareness of the weight of the responsibility for the devastating humanitarian impact of their use than to any deterrent effect. And it is a fact that the countries that do not come under the protection of a nuclear umbrella have never been subjected to the threat of nuclear attack. It is the moral weight of the pledge to relinquish the nuclear option—for example, through the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) where countries collectively refuse to pursue nuclear armament—that has clearly marked a line that other states feel they cannot cross.

At the Vienna Conference last month, in light of the unacceptable humanitarian consequences and associated risks of nuclear weapons, Austria made a pledge—in its capacity as a participating country, rather than as the host and chair of the conference—to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, states, international organizations and civil society in order to realize the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Prior to the conference, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the SGI organized an interfaith panel at a Civil Society Forum with practitioners of the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist faiths to discuss a path to nuclear abolition. The outcome of the discussion was summarized in a Joint Statement, which expresses the participants’ pledge to work for a world free of nuclear weapons. The Joint Statement was presented during the general debate at the Vienna Conference as a voice of civil society.

Joint Statement of Faith Communities

The interfaith panel “Faiths United Against Nuclear Weapons: Kindling hope, mustering courage” issued a Joint Statement pledging to continue raising awareness of the unacceptable risks of nuclear weapons, to empower youth and to enter into dialogue within and between faith traditions to create a nuclear-weapon-free world. It reads in part:

“Nuclear weapons are tools of terror designed to wreak death and destruction on whole populations, nations, the Earth itself … Nuclear weapons are utterly incompatible with the values upheld by our respective faith traditions—the right of people to live in security and dignity; the commands of conscience and justice; the duty to protect the vulnerable and to exercise the stewardship that will safeguard the planet for future generations.”

The key to creating shared action toward a world without nuclear weapons is found in our success in focusing the energy of such pledges this year, the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Here, I would like to propose two specific initiatives.

The first is to develop a new institutional framework for nuclear disarmament, based on the NPT. In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted an important resolution urging States to explore, during the 2015 NPT Review Conference, “options for the elaboration of the effective measures [for nuclear disarmament] envisaged in and required by Article VI of the Treaty.”^[46]

Since the 1995 decision to indefinitely extend the NPT, there has been little progress toward the implementation of the various agreements that have been reached, and challenges continue to pile up. This resolution expresses the deep sense of urgency among the 169 countries that supported it about the continued deadlock surrounding nuclear weapons issues.

Given this context, I would like to urge the heads of government of as many states as possible to attend the NPT Review Conference this year. I also propose that a forum be held at the Review Conference where the findings of the international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons can be shared.

In light of the fact that all parties to the NPT unanimously expressed their concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons at the 2010 Review Conference, I hope that each head of government or national delegation will introduce their nation’s plan of action to prevent such consequences at this year’s Review Conference. I further urge that the Conference advance debate on the effective measures for nuclear disarmament that Article VI of the NPT requires, and that it establish a new institutional framework to this end.

The NPT is understood to be built around three pillars: nonproliferation, the peaceful use of nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament. The first two goals are supported by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) and the convening of nuclear security summits and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In contrast, there is no institution dedicated to sustained debate and ensuring compliance with the NPT’s disarmament obligations.

Building upon the “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament,” reaffirmed at the 2000 Review Conference, I propose the establishment of an NPT disarmament commission as a subsidiary organ to the NPT to ensure the prompt and concrete fulfillment of this commitment.

The NPT establishes that a special conference shall be convened to consider a proposed amendment to the Treaty if requested by one-third or more of the state parties. An NPT disarmament commission could be established through such a process. It would work to bring together disarmament plans and verification regimes in order to reach the positive tipping point of largescale nuclear disarmament on the way to a world free of nuclear weapons.

The second initiative I would like to propose concerns the adoption of a nuclear weapons convention. Although various challenges and tasks remain, I firmly believe that the seventieth anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki creates a momentum that can propel negotiation of such a convention. Specifically, I suggest that a platform for such negotiations be established based on a careful evaluation of the outcome of this year’s NPT Review Conference.

Two years ago, the UN convened an “Open-Ended Working Group to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations for the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons.” We could build on this and develop it into a forum for negotiations that would include the regularized participation of civil society.

Additionally, a 2013 General Assembly resolution called for a United Nations high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament to be convened no later than 2018. I suggest that this conference be held in 2016 and that it begin the process of drafting a nuclear weapons convention. I strongly hope that Japan, as a country that has experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, will work with other countries and with civil society to accelerate the process of bringing into being a world without nuclear weapons.

The United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues will be held in Hiroshima in August, and the World Nuclear Victims’ Forum will take place in October and November, also in Hiroshima. Likewise, the annual Pugwash conference will be held in Nagasaki in November.

Planning is under way for a World Youth Summit for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons to be held in Hiroshima in September as a joint initiative by the SGI and other NGOs. Last year, the youth membership of the Soka Gakkai in Japan collected 5.12 million signatures on petitions demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons. I hope that the summit will adopt a youth declaration pledging to end the nuclear age and that it will help foster a greater solidarity among the world’s youth in support of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

In our dialogue, Dr. Toynbee emphasized that the key to solving the issue of nuclear weapons lies in the global adoption of a “self-imposed veto”^[47] on the possession of such weapons. On January 21 this year, the United States and Cuba initiated negotiations toward the restoration of normal diplomatic relations, which were broken off the year before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Looking back on this history, one could say that the crisis was resolved through the use of a self-imposed veto—the decision to refrain from using nuclear weapons—on the part of the United States and the Soviet Union.

The process I envisage for the establishment of a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons is one in which each country commits itself to such a self-imposed veto, with these acts of self-restraint forming an overlapping fabric that brings into being a new era—one in which the people of all countries can enjoy the certainty that they will never suffer the horrors wrought by the use of nuclear weapons.

Realizing a sustainable global society

The last field for shared action I would like to address is the construction of a sustainable global society.

In order to respond to environmental challenges such as climate change, we must share experiences and lessons learned as we work to prevent a worsening of conditions and effect the transition toward a zero-waste society. Such efforts will be crucial in the achievement of the SDGs, and I would like to stress the indispensable role of cooperation among neighboring countries to this end.

Concretely, I call on China, South Korea and Japan to join together to create a regional model that will embody best practices that can be shared with the world, including those relating to the development of human talent. In November last year, the first China-Japan summit meeting in two and a half years was held. As someone who has long sought and worked for friendship between the two countries, I was deeply gratified to see this first step toward the improvement of bilateral relations following a sustained chill.

In the wake of the summit, in December, the Japan-China Energy Conservation Forum was restarted, and on January 12 this year, consultations were held regarding the Japan-China Maritime Communication Mechanism. This mechanism can play a crucial role in preventing the escalation of any incident, and I hope that efforts to begin operation within the year as agreed to by the two leaders will proceed smoothly.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the normalization of relations between South Korea and Japan. While there is still a need to defuse political tensions between the two countries, we should not lose sight of the fact that people-to-people interactions have continued to expand, with some five million people now traveling between Korea and Japan annually, a number even greater than that for China and Japan. When bilateral relations were normalized in 1965, the annual figure was a mere 10,000 people. Although public opinion surveys reveal that large percentages of people in both Korea and Japan do not have a favorable opinion of the other country, more than 60 percent acknowledge the importance of the relationship.

In addition to such interactions, I have high expectations regarding the forms of trilateral cooperation that have been steadily developing for the past dozen or so years. Since the start in 1999 of trilateral cooperation in the environmental field, there are today more than fifty consultative mechanisms including eighteen ministerial meetings and more than one hundred cooperative projects. To encourage the further development of such cooperation, it is important that trilateral China-Korea-Japan summits be renewed following the three-year hiatus brought about by heightened political tensions.

As the adoption of the SDGs nears, such summits should be restarted at the earliest possible date to solidify the trend in improved relations, while building toward a formal agreement to make the region a model of sustainability. The leaders of the three countries should mark the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II by embodying the lessons of that conflict in a pledge never to go to war again and should initiate efforts to build robust mutual trust through regional cooperation in support of the new challenge of the SDGs being undertaken by the UN.

In my meetings with political, intellectual and cultural leaders from China and Korea including Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai (1898–1976) and Korean Prime Minister Lee Soo-sung, we have discussed the way that Japan and China and Japan and Korea can deepen bonds of friendship in order to make lasting contributions to the world.

Jean Monnet (1888–1979), who played a key role in helping France and Germany overcome their centuries-long animosity, asserted during negotiations among European countries in 1950: “We are here to undertake a common task—not to negotiate for our own national advantage, but to seek it to the advantage of all.”^[48]

In September 2011, a Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat was established by China, Korea and Japan. One role for this secretariat is identifying potential cooperative projects. I hope that the three countries will work together for the advantage of all in every one of the fields set out in the new SDGs.

As mentioned earlier, the SGI will be cosponsoring a side event at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in which civil society representatives of the three countries will meet to discuss regional cooperation toward disaster prevention and post-disaster recovery. This is being held with the support of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, and I am confident it represents the kind of positive engagement at the grassroots level that will complement intergovernmental regional cooperation toward the realization of the SDGs.

In this regard, I would like to make two proposals for expanding grassroots exchanges.

The first of these has a focus on youth. A key turning point in postwar relations between France and Germany was the 1963 Élysée Treaty, which initiated an era of greatly expanded exchanges among youth. “Centuries-old enmity can give way to profound friendship.”^[49] This phrase comes from an article jointly written by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle in 2013, marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Élysée Treaty. And indeed, the more than eight million young people who have had the opportunity to live or study in the partner country have played a critical role in generating firm bonds connecting the two societies.

Eight years ago, a program of youth exchanges was initiated between China, Korea and Japan, and I hope this year will be the occasion for greatly expanding the scale of this program. In addition to increasing cultural or educational exchanges such as those among high school or college students, I would like to see the establishment of a China-Korea-Japan youth partnership through which young people can actively collaborate on efforts to realize the SDGs or other trilateral cooperation initiatives.

For individual participants, the experience of working together on the daunting challenges of environmental or disaster-related issues is an invaluable one, impressing in their young lives the confidence that they are creating their own future. Further, such treasures of a lifetime will without doubt become the foundation of friendship and trust that will extend far into the future.

In the three decades since the signing of an exchange agreement between the Soka Gakkai Youth Division and the All-China Youth Federation (ACYF) in 1985, there have been regular exchanges. In May 2014, a new ten-year exchange agreement was signed, with the promise to continue to work together to enhance friendship between the two countries. For their part, the Soka Gakkai youth members in Kyushu have engaged in a wide range of exchange activities with Korea. All these activities arise from the belief that networks among young people fostered through face-to-face encounter and exchange are ultimately the most critical factor in building a more peaceful and humane world in the twenty-first century.

My second proposal is to greatly increase the number of sister-city exchanges between the three countries, aiming toward 2030, the SDG target date.

When I met with Premier Zhou Enlai forty years ago, our most salient shared interest was in deepening friendly relations between citizens of the two countries. In my September 1968 call for the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations, I stated: “The normalization of relations between nations will only be meaningful when the people of both come to understand each other and interact in ways that are mutually beneficial, contributing by extension to world peace.” In like manner, Premier Zhou held that lasting Sino-Japanese friendship could only be realized when the people of both countries truly understood and trusted each other. When we met, he spoke of his own youthful experience of living and studying in Japan for a year and a half, and I cannot help but feel that this shaped his perspective.

In 1916, the year before Zhou came to Japan to study, the Japanese political philosopher Sakuzo Yoshino (1878–1933) wrote the following against a backdrop of worsening Sino-Japanese relations: “If there is trust and respect between the citizens, even if hostility or misunderstanding regarding political or economic issues arise, these will be like waves stirred on the surface of the ocean by the wind, but which leave the deeply flowing currents of friendly relations undisturbed.”^[50]

This expresses my own long-standing conviction. If people of different nationalities can engage in exchanges of the heart, sharing concern for each other’s happiness, the great tree of friendship that is fostered will withstand all wind and snows, extending branches of lush growth far into the future.

Currently there are 356 local government sister-city agreements between China and Japan, 156 between Japan and South Korea, and 151 between China and South Korea. We should continue to extend such sister-city exchanges while fostering the crucial one-to-one bonds of friendship.

Our founding spirit

In making these concrete proposals, I have been intensely conscious that in the end it is the solidarity of ordinary people that will propel humankind in our efforts to meet the challenges that face us, such as those that will be tackled through the new Sustainable Development Goals.

It was forty years ago today, on January 26, 1975, that representatives of fifty-one countries and territories gathered in Guam to found the SGI. President Toda’s vision of global citizenship and his determination to eliminate misery from the Earth were intensely present to me at that moment. When I decided to write “the world” next to my signature in the column for “nationality” at that inaugural conference, I was expressing my vow to fulfill my mentor’s vision.

The declaration adopted at that first meeting affirmed our founding spirit in the following language:

In the creation of peace, the heart-to-heart bonds between people awakened to the sanctity of life are even stronger than economic or political ties between nations. … Lasting peace cannot be achieved without the realization of the happiness of all humanity. We will therefore strive to make the Buddhist ideal of compassion the basis of a new philosophical orientation that inspires concrete contribution to the survival and flourishing of humankind.

This spirit remains unchanged today, as our movement has spread to 192 countries and territories.

Rooted in an expanding foundation of friendship and dialogue, we will continue to work for a world without nuclear weapons or war and to eliminate misery from the face of the Earth, to create a new society in which all people may fully enjoy the blessings of human dignity.

A Shared Pledge for a More Humane Future: To Eliminate Misery from the Earth

On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), I would like to offer some thoughts on ways to generate greater solidarity among the people of the world for peace and humane values and for the elimination of needless suffering from the Earth.

The United Nations is working toward a new set of goals to follow the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and, last July, the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) released a proposal that expresses a commitment to inclusiveness, the determination to protect the dignity of all people without exception.

I would like to discuss three priority themes for promoting the achievement of these goals and, on a broader scale, accelerating efforts to eliminate misery from the face of the planet. This was the repeated desire of my mentor, Josei Toda, and remains the inspiration behind the activities of SGI members around the world.

The first is the “rehumanization of politics and economics” making their prime motivation the alleviation of the suffering of individuals. The most important driving force for this is the solidarity of ordinary citizens who have raised their voices based on an unyielding commitment to our collective future.

The second is what I call “a chain reaction of empowerment,” encapsulated in the idea that a great revolution of character in just a single individual can help achieve a change in the destiny of an entire society and make possible a change in the destiny of all humankind.

The third theme is the expansion of friendship across differences in order to build a world of coexistence. Expanding human solidarity based on a shared concern for the threats faced by all of us holds the key to the alleviation of human suffering. The one thing any of us can do at any time to contribute to building that solidarity is to generate a broader network of friendship through dialogue.

Frameworks for shared action

I believe there should be two prerequisites for the resolution of global problems at the heart of the creative evolution of the UN as it marks its seventieth anniversary this year: the participation of all states and the promotion of collaboration between the UN and civil society.

I would like to make specific proposals in the following three fields in which I think there is urgent need for shared action in order to eliminate the word misery from the human lexicon.

1. The first field for shared action is to protect the human rights of refugees, displaced persons and international migrants.

The source of the suffering of displaced persons is being cut off from a world in which they can fully experience and express their identity, and all the human rights associated with it.

Positioning the alleviation of the suffering of such people as a key objective of the creative evolution of the UN is necessary if the inclusiveness sought for the new SDGs is to be realized.

Likewise, the human rights situation of the world’s 232 million international migrants demands urgent attention. I would like to propose that the goal of protecting the dignity and basic human rights of migrant workers and their families be explicitly included in the SDGs.

I further propose the development of mechanisms by which neighboring countries can work together for the empowerment of displaced persons. Specifically, I would like to propose regional joint empowerment programs by which educational and employment assistance projects include both the refugee population and the youth and women of the host country.

2. The second field for shared action I would like to consider is toward the realization of a world without nuclear weapons.

By signing the Joint Statement on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons in October 2014, more than 80 percent of the member states of the United Nations have clearly expressed their shared desire that nuclear weapons never be used under any circumstances.

The inhumane nature of nuclear weapons is evidenced from a variety of perspectives above and beyond their sheer destructive potential. First, their capacity for annihilation instantly negates all the achievements of civilization and strips all existence of meaning. Second, continued nuclear weapons development and modernization generates dire socioeconomic distortions. Third, the maintenance of a nuclear posture locks countries into continuous military tension.

Here, I would like to propose the following two initiatives.

A new institutional framework for nuclear disarmament, based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

I urge the participants at the 2015 NPT Review Conference to debate options for the elaboration of the “effective measures” for nuclear disarmament required by Article VI of the NPT. Given this context, I hope that as many heads of government as possible will attend the Review Conference.

I further urge that the Review Conference establish a new institutional framework to promote the fulfillment of Article VI obligations. Building upon “the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament,” reaffirmed at the 2000 Review Conference, I propose the establishment of an NPT disarmament commission as a subsidiary organ to the NPT to ensure the prompt and concrete fulfillment of this commitment.

The adoption of a nuclear weapons convention.

Based on a careful evaluation of the outcome of this year’s NPT Review Conference, I suggest that the high-level international conference on nuclear disarmament that the UN has called for be held in 2016 and begin the process of drafting a nuclear weapons convention.

The process I envisage for the establishment of a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons is one in which each country commits itself to a self-imposed veto. Together, these acts of self-restraint will form an overlapping fabric that brings into being a new era, one in which the people of all countries can enjoy the certainty that they will never suffer the horrors wrought by the use of nuclear weapons.

I hope that the planned World Youth Summit for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons—to be held in Hiroshima in September as a joint initiative by the SGI and other NGOs—will adopt a youth declaration pledging to end the nuclear age and that it will help foster a greater solidarity among the world’s youth in support of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

3. The last field for shared action I would like to address is the construction of a sustainable global society.

In order to respond to environmental challenges such as climate change, we must share experiences and lessons learned as we work to prevent a worsening of conditions and effect the transition toward a zero-waste society. Such efforts will be crucial in the achievement of the SDGs, and I would like to stress the indispensable role of cooperation among neighboring countries to this end.

Concretely, I call on China, South Korea and Japan to join together to create a regional model that will embody best practices that can be shared with the world. To encourage such cooperation, it is important that trilateral China-Korea-Japan summits be restarted. Further, I hope the leaders of the three countries will mark the seventieth anniversary of the end of World War II by embodying the lessons of that conflict in a pledge never to go to war again.

Toward expanding grassroots exchanges, I would like to see the establishment of a China-Korea-Japan youth partnership through which young people can actively collaborate on efforts to realize the SDGs or other trilateral initiatives. Along similar lines, I propose that the number of sister-city exchanges between the three countries be greatly increased.

I wish to emphasize that it is the solidarity of ordinary people that, more than any other force, will propel humankind in our efforts to meet the challenges that face us.

Universal Respect for Human Dignity: The Great Path to Peace

Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2016

This year marks the thirty-fifth year since the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) began activities in support of the United Nations as an accredited nongovernmental organization (NGO). Born of the searing experience of two world wars, the UN declared as its objective the building of a world free from the scourge of war, where human rights are respected and discrimination and oppression eliminated. This vision is deeply compatible with the core values of peace, equality and compassion that we, as Buddhists, uphold.

All people have the right to live in happiness. The prime objective of our movement is to forge an expanding solidarity of ordinary citizens committed to protecting that right and, in this way, to rid the world of needless suffering. Our activities in support of the UN are a natural and necessary expression of this.

Our world today is beset by crises that present a dire threat to the lives and dignity of vast numbers of people. There has been an explosion in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons around the world, especially in the Middle East where the Syrian conflict continues unabated. Globally, as many as 60 million people have now been driven from their homes by armed conflict and persecution.^[1]

Further, a series of natural disasters has, in the course of less than a year, impacted the lives of more than 100 million people. Of these, almost 90 percent were climate-related disasters such as floods or violent storms, generating concern about the growing impact of global warming.^[2]

Against this backdrop, the World Humanitarian Summit, the first such conference to be organized by the UN, will be held in Istanbul, Turkey, in May. Consultations leading up to the summit have been marked by a growing sense of alarm at the unprecedented scale and extent of the humanitarian challenge. In addition to realizing an early cessation of armed hostilities, it is crucial to find a path to improving the conditions that confront so many people.

Humanitarian crises such as forced displacement due to conflict and natural disaster have long been an area of concern and engagement for the SGI. Our representatives will be participating in the Istanbul summit, where we hope to help further debate on the role of faith-based organizations (FBOs) in humanitarian relief efforts and on ways of building solidarity within civil society.

The SGI began its activities as an NGO with consultative status with the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) in 1981 and was registered as an Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) NGO in 1983, the year I issued the first of these peace proposals. Since then, our activities have focused on the areas of peace and disarmament, humanitarian relief, human rights education and sustainable development.

Here, I would like to reflect on the fundamental elements of the approach we have taken in supporting the UN’s efforts and to offer some thoughts and perspectives on the role of civil society in grappling with global issues, including humanitarian crises.

The deep current of humanity

In September 2015, the United Nations adopted a successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were adopted in 2000 and aimed at alleviating such problems as poverty and hunger. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are set out in Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In addition to continuing the work initiated under the MDGs, the new goals seek to develop comprehensive responses to critical issues such as climate change and disaster risk reduction during the years to 2030. Perhaps most striking is the clear enunciation of the determination to leave no one behind, as epitomized by the very first goal, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” This represents a significant advance on the MDGs, which successfully halved extreme poverty, by declaring that no one can be abandoned to their fate.

The 2030 Agenda draws attention to and stresses the importance of empowering particularly vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, people with disabilities, refugees and migrants. It calls for the strengthening of support tailored to the special needs of the vulnerable as well as the amelioration of the conditions confronting people living in areas affected by humanitarian emergencies or by terrorism.

I am particularly pleased that the principle of leaving no one behind has been given central importance in the SDGs, something for which I have been calling. I have also urged that the SDGs include the protection of the dignity and fundamental human rights of displaced persons and international migrants. In light of the burgeoning number of refugees in the world, we cannot move into a better future without directly confronting the challenges that these vulnerable people face. In this sense, one of the first opportunities to push implementation of the SDGs will be the World Humanitarian Summit, where issues such as the refugee crisis will be the focus of debate.

In the five years since the start of the Syrian conflict, more than 200,000 people have lost their lives and almost half the population has been driven from their homes and communities. The ravages of war have spared nothing: Homes and businesses, hospitals and schools have been devastated; places of refuge have been attacked; highways have been closed, increasing the difficulty of obtaining foodstuffs and delivering relief supplies. As a result, the people of Syria, who before the war had themselves been among the most welcoming of refugees into their country, now find themselves forced into refugee status in great numbers. Fleeing a conflict that shows no sign of abating, large numbers of people have crossed borders, where they are again exposed to various dangers. Many children have been separated from their families, while unusually cold weather in the Middle East and failed attempts to navigate the Mediterranean in fragile boats have claimed countless lives.

“Life as a refugee is like being stuck in quicksand—every time you move, you sink down further.”^[3] Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres cited these words of one father who had fled from Syria to illustrate the dire conditions in which many refugee families find themselves. For untold numbers of people, flight brings no real security, and they are forced to live in conditions of extreme deprivation and uncertainty.

Countries in both Africa and Asia have also seen a relentless increase in the size of their refugee and internally displaced populations. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has taken the lead in coordinating relief activities, but even so there are large numbers of people in desperate need of support if they are to survive.

As large numbers of refugees and migrants reach Europe, they have been met with a range of reactions. I was moved by the following words of a resident of one Italian port city as reported by Inter Press Service (IPS):

They are made of flesh and blood, just like us. We simply can’t let them drown.^[4]

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” Even more essential, however, is the kind of empathy expressed by that Italian citizen; this empathy, which exists independent of any codified norms of human rights, is the light of humanity that can shine brightly in any place or situation.

This was the focus of “The Courage To Remember: The Holocaust 1939–1945—The Bravery of Anne Frank and Chiune Sugihara,” an exhibition that was organized in cooperation with the Soka Gakkai Peace Committee and shown in Tokyo last October.

The Courage to Remember

“The Courage to Remember” exhibition was first shown at the Tokyo Metropolitan Theatre in October 2015. As well as covering the Holocaust and the heroism of Anne Frank and Chiune Sugihara, it featured a section on current human rights issues with the message that every individual has a role to play.

Co-organizers were Soka University and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Supporters were the Embassies of France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and the United States, as well as the Delegation of the European Union, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Tokyo Metropolitan Board of Education, the UN Information Centre and the NPO Chiune Sugihara Visas For Life. The exhibition was organized in cooperation with the Soka Gakkai Peace Committee.

The exhibition portrayed the lives and struggles of Anne Frank (1929–45), the young Jewish girl who refused to abandon hope even while living in hiding from the Nazis in Amsterdam, and the Japanese diplomat Chiune Sugihara (1900–86), who disregarded the orders of the Japanese Foreign Ministry and issued transit visas to as many as 6,000 Jewish refugees. As the historical record shows, amidst intensifying persecution of Jews in Europe, diplomats from a number of countries, often at variance with official policy, obeyed the dictates of conscience to help refugees find safety.

Likewise, there were many individuals, such as the women who risked their lives to support the Frank family while they were in hiding, who together created a network for the protection of Jewish refugees. I believe these unrecognized efforts of ordinary people in many countries represent another expression of the true luster of our humanity that persists unbroken far below the surface events of history.

In our world today, there are people who greet the sudden appearance of refugees in their communities with a deep empathy for all that they have endured, who spontaneously extend the hand of support and welcome. For people who have been forced to flee their homes, each such act is an important source of encouragement, an irreplaceable lifeline.

Even a seemingly small gesture can have a significant, perhaps decisive impact on the person to whom it is offered. In regard to critical voices asserting that it is impossible to save everyone, Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) told his grandson:

On those occasions, it’s a matter of whether one touches the life of an individual. We can’t look after thousands of people. But if we can touch one person’s life and save that life, that is the great change that we can effect.^[5]

The basis of altruistic action

Gandhi’s conviction resonates with the spirit that has animated not only the SGI’s religious practice but also our support for the UN and other socially engaged activities—the determination to treasure each individual.

The foundation of Buddhism is a belief in the inherent dignity of all people. But this is something which, as the following passage from Shakyamuni’s teachings indicates, is to be awakened through a process of self-reflection and self-awareness:

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.^[6]

In other words, Buddhism takes as its starting point the universal human impulse to avoid suffering or harm and the undeniable sense of the unique value of our own being. It then leads us to the realization that others must feel the same. To the degree that we can put ourselves in the place of another, we gain a tangible sense of the reality of their suffering. Shakyamuni called upon us to view the world through such empathetic eyes and thus commit ourselves to a way of life that will protect all people from violence and discrimination.

The altruism taught in Buddhism does not arise from a negation of the self. An awareness of the unavoidable pain of our own existence and the attachment we feel to the path in life that has brought us to this point can open us to the universality of human anguish, beyond all differences of nationality and ethnicity. It is our refusal to dismiss any form of suffering as unrelated to us that brings our humanity to its true luster.

According to the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) in his portrait of Shakyamuni, when the Buddha declared, “In a world grown dark I will beat the deathless drum,”^[7] he was motivated by the confidence that “to speak to all is to speak to each individual.”^[8]

As present-day heirs to this spirit, the members of the SGI have worked to empathetically share the sufferings and joys of the people in our lives and to advance together with them in a growing network of life-to-life bonds.

The Buddhist spirit of treasuring each individual can be supplemented by an additional perspective: the conviction that each person, whatever their path of life or their current condition, has the capacity to illuminate the place where they find themselves right now. We strive to avoid judging a person’s worth or potential on the basis of present appearance and instead focus on the inherent dignity of each individual. In this way, we seek to inspire in each other the confidence to live with hope from this day forward, bathed in the light of that dignity.

Buddhism encourages us to draw lessons and strengths from the challenges we have met in life so that we can achieve personal happiness while inspiring courage in those around us and in society as a whole. Nichiren (1222–82), the thirteenth-century Buddhist priest whose teachings underpin the activities of the SGI, emphasized that the principle that all living beings can attain Buddhahood—that all people possess an inner dignity and can realize limitless possibilities—constitutes the essence of Shakyamuni’s Lotus Sutra and lies at the very heart of the Buddhist teachings.

The Lotus Sutra illustrates this through a series of dramatic scenes involving Shakyamuni and others. For example, it is said of Shariputra, a disciple known for his intellectual understanding of Shakyamuni’s teachings, that his “mind danced with joy”^[9] when he fully sensed the dignity of his own life. In the same way, moved by the sight of Shariputra joyfully voicing his vow and Shakyamuni’s warm encouragement of him, four other disciples were likewise filled with joy. They expressed this and their delight at having found this limitless jewel—”something unsought that came of itself”^[10]—by recounting the Parable of the Wealthy Man and His Poor Son.

Parable of the Wealthy Man and His Poor Son

In Buddhism, individuals who seek enlightenment and carry out altruistic practices are known as bodhisattvas, characterized by the key virtues of compassion and commitment to the attainment of wisdom. The Lotus Sutra reveals that all people possess the potential to attain enlightenment, expressing this revolutionary teaching in the form of parables recounted by leading bodhisattvas to help awaken people to the great potential of their Buddha nature.

One such parable tells of a wealthy man’s son who runs away from his father and lives in poverty. Fifty years later, he encounters his wealthy father but fails to recognize him and flees. However, the father sends a servant to offer the son a humble job, which he accepts and carries out for many years. Eventually the son is given greater responsibilities until finally the father reveals his true identity and the son inherits all his father’s riches.

The poor son represents ordinary people who “wander about” in the threefold world, and the rich man represents the Buddha, whose only desire is to enable all people to enjoy the same enlightened state as his own.

As these dramatic narratives unfolded, great numbers of bodhisattvas joined their voices together and pledged to overcome all difficulties in order to work for the happiness of people. Finally, as the focus of the Lotus Sutra’s narrative shifted to the question of who would carry on the practice of Buddhism after Shakyamuni’s passing, a vast assembly of bodhisattvas emerged from the earth and pledged to do this in all places and at all times.

These scenes culminate in a chorus of pledges, as the Buddha’s disciples joyfully awaken to the ultimate dignity of their own lives through their encounter with his teachings. Recognizing this same dignity in others, they vow, one after another, to bring forth the inner light of their own and others’ lives, and in this way illuminate human society.

The most famous example of this is a young girl, the Dragon King’s daughter, who vows to save others from suffering through the teachings of the Lotus Sutra. Her actions, which perfectly accord with her vow, draw forth rejoicing and astonished praise in the hearts of all who witness them. In the midst of this vortex of joy, limitless numbers of people are awakened to the ultimate value and dignity that exists inherently within them. By faithfully carrying out her pledge, this young girl, who according to the popular conception of the time was considered to be among the most estranged from the possibility of enlightenment, set off a chain reaction of joy, offering inspiring proof of the principle that all living beings can attain the Buddha way. With this in mind, Nichiren encouraged female disciples who were struggling to meet the challenges of life to “follow in the footsteps of the Dragon King’s daughter.”^[11]

Thirteenth-century Japan was a place afflicted by natural disasters and military conflict. In his efforts to save the common people from suffering, Nichiren remonstrated with the authorities, an act that brought repeated persecution. Even in exile, he continued to write letters of encouragement to his followers and warmly embraced those who traveled great distances to see him. He also urged his disciples to read his letters together and lend each other support in the struggle to confront and overcome various trials.

This kind of proactive commitment, joy and mutual support is alive today in the small-group discussion meetings that have been a tradition within the Soka Gakkai since its founding in 1930. Participants in such meetings come to understand that they are not alone in their problems; they can derive courage from the example of their fellow members bravely striving to overcome their own challenges. In turn, the example of one’s own renewed determination can powerfully ignite the flame of courage in others.

Encouraging and being encouraged. … Through this back and forth, the pledge made by one person inspires another’s pledge, arousing the power of hope that enables people to remain unbowed even in the face of great difficulty. This life-to-life catalyzation is at the heart of the SGI discussion meeting.

Today, our discussion meetings are held in countries throughout the world. People from all walks of life across differences of age and gender, social standing and circumstance, gather as residents of a community to listen to each individual’s unique life story and expressions of deeply held feeling. Together, participants renew their sense of determination and commitment.

The discussion meeting is central to the SGI’s efforts for empowerment by, for and of the people; it is an embodiment of our sense of mission within society. Through it, we seek to revive awareness of the weightiness and unlimited possibilities of each person’s life, something that is all too often obscured amidst the expanding and increasingly complex threats facing our world.

This is the source of energy driving our activities for peace and in support of the UN, giving form to the continuity between religious practice and social engagement. Through these twin efforts, we continuously reaffirm our pledge never to seek happiness at the expense of others and to enable those who have suffered most to realize their right to happiness, and in this way bring into being a world in which the human dignity of all people can truly flourish.

The courage of application

In our activities in support of the United Nations, we have focused on a learning-centered approach, one that emphasizes the practice of dialogue.

Here, I would like to examine two important functions of learning. The first is to enable people to accurately assess the impact of their actions and to empower them to effect positive change for themselves and those around them.

The founding president of the Soka Gakkai, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), was a pioneer of humanistic education. In his 1930 work Soka kyoikugaku taikei (The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy)—a work of germinal importance to the SGI—he describes three different ways of life as human beings: dependent, independent and contributive.

In a dependent way of life, a person is typically unable to sense their own potential, giving up on any real possibility of transforming their current situation and instead passively accommodating themselves to others and their immediate surroundings or to the larger trends in society. In an independent way of life, people have the desire to find their own way forward but tend to have little interest in those with whom they are not directly involved. They are quick to assume that however trying the circumstances of another person, it is up to that person to find a solution through their own efforts.

Makiguchi used to illustrate the problematic nature of such a way of life with the following example. Suppose someone has placed a large stone on a railroad track. Needless to say, this is an evil act. But if, despite knowing it is there, one fails to remove the stone, a train will be derailed.

In other words, if one recognizes a danger but does nothing about it because it has no direct impact upon oneself, this failure to do good will produce an evil outcome.

Everyone speaks of the wrongfulness of an evil act, but inexplicably no one is held accountable for the wrongfulness of failure to do good. And thus, fundamental social evils remain unresolved.^[12]

Any doubt that failure to do good is equivalent to actively doing evil is dispelled when we imagine ourselves aboard the train heading toward disaster.

In politics, economics and other areas of contemporary thought, we see a tacit acceptance of the sacrifice of certain people’s interests in the pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The pitfalls of this way of thinking are illustrated by the climate crisis. A willingness to accept other people’s sacrifice can erode the foundations for humanity’s survival; even if one is not at risk at present, over the long run no part of Earth is likely to remain unaffected.

The American political philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum has warned of the dangers of pursuing short-term interests and calls for efforts to foster an awareness of global citizenship.

More than at any time in the past, we all depend on people we have never seen, and they depend on us. …

Nor do any of us stand outside this global interdependency.^[13]

Fostering imaginative capacities through education and learning expands grassroots solidarity and action for the resolution of global issues.

For his part, Makiguchi asserted that the way of life to strive for is a contributive one. “Authentic happiness cannot be realized except through sharing the joys and sufferings of the masses as a member of society.”^[14] Today, we need to expand such awareness to encompass the entire world: Nothing is more crucial.

Buddhism views the world as a web of relationality in which nothing can be completely disassociated from anything else. Moment by moment, the world is formed and shaped through this mutual relatedness. When we understand this and can sense in the depths of our being the fact that we live—that our existence is made possible—within this web of relatedness, we see clearly that there is no happiness that only we enjoy, no suffering that afflicts only others.

In this sense, we ourselves—in the place where we are at this moment—become the starting point for a chain reaction of positive transformation. We are able not only to resolve our personal challenges but also to make a contribution to moving our immediate environment and even human society in a better direction.

This palpable awareness of interdependence provides a framework or set of coordinates by which to reconsider the relationship between self and other and between ourselves and society as a whole. This is the approach that Buddhism urges us to adopt.

Here, education is vital as it enables us to populate this field of coordinates with the actual experience of empathy felt when encountering the pain of others. Our perceptive capacities are honed by learning about the background and underlying causes of such issues as environmental degradation or human inequality, and this in turn clarifies and strengthens the system of ethical coordinates within which we strive to address these issues.

The second function of learning is to bring forth the courage to persevere in the face of adversity.

The challenges that confront humankind, such as poverty or natural disasters, manifest themselves uniquely depending on location and circumstance. And as I mentioned with reference to climate change, the impacts of different threats are such that they can affect anyone, anywhere, at any time. That is why day-to-day efforts are needed in each locality to enhance resilience- -the capacity to prevent crises or their escalation and the ability to act with wisdom to respond flexibly and energetically to difficult conditions in the aftermath of disaster.

As an educator, Makiguchi focused on enhancing learners’ capacity to grasp the import of events in their environment and to respond proactively, something he termed “the courage of application.”^[15] For him, the authentic objective of education is to foster the habit of discovering opportunities to apply the knowledge gained through education and to do so to maximum effect through concrete action.

To this end, what is needed, much more than simply providing students with the right answer, is “to point children to those areas where opportunities to apply what they have learned abound, and to focus their attention on this.”^[16]

Makiguchi stressed the importance of bringing forth the courage of application—the capacity to resolve problems through one’s own efforts—based on the insights into the nature of those problems gained through learning. Such courage is what enables us to avoid being overwhelmed by our circumstances and to be able instead to create the kind of future we desire.

For example, the exact contours of the sustainable global society that the SDGs seek to realize are not something clearly established or known from the outset. Just as various crises and threats manifest themselves differently in different settings, there is no universally applicable formula for sustainability. Even as the pursuit of sustainability through efforts to integrate the economic, social and environmental dimensions produces positive results, no one outcome should be taken as final.

Recent years have seen a growing focus on the value of resilience as the ability to respond to an ever-changing reality. As Andrew Zolli and Ann Marie Healy have stated, “the goal ought to be healthy dynamism, not a dipped-in-amber stasis.”^[17] This is an approach that resonates deeply with the Buddhist worldview of reality as a web of relationality.

The clear outlines of a sustainable global society will come into view as each of us takes an inventory of the things we feel to be of irreplaceable value and acts with wisdom to protect and pass them on to the future. Herein lies the significance of the effort to create value in the place where we are now, through the words and actions to which we alone can give rise.

Makiguchi’s use of “the courage of application” as opposed to a more formalistic phrase such as “the act of application” expresses his faith in the inherent human capacity to remain undefeated in the face of adversity and his commitment to the unbounded worth of each individual.

From this perspective, the words of a seventeen-year-old young woman from Zimbabwe who spoke at a panel organized by UN Women at UN Headquarters in February last year ring a powerful chord:

We are 860 million young women and girls living in developing nations. We are more than statistic. We are 860 million dreams, 860 million voices and we have the power to make a difference!^[18]

Faced with ever more daunting threats and crises, it becomes easy to lose sight of the weightiness of people’s lives as individuals and their truly unlimited potential. The magnitude of the challenges can submerge the unique narrative of each individual’s life, their dreams, their unvoiced feelings and their ability to initiate a process of transformation within their immediate circumstances. Through our educational activities the SGI has sought to spark an awareness of the rich possibilities of each individual, the capacity to respond effectively to the realities around us.

Specifically, starting with the exhibition “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” launched at UN Headquarters in New York in 1982, we have placed education for global citizenship at the center of our grassroots activities for the resolution of global issues.

Through education for global citizenship, which embodies the two functions of education that I have been discussing, we have worked to encourage the following four intertwined processes:

• Learning and understanding the issues of the society in which one lives and the challenges facing the world as a whole;
• Orienting ourselves with the system of coordinates developed through this learning in order to engage in a daily process of reflection on one’s way of life;
• Becoming empowered to the unbounded potentialities existing within one’s life; and
• Exercising transformative leadership for a new era through concrete actions taken in the community in which one lives.

Heartened by the fact that the new SDGs make explicit reference to the importance of education for global citizenship, we will further accelerate our activities with a focus on these four processes.

Dialogue as a path to empathy

In addition to this learning-based approach, we have stressed the importance of dialogue as the foundation for our activities. It is my personal conviction that dialogue is essential if we are to build a world in which no one is left behind.

To successfully meet the challenges facing humankind, it is vital to continually revisit such questions as what it is that we must protect, who is going to protect it, and how. We must start from the perspective of those most severely impacted and work with them to find paths toward resolution. Dialogue provides the framework for this.

Against the backdrop of a series of natural disasters and extreme weather events, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction was adopted at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) held in Sendai, Japan, last March, establishing such shared goals as greatly reducing the number of people affected by disaster by the year 2030.

I was struck by the attention devoted to the principle of “Build Back Better.” This refers to the idea that recovery efforts should take into account and seek to ameliorate the specific challenges that had affected a community prior to the disaster. For example, even if the seismic resistance of homes of the elderly living alone is improved as part of DRR activities, that could still leave a range of problems unresolved, such as the day-to-day difficulty of accessing medical facilities or shops. Efforts to build back better seek to address critical issues that existed prior to the disaster through the recovery process.

Here, I am reminded of the following Buddhist parable: Once, a man saw a magnificent three-story house belonging to a wealthy person and decided that he must have one for himself. Returning home, he immediately commissioned a carpenter to build such a house, and the carpenter began work on the foundation and then the first and second stories. Unable to understand this, the man pressed the carpenter, saying, “I don’t need the first and second stories.” To which the carpenter replied in exasperation, “I’m afraid that’s impossible. How do you expect me to build the second story without the first, or the third story without the second?”

In a similar way, responses to humanitarian crises must have a bedrock focus on the dignity of each individual. Recovery efforts should not be limited to physical reconstruction, but must include scrupulous attention to the more basic questions of how to make life better for individual members of the community and how to deepen the bonds of mutual communication and support among residents. Without this, they will not produce optimal outcomes.

To this end, it is vital to heed the voices of those most grievously impacted and engage in dialogue with them in order to find solutions together. The irony of humanitarian crises is that the deeper the gravity of people’s plight, the harder it is to make themselves heard. Through dialogue, we come face to face with their experiences and can bring to light each of the elements necessary to ensure that recovery efforts leave no one behind. Most crucially, those who have experienced the greatest suffering have invaluable lessons and capacities to share.

The Sendai Framework lists the sharing of knowledge and experience as among the roles that citizens and civil society organizations can contribute as one aspect of their active engagement. In this context, the experiences of people in afflicted regions are of crucial significance.

This was on display following the earthquake and tsunami disaster that struck northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011. Many people who had themselves been impacted by that disaster were able to encourage and support other victims, in this way becoming effective agents of recovery. Through the SGI’s ongoing support of recovery efforts, we have had the opportunity to learn in depth from these invaluable experiences and have stressed the critical importance of the voices and capacities of disaster victims to the process of recovery at subsequent international conferences.

The same applies to efforts to achieve the SDGs. Governments, international organizations and NGOs need to listen to the voices of people in challenging circumstances in order to determine what steps to take and how to ensure their success.

Reflecting on a world that is full of challenges and conflict, where good news is in short supply, Amina J. Mohammed, who served as the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning, has stressed that the key to strengthening the unity of international society is “finding a place for our humanity again … reclaiming the values that I think that we’ve lost along the way.”^[19] Dialogue is indeed something that any of us, anywhere, and at any time can initiate to recover our collective humanity.

In times of heightened tension and conflict, there is another important role that dialogue can play: It can provide the impetus for renewing the connections between oneself and others and oneself and the world. As such, it can serve as the source of the creative energy to transform the era.

As a result of globalization—one of the defining trends of the twenty-first century—an unprecedented number of people are living outside their country of origin for short-term work or educational opportunities or have chosen to settle in a new location. Many countries have seen an influx of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, providing new opportunities for interaction and exchange. At the same time, however, there has been an increased incidence of racism and xenophobia.

In the peace proposal I wrote last year, I warned of the dangers of hate speech, noting that, regardless of whom it is directed at, it is a human rights violation that cannot be ignored. It is crucial that this recognition be established throughout international society. In order to construct societies that are resistant to xenophobia and incitement to hatred, people need to be exposed to and reminded of different perspectives. Face-to-face dialogue can play a crucial role in this.

The Buddhist teaching of the Four Views of the Sal Grove illustrates the way that differences in people’s mental or spiritual state cause them to see the same thing in completely different ways. For example, the sight of the same river might inspire different people to be moved by the beauty of its pure waters, to wonder what kind of fish might be found there, or to worry about it flooding. What is particularly significant is that these are not simply differences in subjective perception; they can give rise to actions that will actually alter that landscape.

Four Views of the Sal Grove

The Sal Grove refers to a grove of sal trees located in the northern part of Kushinagara, India, where Shakyamuni died. It is said that different people will perceive the same grove of trees in different ways according to their state of life, and their different perceptions are described using the names of the four kinds of lands from the doctrine of the T’ien-t’ai school of Buddhism. Some consider the Sal Grove as the Land of Sages and Common Mortals, for some it is the Land of Transition, while others consider it as the Land of Actual Reward or as the Land of Eternally Tranquil Light.

An example of this is to be found in the life story of my dear friend, the late Dr. Wangari Maathai (1940–2011).

The people in the Kenyan village where she was born viewed fig trees with reverence, contributing to the protection of the local ecology. Returning to Kenya from the United States where she had completed her studies, a shocking sight awaited her. A fig tree that she had loved since childhood had been felled by the new owner of the land to make space to grow tea. This had not only changed the landscape, but, as the pattern was repeated elsewhere, landslides were becoming more frequent and sources of potable water more scarce.^[20]

This is a poignant example of how something that was treasured by one person may appear to another as nothing more than an impediment. The problems arising from such differences in awareness are not limited to relations between individuals but also affect relations among groups of differing cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The things that do not impinge upon our consciousness cease to exist in our version of the world.

While we as humans may be adept at understanding the feelings of those with whom we have a close relationship, geographical and cultural distances can result in psychological distancing. Accelerating processes of globalization seem to exacerbate this, with modern means of communication at times amplifying the tendency to stereotype and hate. As a result, people end up avoiding interaction with those who are different, including those living in the same community, viewing them through a filter of discriminatory preconception. Society as a whole has seen a lessening of our capacity to appreciate others—as they are and for who they are. I believe that the surest way to change this is by carefully attending to the stories of each other’s lives through one-on-one dialogue.

Last year, for World Refugee Day, UNHCR launched a public education campaign that introduces the life stories of people who have become refugees, urging viewers to share these stories with their friends and acquaintances. They are each introduced by name and through easily recognized attributes that bear no relation to nationality—”Gardener. Mother. Nature lover.” “Student. Brother. Poet.”^[21]—and describe their stories and their feelings about their current situation. Encountering the experience and life story of an individual in such real and familiar terms can enable people to see beyond a faceless classification as “refugees.”

When I met with Professor Ved Nanda of the University of Denver in the United States, he recounted to me his experience at age twelve of being forced from his home as a result of the 1947 partition of India and of walking for days with his mother in search of safety. He went on to study international law and became a leading expert on human rights and refugee issues. As he later wrote:

There is no doubt that my early childhood experiences had a deep, lasting influence on my life. I will remember until the last day of my life the grief I felt at being forced from my homeland.^[22]

As UNHCR’s effort to show the human face of refugees suggests, our awareness of people belonging to different religions or ethnicities can be transformed through direct contact and conversation with even one member of that group. Such an encounter can bring into view an entirely new and different “landscape.” By engaging in open and frank dialogue, we are able to see things that had been hidden from view, and the world begins to appear in a warmer, more human light.

In September 1974, in the midst of heightened Cold War tensions, I decided to ignore the voices of criticism and opposition in order to visit the Soviet Union for the first time. The belief that motivated me was this: We don’t need to fear the Soviet Union so much as we need to fear our ignorance of the Soviet Union.

Conflict and tension do not in themselves render dialogue impossible; what builds the walls between us is our willingness to remain ignorant of others. This is why it is crucial to be the one to initiate dialogue. Everything starts from there.

At a welcoming dinner the evening I arrived in Moscow, I gave voice to my feelings:

People sense a human warmth, the warmth of the heart, in the light that spills from windows in the beautiful Siberian winter. In this way, we promise to treasure the light of the human heart, regardless of differences in our social systems.

The same sentiment prompted my visit to Cuba several decades later, in June 1996. This was just four months after two American civilian aircraft had been shot down by the Cuban Air Force, but I was convinced that a shared will for peace has the power to surmount the most formidable obstacles. And with this determination, I engaged in an unrestrained exchange of views with then President Fidel Castro.

When I delivered a commemorative lecture at the University of Havana, I stressed that education is our hope-filled bridge to the future. We have subsequently engaged in educational and cultural exchanges that continue to this day. I was thus truly delighted when, in July last year, the United States and Cuba restored diplomatic relations after a fifty-four-year hiatus.

While diplomatic relations are of course crucial, even more vital is dialogue and exchange at the grassroots level, the active embrace of the reality and richness of another person’s existence. This is something that is too easily obscured by stereotyped approaches to other peoples and religions.

I am convinced that when we, as individuals, use friendship and empathy to recast the world map in our hearts, the world around us will also begin to change.

My mentor Josei Toda (1900–58), the second president of the Soka Gakkai, frequently warned of the danger of allowing the lens of national or other group affiliation to shape our responses to problems. He noted that whereas individuals of different nationalities seek to live alongside each other in a civilized manner, relations between states are marked by “the constant exercise of force behind a veneer of culture.”^[23]

He also lamented the fact that ideological differences were giving rise to political and economic conflict; he expressed his concern that the logic of collective identity was blinding us to our common humanity. Further, he called for a broad-based solidarity of humanity united by a shared yearning for peace, a “global nationalism” based on the desire that “the word ‘misery’ no longer be used to describe the world, any country, any individual.”

In 1996, I founded the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research as a means of perpetuating the legacy of my mentor. In February, the Institute will organize a conference in Tokyo on the potential of the world’s religions to contribute to the creation of peace. Bringing together researchers and thinkers with backgrounds in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, the conference will focus on the capacity of religion to bring forth the positive aspects of humanity. Participants will explore ways to turn the world of the twenty-first century away from violence and hatred, generating instead a new current of peace and humane values.

Jacques Maritain (1882–1973), the French philosopher who participated in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, once called for a “geology of the conscience”^[24] that would dig down to the indispensable commonalties of human action beyond ideological and philosophical differences. Through its activities under the theme of “Dialogue of Civilizations for Global Citizenship,” the Toda Institute, which will mark its twentieth anniversary on February 11, is actively engaged with this challenge.

The power to move people at the deepest level is not found in formulaic assertions or dogma, but in words that issue from a person’s experience and carry the weight of that lived reality. Exchanges conducted in such language can mine the rich veins of our common humanity, bringing back to the surface glistening spiritual riches that will illuminate human society. This is the conviction that has supported me over the years as I have conducted dialogue with people of different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

It is indeed in the encounter between people whose paths in life have differed that our eyes are opened to vistas that would not otherwise have been visible. It is in the resonance of people encountering each other in the fullness of their humanity that the melodies of a new creative energy unfold.

This is the true significance of dialogue: It can serve as a treasure house of possibilities, a dynamo for the creation of history.

Sharing time and space together in dialogue. … The friendship and trust nurtured through the committed pursuit of this process can form the basis for a solidarity of ordinary citizens working to resolve global issues and bring into being a peaceful world.

Toward a more humane world

Next, I would like to offer ideas on three areas that require prompt and coordinated action by governments and civil society:

• Humanitarian aid and human rights protection;
• Ecological integrity and disaster risk reduction; and
• Disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

These proposals are oriented toward the ideal of a world in which no one is left behind, as articulated in the SDGs.

The first of these key areas is humanitarian aid and the protection and promotion of human rights. Specifically, I would like to offer two concrete proposals for the World Humanitarian Summit set to take place in Istanbul this May.

First, I call on all participants at the summit to reaffirm the principle that our response to the worsening refugee crisis must first and foremost be based on international human rights law, and I urge them to express a clear commitment to the primacy of protecting the lives and rights of refugee children.

The number of displaced people seeking refuge in foreign lands is at a post-World War II high. Within the receiving countries there are increasing concerns about the spread of social instability, the increase in government outlays on humanitarian assistance and the possibility of infiltration by terrorists under the guise of asylum-seekers. While each country may need to take measures related to these concerns, any response to the refugee crisis must be based on the commitment to protect human life and dignity that constitutes the very core of international human rights law.

In ways that parallel the situation of people who have lost their homes in natural disasters and have been forced to live in temporary shelters, conflict and war uproot in an instant the lives of countless people, robbing them of all sense of hope. More than anything, we must remember that the greatest victims of armed conflict are the children who constitute more than half of all refugees.

Last year marked the tenth anniversary of Resolution 1612, the UN Security Council’s measure regarding the protection of children affected by armed conflict. In addition to safeguarding children from being exposed to violence or exploitation in the midst of armed conflict, there is an urgent need to provide protection to children who have fled the ravages of war.

In the SDGs, children head the list of those who are vulnerable to and will be most seriously affected by various threats. UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake has stated: “Every child has the right to the quiet blessing of a normal childhood.”^[25] Protecting the right of children to enjoy this blessing should be the cornerstone of international support for displaced persons.

Humanitarian emergencies can only be said to have been resolved when the children whose lives were impacted can move beyond those bitter experiences to advance with hope in their hearts. For people who have been forced to flee their homes and are working to rebuild their lives in a new land, the presence of smiling, hope-filled children will serve as a source of inspiration and strength.

My second appeal to the World Humanitarian Summit is to come to an agreement to strengthen UN programs in support of host countries taking in refugees in the Middle East, and to prioritize a similar approach in other regions of Asia and Africa.

UN statistics show that almost nine out of ten refugees have sought safety in regions and countries considered less economically developed.^[26] The overwhelming number of displaced people has put these already vulnerable host communities under great strain, to the point that they are having difficulty providing access to safe water and other public services. Many of them are unable to sustain their support of refugees without international cooperation.

The Preamble of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees refers to the fact that granting asylum may place “unduly heavy burdens” on certain countries, and states that a satisfactory solution cannot be achieved without international cooperation. I believe that it is vital for the global community to keep in mind the spirit of international cooperation that imbues the Convention in addressing the needs of refugees and internally displaced persons.

In my peace proposal last year, I called for the development of regional joint empowerment programs in which educational and employment assistance projects would embrace both the refugee and local populations, especially youth and women in recipient countries.

Currently, a UN initiative that combines refugee relief operations with support for recipient communities is being implemented in five countries in the Middle East. This new aid architecture, the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), is designed to provide direct support to Syrian refugees as well as to host country populations by improving quality of life and employment opportunities through upgrading the local social infrastructure. It aims to build a framework of international cooperation to help stabilize the region and ease the burdens faced by Turkey and Lebanon, which have each accepted more than one million refugees, as well as the pressures on neighboring Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, where a large number of Syrians have sought refuge. To date, the 3RP has contributed to improvements in the supply of food and safe drinking water as well as in health care and other areas. Basic policy and concrete targets for the future of these initiatives were announced in December last year.

I encourage the participants in the World Humanitarian Summit to discuss and reflect on the 3RP in order to share best practices and challenges, and to express their commitment to work in solidarity to facilitate such activities going forward, including cooperation on funding. I also urge the Japanese government to draw on its experience of extending humanitarian aid to Syria and the region as it expands its assistance for refugees, focusing especially on securing a better future for refugee children.

In Turkey, Lebanon and elsewhere, it has become possible for children to attend local public schools or temporary education centers, but more than half of displaced Syrian children still lack access to schools. The UN has instituted plans to expand educational opportunities for refugee children. The European Union has been working with UNICEF to support education for displaced children in Syria and neighboring countries; it is my fervent hope that the Japanese government will also play a substantive role in this field.

In partnership with UNHCR, several Japanese universities have instituted a Refugee Higher Education Program offering degree courses for refugees. A wide range of such educational opportunities should be made available for the younger generation.

It is important for civil society to collaborate in responding to humanitarian imperatives such as the refugee crisis. Toward the same goal of creating a world where all people’s dignity is respected, the SGI will redouble our efforts to promote human rights education.

This year marks the fifth year since the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, by which UN member states for the first time agreed to international standards for human rights education.

Given the global rise in incidents of racial discrimination and xenophobia, especially prejudice and hatred toward refugees, displaced people and migrants, I think the following two aspects in the Declaration are particularly salient:

• Promoting the development of the individual as a responsible member of a free, peaceful, pluralist and inclusive society;
• Contributing to the prevention of human rights violations and abuses and to the combating and eradication of all forms of discrimination, racism, stereotyping and incitement to hatred, and the harmful attitudes and prejudices that underlie them.^[27]

The point here is that it is not enough simply to refrain from discriminatory behavior. Rather, it is imperative to establish an ethos that clearly rejects all forms of human rights violation rooted in prejudice and hatred—in other words, to help a universal culture of human rights take root so as to construct authentically inclusive societies.

Earlier, I referred to first Soka Gakkai president Makiguchi’s admonition that failure to do good is the equivalent of doing evil. With regard to the undertaking of building a universal culture of human rights, something in which the behavior and actions of each individual play a key role, we must renew our awareness of the gravity of failing to do good.

The Declaration does not limit itself to the acquisition of knowledge about human rights or the deepening of understanding, but explicitly includes the development of attitudes and behaviors. It further defines human rights education and training as “a lifelong process that concerns all ages.”^[28] This points to the elements that are indispensable to bringing about a rich flowering of a culture of human rights.

As a civil society organization, the SGI supported this important UN Declaration from the drafting stage. Since its adoption by the General Assembly in December 2011, we have supported its objectives by holding awareness-raising exhibitions and through the jointly produced documentary A Path to Dignity: The Power of Human Rights Education.

In 2013, Amnesty International, Human Rights Education Associates and the SGI launched Human Rights Education 2020 (HRE 2020), a global civil society coalition for human rights education. To support and promote the Declaration and the World Programme for Human Rights Education, HRE 2020 has published Human Rights Education Indicator Framework, a resource intended for use as a guidebook to enhance the quality of human rights education and training in different national settings.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the Declaration’s adoption, the SGI and other organizations working together through HRE 2020 are advancing preparations for a new human rights exhibition, which will explore the respective themes of the new SDGs from the perspective of human rights. I hope this new exhibition will inspire renewed commitment to the kind of action that will help bring into being a world in which the dignity of all people is respected.

Ecological integrity and disaster risk reduction

Next, I would like to offer some thoughts on current environmental issues and disaster risk reduction.

The first theme I would like to focus on is reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. The 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held from November 30 to December 11 last year, adopted the Paris Agreement as the new international framework for efforts to tackle global warming.

The adoption of the Paris Agreement is groundbreaking in that 195 countries came together to commit themselves to take action under a shared framework. They have done so against the backdrop of growing concerns that humanity will face grave consequences unless the increase in the global average temperature is kept below 2°C compared to preindustrial levels. Each government has set a target, and although these are not legally binding, they have agreed to implement policy measures for their achievement.

While combating global warming is a daunting challenge, the near-universal participation of the world’s governments should be recognized as the great strength of the Paris Agreement, and this should help give rise to the kind of cooperation by which each country makes proactive contributions with an eye to the global public good.

Asia is one region that has been facing an increasing incidence of extreme weather events. In light of this, I would like to call for cooperation among China, Japan and South Korea—which together account for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions^[29]—in pursuit of ambitious and groundbreaking initiatives.

In November last year, the Sixth Trilateral Summit among China, Japan and Korea was held in Seoul, after a lapse of three and a half years. Having urged in past proposals and elsewhere the need to overcome political tensions and reconvene these trilateral summits, I am particularly pleased by the declaration that cooperation has been completely restored and by the agreement to hold summits on a regular basis.

It was work in the field of ecological integrity that provided the impetus and has remained at the heart of trilateral cooperation. The Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting (TEMM) has expressed the understanding that Northeast Asia is “one environmental community.”^[30] Annual meetings of the environment ministers have continued to contribute to cooperation on environmental issues even at times of heightened political tensions.

Hoping to encourage further collaboration on the environment, last year I called for the three countries to work toward a formal agreement to make the region a model of sustainability. If, in addition to such fields as reducing atmospheric pollution and tackling the problem of dust and sandstorms, there could be increased regional cooperation on combating climate change, this would be a crucial vehicle for the achievement of the targets set by each country in the Paris Agreement.

Concretely, there should be sharing of knowledge and best practices in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy and efforts to minimize the resource footprint of economic activities. Such synergies among the three countries could accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future.

This year, the Trilateral Summit is to be held in Japan. This will be accompanied by a Trilateral Youth Summit, which will provide an opportunity for young representatives to discuss cooperation for peace and ecological integrity in Northeast Asia. I urge the leaders of the three countries to adopt a China-Japan-Korea environmental pledge focused on regional cooperation to counter climate change toward 2030, the target year of the Paris Agreement.

I also hope that the Youth Summit will generate outcomes along the lines of establishing a platform for the sharing of creative ideas and best practices and supporting youth exchanges for cooperation on ambitious undertakings proposed by young people.

Next, in addition to such intergovernmental cooperation, I would like to propose that the world’s cities work together in paving the way toward promoting the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Although the world’s cities only occupy 2 percent of the Earth’s land area, they account for 75 percent of carbon emissions and more than 60 percent of energy consumption.^[31] While this means that cities’ environmental footprint is disproportionately large, it also reflects the reality that if cities change, the world will change.

Certainly, the density of urban populations means that problems are concentrated in one place, as is the ecological burden. By the same token, however, this density can facilitate the effective implementation of energy efficiency measures and the adoption of renewable energy sources in the shift toward a low-carbon society.

Launched in 2014 at the United Nations Climate Summit, the Compact of Mayors, which now encompasses more than 400 cities worldwide, enables each city to publicly commit to their mitigation plans and targets.

As cities initiate action and efforts begin to bear fruit, local citizens will be able to gain a palpable sense of achievement. This will provide conviction and pride that will further inspire individuals to take part in the endeavor, building greater momentum toward a sustainable society. I believe that cities can generate ripple effects that can propel each nation’s efforts to meet their Paris Agreement targets.

Prior to the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) held in 2012—which initiated the process of concrete deliberation toward the SDGs—I expressed my hope that the post-2015 goals would be such that people would take them up as a personal commitment and be inspired to work together toward their achievement.

One of the goals listed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is sustainable cities. Because the accumulation of efforts undertaken in one’s immediate surroundings can generate important positive impacts on the global environment, this theme of sustainable cities can demonstrate to people that their efforts are important and thus stimulate a sense of accomplishment and pride.

The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) is slated to be held in Quito, Ecuador, in October this year. At this meeting, in addition to representatives of national governments, people speaking for subnational entities will be able to express their views and share best practices, building global solidarity for the goal of sustainable cities.

Environmental activist Wangari Maathai recalled her experience at the 1976 Habitat I Conference held in Vancouver, Canada, as her inspiration for founding the Green Belt Movement in Kenya:

The beautiful surroundings of British Columbia and the engaging with people who shared my evolving concern for the environment were just the tonic I needed. … I returned to Kenya reenergized and determined to make my idea work.^[32]

Regardless of the country or community where we reside, I believe people share the desire to leave behind a better environment for our children and grandchildren.

Earlier I called for cooperation on the national level between China, Japan and Korea, and here I would like to propose that a forum for tripartite environmental cooperation be held in conjunction with Habitat III with the participation of representatives of subnational governments and NGOs active in the environmental field.

As a side event at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai in March last year, the SGI sponsored a symposium with representatives of civil society organizations involved in DRR from China, Japan and Korea. Chen Feng, deputy secretary-general of the intergovernmental Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat which supported the symposium, stated that, as close neighbors, a disaster in one country will also cause pain to the other two, and that for this reason cooperation in DRR must always be a priority.^[33] The same can be said of environmental issues.

At present, more than 600 localities in China, Japan and Korea have established sister-city relationships. Trilateral efforts can help build an invaluable heritage of friendship for the future by developing through these sister-city relationships a deepened understanding that the cities, towns and villages we live in are all part of a shared environmental community.

The second theme I would like to discuss is Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). Around 800 million people in the world today are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Moreover, approximately 30 percent of the world’s soil resources, the foundation for global food production, are experiencing some degree of degradation.^[34]

Healthy soil plays an important role in the carbon cycle, as well as the storing and filtering of water, thus making it a crucial component in the ecosystem. But for all too long it has not been accorded the attention it deserves. Once degraded, soil does not recover easily—it can take more than a hundred years for even one centimeter to form.

Although the pace of net global deforestation has slowed, 13 million hectares of forest are still being lost each year, causing grave concern about such environmental impacts as loss of biodiversity.^[35]

One of the SDGs articulates the importance of halting and reversing land degradation and sustainable management of the world’s forests. These are urgent challenges both in terms of protecting the ecological integrity of our planet and enhancing carbon sequestration.

In recent years, the role that efforts to protect the environment can play in disaster risk reduction has attracted growing attention. Awareness of this was greatly heightened by the experience of the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004. Studies found that coastal villages where mangrove forests served as bioshields endured significantly less damage than coastal areas where this protection was absent.

Examples of Eco-DRR projects include restorative planting to stabilize sand dunes, the use of wetlands to mitigate storm surges and the greenification of cities in stormwater management.

Of particular note is the value that arises from the active and sustained engagement of the people living in a community. In regions afflicted by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster in northeastern Japan, children are among those actively involved in efforts to plant saplings to revive the protective coastal forests. Such activities deepen a shared sense of the importance of the local ecosystem and invite an expanding cadre of participants to imagine how the trees they are planting now might protect the lives of people in the future.

When those involved pass through this place of their labors in future years, they will look upon that landscape with an even more poignant sense of its value. People will feel the essential yet ineffable importance of local ecosystems to their daily lives as well as the invaluable nature of their own engagement in supporting that environment and disaster risk reduction efforts within it. This awareness will grow along with the trees they have planted, setting down the deep roots of a truly resilient community. In this way, people’s efforts to protect their local ecology have the direct effect of nurturing a hopeful future for that community.

Recently, the Global Action Programme for ESD has been launched as a follow-up to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD). The engagement of young people is listed as one of the program’s priorities, and in this context I would like to wholeheartedly encourage young people and children everywhere to participate actively in Eco-DRR, such as tree-planting campaigns.

The Sendai Framework adopted at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction last March stresses that DRR “requires an all-of-society engagement and partnership”^[36] and identifies children and youth as “agents of change”^[37] who should be empowered to contribute to DRR.

Since the SGI together with other NGOs proposed the establishment of the DESD in 2002, we have shown the awarenessraising exhibitions “Seeds of Change: The Earth Charter and Human Potential” and “Seeds of Hope: Visions of sustainability, steps toward change” around the world. Over the years, large numbers of students, from elementary to high school, have visited the exhibitions, making them an effective tool for environmental education.

One of the reasons that the SGI has placed great importance on ESD is to encourage learning about the indissoluble links between human beings and their environment and to promote a groundswell of people of all ages who can muster the “courage of application” that Soka Gakkai founding president Makiguchi cited as a crucial goal of education. We hope that this will encourage them to take determined action in their respective communities. I believe that such sustained activities at the local level can pave a secure and effective path toward protecting the global environment.

Disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons

Lastly, I would like to offer proposals regarding disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

The first of these relates to strengthening the institutional framework to prevent the proliferation of conventional weapons, which exacerbate humanitarian crises and contribute to incidents of terrorism around the world.

Each year, an unconscionable number of lives are lost due to the influx of small arms into conflict areas.

The Arms Trade Treaty, which entered into force on December 24, 2014, seeks to regulate the trade in conventional weapons ranging from small arms—often referred to as “the real weapons of mass destruction”—to tanks and missiles. It has only been ratified by seventy-nine states so far, however, and no agreement has been reached on key issues such as a reporting mechanism on international arms transfers.

The First Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty was held in Cancún, Mexico, in August 2015. The participants failed to reach consensus on core questions such as whether to make reports available to the public and which arms should be subject to reporting.

I have repeatedly called for the regulation of the arms trade, starting with my 1999 peace proposal, because I view it as an essential challenge in the effort to build a peaceful world in this century.

The deepening refugee crisis illustrates the urgent need to use the Arms Trade Treaty to put an end to the proliferation of conventional weapons. Their widespread availability contributes to the entrenchment and prolongation of conflict, driving large numbers of people from their homes. Even after fighting has ceased, the danger that conflicts will reignite remains, deterring people from returning home.

In particular, small arms can be easily carried and operated, facilitating the forced enlistment of children as combatants. There are estimated to be over 300,000 child soldiers around the world, facing physical injury, psychological trauma and death.^[38]

Further, it is imperative that the international trade in conventional weapons be strictly regulated in order to prevent the spread of terrorism. The global response to terrorism can be strengthened significantly through synergies between the Arms Trade Treaty and the numerous antiterrorism conventions that have been established to date.

Given all the harmful impacts of the proliferation of small arms, it is urgent that the international community use the Arms Trade Treaty to disrupt the cycles of hatred and violence around the world.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development counts illicit financial and arms flows among factors giving rise to violence, insecurity and injustice; significantly reducing them by 2030 is one of the targets. I urge states to promptly ratify the Arms Trade Treaty as evidence of their commitment to this goal.

Full public disclosure, including the volume of arms transactions, would contribute to enhanced transparency and the more effective functioning of the Treaty.

The second area of disarmament I would like to address concerns the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Last year—the seventieth anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was held at UN Headquarters in New York, but closed without reaching consensus.

Since the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference referenced the inhumane nature of any use of nuclear weapons and the need to comply with International Humanitarian Law, there has been a global rise of concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and three international conferences on this subject have been held.

This makes it all the more regrettable that the chasm between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states could not be bridged at the 2015 Review Conference, and that the NPT member states were unable to reach a consensus at this historic juncture.

Hope still remains, however, thanks to a number of noteworthy developments. These include:

• A growing number of countries endorsing the Humanitarian Pledge, a commitment to work together for the resolution of the nuclear arms issue;
• The adoption in December 2015 by the UN General Assembly of several ambitious resolutions calling for a breakthrough; and
• The extensive efforts of faith-based organizations and the engagement of youth against the backdrop of rising calls from civil society for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

We must leverage these new developments to create roadmaps to a world without nuclear weapons and to initiate concrete action toward its realization.

On January 6 this year, North Korea conducted a nuclear test, further heightening concerns within the international community about the threat of nuclear proliferation.

If nuclear weapons were to be used in a hostile exchange in any corner of the world, the impact—whether in terms of the number of lives lost or the number of people who would suffer aftereffects—staggers the imagination.

In the world today, there are more than 15,000 nuclear weapons. Their use could render meaningless in an instant all of humankind’s efforts to resolve global problems.

Taking the example of the refugee crisis, the consequences of a nuclear explosion would cross national borders, in all likelihood creating a humanitarian crisis of far greater proportion than the current 60 million refugees. Hundreds of millions of people might find themselves fleeing for safety. Likewise, no matter how much effort people may put into preventing soil degradation, a nuclear explosion would pollute the soil—one centimeter of which might take as much as a thousand years to form—over vast expanses of Earth.

Recent research warns of the devastating impact of even a geographically limited nuclear exchange on the global ecology; the impact on the world’s climate would undermine food production, resulting in a “nuclear famine.”

To date, efforts to fight poverty and improve public health through the MDGs have rendered meaningful achievements, and this work will be carried on through the follow-up framework, the SDGs, in such areas as disaster risk reduction and sustainable cities. The existence of nuclear weapons threatens to negate all of this.

What then is the point of national security guaranteed by nuclear weapons, the use of which would inevitably produce catastrophic consequences and result in immense suffering and sacrifice throughout the world? What exactly is it that is protected by a security regime premised on the possibility of inflicting irreparable damage and devastation on vast numbers of people? Is this not a system in which the true objective of national security—protecting people and their lives—has in fact been forsaken?

In 1903, at the outset of the phase of global military competition that continues to this day, Soka Gakkai founding president Makiguchi argued that when a given mode of competition has proven ineffectual in achieving its ends, this drives a transformation in the form and nature of human competition.

When hostilities continue for a long period of time, various aspects of domestic life are affected, leading inevitably to the exhaustion of national strength. Such losses cannot be compensated by what is gained through war.^[39]

The limitations of military competition that Makiguchi noted have become undeniably evident over the course of two world wars and in the nuclear competition that started during the Cold War and persists even today.

As the humanitarian impact and the limited military effectiveness of nuclear weapons have become more apparent, so has the fact that they are essentially unusable. Having reached the limits of military competition, we can now see signs of the emergence of a new mode of international competition, one centered around mutual striving toward humanitarian objectives.

One example of this can be found in the various contributions made by the International Monitoring System (IMS) established with the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. The CTBT has yet to be ratified by eight of the countries whose ratification is required for it to enter into force, but the IMS, launched by the CTBTO Preparatory Commission to detect any nuclear explosion worldwide, is already in operation.

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear weapon test explosions or other nuclear explosions. In order to verify compliance with its provisions, the Treaty establishes a global network of monitoring facilities and allows for on-site inspections of suspicious events. The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) was set up in 1996 with its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. It is an interim organization tasked with building up the CTBT verification regime in preparation for the Treaty’s entry into force, as well as encouraging all countries to sign and ratify the Treaty.

One hundred and eighty-three countries have signed the Treaty, of which 164 have also ratified it, including three of the nuclear-weapon states: France, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom. But forty-four specified countries that possess nuclear technology must sign and ratify before the CTBT can enter into force. Of these, eight are still missing: China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the USA. India, North Korea and Pakistan have yet to sign the CTBT.

Its core function was again demonstrated in the rapid detection of the seismic waves and radiation from the recent North Korean nuclear test. In addition, the global IMS network has been used to gather data about natural disasters and the impact of climate change. Examples of this include: providing information on undersea earthquakes to tsunami early-warning centers; real-time surveillance of volcanic eruptions to enable civil aviation authorities to issue timely warnings; and tracking large-scale weather events and the collapse of ice shelves. The system has been compared to a giant Earth stethoscope.

As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has noted, “Even before entering into force, the CTBT is saving lives.”^[40] Indeed, the Treaty and its verification regime, originally designed to restrain the nuclear arms race and nuclear proliferation, have become essential humanitarian safeguards, protecting the lives of large numbers of people.

It has been twenty years since this Treaty was adopted. I call on the remaining eight states to ratify the CTBT as soon as possible in order to enhance its effectiveness and ensure that nuclear weapons are never again tested on our planet.

We must of course accelerate efforts toward nuclear disarmament and abolition. At the same time, we must further develop the kind of activities that have grown from the CTBT in order to build momentum toward a world that gives highest priority to humanitarian objectives.

In September 1957, amidst deepening Cold War antagonism and the escalation of the nuclear arms race, my mentor Josei Toda issued a declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons:

Although a movement calling for a ban on the testing of atomic or nuclear weapons has arisen around the world, it is my wish to go further, to attack the problem at its root. I want to expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons.^[41]

Even as he expressed his sympathy with the earnest voices of people around the world calling for a ban on nuclear testing, Toda went further and stressed that a genuine solution is only possible when we overcome the disregard for life that underlies a system of national security premised on the suffering and sacrifice of countless ordinary citizens.

What my mentor referred to as the “claws” hidden in the depths of nuclear weapons is the toxic way of thinking that permeates contemporary civilization: namely, the pursuit of one’s objectives by any means, of one’s security and national interest at the expense of the people of other countries, and of one’s immediate goals in disregard of the impact on future generations. With his words echoing in my heart, I have worked toward resolving the nuclear arms issue, believing that success in this challenge can set the world in a new and more humane direction.

The nuclear-weapon states and their allies adhere to the idea that they have no choice but to maintain a nuclear deterrent as long as these weapons exist. They might believe that possessing a nuclear deterrent puts them in control. Yet the truth is that the dangers of an accidental detonation or launch multiply in proportion to the number of nuclear weapons and states possessing them. Seen from this perspective, the nuclear weapons possessed by a state actually hold the fate of not only that country but of all humankind in their grasp.

Twenty years have passed since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Citing Article VI of the NPT, it states:

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.^[42]

However, good faith negotiations involving all the nuclear-weapon states have not even begun, leaving no prospect of nuclear disarmament being achieved for the foreseeable future. This is an intolerable state of affairs.

In an attempt to break this deadlock, the Humanitarian Pledge was submitted to the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Well more than half of the UN member states—121 countries—have so far added their voices to the call to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, international organizations and civil society, in “efforts to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.” It also urges all states, as an immediate priority, to “identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons.”^[43]

I strongly hope that the OEWG will succeed in breaking the deadlock that has plagued the NPT Review Conference and fulfill the obligation set out in the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ to “pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.”

In view of the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, I call on the OEWG to consider the following three items as they attend to the concerns and integrate the voices of civil society in their deliberations:

• Removal of nuclear retaliatory forces from high-alert status;
• Withdrawal from the nuclear umbrella; and
• A halt to the modernization of nuclear weapons.

The first two should be implemented in all haste given the current situation where the unusable nature of nuclear weapons has become evident in light of their humanitarian consequences and military ineffectiveness.

Here, we should remind ourselves about the way the use of biological and chemical weapons—which were developed in a climate of intense competition over the course of two world wars—is now considered impermissible due to their humanitarian consequences.

As former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane strikingly put it:

How many states today boast that they are “biological weapon states” or “chemical weapons states”? Who is arguing now that bubonic plague or polio are legitimate to use as weapons under any circumstance, whether in an attack or in retaliation? Who speaks of a bio-weapon umbrella?^[44]

Most notably, the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference called upon the nuclear-weapon states to promptly “diminish the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies.”^[45]

In that sense, it is noteworthy that a group of states including Brazil submitted to the General Assembly in October 2015 a resolution encouraging “all States that are part of regional alliances that include nuclear-weapon States to further promote a diminishing role for nuclear weapons.”^[46]

Another resolution submitted during the same session, whose lead sponsors included Japan, “Calls upon States concerned to continue to review their military and security concepts, doctrines and policies, with a view to reducing further the role and significance of nuclear weapons therein.”^[47] I believe that Japan should take the lead in transforming its security regime, which is currently reliant on the extended deterrence of the US nuclear umbrella.

In the lead-up to the G7 Summit scheduled for May this year, the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting will be held in April in Hiroshima. I hope that the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons will be part of the agenda, along with nonproliferation issues such as the North Korean nuclear program and diminishing the role of nuclear weapons as a step toward the denuclearization of Northeast Asia.

The third item, the modernization of nuclear weapons, is something I warned against in last year’s peace proposal. By continuing to spend more than US$100 billion per year to maintain these weapons, we risk permanently entrenching the grotesque inequalities of our world.

A resolution proposed to the UN General Assembly by South Africa and other states in October 2015 notes that, “in a world where basic human needs have not yet been met, the vast resources allocated to the modernization of nuclear weapons arsenals could instead be redirected to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.”^[48]

If modernization of nuclear weapons continues at its current pace, it will ensure that for at least the next several generations humanity will be forced to live under the threat of nuclear weapons. Even assuming that nuclear weapons are not used, the diversion of resources will be a severe impediment to the achievement of the SDGs and to the meaningful amelioration of the inequality that afflicts global society.

In the words of the South African representative, “Nuclear disarmament is not only an international legal obligation, but also a moral and ethical imperative.”^[49] I think that these words give potent expression to the feelings of the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have undergone indescribable suffering and of other hibakusha severely affected by nuclear weapons development and testing in other parts of the world. They also resonate with the governments that have endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge as well as all of the peace-loving people of the world.

Hibakusha

Survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their children and grandchildren are referred to in Japanese as hibakusha, literally “explosion-affectedpeople.” According to the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law in Japan, there are certain recognized categories of hibakusha: people exposed directly to the nuclear bombings; people exposed within a 2-km radius of the hypocenter within two weeks of the explosion; people exposed to radioactive fallout generally; and those exposed in utero.

However, the term hibakusha has recently also been taken to apply to people anywhere in the world who have been exposed to radiation. Its common usage has spread to encompass any person exposed to radiation from the nuclear fuel chain, through the use and production of nuclear weapons, especially through nuclear weapons tests, as well as the processes that create and produce nuclear energy.

Generation of change

At the 2015 NPT Review Conference, together with representatives of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other faith traditions, the SGI submitted a Joint Statement entitled “Faith Communities Concerned about the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons.” It reads in part:

Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the values upheld by our respective faith traditions—the right of people to live in security and dignity; the commands of conscience and justice; the duty to protect the vulnerable and to exercise the stewardship that will safeguard the planet for future generations. …

[We] call for the early commencement of negotiations by states on a new legal instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons in a forum open to all states and blockable by none.^[50]

Earlier I referenced founding Soka Gakkai president Makiguchi’s analysis of the evolution of competition. Surely the time has come to acknowledge the bankruptcy of the logic underlying nuclear—and, in fact, all-arms competition, both from a purely military standpoint and in terms of the severe burdens it continues to impose on our world.

I strongly hope that the OEWG, when it convenes this year in Geneva, will engage in constructive debate to draw up a road map identifying effective measures necessary for “the achievement and maintenance of a world without nuclear weapons”^[51] as the joint undertaking of all UN member states. I hope that the work of the OEWG will be conducted with the UN high-level conference on nuclear disarmament—to be held no later than 2018—clearly in sight, and that it will lead to the start of negotiations on a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Next year will mark the sixtieth anniversary of second Soka Gakkai president Toda’s declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. It is from this declaration that the SGI draws inspiration in our ongoing efforts to build broad public support for a world without nuclear weapons. It is our determination to achieve the prohibition and abolition of these weapons as an initiative of the world’s peoples—what might be called an international people’s law—that would be established by many state and civil society actors working together.

The International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition, held in Hiroshima in August last year, issued a pledge that declared:

Nuclear weapons are a symbol of a bygone age; a symbol that poses eminent threat to our present reality and has no place in the future we are creating.^[52]

Jointly organized by six groups including the SGI, the Summit was attended by young people from twenty-three countries as well as the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth Ahmad Alhendawi. The participants pledged to convey to the world and the future the experiences of the hibakusha, raise awareness among their peers and take other forms of action to protect the shared future of humankind.

Then in October in New York, the work and outcome of the Youth Summit were presented at a side event of the General Assembly First Committee, which deals with disarmament and international security. The event focused on the actions the younger generation can take, both at the UN and in their respective communities, to help clear the path toward a world free from nuclear weapons.

Working with like-minded individuals and groups, we wish to support the continued holding of such summits for nuclear abolition going forward. To quote the Youth Pledge again:

Abolishing nuclear weapons is our responsibility; it is our right and we will no longer sit by while the opportunity of nuclear abolition is squandered. We, youth in all our diversity and in deep solidarity pledge to realize this goal. We are the Generation of Change.^[53]

If this pledge, given voice in Hiroshima by youth from throughout the world, can take root in the hearts of people globally, there is no barrier that cannot be surmounted, no goal that cannot be achieved.

More than anything, it is the depth and intensity of the commitment and pledge that lives in the hearts of the younger generation that will transform the world from one where nuclear weapons threaten the lives and dignity of people to one in which all people can live in peace and fully manifest their inherent dignity.

It is the firm pledge of the SGI to offer our unflinching support for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals based on the solidarity of youth, the generation of change. In this way we will continue to work for a world, a global society, in which no one is left behind.

Universal Respect for Human Dignity: The Great Path to Peace

All people have the right to live in happiness. The prime objective of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) movement is to forge an expanding solidarity of ordinary citizens committed to protecting that right and, in this way, to rid the world of needless suffering.

Our activities in support of the United Nations are a natural and necessary expression of this. In carrying out these activities we have taken a learning-centered approach, one that emphasizes the practice of dialogue and fostering an ethos of global citizenship.

One important function of learning is to enable people to accurately assess the impact of their actions and to empower them to effect positive change. Another is to bring forth the courage to persevere in the face of adversity. Educator and founding Soka Gakkai president Tsunesaburo Makiguchi termed this “the courage of application.” Such courage keeps us from being overwhelmed by our circumstances and enables us instead to create the kind of future we desire.

In addition to this learning-based approach, we have stressed the importance of dialogue as the foundation for all our activities.

Our awareness of people belonging to different religions or ethnicities can be transformed through direct contact and conversation with even one member of that group. When we engage in open and frank dialogue, the world begins to appear in a warmer, more human light.

It is my conviction that dialogue is absolutely essential if we are to build a world in which no one is left behind.

Three areas of action

I would like to offer ideas on three areas that require prompt and coordinated action by governments and civil society:

• Humanitarian aid and human rights protection;
• Ecological integrity and disaster risk reduction; and
• Disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

These proposals are oriented to the ideal of a world in which no one is left behind, as articulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in September 2015 as a successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The SDGs represent a significant advance on the MDGs through their commitment that no one should be abandoned to their fate, as epitomized by the very first goal, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.”

With regard to humanitarian aid and human rights protection, I would like to offer two concrete proposals for the World Humanitarian Summit set to take place in Istanbul, Turkey, this May.

First, that all participants reaffirm the principle that our response to the worsening refugee crisis must be based on international human rights law; and I urge them to express a clear commitment to the primacy of protecting the lives and human rights of refugee children.

Second is to strengthen UN programs in support of host countries taking in refugees in the Middle East, and to prioritize a similar approach in other regions of Asia and Africa.

The UN’s Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) currently links refugee relief operations to support for recipient communities in the Middle East. I propose that the World Humanitarian Summit express a commitment by all countries to work in solidarity to facilitate activities under the 3RP, such as improvements in the supply of food and safe drinking water and provision of health care.

Ecological integrity and disaster risk reduction

I would like to call for cooperation among China, Japan and Korea–which together account for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions–in sharing of knowledge and best practices in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy and efforts to minimize their resource footprint.

I welcome the renewal of the summit meetings between the leaders of the three countries. The Tripartite Environment Ministers Meeting has continued to contribute to cooperation on environmental issues even at times of heightened political tensions, based on the understanding that Northeast Asia is “one environmental community.” I urge the leaders of the three countries to adopt a China-Japan-Korea environmental pledge focused on regional cooperation to counter global warming.

In addition to cooperation among national governments, I would like to propose that the world’s cities work together to promote the goals set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. If cities change, the world will change.

In recent years, the role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction has attracted growing attention. As a follow-up to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), the UN has launched the Global Action Programme for ESD. The engagement of young people is listed as one of the program’s priorities, and in this context I would like to wholeheartedly encourage young people and children everywhere to become engaged as active participants in Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR), such as tree-planting campaigns.

Disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons

I would like to offer two proposals regarding disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

The first relates to strengthening the institutional framework to prevent the proliferation of conventional weapons, which exacerbate humanitarian crises and contribute to incidents of terrorism around the world.

International activities to prevent terrorism can be strengthened significantly through the synergies between the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to regulate the trade in conventional weapons, and the numerous antiterrorism conventions that have been established.

Each year, an unconscionable number of lives are lost due to the influx of small arms into conflict areas. I urge states to promptly ratify the Arms Trade Treaty as proof of their pledge to make steady efforts toward the achievement of the SDG target of reducing violence, insecurity and injustice.

The second area of disarmament I would like to address concerns the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons, the use of which could render meaningless in an instant all of humankind’s effort to resolve global problems.

I call on the remaining eight states that have not yet ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty to do so as soon as possible so that the Treaty can enter into force and help ensure that nuclear weapons are never again tested on our planet. The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution setting up an Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) to address effective measures to attain and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.

I would like to propose that the following three items be included in the OEWG’s deliberations:

• Removal of nuclear retaliatory forces from high-alert status;
• Withdrawal from the nuclear umbrella; and
• A halt to the modernization of nuclear weapons.

I strongly hope the work of the OEWG will lead to the start of negotiations for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons.

In Hiroshima last August, the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition, jointly organized by six groups including the SGI, issued a pledge that declared:

Nuclear weapons are a symbol of a bygone age; a symbol that poses eminent threat to our present reality and has no place in the future we are creating.

The participants undertook to convey to the world and the future the experiences of the hibakusha, raise awareness among their peers and take other forms of action to protect the shared future of humankind.

It is the firm pledge of the SGI to offer our unflinching support for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by fostering the solidarity of youth, the generation of change. In this way we will continue to work for a world, a global society, in which no one is left behind.