Value Creation in a Time of Crisis

The world today is faced with a complex set of urgent crises that can only be described as unprecedented in the history of humankind. In addition to the increasing incidence every passing year of extreme weather events that reflect the worsening problem of climate change, the onslaught of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to threaten social and economic stability throughout the world.

I use the term “unprecedented” here not merely in reference to the overlapping and interlocking layers of crisis we are experiencing today. Humanity has been confronted with various kinds of challenges throughout its long history, yet it has never faced a situation in which the entire world is impacted at once, gravely threatening the lives, livelihood and dignity of people in countries everywhere, throwing them into conditions in which they find themselves requiring urgent assistance.

As of January 25, 2021, the number of people infected with COVID-19 has surpassed 99 million; of these, more than 2.12 million have died.^[1] In the span of slightly more than one year, the number of COVID-19 fatalities has far exceeded the total number of lives claimed by large-scale natural disasters over the past twenty years.^[2] One cannot begin to fathom the depth of grief experienced by those who have lost their loved ones in this unforeseen manner; and this pain is deepened by the fact that, due to measures to prevent the spread of the virus, so many of the victims have been prevented from spending their final moments with family by their side. Compounding the intensity of loss that has robbed people of any sense of closure, the breakdown of economic activity has led to a spike in bankruptcies and unemployment, pushing large numbers of people into poverty and deprivation.

Nevertheless, even as the dark clouds of this crisis continue to shroud the world, progress in efforts to build a global society committed to peace and humane values has not halted. Examples of important progress include: the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) this past January 22; universal ratification by the 187 member states of the International Labour Organization (ILO) of a convention outlawing the worst forms of child labor; and eradication of wild polio in Africa.

Eradication of polio in African Region

Polio is a highly infectious viral disease that can cause permanent paralysis and can be fatal in some cases when muscles used for breathing are affected. There is no cure, but vaccination can protect people for life and lead to eradication of the disease.

In 2020, all forty-seven countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region were declared free of wild polio after four years passed without any cases of the virus. This was achieved through a program of vaccination and disease surveillance led by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the largest international public health initiative in history. There is, however, still a risk posed by vaccine-derived polioviruses, rare strains of poliovirus that have mutated from the weakened virus present in the oral vaccine. Polio remains endemic in two countries: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Each of these achievements holds great worth as the world strives to realize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, the target year set by the United Nations. These successes are clear expressions of the limitless human capacity to overcome obstacles and become the authors of a new history. This can especially be said of the TPNW, which fulfilled the conditions for entry into force last October 24, United Nations Day. The treaty maps a clear path to the achievement of the long-sought goal of nuclear weapons abolition, an issue that was addressed at the UN in 1946, one year after its founding, in the very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly; it has remained pending ever since.

In September 1957, amid the accelerating nuclear arms race of the Cold War, Josei Toda (1900–58), second president of the Soka Gakkai, issued a declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Inspired by this, our organization has worked for the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons and to make this a norm governing international relations. To this end, the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) has actively collaborated with such organizations as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). In light of this history, the TPNW’s entry into force is an unparalleled cause for celebration.

With the world still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, I would like to explore some of the approaches that I believe are required in order to overcome this complex crisis, as well as to offer a number of proposals on ways to generate solid momentum for the challenge of building a global society of peace and humane values in the twenty-first century.

The determination never to leave behind those struggling with challenges

The first thematic area I would like to explore is the determination never to leave behind those struggling in the depths of adversity, who find themselves isolated as our sense of crisis becomes increasingly normalized.

Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic on March 11 last year, the numbers of infections and deaths are now a regular part of the daily news. In order to reflect on the actual significance of these continually updated statistics amid the seemingly ceaseless spread of infection, I believe we would do well to recall the words of Chancellor Angela Merkel in her address to the German people one week after the WHO announcement:

These are not just abstract numbers in statistics, but this is about a father or grandfather, a mother or grandmother, a partner—this is about people. And we are a community in which each life and each person counts.^[3]

When we are faced with an emergency such as a large-scale disaster, we need to remind ourselves not to lose sight of this perspective. This is even more essential today as we are confronted with a pandemic that continues to threaten the entire world and we have become increasingly accustomed to the crisis.

In our daily Buddhist practice, members of the SGI around the world have continued to offer heartfelt prayers for the complete eradication of COVID-19 at the earliest possible date as well as for the repose of the deceased. And we have of course taken strict precautionary measures in the course of our activities to prevent further spread of the virus.

Starting in September of last year, the Soka Institute of the Amazon, which I worked to establish, has been planting one tree in memory of each victim of COVID-19 in Brazil as part of its Life Memorial project.^[4] With every tree planted, the initiative aims to honor and acknowledge those with whom life has been shared in the great land of Brazil—perpetuating their memory while also contributing to the reforestation and protection of the ecological integrity of the Amazon region.

It has always been a cornerstone of human society to collectively mourn the deceased and commit ourselves to living in a manner that honors their legacy. Today, when it is increasingly difficult to gather in one place to pay tribute to those who have passed away, it is all the more crucial that we not lose sight of the value of each individual and never let life be reduced to a mere statistic.

Amid the increasing normalization of the crisis in daily life and the focus on the need for each person to take steps to protect themselves from the virus, we risk neglecting the particular hardships faced by society’s most vulnerable members.

In their efforts to contain the pandemic, countries have placed foremost priority on strengthening their medical and healthcare systems, along with introducing a variety of measures that are often described as representing a “new normal.” This includes practices such as social distancing—maintaining a safe physical distance from others to prevent exposure—remote working and online learning, as well as staying home as much as possible. These measures have been significant in suppressing the rapid spread of COVID-19 and reducing the pressure on medical systems.

In one sense, the fact that more people are proactively exploring new adaptations and innovations in response to calls to slow the spread of infection holds the potential to go beyond simple risk prevention. These innovations not only contribute directly to protecting the lives of family and loved ones and those in our intimate circle of connections; such seemingly small, repeated actions also embody a concern for the large numbers of unseen people with whom we share life in the broader society.

At the same time, we must attend to the needs of those whose lives were already made vulnerable by various disparities and discrimination, whose ability to live in dignity hinges on the support of social contacts and networks, and who have been gravely impacted by the crisis. For example, if support for those who require daily nursing care is reduced, this can seriously impede their ability to lead their daily lives. Furthermore, the loss of precious time with people in their support networks erodes the foundations for living with dignity. And as we spend more and more of our lives online—from work to education and shopping—there is a serious risk of leaving behind those who, for economic or other reasons, have inadequate access to online networks or have yet to master their use.

In addition, it has been reported that as people are increasingly confined to their homes the number of cases of women being exposed to domestic violence is escalating. Many of the victims of this violence find themselves unable to reach out for and receive assistance from governmental or social agencies due to the ongoing presence of the perpetrator (spouse or partner) in the home.^[5]

As measures to contain the spread of infection take root in society and we become increasingly inured to the COVID-19 crisis, it is crucial that we maintain an active commitment to protect the large numbers of unseen people whose plight risks being overlooked. We must prioritize efforts to alleviate their pain and claustrophobic sense of danger, making this the requisite for rebuilding our society.

WHO has recommended use of the term “physical distancing” instead of “social distancing” to avoid the implication that we should limit our human connections with one another, as that could result in further cementing social isolation and division.^[6] Even if the world has entered a long tunnel with no clear end in sight and the circumstances experienced by others are obstructed from view, we must absolutely not lose our essential orientation, which is the fact that we all coexist in the same society.

Here I would like to cite the views expressed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. When asked what the “new normal” meant to him at a UN webinar titled “Coping with COVID” held last July, he refused to describe our present circumstances in those terms, calling them instead “abnormal.”^[7] Indeed, even as great numbers of people are thrown into an unavoidable state of emergency due to the pandemic, we must continue to maintain the awareness that these are inherently abnormal conditions for human beings.

On a separate occasion, the UN chief remarked:

There is a lot of talk about the need for a “new normal” after this crisis. But let’s not forget that the pre-COVID-19 world was far from normal. Rising inequalities, systemic gender discrimination, lack of opportunities for young people, stagnant wages, runaway climate change—none of these things were “normal.”^[8]

I deeply share both of these concerns. If we allow such global inequities and distortions to continue unabated, this will inevitably leave more and more people behind, making it that much harder to envisage the post-COVID world we would want.

Although COVID-19 poses a threat to all countries, the fact remains that there is a wide gap in the severity of its impact depending on the circumstances in which people find themselves. For example, some 40 percent of the world’s population live in conditions in which they are unable to regularly wash their hands with soap, a standard method for preventing infection. This means that some 3 billion people lack access to a basic means of protecting themselves and their loved ones.^[9]

In addition, with the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict or persecution reaching 80 million, many have no choice but to share close living quarters with others in refugee camps. Such conditions make it virtually impossible to practice physical distancing; these people must live with the risk of exposure should an infection break out.

The crisis facing the world today consists of many complex interlocking threats, making it difficult to identify the interrelations among them as required to fully address the problem. While acknowledging this constraint, I would argue that, even as we work to develop a comprehensive response, we must always prioritize addressing the suffering of each of the many individuals whose lives are directly impacted.

The following Buddhist perspective may be useful in this regard. In the parable of the poisonous arrow, Shakyamuni relates the story of a man who has been shot and wounded by a poisoned arrow. Before he will allow the arrow to be removed, he insists on knowing who made the bow and arrow and the identity—the name and clan—of the person who shot him. No measures can be taken while he demands answers to such particulars. What would happen to such a man, Shakyamuni stresses, is that the arrow will remain lodged in his body and he will end up losing his life. Shakyamuni uses this parable to encourage his disciples, who have a tendency toward intellectualizing and theorizing, to focus instead on matters that actually affect human life.

The renowned twentieth-century religious scholar Mircea Eliade (1907–86) brought attention to this parable, keenly observing that Shakyamuni’s teachings were not aimed at providing a systematic philosophical theory. Eliade positioned Shakyamuni’s teachings as a kind of medical treatment to heal human suffering.^[10] And indeed, Shakyamuni was wholly committed to removing the poisonous arrow; in other words, removing the underlying causes of people’s suffering. The living origin of what we now know as the teachings of Buddhism is Shakyamuni’s ardent concern, voiced in various settings and occasions.

Nichiren (1222–82), who expounded and spread the teachings of Buddhism in thirteenth-century Japan based on the Lotus Sutra, which expresses the essence of Shakyamuni’s teachings, described their power as being like “oil added to a lamp or a staff presented to an elderly person.”^[11] In other words, Shakyamuni did not deploy superhuman powers to save human beings; rather, he dedicated himself to offering the people with whom he engaged the kind of words that would help them reveal the strength and potential already existing within their lives.

This same spirit animates the Buddhist teachings of Nichiren, who stressed the crucial importance of taking action to eliminate suffering and despair. His treatise “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land” was written against the backdrop of a series of natural disasters, famine and widespread epidemics that tormented the people of Japan. It issued from his profound desire to eradicate human misery.

In another of his writings, Nichiren describes the intense suffering of the people of Japan, afflicted by one disaster after another, as follows:

In this way the three calamities and the seven disasters have continued for several decades on end, and half the people have been wiped out. Those who remain are parted from their parents, their brothers and sisters, or their wives and children, and cry out in voices no less pitiful than those of autumn insects. Family after family has been scattered and destroyed like plants and trees broken down by the snow of winter.^[12]

Three calamities and seven disasters

These catastrophes are described in various Buddhist sutras. There are three greater calamities of fire, water and wind, which are said to destroy the world, and three lesser calamities of high grain prices or inflation (especially that caused by famine), warfare and pestilence, all of which threaten human society.

The seven disasters differ slightly according to the source, but they include war, foreign invasion and natural disasters. Nichiren (1222–82) combined these two different types of catastrophe in a single phrase to describe the disasters besetting Japan in his time.

It was during such an age of turmoil that Nichiren continued to offer people encouragement, seeking to illuminate a society darkened by chaos and confusion with the light of hope.

Nichiren, who was repeatedly persecuted and exiled by the ruling authorities as a result of remaining steadfast to his beliefs, would often write letters to his disciples in an effort to impart courage, even while he was physically separated from them. On one occasion, he wrote the following words to a female disciple who had lost her husband:

Your late husband had an ailing son and a daughter. I cannot help thinking that he may have grieved that, if he were to abandon them and leave this world, his aged wife, as feeble as a withered tree, would be left alone, and would probably feel very sorry for these children.^[13]

And yet, he writes, “winter always turns to spring.” Through these words, Nichiren sought to convey the following message of encouragement: At present, you may be overwhelmed by despair as if the icy winds of winter were pressing upon you. But this will not continue forever. Winter never fails to turn to spring. I urge you to live out your life with courage and strength. Before concluding his letter, Nichiren adds that she should rest assured that he would always watch over her children, bringing the warm light of spring to this woman for whom time had stopped, her life frozen in winter as a result of her husband’s death.

In this way, Nichiren entrusted his words with the task of conveying his heart to his reader. Traversing physical distance, his words, when read, would come alive, becoming firmly engraved in the life of the recipient.

Though our present circumstances differ from those of Nichiren’s time, the widespread disorder brought about by this pandemic has taken many people to the edge of despair, sensing that their lives have come to an abrupt stop and finding themselves suddenly without any means of livelihood, unable to envision the future.

If a person in this state is forced to shoulder the burden of their suffering alone, without the support of a social safety net or personal connections, their world will remain bleak. As soon as someone takes notice of their situation and reaches out to them, however, and they feel the warm and attentive light of others illuminating their circumstances, I believe it becomes possible for them to bring forth the strength needed to rebuild their lives and regain a sense of dignity.

As heirs to the spirit of Nichiren, members of the SGI have carried out our practice of faith and social engagement in 192 countries and territories based on the determination never to leave behind those who struggle in the depths of suffering. This conviction is distilled in the words of my mentor, Josei Toda: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.”^[14]

What is important here is that Toda was focused on the elimination of misery in all dimensions of life: the personal, the national and the global. Undeterred by the global inequities that persist, the issues different countries face or the harsh circumstances besetting people, we must continue to strive together for the elimination of needless suffering, bridging any and all divides that separate us. This determination underlies and drives the SGI’s efforts to deepen ties of cooperation with like-minded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and faith-based organizations (FBOs) in pursuit of solutions to global challenges.

In one sense, human history consists of an unbroken series of threats, and perhaps it is inevitable that we will continue to face dangers in various forms. This is why it is crucial that we build the strong social foundations for eliminating misery so that, even when confronted with the most intense threat or challenge, we never leave behind those who are most vulnerable and are struggling in the depths of adversity.

In the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, we are called upon to maintain physical distance, making it harder to discern the conditions in which others find themselves. I cannot help but feel that religious movements and FBOs have an important role to play in supporting efforts to ensure that we do not lose our essential orientation—the recognition that we are all individuals coexisting within the same human society.

The pandemic has gravely impacted our world, and finding our way out of this labyrinth will be far from easy. Nevertheless, I believe the “Ariadne’s thread” that will enable each of us to emerge from the crisis will come into clear view when we allow ourselves to feel the full weight of each individual life and, from there, consider what is most urgently needed to protect and support that life.

Establishing a global solidarity of action

The next thematic area I would like to explore is the need for countries to transcend their differences and come together in solidarity to overcome the crisis.

What is the actual scale of the damage and harm wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic? The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) has noted the following in light of the enormity of the tragic loss of life and health as well as the accompanying economic and social hardships: “When loss of employment and income are factored in, it could well be that more people have been affected by this single disaster than by any other in human history.”^[15] Beyond this, the unprecedented nature of the crisis lies in the fact that it has affected almost all of the world’s nations.

Since the start of the twenty-first century, the world has seen a series of massive natural disasters, including the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (2004), the Kashmir earthquake (2005), the Myanmar cyclone (2008), the Sichuan earthquake (2008) and the Haiti earthquake (2010). In each case, while the damage was severe, relief and support were made available from other countries, from rescue efforts in the immediate aftermath through to recovery and rebuilding. Following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011, numerous countries extended various forms of support to people in the afflicted areas, which was a source of untold encouragement. When disaster strikes, such expressions of international solidarity provide vital spiritual support to those who have been impacted and who are unable to see what lies ahead.

The COVID-19 crisis has struck almost all nations simultaneously, and this creates conditions of even greater complexity, chaos and confusion. If we were to compare the nations of the world to ships that are each engaged in an ocean passage, the novel coronavirus represents a storm of unmatched fury that has struck them all at the same time such that, despite being in the same sea of troubles, they all risk being blown off course in different and random directions.

What, then, can serve as a compass helping us find our way on the uncharted ocean crossing that is the search for a means to overcome the COVID-19 crisis? The British historian Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975), with whom I conducted an extensive dialogue, left us these these words: “Our experience in the past gives us the only light on the future that is accessible to us.”^[16]

In that spirit I would like to reflect on the example, from the 1950s, of collaboration between the United States and the Soviet Union to develop a vaccine against polio in the midst of escalating Cold War tensions.

Until that time, a vaccine made up of inactivated (“dead”) polioviruses had been the prime method for preventing polio infection. In addition to the fact that this form of vaccination had to be injected, it was quite costly. To counter this, efforts were made to develop an orally-administered vaccine made up of weakened but still active (“live”) polioviruses. However, because of the already widespread administration of the inactivated vaccine in the United States, relatively few people there were eligible to enroll in trials for this new vaccine.

The Soviet Union, despite the possible benefits for its own children, was at first cool to the idea of collaboration with its rival, the United States. Over time, however, the Soviet authorities, concerned about increasing rates of infection, sought ways to work with the US. For its part, the US recognized the need for Soviet cooperation, and, from 1959, started supporting large-scale trials in the Soviet Union and its neighbors, leading to the development of a safe and effective live-virus vaccine.

I myself have vivid memories of the way that many children in Japan were saved from polio infection through this live-virus vaccine. Polio swept through Japan in 1960, and infections continued to spread in the following year. As the escalating number of patients became the subject of daily news reports, there were growing calls, especially from concerned mothers, for access to vaccines. When, in addition to 3 million doses imported from Canada, the Soviet Union provided 10 million doses of live-virus vaccine, the spread of infection in Japan was quickly brought under control. Sixty years later, I still recall how it became possible to administer these live-virus vaccines, the outcome of US–Soviet cooperation, as well as the palpable sense of relief this brought to mothers throughout Japan.

Today, as COVID-19 infections continue to increase throughout the world, a key focus, alongside the development and production of vaccines, is how to ensure a stable supply to all countries. To respond to this challenge, in April of last year, WHO, along with governmental and civil society partners, launched the COVAX facility for the global procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. With the aim of creating systems to ensure prompt and equitable access to vaccines for all countries, the facility has plans to supply 2 billion doses to participating states by the end of 2021.

The COVAX facility was established just one month after WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. This speed no doubt reflected the concern that if the competition to develop vaccines were to proceed outside of any international framework, gaps could open between countries with the necessary financial resources and those without, possibly resulting in skyrocketing prices. A resolution adopted at the World Health Assembly, held in May 2020, recognized “the role of extensive immunization against COVID-19 as a global public good”^[17] to be shared by all countries. At present, 190 states and territories are participating in the COVAX facility with the goal of making vaccines available from February. But whether the stable supply of vaccines can be secured hinges on obtaining the cooperation of all major states and establishing the necessary support systems.

COVAX facility

The COVID-19 Global Vaccines Access Facility (COVAX) aims to ensure rapid and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines across the globe. It is coordinated by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, (which consists of UNICEF, the World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other partners) together with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The COVAX facility will allow participating countries to access a range of vaccines, regardless of whether or not they have secured a bilateral deal with a particular manufacturer. It enables governments with a deal to diversify their vaccine portfolio and provides them with an insurance policy in case their deal fails; and for governments that would otherwise not be able to afford the vaccine, it should ensure a reliable supply of an effective vaccine. In the first phase, the aim is to provide 2 billion vaccine doses worldwide by the end of 2021, with 1.3 billion going to ninety-two lower income countries.

Japan was an early participant in COVAX, and I call on the Japanese government to make efforts to encourage the active participation of countries that have yet to join, such as the United States and the Russian Federation. Seth Berkley, CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which coordinates with WHO to administer the COVAX facility, has offered this assessment of Japan’s early commitment, made last October, to provide funding in support of developing countries:

This vital funding not only helps us ensure lower-income countries aren’t left at the back of the queue when safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines become available, it will also play a vital role in ending the acute phase of this pandemic worldwide.^[18]

At the Kyushu-Okinawa G8 Summit held in 2000, Japan, as president of the summit, raised the fight against communicable diseases as a key agenda item. Two years later, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established. Since then, Japan and many other states have continued to support this fund, saving the lives of an estimated 38 million people who would otherwise have fallen victim to these three diseases.^[19]

In terms of generating global solidarity to confront the COVID-19 pandemic, I think it is important to maintain a positive focus on how many lives we are together succeeding in saving. When attention is directed at the negative data of increasing numbers of infections, a narrow concern with defending only one’s own country may take precedence over solidarity with others. For this reason, I think it is vital to work from the recognition that efforts to protect people of all countries from infection will also contribute to protecting one’s own people.

Just as WHO has characterized extensive immunization against COVID-19 as a global public good, I am confident that when the COVAX facility becomes fully operational, it will open the way for the shared enjoyment of global public goods of even greater value.

Researchers in the field of global public goods include in this category not only material products such as vaccines or social infrastructure such as the Internet, but also such conditions as peace and a healthy environment that are shared and enjoyed by the entire world as the result of policies promoted by countries working together.^[20] If we take climate change as an example, when different countries take active measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they will collectively create conditions—containing the risks posed by extreme weather events or rising sea levels, for instance—that benefit all countries. In the same way, if the nations of the world work in solidarity to bring the pandemic under control, this will strengthen global resilience against other infectious diseases that could arise in the future and establish the basis for protecting the lives and health of people everywhere.

The key players supporting this kind of resilience—those serving as lighthouses ensuring the safety of the different ships of state, to use my earlier analogy—are the world’s medical professionals, the doctors and nurses who have been working with tireless dedication and a sense of noble mission to support those whose lives are threatened by COVID-19. I wish to offer my deepest appreciation to those working selflessly day after day.

I would also note that an estimated one in eight of the world’s nurses are working in countries other than where they were born or received their training.^[21] In many countries, we see a tendency to view immigrants and their families coldly, to regard them as a burden on society and exclude them. The UN has called for efforts to counter such trends, and as different countries have found themselves enmeshed in the COVID-19 crisis, it has been immigrants, often working as nurses, orderlies and other personnel, who have become crucial contributors on the front lines of medical treatment, saving the lives of many people.

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic declaration, critical shortages of face masks resulted in competition among states to secure supplies. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) cites a number of examples of refugees who spontaneously responded to the challenge facing their host countries.

In Kenya, after the first cases were reported in March, a directive to wear masks in public was issued. One refugee, a man who had fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo and was working as a tailor in a refugee camp, responded by making masks and distributing them inside the camp and in the local community, as well as to UNHCR staff. “I wanted to. . . show that we [refugees] can also contribute to the response to the pandemic and not just rely on assistance.”^[22]

In Germany, a family of Syrian refugees began making masks out of the desire to support the nurses working at the hospital in the town that received them. When the refugees started running short of elastic bands for the masks, local residents immediately brought supplies of them to their home. A member of the family described their feelings in this way: “We were so warmly welcomed. . . We found shelter, we have jobs, our children can go to school. If we can give something back to Germany, then we are happy.”^[23]

The irrepressible desire to do what one can to help even one person, the awareness of and concern for others, the wholehearted action taken on their behalf that arises from living in the same community. . . I am confident such awareness and action, sustained and repeated despite differences of nationality or circumstance, can cultivate the soil from which resilience arises and grows.

The development of a vaccine is of course a key factor in overcoming the current crisis but, as WHO warns, this alone will not resolve all issues.^[24] There is also the need to ensure the safety of the vaccine and to create effective systems for transporting and administering it. Along with ongoing efforts to control the spread of infections, this means that at each stage the cooperation and support of large numbers of people will be indispensable. The fundamental challenges will be to create and maintain a shared awareness of the need to work in solidarity to overcome the present crisis and to expand the number of people taking responsibility to build resilience in their respective societies.

The word pandemic has its roots in the Greek pandemos, meaning “all people,” and until the spread of COVID-19 is brought to a halt everywhere on Earth, the disease will continue to pose a danger to everyone, regardless of nationality or circumstance. In that sense, traditional national security approaches, based on pursuing one’s own security apart from the interests of other peoples and countries, are clearly inadequate. Rather, the necessary approach is one of human security, in which countries look beyond their immediate interests to work together to reduce and eliminate the threats facing all people, as could be seen in nascent form in the example of live polio vaccine development through US–Soviet cooperation during the Cold War.

As the pandemic continues to worsen, we must make every effort to prevent countries’ measures to reduce the spread of infections, including through the provision of vaccines, from shifting to an exclusive prioritization of their own security at the cost of saving lives worldwide. In certain ways, this could recapitulate the Cold War nuclear strategies of the superpowers referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Under that doctrine, both sides pursued their own national security by building up overwhelming deterrent forces. And yet, were war to have broken out and exchanges of nuclear attacks commenced, not only would this have resulted in the destruction of both societies, it would have undermined the basis for the continued survival of humankind as a whole.

As noted earlier, last year it was announced that wild polio has been eradicated in Africa,^[25] and if this can be repeated in two remaining Asian countries, the global eradication of the disease will be achieved. The first case of a communicable disease being overcome by humanity was smallpox, in 1980. Bernard Lown, cofounder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and a dear personal friend, expressed these thoughts regarding that important achievement:

Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, cooperation between doctors of the two rival ideological camps had never ceased. At the very time when missiles were multiplied in readiness for preemptive nuclear strikes, American and Soviet physicians struggled shoulder to shoulder in a global campaign to eradicate smallpox. Such acts of camaraderie were persuasive models for the antinuclear struggle.^[26]

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) grew out of IPPNW and, along with the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the world’s hibakusha, played a leading role in the civil society movement that culminated in the realization of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). So long as threats remain—even as smoldering embers—it will be impossible for everyone on Earth to fully enjoy physical and psychological security. The only form of security that will bring about authentic peace is one in which it is unacceptable to sacrifice the inhabitants of any country and the right to exist is guaranteed to all the world’s people. The TPNW, which entered into force this past January 22, is a benchmark treaty and pivotal event ushering in a new era.

Arnold Toynbee used the rather striking expression “time-perspective” to pose the following question:

What will be singled out as the salient event of our time by future historians, centuries hence, looking back on the first half of the twentieth century and trying to see its activities and experiences in that just proportion which the time-perspective sometimes reveals?^[27]

In a similar manner, we may ask what future historians looking back on the first half of the twenty-first century will choose as salient events seen in this kind of time-perspective. One of these may be the entry into force of the TPNW—realized against the backdrop of a deepening COVID-19 crisis—as an event spurring a paradigm shift in approaches to security. And I would strongly hope that another would be the history inscribed by the efforts of international society to promote vaccination on a global scale under the auspices of the COVAX facility.

While the threat posed by the pandemic is indeed grave, I believe that if we muster the limitless human capacity to break through impasses and become the authors of a new history, we will be certain to overcome it. Our shared efforts to respond to the pandemic can serve as a foundation for generating global awareness of the essential role of human solidarity in transforming crises. This can, in turn, shift the trajectory of human history, enabling us to break free from the tragedy of national security approaches that are rooted in, and perpetuate, conflict.

Constructing a culture of human rights

The third thematic area I would like to explore is the need to counteract the spread of misinformation regarding the novel coronavirus, particularly with regard to the effect such misinformation can have in fueling discrimination against those who have been infected. This must be part of the effort to construct a culture of human rights in which no one’s dignity is denied.

Among the literary works that have garnered renewed attention since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic is Daniel Defoe’s (c. 1660–1731) A Journal of the Plague Year. Set in seventeenth-century London, the work portrays citizens’ loss of reason and self-control under the influence of demagogic rhetoric that incites fear, confusion and insecurity. Since ancient times and most recently with HIV/AIDS, human history has seen repeated incidents of discrimination against those suffering from infectious diseases. Outbreaks of irrational fear have again and again caused sharp divisions and disruption that have left deep scars in society.

Contagious diseases differ from conditions such as cancer or heart disease in that we are always alert to the danger of contracting them from other people. This raises the risk that fear of the pathogen will translate into wariness or fear of others. Such feelings are especially problematic when they escalate in ways that compound the suffering of those who have been infected and their families, or when the mood in society becomes one of blaming the spread of infection on people or groups already subject to discrimination and prejudice. Today, there is the additional concern that misinformation or incitement related to infectious diseases can be instantly propagated through social media.

As guidelines for mitigation continue to evolve and the pandemic has an increasingly intense impact on our lives, people look beyond newspapers and other traditional media in order to sate their hunger for information. This has exposed many people to unreliable information from unknown or unconfirmed sources. This virtual information space is often home to malicious forms of discourse that prey on people’s sense of unease in order to incite social disruption or to direct hatred toward certain people or groups.

The unchecked spread of misinformation or incitement, often referred to by the neologism “infodemic,” can intensify discrimination and prejudice, eroding the very foundations of human society. This is another kind of pandemic, one that parallels the spread of the actual disease. The UN has urged strong caution in this regard, and in May last year launched the “Verified” initiative to combat the spread of inaccurate or malicious information about COVID-19. The UN works with multiple media outlets to disseminate information whose accuracy has been confirmed by its own experts as well as other scientists and specialists. The initiative calls for the participation of “information volunteers” throughout the world, who will actively share reliable content as a means of keeping their families and communities safe and connected.

The dangers arising from failure to thoroughly expose errors by challenging falsehoods and misinformation are not limited to the resulting dearth of correct information and knowledge. Of even graver concern is the risk that existing discrimination and prejudice will interact with fears of infection to spur runaway suspicion that deepens the fractures within society and undermines the human rights and dignity that must be protected for all people.

Addressing the question of human rights and contagious disease, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet noted the following in a statement issued on March 6, 2020, five days before WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic: “Human dignity and rights need to be front and centre in that effort, not an afterthought.”^[28]

In September, discussing the approaches that are indispensable to our efforts to overcome the COVID-19 crisis, the High Commissioner stressed the following:

We have witnessed the ways in which deeply entrenched inequalities and human rights gaps fuel this virus—magnifying contagion and vastly accelerating its threat. What we need to see today is action to repair those gaps and heal those deep wounds, both in and between our societies.^[29]

The structural nature of what the High Commissioner refers to as deeply entrenched inequalities and human rights gaps has tended to obscure the resulting deep wounds. I believe the COVID-19 crisis has brought to the surface discriminatory attitudes already held by people in a semiconscious manner. As the pandemic has worsened, there is concern about the heightened risk that people, influenced by hate-filled discourse, will seek targets on whom to vent their pain and frustration.

Everyone, regardless of geographic or occupational differences and distinctions of ethnicity or faith, is exposed to the risk of infection with COVID-19. Despite the fact that this is clearly a challenge we must confront and overcome together, we see social fragmentation that exacerbates the threat. What are the underlying factors driving this?

In considering this question, I would like to reference the analysis of the nature of discrimination by the American philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum in her book Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Nussbaum argues that the act of drawing boundaries within society is rooted in our feelings of disgust for those others we consider evil and our attempt to distance ourselves from them. She summarizes her point in this way: In seeking the comfort of distancing ourselves from evil, we call disgust to our aid.

Although Nussbaum is focused here on ways of thinking that seek to tie evil acts to specific groups, assuming that these bear no relation to us, I believe there are structural similarities between such thinking and the kinds of disruption and discrimination that an outbreak of infectious disease can provoke.

In this same work, Nussbaum notes the many examples of medical terminology such as bacilli (bacteria) being enlisted to direct disgust at certain groups, justifying their denigration or oppression.^[30]

At the root of discrimination is the feeling that the members of one’s own group are the most just and valuable of all. When society confronts a crisis situation, there is a strong impulse to prioritize the members of one’s own group. This interacts with feelings of distaste for others, causing people to seek security by cutting off contact with those seen as different from themselves.

Nussbaum warns that this feeling of disgust “imputes to the object properties that make it no longer a member of the subject’s own community or world, a kind of alien species of thing”^[31] and further argues that “when it conduces to the political subordination and marginalization of vulnerable groups and people, disgust is a dangerous social sentiment.”^[32]

At the same time, Nussbaum assigns importance to indignation as an emotion that supports democratic society. “Indignation has a constructive function: it says, ‘these people have been wronged, and they should not have been wronged.’ In itself, it provides incentives to right the wrong.”^[33] In this sense, while the experience of difficulty and precariousness of life can become the cause for an intensification of discriminatory consciousness and bears the risk of deepening divisions in society, it also has the potential to give rise to constructive action toward the realization of a society of creative coexistence.

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, making its presence felt in virtually every sector of society, large numbers of people are finding themselves more attuned to and affected by the pain of those whose lives and dignity are being denied, perhaps with an intensity they have not previously experienced. We must be careful not to allow our own sense of claustrophobic despair to seek outlet in feelings of disgust for others. Rather, it is vital that we use it to empathize with others—to extend our thoughts to the difficulty and precariousness others are experiencing—and from there, to direct our energies into expanding solidarity with those engaged in constructive action to change the harsh realities of society.

Of course, it is only natural that we would regard our own lives as the most precious of all. This reality is embraced in the approach to human rights expounded by the Buddhist teachings practiced by members of the SGI.

For example, we have the following account drawn from the life and teachings of Shakyamuni. On one occasion, while in conversation, the king and queen of the ancient Indian kingdom of Kosala came to realize that they each held no one more dear than themselves. Upon hearing this honest feeling, Shakyamuni responded with the following verse:

Having traversed all quarters with the mind,
One finds none anywhere dearer than oneself.
Likewise, each person holds himself most dear;
Hence one who loves himself should not harm others.^[34]

In other words, if you regard your own life to be precious and irreplaceable, then you should grasp the fact that each person must also feel that way; making this realization the basis for how you conduct your life, you should resolve never to act in ways that will cause harm to others.

As illustrated by this anecdote, the Buddhist perspective on human rights urges us not to extinguish or suppress our feelings of cherishing ourselves above all else. On the contrary, by extending and opening the love we feel for ourselves to love for others, we can rebraid the tapestry of our lives, restoring the ways in which we connect to others and to society at large.

The Lotus Sutra is an unfolding narrative of the dramatic revitalization of human life. As one person after another comes into contact with this notion that all without exception inherently possess the most sublime state of being, and as they steadily awaken to their own precious and irreplaceable dignity, they begin to recognize the weight and value of the dignity of others. Thus, they mutually deepen their determination to build a world in which the dignity of both self and others shines brightly.

In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni dispels the boundaries dividing people in society, stressing that the most sublime state of being resides equally within all, including women—who had long been subjected to harsh discrimination—as well as individuals who had committed evil deeds. Clearly declaring the dignity of those who have been the target of various forms of oppression and discrimination, the Lotus Sutra is interlaced with the lively exchange of voices in mutual celebration and affirmation of the dignified essence of our being. Through this rich drama of lives inspiring and becoming inspired, it gives concrete form to the principle of the inherent dignity of all humankind.

Based on the Lotus Sutra’s teaching of human dignity, committed to building a society which opposes any and all forms of discrimination and to ensuring that no one is denied their dignity, the SGI has consistently worked to promote human rights education as called for by the United Nations.

In support of the UN Decade for Human Rights Education that began in 1995, the SGI organized the exhibition “Toward a Century of Humanity: An Overview of Human Rights in Today’s World,” which traveled to forty cities in eight countries. We have also actively engaged in the promotion of the World Programme for Human Rights Education since its launch in 2005. In addition, in 2011 the SGI worked in collaboration with other organizations to support the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, a landmark instrument in setting universal standards for human rights education. Since then, we have engaged in activities such as co-organizing the exhibition “Transforming Lives: The Power of Human Rights Education”^[35] in cooperation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and in co-creating the Human Rights Education: Open Web Resource website.^[36]

During the UN Human Rights Council session held last September, the SGI, on behalf of the NGO Working Group on Human Rights Education and Learning, delivered a joint statement in reference to the Plan of Action for the fourth phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, which focuses on youth and began last January:

[The Plan of Action] sets great possibilities for human rights education and young people. While COVID-19 adds challenges to the implementation of the Plan, there cannot be a “break” for human rights education which is a key condition for human rights to be a reality.^[37]

This year will mark ten years since the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training, which describes human rights education as being integral to building an inclusive society. Just as a circle cannot be considered complete unless all of its constituent arcs are drawn, so long as the promise of universal respect for human rights is undermined by social disparities and distinctions—so long as people continue to be excluded and marginalized—it will remain an empty slogan, never becoming a tangible reality.

Human rights education can propel the formation of robust solidarity among people who, sharing an awareness of the importance of human dignity, are engaged in the work of reexamining our ways of living and thus transforming society. In so doing, we can give clear and palpable form to those arcs of the full circle of human rights and dignity that have been lost and obscured by the structural nature of oppression.

The SGI has consistently carried out activities in support of human rights education with a view to completing the circle of an inclusive society, working together with all those with whom we share this world. Strengthening efforts to stop the spread of malicious misinformation and discrimination and to dispel the dark clouds of fear and anxiety seeded by the COVID-19 crisis, we must now rise to the challenge of anchoring a vibrant culture of human rights on our shared determination that no one’s dignity ever be denied.

International guidelines for combating infectious diseases

Next, I would like to make specific proposals in three main issue areas toward the construction of a global society of peace and humane values.

My first set of proposals relates to strengthening people-centered global governance and establishing global guidelines for combating infectious diseases.

Last year, the World Food Programme (WFP) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. For decades, WFP has been helping people suffering from hunger by providing food assistance and also contributing to improving the conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas. Last year, when the COVID-19 pandemic generated a surge in food insecurity, WFP intensified its efforts to provide food assistance based on the conviction that “until the day we have a medical vaccine, food is the best vaccine against chaos.”^[38] The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in recognition of these initiatives and contributions. It is also worth mentioning that WFP has played another important role during the crisis: When the pandemic caused many flights to be canceled, greatly disrupting the global transport system, WFP leveraged its logistics capacity and expertise to secure chartered vessels and flights to deliver critical medical supplies as well as health and humanitarian personnel.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has also provided logistical support to deliver COVID-19 related medical supplies such as masks, gowns and oxygen concentrators as well as diagnostic test kits. UNICEF has long collaborated with logistics industries in different regions, supporting vaccination programs to protect children from infectious diseases. From last October, in preparation for what it expects to be “one of the largest mass undertakings in human history,”^[39] UNICEF began laying the groundwork for COVID-19 vaccination in various countries by purchasing and delivering syringes and other necessary equipment. It also began making transportation and distribution plans so that vaccines can be delivered as soon as they become available. UNICEF has experience in transporting vaccines in temperature-controlled environments and has promoted solar-powered refrigeration in areas where it is difficult to secure electrical power. Its expertise and know-how in managing vaccination programs will play a crucial role in addressing the crisis.

When I think about the significance of the initiatives led by WFP and UNICEF, I am strongly reminded of the importance of the global safety net that has been woven together in overlapping layers through the activities of different agencies of the United Nations. The UN has a number of organizations tasked with addressing the needs of specific populations, such as UN Women and UNHCR. Through the initiatives and activities of these entities, the UN has brought a sustained focus on those who would otherwise be left behind and has opened the way for the provision of international support.

In my 2019 peace proposal, I highlighted the importance of fostering people-centered multilateralism as a means of protecting those who face the most serious threats and challenges. It is increasingly urgent that we make this approach foundational to how humanity lives in the twenty-first century.

Last year, the UN launched the UN75 initiative, a global consultation to commemorate its seventyfifth anniversary. This is an ambitious attempt to listen to the voices of the world’s people through surveys and dialogue. In addition to the more than 1,000 dialogues conducted in person, online and through social media, more than one million people in all UN member and observer states across the globe responded to an online survey. The results make it clear that the overwhelming majority support greater global cooperation. Respondents of all age groups and nationalities expressed the view that this is vital in dealing with today’s challenges and that the pandemic has increased the need for international solidarity.^[40]

The voices of participants from across the globe were published in the survey report. As one notes:

The virus has taken away jobs, interactions, education and peace. … Students who have worked so hard to get an education might not get a job, people who don’t have access to technology can’t move forward in a society that now depends heavily on it, workers who are supporting their families have lost their jobs and it doesn’t seem like life will be back to normal anytime soon, so people are stressed, anxious and depressed because they fear the future.^[41]

As the above comment suggests, this sense of urgency for global cooperation arises not from some idealized vision of international society but from people’s lived realities as they confront adversity in various forms. And this is being felt by large numbers of people across different countries.

Reading of the hopes and expectations for the UN expressed by the world’s people, I am reminded of the words of former UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, who passed away at the age of one hundred in March last year. Born in Lima, Peru, he took part in the first UN General Assembly in 1946 as a member of the Peruvian delegation. He spent most of his career as an ambassador and senior UN official before being appointed Secretary-General, serving two consecutive terms over ten years starting in 1982.

We met for the first time in Tokyo in August 1982, soon after he took office as Secretary-General, and on a number of occasions after that. I still vividly recall how each time I touched upon the importance of civil society support for the UN, Mr. Pérez de Cuéllar, a man known for his sober and honest manner, permitted himself a smile as he expressed his deep commitment to the UN’s mission.

He played a crucial role in resolving a number of conflicts as Secretary-General. Even in the final days of his tenure, he continued negotiations to bring an end to the civil war in El Salvador, culminating in the historic peace agreement reached on New Year’s Eve, his last day in office. This achievement still shines as an important milestone in UN history.

He once described the UN’s essential role as follows:

The Charter and the working of the world Organization do not promise a problem-free world. What they promise is a rational and peaceful way of solving problems. … To the great dangers of the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons, political disputes, violations of human rights, the prevalence of poverty and threats to the environment have been added new sources of conflict. There is a need for the world’s wealth of political intelligence and imagination—and compassion—to be employed in coping with these dangers. It can be done through constant and systematic effort only within the United Nations.^[42]

In another address, he expressed his deep commitment as UN chief to actions that would benefit all of humankind, saying that the crisis the UN was then facing could provide creative opportunities for renewal and reform.^[43] To meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the climate emergency, I believe we should adopt the approach called for by the late Secretary-General and make the present crisis an opportunity for strengthening people-centered multilateralism through the UN system. Likewise, the current UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has affirmed that overcoming today’s fragilities and challenges requires better global governance,^[44] something we must continue to promote.

From this perspective, I would like to propose the holding of a high-level meeting at the UN to address COVID-19 as a means to further strengthen networking and collaboration among the world’s governments. With a view to the possibility of new infectious diseases emerging in the future, I would further propose that international guidelines governing pandemic response be adopted at such a meeting.

Last month, a special session of the UN General Assembly focusing on the current pandemic was held at UN Headquarters in New York where General Assembly President Volkan Bozkir addressed the gathering, expressing the sentiment shared by millions worldwide:

Right now, we are all dreaming of the day this pandemic is over. The day we can take a deep breath of fresh air without fear. The day we can shake the hands of our colleagues, embrace our families, and laugh with our friends.^[45]

Toward that end, he called for strengthened international cooperation led by the UN. Following a moment of silence in memory of all those who have lost their lives, heads of state and government addressed the session through pre-recorded video statements, and online panel discussions were held with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. I believe the high-level meeting I am calling for could be convened as a follow-up to develop international guidelines that would serve as the basis for a coordinated COVID-19 response. These guidelines should be sufficiently robust to also defend against future outbreaks of infectious disease.

We have seen how, in 2001, the UN General Assembly Special Session issued a Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS with a list of categories for action and a timeline for achievement, and how this provided a powerful impetus to each country’s response to that epidemic.

It is also worth looking at the international approach to disasters of a different nature. In 2015, four years after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 was adopted at the third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, a city that had been severely affected. This framework included guiding principles and priorities for action in disaster risk reduction, clearly underlining that the aim is to protect not only people’s lives but also their livelihoods. It further included specific lessons learned from disasters including the Tohoku earthquake, such as the importance of enhancing resilience—the capacity of societies to recover 19 from severe shocks. Further, as a result of the Sendai Framework setting specific targets toward 2030, including substantially reducing the number of victims of disaster worldwide and containing damage to critical infrastructure such as healthcare and educational facilities, countries around the world have begun to share priority areas and best practices in this field.

I believe that, building on the achievement of the Sendai Framework and based on lessons learned and experiences acquired, international guidelines for combating the current pandemic must be established as a matter of great urgency.

Although the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include bringing an end to certain communicable diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, there is no explicit mention of the word “pandemic.” Bearing in mind the possibility that new infectious diseases will emerge, the international guidelines I am proposing should outline the priority actions for pandemic response to be implemented by 2030. As guidelines linked to the SDGs, they should be integrated in such a way as to reinforce those goals.

Alongside a meeting to draw up such global guidelines, I would like to propose the holding of a “beyond COVID-19” youth summit, a convening of young people to discuss the kind of world they would like to see in the aftermath of this crisis. Two years ago, the UN Youth Climate Summit took place at UN Headquarters in New York. It provided a platform and opportunity for young leaders from around the globe to engage with UN leadership, sharing their solutions on climate issues so that their concerns could better be reflected in policy-making processes.

A “beyond COVID-19” summit could utilize online platforms, thus enabling the participation of many more young people from diverse backgrounds, such as those struggling in poverty, those living in conflict areas and those compelled to live as refugees. Such a summit would provide youth with the opportunity to freely exchange their views and hopes with UN officers and national leaders.

Many participants in the UN75 dialogues mentioned above voiced the need for UN reform that would strengthen collaboration with civil society and expand the involvement of women and youth in UN decision making. Of the suggestions detailed in the UN75 Report, I would especially like to highlight the idea of establishing a UN youth council with the role of communicating to the UN leadership ideas and proposals developed from the perspective of young people.

In my 2006 proposal on UN reform, I shared my strong belief in the importance of promoting young people’s active engagement with the UN. Referencing Archimedes I stated that when youth have “a place to stand,” they can leverage the potential of the UN. And in my 2009 peace proposal, I called for the creation of an office of global visioning within the UN Secretariat to help identify the future direction of the UN and bring focus to that purpose. It is crucial that the UN not only react to immediate challenges but also better reflect the voices and perspectives of women and youth in its efforts to develop future-oriented action strategies.

Archimedes

Ancient Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes (c. 287–211 BCE) is best known for his discovery of the relation between the surface and volume of a sphere, as well as a hydrostatic principle known as the Archimedes principle. He also defined the principle of the lever in his work On the Equilibrium of Planes. Archimedes is quoted as having said, “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.” This phrase is taken to express the idea that, given a firm footing and the proper tools, anything can be made possible.

To that end, a UN youth council would regularize and sustain the kind of youth engagement described above. A youth summit dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 crisis, following the precedent set by the Youth Climate Summit, would build momentum for the creation of such a youth council. I sincerely believe that the active participation of youth in this way would bring fresh ideas and vitality to the organization, strengthening UN-centered global governance for the benefit of the world’s peoples.

TPNW—A turning point in human history

The second issue of concern regarding which I would like to offer specific proposals is the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

On January 22, 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), long sought for by civil society, entered into force. The treaty comprehensively bans nuclear weapons, prohibiting not only their development and testing but also their production, stockpiling and use or threat of use. At present, the treaty has been signed by eighty-six countries and ratified by fifty-two.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, adopted with the aim of their eventual elimination. The treaty was endorsed by 122 countries at United Nations Headquarters in New York when it was first adopted on July 7, 2017. On October 24, 2020, it reached the fiftieth ratification required to enter into force, and since has gained further support, with eighty-six signatories and fifty-two ratifications as of the end of January 2021.

Contained in its twenty articles are provisions that signatory states must agree not to develop, test, produce, manufacture, transfer, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, or allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. States possessing nuclear arsenals may join the treaty upon submission of a time-bound plan for the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons program.

Following the precedents set by the Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention, which ban those weapons of mass destruction, the entry into force of the TPNW marks the start of an era in which the continued existence of nuclear weapons on Earth has been stipulated as unacceptable by a legally binding instrument.

Last October, Setsuko Thurlow, a hibakusha who has worked with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) to advocate for the treaty’s entry into force, shared her thoughts on hearing that the TPNW had met the conditions for doing so. As one who has also committed my life to realizing a world without nuclear weapons, I was deeply moved by her words:

This truly marks the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons! When I learned that we reached our 50th ratification, I was not able to stand. I remained in my chair and put my head in my hands and I cried tears of joy. … I have a tremendous sense of accomplishment and fulfilment, a sense of satisfaction and gratitude. I know other survivors share these emotions—whether we are survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki; or test survivors from South Pacific island nations, Kazakhstan, Australia and Algeria; or survivors from uranium mining in Canada, the United States or the Congo.^[46]

As Ms. Thurlow noted, people throughout the world have suffered from the development and testing of nuclear weapons over the course of the nuclear age that has persisted for more than seventy-five years. As stressed in the TPNW, the very existence of nuclear weapons poses a grave danger to the world; and the catastrophic consequences that would result from their use and any subsequent nuclear exchange would be truly imponderable. The irreversible damage done to the planet would extend beyond the dimension of mass destruction: in an instant, everything would return to nothingness, all would cease to exist—each precious life, all community and social activity, the entirety of human history and civilization—everything would be cruelly stripped of meaning. Something capable of producing such tragedy can only be described as an absolute evil.

My mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda, issued his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons in 1957 at a time when every part of the world was coming within range of a nuclear-weapon strike as a result of the arms race. Seeking to confront and overcome the underlying thinking that justifies the possession of nuclear weapons, he stated that his goal was to “expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons.”^[47] He went beyond declaring the use of nuclear weapons unacceptable under any circumstance. By using deliberately provocative language, he wished to emphasize that without exposing the true nature of absolute evil lurking within nuclear weapons possession, it would be impossible to protect the right of the world’s people to live.

As the preamble of the TPNW states, a sense of urgency to ensure “the security of all humanity” lies at the foundation of this treaty. Establishing a norm comprehensively banning nuclear weapons under international law, the treaty’s primary purpose lies in protecting the right to live of all the people with whom we share this planet—regardless of whether the states in which they live are nuclear-weapon states, nuclear-dependent states or non-nuclear-weapon states—and in ensuring the survival of generations to come.

Support for the treaty has steadily continued to grow: even after the TPNW reached its fiftieth ratification required for entry into force, sixteen more states expressed their intention to ratify at last year’s session of the UN General Assembly’s Disarmament and International Security Committee (First Committee).^[48]

Attention now focuses on the first meeting of States Parties of the TPNW, which the treaty requires be held within one year of its entry into force. Here, the next step will be to muster broad-based support for “the security of all humanity” and greatly expand the number of states signing and ratifying. Furthermore, since all states, including those not yet States Parties, are welcome to attend this meeting, a major focus will be how to involve as many nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states as possible in the deliberations. The challenge here is to build the kind of robust solidarity that will bring the era of nuclear weapons to a close.

The UN75 Report I referred to earlier also clearly reflects growing support among the global public for the creation of this kind of solidarity. It cites a ten-point list of priorities for the future, including a global push to support entry into force of the TPNW as well as a ban on lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) such as robotic weapons.^[49] In addition, according to a survey of millennials in sixteen countries and territories commissioned by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 84 percent of all respondents agreed that the use of nuclear weapons in war or conflict is “never acceptable.” Notably, there was also overwhelming support for this statement among millennials living in nuclear-weapon states.^[50]

As the only country in the world to have experienced a nuclear attack in wartime, Japan should pave the way for the nuclear-dependent states by announcing its intention to participate in the first meeting of States Parties of the TPNW and to proactively take part in discussions. On this basis, Japan should aim for ratification at an early date. In light of its history and the underlying spirit of the treaty—to protect the right to live of all the people with whom we share this planet and to ensure the survival of future generations—it can certainly send a powerful message to the world. In this way, Japan can make an important contribution to ensuring that the talks reach a constructive outcome.

The TPNW stipulates that in addition to reviewing and discussing its ratification and implementation status, the meeting of States Parties can also address “any other matters pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this Treaty.”^[51] Based on this, I would like to propose that a forum for discussing the relationship between nuclear weapons and the SDGs be held during the first meeting of States Parties.

The issue of nuclear weapons is not only central to the attainment of world peace; as noted in the treaty’s preamble, it has grave implications for many areas of concern including human rights and humanitarian issues, the environment and development, the global economy and food security, health and gender equality. Since each of these represents a crucial aspect of the SDGs, the theme of nuclear weapons and the SDGs can be positioned as an issue concerning all states and serve as the impetus to engage as many nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states as possible in the discussions of the States Parties.

The prolonged severity of Cold War tensions following World War II caused the threat posed by nuclear weapons to become entrenched, so much so that even today, thirty years after the Cold War ended, there is a strong tendency to view it as an unchanging “given.” Even recognizing that national security is a high priority for states, is it really the case that this can only be realized through continued reliance on nuclear weapons? I believe that debating this question in light of the importance of achieving each of the SDGs would represent a significant opportunity for both the nuclear-weapon and nucleardependent states to reexamine their current stances.

This is all the more crucial as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to overstretch national healthcare systems and undermine economies across the world, with forecasts showing that recovery may take years. I strongly believe we have reached a critical point at which states must seriously reconsider the merit of continuing to pour vast sums into military budgets in pursuit of security through the possession of nuclear weapons.

In Greek mythology, we find the story of King Midas, who came to possess the ability to turn everything he touched into gold. Once this wish of his had been granted, however, he discovered that even water and food, the basic necessities for human survival, were turned to gold at his touch, rendering them useless. In the end, he chose to relinquish his “gift.” At present, in the face of not only climate change but the COVID-19 crisis, there is an urgent need for all countries to thoroughly reconsider the implications of nuclear weapons for the peoples of the world. This, I am confident, will be brought into sharp relief through discussions on the relationship between nuclear weapons and the SDGs, which will in turn be indispensable in our efforts to create a world in which we would want to live.

More than anything else, it is the united voice of civil society that will serve as a major force for generating greater global support for the TPNW. In my proposal last year, in addition to calling for civil society observer participation in the first meeting of States Parties of the TPNW, I proposed the holding of a people’s forum for a world without nuclear weapons to follow up on the first meeting, bringing together the world’s hibakusha, municipalities that support the TPNW and representatives of civil society. These two proposals would serve to amplify the voices of civil society and help position the TPNW as a pillar of twenty-first-century disarmament efforts as well as a focal point for popular energy to transform human history.

Now that the TPNW has entered into force, will it be possible for the countries of the world to come together to eliminate the planetary threat posed by nuclear weapons?

As we stand at this crossroads in history, I would like to consider the example of Professor Joseph Rotblat (1908–2005), who long served as the president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and whose life story may offer us a guide for achieving the paradigm shift to which we aspire.

Of the many scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project, the US-led endeavor to develop the atomic bomb during World War II, Prof. Rotblat was the only one to quit before its completion. Several years before joining the project, he had moved to Britain from his native Poland in order to pursue his research, but was separated from his wife when Nazi Germany invaded their homeland. Asked to participate in the Manhattan Project as part of the British mission, he left for the United States torn by a conflict between his conscience and the desire to deter the Nazis from developing and using a nuclear weapon.

At the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, his office was adjacent to that of Edward Teller (1908–2003), who would later be known as the father of the hydrogen bomb. One day, the military general in charge of the Manhattan Project told him that the real objective of building the atomic bomb was to subdue the Soviet Union, rather than to outpace the Nazis’ development efforts and thereby demoralize them.^[52]

In a dialogue we conducted many years later, Prof. Rotblat recalled his deep shock at this revelation: “I began to feel that I was at Los Alamos for the wrong reason. I felt as if the soil beneath my feet was beginning to crumble.”^[53] He submitted a request to be relieved from participation in this top secret project and, despite various forms of pressure to rescind his decision, he returned to Britain by himself. Tragically, it transpired that his beloved wife had been killed in the Holocaust.

When he heard about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in a news broadcast on August 6, 1945, he determined to devote the rest of his life to ensuring that nuclear weapons would never again be used. In 1946, he organized the British Atomic Scientists Association in order to campaign against any use of nuclear weapons. To promote public awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons, he helped sponsor a mobile exhibition in train carriages which traveled throughout the British Isles, Europe and the Middle East. He switched his field of study to the therapeutic use of radiation, as he wanted to see his research used in ways that would help save lives. His earlier work on the radioactive element Cobalt-60 continues to contribute to the treatment of malignant tumors to this day.

In 1954, a hydrogen bomb test was conducted at Bikini Atoll, exposing local inhabitants and the crew members of the Japanese fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon No. 5) to radioactive fallout. This occasioned an encounter between Prof. Rotblat and the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). Prof. Rotblat went on to sign the 1955 Russell-Einstein Manifesto, and in 1957, he cofounded the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs in which he continued to play a pivotal role until his passing in 2005. His was a life devoted to the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

His views on the reality of nuclear deterrence, voiced when he and the Pugwash Conferences jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, are still relevant today:

Nuclear weapons are kept as a hedge against some unspecified dangers. This policy is simply an inertial continuation from the Cold War era. … As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this argument?^[54]

In our dialogue, Prof. Rotblat and I discussed how nuclear weapons were first developed in the name of counteracting Nazi Germany and how their possession and competitive development was justified with ever-changing reasons and strategic theories. We reached the conclusion that nuclear weapons do not continue to exist out of necessity, but rather, their existence has necessitated a search for arguments to justify their existence.^[55]

So long as states continue to possess nuclear weapons, citing the threat of some “unspecified dangers,” the actual threat these weapons pose to our planet will persist into the indefinite future. In contrast, the TPNW, which aims to eliminate “the risks posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons,”^[56] establishes a path for countries to move forward together toward the eradication of that threat.

In their efforts to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, the Pugwash Conferences saw their first successes with the entry into force of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, the year after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although the treaty prohibited nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater, it did not prohibit underground nuclear explosions. This in turn led to the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans all nuclear tests, three decades later, in 1996.

Although the CTBT has yet to enter into force, it has been signed by 184 states and, through the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), has a verification regime to ensure that no nuclear explosion anywhere on the globe goes undetected. This regime helps forestall the creation of the kind of “unspecified dangers” that Prof. Rotblat warned against. Further, mobilizing the data collection resources of its network of monitoring stations, which spans the entire globe, the CTBTO helps protect the lives of people everywhere, enabling, for example, early disaster warning and the detection of nuclear power plant accidents.

Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) launched an initiative in March 2020 to use nuclear-derived technology to help more than 120 countries with COVID-19 detection tests.^[57] The IAEA has a track record of assisting countries to expand access to cancer treatment and rapid detection tests in the fight against epidemics such as Ebola and Zika. Regarding this initiative, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi declared: “When people turn to the IAEA for assistance in times of crisis, the IAEA has not failed them and will not fail them.”^[58] These activities echo Prof. Rotblat’s lifelong commitment to saving lives through his research and activism.

If a deterrent force is needed in the world today, it is certainly not that of nuclear weapons. Rather, it is the power of joint action and solidarity transcending national borders, brought to bear against the intertwined crises of climate change and COVID-19 and related economic impacts.

The international community’s attitude toward biological and chemical weapons changed dramatically after the entry into force of the treaties banning these weapons. States initiated the process of destroying them: more than 90 percent of the world’s declared chemical weapon stockpiles have so far been eliminated.^[59] A similar change regarding nuclear weapons might not immediately occur among nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-dependent states, but it is not as if the process would be starting from scratch.

Biological and chemical weapons

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), adopted in 1971 with entry into force in 1975, effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of bacteriological and toxin weapons. The treaty currently has 183 states parties. As the first disarmament treaty to ban a whole class of weapons of mass destruction, it has successfully deterred the acquisition of biological weapons for over forty years.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), adopted in 1992 with entry into force in 1997, currently has 193 states parties and similarly prohibits them from the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. The CWC also introduced a strict regime to verify compliance and monitor the production of chemicals that could potentially be used in the production of chemical weapons.

These treaties are significant as they represent the collective international will to ban biological and chemical weapons and establish an international norm by which any country using such weapons is considered a pariah.

Three international conferences on the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons were held between 2013 and 2014. With each iteration, the number of participating governments increased, including those of nuclear-dependent states, with the United States and the United Kingdom among the 158 states that attended the third conference.^[60]

Among the conclusions drawn from those conferences, I think that the following three points are particularly important:

1. The impact of a nuclear-weapon detonation would not be constrained by national borders and would cause devastating long-term effects on a global scale.
2. It is unlikely that any state or international body could adequately address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear-weapon detonation.
3. The indirect effects of a nuclear-weapon detonation would be most concentrated on the impoverished and vulnerable segments of society.

Though the threats differ in their nature, the impacts of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic resemble those of nuclear weapons in each of the above ways. The devastating impact that COVID-19 has had upon the world should bring home to all states, including the nuclear-dependent and nuclear-weapon states, the critical importance of eliminating the threat of these weapons, which are capable of wreaking havoc on a truly unimaginable scale.

Removing this grave danger that has persisted from the Cold War era is at the heart of both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, and the TPNW, which just entered into force this month. The NPT calls on its signatories to make every effort to avert the danger of a nuclear war^[61] and the devastation it would visit upon all humankind. The two treaties complement each other, providing a dual basis for setting into motion global efforts to put nucleardependent security policies behind us.

Here I would like to make two proposals to the NPT Review Conference scheduled for August this year: that there be a discussion on the true meaning of security in light of crises such as climate change and the pandemic; and that the final document include a pledge of non-use of nuclear weapons and a pledge to freeze all nuclear-weapon development in the lead-up to the 2025 Review Conference.

The Review Conference, originally scheduled for 2020, was in fact postponed due to the pandemic. When the Review Conference is held, I urge participants to reflect on the way that the world’s people have been craving real safety and security over the course of the last year, and seriously consider whether the continued possession and development of nuclear weapons as “a hedge against some unspecified dangers” is consistent with the spirit of the NPT.

In 1958, against the backdrop of the escalating Cold War nuclear arms race, the United States had a secret project to detonate a thermonuclear bomb on the surface of the Moon. Its purpose was to produce an intense flash of light that could be clearly seen from Earth, thereby demonstrating to the Soviet Union the superiority of US military might. Fortunately, the project was soon aborted, and the Moon was spared.^[62] This plan to use even the Moon for nuclear intimidation was underway at the very same time when, back on Earth, the US and the Soviet Union were working together to develop and deliver a vaccine to contain the polio epidemic.

Today, at a time when the world is expected to require several years or more to fully recover from the damage caused by COVID-19, governments should apply this lesson from history and earnestly question the value of continuing to modernize their nuclear arsenals.

At the 2021 NPT Review Conference in August, I strongly urge that, on the basis of pledges of nonuse of nuclear weapons and a freeze on nuclear-weapon development, states initiate good-faith multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament at the earliest possible date, thus complying with their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT. Such actions will ensure substantive progress is made prior to the next Review Conference in 2025.

The TPNW allows a nuclear-weapon state to become a State Party by agreeing to submit a plan for the elimination of its nuclear-weapon program.^[63] Such participation by nuclear-dependent and nuclearweapon states in the TPNW would be facilitated through the above-outlined steps taken under the NPT regime—embarking on multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament undergirded by pledges of non-use and a freeze on nuclear-weapon development. I call for efforts to link the operation of these two treaties in ways that will put us on the path to ending the nuclear age.

Rebuilding life in a post-COVID world

The third issue area where I would like to offer proposals pertains to the reconstruction of economies and lives disrupted by COVID-19. Time and again, the global economy has been hit by severe recessions, triggered by such factors as currency instability, fluctuations in energy prices and financial crises. The impact of the current pandemic, however, far exceeds the damage done by these past events. According to the World Bank, the global economy is experiencing its worst contraction since the end of World War II.^[64] Businesses in most sectors have registered sharp declines in earnings, resulting in mass layoffs and significant drops in household income.

The depth of the current economic crisis is such that the International Labour Organization (ILO) warns that 1.6 billion people—nearly half the global workforce—“have suffered massive damage to their capacity to earn a living” as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.^[65] In response, some governments have taken emergency measures to provide income support, including cash transfers, in an effort to soften the blow to their populations. At the most recent G20 Labour and Employment Ministers’ Meeting held in September last year, participants expressed the view that the pandemic “has reinforced the need for strong social protection systems to support all workers and their families.”^[66]

A social protection system is a portfolio of interventions that provides a lifetime of social assistance to individuals facing financial challenges due to ill health, loss of work or other unforeseen events. The right to social security is stipulated in numerous human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.^[67] In response to the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008, impacting large numbers of people in the areas of employment, healthcare and education, the UN in 2009 launched the Social Protection Floor (SPF) Initiative to shore up the foundations of people’s lives.

Social Protection Floor Initiative

The UN launched the Social Protection Floor Initiative (SPF-I) in 2009 in response to the global financial crisis. Driven by a coalition of UN agencies and development partners, it is an integrated set of social policies designed to guarantee universal access to a basic floor of social protection provided by public and civic bodies. Through an approach that tailors guidance according to each nation’s circumstances and level of development, building social protection floors can provide income security and access to essential healthcare for all, contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has estimated that, despite significant progress achieved through working with national governments and taking into account the impact of the pandemic, as many as 4 billion people (55 percent of the global population) are not covered by any social protection benefits.

In my 2013 peace proposal, I strongly endorsed this initiative, stressing that the employment conditions facing youth at the time were especially severe. It has been my abiding belief that a society that deprives young people of hope cannot expect to achieve sustainability or build a culture of human rights. I therefore proposed incorporating into the SDGs, which were then being deliberated at the UN, the target of a social protection floor in every country to ensure that those suffering from extreme poverty would be able to regain a sense of dignity.

While equivalent content was incorporated into the SDGs,^[68] the magnitude of the COVID-19 economic shock, which is even greater than the impact of the 2008–09 financial crisis, has thrown many millions of people, including those who previously enjoyed stable lives, into financial devastation. This has driven home the urgency of strengthening access to social protection systems, a goal also supported by the thirty-seven member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).^[69]

The OECD’s policy statement, “Supporting livelihoods during the COVID-19 crisis: Closing the gaps in safety nets,” issued in May last year, points out that this protracted hardship is forcing workers to fall back on their savings, putting their current and future well-being at risk. It further states:

The unprecedented scale of the crisis means that this is not only a short-term challenge, but it will require sustained policy efforts over the coming months and, possibly, years. Careful consideration of how support programmes can be made as effective and as sustainable as possible is needed.^[70]

In 1948, the forerunner of the OECD was established to oversee the Marshall Plan, a US program developed to provide aid to European countries ravaged by World War II. The OECD is now referred to as the world’s largest think tank, bringing together experts from across the globe to enhance international standards, including through processes of national policy peer review.^[71] Recently, as it places greater emphasis on ensuring the implementation of its policy proposals, the group has started to position itself as a “think and do tank.”^[72]

With this in mind, I hope that OECD members will take the lead in efforts to realize all SDG targets related to ensuring universal social protection measures. I also hope that they will work together to establish and implement global policy standards for rebuilding economies and livelihoods devastated by the COVID-19 crisis. One direction this could take is the development of new industries and the creation of job opportunities through rapid transition to a green economy, scaling back military spending and allocating the resources saved to strengthening social protection systems.

Further, OECD members have a significant role to play in enacting ambitious policies that enhance social resilience. This could include building regional sustainability by way of responding to the climate crisis, promoting disaster risk reduction and ecological conservation, supporting healthcare systems and improving the employment environment for caregivers, including those involved in nursing care. My rationale for citing these overlapping policy areas is that we are living in an era in which we need to adopt a comprehensive and simultaneous “multi-hazard approach” to threats and challenges, with a clear understanding of the systemic nature of risk, as advocated by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.^[73]

The UN Biodiversity Summit held last September confirmed that, should the current deterioration of the global climate and ecosystem persist, new forms of contagious disease can be expected to emerge.^[74] By taking a multi-hazard approach to address spirals of negative causes and consequences, we can transform these into their positive equivalents. For example, efforts to mitigate climate change can enhance prevention measures against emerging infectious diseases, which will in turn boost disaster resilience. Similarly, strengthening disaster prevention and risk reduction measures in tandem with ecological conservation will help meet the challenges posed by climate change. These are but a few examples of the much-needed efforts we must make to transform a confluence of challenges into a cascade of positive changes.

In order to rebuild economies and lives in a post-COVID world, we need to prioritize the expansion of social protection floors and build multidimensional resilience. Countries should work together to create a global society where every person can live in security and in peace of mind.

Instead of addressing each crisis situation in isolation, adopting a comprehensive approach provides a shared platform from which to develop new possibilities for the future. In his remarks to the Biodiversity Summit, UN Secretary-General Guterres identified the following as priorities:

First, nature-based solutions must be embedded in COVID-19 recovery and wider development plans. Preserving the world’s biodiversity can yield the jobs and economic growth that we urgently need today. The World Economic Forum signals that emerging business opportunities across nature could create 191 million jobs by 2030. Africa’s Great Green Wall alone has created 335,000 jobs.^[75]

The Great Green Wall (GGW) is a pan-African project to develop a roughly 15 km-wide vegetation belt over a length of some 8,000 km across the Sahel region at the southern edge of the Sahara desert. It involves regenerating indigenous plant varieties and cultivating agricultural plots interspersed among them. Launched in 2007 by the African Union, this initiative has succeeded in restoring 20 million hectares of degraded land.^[76] Some key results of this movement include creation of green jobs in such areas as tree-planting and agriculture; mitigation of persistent food insecurity due to desertification; and stabilization of health and living conditions.^[77] The GGW project, which supports fifteen out of the seventeen SDGs,^[78] is expected to enhance resilience in the Sahel as well as to evolve into an economic development initiative that benefits all people in the region.

Sharing the epic ambition of building the largest living structure in the world—slated to encompass 100 million hectares by 2030—African countries involved in the GGW project are reinforcing efforts to achieve the interrelated goals of post-COVID economic recovery, realization of the SDGs and meeting Paris Agreement goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This massive endeavor is underpinned by the confidence that working with nature, even in challenging places like the Sahel, makes it possible to surmount difficulties and build a better world for the future.

OECD countries and others could engage in equally ambitious projects as they address and seek to overcome the COVID-19 crisis. According to World Economic Forum forecasts, the business opportunities arising from a transition to nature-positive socio-economic systems could deliver approximately 400 million new jobs by 2030. This figure includes 191 million jobs that could be created in areas such as food and land use alone, along with such transitions as developing resource-efficient infrastructure and expanding use of renewable energy.^[79] It would be a highly positive development if OECD members were to further their collaboration with such key partners as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, in efforts to rebuild the world economy and ensure a safe and secure life for all.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a great challenge to the UN Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs, which was launched last year. However, I am confident that humanity possesses the ability to transform challenges into the energy to create positive value. This is evident in the example of the people of Africa, who have come together in a united and sustained effort to restore degraded land, adorning the planet with a vast new swath of green.

Soka, meaning “value creation,” embodies our commitment as the Soka Gakkai to build a society whose guiding principle is the realization of happiness for both oneself and others through bringing into full play the human capacity to create value.

Describing the dynamism of value creation, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), the first president of the Soka Gakkai, likened it to a “lotus flower in muddy water,” an image found in the Lotus Sutra.^[80] The lotus flower blooms fragrantly, unsullied by the muddy waters from which it draws sustenance. This illustrates that however deep the chaos and confusion of the times, we can refuse to let this overwhelm us, staying always true to ourselves. The limitless power of value creation, which is intrinsic to life, enables each of us to transform our circumstances into an arena where we can live out our unique mission, imparting hope and a sense of security to all those around us.

The Japanese term soka arose from a dialogue between mentor and disciple—Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda—in 1930. From its beginning under the leadership of these two founding presidents, the Soka Gakkai has developed as a popular movement dedicated to the happiness of self and others that now extends to 192 countries and territories. The target year of the UN Decade of Action to deliver the SDGs—2030—coincides with our centennial.

Drawing upon the network of collaborative relations we have developed to date, as part of civil society we are wholeheartedly committed to working toward 2030 with like-minded people and organizations to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs and to realize a global society of peace and humane values.

Value Creation in a Time of Crisis

The world today is faced with a complex set of urgent crises that can only be described as unprecedented in the history of humankind. In addition to the increasing incidence every passing year of extreme weather events that reflect the worsening problem of climate change, the onslaught of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to threaten social and economic stability throughout the world.

Nevertheless, even as the dark clouds of this crisis continue to shroud the world, progress in efforts to build a global society committed to peace and humane values has not halted. Examples of important progress include: the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) this past January 22; universal ratification by the 187 member states of the International Labour Organization (ILO) of a convention outlawing the worst forms of child labor; and eradication of wild polio in Africa.

With the world still reeling from the impacts of the pandemic, I would like to explore three approaches that I believe are required in order to overcome this complex crisis and generate solid momentum for the challenge of building a global society of peace and humane values in the twenty-first century.

The first is the determination never to leave behind those struggling in the depths of adversity, who find themselves isolated as our sense of crisis becomes increasingly normalized. Even as we work to develop a comprehensive response, we must always prioritize addressing the suffering of each of the many individuals whose lives are directly impacted.

Second is the need for countries to transcend their differences and come together in solidarity to overcome this crisis. The World Health Organization (WHO) along with governmental and civil society partners has established the COVAX facility for the global procurement of COVID-19 vaccines, with the aim of creating systems to ensure prompt and equitable access to vaccines for all countries. Japan was an early participant in COVAX, and I call on the Japanese government to make efforts to encourage the active participation of countries that have yet to join.

What is needed is a human security approach, in which countries look beyond their immediate interests to work together to reduce and eliminate the threats facing all people.

Third is the need to prevent the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19 that can fuel discrimination against those who have been infected. This must be part of the effort to construct a culture of human rights in which no one’s dignity is denied.

For its part, the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) has carried out activities in support of human rights education with a view to completing the circle of an inclusive society, working together with all those with whom we share this world. Strengthening efforts to stop the spread of malicious misinformation and discrimination and to dispel the dark clouds of fear and anxiety seeded by the COVID-19 crisis, we must now rise to the challenge of anchoring a vibrant culture of human rights on our shared determination that no one’s dignity ever be denied.

International guidelines for combating infectious diseases

I would also like to make specific proposals in three main issue areas toward the construction of a global society of peace and humane values.

The first relates to strengthening global governance and establishing global guidelines for combating infectious diseases.

I would like to propose the holding of a high-level meeting at the UN to address COVID-19 as a means to further strengthen networking and collaboration among the world’s governments. With a view to the possibility of new infectious diseases emerging in the future, I would further propose that international guidelines governing pandemic response be adopted at such a meeting.

I would also like to propose the holding of a “beyond COVID-19” youth summit, to discuss the kind of world young people would like to see in the aftermath of this crisis. This summit could utilize online platforms, thus enabling the participation of many young people from diverse backgrounds.

Last year, the UN launched the UN75 initiative—an ambitious attempt to listen to the voices of the world’s people through surveys and dialogue. Of the suggestions detailed in the UN75 Report, I would especially like to highlight the idea of establishing a UN youth council with the role of communicating to the UN leadership ideas and proposals developed from the perspective of young people.

The TPNW—a turning point in human history

The second issue of concern on which I would like to offer specific proposals is the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Removing the grave danger posed by these weapons is at the heart of both the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, and the TPNW, which just entered into force this month.

The entry into force of the TPNW marks the start of an era in which the continued existence of nuclear weapons on Earth has been stipulated as unacceptable by a legally binding instrument.

Attention now focuses on the first meeting of States Parties of the TPNW. Since any state is welcome to attend, a major focus will be on how to involve as many nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states as possible in the deliberations. As the only country in the world to have experienced a nuclear attack in wartime, Japan should pave the way for the nuclear-dependent states by announcing its intention to participate.

Further, I would like to propose that a forum for discussing the relationship between nuclear weapons and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) be held during the first meeting of States Parties. The theme of nuclear weapons and the SDGs can thus be positioned as an issue concerning all states and serve as the impetus to engage as many nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states as possible.

I would also like to make two proposals to the NPT Review Conference scheduled for August this year: that there be a discussion on the true meaning of security in light of crises such as climate change and the pandemic; and that the final document include a pledge of non-use of nuclear weapons and a pledge to freeze all nuclear-weapon development in the lead-up to the 2025 Review Conference.

The TPNW opens a path for a nuclear-weapon state to become a State Party by submitting a plan for the elimination of its nuclear-weapon program. Such participation by nuclear-dependent and nuclear-weapon states in the TPNW could be facilitated under the NPT regime through embarking on multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament undergirded by pledges of non-use and a freeze on nuclear-weapon development. I call for efforts to link the operation of these two treaties in ways that will put us on the path to ending the nuclear age.

Rebuilding life in a post-COVID world

The third issue area where I would like to offer proposals pertains to the reconstruction of economies and lives disrupted by the COVID-19 emergency.

The magnitude of the COVID-19 economic shock has thrown many millions of people into financial devastation. This has driven home the urgency of strengthening access to social protection systems, a goal also supported by the members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

I hope that OECD members will take the lead in efforts to realize all SDG targets related to ensuring universal social protection measures. I also hope that they will work together to establish and implement global policy standards for rebuilding economies and livelihoods devastated by the COVID-19 crisis. One direction this could take is the development of new industries and the creation of job opportunities through transition to a green economy, scaling back military spending and allocating the resources saved to strengthening social protection systems.

Further, OECD members have a significant role to play in enacting ambitious policies that enhance social resilience. We are living in an era in which we need to adopt a comprehensive and simultaneous “multi-hazard approach” to threats and challenges, with a clear understanding of the systemic nature of risk, as advocated by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Drawing upon the network of collaborative relations we have developed to date, as part of civil society, the SGI is wholeheartedly committed to working toward 2030 with like-minded people and organizations to accelerate the achievement of the SDGs and to realize a global society of peace and humane values.

The Global Solidarity of Youth: Ushering In a New Era of Hope

Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2017

Sixty years have passed since my mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda (1900–58), issued his declaration calling for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Toda fought alongside founding president Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944) for the cause of peace and humanity. At the core of his thinking was a vision of global citizenship rooted in the philosophy of respect for life’s inherent dignity as taught in Buddhism.

This is the conviction that no one, wherever they may have been born or whatever group they belong to, should be subjected to discrimination, exploited or have their interests sacrificed for the benefit of others. This is a way of thinking that resonates strongly with the United Nations’ appeal to the international community to create a world in which “no one will be left behind.”^[1]

The same strongly felt sentiment impelled Toda to denounce nuclear weapons as an absolute evil, a fundamental threat to the right of the world’s people to live, and to call for a broad-based popular movement for their prohibition. On September 8, 1957, under the clear blue skies that follow after a typhoon has passed, he addressed some 50,000 young people who had gathered at the Mitsuzawa Stadium in Yokohama: “I hope that, as my disciples, you will inherit the declaration I am about to make today and, to the best of your ability, spread its intent throughout the world.”^[2] Even to this day, the sound of his voice echoes within me.

Since then, Soka Gakkai members in Japan and around the world have worked with like-minded individuals and organizations to develop activities seeking the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Last December, against a backdrop of growing recognition within international society of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly adopted a historic resolution calling for the start of negotiations toward a treaty for their prohibition. The first negotiating conference is slated to be held at UN Headquarters in New York in March, and it is crucial that this succeed in opening a path to a world free from nuclear weapons.

In addition to nuclear weapons, our world today is confronted by numerous grave challenges including a seemingly unending succession of armed conflicts and the sufferings of the rapidly growing refugee population. I am not, however, pessimistic about humanity’s future. My reason is the faith I place in our world’s young people, each of whom embodies hope and the possibility of a better future.

This is not to deny the fact that millions of young people live in severely challenging conditions of poverty and inequality, as evidenced by the fact that children and youth top the list of groups requiring special attention according to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were launched last year.

But we must also remember the potential of youth, highlighted for example in Security Council Resolution 2250, which stressed the necessary role of youth in peacebuilding.

In Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the General Assembly Resolution that sets out the SDGs, young people are identified as “critical agents of change,”^[3] a conviction I share wholeheartedly. Young people and their energetic engagement represent the solution to the global challenges we face; they hold the key to achieving the goals set by the UN toward 2030.

In this proposal, I would like to put a special focus on the role of youth as I offer thoughts on how to build the kind of peaceful, just and inclusive societies envisaged in the SDGs.

Building solidarity: The role of young people

The first challenge I would like to address is creating solidarity toward respectful coexistence on the one planet that we all share. In this, the role of young people is central.

The Paris Agreement, a new international framework for combating climate change, entered into force in November of last year. It was adopted in December 2015 and signed by the representatives of 175 countries and territories in April 2016. Its entry into force less than one year after being adopted was unprecedented.

Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries in Paris in December 2015. It entered into force on November 4, 2016, having achieved the required ratification by at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Paris Agreement is the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement, and has the central aim of strengthening the response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2°C compared to preindustrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. The agreement also aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change and provides a mechanism for each country to define its targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions (nationally defined contributions, NDCs). In 2018, signatories will take stock of their progress, with similar stock takes every five years.

With this, the countries of the world came together to confront a common threat in a way that had previously appeared impossible. This reorientation was the result of a shared awareness that climate change is an urgent issue for all countries, a recognition spurred by extreme weather events, rising sea levels and other tangible manifestations.

If we are to make progress in the alleviation of poverty and toward the achievement of all of the 17 goals and 169 targets that comprise the SDGs, we will need to share a similar awareness and solidarity across all fields.

The broad spectrum of concerns covered by the SDGs has caused some people to wonder if they are in fact achievable. But it is important to remember that the large number of targets speaks to the vast number of people facing gravely challenging conditions, none of which we can afford to overlook. In addition to the direct impacts of conflicts and natural disasters, the victims are often tormented by the sense that they have been forgotten and ignored.

While the urgent nature of the refugee crisis is all too evident and was a central topic of the World Humanitarian Summit held in May of last year and of the United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants in September, effective international cooperation has continued to lag.

The new UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated in an interview last October soon after his appointment:

I will do everything I can . . . for refugee protection to be assumed as a global responsibility, as it is. And it’s not only the refugee convention. It’s deeply rooted in all cultures and all religions everywhere in the world. You see in Islam, you see in Christianity, you see in Africa, in different religions, in Buddhism and Hinduism, there is a strong commitment to refugee protection.^[4]

Indeed, efforts to respond to the refugee crisis must be strengthened, and the spiritual wellsprings to support this can be found in living traditions throughout the world. The key to dealing with even the most seemingly intractable challenges is to be found when people come together and continue to do all in their power for the sake of others.

The starting point for Buddhism is to work alongside those who are suffering to enable them to overcome that suffering. Shakyamuni’s vast body of teachings—sometimes referred to as the eighty thousand teachings—were for the most part expounded in the effort to confront the troubles and sufferings afflicting specific individuals. Shakyamuni refused to limit the audience for his teachings, and sought instead to be “friend to all, comrade to all.”^[5] Thus he taught the Dharma to all whom he encountered.

In his portrait of Shakyamuni, the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) states: “The Buddha did not appear as a teacher of knowledge but as the herald of the path to salvation.”^[6]

Jaspers notes that the phrase “a path to salvation” derives from an ancient Indian medical term. And what underlies all of the Buddha’s teachings is encouragement that functions like medicine prescribed for the specific conditions of various ailments.

Shakyamuni called on his disciples and comrades: “Go ye now, O Bhikkhus, and wander, for the gain of the many, for the welfare of the many.”^[7] Thus Shakyamuni and his disciples who continued the practice of traveling to wherever people were in need, without distinction to differences of race or class, were referred to as “the people of the four directions.”^[8]

Shakyamuni himself embraced a profound conviction in the dignity and preciousness of life. He was convinced that this dignity exists in the lives of all people and that it is always possible to bring forth life’s inherent potentialities under even the most trying conditions.

In the society of his time, two currents of thought prevailed. One was a kind of fatalism that our present and our future are entirely determined by karma accumulated in the past. The other held that all things are a matter of chance and that nothing in our lives is the outcome of any particular cause or condition.

The fatalistic view engendered the resignation that no effort on our part can alter our destiny and our only choice is to accept our fate. This worked to rob people’s hearts of hope. The other view, by disassociating any action from its outcome, uprooted people’s sense of self-control, making them indifferent to the harm they inflicted on others.

Shakyamuni sought to free people from the constraints and harmful influence of these two views when he taught:

Judge not by birth, but life.
As any chips feed fire,
mean birth may breed a sage
noble and staunch and true.^[9]

Everything in our lives, far from being immovably determined, can be transformed for the better through our actions in this moment. In this way, Buddhism teaches that a change in our inner determination in this moment can change the present reality of our lives (Jpn: in; cause) that produces future outcomes (Jpn: ka; effect). At the same time, it emphasizes the critical importance of conditioning context (Jpn: en; relation) that can powerfully shape the interplay between cause and effect. In other words, depending on the context of the relations that are formed, the same cause can give rise to widely varying effects.

Cause and Effect

Buddhism teaches that everything in the universe embodies the law of cause and effect. Modern science uses a similar framework to account for things that can be seen or measured, but causality in Buddhism also includes the unseen or spiritual aspects of life, such as the experience of happiness or misery, kindness or cruelty. The accumulation of causes made in our past and present is often referred to as “karma,” which can also be seen as the patterns of behavior we tend to repeat, the ways we habitually react to certain situations in our lives.

However, this is not a doctrine of passive acceptance or resignation. Rather, it acknowledges that we create our own present and future by the choices we make in each moment. Understood in this light, the law of cause and effect empowers us, as each of our actions can serve as a cause that will contribute to creating a better world, both for ourselves and for everyone around us.

From this perspective, Buddhism encourages a way of life in which, upholding powerful confidence in the dignity and possibilities of life, we form relations of mutual encouragement and fellowship with those who are on the verge of losing hope.

In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the term bodhisattva is used to describe a person dedicated to the realization of happiness for oneself and others, as portrayed allegorically in the following words from the Vimalakīrti Sutra:

During the short aeons of maladies,
They become the best holy medicine;
They make beings well and happy,
And bring about their liberation.

During the short aeons of famine,
They become food and drink.
Having first alleviated thirst and hunger,
They teach the Dharma to living beings.

During the short aeons of swords,
They meditate on love,
Introducing to nonviolence
Hundreds of millions of living beings.^[10]

This signifies extending encouragement to people as they confront the inevitable sufferings of life, what Buddhism refers to as the four sufferings of birth, aging, sickness and death. And as indicated by the following words from the Vimalakīrti Sutra—because living beings are ill, I also am ill^[11]—to be a bodhisattva means to be motivated by the spirit of empathy to respond to grave social crises, wherever you are and whether or not you are directly impacted.

In the same sutra, the effects of this compassionate action are described as an “inexhaustible lamp”^[12]: the light of hope we ignite will not only illuminate the life of the individual with whom we are interacting, but will continue to brightly light the lives of others in our immediate surroundings and in society as a whole.

This spirit of the bodhisattva is the foundation that has sustained the SGI’s efforts as a faith-based organization that supports the UN and works for the resolution of global challenges. Over the years, we have engaged in such activities as the relief of refugees and rebuilding in the wake of natural disasters. And our consistent focus has been on promoting empowerment of, by and for the people.

Like the inexhaustible lamp, the inner capacities of people that are unleashed by empowerment serve as an enduring source of energy for transformation, a wellspring of inextinguishable hope.

The Lotus Sutra, which expresses the essence of Shakyamuni’s teachings, contains the Parable of the Phantom City and the Treasure Land.^[13]

A caravan was crossing a vast desert guided by a leader who was well acquainted with the dangerous terrain. Members of the caravan became exhausted and were ready to abandon their journey. If they were to turn back, however, their efforts would have been in vain, so the leader used his magical powers to conjure up a vision of a magnificent city toward which they could progress and encouraged them to persevere until they reached it. This vision revived the hopes of the members of the caravan, and when they reached the city they were able to rest there. Seeing that they were rested, the leader revealed that the city they were in was in fact a phantom city he had conjured up to encourage them. Their actual destination, the treasure land, was nearby, and he urged them to advance together until they reached it.

The theme that runs through this parable is found in Shakyamuni’s words—together you may reach the treasure land.^[14] This may be understood as a proud affirmation of the human spirit—to advance together with others in an indefatigable pursuit of shared happiness no matter how painful or desperate that pursuit may at times seem.

If we consider this in terms of the causal relationship touched on earlier, people who had fallen into a state of utter exhaustion (cause) and who might otherwise have been unable to go on (effect) were revitalized and enabled to reach their destination (alternative effect) thanks to words of encouragement (relation).

Nichiren (1222–82), the Japanese Buddhist teacher who developed a unique interpretation of Buddhism rooted in the spirit of the Lotus Sutra, asserted that there was no fundamental difference between the phantom city and the treasure land, but that they were in fact identical. It is not simply the outcome of reaching the treasure land that matters, but the process—together you may reach the treasure land—that is invaluable.

When the cause and relation of people’s suffering and the encouragement to overcome it are harmoniously fused, each step forward becomes a “moment of life in the phantom city” and shines with the ultimate dignity of life—a “moment of life in the treasure land.”^[15]

Writing about the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which preceded the SDGs in the period up to 2015, I noted that the effort to achieve them must be focused on not only meeting targets but also restoring the well-being of the individual who is suffering.^[16] When too much attention is paid to numerical outcomes, there can be a failure to pay adequate attention to the needs of real people; this can undermine the motivation necessary to achieve the objectives.

Here I am reminded of the words of the Argentinian human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel: “When people aim for a shared human goal, when they aspire to peace and freedom, they unleash extraordinary capabilities.”^[17]

Dr. Esquivel developed this conviction through deepening solidarity with the people of Latin America who refused to relinquish hope for the future even in the midst of the most difficult social conditions. He expressed his admiration for the actions of the common people with this striking image:

When we enter more deeply into the lives of ordinary people, we see that man or woman, young or old—with no pretense at heroics—optimistically look daily for a miracle to occur and a bud to blossom.

Such a flower can bloom in the midst of the struggles of daily life, in a child’s smile, in the creation of hope and in the illumination of our path showing us that our exertions are our liberation.^[18]

None of the SDGs will be easy to achieve. But through maintaining empathetic connections with those who struggle and dedicating ourselves to the work of empowerment, each of us should be able to cause a flower to bloom in our immediate surroundings.

No one has a more crucial role to play in this than youth.

Security Council Resolution 2250, which I mentioned earlier, stresses the importance of youth participation in peacebuilding. As this affirms, young people have the power to create new breakthroughs in any field where they are given the chance to be actively engaged.

People throughout the world were moved last summer when a team composed of refugees took the field at the Olympic Games for the first time. The words they shared on that occasion continue to resonate in many hearts. One expressed the desire to use the opportunity of running at the Olympics to send to fellow refugees the message that life can be changed for the better, while another looked back on his life experiences and said he drew strength from them and was running with the hope that refugees would be able to lead better lives.^[19]

Their words convey the fact that the true essence of youth is not to be found in the past, nor in the future, but rather in the desire to do something for the benefit of the other people living with us in the present moment.

Likewise, for young people, the vision of the SDGs—to leave no one behind—is not something to be achieved in a distant place or a goal for some time in the future. The SDGs point to the present realities of living together on this one planet with our fellow human beings, a way of life dedicated to the daily effort of building a society in which the joy of living is shared by all.

When youth make the determination to illuminate the corner of the world they inhabit now, it brings into being a space of security in which people can regain hope and the power to live. The determination to live together that is ignited in this space of security shines as an embodiment of the global society in which no one is left behind, inspiring courage in people living in other communities who confront similar challenges.

In my proposal three years ago, I stressed that today’s youth are the generation that will most powerfully shape the work of achieving the SDGs. I also proposed that the UN and civil society should work together to promote the kind of education for global citizenship that unleashes the limitless potential of youth.

I was thus very gratified when last year’s conference of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) affiliated with the UN’s Department of Public Information (DPI/NGO Conference) was held in South Korea under the theme “Education for Global Citizenship: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Together.” Attended by many young people, the conference adopted the Gyeongju Action Plan committing participants to promoting education for global citizenship.

The true value of any state or society lies in what it does for those who are most afflicted by suffering, not in its military or economic prowess.

Education gives rise to the actions and activities that shape the direction of society over time. Education for global citizenship, in particular, can provide the conditioning context (relation) that enables people to reframe events, wherever they may occur, through a shared human perspective, and to foster action and solidarity. It can encourage people to consider global issues in terms of their own lives and lifestyles, thus bringing forth the inner capacities we each possess.

Through education for global citizenship, learners have the opportunity to: (1) gain the experience of seeing the world through the eyes of others; (2) discover and clarify what is necessary in order to build a society where we can all live together; and (3) collaborate to give birth to spaces of security in their immediate surroundings.

I am convinced that this kind of education can serve as a catalyzing context (relation) that enables young people to bring forth their full potential, increasing the momentum for global change.

Overcoming division and xenophobia

The second challenge is to lay the foundations for societies in which division and inequality are overcome.

With the rapid advance of globalization, more and more people find themselves living in countries other than their place of birth. Since the start of the twenty-first century, there has been a 40 percent increase in the number of such people, which today stands at 244 million.^[20]

With the continuing stagnation of the global economy, xenophobic impulses have strengthened, creating increasingly difficult conditions for migrants and their families.

Former Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitzky addressed this question when he spoke at an interfaith conference in Vienna three years ago. Noting that as globalization and integration trend up, solidarity trends down, he stated:

In most European countries, solidarity descends when it comes to migrants, asylum seekers, what have you. I think it’s also necessary to say that most political leaders, when it comes to their own chances in campaigns, sadly say ‘Farewell to solidarity with the poor, those who come from abroad.’^[21]

In recent years, there is growing concern, not only in Europe but around the world, about the prominence of hate speech that incites discrimination and about xenophobic political discourse.

In conjunction with last September’s UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants, a new campaign was launched to respond to and transform the anxieties associated with the increasing international movement of people. It is clear that any attempt to resolve these issues must take into account the legitimate concerns of people living in countries receiving migrants and refugees. As the UN points out in this campaign, it is crucial to search for means to counteract the drift toward xenophobia and to rehumanize the discourse around migrant and refugee populations while addressing these concerns.

When I met with former Chancellor Vranitzky in October 1989, we discussed the importance of cultural and youth exchanges, and he emphasized that “It is the distance of the heart that matters most, more than the distance measured in the number of hours of airplane travel.”^[22]

He also shared with me the story of how his parents sheltered a Jewish couple fleeing persecution during World War II. His parents acted in a time of great duress in a consistently humane manner and without making any distinction on the basis of religion or ethnicity. Reflecting on this wartime experience, the former Chancellor concluded:

There is a Latin aphorism “If you want peace, prepare for war.” But I have replaced it with the following as the basis for my action: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.”^[23]

Our meeting took place just one month before the fall of the Berlin Wall. In February of that year, Chancellor Vranitzky had agreed to have the barbed wire along the border between Austria and Hungary removed, officially opening the way for the movement of people from the Eastern to the Western Bloc that began in September and led to the fall of the Berlin Wall in November.

Richard von Weizsäcker (1920–2015), the first President of reunified Germany, described the Berlin Wall as the politics that deny humanity made into stone.^[24] We must not permit this kind of grievous division to be repeated in the twenty-first century.

Even if there is a sense of comfort felt by people when they are surrounded by others who share the same culture or ethnic group, we must remain vigilant against the danger that this group consciousness will metamorphose into violent discrimination or antagonism directed at other groups at times of heightened social tension. Earlier, I referred to Shakyamuni’s exhortation to judge not by birth, but by conduct. To categorize and discriminate against individuals on the basis of a single attribute is wrong; it is a source of division that undermines society as a whole.

Looking at our world today, there is another issue that could be said to arise from the same deep force as xenophobia. This is the increasing tendency to prioritize market-based economic rationality above all else. We see this in many countries that are struggling with economic stagnation. The negative impacts of this fall hardest on the most vulnerable sectors of society, whose circumstances grow increasingly desperate.

It is certainly a fact that the pursuit of economic rationality has unleashed energies that have driven growth. But this is just part of the picture. When the prioritization of economic rationality becomes entrenched, even the weightiest judgments are made in a semi-mechanical fashion, with little consideration given to the desires and well-being of the people actually living in society.

Xenophobic thinking is propelled by a stark division of the world into good and evil. It leaves no room for hesitation or scruple. In the same way, when the pursuit of economic rationality has no counterbalancing consideration of the human element, a psychology is unleashed that is ready to extract even the most extreme sacrifices from others.

The economist Amartya Sen offers some important guideposts for thinking about this issue in his writings on social justice. In developing his analysis, Sen focuses on the distinction between two different words used to convey the idea of justice in ancient Sanskrit literature on ethics and jurisprudence: niti and nyaya.

According to Sen, niti relates to the propriety of institutions, rules and organizations, whereas nyaya concerns what emerges and how, and in particular “the lives that people are actually able to lead.”^[25] He emphasizes that “the roles of institutions, rules and organization, important as they are, have to be assessed in the broader and more inclusive perspective of nyaya, which is inescapably linked with the world that actually emerges, not just the institutions or rules we happen to have.”^[26]

Further, Sen compares the politics of the ancient Indian King Ashoka with those of Kautilya, the principal adviser to Ashoka’s grandfather. Kautilya was the author of a celebrated work on political economy, and the focus of his interest was political success and the role of institutions in realizing economic efficiency.

In contrast, Ashoka’s politics were always focused on the behavior and actions of individuals. According to Sen, Ashoka’s thought included a conviction that “social enrichment could be achieved through the voluntary good behaviour of the citizens themselves, without being compelled through force.”^[27]

Ashoka’s stance developed through his deepening faith in Buddhism, to which he turned after being tormented by regret at seeing the carnage he had wrought through his invasion of another state.

The idea of the Middle Way is foundational to Buddhism. If we think of this in relation to the concept of nyaya, it indicates a constant and conscientious attention to the impact of one’s actions on others, with the question of human happiness or misery serving as the overarching criterion.

Niti, for its part, occupies an important position within contemporary society. As Sen points out, “Many economists today do, of course, share Kautilya’s view of a venal humanity.”^[28] Here the overwhelming emphasis is numeric: on the growth rate or maximization of profit. The vulnerable in society, because their interests are difficult to quantify, are often neglected or even discarded.

Xenophobia and hate speech divide the world into the binary of us and them, which are made to correspond to good and evil.

What kind of social anchoring is available to resist both the forces of xenophobia that deepen the divisions within society and the pursuit of economic rationality that is indifferent to the sacrifices of the vulnerable? I believe the answer is to be found in strong connections between people, the kind of friendship that brings into view the concrete image of another in our hearts.

To quote the renowned British historian Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975), with whom I conducted an extended dialogue:

In my experience the solvent of traditional prejudice has been personal acquaintance. When one becomes personally acquainted with a fellow human being, of whatever religion, nationality, or race, one cannot fail to recognize that he is human like oneself.^[29]

Over the course of my efforts to engage in exchanges and interactions with people from different parts of the world, it has been a palpable sense of the invaluable nature of friendship that has remained with me. Each of the almost eighty dialogues I have published over the years has evidenced a yearning for peace shared across differences of faith and life experience; they are each the crystallization of friendship and a common wish to communicate the lessons of history to the emerging generation.

The conditions facing immigrants came up as a topic in my discussions with two American scholars, Dr. Larry Hickman and Dr. Jim Garrison, both past presidents of the John Dewey Society. This was when we discussed the pioneering social activism carried out by Jane Addams (1860–1935) in the US around the turn of the twentieth century.

After visiting and being impressed by Toynbee Hall, a welfare facility in London named incidentally after Dr. Toynbee’s uncle, she decided to establish a similar facility in her home country. Most of the people living around Hull House in Chicago were impoverished immigrants. According to a biography of Addams, Hull House was described as:

. . . a sort of island offering an opportunity of breathing more freely to many immigrants. Here, they can speak their own language, play their music, live their culture . . .^[30]

With the help of Addams and her associates, these immigrants were able to establish the foundations of their new life in the United States.

Addams was always motivated by the belief that there is greater value to be realized in bringing people together than in driving them apart. The young people who were inspired by her went on to become the first generation of social scientists and social workers. Through their persistent research and fieldwork, the legal framework of support for immigrants and the impoverished was reformed.

Dr. Hickman noted that Addams’ activities offer important lessons to us as we face the challenges of our increasingly globalized world. I wholeheartedly agree.

One of the people who worked with Addams at Hull House said they had no grand hopes of improving the whole world, but always simply wanted to be friends to those who were lonely.^[31]

Addams herself appears to have embraced the same credo. She encouraged her colleagues to become friends and neighbors to those in need.

They can teach us what life really is. We can learn where our boasted civilization fails.^[32]

One-to-one interactions and friendship can stir people and move them in the depths of their being.

Former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid (1940–2009) warned against being swept away by conceptualizations of conflict that are often loudly bruited in society. For many years, the late president led a large Muslim movement in Indonesia. He denied the inevitability of clashes between civilizations and stressed that the greatest challenge is that of overcoming our misunderstandings and the preconceptions of others.^[33]

In our dialogue, he repeatedly voiced his sense of the importance of friendship. He touched on his own experience of studying overseas and expressed his strong hopes for the outcome of such youth exchanges. “My sincere wish is that they will not become individuals who think solely of their self-interest but are concerned about the interests of society and act to promote world peace and harmony.”^[34]

Based on my own experience of establishing bonds of friendship with individuals of differing religious and cultural backgrounds in an effort to build a greater solidarity for peace, I can deeply appreciate the significance of his words.

In 1996, I founded the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research to perpetuate the legacy of Josei Toda and his vision of global citizenship and of a world free from nuclear weapons. The Iranian-born peace scholar Dr. Majid Tehranian (1937–2012), with whom I had a long-standing friendship, honored us by serving as the institute’s first director.

The world is not simply a collection of states, nor is it composed solely of religions and civilizations. Our living, breathing world is woven of the endeavors of countless human beings who may share particular backgrounds but no two of whom are the same.

To view and judge others only through the prism of religion or ethnicity distorts the rich reality we each possess as individuals. In contrast, when we develop a deep appreciation, through our individual friendships, of each other’s unique value, differences of ethnicity or religion are illuminated by the dignity and worth of that friend and shine as the value of diversity.

The magnetic field of friendship can enable the functioning of an inner compass when we have lost our sense of direction and help us right society when it seems to be veering off course.

This is the reasoning underlying the SGI’s consistent and active efforts to encourage civil society exchanges, particularly among youth, fostering the face-to-face encounters from which genuine friendship grows. The bonds of friendship provide a basis from which to resist the currents of hatred and incitement at times of heightened tensions between countries or deepened conflict between religious traditions. Envisaging the faces of individual friends, determined not to allow society to become a place where they would feel unwelcome, we can work to create a transformation from conflict to coexistence, starting in our immediate environment. We hope to enable the global emergence of a generation of people committed to peace who build bridges of friendship and disrupt the chain reactions of hatred and violence.

More than anything, there is a joy that resides in conversation with a friend. Friendship makes the exchange of words itself a pleasure and a source of encouragement. It supports us and brings forth the courage to confront the most difficult situations.

A rising tide of friendship within the younger generation cannot fail to transform society. It is my confident expectation that friendship among youth will powerfully turn back the sullied currents of divisiveness and give birth to a vibrant culture of peace based on profound respect for diversity.

Engaging youth and women in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The third challenge I’d like to address is that of enhancing the capacity of communities to meet and respond positively to even the most trying events or circumstances.

The SDGs differ from the MDGs in many aspects, but what I consider to be particularly important is the fact that they were adopted with considerable input from civil society.

In the process of developing the SDGs within the UN, there was a concerted effort to engage in dialogue with a range of stakeholders, including women and youth. Surveys were taken regarding priority areas of engagement, in which more than seven million people participated. Some 70 percent of respondents were under thirty years of age.^[35] Many areas of concern that ranked high in the surveys, such as education, healthcare and job opportunities, were incorporated in the SDGs.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development notes the significance of this in the following language:

Millions have already engaged with, and will own, this Agenda. It is an Agenda of the people, by the people, and for the people—and this, we believe, will ensure its success.^[36]

In the proposal I wrote on the occasion of the 2012 Rio+20 conference, which was the starting point for the drafting of the SDGs, I expressed my strong hope that they would at their core be this kind of people’s agenda. I did this because I felt that it would be difficult to build momentum for the achievement of any of the goals without large numbers of people personally identifying with the issues.

Another distinguishing feature of the SDGs as a people’s agenda is that they take a new approach based on the awareness that the issues facing us “are interrelated and call for integrated solutions.”^[37] This differs somewhat from the MDGs, where themes such as the eradication of poverty or hunger were promoted on a more stand-alone basis.

The SDGs seek to generate virtuous cycles in which progress made toward one goal enables progress on multiple other fronts. For example, if progress is made in securing safe sources of water (Goal 6), this will lead to a reduction in the number of people suffering from infectious or other diseases (Goal 3). It will also reduce the burden on women, who had spent many hours each day providing water for their families, thus opening new employment opportunities for them (Goal 5), making it possible to escape extreme poverty (Goal 1) and enabling their children to attend school (Goal 4).

Known as the Nexus Approach, this was researched at the United Nations University and experimentally implemented in a number of regions before the launch of the SDGs. This approach aims to discover the interconnections among the 169 targets across the 17 areas that comprise the SDGs and to realize simultaneous progress toward their achievement.

The SDGs also include a number of areas that were not covered in the MDGs, such as climate change and income inequality. It is important to remember, however, that all of these problems are ultimately human in origin and must therefore be amenable to resolution through human efforts. If by taking action we can make substantive progress in one area, that progress can be leveraged toward accelerating progress on other challenges.

Within the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the teaching that deluded impulses, or earthly desires and sufferings, are essential to enlightenment suggests the kind of dynamism that is required here. It calls for reorienting our understanding of the nature of human happiness. Happiness is not the outcome of eliminating or distancing ourselves from the desires and impulses that give rise to suffering. It is instead vital that we grasp the reality that enlightenment—the strength and wisdom to forge a path to a better life—continues to exist within us even in the midst of anguish and pain.

The problem is not simply one of suffering but of how we face that suffering and the kinds of action we take in response.

In his commentary on a passage in the Lotus Sutra that reads, “It [the Lotus Sutra] can cause living beings to cast off all distress, all sickness and pain. It can unloose all the bonds of birth and death,”^[38] Nichiren writes, “we should take the words ‘cast off’ in the sense of ‘becoming enlightened concerning'”^[39] (i.e., to clearly see the nature of).

Here Nichiren encourages us not to avert our eyes from the realities that surround us but to confront them head-on. By clearly understanding the nature of our circumstances, we can transform ourselves just as we are, from someone tormented by anguish into someone who creates their own happiness. Further, Buddhism teaches that these waves of transformation propagate through the web of interconnectedness within which we live, potently impacting our immediate surroundings and society as a whole.

The theme of not being entrapped in a situation but rather transforming that situation by proactively creating new connections was used by the philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906–75) when discussing the authentically human (humanitas). Referencing the concept “venture into the public realm” discussed by Karl Jaspers, who was also her mentor, she argued that the authentically human cannot be attained in isolation, but “only by one who has thrown his life and his person into the ‘venture into the public realm.'”^[40]

Arendt describes this venture as the act of “weav[ing] our strand into a network of relations.” While acknowledging the uncertainty of the result—”What comes of it we never know”—Arendt expresses her strong confidence on the following point:

[T]his venture is only possible when there is trust in people. A trust—which is difficult to formulate but fundamental—in what is human in all people. Otherwise such a venture could not be made.^[41]

This trust is, as Arendt stresses, fundamental and is directed not only at ourselves and others in our immediate environment; it is also trust in the sense of facing the world in which we live without ever losing hope.

Last year, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) highlighted examples of women who are promoting the realization of the SDGs by taking action for others, often in very challenging circumstances, under the theme “From where I stand.” Among them is a solar engineer active in her village in Tanzania. Despite having a disability, she worked hard to develop her skills and continues to put her knowledge to use for her fellow villagers. At first, very few of the men respected her as an engineer, but when she installed solar equipment in their homes, bringing light to them, and repaired equipment when it was broken, she began to enjoy the respect of more and more men.

Before our village used to be in darkness once the sun had set, but now there is light. Just now two children came to take the solar lantern that I fixed for them. They had big smiles on their faces. Tonight they will be able to do their homework.^[42]

I think this is an excellent example of a virtuous cycle advancing the SDGs as the people’s agenda. Through the empowerment of one woman, not only was renewable energy made available to the people in a Tanzanian village but there was a discernible change in attitudes toward women, and children gained access to greater opportunities to study.

This woman’s work, quiet yet invaluable, demonstrates what Arendt spoke of in “weav[ing] our strand,” improving conditions in the place you stand now. Here I see the true brilliance of an authentic humanity.

The ability to solve problems is not something reserved for special people: It is a path that opens before any of us when we face reality head-on, taking up some aspect of its weighty burden and acting with persistence. Our capacity to overcome difficulties is unleashed as we turn anguish and concern into determination and action.

Young people in particular are blessed with a fresh sensitivity and a passionate seeking for ideals. Their energy can catalyze chain reactions of positive change as they forge bonds of trust among people.

Youth have been at the heart of the SGI’s peace activities since the days of President Toda and his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. These young people reject the prevalent sense of powerlessness that afflicts contemporary society and convinces people that their actions cannot bring about change. They are energetically engaged in action rooted in the confidence that their present circumstances are the very conditions that will enable them to fulfill a unique mission.

Three years ago, the youth members in Japan initiated the “SOKA Global Action” peace campaign. They have undertaken activities to assist the spiritual and psychological reconstruction in the regions of Japan impacted by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster. They have also worked to build ties of friendship with their Asian neighbors while seeking to build a culture of peace and promoting the abolition of nuclear weapons.

SGI youth around the world are taking on the challenge of transforming reality in such fields as ecological integrity, human rights education and nonviolence. Some activities have specific linkages with the SDGs. For example, in November of last year, the SGI cosponsored an event titled “Youth Boosting the Promotion and the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” at UN Headquarters. Dr. David Nabarro, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, told participants:

[W]e have to make sure there’s space for young people everywhere to be part of this movement for sustainable development. . . [Y]oung people want to work together with joy, they want to trust each other.^[43]

The Mapting App

The Mapting App (“mapping” and “acting”) is an app created to track and map activities that contribute to actualizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that was launched at the United Nations in November 2016. The app was developed jointly by the Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the Earth Charter International (ECI), who have cooperated for over 15 years in the creation of awareness-raising exhibitions that promote education for sustainable development.

The app aims to engage youth in the challenge of making the 17 SDGs a reality by the target date of 2030 by allowing them to post photos or videos of any act, project or idea that promotes achievement of the SDGs and share these on a world map. The app acts as an educational tool and a vehicle for inspiring users to take action and share solutions, thus changing the focus from the problems we are facing to the solutions that exist.

To participate, visit: www.mapting.org

His words resonate with our commitment to achieving the SDGs. To imagine that young people are only moved to respond to immediate threats is to do them a grave disservice. They advance in the confidence that there is joy and hope to be shared in rising to meet and surmount each challenge.

Although there is no legal obligation to achieve the SDGs, they are imbued with the hope of transforming our world. When a growing number of young people make the realization of that hope their personal vow and take action based on it, efforts to achieve all of the goals will be greatly energized.

Members of the SGI, with a focus on young people, will continue to strive to catalyze chain reactions of positive change in order to resolve the full spectrum of issues—from those found in local communities to the threats facing our planet.

Abolishing nuclear weapons: Moving past deterrence

Next, I would like to offer concrete proposals regarding three priority areas crucial to the realization of the peaceful, just and inclusive societies that are the aim of the SDGs:

1. Prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons;
2. Responding to the refugee crisis; and
3. Building a culture of human rights.

With regard to the first of these, in December 2016 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a historic resolution calling for the start of negotiations on a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons. The resolution calls for a first conference to be convened at the end of March and a second from mid-June to early July, both at UN Headquarters, and encourages participating governments to exert their best efforts for the early conclusion of a treaty.

In our world today, there are still more than 15,000 nuclear warheads.^[44] Progress toward nuclear disarmament has stalled, while plans for modernization of nuclear arsenals have progressed. The threat posed by nuclear weapons is, if anything, growing.

US President John F. Kennedy (1917–63) used an anecdote set in ancient Greece to warn us of this danger. The sword of Damocles, in the form of the threat of unimaginable destruction wrought on humanity and the global environment, remains suspended above our heads. It is not a thing of the past. Rather, as the General Assembly resolution emphasizes, the need to solve the nuclear issue is “all the more urgent.”^[45]

In this regard, I would like to make several proposals.

The first is for the earliest possible holding of a US-Russia summit in order to reinvigorate the nuclear disarmament process. A truly weighty responsibility bears down on the shoulders of these two leaders, whose countries possess massive nuclear arsenals that threaten the lives of everyone living on Earth with the potential to reduce to ash the civilizations humanity has forged over the millennia.

Ever since tensions dramatically heightened between the two countries over the situation in Ukraine three years ago, the chill in bilateral relations has been such that it has been compared to a new Cold War. Since the 2011 entry into force of the New START Treaty, nuclear disarmament negotiations have been at a standstill, and there are questions regarding the status of the treaty from 2018 on, when the present round of reductions is slated to be completed.

Donald J. Trump, who was inaugurated as US President on January 20, called Russian President Vladimir Putin after his election victory, and in their conversation they agreed to aim for an improvement in bilateral relations. I strongly hope that the leaders of these two countries, which between them possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear stockpiles, will engage in earnest discussions about the nuclear weapons issue and work toward an easing of tensions.

More than twenty-five years since the end of the Cold War, the policy of nuclear deterrence is still in effect, and approximately 1,800 nuclear weapons are on high alert, meaning they can be launched at an instant’s notice.^[46]

Let us consider the significance of this fact.

In a recent speech, former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry recounted an episode from his time as Under Secretary of Defense in the Carter Administration. He spoke of the shock of receiving a late-night emergency communication from the watch officer at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) indicating that 200 Soviet missiles were in flight heading toward the US. Although this was quickly understood to be a false alarm, had this information been accurate, the President of the United States would have had only minutes to make the momentous decision whether or not to launch a counterstrike.^[47]

The logic of deterrence requires that even if one in no way desires nuclear war, one must be able to demonstrate the readiness to retaliate at any time as a means of forestalling an enemy strike. Further, in order to prove that this is not just a matter of words, the capacity for an immediate counterstrike must be maintained. Under these conditions, one’s guard cannot be let down even for a moment, and the threat of imminent nuclear war becomes a constant and unavoidable burden. This, I think, describes the reality of nuclear deterrence that started in the Cold War era and continues to this day.

Looking back, when second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda made his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons in 1957, the contours of the nuclear deterrent posture were taking definitive shape. Both the US and the Soviet Union were testing hydrogen bombs in an escalating competition to create ever more powerful weapons, and there was a shift in the focus of delivery systems from bombers to ballistic missiles.

Toda’s call for nuclear abolition

Second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda made his historic declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons on September 8, 1957, at a meeting of 50,000 members of the Soka Gakkai youth division at Mitsuzawa Stadium in Yokohama, Japan. In his address he declared: “Although a movement calling for a ban on the testing of 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.” Toda denounced nuclear weapons as the embodiment of absolute evil and believed that their use must be condemned, not from the standpoint of ideology, nationality or ethnic identity but from the universal dimension of humanity and our inalienable right to live. His appeal to young people to take up this challenge stands today as the starting point for the global peace activities of the SGI.

To read the declaration, visit: www.joseitoda.org/vision/declaration/

In August 1957, one month before President Toda made his declaration, the Soviet Union successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), giving it the capacity to launch and direct a nuclear weapon strike against any location on Earth. Further, on September 6, just two days before his declaration, disarmament negotiations focused on the reduction and prohibition of nuclear weapons that had been conducted under UN auspices for nearly six months collapsed. Intensive deliberations involving the US, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union and also Canada had failed to produce agreement, and the negotiations were indefinitely suspended.

President Toda identified the deterrence doctrine as the underlying reason for the ceaseless race to build more of these weapons that can wreak catastrophe on humankind. He saw that justifications for the possession of nuclear weapons—that they represented a deterrence force that maintained peace—focused solely on protecting the countries possessing them, while remaining coldly indifferent to the immense sacrifices that would be exacted from the greater part of humankind.

This is why he stated that his goal was “to expose and rip out the claws”^[48]—that is, to confront and overcome the underlying thinking that justifies the possession of nuclear weapons.

The US-Soviet nuclear confrontation was compared at the time to “two scorpions in a bottle.”^[49] What was largely forgotten was that many countries other than the nuclear-weapon states were also in the same bottle, along with their several billion inhabitants. Likewise, the sting-or-be-stung confrontation has obscured the critical reality of the apocalyptic nature of nuclear weapons, which makes them fundamentally different from all others.

By stating that “we, the citizens of the world, have an inviolable right to live,”^[50] Toda sought to dispel the illusions surrounding nuclear deterrence theory. He declared that it was impermissible for any country to threaten this right and that the use of nuclear weapons can never be justified.

Deterrence theory truncates people’s range of thought. Proponents believe simply in the efficacy of deterrence and refuse to consider the catastrophic outcome should deterrence fail. Likewise, they refuse to face the reality that, irrespective of deterrence, a nuclear detonation through accident or malfunction is always a possibility.

This failure to think things through to their logical conclusion equally affects those under the extended deterrence of the so-called nuclear umbrella.

The reality is that each of the ribs that compose this nuclear umbrella is in fact a sword of Damocles. This inhumane doctrine of national security is premised on the willingness to inflict the misery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the people of another country. Should the launch button ever be pushed and a nuclear exchange begin, irreparable damage would be suffered not only by the parties to the conflict but by neighboring countries and Earth as a whole.

The logic of deterrence places the security of one’s own country on one side of the scales of justice, on the other side of which are the lives of vast numbers of ordinary citizens and the living ecology of the entire planet.

If we consider this in the context of Amartya Sen’s discussion of justice which I touched on earlier, security policies that seek to prevent a nuclear attack from another country could be said to correspond to the niti form of justice with its emphasis on the legitimacy of the objective. In light of the nyaya conception of justice focused on the legitimacy of the outcome—that is, what actually happens to people and their lives—it becomes clear that there is no way to justify nuclear weapons-based security doctrines premised on the loss of millions of lives and the destruction of the global ecology.

The right of self-defense against military attack is recognized in the UN Charter, and the validity of a niti perspective on security cannot, in light of international law, be dismissed out of hand. But I would like to challenge the thinking that accepts nuclear weapons as a continuing necessity.

Throughout human history, the idea of deterrence has been used to justify the possession and development of ever newer and more lethal weapons. But as humankind’s history of nearly ceaseless war demonstrates, deterrence has broken down and conflict has been the result on innumerable occasions. How can we be confident that deterrence, which has failed so often in the past, will prove infallible in the case of nuclear weapons?

In his recent work Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons, Ward Wilson has pursued this question. Wilson reviews humanity’s 6,000-year history of war and group violence. To look at just the sixty years after the end of World War II is, in his words, to claim to have detected a trend based on 1 percent of the data. He comments, “Particularly when one is dealing with a phenomenon that is apparently deeply rooted in human nature, this seems incautious.”^[51] He asserts that proper consideration of this question requires the kind of millennial perspective developed by Arnold J. Toynbee that takes in the rise and fall of multiple civilizations.

Indeed, it is precisely because deterrence is something deeply rooted in human nature that we need to confront head-on the great risks that lie hidden in its depths.

The idea of the inherent dignity of life has been developed in Buddhism through just such an in-depth exploration of human nature, and I believe it is pertinent in this regard. I would like to quote the following words of Shakyamuni, attributed to him when he was mediating a conflict between two tribes over water rights.

Look at those who fight, ready to kill! Fear arises from taking up arms and preparing to strike.^[52]

It is noteworthy how Shakyamuni observes the workings of the hearts of those facing a hostile confrontation: They did not take up arms in fear of the opponent, but rather were filled with fear the moment they took up arms. While they might have felt rage toward an adversary that was trying to take their water, they were not possessed by fear. But the moment they were armed, prepared to strike deadly blows against their adversaries, their hearts were filled with dread.

Longtime contributing editor to the Washington Post David Emanuel Hoffman eloquently depicted how such fear-driven psychology almost produced a particularly nightmarish scenario during the Cold War.^[53]

In the early 1980s, Soviet leaders began to draw up plans for a system that would function even after a nuclear attack had destroyed the country’s political leadership as well as the normal military chain of command. More than anything, they feared losing the ability to retaliate. They envisioned a fully automatic, computer-driven system that would guarantee a retaliatory strike under any circumstance. The project was eventually modified, however, because the military rejected the idea of launching a nuclear strike without the involvement of any human element. Instead, the decision-making authority was to be transferred to surviving officers in deep bunkers.

In other words, a nuclear retaliatory system that could not be stopped by human agency was actually being planned in the final years of the Cold War. Although this never went beyond the conceptual stage, this ultimate form of deterrence embodies the deep-seated fear that arises from the possession of nuclear arms.

Last October marked the thirtieth anniversary of the Reykjavík Summit, a milestone that initiated the process that brought the Cold War to an end.

When General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union proposed a meeting with US President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) in Iceland’s capital, the halfway point between Washington and Moscow, he bore in mind the Chernobyl disaster that had taken place six months previously and which had left him deeply concerned about the risks of nuclear war. Similarly, President Reagan is said to have found the idea of maintaining peace through the threat of mass slaughter by nuclear war intolerable.

Because both leaders harbored grave concerns about nuclear weapons, their discussions advanced to the point that they were on the brink of agreeing to their complete elimination. Although in the end they could not reach that agreement, the following year they concluded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, setting in motion the process of nuclear disarmament.

Now is the time for the United States and Russia to return to the spirit of Reykjavík and find common ground toward global peace.

The UN conference that will negotiate a treaty for the prohibition and eventual abolition of nuclear weapons, scheduled to start in March, includes in its agenda measures to reduce and eliminate the risk of nuclear weapon detonation resulting from accident or mistake.^[54] The United States and Russia have repeatedly experienced such risks throughout and even following the Cold War. I urge the leaders of these two countries to engage in dialogue toward taking their weapons off high alert and to make significant new progress in nuclear arms reduction.

Prohibiting nuclear weapons: The legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

My next proposal regarding the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons is that Japan, recognizing its historical responsibility and mission as the only country in the world to have experienced a nuclear attack in wartime, should work assiduously to achieve the broadest possible participation in the upcoming negotiations, including that of states that possess or rely on nuclear weapons.

In recent years, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have contributed to keeping the nuclear weapons issue in the public eye by hosting a series of diplomatic meetings and welcoming the visits of foreign dignitaries.

During the eighth Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) Ministerial Meeting held in Hiroshima in April 2014, foreign ministers of nuclear-dependent countries including Australia, Germany and the Netherlands were able to hear the testimony of hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors). The meeting issued a Joint Statement which stressed that the ongoing discussion on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons should be “a catalyst for a united global action towards the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”^[55]

Then, in April 2016, the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting was held in Hiroshima. On that occasion, the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom and France—nuclear-weapon states—and Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan—nucleardependent states—visited the Atomic Bomb Dome. The meeting adopted the Hiroshima Declaration on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, which concludes, “We share the deep desire of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear weapons never be used again.”^[56]

Finally, in May 2016, US President Barack Obama visited Hiroshima, the first incumbent American president to do so. He stated, “[A]mong those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear, and pursue a world without them.”^[57]

Japan should encourage the states that have participated in these discussions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and as many others as possible to take part in the upcoming multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations.

It can be anticipated that the negotiations will face the kind of obstacles encountered by the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) where failure to bridge the divide between the nuclearweapon and non-nuclear-weapon states made the adoption of a consensus outcome document impossible.

However, all states certainly share a fundamental appreciation of the importance of the NPT and concern about the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons. This provides the basis on which states can find common ground and reframe the nuclear weapons debate.

In this connection, there are important lessons to be learned from the negotiations leading up to the Paris Agreement, which marked a turning point in the effort to combat climate change. The breakthrough that made the agreement possible was the result of focusing on the shared goal of a low-carbon future, a desirable outcome for all states, rather than on the question of responsibility for having caused climate change or for responding to it.

A similar approach could be taken for nuclear weapons. The work of establishing a treaty prohibiting the production, transfer, threat of use or use of these weapons should be viewed as a global enterprise with the goal of preventing the horrors of nuclear war from ever again being experienced by any country. Earnest efforts must be made to find a way to reach a consensus based on this vision.

As stated in its preamble, the adoption of the NPT was motivated by an awareness of “the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war” and of the need to “safeguard the security of peoples.”^[58]

The fundamental stance of the upcoming conferences is thus fully congruent with the NPT. A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons would not supplant the NPT, but rather reinforce it as an implementation of Article VI, which requires the pursuit of good faith negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament.

Non-Proliferation Treaty and Article VI

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states. It entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995. Currently, a total of 191 states have joined the NPT, including five nuclearweapon states, which means that more countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement.

Article VI of the treaty states that “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

What is crucial here is to ensure the participation of as many states as possible in order to identify points of confluence between national security and defense concerns and the quest for a world without nuclear weapons.

The first Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT Review Conference is scheduled to meet in Vienna in May. Along with a focus on the obligation to realize nuclear disarmament stipulated in Article VI, there should be an effort to mutually acknowledge the security concerns of all states and to exchange views on the steps required by all parties to address those concerns. If these deliberations were to feed into the negotiations on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons to be convened in June in New York, this would be beneficial to all states. Ensuring linkages with the NPT Review Conference deliberations and bridging the gap between different perspectives will help make the negotiations truly constructive.

The issue of nuclear weapons is a crucial one that has confronted the UN since its founding more than seventy years ago. The complexities surrounding the upcoming negotiations on their prohibition should not be underestimated. However, I am confident that if states continue to earnestly pursue dialogue, it will be possible to build irreversible momentum toward a world without nuclear weapons.

A high-level UN conference on disarmament is slated to be held no later than 2018. The adoption of a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons would enhance conditions for initiating a process of major reductions in current nuclear stockpiles, leading to their eventual elimination.

A people’s declaration for a world without nuclear weapons

My third proposal on prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons is for the full spectrum of civil society actors to generate statements directed toward the upcoming negotiations. Together, these would constitute a people’s declaration for a world without nuclear weapons and serve as a popular basis for a treaty prohibiting them.

Civil society can play a vital role in clarifying and giving a human face to problems that are deeply relevant to all people across national borders but would otherwise only be addressed within the context of national policy. This in turn can encourage concerted action on a global scale.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued by a group of the world’s leading scientists on July 9, 1955, to highlight the dangers of nuclear weapons, set a pioneering example:

We shall try to say no single word which should appeal to one group rather than to another. . .

We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.^[59]

As these words demonstrate, the Manifesto is an expression of shared human sentiment rather than the logic of nations or states. In this way, readers are encouraged to view nuclear weapons as a danger “to themselves and their children and their grandchildren,”^[60] rather than in a national context.

The landmark advisory opinion regarding the threat or use of nuclear weapons delivered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in July 1996 was the outcome of a powerful campaign waged by civil society in the form of the World Court Project. “Declarations of public conscience” by some four million people in forty languages were presented to the ICJ at the outset of the hearings.

The ICJ found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally incompatible with international law and clearly affirmed that states have an obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament.

Now, more than two decades later, a UN conference to negotiate a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons will soon be convened. Now is the time for civil society to express strong support for the conference and build momentum to establish the treaty as a form of people-driven international law.

This conference became a reality through not only the diplomatic efforts of countries seeking the resolution of the nuclear weapons issue but also the committed work of individuals and groups from various fields, including hibakusha from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and throughout the world, as well as scientists, doctors, lawyers, educators and people of faith.

Individuals and groups can take action in many forms, such as issuing statements that would be part of a people’s call for a world without nuclear weapons or holding grassroots events on the significance of the treaty in order to broaden public support. Each of these actions will ensure “the participation and contribution of international organizations and civil society representatives,”^[61] as called for in the UN resolution that mandated the conference, in this way serving to underpin the eventual treaty. This will provide invaluable support that enhances the efficacy and universality of the treaty by demonstrating in tangible form the deeply committed nature of popular sentiment, including in the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states.

There are a multitude of voices calling for such action. For example, more than 7,200 cities in 162 countries and territories—including nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states—are members of Mayors for Peace, an international body that calls for the total abolition of nuclear weapons.

Here I am again reminded of the words of Dr. Pérez Esquivel, who once presented a bronze sculpture of his own making to the city of Hiroshima. He emphasized in our dialogue that “peace is the dynamic that gives meaning and life to humanity.”^[62]

Can a security regime that depends on nuclear weapons for its maintenance exhibit that kind of dynamic? I am convinced that the answer is no; it requires, rather, the peace that is realized when people come together across all differences in a shared commitment to the dignity of life.

The SGI launched the People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition in 2007 as part of our peace movement rooted in President Toda’s 1957 declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

“Everything You Treasure—For a World Free From Nuclear Weapons,” an exhibition launched in collaboration with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has been shown around the world. We also gathered more than five million signatures in 2014 in support of Nuclear Zero, a global campaign calling for good faith efforts for nuclear disarmament.

We took part in drafting joint statements under the aegis of Faith Communities Concerned about the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons, which were submitted to the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on nuclear disarmament and the UN General Assembly First Committee, which deals with disarmament and international security, last year.

In August 2015, the SGI co-facilitated an International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition in Hiroshima. Amplify, an international network of youth dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons, was established in 2016 to carry forward the work of the summit.

International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition / Amplify

The International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition took place in Hiroshima on August 28–30, 2015, attended by 30 youth activists from more than 20 countries, including both nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, to discuss future strategies aimed at eradicating nuclear weapons. The summit resulted in the declaration of a Youth Pledge, which was presented to the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Youth. Steering committee members included representatives of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Mines Action Canada, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, PAX, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the SGI.

The Amplify Network was subsequently created as an international network of young leaders in the field of nuclear abolition. The network’s principal aim is to amplify the call for complete nuclear abolition by raising awareness and encouraging action in communities and countries around the world. It supports members’ efforts by providing information and resources about the issues and by enabling young people to connect with other youth taking action around the world.

To find out more, visit: www.amplifyyouth.org

This summer, the SGI will hold a youth summit for the renunciation of war in Kanagawa Prefecture, the site of Toda’s antinuclear declaration, to commemorate its sixtieth anniversary.

The conviction underpinning our efforts over the past decade was expressed in a working paper we submitted to the OEWG in May 2016, which is on record as an official UN document:

[Nuclear weapons] erode the meaning of human life and impede our ability to look to the future with hope. . . At the heart of the nuclear weapons issue is the radical negation of others—of their humanity and their equal right to happiness and life. . . The challenge of nuclear disarmament is not something that concerns only the nuclear-weapon States; it must be a truly global enterprise involving all States and fully engaging civil society.^[63]

In order to make the UN negotiations starting in March a forum for this kind of truly global enterprise, we are determined to do our utmost, working with like-minded individuals and groups, to bring together and amplify the voices of civil society.

Restoring hope in the lives of refugees

The second priority area that I would like to focus on is the need to implement relief programs designed to enable refugees to live with hope.

It is estimated that the number of people who have been forced to leave their homes due to armed conflict or fear of persecution has grown rapidly, to approximately 65.3 million.^[64] In particular, as the civil war in Syria continues into its sixth year, the resulting humanitarian crisis has become extremely grave. To date, more than 300,000 Syrians have been killed and more than half the population displaced out of fear and want; some 4.8 million people have fled the country to seek asylum.^[65] UN Secretary-General António Guterres, after his official appointment at the General Assembly in October 2016, stated that his first priority in office would be related to peace. He noted, “a surge in diplomacy for peace is the best way to . . . help us limit human suffering in all dimensions.”^[66]

On December 30 last year, a cease-fire agreement came into effect, and the UN Security Council adopted a resolution supporting the cease-fire and calling on all parties to observe it. It is still too early, however, to say whether the civil war can be brought to an end.

New peace talks are scheduled for February under the auspices of the UN. I fervently wish that under the leadership of Secretary-General Guterres, who for many years served as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the international organization and relevant nations will together work out a way to bring an end to the conflict as soon as possible.

In parallel with these diplomatic efforts, another pressing priority Mr. Guterres identifies is that all countries assume “full solidarity with those in need of protection that are fleeing those horrible conflicts.”^[67]

Such solidarity was a key focus of the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul, Turkey, in May last year. As was highlighted at the Opening Ceremony, it is essential that we try to put ourselves in the place of people whose lives have been abruptly uprooted by conflict and who, day after day, find themselves facing impossible choices: Under the constant threat of airstrikes, do you choose to stay where you live or do you flee from danger and take your family great distances in search of refuge? Aware of the potentially lethal dangers of an attempted sea crossing, holding onto the faintest of hopes for a better life, do you go in search of a boat or do you stay where you are? When your children get sick as you flee, do you use your limited funds for medicine or for food for the whole family?

We must remind ourselves that these people who are living with extreme uncertainty in desperate circumstances are our fellow human beings, no different from us. It is just that they were born in different countries and have different backgrounds and life stories.

At the summit, which brought together a large number of participants from all sectors including civil society, the importance of pursuing humanitarian and development agendas in a coordinated and comprehensive manner as well as enhancing the resilience of refugee and host communities was affirmed.

Enhancing resilience is a focal point of the exhibition “Restoring Our Humanity,”produced for and first shown at the Istanbul Summit. In co-organizing this exhibition, the SGI sought to convey the message that strengthening resilience is a key element in the work of building a world where no one is left behind.

As an approach to realize that goal, I would like to propose that the United Nations take the initiative in developing a new aid architecture that would be a partnership for resolving humanitarian challenges and protecting human dignity. This would enable forcibly displaced persons to work in fields that contribute to enhancing resilience and promoting the achievement of the SDGs in host communities.

The most recent survey shows that 86 percent of the refugees receiving support from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are being hosted in developing countries located near conflict zones.^[68] These countries, which are already confronting various SDG-related challenges such as poverty, health and sanitation, now find themselves having to respond to the inflow of refugees. As was confirmed at the Humanitarian Summit last year, what is needed here is to provide integrated support in the fields of development and humanitarian assistance.

A project that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is implementing in Ethiopia provides a good model. Since last year, Ethiopia, which has accepted more than 730,000 war-affected people from neighboring countries, has been suffering from its worst drought in more than thirty years.^[69] While helping enhance local management of natural resources and supporting rehabilitation of community infrastructure, the project has been able to reduce tensions between refugees and local populations through efforts to promote peaceful coexistence.

Faced with the seemingly ceaseless growth in the size of refugee populations, it is clear that the stability and development of host societies is essential if displaced persons are to enjoy any stability in their lives. In terms of confronting SDG-related challenges, developed and developing countries have much in common. In both cases, efforts to promote sustainable agriculture and prevent food shortages, to implement renewable energy infrastructure and to provide medical, healthcare and sanitation services will create new work opportunities for large numbers of people.

Last year, International Labour Organization (ILO) Director-General Guy Ryder called for a “New Deal” for refugees as he reiterated the importance of providing employment opportunities for forcibly displaced persons.^[70] One form of this could bring together humanitarian and development initiatives, with the UN and member states actively cooperating to create vocational training and skill acquisition programs related to the SDGs for refugees and asylum-seekers.

Work is of course a crucial means of sustaining one’s livelihood; at the same time, it gives meaning to life and is an endeavor to inscribe positive proof of one’s existence in society.

Former Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation Dr. Stuart Rees, with whom I have recently published a dialogue, maintains that securing employment is an imperative in realizing social justice. In our dialogue, he shared his conviction that as a growing number of people are losing work, they are “being denied the profound human sense of self-worth that comes from work; either in the sense of earning one’s keep, having the satisfaction of achieving something, or making a contribution to society.”^[71] He further stated that this represents a fundamental threat to human dignity.

In our discussion, we reviewed the impact of the New Deal programs that US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945) launched in response to the massive unemployment triggered by the Great Depression, which started in 1929. Under the New Deal, in addition to the building of dams and other infrastructure projects, the Civilian Conservation Corps was established to maintain and improve national parks and forests. More than three million young people participated in the program, and over two billion trees were planted. Through these activities, participants were able to regain their self-esteem and the sense of being useful to and contributing to other people and society. Further, to this day these national parks and forests continue to function to preserve biological diversity and ecological integrity while serving an important function in absorbing greenhouse gases.

Learning from such successful examples, I believe that it is time to devise a framework that will expand employment opportunities for refugees while serving to concretely advance the achievement of the SDGs.

Having experienced great difficulties and suffering, forcibly dislocated persons should have the capacity to relate to and encourage people in a variety of adverse and challenging circumstances. By having the chance to engage in work that advances SDG projects in the countries that hosted them, refugees will be able to contribute to reconstruction efforts in their countries of origin when they return after the cessation of armed conflict.

At the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants held in September last year, it was declared that global compacts on refugees and migrants should be adopted in 2018. Without a solution to the refugee issue, which represents a humanitarian crisis of the gravest historical proportions, world peace and stability will remain unattainable, as will real progress toward the achievement of the SDGs with their vision of a world in which no one is left behind.

The UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants

The United Nations Summit for Refugees and Migrants took place on September 19, 2016, at UN Headquarters in New York. A high-level summit to address mass movements of people, it was a watershed moment to strengthen governance and a unique opportunity to create a more responsible, predictable system for responding to large movements of refugees and migrants.

At the summit, 193 member states signed the New York Declaration, which includes commitments to protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status, and to improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected.

The Declaration also established two processes that will culminate in 2018 in the formation of two global compacts, on refugees and migration, respectively. UNHCR has been tasked to initiate consultations with refugee host countries, donors, NGOs and the private sector, applying the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) toward the compact on refugees. A separate process will create global standards for safe, orderly and regular migration, led by the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

The Japanese government has provided financial support to the UNDP project in Ethiopia that I mentioned earlier, and it would therefore be fitting for Japan to accelerate its support for activities that integrate the humanitarian and development sectors, as the UN is advocating.

At the Leaders’ Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis hosted by US President Barack Obama the day after the UN Summit last September, the Japanese government committed to providing educational assistance and vocational training to approximately one million people affected by conflict. Further, Japan will accept up to 150 Syrian students in the next five years. It is my sincere hope that, within the framework of these relief efforts, Japan will take the lead in promoting a partnership for providing humanitarian assistance and protecting human dignity. And I would like to restate that one approach to facilitating such initiatives is to provide forcibly dislocated persons with opportunities to acquire technical skills and work training related to the SDGs.

In this regard, I would like to call for further support of programs by which the UN and the world’s universities work together to create educational opportunities for refugee youth.

The UN Academic Impact, which was launched seven years ago with the goal of linking the world’s universities with the UN, has now become established as a network of more than 1,000 institutions of higher learning in over 120 countries. Collectively, these universities research issues covering almost the entire spectrum of global concerns and represent a crucial resource that can be deployed for the benefit of humankind.

The activities of Toynbee Hall that brought relief to people struggling with poverty and the educational activities of Hull House that sought to restore dignity to impoverished immigrants—to which I referred earlier—were conducted by the members of university communities.

As these examples testify, universities have the potential to serve as havens of hope and security in society. In that sense, it is of profound significance that universities and colleges across the world are contributing to the resolution of global challenges through their research activities. They could further this contribution through providing expanded educational opportunities for refugee youth including through such means as extension courses and distance learning.

Soka University in Japan joined the UNHCR Refugee Higher Education Program last May. As the university’s founder, it is my pleasure to extend a hand of welcome to those who will be attending, starting with the 2017 academic year.

Yusra Mardini, a Syrian swimmer and a member of the Refugee Olympic Team that participated in the Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games, offered the following words of encouragement to her fellow refugees:

I want to represent all the refugees because I want to show everyone that, after the pain, after the storm, comes calm days. . . I want everyone not to give up on their dreams and do what they feel in their hearts.^[72]

For those who have been driven from their homes by conflict and are living in an unfamiliar environment, meaningful work and education are means to recover a sense of human dignity, gaining hope for the future and a purpose in life.

Therefore, I think it is critical that specific measures in securing work and educational opportunities for dislocated persons should be incorporated in the UN global compacts on refugees and migrants when they are adopted. In the final analysis, resolution of the refugee crisis hinges on our ability to enable forcibly dislocated persons to regain a sense of security, hope and dignity.

Human rights education

The third priority area I would like to discuss is the building of a culture of human rights.

In addition to protracted armed conflict and civil war, another serious threat currently confronting global society is the frequent occurrence of terrorist attacks and the rise of violent extremism. There are far too many cases where young people, struggling to find meaning in life, bereft of hope for the future, are lured into violent extremism.

Last November, the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research cosponsored a two-day conference at Eastern Mennonite University in Virginia to discuss approaches to prevent the spread of violent extremism.

With an increasing number of states accepting the idea that punitive measures are the most effective way of preventing violence, participants interrogated the actual effectiveness of this approach and related issues through an analysis of case studies in different regions of the world. Further, they explored ways of advancing peacebuilding efforts in areas of continuing tension.

The meeting also focused on identifying factors that drive violent extremism as well as means for its prevention, particularly the importance of comprehensive efforts to encourage ways of addressing problems and differences without resorting to violence.

I believe that the key element here must be the promotion of human rights education.

Last year marked the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. The SGI, as a civil society organization, has supported from its drafting stage this important UN Declaration, in which UN member states for the first time agreed to international standards for human rights education.

To commemorate the fifth anniversary of its adoption, an intergovernmental panel was held during the Human Rights Council session in September, with representatives of the SGI in attendance. In her remarks, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kate Gilmore noted that while we have seen hatred and violence spread in parts of the world, we have also witnessed the launch of initiatives in human rights education which are inspiring people to positive action. She also stated:

Human rights education fosters our common humanity beyond our individual diversities. It is not an “optional extra” or just another routine obligation. It teaches fundamental lessons.^[73]

These words underscore the true significance of human rights education.

Examples of the impact of human rights education, such as the transformation of one young schoolgirl, were introduced during the meeting. Through a human rights education program in her school, she began to deeply consider the nature of her own dignity. This awakening to her innate value allowed her to find strength and confidence in the future, learning to stand up to the circumstances surrounding her. She was transformed; no longer a victim, she felt compelled to defend the human rights of others.

Ms. Gilmore described this young girl’s story as an example of the “extraordinary power of human rights consciousness” and stressed that “education is the accelerant of that transformation.”^[74] Indeed, it attests to the immeasurable power and potential that human rights education holds.

In order to spark this kind of chain reaction of positive transformation, I would like to encourage efforts to adopt a convention on human rights education and training based on the Declaration that would strengthen measures ensuring its implementation.

Next year is the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I would like to propose that the occasion be marked by the holding of a UN and civil society forum on human rights education that would review achievements to date and deepen deliberations toward the adoption of such a convention.

It is estimated that there are currently 1.8 billion young people between the ages of ten and twenty-four living in our world today.^[75] If these young people, rather than resorting to conflict and violence, can come to uphold and protect the core values of human rights, I am positive that a path toward a “pluralist and inclusive society”^[76]—as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training—can be brought into being.

Human rights education can be the driving force for achieving this. In order for states to promote such education in a consistent and sustained manner, legal frameworks and educational programs need to be created. Mechanisms for the periodic monitoring and review of these systems will also be necessary.

This is one of the points that the SGI—speaking on behalf of Human Rights Education 2020 (HRE 2020), a global coalition of civil society organizations—stressed at the intergovernmental panel referred to earlier.

International efforts to ensure human rights, which draw from wellsprings in the UDHR, were initially focused on standard setting, defining the rights to be protected and then providing access to remedy in case of violations. Today the focus has shifted to establishing and firmly rooting in society a culture of human rights, where there is a mutual appreciation of diversity and a shared undertaking to protect the dignity of all.

The SGI, with the cooperation of UN agencies and other partner organizations, has developed a new human rights education exhibition that will be launched from the end of February in conjunction with the convening of the Human Rights Council. Through initiatives such as this, we aim to inspire renewed commitment within civil society to generate a constantly expanding solidarity in favor of a culture of human rights. And further, in collaboration with other NGOs, we hope to move global public opinion toward the adoption of a legally binding convention on human rights education and training.

Gender equality

The final theme I would like to discuss is the importance of gender equality, something that is deeply relevant to constructing a culture of human rights. Gender equality is the assurance of the equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women and men and girls and boys, without discrimination.

The goal is, as UN Women emphasizes, to create a society in which the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are valued, and the diversity of different groups is recognized. One of the SDGs is the achievement of gender equality everywhere on Earth and the elimination of all forms of discrimination by 2030.

A record number of more than 80 government ministers and 4,100 representatives of international civil society attended last year’s session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW60) held from March 14–24, providing further evidence of the growing recognition of the importance of this task. In addition to taking part in the sessions, the SGI held a parallel event under the theme “Women’s Leadership Paving the Way to Achieving the SDGs.”

At this event, it was reaffirmed that gender inequality is a major human rights challenge and that progress in this regard will contribute to the achievement of all the other SDGs.

Gender equality can play an essential role in the Nexus Approach, which I discussed earlier, for promoting all of the SDGs in an integrated fashion.

Recognition by the world’s governments of the importance of gender equality dates back at least to the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. A further turning point was the adoption of Resolution 1325 on women and peace and security by the UN Security Council in October 2000. This resolution urges the equal participation and full involvement of women in all aspects of the maintenance and promotion of peace and security and calls for the adoption of concrete measures to that end.

Former UN Under-Secretary-General Anwarul K. Chowdhury, who played a pivotal role in the adoption of Resolution 1325, told me over the course of our dialogue of the “conceptual and political breakthrough”^[77] that made this possible.

He explained that this breakthrough took the form of a statement issued by the UN Security Council on March 8, 2000, International Women’s Day. The statement noted the inextricable link between peace and gender equality, transforming the impression of women as helpless victims of wars and conflicts into a recognition that they are “essential for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security.”^[78] This paradigm shift led to the adoption of Resolution 1325, opening a sure path for the greater participation of women in peace processes.

A review into the implementation status of the resolution that issued its report in October 2015 concluded that the participation of women enhances the likelihood of the success and durability of peace processes. It also noted the key role of women in gaining the trust of the local population in the course of UN peacekeeping activities.

Governments have begun developing and implementing policies toward the achievement of the gender equality goal of the SDGs. It is important now to recall the conceptual breakthrough that initially led to the adoption of Resolution 1325: in other words, to reconfigure societies based on the recognition that women are not helpless victims but that their strengths and contributions are essential.

In this regard, Dr. Sarah Wider, former president of the Ralph Waldo Emerson Society and Women’s Studies scholar, shared the following with me during one of our exchanges.

No one should be taking a back seat to anyone. We should all be sitting together, listening, talking, and respecting the contributing work each person has to offer.^[79]

Recent research has highlighted the contribution of a group of female delegates at the 1945 San Francisco conference where the UN Charter was drafted in inscribing “the equal rights of men and women” in the Preamble.^[80]

Many of the participants at the conference called for the inclusion of clear provisions regarding human rights. A number of women from Latin American countries, however, brought to the conference’s attention the inadequacy of the reference to “equal rights of individuals,” the term initially used during the drafting process.

They were successful not only in enshrining the equal rights of women and men in the Preamble, but also in including language promoting and encouraging respect for human rights without distinction as to sex (Article 1) and the equal eligibility of men and women to participate throughout the UN system (Article 8).

This episode brings to mind a story from the Lotus Sutra. The sutra, which teaches the supreme dignity and worth of all people, uses the concrete example of a young woman fully manifesting her inherent dignity to illustrate this.

After Shakyamuni finishes expounding the principle that all people possess an incomparable inner worth, Bodhisattva Wisdom Accumulated, feeling that this important teaching is over, seeks to return home. However, he is prompted by Shakyamuni to stay behind to debate and discuss the teachings he has heard with a bodhisattva named Manjushri.

Wisdom Accumulated is told by Manjushri that the eight-year-old daughter of the dragon king had manifested a life state of ultimate dignity (enlightenment) and was filled with a profound compassion for other people. Wisdom Accumulated finds this impossible to believe. It is then that the dragon king’s daughter appears before him. Upon seeing the young dragon girl, it is Shakyamuni’s disciple Shariputra who is next in voicing his doubts.

The dragon girl takes up a jewel that the sutra explains is proof of this ultimately dignified state of life, and offers it to Shakyamuni. She then turns and exhorts Shariputra to witness the true brilliance of her life. Seeing her dedicate herself to helping others, Wisdom Accumulated and Shariputra are finally convinced that Manjushri’s words had indeed been true.

I believe that this story illustrates how a merely abstract understanding cannot bring about the realization of the dignity and worth of all people.

Nichiren comments on the dragon girl’s exhortation to Shariputra to witness her enlightenment as follows:

When the dragon girl says, “Watch me attain Buddhahood,” Shariputra thinks she is referring only to her own attainment of Buddhahood, but this is an error. She is rebuking him by saying, “Watch how one attains Buddhahood.”^[81]

In this way, Nichiren stresses the inseparable connection between the dragon girl realizing the full dignity of her life and Shariputra doing the same. Through acknowledging and coming to respect the supreme dignity and worth of the dragon girl, who represents all women, Shariputra, who represents all men, comes to fully realize his inner dignity in its fullness.

This concrete portrayal of the inherent dignity of women gives substance to and fully authenticates the principle of the dignity of all people. In the same way, the fact that the rights of women were inscribed in the Charter enabled the spirit of human rights to take particularly clear form at the UN.

I am sure that the group of women who spoke out at the San Francisco conference in 1945 were acting on the conviction that building a society that truly upholds the rights of all people would only be possible if women’s rights were given explicit recognition.

UN Women has initiated the HeForShe Movement, a global effort to incorporate the involvement of men and boys in the struggle to achieve gender equality. It is unacceptable for anyone to be deprived of their rights and freedoms, and we must work to ensure that all people in all their diversity are free to enjoy their rights.

The goal of gender equality is to open the path for all people, irrespective of gender, to bring forth the light of their inner dignity and humanity in a way that is true to their own unique self.

The SGI, with youth at the center of our movement, will further strive to expand the solidarity of people united in the cause of building a culture of human rights. Sounding the bell of hope for humanity, we will continue to work toward creating a society where no one is left behind.

The Global Solidarity of Youth: Ushering In a New Era of Hope

Sixty years have passed since my mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda (1900–58), issued his declaration calling for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

At the core of his thinking was a vision of global citizenship rooted in the philosophy of respect for life’s inherent dignity as taught in Buddhism.

This is the conviction that no one should be subjected to discrimination, be exploited or have their interests sacrificed for the benefit of others. This resonates strongly with the United Nations’ appeal to the international community to create a world in which “no one will be left behind.”

Our world today is confronted by numerous grave challenges including a seemingly unending succession of armed conflicts and the sufferings of the rapidly growing refugee population. I am not, however, pessimistic about humanity’s future. My reason is the faith I place in our world’s young people, each of whom embodies hope and the possibility of a better future.

I would like to offer thoughts on how to build the kind of peaceful, just and inclusive societies envisioned in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were launched last year, putting special focus on the role of youth.

Creating solidarity centered on young people toward the goal of coexistence

With the signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2016, the countries of the world came together to confront a common threat in a way that had previously appeared impossible. This was the result of a shared awareness that climate change is an urgent issue for all countries.

If we are to make progress toward the achievement of the SDGs, we will need to share a similar awareness and solidarity across all fields.

The key to dealing with even the most seemingly intractable challenges is to be found when people come together and continue to do all in their power for the sake of others.

In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the term bodhisattva is used to describe a person dedicated to the realization of happiness for oneself and others. This spirit of the bodhisattva is the foundation that has sustained the SGI’s efforts as a faith-based organization that supports the UN and works for the resolution of global challenges. Our consistent focus has been on promoting empowerment of, by and for the people.

The inner capacities of people unleashed by empowerment serve as an enduring source of energy for transformation, a wellspring of inextinguishable hope.

Education gives rise to the actions and activities that shape the direction of society over time. Education for global citizenship, in particular, can foster action and solidarity, enabling young people to bring forth their full potential and increasing momentum for global change.

Laying the foundations for societies in which division and inequality are overcome

With the continuing stagnation of the global economy, xenophobic impulses have strengthened. Xenophobic thinking is propelled by a stark division of the world into good and evil. It leaves no room for hesitation or scruple. In the same way, when the pursuit of market-based economic rationality has no counterbalancing consideration of the human element, a psychology is unleashed that is ready to extract even the most extreme sacrifices from others.

What kind of social anchoring is available to resist the forces of xenophobia that deepen the divisions within society and the pursuit of economic rationality that is indifferent to the sacrifices of the vulnerable? I believe the answer is to be found in strong connections between people. It is my confident expectation that friendship among youth will powerfully turn back the sullied currents of divisiveness and give birth to a vibrant culture of peace based on profound respect for diversity.

Enhancing the capacity of communities to meet and respond positively to challenges

The ability to solve problems is not something reserved for special people: It is a path that opens before any of us when we face reality head-on, taking up some aspect of its weighty burden and acting with persistence. The energy of young people, in particular, can catalyze chain reactions of positive change as they forge bonds of trust among people.

Three Priority Areas:

I would like to offer concrete proposals regarding three priority areas crucial to the realization of the peaceful, just and inclusive societies that are the aim of the SDGs:

■ Prohibiting and abolishing nuclear weapons

The threat posed by nuclear weapons is, if anything, growing. In this regard, I would like to make the following proposals.

1. The earliest possible holding of a US-Russia summit in order to reinvigorate the nuclear disarmament process. I urge the leaders of these two countries to engage in dialogue toward taking their weapons off high alert and to make significant new progress in nuclear arms reduction.
   
2. Japan should work to achieve the broadest possible participation in the upcoming negotiations on a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, including that of states that possess or rely on nuclear weapons.
   
   In recent years, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have contributed to keeping the nuclear weapons issue in the public eye by hosting a series of diplomatic meetings and welcoming the visits of foreign dignitaries. As the only country to have experienced a nuclear attack, Japan should encourage the states that participated in these discussions and as many others as possible to take part in the upcoming multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations.
   
   The work of establishing a treaty prohibiting the production, transfer, threat of use or use of these weapons should be viewed as a global enterprise with the goal of preventing the horrors of nuclear war from ever being experienced by any country.
   
   The first Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT Review Conference is scheduled to meet in Vienna in May. There should be an effort to mutually acknowledge the security concerns of all states to help make the negotiations truly constructive.
   
3. The full spectrum of civil society actors should generate statements directed toward the upcoming negotiations. Together, these would constitute a people’s declaration for a world without nuclear weapons.
   
   Now is the time for civil society to build momentum to establish the treaty as a form of people-driven international law.

■ Restoring hope in the hearts of refugees

The second priority area that I would like to focus on is the need to implement relief programs designed to enable refugees to live with hope.

I would like to propose that the United Nations take the initiative in developing a new aid architecture that would be a partnership for resolving humanitarian challenges and protecting human dignity. This would enable forcibly displaced persons to work in fields that contribute to enhancing resilience and promoting the achievement of the SDGs in host communities.

One form of this could bring together humanitarian and development initiatives, with the UN and member states actively cooperating to provide vocational training and skill acquisition programs related to the SDGs to refugees and asylum-seekers.

■ Building a culture of human rights

Next year is the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would like to propose that the occasion be marked by the holding of a UN and civil society forum on human rights education that would review achievements to date and deepen deliberations toward the adoption of a convention on human rights education and training.

If the world’s young people can come to uphold and protect the core values of human rights, I am positive that a path toward a pluralist and inclusive society can be brought into being. Human rights education can be the main driving force for achieving this. In collaboration with other NGOs, the SGI hopes to move global public opinion toward the adoption of a legally binding convention on human rights education and training.

Gender equality is also deeply relevant to constructing a culture of human rights. The goal of gender equality is to open the path for all people, irrespective of gender, to bring forth the light of their inner dignity and humanity in a way that is true to their own unique self.

The SGI, with youth at the center of our movement, will further strive to expand the solidarity of people united in the cause of building a culture of human rights, working toward creating a society where no one is left behind.

Toward an Era of Human Rights: Building a People’s Movement

Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
January 26, 2018

The year 2017 proved to be a turning point for peace and disarmament. A series of negotiations at the United Nations finally led to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in July; to date it has been signed by more than fifty states. Once it enters into force, the Treaty will follow bans on biological and chemical arms to complete the international framework prohibiting all weapons of mass destruction.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, adopted with the aim of their eventual elimination. The Treaty was endorsed by 122 countries at United Nations Headquarters in New York on July 7, 2017; in order to come into effect, it must be ratified by at least fifty countries; as of January 2018, it has been signed by fifty-six and ratified by five. Contained in its twenty articles are provisions that signatory states must agree not to develop, test, produce, manufacture, transfer, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, or allow nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory. States currently possessing nuclear arsenals may join the Treaty upon submission of a time-bound plan for the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons program. Supporters of the Treaty believe it marks an important step towards a nuclear-free world by outlawing the weapons under international law.

The idea of abolishing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms, was on the UN agenda from the outset, dating back to the very first resolution adopted by the General Assembly in January 1946, the year after the UN’s establishment. Adoption of the landmark TPNW represents a breakthrough in a field that has been marked by seemingly unbreakable impasse. Moreover, the Treaty was realized with the strong support of civil society, including the survivors of nuclear weapons use, the hibakusha. Their contributions were recognized when the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the civil society coalition that has continued to strive for a treaty-based prohibition of nuclear weapons.

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is a civil society coalition based in Geneva, Switzerland, launched in 2007. As of January 2018, the coalition is composed of 468 nongovernmental organizations in 101 countries worldwide, representing millions of members united in the common goal of a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons. The SGI has been an international partner of this movement for the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world since its early stages. ICAN received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its “work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and “ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.” Subsequent to the July 2017 adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, ICAN’s main focus has been on persuading nations to sign, ratify and implement the Treaty. This is done through public awareness-raising events and advocacy work at the United Nations and in national parliaments, often working together with hibakusha.

In her speech at the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony held in December, Setsuko Thurlow, who spoke after ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn, declared the following based on her experience as a survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

Humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist. . .

These weapons are not a necessary evil; they are the ultimate evil.^[1]

This conviction is shared by the members of the Soka Gakkai International (SGI), who have been working together with ICAN since soon after its founding—a collaboration that was reconfirmed when Ms. Fihn visited the Soka Gakkai Headquarters in Japan this January.

To fundamentally negate the existence of those seen as enemies, to be willing to eradicate them with an extreme destructive power—this cruel tendency to deny human dignity underlies the thinking that justifies the possession of nuclear weapons.

This is precisely what my mentor, second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda (1900–58), expressed in his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons in September 1957 amidst the intensifying nuclear arms race of the Cold War. As the nuclear threat expanded in the name of a deterrence-based peace, Toda declared, “I want to expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons,”^[2] condemning the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons as fundamentally jeopardizing the right of the world’s people to live.

Taking Toda’s declaration to heart, during a lecture I gave a half-century ago (in May 1968) just as negotiations on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) were coming to a conclusion, I proposed that, going beyond agreement on the NPT, it was important to prohibit nuclear arms in all their phases and aspects, including manufacture, testing and use.

In addition, on the occasion of the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament forty years ago (1978), I submitted a ten-point proposal for nuclear disarmament and abolition. I subsequently wrote a proposal on the occasion of the Second Special Session on Disarmament (1982) as well. The following year, I began authoring annual peace proposals to commemorate the SGI’s founding on January 26, an effort I have continued for the past thirty-five years in the hope of opening a path for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Why have I focused so single-mindedly on finding a resolution to the nuclear issue? This is because, just as Josei Toda discerned, so long as nuclear weapons exist the quest for a world of peace and human rights for all will remain elusive.

One organization with which the SGI has developed strong ties in our shared efforts for nuclear abolition is the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Jayantha Dhanapala, who served as the organization’s president until 2017, has stressed that a moral compass is indispensable in addressing the multitude of global challenges including the nuclear problem. He writes:

It is widely, but wrongly, assumed that the realm of ethical values and the world of pragmatic politics are wide apart and that never the twain shall meet. The achievements of the UN illustrate that there can be a fusion between ethics and policy, and it is this fusion that contributes to the betterment of mankind and to peace.^[3]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which commemorates its seventieth anniversary this year, can be seen as a pioneering example of this.

Here, while considering the significance of the UDHR, I would like to offer some thoughts and perspectives on a human rights-focused approach to resolving global issues. For I believe that such an approach, rooted in concern for the life and dignity of each individual, can bring about the fusion of ethics and policy that is required for an effective response.

The spiritual sources of human rights law

The first theme I would like to stress is that at the heart of human rights is the vow never to allow anyone else to suffer what one has endured.

Last year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres created the new post of Special Representative for International Migration to address issues related to refugees and migrants. Today, with some 258 million migrants in the world^[4] and an ever-growing number of refugees, the foregrounding of negative stereotypes—that such people are either a burden or a threat—is fueling a climate of social exclusion.

Louise Arbour, the first person to hold this post, has stated:

One of the things we need to highlight is the need for migrants, like everybody else, to have their fundamental human rights respected and protected without discrimination on the basis of their status.^[5]

This understanding must serve as the foundation for resolving the migration and refugee crisis.

As the history of the twentieth century with its two world wars illustrates, the incitement of contempt and enmity toward certain groups of people can result in tragedy on an unimaginable scale. The UDHR, adopted in December 1948, three years after the UN’s founding, was a crystallization of the wisdom gained from those bitter lessons. It is vital, then, that we once again affirm the spirit of the Declaration in order to find a resolution to the various human rights issues we face today, including discrimination against migrants and refugees.

In June 1993, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. John P. Humphrey (1905–95), who helped draft the Declaration in his capacity as the first director of the UN Human Rights Division. In discussing the significance of the UDHR, Dr. Humphrey spoke movingly of his personal life experiences and the discriminatory treatment he had experienced.

Born in Canada, Dr. Humphrey was touched by tragedy from a young age, losing both his parents to illness. He also suffered a grievous injury in a fire that resulted in the loss of his arm. Separated from his siblings, he attended a boarding school where he was repeatedly tormented by other students. The Great Depression struck soon after Dr. Humphrey’s graduation from university and just one month after his marriage to his wife. Although he managed to stay employed, he was pained at the sight of the multitudes of jobless around him. He also witnessed fascist oppression firsthand during his days as a researcher in Europe in the late 1930s, and this intensified his sense of the need for international legal protection for the rights of all people.

On one occasion, Dr. Humphrey reflected on his pride in the fact that the UDHR guaranteed not only the civil and political rights of the people but also their economic, social and cultural rights.^[6] I am sure that his personal background and life experiences had a great influence on his work to help draft and compile the Declaration.

He stressed that the UDHR was the result of a collaborative effort and that it owed some degree of its prestige and importance precisely to the fact that its authors retained their anonymity. Perhaps this is why his contributions remained largely unknown, even after retiring from his twenty-year post as director of the UN Human Rights Division.^[7]

Even so, when Dr. Humphrey personally gifted me a facsimile of the draft of the Declaration, each handwritten letter seemed to shine with the prayer of one who sows seeds for a future where all may live in dignity. Over the years, the SGI featured this draft of the UDHR as part of its exhibition “Toward a Century of Humanity: An Overview of Human Rights in Today’s World” and at other similar events.

I was able to meet Dr. Humphrey for a second time in September 1993, during this exhibition’s first international showing in Montreal, Canada. The promise I made to him that day—to transmit the spirit of the Universal Declaration to future generations—remains with me still.

The flame of human goodness

As well as the adoption of the UDHR, the year 1948 also saw the start of the policies of racial segregation in South Africa known as apartheid. Nelson Mandela (1918–2013), who subsequently became South Africa’s president, transmuted his feelings of rage and grief at the injustice and discrimination he faced into the struggle to dismantle apartheid. I first had the pleasure of meeting President Mandela in October 1990, eight months after his release from prison.

In his autobiography, he describes his motivation for committing himself to the struggle for freedom in his youth:

A steady accumulation of a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments, produced in me an anger, a rebelliousness, a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people.^[8]

Despite the brutal treatment he endured in prison, President Mandela’s heart never became engulfed in hate because even in the most harrowing of times he would hold on to the “glimmer of humanity”^[9] he saw in the guards and use it to keep himself going.

President Mandela, who sensed that not all whites harbored hatred for blacks, made the effort to learn Afrikaans—the language spoken by the prison guards—and was able to soften their hearts by addressing them in their native tongue. Even the despotic prison warden showed some degree of warmth toward him for the first time as he was taking leave of his post. Through this unexpected experience, President Mandela understood that the prison warden’s continued cruelty was rooted in the fact that “his inhumanity had been foisted upon him by an inhuman system.”^[10]

During his twenty-seven years—some ten thousand days—of imprisonment, President Mandela cultivated an abiding conviction that “man’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished.”^[11] Following his release, as the nation’s president, he took action to protect the lives and dignity of all people, black and white alike.

One time, when anger against whites in the black community was fueled by another massacre of black people by a group of whites, President Mandela did not rely simply on hackneyed phrases to appeal for harmony. In the middle of a campaign speech, he suddenly called out to a white woman who was standing toward the back of the audience and asked her to come to the stage. Smiling, he introduced her to the crowd as the person who had nursed him back to health when he fell ill in prison.

It is not the difference of race that constitutes the problem. Rather, the problem is what lies within the human heart. The mood of the crowd changed as they saw this message unfold before them, and the impulse for revenge subsided. President Mandela’s actions in that moment seem to reveal that he knew too well, painfully so, how the chains of an inhuman system could rob one of their humanity.

The Buddhism upheld by the members of the SGI portrays the example of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging, whose persistent practice resonates with the conviction that the flame of human goodness can be hidden but is never extinguished. Bodhisattva Never Disparaging appears in the Lotus Sutra, which encapsulates the essence of Shakyamuni’s teachings. True to his vow to never look down on others no matter how much they despised him, this bodhisattva bowed in reverence to each person he met. Even when slandered or mistreated, he refused to abandon his practice of offering them the following words: “You can absolutely attain Buddhahood.”

To the very end, despite the cruel treatment he endured in prison, President Mandela did not let his trust in people’s humanity wane. Similarly, Bodhisattva Never Disparaging continued to believe in the incomparable dignity inherent within the other, regardless of their disdain for him.

Nichiren (1222–82), who propagated Buddhism in thirteenth-century Japan based on the Lotus Sutra’s teaching of the dignity of all people, explains that the spirit of this sutra is encapsulated in the actions of Bodhisattva Never Disparaging. He writes:

What does Bodhisattva Never Disparaging’s profound respect for people signify? The purpose of the appearance in this world of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, lies in his behavior as a human being.^[12]

Indeed, Shakyamuni’s actions to light a flame of hope in the hearts of people were not the result of some transcendent capacity on his part, but stemmed from a very human desire to alleviate in some way the suffering of those he encountered.

On one occasion, unable to ignore the plight of a disciple who was bedridden with illness, Shakyamuni proceeded to wash the man and offer encouragement, even as others stood by. When a blind disciple trying to mend the seam of his robe muttered, “Is there no one who will thread this needle for me?” it was Shakyamuni who approached him to lend a helping hand. Later, even amidst his grief at the death of his two most trusted disciples, Shakyamuni pressed ahead, encouraging himself to keep going. And after turning eighty, while accepting the fact of his physical limitations, he continued to expound his teachings for the sake of others to the very last moment of his life.

To go to the side of those sunk in the depths of despair, to bring the sun to rise in one’s heart in the midst of painful circumstances and to continue to encourage and embolden others—this all too human behavior of Shakyamuni is the font from which the vital flow of the Lotus Sutra’s philosophy of life’s inherent dignity arises and continues to this day.

In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the Buddha is referred to as an ordinary being worthy of the highest respect. As such, a Buddha is in no way estranged from humanity. Bodhisattva Never Disparaging exemplifies the Lotus Sutra’s core teaching—that it is through our human efforts to awaken to and savor our own dignity as we cherish and care for those around us that our lives come to shine with the sublime light of Buddhahood.

Nichiren described this transformative power of life as follows: “We thus become the father and mother of this [Buddha of] perfect enlightenment, and the Buddha is the child that we give birth to.”^[13] Every person who takes action for the sake of others even while carrying the burden of personal hardship manifests their original essence and mission to illuminate society with the light of dignity.

The same can be said of human rights. They are not granted to us by laws or treaties; the imperative to protect the freedom and dignity of all people arises from the fact that each of us is inherently precious and irreplaceable.

As exemplified by the lives of Dr. Humphrey and President Mandela, the individuals who have succeeded in breathing life into human rights legislation are those who, while subjected to discrimination and human rights violations themselves, refused to allow others to suffer what they had endured as they worked to break down harsh social barriers one by one.

A world free from tragedy

The SGI’s peace movement originates in the convictions of founding president Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944) and second president Josei Toda, who both waged a struggle of resistance against Japan’s militaristic regime during World War II. In The Geography of Human Life, written at the start of the twentieth century, Makiguchi expresses concern over the plight of the world’s people amidst the expansion of colonialism: “In seeking to seize control of others’ countries, [the imperial powers] do not hesitate to commit cruel atrocities.”^[14]

In 1930, as the increasing militarism of Japan began to gravely impact the education system, Makiguchi published The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy, in which he argued that education should serve to enhance learners’ capacity to create value for the happiness of themselves and of society as a whole. He held fast to these beliefs and continued to strive to put his ideas into practice even as the militarist authorities tightened their grip on every aspect of life—from politics and the economy to culture and religion—under the National Mobilization Law and slogans such as “Obliterate the self and serve the state” (Jpn: messhi hoko). Strict in his critique of the regime, he maintained that “To void and empty the self is a lie. What is true is to seek genuine happiness both for oneself and for others.”^[15]

National Mobilization Law

Adopted in March 1938, the National Mobilization Law enabled the Japanese state to control the economy and the lives of its citizens without parliamentary consultation. Despite being openly criticized in the Japanese parliament, the law came into effect due to strong pressure from the Japanese military. Protracted war in China was putting increasing strain on the Japanese economy, with the military demanding a 2.5-million-yen budget, an amount nearly equivalent to the entire national budget of the previous year. The law gave the Japanese bureaucracy wide-ranging authority over the economy, including the ability to conscript workers for war industries. By the time it was abolished, in December 1945, millions of young men and women had been compelled under the law to work in factories, often disrupting or ending their education.

Makiguchi did not yield before the authorities and their ideological crackdown even when the movement’s publication was suppressed and the Special Higher Police intensified their surveillance of its meetings. He continued to speak out and as a result, in July 1943, he was detained on charges of violating the Peace Preservation Law and committing acts of blasphemy against State Shinto and the emperor. His disciple Josei Toda and other leaders were arrested with him.

Imprisoned, deprived of fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly and religion, Makiguchi remained unwavering in his convictions to the final moment of his life, passing away while still confined at the age of seventy-three.

Nelson Mandela wrote that a new world will not be realized by passive bystanders, but rather that “honour belongs to those who never forsake the truth even when things seem dark and grim, who try over and over again, who are never discouraged by insults, humiliation and even defeat.”^[16]

If we focus solely on the fact that Makiguchi died in prison, it may seem as though his ideals never came to fruition. However, his vision was kept alive by Toda, who endured the struggles of imprisonment alongside him.

When the Korean War erupted against a backdrop of escalating Cold War tensions, Toda was not preoccupied with questions of international politics, but instead expressed a deeply personal concern:

It is not my purpose to debate matters of victory or defeat in war or the pros and cons of policies and ideologies; rather, I grieve at the thought that war causes countless people to lose their husbands or wives and leaves so many people seeking for lost children or parents. . .^[17]

The people have nowhere to go. Nothing brings more misery than losing all hope for one’s beloved homeland.^[18]

Like Makiguchi, Toda’s thoughts were constantly directed at the plight of the ordinary people.

He maintained the same outlook during the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 as well. While keenly aware of the political history that led to the uprising, his real focus was on the immense suffering of citizens. In this spirit, he declared: “It is my fervent wish to build a world free from such tragedy as quickly as possible.”^[19] His was a firm vow to generate a people’s movement that would have a truly transformative impact.

Toda expressed this conviction in his vision of what he called “global nationalism” (Jpn: chikyu minzokushugi)—creating a world where the people, whatever their nationality, would never find their rights and interests trampled on. He also insisted that nuclear weapons, which deny people their fundamental right to live, are an absolute evil that cannot be tolerated. Seven months before his passing, he made his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons and entrusted the mission of forging a path toward their prohibition and abolition to the youth of my generation.

Chikyu minzokushugi

The term chikyu minzokushugi can be directly translated as “global nationalism” and indicates a belief in the underlying unity of the world’s peoples. It was first used by second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda at a Soka Gakkai Youth Division meeting in 1952. The term corresponds to what today is known as “global citizenship.” Toda’s strong determination to consider people’s happiness as his first principle at all times was the wellspring of his ideal of global citizenship. Based on his experience of the tragedies wrought by Japanese ultranationalism, Toda sought to liberate people from the chains of narrow-minded nationalism, to enable them to transcend the limitations of a vision confined to just one state or people. He called for an awareness that humankind is one, ultimately sharing a common destiny. Toda was convinced that wars among states and peoples would end and a peaceful world society be constructed when people realized this ideal and took full responsibility as members of a single human community.

In its work for the realization of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the SGI’s continued emphasis has been on a human rights-based approach centered on protecting the right to live. This approach draws from the spiritual heritage of the mentors of our movement, Makiguchi and Toda, whose vision of world peace was not limited to efforts to ease interstate tensions or prevent war but whose abiding focus was on resolutely protecting the life and dignity of every person.

It is indeed significant that the TPNW, while a disarmament treaty, is at the same time infused with the spirit of international human rights law. One of its most remarkable aspects is its focus on the human and the suffering endured; the rationale for prohibition, for example, is based on the risk nuclear weapons pose to the “security of all humanity.”^[20]

In addition, the Treaty makes clear that its implementation will not depend solely on the actions of states and explicitly recognizes the important role to be played by civil society.

Looking back, the shift from viewing the individual as the object of concern to the subject of rights within international society was signaled by the UN Charter, which opens with the words “We the peoples,” and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enunciates the rights to be enjoyed by “everyone.”

The Preamble of the TPNW includes reference to the contributions of the hibakusha, who have continued to highlight the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons through their personal testimonies as victims of the atomic bombings. During the negotiating sessions, civil society representatives were seated at the back of the conference rooms. And yet in key ways it was civil society, most prominently the world’s hibakusha—victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of the production and testing of nuclear weapons worldwide—who provided the impetus that led to the Treaty’s adoption. Their devotion, as one nation’s representative put it, “placed them at the forefront of respect.”^[21]

As part of this civil society network, the SGI has been deeply engaged with the Treaty process, collaborating with ICAN to create and organize exhibitions that raise public awareness about the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, for example, and submitting working papers to the negotiating sessions.

The ideals of peace and human rights cannot be achieved in a single leap. The legal and institutional protection of each individual’s rights is established and given substance through the expanding efforts of civil society, drawing on the deepest spiritual sources of law—the vow to let no one else suffer what one has endured.

The power of human rights education

The second theme I would like to discuss relates to the vital role of human rights education in surmounting social divides. In recent years, issues concerning international borders—strengthening immigration control in response to the influx of refugees and migrants, and territorial disputes over resources—have gained prominent attention. At the same time, however, we are also witnessing a rise in global connectivity through infrastructure such as railways, electricity grids and undersea internet cables that cross national boundaries.

There are an estimated 750,000 kilometers of undersea internet cables and 1.2 million kilometers of railway lines worldwide, a total length far greater than the 250,000 kilometers of international borders on our planet. Spending on infrastructure constitutes about US$3 trillion per year, well over the US$1.75 trillion spent annually on defense, and this gap is only widening.^[22]

In light of these facts, Parag Khanna, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore, has proposed revising our view of geopolitics:

The absence of the full panoply of man-made infrastructure on our maps gives the impression that borders trump other means of portraying human geography. But today the reverse is true: Borders matter only where they matter; other lines matter more most of the time.^[23]

Khanna stresses that this global commitment to infrastructure is not limited to regions like the European Union but can also be seen in zones of geopolitical tension, where it provides states involved the opportunity to overcome “the hurdles of both natural and political geography”^[24] and mutually benefit from such an undertaking.

Khanna’s efforts to foreground the role of functional geography while also recognizing the role of political geography in the context of cross-border infrastructure projects is cognate with the perspective expressed by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi in his work The Geography of Human Life. Makiguchi, who stressed that the behavior of human beings and states was profoundly influenced by their understanding of geography, called on them to base their activities on the principle of what he termed “humanitarian competition,” which, he explained, meant to consciously choose to set aside egotistical motives, striving to protect and improve not only one’s own life but also the lives of others.

Even if the contours of national borders are seen as nonnegotiable, the continued growth of these lattices of global infrastructure linking one country to another can engender richer ties between and among them. Such activity, I believe, can be seen as a nascent expression of the kind of humanitarian competition that Makiguchi advocated.

One of the foundations of Makiguchi’s philosophy is the idea that value arises from relationality. This same principle can be applied to the challenge of human rights, where it points to the importance of expanding networks of connection that bring people and things together across difference.

Through expanding his network of individual connection, for example with his white nurse and guards, Nelson Mandela strengthened his conviction in the humane possibilities of all people, which became the foundation for his political activities following his release. In this way, he offers an example of how relationships can be transformative, giving rise to positive value despite deep differences.

Shakyamuni, who expounded the dignity of all people, regularly warned his disciples against the danger of allowing our language to cast things in a fixed or immutable light. He admonished them that it is not by birth but through one’s actions that one becomes a brahman,^[25] that is, a person worthy of the highest respect. Put differently, a person’s worth should never be determined by the language with which they are described.

The teachings of Buddhism include the phrase “loathing, rejecting and severing the other nine realms.”^[26] This is used to describe and critique the worldview that separates Buddhas from human beings and expounds that in order to attain the highest, most sublime state of life (Buddhahood), one must first loathe, reject and cut oneself off from all other life states (the nine worlds).

The Ten Worlds

Buddhism identifies Ten Worlds—ten states or conditions of life that we experience within our lives, moving from one to another at any moment according to our interactions with our environment and those around us.

The Ten Worlds are the worlds of hell, hungry spirits, animals, asuras, human beings, heavenly beings, voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, bodhisattvas and Buddhas. In some Buddhist teachings, the “nine realms”—the worlds other than Buddhahood, are considered to be fundamentally separate from the Buddha state. This is not the view taken in Nichiren Buddhism, which teaches that all ten worlds, or realms, are present in every human being.

The worlds of voice-hearers and cause-awakened ones are sometimes known as the “two vehicles”; in many Buddhist teachings people in these life states are seen as being cut off by their arrogant attachment from the ultimate enlightenment of Buddhahood. However, the Lotus Sutra that Nichiren embraced teaches that even individuals of the two vehicles can attain Buddhahood.

With this in mind, Nichiren writes:

The doctrine that those of the two vehicles could never attain Buddhahood was not a source of lamentation for those of the two vehicles alone. We understand now that it was a sorrow to ourselves as well!^[27]

This is a statement of how denying the dignity and potentialities of a specific person or group not only assaults their dignity but also undermines the basis for our own. While this represents a perhaps specifically Buddhist understanding of the nature of life, it also points to a reality— the dangers inherent in putting up barriers to anyone’s experience of human dignity—that must be taken into account in considering today’s human rights challenges.

Throughout the world, we see disturbing examples of xenophobia in which individuals or groups are singled out as the objects of loathing, avoidance and isolation. Two antidiscrimination resolutions were adopted during regular sessions of the UN Human Rights Council last year: one on combating intolerance based on a person’s religion or belief, another on starting negotiations on the additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted at the General Assembly in 2016 also warned: “Demonizing refugees or migrants offends profoundly against the values of dignity and equality for every human being, to which we have committed ourselves.”^[28]

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is a United Nations convention that was adopted and opened for signature on December 21, 1965, and entered into force on January 4, 1969. The Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races. In addition, it also requires its parties to outlaw hate speech and criminalize membership in racist organizations. The adoption of the Convention was prompted by incidents of anti-Semitism around the world, which led the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution condemning all manifestations and practices of racial, religious and national hatred as violations of the United Nations Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On March 24, 2017, the Human Rights Council resolved to commence negotiations on the draft additional protocol to the Convention criminalizing acts of a racist and xenophobic nature. As of January 2018, there are 179 states parties to the Convention.

To a certain degree, it is only natural to feel a sense of attachment to a group composed of people with whom one shares common attributes. It is likewise perhaps to be expected that we should feel some apprehension at welcoming people of different national origins into the community we call home.

However, we must recognize how such feelings can lead to exclusionist behavior and human rights violations as feelings of enmity and hostility are externalized in hate speech and other forms of discrimination.

While increasing our capacity to connect with others, the rise of a postindustrial information society in recent years has also led to a phenomenon where people only associate with those who share the same frame of reference. Among the causes for what is known as the “filter bubble” are data searches that return information already attuned to the user’s preferences, thus obscuring other sources. Gradually, without realizing, one is enveloped in an isolating membrane of preselected information.

What is troubling about this phenomenon is the degree to which it can impact a person’s understanding of social issues. Even if one actively seeks out information on an issue of particular concern, the content encountered on websites and social media feeds will end up bearing a close resemblance to the views one already holds. In this way, from the outset one is distanced from differing opinions, which never become the object of careful consideration.

Internet activist Eli Pariser cautions: “In an age when shared information is the bedrock of shared experience, the filter bubble is a centrifugal force, pulling us apart.”^[29] The ability to make good decisions depends on situational awareness and context, and yet, he writes, “In the filter bubble, you don’t get 360 degrees—and you might not get more than one,”^[30] warning us of the adverse effects of our restricted outlooks.

Research on diversity has shown how people who are members of the dominant group within a society are often unaware that they enjoy freedom from discrimination. Their lack of awareness can compound the claustrophobic social atmosphere experienced by members of minorities. I will never forget when Rosa Parks (1913–2005), the mother of the American civil rights movement, described to me during our meeting in January 1993 her personal experience under a system of legal racism that caused immense suffering to countless individuals.

Until African Americans found the means to give the anguish they felt tangible, visible form, it remained largely unnoticed by white American society. The historic bus boycott movement sparked by Mrs. Parks’ unambiguous refusal to accept injustice generated a current of change precisely because it communicated that anguish so widely and effectively.

Learning to live together

For its part, Japanese society is rife with discrimination against Chinese, Koreans and the citizens of other Asian countries.

In the course of my efforts to promote exchange with Japan’s neighbors and foster mutual understanding and trust, I became friends with former South Korean prime minister Lee Soo-sung, whose father served as a judge during Japan’s colonial occupation of the Korean Peninsula (1910–45). The prime minister’s father continued to report to work in traditional Korean garb and refused to use the Japanese language. His subsequent refusal to comply with a directive compelling Korean citizens to adopt Japanese names cost him his legal career. The Japanese authorities dismissed him from his post and prevented him from practicing law.

Over the years, I have often spoken with the youth of Japan about the bitter lessons of history. In doing this, I have been impelled by the urgent need to transmit to the future accounts, such as that of former prime minister Lee, of our nation’s inhumane treatment of its neighbors before and during the war and the deep pain that it has caused.

During a commemorative lecture at Soka University in October 2017, the former prime minister told the students:

Even the most talented and accomplished person should never look down on others. Likewise, members of one ethnic group must never behave arrogantly toward those of another.

I sincerely hope the younger generation will take these words to heart in order to uproot the prejudice and discrimination that still pervade Japanese society.

Many members of dominant social groups may view discrimination as something unrelated to their lives, but for members of marginalized groups it is the undeniable reality of daily life. Human rights education calls attention to such unconscious predispositions, which fuel discrimination; in this way, it offers people the opportunity to reflect on their everyday behavior. In our work to promote human rights education, the SGI has placed emphasis on the kind of empowerment and awareness raising that can restore dignity to all people and build a pluralist and inclusive society.

The SGI supported the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995–2004). We called for the adoption of a follow-up international framework and have engaged in activities in support of the World Programme for Human Rights Education that began in 2005. Partnering with other civil society organizations, we supported the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training in 2011 and have subsequently worked to develop a civil society network for human rights education. The SGI also organized showings of a film it coproduced, A Path to Dignity: The Power of Human Rights Education, and is currently promoting international showings of its newest exhibition “Transforming Lives: The Power of Human Rights Education,” which debuted at the UN European Headquarters in Geneva in March 2017.

A case study portrayed in both the film and exhibition details how a human rights training program conducted with the Victoria Police in Australia helped to dissipate societal tensions. After an investigation brought to light abusive behavior by the Victoria Police toward members of the LGBT community, the police department adopted a human rights training program that further resulted in improved treatment for members of migrant communities.

As a result of the program, police staff were able to clarify their role within the framework of human rights and the need to avoid conflating the person, who must always be protected, and their behavior, which if illegal must be managed.

This change in police attitudes also brought about a shift within immigrant communities. One immigrant youth explained that he always felt uneasy whenever approached by the police. One day, a police officer invited him to learn about a program on youth leadership. After participating in the program, the young person’s attitude toward the police changed as he began to realize that both he and the officer were ordinary people, the only difference being that one of them wore a uniform.

In this way, a human rights training program not only led to a change in police attitudes toward members of the community but also to a gradual decline in migrants’ ill-feelings toward them and the overall strengthening of trust between local residents and the police.^[31]

This case study illustrates that the real significance of human rights education and training programs lies far beyond acquiring specific knowledge or a certain set of skills—it lies in reviving our desire to perceive the common humanity in those who are different from us and in weaving the bonds of a shared social life.

The World Programme for Human Rights Education has focused on different target audiences every five years and has seen three phases thus far. The first (2005–09) focused on human rights education in the primary and secondary school systems; the second (2010–14) highlighted higher education and human rights training for teachers and educators, civil servants, law enforcement officials and military personnel; and the current third phase (2015–19) focuses on media professionals and journalists. I would like to propose that young people be the focus of the fourth phase, slated to begin in 2020.

While they are particularly vulnerable to the effects of the filter bubble in this digital age, youth also have a special aptitude for sharing what they have learned about human rights with others in their lives, making them a powerful force for expanding the circle of those committed to overcoming discrimination and prejudice. The core group of individuals leading ICAN were young people in their twenties and thirties. If members of the younger generation can shape the movement for human rights promotion in a similar way, we can surely shift the global current from one of division and conflict to one of coexistence.

Those who remain trapped in the echo chambers of the filter bubble or within unconsciously constructed walls fail to see the brilliant glow of humanity inherent in others. The humane light they too possess will also remain hidden, unable to reach those around them. Through its power to remove the barriers between self and other that arise from differences in identity and social standing, human rights education has the ability to expand opportunities for that humane light to shine most resplendently, both for ourselves and for others.

Mahayana Buddhism puts forth the analogy of Indra’s net, an enormous net suspended above the palace of the Buddhist deity Indra with brilliant jewels attached to each of its knots. Each jewel not only exudes its own brilliance but contains and reflects the image of all the other jewels in the net, which sparkles in the magnificence of its totality. Indra’s net mirrors the kind of ideal society that can be realized through human rights education.

The pluralist and inclusive society called for in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training finds its firm basis in the process of weaving multiple bonds of connection that will ensure we each shine with, and are illuminated by, the light of humanity.

A culture of human rights woven of shared joy

The third theme is that the bonds that form a culture of human rights are woven through the experience of joy shared with others.

On December 10, 2017, a campaign marking the seventieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was launched at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, the site where the Declaration came into being on that date in 1948. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein stated: “We must take a robust and determined stand: by resolutely supporting the human rights of others, we also stand up for our own rights and those of generations to come.”^[32]

The awareness underlying his call is evident in other UN campaigns as well. It can be seen in TOGETHER, the UN campaign dedicated to improving the lives of refugees and migrants, and in the activities carried out by the HeForShe UN Women Solidarity Movement for Gender Equality. As these campaign names suggest, expanding intersectional solidarity is critical to building an authentic human rights culture—something intrinsically different from the kind of passive tolerance in which one has no real understanding of the hardships experienced by others.

Passive tolerance is far removed from coexistence in the truest sense. There is a danger that people’s actions will remain superficial and minimal—limited to acts such as permitting others to live in the same neighborhood or complying with the relevant laws and rules. Such passive tolerance falls short of leading people to actively recognize the common humanity in those they perceive as different, making it an ineffective counter to exclusionist impulses in times of heightened social tensions. This has impelled a fresh approach, led by the UN, to create a human rights culture based on jointly working to transform public awareness toward a society where all can live in dignity.

In Buddhism, we find the phrase: “Authentic joy is that which is shared by oneself and others.”^[33] Based on this principle, I believe that the wellspring for creating a society of mutually enriching coexistence can be found in a way of life where we experience joy in seeing one another’s dignity radiate its full potential.

The Lotus Sutra depicts a series of scenes in which Shakyamuni’s disciples, moved upon hearing his teaching of the dignity of life, one by one begin to voice their vow to live by this principle. This sets off a chain reaction of jubilation—described in such phrases as “their hearts were filled with great rejoicing”^[34] and “their minds danced with joy”^[35]—by which all deepen their sense of the ultimate value and dignity of life.

The people’s movement of the SGI is powered by this same sense of mutually shared joy. It arises from efforts to support each person across differences, so they may continue advancing as they take on life’s challenges. It flows from witnessing friends shine with dignity as they persevere in the face of difficulty, from celebrating another’s growth and progress as though it were our own. This sharing and mutual savoring of joy has been the wellspring of our movement.

This concept of shared joy brings to mind the historian Dr. Vincent Harding (1931–2014), who told me of his experience participating in the American civil rights movement. Dr. Harding’s visit as a graduate student to the home of Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–68) was decisive in leading to his lifetime commitment to the cause.

This was during a time in the US when the bus boycott had sparked a massive groundswell of voices calling for an end to institutional racism. Tensions ran high, especially in Southern states, as an African American university student was barred from attending classes and black students continued to be refused entry into high school.

Dr. Harding, who lived in Chicago at the time, was exploring the possibility of creating an inclusive church community of black and white Christians. In the course of their work, his group of friends began to ask themselves:

What would we do if we were living in the South, where it is illegal and dangerous for blacks and whites to live and work together as sisters and brothers? Would we still try to live as we believe and honor our relationships with one another, even if we might get into serious trouble?^[36]

Following this discussion, five friends—two black and three white—decided to test the proposition by traveling together to the South. They drove an old station wagon, making their first stop in Arkansas, where they visited the home of central figures in the movement to help students who had been refused entry into a newly integrated high school. Here, they witnessed firsthand the horrific threats directed at these leaders.

Next, they traveled through Mississippi—where violence against those who challenged the practices of segregation and white supremacy continued unabated—arriving in Alabama where Dr. King was recuperating at his home in Montgomery from a stab wound he had received in a recent attack. Despite this, Coretta Scott King (1927–2006), Dr. King’s wife, warmly welcomed the group to their home, where they were able to meet Dr. King.

Recalling the encounter, Dr. Harding told me:

During that first Montgomery encounter, he [Dr. King] was impressed that the five of us—two blacks and three whites—were traveling together as brothers. . .

One of his major goals was not simply to establish legal rights for black people but to go beyond that to create what he termed the “beloved community” in which all people could rediscover a sense of our fundamental connectedness as human beings.^[37]

It goes without saying that Dr. King regarded the adoption of new laws that would pave the way for an equal and just society as a paramount struggle that had to be won: Legal frameworks like civil rights legislation create the groundwork for countering discrimination and oppression prevalent in society and are thus absolutely necessary. And yet Dr. King set his sights even higher—he sought to completely root out prejudice and resentment and aim for what Dr. Harding described as “a new America—an America where blacks and whites, as well as people of all colors, could come together to find common ground for the common good.”^[38]

In August 1963, five years after Dr. Harding’s encounter with Dr. King, rising momentum in the civil rights movement culminated in the March on Washington, which drew masses of people from all races and backgrounds. In a record of that day’s events that appears in his autobiography, Dr. King encapsulates the sentiments of the participants as follows:

Among the nearly 250,000 people who journeyed that day to the capital, there were many dignitaries and many celebrities, but the stirring emotion came from the mass of ordinary people who stood in majestic dignity as witnesses to their single-minded determination to achieve democracy in their time.^[39]

I can’t help but feel that the sentiment shared among those present was one of indivisible joy at witnessing their collective desire for freedom and equality bring about one change after another in society. Their joy was not merely the product of a single day’s journey to Washington but arose from a long and arduous process, a steady accumulation of hard-fought battles leading up to that day.

The March on Washington was not only historic in terms of the solidarity shown by people of all backgrounds, including many whites, but, as Dr. King noted, it also brought the country’s three major religious faiths closer than any other issue in the nation’s peacetime history.^[40]

In a similar way, the SGI’s efforts in pursuit of nuclear abolition, including our recent work with various faith-based organizations in drafting and issuing joint statements, arise from a single-minded determination to create a groundswell of change through the solidarity of ordinary citizens. The starting point for this initiative was an interfaith symposium held in Washington DC in April 2014, where representatives of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist traditions came together to debate the nuclear weapons issue, producing a joint statement signed by people from fourteen different faithbased organizations.

Since then, this network of faith communities has continued to raise a shared voice for nuclear abolition, issuing eight joint statements at important junctures, including the 2014 Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons,^[41] the 2015 NPT Review Conference,^[42] the second session of the 2016 United Nations Open-ended Working Group^[43] and the negotiating sessions that produced the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons held in 2017.^[44]

These bonds of solidarity are founded not only in a sense of common mission across religious traditions; they also manifest a profound joy in being able to advance together for the resolution of crucial human challenges.

In November 2017, the SGI participated in the international symposium “Perspectives for a World Free from Nuclear Weapons and for Integral Disarmament” held at the Vatican. During an audience with conference participants, Pope Francis not only denounced the use of nuclear weapons but also their possession. Declaring that they create a false sense of security, he said that only an ethics of solidarity could serve as the true foundation for peaceful coexistence. He also recognized the importance of what he termed a “healthy realism” of the kind displayed by the many states that responded to the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons through the negotiations that produced the TPNW.^[45] I fully concur with these views.

It was fifty years ago, one month after the assassination of Dr. King, that I made my first public statement urging international consensus on prohibiting nuclear weapons. To this day, I cannot forget the passage from his final address in which he posed the question of which age he would choose to live in from the entire panorama of human history. While noting the appeal of such eras as the Renaissance or the moment Abraham Lincoln (1809–65) signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he explained that the present was the moment in history he would choose:

Now that’s a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick; trouble is in the land, confusion all around. That’s a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. . .

Another reason that I’m happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history. Survival demands that we grapple with them.^[46]

We must heed Dr. King’s words. They are most relevant now, as momentum toward a culture of human rights is building through the collaborative efforts of the UN and civil society and as the movement to realize the entry into force of the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons—which will protect the world’s people’s right to live—enters its crucial phase.

What stands before us is an undertaking that will be chronicled in the annals of human history. The challenge of creating the new reality of a global society where all may live in peace and dignity is not beyond our reach. And it is my firm belief that the solidarity of ordinary people will be the driving force for its realization.

Lessons on averting nuclear war

Continuing, I would like to make a number of specific proposals regarding the resolution of global issues from the perspective of protecting the life and dignity of each individual.

The nuclear weapons issue is the first thematic area about which I would like to make concrete proposals.

In July 2017, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which comprehensively prohibits all phases of nuclear weapons—from their development, production and possession to using or threatening to use them—was adopted at the UN with the assent of 122 nations.

When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion in 1996 that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law, it was unable to render judgment regarding the extreme case in which the very survival of a state was at stake. The TPNW is a blanket prohibition recognizing no exceptions, including this one.

In December 2017, a second signing ceremony for the TPNW was held at the UN, timed to coincide with the ceremony at which the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, demonstrating continuing efforts to achieve the Treaty’s entry into force. On the other hand, however, there is a persistent perception within the nuclear-weapon and nucleardependent states that the Treaty’s approach is unrealistic.

There are, in fact, examples of countries which, having possessed nuclear weapons, then chose the path of denuclearization. South Africa is one such example; it began dismantling its nuclear weapons in 1990, the year after President F. W. de Klerk made a speech in parliament in which he undertook to end the apartheid system of white minority rule. This was followed by South Africa’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1991 and by the signing of the Treaty of Pelindaba, which declared the African continent a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ), in 1996.

The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) establishing the world’s first NWFZ states in its preamble that it seeks not only to banish the scourge of a nuclear war but also to achieve “the consolidation of a permanent peace based on equal rights”^[47] for all. In other words, it came into being through the intertwined pursuit of denuclearization and human rights.

The ideal of international human rights law is the quest to protect the life and dignity of each individual in all national settings, a quest in which the continued pursuit of nuclear arms has no place.

As tensions surrounding North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program demonstrate, there is real concern within the international community that nuclear weapons once more represent a mounting threat and source of intimidation. Another worrying development in recent years has been the ongoing diplomatic dispute between the United States and Russia over possible violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

At the core of nuclear deterrence policy is the threat of their use. In giving deeper consideration to the problems that inhere in this approach, I am reminded of the philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906–75) who identified “sovereignty” as an expression of the kind of free will that seeks to prevail over others. Arendt contrasted this kind of freedom with that of ancient Greece where freedom was something embodied in interactions with others, as words and actions imbued with a kind of “virtuosity.” According to Arendt, this understanding of freedom has, since the start of the modern era, been supplanted by a freedom of choice rooted in the individual will—a free will from which acknowledgement of the existence of others is absent:

Because of the philosophic shift from action to will-power, from freedom as a state of being manifest in action to the liberum arbitrium [free will], the ideal of freedom ceased to be virtuosity in the sense we mentioned before and became sovereignty, the ideal of a free will, independent from others and eventually prevailing against them.^[48]

The most extreme example of a sovereignty that seeks to prevail over others is seen in states that pursue their security objectives through the possession of nuclear weapons and the threat of the catastrophic destruction they can wreak.

In one sense, the history of international law can be seen as the repeated effort to clarify the lines that sovereign states must not cross and to establish these limits as shared norms. In On the Law of War and Peace, Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), distraught at the wars that convulsed Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, called for recognition of the continued humanity of those we consider to be enemies and of their right to have promises made to them kept.^[49]

In the nineteenth century, this idea took the form of prohibitions on certain weapons and acts in time of war and, in the twentieth century, in the wake of two world wars, led to the prohibition of the use or threat of use of military force in international relations by the UN Charter. To date, treaties banning biological and chemical weapons and, more recently, landmines and cluster munitions have made clear that these are weapons whose use is impermissible under any circumstances. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of countries that continue to desire their possession.

Last year marked the twentieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention. At present, 192 states are parties to the convention, and approximately 90 percent of the world’s stockpiles of chemical weapons have been destroyed.^[50] Once an international norm has been clearly established, it carries a weight that shapes not only the behaviors of individual states but the course of the world as a whole.

Beatrice Fihn, the Executive Director of ICAN, stressed this point in her speech at the Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony:

No nation today boasts of being a chemical weapon state.

No nation argues that it is acceptable, in extreme circumstances, to use sarin nerve agent.

No nation proclaims the right to unleash on its enemy the plague or polio.

That is because international norms have been set, perceptions have been changed.^[51]

Through the adoption of the TPNW, nuclear weapons have been clearly defined as weapons whose use is impermissible under any circumstances.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned: “Global tensions are rising, sabres have been rattled and dangerous words spoken about the use of nuclear weapons.”^[52] It is precisely because we are living in a time of deepening nuclear chaos that we must earnestly interrogate the assumptions underlying nuclear deterrence policy.

Here, I would like to consider some of the lessons of the Cold War, a time of seemingly ceaseless exchanges of “dangerous words” regarding nuclear weapons and their possible use. A recent TV documentary^[53] explored the visit to the United States of Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971), the first by a Soviet Premier. The visit took place in September 1959, two years after the successful launch of the Sputnik satellite, which followed in the wake of the test launch of a Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile.

While the image of Khrushchev as a dangerous warmonger had taken hold among the American public, resulting in him facing political criticism wherever he went, it was nevertheless clear that he took real pleasure in his interactions with ordinary American citizens.

Despite differences in their respective stances, Khrushchev was able to establish a certain degree of trust between the Soviet Union and the American government. The following year, however, an American U2 spy plane was shot down in Soviet airspace, and relations again took a turn for the worse. The Berlin Crisis followed in 1961, and relations reached their nadir during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where President John F. Kennedy (1917–63) and Premier Khrushchev exercised restraint at the last moment, preventing the worst imaginable outcome.

The documentary ends by imagining Khrushchev’s inner state of mind and posing the poignant question: While there were, of course, reasons that compelled Khrushchev, as a politician, to compromise, can we not imagine that the fond memory of his fleeting encounters with American citizens played a part in preventing him from stepping over the line into nuclear war?

While this question is, of course, speculative, an awareness of the reality that it is the great mass of ordinary citizens who would suffer and die in a nuclear attack was something that I recognized in Khrushchev’s successor Alexei N. Kosygin (1904–80) when I met him some years later, in September 1974.

At the time, the Soviet Union’s relations with both the United States and China were increasingly tense. Determined to do everything in my power to help prevent nuclear war, I shared with Premier Kosygin what I had witnessed when I traveled to China three months earlier, where Chinese citizens were busily building shelters against the eventuality of a Soviet attack. I had also seen and been deeply distressed by the sight of junior high school students in Beijing digging an underground shelter in their schoolyard.

I conveyed the dread that I had sensed among the Chinese people and asked the Premier if the Soviet Union intended to launch an attack on China. He responded firmly that the Soviet Union had no intention of attacking or isolating China. I carried this message with me when I traveled to China again later that year. This experience drove home for me how important it is for leaders of the nuclearweapon states to always keep in mind the masses of people—including children—who live under the threat of nuclear weapons.

In a similar vein, we have recent testimony of the shock felt by US President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004) in 1982 as he watched a computer simulation of a military exercise in which cities destroyed by a Soviet nuclear attack were displayed as red dots on a map of the United States. With each passing moment, the number of these dots increased until, “before the President could sip his coffee, the map was a sea of red.”^[54] Reagan is said to have stood gripping his coffee mug, transfixed by this sight.

This must have been in President Reagan’s consciousness as he later pursued dialogue with the Soviet Union, eventually holding a series of summit meetings with General-Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom he concluded the INF Treaty.

Bringing these realities to light was the objective of the exhibition “Everything You Treasure—For a World Free From Nuclear Weapons” developed by the SGI in collaboration with ICAN. The opening panels of the exhibition invite viewers to consider what they treasure, the things that are important to them. The answer to that question will, of course, be different for each person. But we are convinced that confronting the reality that the use of nuclear weapons would destroy everything each of us treasures is essential to building the popular solidarity needed to bring the era of nuclear weapons to an end.

As seen in the Cuban Missile Crisis, where mutual provocations escalated to just short of the point of no return, there is no way of knowing when the “balance of terror” might break down as a result of miscalculation or mistaken assumption. The leaders of the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states need to be clearly aware of the ultimately precarious nature of this balance.

In 2002, when tensions between India and Pakistan were running high, US diplomatic efforts played a key role in enabling the two parties to exercise restraint. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was mediating between the two sides, urged the Pakistani president to remember that using nuclear weapons is not an option. He pressed:

You want to be the country or the leader who, for the first time since August of 1945, has used these weapons? Go look at the pictures again, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!^[55]

The Pakistani side was persuaded by this argument, as was the Indian side, making it possible to defuse the crisis.

I think that these lessons of history show that the factors preventing nuclear war to date have not necessarily been the logic of deterrence based on the balance of terror, but actually something else entirely.

One element is the effort not to close off, but to maintain lines of communication between countries in conflict. Another is to keep vividly in mind the scale of human suffering—demonstrated by the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—that any use of nuclear weapons would wreak on millions of ordinary citizens.

“That no one suffer what we endured”

In April–May this year, the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT Review Conference will meet, and in May, the UN will host a High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament. These will be the first venues for debate and deliberation that will include both the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states to be organized since the adoption of the TPNW. I strongly urge all participants to engage in constructive debate toward the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons. I hope that world leaders will take the opportunity to commit to steps that their governments can take in the field of nuclear disarmament in advance of the NPT Review Conference. This would also be a prime opportunity to make public which among the seven acts prohibited by the TPNW they could consider committing to.

Seven Acts Prohibited by the TPNW

Under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the state parties undertake never to:

(a) Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(b) Transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(c) Receive the transfer of or control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices directly or indirectly;
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(e) Assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;
(g) Allow any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or at any place under its jurisdiction or control.

The prohibition on the transfer of nuclear weapons, for example, or against assisting other states in acquiring nuclear weapons are among those to which the nuclear-weapon states could agree within the context of the NPT. Likewise, for the nuclear-dependent states, it should certainly be possible to consider the prohibition on using or threating to use nuclear weapons and against assisting, encouraging or inducing such acts in light of their respective security policies.

The efficacy of international law is enhanced by the mutual complementarity of so-called “hard law” such as treaties and “soft law” in forms such as UN General Assembly resolutions and international declarations. In the field of disarmament, there is the example of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT), in which states that have not yet ratified the Treaty enter into separate agreements to cooperate with the international monitoring system. In the case of the TPNW, in parallel with efforts to gain further signatories and ratifications, it would be useful to generate a body of voluntary commitments by nonparties to the Treaty to abide by specific prohibitions, setting these forth in declarations of national policy.

We must remember that the TPNW did not arise in isolation from the NPT. It was, after all, the 2010 NPT Review Conference that expressed—with the support of both the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states—a renewed awareness of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons use, and it was this awareness that accelerated momentum for a prohibition treaty.^[56] The TPNW, for its part, gives concrete form to the nuclear disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT and promotes their good-faith fulfillment.

In November 2017, the Toda Peace Institute, which I founded in recognition of my mentor’s legacy, organized an international conference in London on the theme of cooperative security. The conference deliberated the challenges of advancing nuclear disarmament, which has long been stalled. It also considered ways in which the NPT and the TPNW can be complementary. A further conference to be held in Tokyo in February will bring together specialists from Japan, South Korea, the United States and China to explore ways of breaking the current impasse surrounding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and promoting peace and security in Northeast Asia.

Against the backdrop of a lack of progress in nuclear arms reduction, ongoing modernization of nuclear arsenals and critical proliferation challenges, now is the time to seek synergies between strengthening the foundations of the NPT and the prohibition norm clearly enunciated by the TPNW. Such synergies can create the path to a future in which the tragedy of nuclear weapons use will never be repeated.

In this regard, I earnestly hope that Japan, as the only country to have experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, will take the lead in enhancing conditions for progress in nuclear disarmament toward the 2020 NPT Review Conference. Japan should use the opportunity of May’s High-Level Conference to stand at the forefront of nuclear-dependent states in declaring its readiness to consider becoming a party to the TPNW.

To paraphrase the words of Colin Powell: Is it Japan’s intention to become a country that countenances the possibility of nuclear weapons being used again, for the first time since August of 1945? Having experienced the full horror of nuclear weapons, Japan cannot turn away from its moral responsibility.

The TPNW is imbued with the heartfelt desire of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that no country be targeted for nuclear attack and that no country ever make the decision to launch a nuclear strike. Hibakusha Setsuko Thurlow described her feelings on the adoption of the Treaty as follows: “It has also convinced us that our continued discussion of our experiences, which are painful to remember, is the right thing to do and will never be in vain.”^[57]

Last year, at the first preparatory committee meeting for the 2020 NPT Review Conference, the representative of Japan stressed: “The recognition of the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons underpins all approaches towards a world free of nuclear weapons.”^[58] Japan’s stance on this issue must always be grounded in the spirit the hibakusha have embodied—that no one else ever experience the suffering they have endured.

Another proposal I would like to make in support of the universalization of the TPNW regards the mobilization of the growing solidarity of civil society.

The significance of the Treaty is found in its comprehensive outlawing of all aspects of nuclear weapons. But of equal or even greater note is the fact that it incorporates the role and participation of civil society as vital protagonists supporting its implementation, not limiting this to states and international organizations. The Treaty stipulates that, in addition to states that have yet to join, civil society will be invited to participate as observers in the biannual conference of the parties and the review conferences that are to be held every six years.

This is a recognition of the importance of the role played by the world’s hibakusha in particular and civil society as a whole in the adoption of the Treaty. At the same time, it is evidence that the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons is indeed a shared global undertaking that requires the participation of all countries, international organizations and civil society.

The Preamble of the Treaty stresses the importance of peace and disarmament education. This was a point that the SGI repeatedly stressed in civil society statements to the negotiating conference as well as in working papers submitted to the conference.^[59] We are convinced that peace and disarmament education can ensure the intergenerational heritage of knowledge of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons. Such knowledge and the education that promotes it build the foundation for the active implementation of the Treaty by all countries.

To support efforts to realize the early entry into force and universalization of the TPNW, the SGI will, this year, launch the second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition. This will build on the work of the first Decade, which I suggested in a proposal on reinvigorating the UN released in August 2006. The Decade began in September 2007, commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda’s declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

During this first Decade, in order to convey the horrors of nuclear weapons and war, the SGI, in collaboration with ICAN, produced a five-language DVD Testimonies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Women Speak Out for Peace. The “Everything You Treasure” exhibition has been held in eighty-one cities in nineteen countries. Also, following the gathering by the SGI of 2.27 million signatures calling for a nuclear weapons convention presented to the NPT Review Conference in 2010, we collaborated in gathering 5.12 million signatures in 2014 for the Nuclear Zero campaign.

The SGI also worked with a number of organizations in holding the International Youth Summit for Nuclear Abolition in Hiroshima in August 2015. We participated in the international conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons as well as various meetings and negotiating sessions held under UN auspices in order to ensure that the voices and concerns of civil society are represented.

Through such activities, the SGI has worked to ensure that the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons remains central to the disarmament discourse. We have called for negotiations on a legally binding treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons in all their phases and aspects, rooted in the desire of ordinary citizens for a world free from nuclear weapons.

Where the first People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition was focused on realizing a legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons, the second will feature an increased focus on peace and disarmament education in the effort to universalize the TPNW and effect real-world transformations based on it. This means channeling the voices of the world’s people in support of the Treaty and promoting the concrete processes that will advance the cause of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Mayors for Peace now embraces more than 7,500 cities in 162 countries and territories, demonstrating the extent of voices calling for a world without nuclear weapons including, importantly, in the nuclear-weapon and nucleardependent states. Further, the ICAN coalition of civil society organizations now comprises 468 organizations worldwide.

Mayors for Peace

Mayors for Peace is an international organization of cities across the world that are dedicated to the promotion of peace. It was established by then Mayor of Hiroshima Takeshi Araki on June 24, 1982, at the Second UN Special Session on Disarmament held at UN Headquarters in New York. Mayor Araki’s proposal grew out of abhorrence at the deaths of some 140,000 people in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The organization to which his proposal gave birth offered cities a way to transcend national borders and work together to press for nuclear abolition. In the years since the organization’s formation, subsequent mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have continued to call on municipal leaders around the world to support the Mayors for Peace vision. At present, there are 7,536 signatory cities in 162 countries and territories around the world.

In order to promote the universality of the TPNW, I think it is important, in addition to civil society efforts to encourage the participation of more states, that the global scale of support for the Treaty be made continuously visible. It could be effective, for example, to collaborate with ICAN, Mayors for Peace and others to create a world map in which the municipalities supporting the Treaty are displayed in blue, the color of the UN, and to widely publicize civil society voices in support of the Treaty and communicate these voices to the venues where UN or other disarmament conferences are being held.

Likewise, efforts should be made to build an ever-broader constituency in favor of the Treaty, with a focus on, among others scientific and faith communities, women and youth. Civil society should continue to urge states to participate in the Treaty and, following its entry into force, encourage states not yet parties to the Treaty to attend the meetings of the states parties and review conferences in an observer capacity.

Earlier, I referred to a simulated military exercise conducted in the midst of the Cold War in which a map of the world was turned an apocalyptic red. We, the world’s people, can no longer tolerate a state of affairs in which the horrors of a nuclear exchange remain a possibility. The weight of this global popular will needs to be demonstrated clearly in order to move the world as a whole in the direction of denuclearization.

In her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, Setsuko Thurlow stated:

When I was a 13-year-old girl, trapped in the smouldering rubble, I kept pushing. I kept moving toward the light. And I survived. Our light now is the ban treaty. . .

No matter what obstacles we face, we will keep moving and keep pushing and keep sharing this light with others. This is our passion and commitment for our one precious world to survive.^[60]

From the foundation of the global network that has been built by ICAN, Mayors for Peace and others, we need to make visible the global popular will for nuclear weapons abolition. The weight of this popular will can eventually bring about a change in policy by the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states and finally bring the era of nuclear weapons to an end. That is my belief and heartfelt conviction.

Educational access for migrant children

The second thematic area I would like to address is human rights. Here, the first proposal I would like to make regards improving conditions for refugee and migrant children.

Currently, work is underway at the UN toward the adoption of two agreements by the end of 2018: a global compact for migration and one for refugees. I would like to urge that human rights be identified as the thread that connects each of the individual elements in these compacts, and that the international community make the securing of educational opportunities for refugee and migrant children a priority objective and shared commitment.

There are currently 65.6 million forcibly displaced persons in the world, and over half of the world’s refugees are children under the age of eighteen.^[61] Likewise, many immigrant children suffer adverse treatment as a result of prejudice and discrimination.

Migrant children who have become separated from their parent or guardian face particularly grave circumstances. According to a 2017 UNICEF report covering the years 2015 and 2016, their number has increased nearly fivefold since 2010, to more than 300,000 unaccompanied and separated children in eighty countries.^[62]

In line with the title of the UNICEF report, “A child is a child,” the rights and dignity of all children must be equally protected regardless of their status as refugees or migrants. This is the guiding principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The importance of improving conditions for children was repeatedly noted in the New York Declaration that was adopted at the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants in 2016. It states, “We will protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all refugee and migrant children, regardless of their status, and giving primary consideration at all times to the best interests of the child.”^[63] The Declaration also expresses a determination to “ensure that all children are receiving education within a few months of arrival”^[64] in the receiving countries.

To give concrete form to this determination, the two global compacts should include commitments by states to enact policies that ensure all children have access to education. Moreover, frameworks should be established whereby states that accept only a small number of refugees and migrants provide various forms of support to those that receive refugees in larger numbers.

As stressed in the New York Declaration, access to education not only offers basic protection to children in adverse circumstances but can also serve to instill hope for the future among members of the younger generation.

Yusra Mardini, a Syrian refugee and athlete appointed as a Goodwill Ambassador by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2017, has stated: “With food for our stomachs, refugees can survive. But only if they are given food for the soul will they be able to thrive.”^[65]

The boat carrying Yusra and other refugees broke down between Turkey and the Greek island of Lesbos during the long flight from her war-torn homeland. She and her sister jumped into the ocean to pull the boat to safety, swimming for hours and risking their own lives to save those of the other twenty passengers. After eventually arriving in Germany, she trained as a swimmer, becoming a member of the first-ever Refugee Olympic Team in the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics. She is now a full-time student in Germany and continues to train in hopes of competing in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

Yusra insists: “Refugees are just normal people living through traumatic and devastating circumstances, who are capable of extraordinary things if only given a chance.”^[66]

More than anything, I believe it is education that will create that chance.

It is also my earnest hope that the educational experience that is so vital to the future of refugee children will extend to the children studying with them in host communities, fostering a robust spirit of coexistence.

Here, the experience of ICAN Executive Director Beatrice Fihn, reflecting on her childhood in Sweden, is relevant:

I grew up in a community with many immigrants. When I was seven, my school had a sudden influx of children from the Balkans. They all had undergone horrific experiences. . . I also had friends whose parents had migrated from drought-stricken Somalia. Meeting them and hearing their stories and then meeting their parents who had actually undergone those experiences brought home the reality of conflicts and crises taking place in other countries.^[67]

These encounters with refugee and migrant children from around the world became a motivating factor in her work addressing crucial global issues.

UNHCR is advocating for the integration of refugees into national education systems. The friendships developed among children in school settings can contribute significantly to deepening exchanges on the family-to-family level and with the host community as a whole. In addition to the school system, nonformal educational settings offer important learning opportunities for refugee children, and the SGI will work actively in collaboration with other organizations to support such initiatives.

The human rights of the elderly

Next, I would like to address the human rights of the elderly, an urgent issue confronting contemporary society.

According to the UN, there are more than 900 million people aged sixty and over living in the world today, and this number is expected to reach 1.4 billion by 2030.^[68] Many governments, particularly those of developed countries, are struggling to respond to the sudden changes in social structure brought about by rapidly declining birth rates and aging demographics.

This was one of the issues discussed at the eighth session of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing held at the UN in July 2017. It was pointed out that the enjoyment of all human rights diminishes with age, in spite of the declaration in the UDHR that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; this is due to negative images of the elderly as less productive, less valuable to society, a burden to the economy and to younger generations. Participants agreed that such structural discrimination and prejudice can lead to the social exclusion of older persons and must be combated.

The need to protect the rights of older persons was addressed in a draft resolution submitted to the UN General Assembly by Argentina in 1948, shortly before the UDHR was adopted in Paris. However, the rights of the aged did not draw the interest of governments for many years; international discourse on the subject only began to develop in earnest with the Vienna World Assembly on Ageing, held in 1982. That discourse resulted in the adoption of five UN Principles for Older Persons in 1991, comprising independence, participation, care, self-fulfillment and dignity. While independence (respecting the will of the individual), care (safeguarding health and daily living) and dignity (ensuring protection from discrimination and abuse) are of course core rights of the aged, it is crucial to remember that on their own they are only a starting point.

I am reminded here of the dialogue I conducted with Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Co-President of the Club of Rome. One of the topics we discussed was how to bring a sense of purpose and fulfillment to the lives of older persons. Based on his experience, Dr. Weizsäcker stressed that it would benefit society as a whole to create the conditions by which older persons could continue working if they so desired.^[69]

I fully agree with his opinion; it is my firm belief that being able to contribute in some way to the happiness of others and the world, be it through work or in some other capacity, brings one joy and fulfillment in life. In that sense, the other two UN Principles—participation and self-fulfillment—are indispensable in enabling elderly persons to experience meaning and satisfaction in their lives.

To be treated well is, of course, essential to a person’s experience of dignity. But even more important is being looked to by others as an irreplaceable source of spiritual support. It is this that brings our dignity to an even brighter luster. The significance of such bonds remains unchanged even by grave illness or dependence on others for nursing care. Being surrounded by people who derive joy and happiness from your presence is itself a source of dignity.

Three years ago, the Soka Gakkai in Japan launched the exhibition “Hope and the Culture of Peace,” which seeks to counteract negative images of aging by presenting the stories of older persons who are actively contributing to the welfare of young people and of society as a whole. The exhibition calls for the creation of a culture of peace and of human societies that treasure the rich experience and wisdom of the elderly.

As emphasized at the Second World Assembly on Ageing (2002) and later by the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing (2017), protecting the human rights of older persons is integral to the creation of a culture of human rights that respects people of all ages and will not brook any form of discrimination.

The need for an international legal instrument for the protection of the rights of older persons was among the topics deliberated at the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, and in this regard, I strongly hope there will be an early start to negotiations on a convention on the rights of older persons. I would also like to propose that a third World Assembly on Ageing be held in Japan, where the aging of the population is more advanced than anywhere else in the world.

The Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing agreed upon at the Second World Assembly on Ageing stresses that the experiences and resources of older persons can be “an asset in the growth of mature, fully integrated, humane societies,”^[70] and that, in addition to their role as leaders in the family and community, they can contribute positively to coping with emergencies and to promoting rehabilitation and reconstruction.

This has in fact been the experience of Japan in its reconstruction efforts following the March 11, 2011, Tohoku Earthquake. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 adopted at the Third UN World Conference on the issue describes how the participation of older persons is indispensable for enhancing the disaster risk management capacity of society.^[71]

A convention on the rights of older persons should be based on the UN Principles referenced above. Further, it should include provisions for what is known as “aging in place,” whereby people are enabled to continue living with dignity and a sense of purpose in their long-accustomed community.

Sharing personal narratives of overcoming life’s inevitable hardships is a central aspect of the SGI’s faith activities, with local organizations actively working to create spaces for this. Many older members have sparked the flame of courage and hope in the hearts of younger generations through words that carry the unique weight of deeply lived experience.

In 1988, three years before the UN Principles for Older Persons were adopted, I proposed that the Soka Gakkai group comprising our more elderly members be called the Many Treasures Group. One chapter of the Lotus Sutra describes the emergence of an enormous Treasure Tower adorned with innumerable jewels and precious stones. A Buddha named Many Treasures Buddha appears within this tower and testifies to the truth of Shakyamuni’s teaching that all people are endowed with inherent dignity. It was with this in mind that I proposed this name for my beloved friends who have accumulated invaluable experience in the twin realms of life and faith. Following the formation of the Many Treasures Group, groups in specific regions of Japan were also formed, including the Lifespan Treasures Group in Tokyo and the Golden Treasures Group in Kansai. There are now similar groups around the world, such as the Goldener Herbst (Golden Autumn) Group in Germany and the Diamond Group in Australia.

Our older friends are truly treasures both within our Buddhist organization and in their respective communities. They have told their stories of meeting and transcending, through their practice of faith, the inevitable sufferings of what Buddhism refers to as birth, aging, sickness and death, playing an invaluable role in perpetuating the spiritual legacy of peace activism within the SGI as they share their experiences of war, including experiences as atomic bomb survivors. They have also helped sustain networks of mutual support and encouragement in the process of recovery from disaster with their deep knowledge of the history of the community and human relationships there.

The SGI will continue to promote the sharing of personal narratives, passing on the lessons of life, war and disaster to future generations. To this end, we will join with other faith-based organizations to hold symposia aimed at generating in society a new ethos of protecting the rights and dignity of older persons.

Local governments unite for climate action

The third and final thematic area I would like to address is how to catalyze momentum toward meeting the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to such global challenges as poverty, hunger, education and climate change. Among these, there has been important progress in establishing structures for international cooperation to combat climate change.

Last November, Syria, the last country to join the Paris Agreement on climate change, deposited its instrument of ratification with the UN. While the announced decision of the United States to withdraw remains a concern, the basic structure by which all states can collaborate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions remains in place.

In recent years, many parts of the world have experienced extreme weather events, bringing home the reality that no place on Earth is safe from such threats. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of climate refugees driven from their homes by the ravages of drought, flooding and rising sea levels. Estimates project that the number of environmental migrants could reach as many as one billion by 2050, if present trends in global warming continue.^[72]

The Paris Agreement offers a pathway for safeguarding the livelihoods and dignity of people from such threats. It also serves as the foundation for creating a sustainable society that we can pass on to future generations. Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country can withdraw until four years have passed from its entry into force, that is, before November 2020. It is strongly hoped that the United States will remain part of the agreement and will work with other countries to achieve its goals.

Combating climate change is certainly a thorny challenge; however, I take hope in the ambitious initiatives being undertaken by and among local governments. One example is the resolution adopted last year at the United States Conference of Mayors in which more than 250 mayors committed to procure 100 percent of the energy needs of their cities from renewable sources by 2035.^[73] In Europe, Paris has announced plans to permit only electric vehicles within its limits by 2030,^[74] while Stockholm has set the goal of becoming fossil fuel-free by 2040.^[75] Further, in June last year, 140 mayors representing the world’s major cities issued the Montréal Declaration in which they expressed their determination to implement the Paris Agreement regardless of the international political context.^[76]

These examples demonstrate the capacity of cities and municipalities to take effective action in a field where the perception of conflicting national interests has paralyzed governmental response to shared risk. They have recognized that supporting implementation of the Paris Agreement contributes directly to the protection of their citizens.

Germany’s Federal Environment Ministry has taken the lead in establishing partnerships on climate action among municipalities within the European Union, an example of efforts to share best practices and lessons learned. There is an urgent need to devise similar cooperative frameworks within the Northeast Asia region, which is responsible for large volumes of greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, I propose the establishment of a local government network for climate action between Japan and China, which together account for one-third of global heat-trapping gas emissions.^[77]

In Japan, forward-looking action plans designed to combat climate change are being implemented in municipalities designated as “Future Cities” and “Eco-Model Cities.” In China, the world’s leading installer of solar power capacity, sources of renewable energy are being adopted widely in many communities.

One possible way to start the process of establishing this kind of Japan-China local government network for climate action would be to encourage municipalities in both countries that have already made important efforts in combating climate change to participate in the UN-led Climate Neutral Now initiative launched in 2015.

Climate Neutral Now Initiative

Climate Neutral Now is an initiative launched by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that represents a global community of organizations committed to becoming climate neutral by the second half of the twenty-first century. Centered around the three actions “Measure, Reduce and Offset,” the initiative encourages individuals and companies worldwide to calculate their climate footprint, lower their level of greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible and offset what cannot be reduced with UN Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). The UN Climate Change secretariat invites organizations to take the Climate Neutral Now Pledge, joining a growing movement of companies and governments taking the lead in reducing emissions and contributing to accelerating global progress to a climate-neutral future. The initiative began as a result of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the global agreement to combat climate change.

Partnerships for environmental protection have already been established between Tokyo and Beijing, Kobe and Tianjin as well as Kitakyushu and Dalian. By further fostering cooperative action among local authorities in areas such as technological collaboration and the sharing of knowledge and best practices, the two countries could create the foundation on which a broader regional framework could be built.

Today, the number of people traveling between Japan and China has reached almost 9 million per year^[78] and sister city agreements currently total 363.^[79] As hard as it might be to imagine from today’s perspective, when I issued a proposal for the normalization of diplomatic ties between Japan and the People’s Republic of China in September 1968, almost half a century ago, relations between the two countries were tense enough to threaten what little trade existed between them, and merely to speak of bilateral friendship was to provoke harsh criticism. This was the context within which I made the following statement to a gathering of more than ten thousand students:

There are a number of issues that need to be resolved before full normalization of relations can take place. . . These are all complex issues, fraught with difficulty. And they cannot be solved without mutual understanding and deep trust between the two nations and most importantly, a shared aspiration for peace. . .

Whether as a state or as a people, in international society today, engaging purely in the pursuit of one’s own profit is no longer acceptable. It is surely by adopting a broad global perspective and by seeking to contribute to peace, prosperity and the advancement of culture, that we will prove our worth as a people in the coming century.^[80]

In the intervening half-century, not only has China become Japan’s largest trading partner but Japan has also emerged as China’s second largest trading partner after the US. In the educational field as well, Chinese universities now represent the largest number of academic exchange partners for Japanese educational institutions. In 1975, Soka University, which I founded, was the first Japanese institute of higher education to welcome state-sponsored Chinese students coming to study in Japan following the normalization of bilateral relations. Today, there are more than 4,400 academic exchange agreements between Chinese and Japanese universities.^[81]

In 1979, one year after the signing of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, a Japan-China youth friendship exchange program was launched, providing generations of young people annual opportunities to deepen friendship and mutual understanding. On a grassroots level, the Soka Gakkai sent a youth delegation to China for the first time in 1979 and has continued to conduct youth exchanges to the present. In 1985, our organization and the All-China Youth Federation signed an exchange agreement under which regular exchange programs have continued. The most recent such program took place in November 2017, when a Soka Gakkai youth delegation visited China, enhancing ties between the two countries.

In all these ways, bilateral exchanges have increased substantially, and cooperation in various spheres has been strengthened.

This year marks the fortieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China. This presents an auspicious opportunity to build on the long-standing cooperation between the two countries and to forge stronger bonds. The best way to do this is through solidarity of action in service of the interests of Earth and humankind.

Climate action and sustainable cities are critical challenges for achieving the SDGs. It is thus my strong hope that China and Japan will work together to mobilize the innovative strengths and passions of their younger generations in the task of creating model responses to these challenges in ways that will resonate throughout Northeast Asia and the world.

Women’s empowerment: Key to resolving global challenges

Lastly, I would like to take up the question of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls as it relates to the SDGs.

Gender equality and empowerment should not be regarded as just one of the seventeen SDGs, but rather should be recognized as key to accelerating progress toward the achievement of the entire spectrum of goals. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, the lead organization for gender equality, made the following statement to the UN Security Council in October 2017:

The women, peace and security agenda continues to expand its footprint on global policymaking. It is now an essential pillar in global affairs.^[82]

The Preamble of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) states that the equal participation of both women and men is an indispensable factor for attaining sustainable peace and security. It also calls for supporting and strengthening the effective participation of women in the nuclear disarmament fields. Women’s participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding has been expanding since the adoption of Resolution 1325 by the Security Council in 2000, and the TPNW now explicitly highlights the importance of women’s involvement in disarmament as well as in recasting national security policies.

This awareness of the importance of including women’s perspectives in the process of meeting global challenges is not limited to peace and conflict resolution. The Sendai Framework launched in 2015 at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction notes that empowering women within disaster preparation is vital to enhancing resilience. More recently, the annual Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 23), held in Germany in November 2017, adopted a Gender Action Plan. These moves are evidence of emerging international recognition that women’s participation is key to effective climate action.

Here, I would like to propose that the UN proclaim an international decade for women’s empowerment to encourage these transformative effects to take hold in all spheres of society. The decade could run from 2020, the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of Resolution 1325, to 2030, the culminating year for achieving the SDGs. The decade would be an occasion for intensifying efforts to empower women and increasing momentum for attaining the SDGs.

Women’s empowerment cannot be an optional agenda: It is an urgent priority for many people in dire situations.

One Syrian woman in a refugee camp in Jordan started to work as a tailor in a center operated by UN Women. She recounts, “We no longer feel helpless, our work makes us feel productive and empowered.”^[83]

Another woman, who fled her home in Burundi, is currently living in a refugee camp in neighboring Tanzania. Lacking employment, she was overwhelmed by uncertainty about her future. As she participated in the vocational training programs run by UNHCR, however, her outlook changed to the point that she expressed hope of one day returning to her homeland where she could make use of her newly acquired skills in bread making to earn a living and send her children to school.^[84]

As evidenced by these testimonies, women’s empowerment can serve as the driving force to restore hope and the ability to advance in the face of challenging circumstances.

Grounded in the Buddhist commitment to uphold the dignity of all people, the SGI has been consistently working to expand the scope of women’s empowerment. As a civil society organization, the SGI has supported the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), sending delegates to the annual sessions at UN Headquarters and, since 2011, collaborating with other organizations to organize side events. The SGI has also engaged with the activities of the UN Human Rights Council by cosponsoring events focusing on such themes as the role of faith and culture in advancing women’s rights and nonformal education for gender equality.

A global Platform on Gender Equality and Religion was launched at the CSW session in March 2017. It aims to elevate recognition of the importance of women’s rights and contributions through faith based discourse and to shape policy and legislative efforts for gender equality on the local, national and international levels.^[85] The SGI will support the platform and collaborate with other faith-based organizations so that it becomes a source of empowerment for women and girls in difficult situations. Together with these partners, we wish to spin the “Ariadne’s thread” of women’s empowerment by which humankind can emerge from the current labyrinth of global challenges.

In all these ways, I hope we can bring together the voices of civil society to build momentum for the establishment of an international decade for the empowerment of women.

I am convinced that the ideal of a world in which no one is left behind, articulated in the SDGs, will be shared and embraced by all as we strive to protect the rights of women and girls—who constitute half the world’s people—and through our efforts to create societies where all can live with hope and dignity.

As I envision the challenges that lie ahead between now and the year 2030, I recall these words which Rosa Parks shared with me: “There’s no law that says people have to suffer.” These words were spoken to her by her mother, who herself struggled against discrimination. The earnest determination distilled in these words is the spirit we all need as we work across differences to advance the entire SDG agenda with a focus on the struggle for gender equality.

It is the pledge of the SGI to continue striving to create a groundswell of people’s solidarity with which to surmount the challenges facing humanity, grounded in efforts to safeguard the life and dignity of each individual.

Toward a New Era of Peace and Disarmament: A People-Centered Approach

Amid the continued escalation of global challenges, crises that were previously unthinkable are now becoming reality throughout the world.

With the average global temperature at its highest on record in the past four years^[1] and the impact of extreme weather conditions being felt everywhere, the problem of climate change is especially alarming. The refugee crisis also remains a deep concern, with the number of individuals forcibly displaced worldwide due to conflict and other reasons now at 68.5 million.^[2] Trade disputes are also casting a heavy shadow over society. During the general debate at last year’s United Nations General Assembly, many world leaders voiced their concerns over recent trade developments and their impact on the global economy. In addition to these challenges, the UN has been calling for urgent action on issues related to disarmament.

Last May, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN Disarmament Agenda as a comprehensive report on this issue. He cited the fact that annual global military expenditure had surpassed US$1.7 trillion,^[3] the highest level since the fall of the Berlin Wall,^[4] and warned: “When each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all.”^[5] Noting that total military spending was around eighty times the amount required to meet the humanitarian aid needs of the whole world, he expressed deep concern over this increasing gap in resource allocation and the fact that necessary funds were not being directed toward ending poverty, promoting health and education, combating climate change and other measures to protect the planet. If current trends continue, progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aimed at ensuring that no one is left behind, is at risk of coming to a standstill.

Disarmament, which has been a major focus of the UN since its founding, has been an issue of personal concern and a central theme of the peace proposals I have composed annually for more than thirty-five years. As a member of the generation that experienced firsthand the atrocities of World War II and as heir to the spirit of second Soka Gakkai president Josei Toda (1900–58)—who took persistent action based on his commitment to rid the world of misery—I am acutely aware that disarmament is vitally essential to the task of uprooting conflict and violence, which threaten the dignity and lives of so many.

Humanity possesses the power of solidarity, a strength with which we can overcome any adversity. Indeed, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—an undertaking whose achievement was long considered impossible—was adopted two years ago, through the power of such solidarity, and movement is progressing toward ratification and entry into force.

The darker the night, the closer the dawn: now is the time to accelerate momentum toward disarmament by taking the present crises as an opportunity to create a new history. To this end, I would like to propose three key themes that could serve as a kind of scaffolding in the effort to make disarmament a cornerstone of the world in the twenty-first century: sharing a vision of a peaceful society, promoting a people-centered multilateralism and mainstreaming youth participation.

A shared vision

The first theme I would like to explore is the need for a shared vision of what constitutes a peaceful society.

The omnipresence of weaponry is raising threat levels worldwide. Although the Arms Trade Treaty regulating international trade in conventional arms—from small arms to tanks and missiles—entered into force in 2014, key arms-exporting states have remained outside the Treaty, making it difficult to stop the spread of weapons in conflict regions. In addition, we have seen recurring instances of the use of chemical and other inhumane weapons. The modernization of weapons technology has also brought with it grave issues: there is rising concern over questions of international humanitarian law when military drone strikes have impacted civilians.

Tensions are mounting over nuclear weapons as well. Last October, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) it had signed with Russia. While disputes over observance of the terms of the Treaty have continued between the two countries, there is a danger of a renewed nuclear arms race involving other nuclear powers as well if the INF does in fact collapse. Such conditions certainly drive home Secretary- General Guterres’ remarks in the foreword to the Disarmament Agenda in which he warns: “The tensions of the cold war have returned to a world that has grown more complex.”^[6]

Why does history seem to be repeating itself in this way in the twenty-first century? Here, I am reminded of the penetrating words of the eminent physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912–2007). Weizsäcker’s lifelong commitment to world peace was one of the topics of discussion in a dialogue I had with his son, Dr. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, honorary president of the Club of Rome.

Characterizing the period between 1989, the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and 1990, the reunification of Germany, Weizsäcker noted that as far as the world as a whole was concerned there had been almost no significant change.^[7] For someone who had lived most of his life in a divided Germany and who had repeatedly stressed the historic nature of the sequence of events that led to the end of the Cold War, this was a somewhat surprising statement, reminiscent of Socrates’ self-identification as a midwife of truth.

Socrates as midwife

Socrates (ca. 470–399 BCE) described himself as an intellectual midwife who helps others give birth to their own wisdom and determine the truth in their own beliefs. This Socratic method, known as maieutics, introduced in Plato’s Theaetetus, is employed to stimulate critical thinking and evoke doubts about commonly held ideas through dialogue and posing questions. In Theaetetus, Socrates finds similarities between his mother’s craft as a midwife and the process of producing truth, which also involves the pain of delivery. Whereas a midwife either induces or relieves the pains of labor to help deliver a child, Socrates assists the soul and helps his interlocutor give birth to an idea.

Reflecting on the political and military situation of the time, he asserted that efforts to overcome “the institution of war”^[8] had yet to reach the point where they could be described as a transformation of consciousness. In other words, he believed that even the end of the Cold War had not opened the path toward the core challenge of overcoming war as an institution, the repeated military struggle for hegemony among different groups. He further cautioned: “It never is certain, not even today, whether those new types of weapons constantly being produced could not lead to an outbreak of war, after all.”^[9] I strongly feel the weight of his words, which apply to the current situation of global affairs as well.

The issues of peace and disarmament have indeed remained unresolved ever since the Cold War era. Although this remains a severe challenge—indeed an aporia—I would insist that there is still a ray of hope. We can find it in the fact that disarmament talks are no longer conducted solely from the standpoints of international politics and security, but have increasingly included the humanitarian perspective. A succession of treaties prohibiting inhumane weapons such as land mines, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons have been adopted. Riding on this new historical momentum of incorporating the humanitarian approach in shaping international law, all states must begin the process of cooperating and working together to make meaningful headway in the area of disarmament.

To this end, it is useful to examine the idea of “peacelessness as an illness of the soul” (Ger. Friedlosigkeit als seelische Krankheit), which Weizsäcker identified as an impediment to progress in disarmament. His likening of issues that hinder peace to an illness afflicting all is premised on the view that no state or individual can consider themselves unconnected—no one is immune. This perspective is underpinned by his view of human beings as indeterminate life-forms, without a fixed nature,^[10] who cannot be categorized as either good or evil.^[11] As such, he stressed that we should not consider peacelessness as something external to ourselves, the result of stupidity or evil; rather, we should “have the phenomenon of illness clearly in view.”^[12] He explained that neither instruction nor condemnation will succeed in overcoming the pathology of peacelessness: “It requires a different kind of approach which one should call healing.”^[13] How can we begin to administer the cure unless we recognize this illness within ourselves and learn to accept both ourselves and others as ill?^[14]

I believe it was this kind of awareness that led Weizsäcker to take a unique approach at a time when the United Kingdom had just joined the US and Soviet Union in the nuclear arms race. The 1957 Göttingen Manifesto, in whose drafting he played a central role together with other scientists, reflects on Germany’s position in the world: “We do believe that the best way [for West Germany] to promote world peace and to protect itself is to voluntarily do without all kinds of nuclear weapons.”^[15] Rather than being directed at the nuclear-weapon states, which were engaged in a heated arms race, these words principally address the stance the authors’ own country should take toward the nuclear issue. The manifesto’s drafters also declare that as scientists, they have a professional responsibility for the potential effects of their work, and as such, they “cannot remain silent on all political questions.”^[16]

Incidentally, the Göttingen Manifesto was launched the same year that President Toda issued his declaration calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, grounded in his convictions as a Buddhist. While recognizing the importance of movements opposing nuclear testing that were gaining traction at the time, he asserted that the ways of thinking that justify nuclear weapons and upon which security issues are based must be rooted out in order to bring about a fundamental solution to the problem: “I want to expose and rip out the claws that lie hidden in the very depths of such weapons.”^[17]

His declaration, issued some six months before he passed away, was made from the standpoint that it is impermissible for anyone to threaten the fundamental right to live shared by the people of the world. Its significance lies in the fact that he returned the issue of nuclear weapons, which had been pedestaled as necessary for the peace and security of states, to the realm of the intrinsic value of life, a question of pressing concern for all people.

In an effort to carry on this spirit, I have continued to maintain that if we are to truly put an end to the era of nuclear weapons we must struggle against the real enemy, which is neither nuclear weapons per se nor the states that possess or develop them, but rather the ways of thinking that permit the existence of such weapons—the readiness to annihilate others when they are perceived to be a threat or a hindrance to the realization of our objectives.

In September 1958, a year after Toda made his declaration, I composed a work titled “A Way out of the Burning House” in which I made reference to the Parable of the Three Carts and the Burning House found in the Lotus Sutra. According to that parable, a wealthy man’s house suddenly catches fire but, seeing as it is very spacious, his children who are inside remain unaware of the danger in which they are placed and show neither surprise nor fear. The man then finds ways to entice them to come out of their own accord, thus enabling all to exit the burning house unharmed. Citing this parable, I stressed that any use of atomic or hydrogen bombs would be an act of suicide for the Earth—the collective self- destruction of humankind—and that, because nuclear weapons pose a profound threat to people of all countries, we must work together to find a way out of the “burning house” that is our world enshrouded by this unprecedented danger.^[18] As this parable symbolizes, the most crucial point is that our efforts must aim to save all people from danger.

In this sense, I deeply concur with the views set forth by Secretary-General Guterres in the Disarmament Agenda where he outlines three new perspectives that go beyond the security rhetoric which has long taken center stage in these debates: disarmament to save humanity, disarmament that saves lives and disarmament for future generations.^[19]

What then is required if we are to overcome the pathology of peacelessness, at the heart of which lies the willingness to use any means necessary to meet one’s objectives with no thought to the damage incurred, and instead accelerate global momentum toward the kind of disarmament that saves lives? A treatment-focused Buddhist approach may shed some light on how to address this challenge.

Among the Buddhist teachings we find the story of a man named Angulimāla,^[20] a contemporary of Shakyamuni, who was widely feared as the murderer of many. One day, Angulimāla spots Shakyamuni and decides to kill him, but though he pursues him with all his might he is unable to catch up with him. Out of frustration, he finally halts and shouts, “Stop!” to which Shakyamuni replies, “Angulimāla, I have stopped. You too should stop.”

The perplexed Angulimāla then asks him why he is being asked to stop when he has already stopped moving. Shakyamuni explains that he was referring to Angulimāla’s acts of killing living things without mercy and the malice behind them. Deeply affected by Shakyamuni’s words, Angulimāla determines to eliminate the malice in his heart and cease his evildoing. Then and there, he throws down his weapons and asks to become Shakyamuni’s disciple. From that time on, Angulimāla deeply repents his past crimes and engages earnestly in Buddhist practice, seeking expiation.

There is another important turning point in Angulimāla’s story. One day, as he is walking around the city begging for alms, he sees a woman suffering from the pains of childbirth. No one is at her side, and he too, feeling utterly helpless, leaves the scene. However, unable to stop thinking of her pain, he approaches Shakyamuni to recount what he has seen. Shakyamuni urges him to go to her immediately and offer the following words: “Sister, since my birth I have not destroyed a living thing knowingly, by that truth may you be well and may the one to be born be well.”

Fully aware of his own history of evil deeds, Angulimāla cannot grasp Shakyamuni’s true intent. However, Shakyamuni clarifies that Angulimāla has, of his own accord, already succeeded in dispelling the malice lurking behind his actions, deeply repenting and earnestly engaging in religious practice. As if to remind him of this, Shakyamuni again urges him to offer these words to the pregnant woman: “Sister, since I was reborn as one who seeks the noble path, I have no recollection of having consciously taken the life of a living being. By this truth may you be well and may the one to be born be well.” Knowing Shakyamuni’s profound compassion, Angulimāla rushes to the woman’s side and offers her these words. The suffering woman is calmed and safely gives birth.

These two events indicate the changes Shakyamuni hoped to inspire in Angulimāla. He first sought to direct his attention to the malice, the intent to do harm, that had governed his actions for so long. Then, by illuminating a path by which Angulimāla could save the lives of this mother and child, Shakyamuni sought to direct him toward a personal commitment to become someone who saves others.

Needless to say, this parable depicts the inner transformation of a single individual and is set in a completely different era and cultural milieu from our own. Nevertheless, I believe it still holds relevance to our time because it doesn’t limit itself to the cessation of hostile acts but is oriented toward the saving of lives. This, I would like to propose, could serve as a useful basis for a remedy capable of transforming society at its core.

The Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions comprise a series of international treaties that establish the basis of international humanitarian law. Originating in 1864 as the initiative of social activist Henri Dunant (1828–1910), the First Geneva Convention defined the basic rights of wartime prisoners and provided protection for the wounded and civilians. After the experiences of World War II, four conventions were adopted by a diplomatic conference in Geneva on August 12, 1949: (1) The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; (2) The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; (3) The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; and (4) The Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Additional protocols were adopted in 1977.

The drafters were not simply seeking to caution against violations of the Conventions. Their deepest desire was to forestall the conditions of great suffering and loss of life that would require their application. The Conventions—which formed the foundations for subsequent international humanitarian law—manifested this powerful determination precisely because the cruelty and tragedy of war had been acutely felt by the participants in the negotiating sessions.

Unless we consistently revisit the origins of the Geneva Conventions, we will remain mired in the kind of arguments that justify as acceptable any action so long as it does not explicitly violate the letter of the law.

It is especially crucial that we bear this in mind in light of the rapid advances being made in the development of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) using artificial intelligence (AI), bringing into view the possibility that battles will be waged without any direct human control. Failure to address this issue puts at risk the animating spirit of international humanitarian law as expressed in the Geneva Conventions.

Now more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to overcome the pathology of peacelessness. To that end, it is vital that we cultivate a mutual recognition of this pathology and join together in search of a cure. In other words, we must develop a common vision for a peaceful society, and I believe the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is a forerunner of the kind of international disarmament law that can help frame such a vision.

The TPNW is a form of international law that goes beyond the traditional confines of disarmament or humanitarian protection. Jean Pictet (1914–2002), former director general of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who is credited with coining the term “international humanitarian law,” stressed that it is none other than “a transposition into international law of moral, and more specifically, of humanitarian concerns.”^[21] The TPNW, which crystallizes the resolve shared by hibakusha and many others to never allow a nuclear tragedy to be repeated, precisely falls within this same genealogy of international law.

The TPNW also displays characteristics of international hybrid law, an emerging standard that has begun to garner attention. As a legal approach originally proposed to address climate change in a way that ties it to issues concerning human rights and forced displacement, international hybrid law promotes a change to the ways we have traditionally thought about classifications of legislation. In this context, the TPNW is a legal instrument that recognizes the interconnected nature of the global challenges facing us today, bringing them together under the broadest possible umbrella.

International hybrid law

International hybrid law is a method of approaching issues through an interdisciplinary lens, taking into consideration the interconnected nature of issues which may not be adequately addressed from a single field of law. It has developed since 2007 to respond to climate change from three perspectives: environmental, human rights and refugee or migration law. It has demonstrated the interrelations between these different perspectives and that an environmental issue like climate change cannot be addressed without having considerable direct or subsidiary impacts on human rights or migration. It is a recognition of the intertwined causal relations around climate change and reframes states’ responsibility to respond in a comprehensive manner.

Even security issues that are deeply concerned with matters of state sovereignty must equally take into consideration factors such as the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security, the health and well-being of current and future generations, human rights and gender equality—this is the directionality that has been clearly enunciated in the TPNW. Nuclear disarmament discourse must be based on the shared awareness that we cannot achieve authentic security unless each of these interconnected concerns is adequately addressed. Otherwise, negotiations will continue to focus on the balance of arms possessed by each side, making it that much harder to move beyond the context of arms control.

In this sense, the TPNW can provide the momentum for breaking through the longstanding impasse in nuclear disarmament. Further, by expanding the network of support for the Treaty, we can make major strides toward the goals of: opening the way for a world of human rights based on mutual respect for the dignity of all; creating a humane world where the happiness and security of ourselves and others is central; and building a world of coexistence based on a shared sense of responsibility for the environment and future generations. This, I believe, can be the TPNW’s greatest contribution to history.

People-centered multilateralism

The next theme for advancing the cause of disarmament that I would like to discuss is the need to work together to foster people-centered multilateralism, an idea that was given voice in the outcome document of last August’s conference of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) affiliated with the UN’s Department of Public Information^[22] (DPI/NGO Conference). It is an approach that is focused on protecting those who face the most serious threats and challenges.

While the idea of people-centered multilateralism was originally proposed in the context of promoting the achievement of the SDGs, I feel that it can also contribute significantly to shifting the current of world events toward disarmament. Just as Secretary-General Guterres warned at the launch of the UN Disarmament Agenda, world military spending continues to increase while the resources available to respond to humanitarian crises are inadequate. Every year, on average more than 200 million people are impacted by natural disasters.^[23] Similarly, 821 million people were suffering from hunger as of 2017, and nearly 151 million children under the age of five were experiencing stunted growth as a result of malnutrition.^[24] Such facts as these compel us to question the meaning and objectives of existing national security policies.

Here, I think it is valuable to cite the views of Hans van Ginkel, former rector of United Nations University, on the nature and objectives of human security. While acknowledging the seeming complexities of security, Van Ginkel notes that if we view the world from the perspective of each individual, it becomes very clear what people experience as threats or sources of insecurity:

Yet it is clear that traditional security has failed to deliver meaningful security to a significant proportion of the people of the world at the individual level. . . Still, attitudes and institutions that privilege “high politics” above disease, hunger, or illiteracy are embedded in international relations and foreign policy decision-making. Indeed, we have grown so accustomed to this approach that for many, “security” has become equal to state security.^[25] (emphasis in original)

Here, Van Ginkel is pointing to the fact that, compared to questions of national security, the response to threats to the lives and livelihoods of individuals seems to lack urgency. The result is to deprive great numbers of people of any meaningful sense of security.

In another speech, Van Ginkel describes the plight of people living in conditions of extreme poverty:

Indeed, how can one experience the joys and the meaning attached to human life, how can one experience a life of human dignity, when survival from day to day—yes from day to day, sometimes even from hour to hour—is not even ensured? How can one project oneself into the future and build bonds with others if living long enough to see tomorrow constitutes a major challenge?^[26]

This brings powerfully home the depth of the suffering experienced by those whose interests have been overlooked under traditional ways of thinking about security. This includes not only people afflicted by poverty or inequality but also those driven from their homes and forced to seek refuge from armed conflict or disaster.

The foundation for people-centered multilateralism must be the effort to build a world in which all people can enjoy a feeling of meaningful security and can together foster hope for the future. This approach, however, does not have to start ex nihilo, as it is already the focus of ambitious attention in Africa, an element of the response to the many serious challenges facing the continent. The 2002 establishment of the African Union was a watershed moment in this regard.

In 2012, against a backdrop of efforts to develop more effective cooperative responses to humanitarian crises, the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) entered into force. This is a groundbreaking convention with aspects unseen elsewhere, as it seeks to bring together region-wide efforts to protect internally displaced persons.

There are other notable examples of assistance to refugees in African countries. Uganda, for example, has accepted some 1.1 million refugees fleeing conflicts in South Sudan and elsewhere.^[27] In addition to being granted freedom of movement and opportunities for employment, refugees are allotted land to cultivate and integrated into the local education and healthcare systems. Many Ugandans have themselves experienced the miseries of armed conflict and forced displacement as refugees, and these memories appear to provide the basis of support for these policies.

A related example from Tanzania stands out. Tanzania currently hosts more than 300,000 refugees from neighboring countries.^[28] Cooperating with the local population, some of these refugees are involved in activities to raise saplings in nurseries. This project, initiated in response to deforestation and environmental degradation driven by the need to find firewood, has to date resulted in the planting of some 2 million trees in the refugee camps and surrounding areas. The image of so many green trees being planted in the great earth of Africa recalls powerfully to mind the conviction of my late friend Wangari Maathai (1940–2011): that planting trees can help to heal the land and break the cycle of poverty. “Trees,” she wrote, “are living symbols of peace and hope.”^[29] For refugees struggling to start life anew, the trees they have raised are without doubt a symbol of hope, a promise of meaningful security.

For more than five decades, I have been asserting that the twenty-first century will be the century of Africa. This is based on my steadfast belief that those who suffer most have the greatest right to happiness. We can see in Africa the dawn of a new people-centered multilateralism, an approach that holds great promise for the world.

According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at present some 30 percent of the refugees it supports are living in Africa.^[30] This past December, the Global Compact on Refugees was adopted by the UN, reflecting recognition of the difficulties countries face in accepting large numbers of refugees without support. International society must come together to strengthen support not only for the refugees themselves but also the countries that have accepted them.

The Global Compact on Refugees

Endorsed in December 2018 by the UN General Assembly, the Global Compact on Refugees establishes a framework for more predictable and equitable international responses to the large-scale movement of refugees. The Global Compact aims to ease pressure on host countries, build refugees’ self-reliance, support their inclusion into the national development planning of host countries and foster conditions that will enable them to return voluntarily to their home countries. By investing in services and infrastructure in host communities, the Compact aims to ensure a people-centered approach with direct benefits for both local people and refugees.

There is a regrettable tendency for people living in countries that are not directly impacted by the refugee crisis or problems of poverty to distance themselves from these challenges and the responsibility to resolve them. The goal of people-centered multilateralism is to get past the differences in national perspective and find ways of relieving the suffering of people facing grave threats or crises.

The story of Shakyamuni’s four encounters describes the initial motivation for the teachings of Buddhism, and it is suggestive of the transformation in consciousness required of us today. Born into a royal family in ancient India, Shakyamuni enjoyed high political status and material abundance. His youthful years were spent in an environment where large numbers of people directly served the royal family, such that he never had to worry about the cold of winter or the heat of summer or that his clothes would ever be soiled by dust, chaff or the dew of night.^[31]

One day, however, Shakyamuni stepped outside the palace gates where he saw people suffering the ravages of illness and old age. He also came across the corpse of a person who had died by the side of the road. Deeply shaken by these encounters, he intensely sensed the reality that no one, himself included, could avoid the sufferings of birth, aging, sickness and death. What pained him beyond these sufferings themselves was the way so many people imagined themselves immune from them and, as a result, despised and distanced themselves from those who suffer. Later, recalling these events, he described this human psychology as follows:

In their foolishness, common mortals—even though they themselves will age and cannot avoid aging—when they see others aging and falling into decline, ponder it, are distressed by it, and feel shame and hate—all without ever thinking of it as their own problem.^[32]

His words apply not only to the suffering of aging but also to sickness and death. Our sense that the sufferings of others bear no relation to us, the distaste we might even feel, was admonished by Shakyamuni as the arrogance of the young, the arrogance of the healthy, the arrogance of the living. If we reconsider that arrogance in terms of the connections of the human heart, we can clearly see how the apathy and lack of concern arising from arrogance actually deepens and intensifies the suffering of others.

In any era, there is room for such attitudes to take hold—the fatalism, for example, that sees poverty or other dire conditions to be an individual’s fixed destiny or the result of personal failings, or the kind of negation of morality that denies responsibility for any harm or pain one has inflicted on others. Shakyamuni’s response to such attitudes was his teaching that although the various sufferings of life may be unavoidable, it is possible to transform one’s life through the full development of one’s inner potential. Further, our efforts to empathize with and support those struggling with difficulties help weave networks of mutual encouragement, giving rise to an expanding sense of security and hope.

The focus of Buddhism is not confined to the inevitable sufferings of life, but takes in the reality of people confronting various difficulties within society. Thus, we find within the canon of Mahayana Buddhism (The Sutra on Upāsaka Precepts) encouragement to build wells, plant fruit trees and build water channels, help the old, the young and the weak to cross rivers and console those who have lost their land.^[33] This urges us to recognize that we are likely at some point to experience the suffering that afflicts other people—that there is no happiness which is our sole possession, no suffering that remains entirely confined to others—and to strive for the welfare of both self and others. In this, the essential spirit of Buddhism is expressed.

Taking as one’s own the pains and sufferings of others is exactly the philosophical wellspring for the SGI’s activities as a faith-based organization (FBO) as we work to address global challenges such as peace and human rights, the environment and humanitarian concerns.

It seems clear to me that there is a deep continuity between the psychology that Shakyamuni observed—the dismissal of aging or illness as irrelevant to oneself and a consequent coldness in our contact with such people—and the phenomenon observable today in which people dismiss the poverty, hunger or conflict suffered by others as irrelevant to their own lives and therefore best ignored.

This brings to mind the following passage from the outcome document of the DPI/NGO Conference I mentioned earlier: “We the Peoples reject the false choice between nationalism and globalism.”^[34] Indeed, the pursuit of nationalism—my country first—strengthens the trend toward xenophobia, and the advance of globalism that focuses solely on profit creates a world in which the strong prey on the weak. This is why I concur that the current era demands that all countries work together to put into action a people-centered multilateralist approach, which focuses on protecting those vulnerable to serious threats or challenges.

In the history of efforts to achieve security, we often encounter the idea that if the castle walls are solid enough, we will be safe. This takes the contemporary form of the idea that so long as we live within national borders protected by military strength, our security will be ensured. In fact, however, global issues such as climate change generate harms that don’t respect national borders, necessitating a new approach.

As one example of this, in March of last year a groundbreaking framework, the Escazú Agreement, was adopted by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean to protect environment-related rights. The region has suffered the impacts of tropical cyclones and ocean acidification. In addition to strengthening regional cooperation, the agreement includes people-centered policies such as the protection of environmental activists and mandating the incorporation of a diversity of views in the making of important decisions.

A number of noteworthy global-scale efforts are also being undertaken. Two years ago, the UN Environment Programme initiated the Clean Seas Campaign, which aims to reduce the plastic that is a major source of marine litter. At present, more than fifty countries are participating in the campaign, and their combined coastlines represent more than 60 percent of the world’s total.^[35] Traditionally, protecting the coastline has meant a focus on defensive military activities, but now this is beginning to take on an entirely new meaning: looking beyond national differences to protect the oceans and collaborate in preserving ecological integrity.

Reviewing history, we can see that both xenophobic nationalism and profit-prioritizing globalization have roots in the imperialism that emerged as a major force in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the destructive impacts of imperialism could be seen throughout the world. In 1903, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), the founding president of the Soka Gakkai, urged an end to the kind of competition for survival in which countries seek their security and prosperity at the expense of the inhabitants of other countries. In its place he urged the adoption of authentically humane modes of competition whose essence he defined as “to engage consciously in collective life” by choosing “to do things for the sake of others, because by benefiting others, we benefit ourselves.”^[36] Our world today desperately requires this kind of reorientation.

Through the ongoing accumulation of experiences of mutual assistance and collaboration in responding to humanitarian crises and environmental challenges, we can foster trust and a sense of security to ease the tensions and conflicts that arise from the pathology of peacelessness. From there we should be able to find our way out of the competitive arms race in which we are currently mired.

This September a climate summit will be held at UN Headquarters. This represents an excellent opportunity to advance the cause of people-centered multilateralism on a global scale. I strongly urge that this opportunity be used to identify important areas of collaboration to protect the lives and dignity of our fellow humans living on this planet, to develop more effective policies for combating global warming and to further the transformation of our understanding of security.

Mainstreaming youth participation

The third and last of the disarmament themes I would like to discuss is the mainstreaming of youth participation.

At the UN, “youth” has become a keyword across many fields. At the center of this is the Youth2030 strategy launched last September, which aims for the empowerment of the world’s 1.8 billion young people and for younger generations taking the lead on an accelerated engagement with the SDGs. Similar developments can also be seen in the field of human rights, with the UN designating youth as the focus of the fourth phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education. I called for such a designation in my proposal last year and hope that all efforts will be made to ensure that this fourth phase is successful.

The importance of youth to disarmament is clear, something which Secretary-General Guterres stressed in the Disarmament Agenda. The fact that he chose the University of Geneva over UN Headquarters or some other diplomatic venue to launch the agenda speaks volumes.

And young people like the students present in this room are the most important force for change in our world. . . I hope you will use your power and your connections to advocate for a peaceful world, free from nuclear weapons, in which weapons are controlled and regulated, and resources are directed towards opportunity and prosperity for all.^[37]

He addressed the long-festering issue of nuclear weapons alongside the risks of conflicts sparked by the development of new technologies as grave threats to the future of his young listeners. He singled out cyberattacks as a source of particular concern. Cyberweapons could be used not only to strike military targets but to infiltrate critical infrastructure to paralyze whole societies. They carry the risk of impacting large numbers of civilians and inflicting grave damage.

This kind of arms competition threatens the processes of daily life even when there are no active hostilities. But the issue goes beyond the physical threats to peace and humanitarian concerns: we must also consider the impact on how people live their lives, in particular the impact on youth. Because of the complexity and scale of the issue of arms competition, it inculcates a widespread resignation, the sense that reality is beyond our power to change. This is perhaps its most fundamental and grievous impact.

This was a concern that occupied Weizsäcker and is reflected in his call to overcome the pathology of peacelessness. He anticipates two types of criticism that might be directed at his advocacy for institutionally guaranteed peace. The first is the idea that we are already living in conditions of peace, a peace that is ensured by large-scale weaponry. The other is that there has always been war and that it will occur again in the future because it is part of human nature. Weizsäcker points to the paradox that these two criticisms are often voiced by the same person, who, on the one hand, asserts that we are living in peace but on the other, dismisses peace as a “pious wish.” This contradiction often goes unnoticed by the proponent of these arguments.

According to Weizsäcker, when confronting an issue on which it is difficult to remain focused, people’s psychological reaction is often to drive it out of their consciousness. While this might at times be necessary if we are to maintain mental equilibrium, it can hardly be termed an optimal response when a decision impinging on survival is required. This prevents us from thinking seriously about what is required to create peace, the actions we must take to achieve that end.^[38]

Half a century has passed since Weizsäcker made this observation, but even today there are many people in the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states who, even if not actively supporting deterrence policy, consider it an unavoidable necessity for the maintenance of national security. So long as nuclear war does not actually break out, there would seem to be no problem with thinking that large-scale weaponry maintains peace and averting one’s eyes from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. But, in fact, this pervasive resignation regarding the nuclear issue has a deleterious effect on the foundations of society and on the future of young people.

If security strategies based on nuclear deterrence fail and nuclear war breaks out, it will result in horrific devastation and enormous loss of life for both friend and foe. But the damage done by deterrence theory is not limited to this: even if nuclear weapons are never used people will still be forced to live with the absurd and existential threat they pose, while the protection of defense and military secrets will be prioritized and justifications for curtailing people’s rights and freedoms in the name of national security will remain. When a pervasive sense of powerlessness is added to the mix, it creates a mood within society that it is acceptable to overlook human rights abuses as a necessary evil as long as they do not have a direct impact on one’s own life. If the overpowering negativity arising from the pathology of peacelessness continues to exert its influence, young people will be denied the opportunity to develop a healthy and rich humanity.

In 1260, Nichiren (1222–82), the Japanese Buddhist reformer who developed his understanding of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra, which expresses the essence of Shakyamuni’s teachings, submitted the treatise “On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land” to the highest political authority of his day. In it, he identified a widespread sense of resignation as the root cause of the disorder assailing society.

At the time, the Japanese people suffered from repeated disasters and armed conflicts, and many were sunk in apathy and resignation. Society as a whole was permeated by pessimistic philosophies that despaired of the possibility of resolving challenges through one’s own efforts, and many people’s sole focus was on maintaining a sense of inner tranquility. Such ways of thinking and acting ran entirely contrary to the teachings animating the Lotus Sutra, which call on us to maintain unyielding faith in the potential existing within all people, to work for the full development and flowering of that potential and to build a society in which all people shine in the fullness of their dignity. Nichiren’s treatise urges an earnest confrontation with the challenge of how to spark the light of hope in the hearts of people beaten down by repeated disaster, how to mobilize social change to prevent wars and internal conflicts. He thus stresses the need to root out the pathology of resignation that lies hidden in the deepest strata of our social being, infecting us all: “Rather than offering up ten thousand prayers for remedy, it would be better simply to outlaw this one evil.”^[39] His treatise calls on us to reject resignation in the face of our deep social ills and instead to muster our inner human capacities so that we may together meet the severe challenges of our age as agents of proactive and contagious change.

As heirs to Nichiren’s spiritual heritage, the members of the Soka Gakkai have, since the times of our founding and second presidents Makiguchi and Toda, viewed our mission within society as the construction of a popular solidarity of action dedicated to eliminating misery from Earth.

In his analysis of Shakyamuni’s perspective on the nature of suffering, which is seminal to Buddhist thinking, the philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) declared that it had no hint of pessimism.^[40] Elsewhere, Jaspers explored means for overcoming the sense of powerlessness. He used the term “boundary situation” (Ger. Grenzsituation) to describe the unavoidable realities that individuals confront. He pointed out that the only way to avoid a boundary situation in our present existence is to close our eyes to it, but that to do so would be to shut ourselves off from our inner potential.^[41]

Here, I would like to focus on Jaspers’ insight that boundary situations are concrete and particular to each of us and that it is this that enables us to find the path to a breakthrough. In other words, each of us carries the unique burdens of our lives in the form of the particularities of our birth or surroundings, and these restrictions serve to narrow the conditions within which we live. When, however, we recognize our own boundary situation and resolve to overcome it, the narrowness of our individual circumstances, which cannot be supplanted for anyone else’s, is transformed into the depth with which we live out our original selves.

Jaspers states that “in this boundary situation there is no objective solution for all time; there are only historic solutions for the time being.”^[42] It is this that generates the particular weight of each of our actions—actions that only we can take.

Jaspers’ call could be said to describe the approach that propelled me in my own actions, starting during the Cold War era, to open a path for peace and coexistence. In 1974, a time of heightened Cold War tension, I made my first visits to China and the Soviet Union. At the time, I encountered criticism from people who demanded to know why a person of faith would travel to countries whose official ideology rejected religion. For my part, however, it was precisely as a person of faith strongly desiring the realization of peace that I wanted to lay the foundations for friendship and exchange, and it was this that made me feel I could not squander the opportunity presented by the invitations extended to me by the China-Japan Friendship Association and M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, respectively. Needless to say, I was not in possession of any infallible plan or method that could guarantee success. Rather, I earnestly embraced each encounter and dialogue in the uniqueness of that one-time-only circumstance, creating opportunities for educational and cultural exchange one step at a time.

After the end of the Cold War, convinced that no country or people should be isolated, I traveled to Cuba, whose relations with the United States at the time were at a low point, to Colombia, which faced a severe terrorism problem, and elsewhere. Refusing to give in to a sense of powerlessness or resignation, convinced rather that my nongovernmental status as a person of faith opened unique avenues of action, I traveled to each of these places. In the same spirit, I have continued to author annual proposals for peace and disarmament for the last thirty-five years and have taken action to expand the solidarity of civil society.

Now that the longstanding goal of a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons has been attained, I would like to address the young people of the world in light of my own experiences: Each of you is a possessor of life imbued with dignity and limitless possibility; although the realities of international society may be severe and seemingly immovable, there is no need for you to accept or resign yourselves to this reality, now or in the future.

In June last year, the Argentine human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and I issued a joint appeal to youth, rooted in our conviction that, indeed, another world is possible.

The lives and dignity of tens of millions of people are violated by war and armed conflict, starvation, social and structural violence. We must open our arms, minds and hearts in solidarity with the most vulnerable in order to rectify this grave situation.^[43]

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) offers a model in this regard. It mobilized the passion and rich creativity of the younger generation in support of the adoption of the TPNW, for which it was recognized with the conferral of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

The SGI’s own efforts as an international partner of ICAN from its inception have likewise been propelled by youth. In 2007, the SGI launched the People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition. Japan’s youth membership led the way in gathering 5.12 million signatures calling for a world free from nuclear weapons. In Italy, our youth membership championed cooperation with the Senzatomica campaign, holding awareness-raising exhibitions in more than seventy cities around the country. Student members in the US have launched Our New Clear Future, a movement to promote dialogue and consensus-building toward the abolition of nuclear weapons by the year 2030, with activities held on university campuses nationwide.

Some of the above activities were included in a report submitted by the SGI last year as a contribution to the UN’s Progress Study on Youth, Peace and Security mandated by Security Council Resolution 2250, adopted in 2015. This resolution requests the Secretary-General to carry out a study on young people’s “positive contribution to peace processes and conflict resolution”^[44] and to make its results available to the Security Council and all member states. The contributions of the SGI youth members were referenced in the Progress Study. The report submitted by the SGI youth outlined the People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition and provided the following analysis: “In fact, involving youth seems to have the ripple effect of reaching those who are not aware of the issue, and further energizing those who are already engaged.”^[45]

To call forth and mutually strengthen the will for transformation from within people’s hearts—it is in this capacity for life-to-life resonance that the essence of youth is found.

As we survey the tasks that lie ahead—achieving the early entry into force of the TPNW and, beyond that, encouraging the participation of nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states leading toward the elimination of nuclear weapons—it is clear that nothing is more indispensable to arousing and sustaining global public interest and support than the powerful engagement of youth.

It is my firm conviction that it is vibrant mutual inspiration among youth that holds the key to achieving disarmament across the three thematic areas I have explored here.

Friends of the TPNW

Next, I would like to offer five proposals comprising concrete steps to help resolve urgent problems concerning peace and disarmament and to significantly advance efforts to achieve the SDGs.

The first pertains to the early entry into force of the TPNW and expansion of the number of countries participating. Since its adoption in July 2017, the TPNW has been signed by seventy states, or more than one-third of the UN member states; twenty have ratified so far. Fifty states need to ratify for it to enter into force, and the process of ratification has been advancing at a steady pace comparable to that of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention.

Moreover, it should be noted that nearly 80 percent of the world’s states, including those yet to become states parties to the TPNW, have put in place security policies conforming to the prohibitions set out in it. According to Norwegian People’s Aid, a partner of ICAN, 155 states adhere to the prohibitions against developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, stockpiling, transferring, receiving the transfer of, using, threatening to use, allowing any stationing, installation or deployment of any nuclear weapons and assisting or receiving any assistance to engage in any activity prohibited under the Treaty.^[46]

In other words, an overwhelming majority of the world’s states, including those that do not adhere to the TPNW at this point, maintain security policies that are not dependent on nuclear weapons, signaling their acceptance of its core norms. It is vital to achieve the entry into force of the Treaty and expand the scope of its ratification so that these norms on the prohibition of nuclear weapons become truly universal.

At the same time, there are those who argue that the TPNW could deepen divisions within the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) regime, the key international framework for nuclear disarmament. The fact is, however, that the goals of the two Treaties are ultimately the same, and the TPNW in no way undermines the NPT. Rather, we should focus on the fact that the TPNW can breathe new life into the obligation to conduct good faith negotiations toward nuclear disarmament as stipulated in Article VI of the NPT.

Here, I would like to propose the creation of a group of like-minded states to deepen and extend the debate that has developed during the process leading up to the adoption of the TPNW, with an eye toward expanding participation in the Treaty. It could be called Friends of the TPNW, modeled after Friends of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), a group that is working for the entry into force of that treaty. Since being initiated by Japan, Australia and the Netherlands in 2002, Friends of the CTBT has held ministerial meetings every other year. Some seventy countries participated in the ninth such meeting last year.^[47]

It is noteworthy that participants in the ministerial meetings include nuclear-weapon, nuclear-dependent and non- nuclear-weapon states. States have taken part irrespective of their signing or ratification status. A number of governments have ratified the CTBT after attending these ministerial meetings, and there have also been cases of states that have participated in a ministerial meeting after ratification where they have encouraged other Annex 2 States to ratify.

Annex 2 States

Annex 2 of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was opened for signature in September 1996, includes a list of forty-four states whose signature and ratification are required for the Treaty to enter into force. Of these, thirty-six have signed and ratified. At present, five Annex 2 States have signed but still not ratified the Treaty: China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the US, and three others—North Korea, India and Pakistan—have neither signed nor ratified.

While the United States has yet to ratify, both then Secretary of State John Kerry and former Defense Secretary William Perry have attended these ministerial meetings. Secretary Perry shared crucial lessons concerning nuclear weapons, including false alarms of Soviet ICBM launches during the 1970s. Building on the experience of Friends of the CTBT, a similar group focused on the TPNW could serve as a forum for sustained dialogue across their different stances regarding the Treaty.

I would strongly urge Japan to join and participate in such a group. I have consistently called for Japan, as the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack in wartime, to support and ratify the TPNW. Having played a vital role in Friends of the CTBT, Japan should cooperate in the formation of a Friends of the TPNW and encourage other nuclear-dependent states to participate in the dialogue, even as it works to overcome the challenges hindering its own accession to the Treaty.

The TPNW requires that the first meeting of states parties be convened within one year of its entry into force. I think that a Friends of the TPNW should be launched prior to this meeting because establishing a place of dialogue open to all states in advance would make a significant contribution to resolving differences over the treaty. Since Japan has declared its desire to serve as a bridge between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, it makes sense that it should take the initiative in creating a venue for such dialogue.

In the final stages of the negotiations on the TPNW, Japan announced the establishment of a Group of Eminent Persons for Substantive Advancement of Nuclear Disarmament. This group recently issued recommendations based on discussions among experts from nuclear-weapon, nuclear-dependent and non-nuclear-weapon states:

The stalemate over nuclear disarmament is not tenable. . . The international community must move urgently to narrow and ultimately resolve its differences. . . All parties even though they might have different perspectives can work together to reduce nuclear dangers.^[48]

Japan should support the work of a Friends of the TPNW, taking to heart this insight offered by the Group of Eminent Persons and collaborating with other countries such as Austria, which has volunteered to host the first meeting of states parties. I hope this group will actively create venues for dialogue among and between nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states in coordination with organizations that contributed to the adoption of the TPNW such as the ICRC, ICAN and Mayors for Peace.

New initiatives have arisen from within civil society to build support for the TPNW. For example, last November, ICAN launched a new campaign, the Cities Appeal. Cities in the US and the UK, both nuclear-weapon states, and in Canada, Australia and Spain, nuclear-dependent states, have already joined the appeal. Through this initiative, ICAN aims to expand solidarity among local governments that support the TPNW while also enabling individual citizens to become proactively engaged. By using social media and the #ICANSave hashtag, people can share their conviction that they have the right to live in a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Mayors for Peace, a network of 7,701 cities in 163 countries around the world, is calling for all states to join the Treaty.^[49]

In my proposal last year, I suggested the creation of a world map showing municipalities supporting the TPNW. I stressed the value of making clearly visible the global popular will that refuses to accept a state of affairs in which the horrors of a nuclear exchange remain a possibility, as a means of moving the world as a whole in the direction of denuclearization.

The SGI launched a second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition last year, to build on the work of the first Decade, which concluded in 2017 with the adoption of the TPNW. The second Decade is focused on expanding global support for the Treaty and paving the way toward a world free from nuclear weapons, and we will continue to work with like-minded partners to this end.

Second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition

Launched in 2018 by the SGI, following the completion of the first Decade that was initiated in September 2007, the second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition calls for promotion of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) with the aim of its early entry into force—ratification by fifty states. Working with various international antinuclear weapon movements, this SGI-led campaign focuses on awareness-raising and peace and disarmament education. The SGI global network comprises people from diverse backgrounds and provides a stage on which youth in particular can play an essential role toward the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons.

For more information, see:
https://peoplesdecade2.wixsite.com/nuclear-abolition/about

A fourth special session of the General Assembly

My second proposal pertains to measures to advance nuclear disarmament.

The year 2020 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the entry into force of the NPT, which preceded the TPNW in enunciating the goal of total nuclear disarmament and establishing obligations to negotiate toward that end. Today, the NPT is considered to be the most universal instrument of international law pertaining to disarmament, with a membership of 191 states. In the initial stages of the negotiations, however, there were concerns that there would be only minimal adherence by non-nuclear-weapon states.

Made keenly aware of the horrific potential of nuclear war by the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and the USSR proposed a draft text of a treaty to prevent proliferation beyond the five states possessing nuclear weapons at that time. But it did not include provisions for disarmament. In the ensuing negotiation process, Article VI—a commitment by the nuclear-weapon states to pursue negotiations in good faith toward the goal of complete nuclear disarmament—was included to reflect the positions of non-nuclear-weapon states. In other words, it was because of the strong sense of urgency on the part of the nuclear-weapon states to halt proliferation and the willingness of non-nuclear-weapon states to accommodate them, trusting in their good-faith commitment to nuclear disarmament, that it was possible to initiate the NPT regime.

Half a century later, even after a decrease from the peak levels seen during the Cold War, there are still an estimated 14,465 nuclear weapons in the world today.^[50] To date, all reductions in nuclear weapons have been effected through bilateral disarmament agreements between the US and Russia: not a single nuclear warhead has been eliminated as a result of a multilateral agreement. And when viewed in terms of capability rather than numbers, the ongoing modernization of weapon systems actually indicates a trend toward escalation.

Here, I am reminded of the concern expressed by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker in a lecture delivered in July 1967, shortly before negotiations on the NPT began in earnest. He noted that for all their inadequacies, nuclear disarmament agreements could, when effective, prevent new sources of danger from developing and help states learn to work together. However, “they do not abolish existing arsenals and, taken in isolation, cement the status quo with all its inherent unresolved problems.”^[51]

It is true that the NPT prevented the worst-case scenario envisaged by US President John F. Kennedy (1917–63) in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis of a world with as many as twenty-five nuclear-armed states. From the perspective of nuclear disarmament, however, the NPT certainly has tended to cement the status quo and with it all the unresolved issues, just as Weizsäcker had cautioned.

We must keep in mind the fact that it was the reaffirmation of Article VI disarmament commitments that made possible the Treaty’s indefinite extension in 1995, following the end of the Cold War. The final document of the conference where this was decided states, “The undertakings with regard to nuclear disarmament as set out in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons should thus be fulfilled with determination,”^[52] clearly indicating that the extension was not unconditional. And indeed, the four Review Conferences that took place between 2000 and 2015 were marked by repeated calls for the fulfillment of these Article VI obligations.

At the 2020 NPT Review Conference, which will mark the fiftieth anniversary of its entry into force, states parties should keep in view the circumstances and motivations that brought the Treaty into being and focus their deliberations on the Article VI commitments as they seek to break the longstanding stalemate.

Here, I would like to highlight the statement made by the Nordic countries at the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 NPT Review Conference, held in April 2018. Noting the ongoing US-Russia confrontation over the INF Treaty, it states: “We have to join forces to maintain and strengthen the relevance of the [NPT] and refrain from any action which may undermine it.”^[53] The statement also urges countries to focus on what unites them and encourages them to direct their attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, the shared concern that was affirmed at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. It is significant that, in addition to Finland and Sweden, the signatories include Denmark, Norway and Iceland, nuclear-dependent members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

At the annual NATO Conference on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation held last October, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu proposed that a ministerial meeting be held at the beginning of the 2020 NPT Review Conference where a political declaration could be adopted. I fully support this proposal as such a declaration would reaffirm that which unites us through the NPT.

The preamble of the NPT stresses the need to make every effort to avert the danger of a nuclear war and the importance of strengthening trust between states in order to “facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery.”^[54] This ministerial meeting should affirm the spirit of the NPT preamble and express deep concern regarding the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use. It should further declare a firm pledge, on the fiftieth anniversary of the NPT’s entry into force, to take real steps to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament.

I would also like to suggest that the final document of the 2020 NPT Review Conference include a recommendation to establish a UN open working group to discuss concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, marking a clear directional shift toward nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons have not been used in war since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and the nuclear-weapon states, NATO member states and others have begun to recognize their declining military utility. Even during the Cold War, it was clear that there could be no winner in a nuclear war. Given this growing awareness of their lack of military utility, what reason can remain to justify nuclear-dependent security doctrines?

Weizsäcker warned that possessing atomic bombs for the purpose of intimidation, even while hoping they would never be used, was akin to dancing on the edge of the abyss.^[55] And yet we continue to do this to this day. Keeping nuclear warheads on high-alert status, ready to be launched at any moment, even in the absence of intense hostility, means that we will never be free from the fear of their accidental detonation. The essential fragility and peril of nuclear deterrence forces us to live with this unremitting vulnerability. It is time to make the collective decision to extinguish the flames that engulf “the burning house,” to use the imagery of the Lotus Sutra parable I referred to earlier.

This means eliminating the essential fragility and peril of nuclear deterrence, and to that end, I urge all nuclear-weapon states to prioritize steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines.

Removal of nuclear warheads from high-alert status is both extremely urgent and could be implemented with relatively little preparation. Nor is it without precedent: it was done in 1991 by US President George H. W. Bush (1924–2018) and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev as they worked together to bring the Cold War to a conclusion. President Bush ordered all strategic bombers, 450 Minuteman II ICBMs and ten nuclear submarines carrying SLBMs taken off alert. In response, President Gorbachev ordered around 500 ground-launched missiles and six nuclear submarines removed from operational forces. The entire process was effected in a matter of days.

As this precedent makes clear, taking nuclear weapons off high-alert status can be done immediately through a political decision on the part of nuclear-weapon states. Discussions on a phased removal process could take place in a UN open working group on reducing the role of nuclear weapons with the participation of nuclear-dependent and non-nuclear-weapon states.

Today there is less real risk of being subjected to a nuclear attack from another country compared to the Cold War era. The most widespread concern is the threat of nuclear detonation by accident or as a result of human error. A resolution adopted last month by the General Assembly on decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems received support from 175 countries. It would be most significant for the nuclear-weapon states to build on this broad international support by taking the bold measure of removing their nuclear arsenals from high-alert status. Such nuclear risk reduction, or “horizontal disarmament,” combined with efforts to reduce the number of weapons in nuclear arsenals, or “vertical disarmament,” is a vital element in fulfilling Article VI commitments.

Here, I would like to propose that a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (SSOD-IV) be held in 2021 as a follow-up to the 2020 NPT Review Conference. It should reconfirm the obligation for multilateral disarmament negotiations and set the basic goals of major reductions in nuclear arsenals and a freeze on their modernization. It should also initiate multilateral disarmament negotiations toward the 2025 NPT Review Conference.

Achieving consensus on disarmament has never been easy. In fact, when the first special session (SSOD-I) was held in 1978, negotiations proved difficult despite the demands of many states. States expressed their various opinions about the draft agreement, using brackets to indicate language that remained in dispute. Consensus could not be reached, nor a resolution adopted, until these were resolved. It then fell upon former Mexican foreign minister Alfonso García Robles (1911–91) to coordinate the various views and break through the impasse. He addressed the conference as follows:

I would suggest to all representatives that we enter into a kind of gentlemen’s agreement here to the effect that paragraphs which, after lengthy and arduous negotiation, are now free from brackets should not be subjected to the introduction of any further brackets unless there are circumstances of exceptional significance which make that absolutely necessary; otherwise, I very much fear that we shall find ourselves in a situation rather like that of the faithful wife of Ulysses, in Greek mythology, who spent the days weaving and the nights unravelling what she had woven.^[56]

Due to the efforts of García Robles, who would later receive the Nobel Peace Prize, all disputed text was resolved and brackets removed, and a final document was unanimously adopted. This document is still considered foundational for disarmament deliberations. I hope that, at this fourth special session, all states will follow his example with both earnest commitment and a readiness to compromise to achieve a consensus on disarmament of nuclear and other weapons.

I further hope that sufficient opportunities will be afforded to representatives of civil society to speak at this session. At the first special session, representatives of twenty-five NGOs and six research institutes addressed the General Assembly, the first time that civil society made its voice heard in this way.

For my part, I wrote disarmament proposals on the occasion of the first (1978), second (1982) and third (1988) special sessions. During the second special session, the SGI organized the “Nuclear Arms: Threat to Our World” exhibition at UN Headquarters in New York. This exhibition, with its portrayal of the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, played a part in the adoption of the World Disarmament Campaign by the SSOD-II. Since then, the SGI has consistently worked to promote disarmament education. Through activities such as holding symposiums related to a fourth special session, we will continue to amplify the voices of civil society calling for a world free from nuclear weapons.

A ban on lethal autonomous weapons

My third proposal is to establish a legally binding instrument that prohibits all lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), also known as AI weapons or killer robots. Although such weapon systems have yet to be deployed, they are under development in several countries. There is growing international concern that if any country were to deploy them for military use, the impact would be equivalent to that of the advent of nuclear weapons, radically transforming the global security environment. One of the threats posed by LAWS is that they make it possible to wage combat without direct human intervention, lowering the threshold for military action and risking a dramatic undermining of international humanitarian law.

We also need to consider problems that are unique to LAWS. As pointed out in the UN Disarmament Agenda, various automated weapons capable of functioning without the intervention of an operator have been developed and used over the years—from the unmanned V-1 flying bombs of World War II to anti-personnel landmines, which remain buried in many places around the world. The agenda expresses concern over the fact that LAWS pose an entirely different level of threat: their incorporation of AI may cause them to perform “unanticipated or unexplainable actions.”^[57]

In 2014, an informal meeting of experts to discuss questions related to regulating LAWS was held under UN auspices, and this became one of the topics I discussed with the eminent peace scholar Dr. Kevin Clements. Focusing on the dangers of robotic weapons, I highlighted the threat they present from a humanitarian perspective. These weapons, when given a command to attack, automatically go on killing with no hesitation or pangs of conscience. I also reiterated the urgent need to completely outlaw such weapons before any atrocity can take place and to create a framework to ban their development or deployment.

Referring to the international Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, Dr. Clements stressed the importance of strengthening collaboration among a broad range of actors, including the UN, members of the diplomatic community and civil society.^[58] At a meeting of governmental experts in April last year, the majority of participating states agreed on the importance of retaining human control over weapon systems, with representatives of twenty-six states calling for a total ban on LAWS.^[59] I therefore urge that a conference to negotiate a treaty banning LAWS be promptly convened in order to respond to the warnings voiced in the UN Disarmament Agenda and the concerns raised at such expert meetings.

Last February, the Japanese government announced that it has no intention of developing fully autonomous weapon systems. Last September, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for EU members to begin negotiating a legally binding instrument prohibiting LAWS. Meanwhile, within global civil society, the membership of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots has expanded to eighty-nine NGOs in fifty-one countries.^[60]

For our part, last October, representatives of the SGI attended the UN General Assembly First Committee, submitting two statements. One was a joint statement issued by Faith Communities Concerned about Nuclear Weapons. Endorsed by fourteen groups and individuals from different faith traditions, including Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, the statement called for the TPNW’s early entry into force and for substantive discussions in multilateral forums on a legally binding instrument to prohibit LAWS.^[61] The other was the SGI’s public statement highlighting the serious military threats posed by LAWS and pointing out that their use “undermines the principles of human autonomy, responsibility and dignity, as well as the right to life.”^[62]

SGI Statement

The SGI’s public statement was submitted to the UN General Assembly First Committee on disarmament and international security on October 17, 2018. It urges the world’s governments to support the early entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and calls on those governments as yet unable to do so to identify specific prohibitions to which they are able to commit. It also emphasizes the importance of disarmament education and characterizes the struggle for disarmament as “a struggle against all forms of injustice and intolerance.”

If LAWS were to be left unregulated or even actually used, the nature of combat would be fundamentally transformed. Fully autonomous weapon systems create not only a physical disconnect—the situation in which those who direct attacks and those who are targeted are not in the same place, as already seen in the case of drone strikes—but also an ethical disconnect, completely isolating the initiator of the attack from the actual combat operation.

When considering the implications of this ethical disconnect, which in some ways are of even greater concern than the military threats posed by robotic weapon systems, I am reminded of an experience described by Richard von Weizsäcker (1920–2015), the first post-reunification president of Germany. I met with the president, the younger brother of the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, in June 1991, eight months after the reunification of Germany. In our discussion, we talked about the dangers inherent in the kind of closed, airless societies that both Germany and Japan experienced during the 1930s and 40s.

In his memoirs, he shared the following episode. He first visited the Soviet Union as a West German parliamentarian, in 1973, paying a visit to a memorial cemetery in Leningrad (present-day Saint Petersburg) dedicated to the colossal number of Russians killed while the city was under siege by the German army during World War II. When asked to say a few words at a formal banquet that evening, President Weizsäcker confessed that he had in fact participated in the Siege of Leningrad as a young infantryman, to which the room fell silent. He told his audience that he and his fellow soldiers had been “fully aware of the suffering on all fronts but especially in this city. And now we are here to do our part to make certain that future generations will never have to repeat our experiences.”^[63] The silence gradually gave way to a feeling of human warmth.

If fully autonomous weapon systems were to be used in actual combat, would it be possible for former enemies to experience the kind of encounter that President Weizsäcker describes? Would there be any room for deep remorse over one’s actions, a poignant sense of powerlessness in the face of war or a personal resolution to dedicate oneself to peace for the sake of future generations?

I, too, visited that memorial cemetery in Leningrad in September 1974, the year after President Weizsäcker. As I placed flowers at the monument, I offered heartfelt prayers for the repose of the deceased and renewed my vow to work for peace. When I met with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin (1904–80) on the final day of my stay in the country, I mentioned my visit to the cemetery. The premier responded that he had been in the city at the time of the siege and fell silent as if recalling the horrors of that time. That moment initiated a candid and open-hearted exchange of views between us. I can still picture the earnest look on the premier’s face as he related his conviction that we must first relinquish the very idea of war if we are to tackle the global challenges facing humankind. My own experience helped me grasp how uniquely valuable and important the interactions between President Weizsäcker and the Russian people must have been.

In his memoir, President Weizsäcker vividly describes his experience of war:

Since all the men facing each other across the battle lines worried chiefly about their own survival, we can assume that our foes were not so different from ourselves. . . I remember a silent night march in long lines in which we suddenly sensed, coming in the other direction, an equally silent line. We could barely make each other out, and yet we realized abruptly that the others were Russian. Now the crucial point for both sides was to keep calm, so we felt our way past each other in silence and unscathed. We were supposed to kill each other, yet we would have preferred to embrace each other.^[64]

In a world of AI-controlled weapon systems, is there any chance that we would be able to “keep calm” in the face of the complicated feelings that cross the lines of friend and foe, sensing the weight of humanity bearing down upon us, and thus be able to hold off, even for a moment, the decision to attack?

It is certainly important to discuss restrictions on LAWS in light of the imperatives of international humanitarian law—such principles as protecting civilians in times of conflict and prohibiting the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to combatants as well as the obligation to determine whether the employment of a new weapon would violate any existing international law. But above and beyond that, we must not overlook the ethical disconnect inherent in LAWS, which contrasts so sharply with the kind of human connection described by President Weizsäcker in his recollections. Although different in nature from nuclear weapons, any use of fully autonomous robotic weapons would have irreversible consequences for both the country using them and the country they are used against.

I therefore strongly urge all parties—those states already calling for a ban on LAWS, countries such as Japan that have declared their intention not to develop such weapons and NGOs committed to the Stop Killer Robots campaign—to come together to work for the early adoption of a legally binding instrument comprehensively prohibiting the development and use of these systems.

Strengthening UN initiatives on water resources management

Next, as my fourth proposal, I would like to offer some thoughts and perspectives regarding the UN’s water-related SDGs. More specifically, I would like to make a number of proposals on the management of water resources.

The SDGs call for achieving “universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.”^[65] It is estimated that around 2.1 billion people lack access to clean and safe water^[66] and that roughly 40 percent of people worldwide are affected by water scarcity.^[67] Even as demand for water continues to increase due to factors such as population growth, economic development and changing consumption patterns, water quality is deteriorating as a result of the introduction of untreated wastewater in rivers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Also, the water cycle is being disrupted by climate change, with dry regions becoming even drier and wet regions experiencing even more rain.^[68]

In response to this crisis, the UN General Assembly launched the Water Action Decade (the International Decade for Action, “Water for Sustainable Development” 2018–2028) last March. At the launch at UN Headquarters, General Assembly Vice President Mahmoud Saikal noted the unequal impacts of water scarcity:

No one, working in this building, will go thirsty. None of us will wonder whether our next sip of water will make us ill. None of us will risk our dignity, or our safety, to meet our basic human needs. This, simply, is our reality. But, for too many people around the world, it is a different story.^[69]

More than 600 million people worldwide are said to be taking water from unprotected wells and from untreated surface water such as lakes, ponds, rivers and streams because they do not have access to safe sources of water in their immediate environment.^[70] Large numbers of women and children are compelled to travel long distances to collect water, often having to endure long hours carrying heavy loads. Many people develop diseases as a result of consuming unhygienic water, leading to the deaths of great numbers of children each year. In this regard, providing access to safe water goes beyond issues such as poverty and income disparity. Ensuring that all people can live in dignity—no longer having to fear for their health or worry about the unnecessary burden of fetching their own water—is a core concern in the pursuit of basic human rights. It is often the case that people living in developed countries only come to realize how much they take adequate supplies of clean and safe drinking water for granted in times of natural disaster.

The right of access to clean and safe water has been stipulated in international treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Then, in 2010, the UN General Assembly recognized the “right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights,”^[71] and this right has also been affirmed by resolutions adopted by the UN Human Rights Council.

In view of the above, I would like to suggest the creation of the post of special representative for water resources within the UN to coordinate global efforts to ensure access to safe water—a key goal of the SDGs and the basis for protecting the life, livelihood and dignity of all.

Although there is no existing UN entity dedicated exclusively to water issues, there are currently more than thirty international organizations involved in water and sanitation programs under the coordination of UN-Water. A special representative for water resources appointed by the Secretary- General would work together with the agencies coordinated by UN-Water to encourage member states to build partnerships for technology transfer through, for example, the sharing of best practices.

One approach would be for the special representative for water resources to bring together regular UN meetings on the Water Action Decade. The High-Level Panel on Water convened by the UN and the World Bank Group comprising eleven heads of state and government likewise recommended that this kind of conference be held either annually or biannually.^[72] I believe it is essential that an approach grounded in the kind of people-centered multilateralism I discussed earlier be applied to water-related issues through, for example, the holding of such regular meetings.

Referring to his experience as prime minister of Portugal when it reached an agreement with Spain on a water resources convention and other examples of water cooperation like those between India and Pakistan and Bolivia and Peru, Secretary-General Guterres has stated that “water has historically proven to be a catalyst for cooperation not for conflict.”^[73] It is estimated that 286 transboundary river and lake basins and 592 transboundary aquifers exist today,^[74] and approximately one-third of the former are covered by cooperative management frameworks between or among the concerned states.^[75] Similar international water agreements could be negotiated in the remaining areas with the support of a special representative for water resources and the agencies coordinated by UN-Water to ensure sustainable water supply and improvement in water quality in transboundary river and lake basins.

In view of rising concerns about the future adequacy of fresh water supplies around the world, I urge Japan and other nations with abundant know-how and advanced technologies regarding water reuse and desalination to proactively contribute solutions. Japan has supported international efforts to tackle water and sanitation-related problems, in terms of both physical and intellectual infrastructure, by building facilities and training technicians, and has established itself as a key partner to many countries.

In addition, Japan has for many years been engaging in exchanging technology and information on water resources with South Korea and China, holding meetings with Korea since 1978 and with China since 1985. Last year, the three countries held the Third Ministerial Meeting on Water Resources, in which they each shared best practices and reaffirmed their commitment to promoting further exchange and cooperation toward achieving the water-related SDGs. I would like to see Japan apply its experience to the resolution of water-related problems in Northeast Asia and to regional confidence building. Also, I hope that China, Japan and Korea will work together to offer support to countries in the Middle East and Africa where there is growing demand for water reuse and desalination.

The Seventh Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD VII) is slated to take place in Yokohama this August. At TICAD V in 2013, the Japanese government announced that it would continue to provide support for ensuring safe drinking water for approximately 10 million people as well as training 1,750 engineers.^[76] At this year’s conference, I hope Japan will follow up and strengthen its commitment on these initiatives and also draw up an overarching plan for water reuse and desalination projects in countries in Africa.

Although Japan is a country blessed with plentiful water resources, it is also highly exposed to a variety of natural disasters, ranking fifth among the most exposed countries worldwide, according to the WorldRiskReport 2018.^[77] The need for safe water is felt most intensely in the wake of natural disasters and this alone should motivate Japan to exercise people-centered multilateral leadership in helping nations currently struggling to improve their citizens’ access to safe water.

As a member of civil society, the SGI will support the Water Action Decade by holding an exhibition focusing on the everyday life and struggles of women impacted by water-related issues. It is estimated that women and girls in low-income countries spend approximately 40 billion hours collecting water every year.^[78] These women and children are often exposed to violence along the arduous daily journey to collect water, and their health is harmed by the strain of the heavy load. When provided with access to safe water, more women can devote their time to other forms of work and more girls can attend school—leading to their overall empowerment. Through this exhibition, the SGI will look to cast light on the conditions of such women and girls and their efforts to overcome various water-related issues.

UN Women, an organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women, has profiled such experiences. One is that of a woman living in Tajikistan and her struggles to bring clean water to her village. After being widowed, she was left to raise her five children on her own, each day having to walk for many hours to collect water from the river. Long deprived of clean water, her fellow villagers had very little hope that things would ever change, but she and other women formed a group to take matters into their own hands. With the support of several NGOs and with the help of their fellow villagers, they were able to assemble 14 kilometers of water pipes and successfully bring clean water to the village, providing more than 3,000 people with safe drinking water. Speaking about their achievements, she says: “This was a small victory for us. We want to do more to improve our lives. We have plans to create a mini-farm and build small greenhouses. We are confident that we will succeed.”^[79]

Nothing embodies progress toward achievement of the SDGs more powerfully than the smiles of hope and joy on the faces of these women.

At the launch of the Water Action Decade at UN Headquarters, thirteen-year-old Autumn Peltier spoke as a representative of civil society. “We all have a right to this water as we need it—not just rich people, all people,” the indigenous water activist from Canada told leaders. “No child should grow up not knowing what clean water is or never know what running water is.”^[80] In closing, she issued this call: “Now is the time to warrior up and empower each other to stand for our planet.”^[81]

Through this exhibition, the SGI will seek to inspire greater action within civil society on the issue of access to safe water in order to protect humankind and the planet.

Universities: Central hubs for promoting the SDGs

My fifth and final proposal is to strengthen momentum toward making the world’s universities hubs for the realization of the SDGs. Launched in 2010, the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI), an initiative that aligns institutions of higher education with the UN in supporting and contributing to the realization of its global agenda, currently links more than 1,300 institutions in approximately 140 countries.^[82] In October last year, UNAI announced that it had designated seventeen universities as SDG Hubs modeling innovative engagement related to each of the seventeen SDGs.

One of them, the University of Pretoria in South Africa, has been chosen as the hub for Goal 2: Zero hunger. Within the university, there are research centers dedicated to tackling the food crisis and improving nutrition. It also collaborates with institutions across the continent and around the globe and for several years has sponsored conferences on international food security. It has also prioritized the integration of the SDGs into its curricula across all programs.

The Ahfad University for Women in Sudan has been chosen as the hub for Goal 5: Gender equality. Aiming to equip women with the skills needed to actively contribute to their communities and countries, the university offers four master’s programs specializing in gender-related fields including gender and development and gender and peace studies.

De Montfort University in the UK has been designated as the hub for Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions. As a leader in the UN campaign to promote the well-being of refugees and migrants, facilitating their coexistence with local populations, it is committed to providing educational opportunities for refugee youth. Advocating for the dignity of migrants and refugees, the university is also promoting an oral history project to archive refugee stories to be shared with the public.

Among Japanese universities, the Nagaoka University of Technology has been chosen as the hub for Goal 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure. During their three-year term as SDG Hubs, the seventeen universities will take the lead in propelling efforts toward the realization of the SDGs in their respective commitment areas.

In the words of Ramu Damodaran, chief of UNAI, “Scholarship does good. Students deliver goods. Nowhere has this combination worked more effectively, indeed dramatically, than in university engagement with the SDGs.”^[83] I could not agree more—the potential residing within universities is truly limitless. Universities can serve as havens of hope and security in society and can make crucial contributions to the well-being of humanity as a whole. Based on this belief, I would like to call for the expansion of the network of universities committed to supporting the SDGs, building on the work of these seventeen hub universities.

One vehicle for realizing this might be for universities around the world, starting with the members of UNAI, to select the SDGs that are the particular focus of their efforts and actively work for their achievement. Aiming to promote cooperation among institutions that are working on the same goals and to broaden solidarity among students across the globe, I would like to propose the holding of a world conference of universities in support of the SDGs sometime next year, the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the UN.

The UN’s Youth2030 strategy calls on UN entities to amplify and reinforce the voices of young people at major summits such as the seventy-fifth anniversary events and to establish regular engagement between young people and the Secretary-General. In this context, a world conference of universities in support of the SDGs would bring together educators and students from around the globe, accelerating momentum toward their achievement. It could also provide the opportunity for a dialogue forum with the Secretary-General.

In my capacity as founder of Soka University, I have worked to promote academic exchanges and have conducted dialogues on the social mission of universities with the heads of academic institutions around the world.

Soka University has a long history of ties with the University of Buenos Aires, one the seventeen SDG Hubs. During my conversations with the university’s long-serving rector, Oscar J. Shuberoff (1944–2010), I shared my belief that exchanges between universities would undoubtedly give birth to the creation of new wisdom and value. The process of dialogue and the cultivation of mutual understanding never fail to generate fresh energy and a more ideal path toward a better future for the world. He agreed and commented that the world’s universities face common challenges and need to work together to find solutions. I was moved by his conviction that it is the duty of educators to reach out to those in greatest need.

As a UNAI member, Soka University is engaged in activities with a particular focus on five of the initiative’s ten basic principles: encouraging global citizenship; advancing peace and conflict resolution; addressing issues of poverty; promoting sustainability; and promoting intercultural dialogue and understanding, and the “unlearning” of intolerance.^[84]

Soka University joined UNHCR’s Refugee Higher Education Program when the SDGs were launched in 2016 and has accepted asylum seekers as students under this agreement. It also has ongoing exchange agreements with the UN Development Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization. In terms of its curriculum, Soka University launched courses on education for global citizenship last year focusing on such SDG-related fields as peace, the environment, development and human rights. In addition, it is actively taking part in a number of research initiatives relating to the SDGs, including that of building societies based on regenerative sustainability.

Soka University of America (SUA) has also committed resources to programs focusing on global challenges. Part of the unique curriculum it offers is a Learning Cluster, an intensive research seminar where students form teams and explore specific themes of their own choosing, always with a field learning component. The university provides students with specific learning opportunities, including UN Study Tours. Since 2014, SUA has also been organizing an annual conference on building a culture of peace and nonviolence in observance of the International Day of Non-Violence.

In my 2006 proposal on UN reform, I called on the world’s universities and institutions of higher learning to actively support the work of the UN as an integral part of their social mission. I described a future scenario in which individual students and universities connect with one another to form a web of networks supporting the UN that would eventually crisscross the entire globe. Indeed, just such a network has developed through the 1,300 universities participating in UNAI. The recent launch of the SDG Hubs provides a perfect opportunity to invite more universities into this network, allowing participants to share experiences and accumulated learning while coordinating their activities to build a global society in which no one is left behind.

The SGI will continue promoting the achievement of the SDGs through education for global citizenship, one of our core initiatives in support of the UN. We have organized exhibitions addressing various global issues, many of which have been hosted by universities around the world, including the University of Bergen in Norway, a UNAI SDG Hub. It has always been my conviction that universities are optimal venues for bringing together the wisdom to create solutions and find new approaches to problems. Young people, students in particular, are the primary agents who can unleash the kind of transformative energy our world requires.

Last June, when the joint appeal to youth which I wrote with Dr. Pérez Esquivel was launched at a press conference in Rome, the text was presented to two student representatives. A gathering to discuss the appeal was held the following day in the city’s student quarter. The appeal stresses the importance of the empowerment of young people through education for global citizenship and proposes the following three focus areas for such efforts:

1. Promoting a common awareness of a universal sense of history in order to prevent the repetition of tragedies.
2. Promoting the understanding that Earth is our common home, where no one is to be excluded on the basis of difference.
3. Promoting the humane orientation of politics and economics, cultivating the wisdom needed to achieve a sustainable future.^[85]

Based on these three commitments, the SGI is determined to strengthen our collaboration with academic institutions around the world and consistently advance education for global citizenship through activities such as the holding of exhibitions to raise awareness about the SDGs.

The gathering of students in Rome happened to fall on June 6, the birth anniversary of the Soka Gakkai’s founding president, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi. His educational philosophy provides the inspiration for the activities of the Soka Gakkai and the SGI. A central aspect of his thinking is expressed in the following statement:

Educational efforts built on a clear understanding and with a defined sense of purpose have the power to overcome the contradictions and doubts that plague humankind, and to bring about an enduring victory for humanity.^[86]

Based on this unwavering confidence in the limitless potential of education and through our commitment to the empowerment of youth, the SGI will strive to build a sustainable and peaceful global society where all can manifest their inherent dignity.

Toward a New Era of Peace and Disarmament: A People-Centered Approach

Last May, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN Disarmament Agenda in which he noted that total military spending was around eighty times the amount required to meet the humanitarian aid needs of the whole world. Now is the time to accelerate momentum toward disarmament. To this end, I propose three key themes that could support the effort to advance disarmament as a cornerstone of the twenty-first century.

The first is the need for a shared vision of what constitutes a peaceful society. I believe the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is a forerunner of the kind of international disarmament law that can help frame such a vision, as it is a form of international law that goes beyond the traditional confines of disarmament treaties to attend to a wide range of essential human concerns.

The next theme is the need to work together to foster “people-centered multilateralism.” This is an approach focused on protecting those who face the most serious threats and challenges.

Compared to questions of national security, the response to threats to the lives and livelihoods of individuals often lack urgency. Lack of basic security impacts not only those suffering from poverty or inequality but also the many people driven from their homes and forced to seek refuge from armed conflict or disaster. In this sense, the foundation for people-centered multilateralism must be the effort to build a world in which all people can enjoy a feeling of meaningful security and can together foster hope for the future.

The third theme is the mainstreaming of youth participation. As we survey the tasks that lie ahead, it is clear that nothing is more indispensable to arousing and sustaining global public interest and support than the powerful engagement of youth.

Friends of the TPNW

I would also like to offer five proposals comprising concrete steps to help resolve urgent problems concerning peace and disarmament and boost efforts to achieve the SDGs.

The first pertains to the early entry into force and expansion of the number of countries participating in the TPNW. I would like to propose the creation of a group of like-minded states to deepen and extend the debate that has developed during the process leading up to the adoption of the TPNW, with an eye toward promoting ratification. It could be called Friends of the TPNW, modeled after Friends of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), a group that has worked for the entry into force of the CTBT, and could serve as a forum for sustained dialogue across differences of stance on the TPNW.

The TPNW requires that the first meeting of states parties be convened within one year of its entry into force. Friends of the TPNW should be launched prior to this meeting because establishing a place of dialogue open to all states in advance would make a significant contribution to resolving differences over the Treaty. Since Japan has declared its desire to serve as a bridge between the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states, it makes sense that it should take the initiative in creating a venue for such dialogue.

A Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly

My second proposal relates to measures to advance nuclear disarmament.

The year 2020 will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). I would like to suggest that the final document of the 2020 NPT Review Conference include a recommendation to establish a UN open working group to discuss concrete steps to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, making clear the directional shift toward nuclear disarmament. I urge all nuclear-weapon states to prioritize steps to lessen the role of nuclear weapons in their security arrangements. One measure would be the removal of nuclear warheads from high-alert status, which could be implemented almost immediately. I would like to propose that a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament be held in 2021 as a follow-up to the 2020 NPT Review Conference. It should reconfirm the significance of multilateral disarmament negotiations and set the basic goals of major reductions in nuclear arsenals and a freeze on their modernization.

A Ban on Lethal Autonomous Weapons

My third proposal is to establish a legally binding instrument that prohibits all lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS).

There is growing international concern that deployment of LAWS would radically transform the global security environment. One of the threats they pose is that they make it possible to wage combat without direct human intervention. This lowers the threshold for military action, risking a dramatic undermining of international humanitarian law.

I strongly urge all parties—those states already calling for a ban on LAWS, countries such as Japan that have declared their intention not to develop such weapons and NGOs committed to the Stop Killer Robots campaign—to come together to work for the early adoption of a legally binding instrument comprehensively prohibiting the development and use of these systems.

Strengthening UN initiatives on Water Resources Management

As my fourth proposal, I would like to offer some thoughts regarding the UN’s water-related SDGs, which call for achieving “universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” It is estimated that around 2.1 billion people lack access to clean and safe water, and roughly 40 percent of people worldwide are affected by water scarcity.

In response, the UN General Assembly has launched the Water Action Decade. I would like to suggest the creation of the post of special representative for water resources within the UN to coordinate global efforts to ensure access to safe water—a key goal of the SDGs and the basis for protecting the life, livelihood and dignity of all. The representative would work together with the agencies coordinated by UN-Water to encourage member states to build partnerships for technology transfer through, for example, the sharing of best practices.

In addition, I urge Japan and other nations with abundant know-how and advanced technologies regarding water reuse and desalination to proactively contribute solutions. I would like to see Japan apply its experience to the resolution of water-related problems in Northeast Asia. Also, I hope that China, Japan and South Korea will work together to offer support to countries in the Middle East and Africa where there is growing demand for water reuse and desalination.

Universities: Central Hubs for Promoting the SDGs

My fifth proposal is to strengthen momentum toward making the world’s universities hubs for the realization of the SDGs. Launched nine years ago, the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) initiative currently links more than 1,300 institutions in approximately 140 countries. In October last year, UNAI announced that it had selected seventeen universities and designated them as SDG Hubs modeling innovative engagement related to each of the global goals. I would like to call for the expansion of the network of universities committed to supporting the SDGs.

One vehicle for realizing this might be for universities around the world, starting with the members of UNAI, to select the SDGs that are the particular focus of their efforts and actively work for their achievement. Aiming to promote cooperation among institutions that are working on the same goals and to broaden solidarity among students across the globe, I propose the holding of a world conference of universities in support of the SDGs sometime next year, the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the UN.

Based on unwavering confidence in the limitless power of education and through our passionate commitment to the empowerment of youth, the SGI will strive to build a sustainable and peaceful global society where all can manifest their inherent dignity.

On March 6, the Eighth Headquarters Leaders Meeting and the Second Youth Division Leaders Meeting of the decade toward 2030, the 100th anniversary of the Soka Gakkai’s founding, was held at the Kanagawa Ikeda Memorial Hall. Soka Gakkai President Minoru Harada announced that the Soka Gakkai would make a financial donation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) toward humanitarian assistance for Ukrainians forced to flee their homes. President Daisaku Ikeda sent a congratulatory message encouraging youth to engage in dialogue for peace. A video of a song performed by 3,000 youth was also shown. 

Toward an Era of Human Rights: Building a People’s Movement

The adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in July 2017 was a breakthrough in a field that has been marked by seemingly unbreakable impasse. So long as nuclear weapons exist the quest for a world of peace and human rights for all will remain elusive.

This year, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights commemorates its seventieth anniversary, and in this proposal, I would like to offer perspectives on a human rights-focused approach to resolving global issues. I believe that such an approach, rooted in concern for the life and dignity of each individual, can bring about the fusion of ethics and policy that is required for an effective response.

In this context, the first theme I would like to stress is that at the heart of human rights is the vow never to allow anyone else to suffer what one has endured. This is the spirit embodied by the world’s hibakusha—victims of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and of the production and testing of nuclear weapons worldwide—who provided the impetus that led to the Treaty’s adoption.

The second theme relates to the vital role of human rights education in surmounting social divides. Human rights education calls attention to the unconscious predispositions that fuel discrimination, offering people the opportunity to reflect on their everyday behavior.

I would like to propose that young people be the focus of the fourth phase of the World Programme for Human Rights Education, slated to begin in 2020. Youth have a special aptitude for sharing what they have learned about human rights with others in their lives, making them a powerful force for expanding the circle of those committed to overcoming discrimination and prejudice and shifting the global current from one of division and conflict to one of coexistence.

The third theme is that the bonds that form a culture of human rights are woven through the experience of joy shared with others. I believe that the wellspring for creating a society of mutually enriching coexistence can be found in a way of life where we experience joy in seeing one another’s dignity radiate its full potential. It is my firm belief that the solidarity of ordinary people will be the driving force for the realization of a global society where all may live in peace and dignity.

Nuclear Disarmament

I would like to make a number of specific proposals regarding the resolution of global issues from the perspective of protecting the life and dignity of each individual.

The nuclear weapons issue is the first thematic area about which I would like to make concrete proposals.

The ideal of international human rights law is the quest to protect the life and dignity of each individual in all national settings, a quest in which the continued pursuit of nuclear arms has no place.

The history of international law can be seen as the repeated effort to clarify the lines that sovereign states must not cross and to establish these limits as shared norms. Once an international norm has been clearly established, it carries a weight that shapes not only the behaviors of individual states but the course of the world as a whole.

Through the TPNW, nuclear weapons have been clearly defined as weapons whose use is impermissible under any circumstances. It is now time to earnestly interrogate the assumptions underlying nuclear deterrence policy.

In May, the UN will host a High-Level Conference on Nuclear Disarmament. This will be one of the first venues for debate and deliberation that will include both the nuclear-weapon and nuclear-dependent states to be organized since the adoption of the TPNW. I strongly urge all participants to engage in constructive debate toward the goal of a world free from nuclear weapons. I hope that world leaders will take the opportunity to commit to steps that their governments can take in the field of nuclear disarmament in advance of the 2020 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This would also be a prime opportunity to make public which among the seven acts prohibited by the TPNW they could consider committing to. Additionally, it would be useful to generate a body of voluntary commitments by nonparties to the Treaty to abide by specific prohibitions under the Treaty, setting these forth in declarations of national policy.

We must remember that the TPNW did not arise in isolation from the NPT. Against the backdrop of a lack of progress in nuclear arms reduction, ongoing modernization of nuclear arsenals and critical proliferation challenges, now is the time to seek synergies between strengthening the foundations of the NPT and the prohibition norm clearly enunciated by the TPNW.

In this regard, I earnestly hope that Japan will take the lead in enhancing conditions for progress in nuclear disarmament toward the 2020 NPT Review Conference. Japan should use the opportunity of May’s High-Level Conference to stand at the forefront of nuclear-dependent states in declaring its readiness to consider becoming a party to the TPNW. Having experienced the full horror of nuclear weapons, Japan cannot turn away from its moral responsibility.

Another proposal I would like to make with regard to the TPNW is to mobilize the growing solidarity of civil society toward the universalization of the Treaty.

The SGI will, this year, launch the second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition, featuring an increased focus on peace and disarmament education in support of the Treaty and promoting the concrete processes that will advance the cause of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

I think it is important that the global scale of support for the Treaty be made continuously visible. Efforts should be made to build an ever-broader constituency in favor of the Treaty and to encourage states not yet parties to the Treaty to attend the meetings of the states parties and review conferences in an observer capacity.

Human Rights

The second thematic area I would like to address is human rights. First, I would like to call for the improvement of conditions for refugee and migrant children. Currently, work is underway at the UN toward the adoption of two agreements—a global compact for migration and one for refugees. I would like to urge that human rights be identified as the thread that connects each of the individual elements in these compacts, and that the international community make the securing of educational opportunities for refugee and migrant children a priority objective and shared commitment.

I would also like to address the human rights of the elderly. It has been acknowledged that the enjoyment of all human rights diminishes with age, owing to negative images of the elderly as a burden to the economy and to younger generations. Such structural discrimination and prejudice can lead to the social exclusion of older persons and must be combated.

I strongly hope there will be an early start to negotiations on a convention on the rights of older persons. I would also like to propose that a third World Assembly on Ageing be held in Japan, where the aging of the population is more advanced than anywhere else in the world.

The Sustainable Development Goals

The third area I would like to address is how to catalyze momentum toward meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Combating climate change is a thorny challenge; however, I take hope in the ambitious initiatives being undertaken by and among local governments. Germany’s Federal Environment Ministry has taken the lead in establishing partnerships on climate action among municipalities within the European Union, an example of efforts to share best practices and lessons learned.

There is an urgent need to devise similar cooperative frameworks within the Northeast Asia region. To that end, I propose the establishment of a local government network for climate action between Japan and China, and I encourage municipalities in both countries to participate in the UN-led Climate Neutral Now initiative launched in 2015. The further fostering of cooperative action among local authorities in the two countries could create the foundation on which a broader regional framework can be built.

Finally, I would like to take up the question of gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls as it relates to the SDGs. This should not be regarded as just one of the seventeen SDGs, but rather should be recognized as key to accelerating progress toward the achievement of the entire spectrum of goals.

I would like to propose that the UN proclaim an international decade for women’s empowerment from 2020 to 2030. Women’s empowerment cannot be an optional agenda: It is an urgent priority for many people in dire situations.

It is the pledge of the SGI to continue striving to create a groundswell of people’s solidarity with which to surmount the challenges facing humanity, grounded in efforts to safeguard the life and dignity of each individual.

On March 4, the Soka Gakkai affiliated Ikeda Center for Peace, Learning, and Dialogue, organized its first virtual Dialogue Nights event of 2022. The theme was “Countering Burnout with the Power of Connection.” Participants discussed the importance of cultivating genuine connections with others to counter physical and mental fatigue.