Three Overlapping Invitations

In July 2025, three invitations addressed to different recipients arrived simultaneously in Hiroshima.

The first was for Iranian families who lost children due to Israeli airstrikes. The Hiroshima-based NGO “ANT-Hiroshima” is planning to invite these families to Hiroshima for the Peace Memorial Ceremony on August 6. The second invitation was sent to government officials from Syria, who are beginning the process of reconstruction after civil war. Fifteen officials, including Deputy Minister of Public Works and Housing Ahmad Al-Masri, visited Hiroshima in mid-July to inspect the Atomic Bomb Museum and lay flowers at the memorial. The third invitation was extended to 50 young people from 39 countries. A training program under the United Nations Youth Non-Nuclear Leaders Fund has started in Hiroshima, focusing on leadership for a world without nuclear weapons.

The recipients are diverse: families of victims, reconstruction officials, and next-generation leaders—each with a completely different perspective. Yet all three invitations are drawing people to the same place. The city of Hiroshima is quietly functioning as a kind of “mechanism” for inviting others.

—

The Outline of the “Inviting Diplomacy” Mechanism

Let’s pause for a moment to examine the structure.

Diplomacy can be categorized into two types: “going” and “inviting.” If the former involves leaders traveling to another country to shake hands, what Hiroshima is doing is the opposite. It calls out to those in pain, saying, “Please come here.” The invited parties witness destruction and regeneration in a context different from their own experiences. What occurs there is not negotiation but an experience of repositioning one’s pain onto a different axis.

For this mechanism to function, several conditions must be met.

First, the inviting side must be a “party to the damage.” Hiroshima is a city that was devastated by nuclear weapons 80 years ago. This fact instills trust in the invited parties, assuring them that “this is a place that can understand my pain.” It creates a foundation for what could be called a resonance of experience, rather than mere sympathy.

Second, there must be “achievements in reconstruction” following the destruction. What the Syrian reconstruction officials saw in Hiroshima was not just photographs of the ruins. They encountered records of restoring streetcars within a few years after the bombing, urban planning blueprints, and the design philosophy of a 100-meter road—concrete steps on how to rebuild after destruction. According to Hiroshima’s Urban Development Bureau, the Syrian delegation showed particular interest in post-war land readjustment projects and the process of building consensus among residents. Reconstruction is both an emotional issue and a matter of civil engineering and administration. Hiroshima has accumulated expertise in both areas.

Third, there must be an intermediary organization that operates the “place.” Local NGOs like ANT-Hiroshima, which have built up detailed activities, bridge the gap from a position that is neither an international organization nor a government. This is crucial. Points of contact that are difficult to realize in intergovernmental diplomacy—either because they are politically sensitive or too delicate to act on officially—are designed by the civil sector. If the Japanese government were to officially invite the Iranian families, the diplomatic coordination costs would skyrocket. However, if an NGO invites them within a private framework, it can create connections between people while minimizing political friction.

These three conditions—being a party to the damage, having achievements in reconstruction, and the presence of intermediary organizations—are not common in many places around the world. The structural overlap of these conditions is what allows Hiroshima to continue functioning as a hub for “inviting diplomacy.”

—

What Iranian Families Will Experience in Hiroshima

I would like to delve a bit deeper into the invitation plan for Iranian families being promoted by ANT-Hiroshima.

Since October 2024, schools in Iran have been damaged and children have lost their lives due to Israeli attacks. The grief of the families is profound. Tomoko Watanabe, the chairperson of ANT-Hiroshima, has a track record of inviting victims of conflicts from Afghanistan and Iraq to Hiroshima. The invitation of Iranian families is an extension of this ongoing activity.

The families will likely experience two layers during their time in Hiroshima.

One layer is the opportunity to hear the words of Hiroshima survivors who similarly lost children 80 years ago. Despite differences in language, culture, and religion, the core experience of suddenly losing a child transcends translation. ANT-Hiroshima has repeatedly confirmed in past invitation projects that there are moments when the quality of silence that emerges between survivors and conflict victims changes, even through interpreters.

The second layer is the power of the “place” itself, the Peace Memorial Ceremony on August 6. Approximately 50,000 people attend each year, observing a moment of silence at 8:15 AM. That one minute of silence functions as a mechanism connecting individual grief to public memory. When the families stand in that place, they experience their pain being treated as something “the world should remember.” This is somewhat different from consolation—it is closer to the feeling that their grief is given a social space.

—

What Syrian Reconstruction Officials Will Take Back

The visit of the 15-member Syrian delegation to Hiroshima was made possible through JICA’s technical cooperation framework. For Syria, where extensive areas have been destroyed by civil war, reconstruction is a national challenge. According to UN estimates, at least $400 billion (approximately 60 trillion yen) is needed for Syria’s reconstruction. This staggering figure echoes Hiroshima’s own past, which also began rebuilding from a similar despair.

What the delegation focused on was the coexistence of “planning and consensus” in Hiroshima’s post-war reconstruction. The Hiroshima Reconstruction Urban Plan, formulated in 1946, included the bold concept of constructing a 100-meter-wide Peace Boulevard through the ruins. Negotiations with residents who had lost their land were challenging, and it took decades to complete. However, the methods of building resident consensus developed during that process—how to conduct explanatory meetings, design compensation, and implement gradual improvements—are insights applicable to post-conflict reconstruction.

Deputy Minister Al-Masri stated after the visit, “Hiroshima’s experience shows that reconstruction from destruction is possible.” This statement can be taken at face value, but it can also be read more deeply. For Syrian reconstruction officials, Hiroshima does not only represent “possibility.” It serves as a place that illustrates the reality that “reconstruction takes time”—and the choice to continue despite that reality—over an 80-year timeline.

—

The “Circuit” of Youth: Youth Training and Junior Messengers

I would also like to touch upon the young people who are the recipients of the third invitation.

The 50 young people from 39 countries participating in the UN Youth Non-Nuclear Leaders Fund training will hear testimonies from survivors, visit the museum, and engage in policy discussions on nuclear disarmament. A notable aspect of the program’s design is that it addresses both “emotion” and “policy” within the same training. Immediately after being moved by the testimonies of survivors, participants learn about the structures of nuclear deterrence and the realities of treaty negotiations. The design aims to reach areas that cannot be accessed by emotion alone or knowledge alone by overlapping both.

Additionally, as part of the local framework, junior high school students in Hiroshima are active as “Junior Writers” and “Peace Messengers.” They hand messages to ambassadors from various countries on August 6. Instead of reading scripts written by adults, they speak in their own words. One year, a junior messenger said, “We might be the last generation to meet the survivors.” This statement encapsulates the urgency of the challenge of passing on testimonies.

The young people play a role as a “circuit” in Hiroshima’s “inviting diplomacy.” What the invited individuals receive in Hiroshima is brought back to their home countries and conveyed to the next generation. This transmission pathway is carried by the presence of youth. The design ensures that the mechanism does not end with a single occurrence but continues over time.

—

The Limitations of “Inviting” and What Remains

Of course, this mechanism has its limitations.

Even if someone who visits Hiroshima is deeply moved, it does not necessarily lead to immediate policy changes or conflict resolution. While Syrian reconstruction officials may learn from Hiroshima’s urban planning, the same methods may not be directly applicable in Syria, where funding and political stability are lacking. Even if Iranian families find comfort in Hiroshima, the structures that hold those responsible for the attacks accountable remain unchanged.

However—this is crucial—the effects of “inviting diplomacy” cannot be measured by immediate policy changes.

What this mechanism produces is a “coordinate of experience.” It provides a perspective that allows individuals to view their pain and challenges through a different context. Those who have passed through the coordinates of Hiroshima will have a reference point of “in Hiroshima” when discussing their own national issues. This may seem small, but it can influence decision-making moments. When discussing reconstruction plans, whether one has the fact that “Hiroshima took decades for the 100-meter road” in mind can change how one perceives the timeline.

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui once described such invitation projects as “welcoming peace.” It is neither about attacking nor defending, but about welcoming. Within this attitude lies the diplomatic form that the atomic-bombed city has refined over 80 years.

—

Who Does This Benefit?

Finally, I would like to note something I have been contemplating while writing this article.

“Inviting diplomacy” is not solely for the benefit of the invited parties. For the inviting side—namely the citizens of Hiroshima, NGOs, and the administration—it is also an act of reinterpreting the meaning of their own experiences. The experience of the atomic bombing 80 years ago is increasingly subjected to the pressure of fading into “a past event” as time passes. However, by welcoming those who are currently in pain, Hiroshima’s experience transforms from “the past” into “wisdom in progress.”

When Iranian families come to Hiroshima, the testimonies of Hiroshima survivors become “words needed now” rather than just “historical records.” When Syrian reconstruction officials learn from Hiroshima’s urban planning, the records of post-war reconstruction become “practical reference materials” rather than mere “archives.” By inviting, the inviting side is also saved. This bidirectional nature makes the mechanism beautiful.

The three invitations are each addressed to different pains. Yet they all arrive at the same place—the riverside city that was once a burnt-out wasteland 80 years ago. Within that overlap, we can see the diplomatic circuit that the atomic-bombed city continues to quietly design.

Hiroshima is a city that speaks not by raising its voice, but by preparing a seat.