Obama at Hiroshima

The significance of U.S. President Barack Obama’s historic visit to Hiroshima (

>Editorial, May 28) lies in the fact that he dared to go where none before him has gone before. The absence of a formal apology from him, probably owing to the historical American ambivalence over whether the atomic attack was needed at all in the final stages of World War II to defeat a weakened enemy, does not significantly dilute the sense of sincere repentance and deep commiseration with the victims that he managed to convey to the Japanese people.

At the same time, Mr. Obama’s call for a nuclear weapon-free world sounds hollow. The question is how will the world be rid of nuclear weapons if no nuclear state is willing to take the first step?

V.N. Mukundarajan,

Thiruvananthapuram

It appears as if Mr. Obama would like to go down in history as America’s most politically correct head of the state, and that the rapprochement with Cuba, Iran and even Vietnam are all part of this legacy he wishes to leave behind. He has made his peace with Hiroshima but his caveat that “we can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles” is bound to be greeted with a measure of scepticism. The President cannot duck the core issue, as his country boasts one of the largest nuclear stockpiles in the world.

Meghana A.,

Shell Cove, NSW, Australia

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s apology for the wrongs of the Komagata Maru incident is in stark contrast with Mr. Obama’s explicit stance on “no apologies” for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. While Mr. Trudeau recognises the fault and fatalities committed by his country, Mr. Obama has chosen a diplomatically evasive route. It is a shame that Mr. Obama has chosen to give precedence to national interests over humanitarian grounds.

Aishani Khurana,

New Delhi