CONTENTS Greetings from the National Christian Council in Japan .......................................... 001 A Message from Shinshuren Constitutional Research Society .................................. 005 Program Timetable ........................................................................................................ 009 List of Participating Religious Communities and Organization ................................. 015 List of Participants .......................................................................................................... 018 Concept Paper .............................................................................................................. 024 3rd Statement .................................................................................................................. 037 2nd Statement ................................................................................................................. 046 1st Statement .................................................................................................................. 055 Our Mission ...................................................................................................................... 062 Keynote Address A Rightward Leaning Perception of Japanese History and the Constitution of Japan Prof. Tetsuya Takahashi (Tokyo University) ........................................................... 065 Presentation 1 Statement on Reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution Rev. Olav Tveit, the General Secretary of WCC ................................................. 099 Story Sharing 1 ① Okinawa Now – Considering Peace Mr. Masayuki Chinen （Okinawa Christian University） ............................ 105 ② Contribution to the Tokyo Conference Rev. Friedlelm Schneider (EMS, Germany) .................................................... 115 Presentation 2 Article 9 and Global Peace - Transcending Nationalism Rev. Tainen Miyagi (Buddhist, Japan) .................................................................. 123 Story Sharing 2 ① Prof. YI Kiho (Hanshin University, Korea) ② Peace and Religion Rev. U DAMMA THARA (Buddhist, Myanmar) ............................................. 132 Presentation 3 From Seeking Peace To Creating Conflict Dr. Chandra Muzaffar (Muslim, Malaysia) ........................................................... 142 Greetings from the National Christian Council in Japan As people of faith, we have believed that Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is one of the foundations of peace not only for Japan but indeed, for the world; however, there are now efforts to fundamentally destroy this foundation. At this critical moment, the joining of hands and minds of religious leaders around the world is historically significant. As one of Japan’s religious organizations, I would like to offer a summary of the Moderator’s Statement for National Christian Council in Japan. Moderator’s Statement (summary) National Christian Council in Japan ●"Put away your sword. Those who use the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) God’s Word here is the administrative policy of Christ as sovereign over history. Article 9 is a pledge to “put away your sword” that clearly follows this policy. Continuing to uphold this pledge is the most realistic way to free the world from “dying by the sword.” ●Never again shall we walk the path of fatal misunderstanding (sin) Contrary to the policy of Christ of history, Japan followed world powers obsessed with the fatal misunderstanding (sin) that “in order to prosper the nation, ‘we must become one of those who use the sword.’” The Empire of Japan, with its national policy of “prosperous country, strong military,” was indeed destroyed “by the sword.” ●“Minimum required” and “limited” use of force will not be accepted Once a sword is “removed from its sheath” and the opponent is confronted, an adversarial relationship is created that only intensifies. This can be seen throughout world history. ●Article 9, the pledge to put away the sword, must be made known worldwide We must stop this “reckless race toward destruction” that 001 encourages crises in international relations, stirs up nationalism and seeks to destroy the constitution. Let us make known throughout the world this “pledge to put away the sword” as a basis for human survival. Rev. KOBASHI Kōichi Moderator 002 ご 挨 拶 私 た ち 宗 教 者 は 、 日 本 国 憲 法 第 九 条 は 日 本 の み な ら ず 世 界 の 平 和 の 土台の一つであると信じてきましたが、その土台が今や根底から崩さ れ よ う と し て い ま す 。 こ の 危 機 に 当 た り 世 界 の 宗 教 者 が 心 と 力 を 合 わ せ る こ と は 、 歴 史 的 にも重要な意味をもちます。日本の宗教団体の一つである日本キリス ト 教 協 議 会 の 議 長 声 明 の 概 略 を 次 に 掲 げ て 、 招 き の 言 葉 と 致 し ま す 。 日 本 キ リ ス ト 教 協 議 会 議 長 声 明 （ 概 略 ） ◎ 剣 を さ や に 納 め な さ い 。剣 を 取 る 者 は 皆 、剣 で 滅 び る 。 （ マ タ イ ２ ６： ５２） こ の み 言 葉 は 歴 史 の 支 配 者 た る 主 の 施 政 方 針 で す 。 憲 法 第 九 条 は ま さにこの方針に従った「剣をさやに納める」誓いです。この誓いを守 り続けることが、世界を「剣で滅びる」ことから救い出す最も現実的 な道です。 ◎ 致 命 的 な 誤 解 (罪 )の 道 を 二 度 と 歩 ん で は な ら な い 歴 史 の 主 の 方 針 に 背 い て 、 「 国 を 興 隆 さ せ る た め に は『 剣 を 取 る 者 と な ら ね ば な ら な い 』」と の 致 命 的 な 誤 解（ 罪 ）に 憑 り つ か れ た 世 界 の 列 強の真似をして、 「 富 国 強 兵 」を 国 是 と し た 大 日 本 帝 国 は 、正 に「 剣 に よって」滅びました。 ◎ 「 必 要 最 少 限 度 」「 限 定 的 」 は 通 用 し な い 一 旦 剣 を 「 さ や か ら 抜 い て 」 相 手 に 向 け て し ま え ば 、 敵 対 関 係 が 歯 止めなく積み重なっていきます。世界の歴史がそれを示しています。 ◎憲法第九条（剣をさやに納める誓い）を世界に広めよう。 国 際 関 係 の 危 機 を 言 い 立 て 、 ナ シ ョ ナ リ ズ ム を 煽 っ て 、 憲 法 を 破 壊 し よ う と す る「 滅 び へ の 暴 走 」を 阻 止 し な け れ ば な り ま せ ん 。 「剣をさ や に 納 め る 誓 い 」 を 、 人 類 存 続 の 基 礎 と し て 、 世 界 に 広 め よ う 。 （ Ｎ Ｃ Ｃ 議 長 小 橋 孝 一 ） 003 인 사 우리 종교자들은 일본국헌법제 9 조는 일본뿐만 아닌 세계 평화를 위한 토대의 하나로서 믿어왔으나, 그 토대가 지금 뿌리채 흔들리고 있습니다. 이러한 위험에 즈음하여 세계 종교자들이 마음과 힘을 모으는 것은, 역사적으로도 중요한 의미를 갖습니다. 일본의 종교단체 중 하나인 일본기독교협의회의 의장성명의 개략을 다음에 실으며 초대의 말로 대신하고자 합니다. 일본기독교협의회 의장성명 (개략) # 칼을 칼집에 꽂으라 칼을 가지는 자는 칼로 망하느니라. (마 26:52) 이 말씀은 역사의 지배자인 주의 시정방침입니다. 헌법제 9 조는 진정 이 방침을 따른 “칼을 칼집에 꽃는다”는 맹세입니다. 이 맹세를 지켜가는 것이 세계를 “칼로 망한다”는 것에서부터 구출하는 가장 현실적인 길입니다. #치명적인 오해(죄)의 길을 두번다시 걸어서는 안된다 역사의 주인이신 주의 방침에 등돌리고 “나라를 부흥시키기 위해서는 ‘칼을 가지는 자이지 않으면 안된다’”는 치명적인 오해에 의해 세계열강을 모방하고 ‘부국강병’을 국시로 삼은 대일본제국 이야말로 “칼로 인해” 망했습니다. #”필요최소제도” “한정적” 은 통하지 않는다 일단 칼을 “칼집에서 뽑고” 상대에게 대항하게 되면, 적대관계가 제어할수 없이 가중되어 갑니다. 세계 역사가 이를 증명하고 있습니다. #헌법제 9 조(칼을 칼집에 꽃는 맹세)를 세계에 퍼뜨리자. 국제관계의 위기를 강조해서 내셔널리즘을 부추기고 헌법을 파괴하려고 하는 “멸망으로의 폭주”를 제제하지 않으면 않됩니다. “칼을 칼집에 꽃아두는 맹세”를 인류존속의 기초로서 세계에 알립시다. (NCC 의장 코바시 코우이찌) 004 ＜A Message for the 4th Global Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9＞ “A Pathway to Conflict Resolution that Is Free of Military Force” On the holding of the “4th Global Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9” in Tokyo, we would like to express our great anticipation for a gathering that brings lively discussion and wisdom to the pursuit of an approach to resolving international disputes free of military force and toward the building of such an approach. Since its formation in 1951, The Federation of New Religious Organizations of Japan (Shinshuren) has promoted various activities toward the realization of peace through the mutual understanding and cooperation of religions based on the “freedom of religion” and “separation of religion and state” as guaranteed in the Constitution of Japan. Based on this experience, on June 24, 2014, the Shinshuren Constitutional Research Center announced its position on constitutional reinterpretation concerning the exercising of the right to collective self-defense. We would like to offer a summary of that position. The Government of Japan has identified the change in the surrounding international environment as the foremost reason for a reinterpretation of the Constitution of Japan to allow the exercising of the right to collective self-defense. However, following World War II, through making pacifism and exclusive defense a national policy, using the collective wisdom of the nation in working toward the realization of peace and developing diplomacy, Japan has won international praise as a “peaceful nation.” In reflecting on our country’s postwar history, we fear that a reinterpretation of the constitution without following revision procedures will, at the discretion of one Cabinet, alter the 69 years of progress made toward a peaceful nation and cause tremendous problems in the future. Though religious organizations may each have their own specific instructional activities, all pray for peace, and working as the “salt of the 005 earth,” hope for conflict resolution free of military force. Japan has lived “a time without war” for these 69 years. Reflecting anew on the preciousness of life with the 70th year before us, each of our religious communities vows to work all the more toward the development of people and the nation in order to realize peace. If the Constitution of Japan can be revised as the result of the interpretation of a single Cabinet that then suggests that reinterpretation of other provisions is also possible. We are deeply fearful that this reinterpretation will be extended to the “cornerstones of freedom” built by many people in postwar Japan under Article 19 (Freedom of thought), Article 20 (Freedom of religion), and Article 21 (Freedom of expression). Although the international environment surrounding Japan varies daily, its postwar history shows that the issues confronting the nation can be dealt with through the right of individual self-defense. If a situation emerges due to a change in the international environment that exceeds such individual self-defense, then after procedures for constitutional revision are carried out, the issue must be considered by the entire nation. Based on the postwar experience of having pacifism and exclusive defense as national policy, we offer this message and pray that the movement to resolve international disputes free of military force spreads through Asia and then throughout the world. AKAGAWA Keiichi, Chair Shinshuren Constitutional Research Center 006 ＜第 4 回「９条世界宗教者会議」へのメッセージ＞ 「武力によらない紛争解決への道を」 第 4 回「９条世界宗教者会議」が東京で開催されるにあたり、国際紛争を武 力によらずに解決していく方途の探求とその構築に向け、活発な議論と叡智が 結集されますこと期待してやみません。 新日本宗教団体連合会（新宗連）は、1951 年の結成以来、憲法が保障する「信 教の自由」「政教分離の原則」をもとに、宗教相互の理解と協力による平和実現 への諸活動を推進してまいりました。こうした経験をふまえ、新宗連憲法研究 会は、2014 年 6 月 24 日に集団的自衛権の行使容認に向けた憲法解釈の変更に 対して、見解を発表いたしました。以下にその概要をご紹介いたします。 日本政府は、解釈改憲による集団的自衛権の行使容認について、日本を取り 巻く国際環境の変化を主な理由としています。しかし、戦後、日本は平和主義 と専守防衛を国是とし、平和実現に向けて国民の叡智を結集し、外交を積み重 ね、「平和国家」として国際的評価を獲得してきました。 こうした戦後の歴史を顧みますと、憲法改正手続きを経ない憲法解釈の変更 は、69 年間にわたる平和国家への歩みを、一内閣の判断で変えることとなり、 将来に重大な禍根を残すものと憂慮いたします。 宗教団体は、それぞれ固有の教化活動を有するものの、すべての宗教に共通 するのは「平和」への祈りであり、 「地の塩」として働き、武力によらない紛争 解決への願いであります。戦後 69 年間、日本は「戦争なき時代」を生きてま いりましたが、終戦 70 年を目前にし、私たちは改めて「いのち」の尊さをか みしめ、各宗教が平和実現のための「人づくり」「国づくり」に向け、よりいっ そう働いていくことを誓うものであります。 007 憲法が、一内閣の解釈によって変更可能となるならば、それは他の条文の解 釈変更の可能性を示唆していますが、戦後、多くの国民によって築きあげられ てきた「自由」の根幹をなす第 19 条（思想の自由）、第 20 条（信教の自由）、 第 21 条（表現の自由）に及ぶことがあってはならないと深く危惧いたします。 日本をめぐる国際環境は日々変化してきておりますが、日本が直面する諸問 題は、個別的自衛権をもって対処できることを、戦後日本の歴史は示していま す。仮に、国際環境の変化で個別的自衛権を超える状況が現出するならば、そ れは憲法改正手続きを経て、国民全体で考えるべき問題であります。 平和主義と専守防衛を国是としてきた戦後日本の経験をもとに、国際紛争を 武力によらずに解決していく活動が、アジア、そして世界へと広がっていくこ とを祈り、メッセージといたします。 新宗連憲法研究会 座長 赤川 惠一 008 Program Time Table Program Time Table for the 4th Global Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 Dec. 1st, Mon. Dec. 2nd, Tues. Dec, 3rd, W ed. W e plan a morning v isit to both Yasukuni Shrine and Chidori-ga-fuchi National Cemetery, the resting place for 352,297 unidentified war dead. cooperation of those concerned. a trip to U.S. Naval Air Facility Atsugi. Entrance into Atsugi is typically prohibited, but we will be able to have an in-depth tour thanks to the Exposure trip (8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.) will take us down to visit Yokosuka U.S. Naval Base, with a possible cruise around the naval port, followed by (YMCA Asia Youth Center, Hotel Bellegrande) Arrival of those participating in Tuesday's Exposure Trip 8:00 Departure for Exposure Trip 12:30 Arriv al at Conference Venue (YMCA Asia Youth Center) / Lunch 13:30 Opening Celebration / Orientation 14:00 Keynote Address A Rightward Leaning Perception of Japanese History and the Constitution of Japan Prof. Tetsuya Takahashi (Tokyo Univ ersity) 15:00 Questions and Answers 15:30 Break 16:00 Presentation 1 Statement on Reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution Rev . Olav Tv eit, the General Secretary of W CC. 16:30 Break/Preparation of a Questionnaire 16:50 Questions and Answers 17:10 Story Sharing 1 ① Okinawa Now – Considering Peace Mr. Masayuki Chinen （ Okinawa Christian Univ ersity） ② Contribution to the Tokyo Conference Rev . Friedlelm Schneider (EMS, Germany) 18:30 Reception 20:30 Departure to hotel (Only People Staying at Hotel Belle Grande ） 009 Program Time Table Dec, 4th,Thur. Dec. 5th, Fri. 9:00 Morning Prayer 9:00 Morning Prayer 9:30 Presentation 2 9:30 Discussion and Deliberation on a Joint Dec. 6th, Sat. Communiqué Article 9 and Global Peace - Transcending Nationalism Rev . Tainen Miyagi (Buddhist, Japan) Rev . Nick Mele (Pax Christi USA) 10:00 Break 10:10 Questions and Answers 10:30 Break 10:30 Story Sharing 2 10:45 Final Confirmation of Joint Communiqué ① Professor YI Kiho (Hanshin Univ ersity, Korea) ② Peace and Religion Rev . U DAMMA THARA (Buddhist, Myanmar) 11:30 Presentation 3 11:30 Toward Solidarity From Seeking Peace To Creating Conflict Jonathan W atts (INEB) Dr. Chandra Muzaffar (Muslim, Malaysia) 12:00 Orientation for Peace Parade 12:30 Lunch 12:30 Lunch Departures 13:30 Press Conference 14:00 Preparation for Group Discussion 14:30 Group Discussion 1 14:30 Departing for Peace Parade 15:00 Peace March 15:30 Break 16:00 Group Discussion 2 16:00 Dispersion 16:30 Break 17:00 Presentation of Group Discussion 17:30 Preparing a Joint Communiqué 010 Program Time Table 第４回９条世界宗教者会議プログラム Dec. 1st, Mon. Dec. 2nd, Tues. 現 地 研 修 Y M C A ア ジ ア ⻘青 現 少 場 年年 研 セ 修 ン 参 タ 加 者 到 ホ 着 テ ル ベ ル グ ラ ン デ は ⼀一︵ 午 切切 前 ⽴立立 8 ち 時 ⼊入 り 午 が 後 出 ７ 来 時 ま せ︶ 横 ん 須 が 賀 海 関 軍 係 基 各 地 位 ⾒見見 の 学 ご 協︵ 軍 ⼒力力 港 に め よ ぐ り り ⼀一 ク 歩 ル 踏 み ズ 込 乗 ん 船 だ ︶ ⾒見見 後 学 が ⽶米 で 軍 き 厚 る ⽊木 こ 基 と 地 と を な ⾒見見 り 学 ま し 通 た 常 厚 ⽊木 基 地 Dec, 3rd, Wed. 8:00 集合、靖国神社、千⿃鳥ヶ淵戦没者墓苑へ 12:30 YM C A アジア青少年センター到着、昼食 13:30 オリエンテーション (参議院議員山本太郎氏のあいさつが予定されています） 14:00 基調講演 右傾化する⽇日本の歴史認識識と憲法認識識 高橋哲哉氏（ 東大教授） 15:00 質疑応答 15:30 休憩 16:00 発題 ① ⽇日本国憲法第9条の再解釈について W C C 総幹事オラフ・ トヴェイト氏 16:30 休憩（ 並行して日・ 英・ 韓の質問用紙配布） 16:50 質疑応答 17:10 ストーリーシェアリング ① ① 沖縄のいま〜～平和を志向する〜～ 知念優幸氏（ 沖縄キリスト教学院） ② 東京会議への提⾔言 フリードヘルム・ シュナイダー氏（ ドイツ、ＥＭＳ） 18:30 レセプション 20:30 ホテルへ移動 ホテルベルグランデ宿泊者のみ 011 Program Time Table Dec, 4th,Thur. 9:00 朝祷 9:30 発題 ② Dec. 5th, Fri. Dec. 6th, Sat. 9:00 朝祷 9:30 共同声明の討議 憲法9条と世界平和-‐‑‒ ナショナリズムをどう超えるか 司会ニック・ メーレ氏（ パックス・ クリスティ） 宮城泰年氏（ 聖護院門跡門主） 10:00 休憩 10:10 質疑応答 10:30 ストーリーシェアリング ② キホ氏（ 韓神大学校教授） ① イ・ 10:30 休憩 10:45 声明に関する最終確認 ② 平和と宗教 ウ・ ダマタラ氏（ 仏教徒、ミャンマー） 11:30 発題 ③ ９条の再解釈 〜～平和の希求から紛争の誘発へ〜～ チャンドラ・ ムザファー氏（ イスラム教徒、マレーシア） 12:30 昼食 11:30 連帯に向けて ジョナサン・ ワッツ氏（ IN EB ） 12:00 平和⾏行行進オリエンテーション 12:30 昼食 13:30 記者会⾒見見 海 外 帰 国 14:00 グループ討議の準備 14:30 グループ討議① 14:30 平和⾏行行進参加者集合 15:00 平和⾏行行進 15:30 休憩 16:00 グループ討議② 16:00 解散 16:30 休憩 17:00 グループ討議の発表 17:30 プログラム終了了、共同声明準備 012 Program Time Table 제 4회 9조 세 계 종 교 자 회 의 프 로 그 램 Dec. 1st, Mon. Dec. 2nd, Tues. 현 지 연 수 Dec, 3rd, Wed. 8:00 집 합 , 야 스 쿠 니 신 사 , 치 토 리 가 후 치 전 몰 자 공 원 ( ( 요 코 스 카 해 군 기 지 견 학 ( 군 항 투 어 승 선 ) Y M C A 아 시 아 청 소 년 센 터 , 호 텔 베 르 그 란 데 ) 장 이 금 지 되 어 있 으 나 관 계 자 의 협 력 으 로 견 학 할 수 있 게 되 었 습 니 다 ) 현 장 연 수 참 가 자 도 착 오 전 8 시 -‐ 오 후 7 시 ) 후 , 미 군 아 츠 기 기 지 견 학 , 원 래 기 지 는 입 12:30 YM C A 아시아청년센터도착, 점심 13:30 오리엔테이션(참의원 의의 원 야 마모 토 타 로씨 의 인 사가 예정 되어 있습 니다) 14:00 기 조 강 연 우 경 화 하 는 일 본 의 역 사 인 식 과 헌 법 인 식 다까하시 테츠야(동경대교수) 15:00 질 의 응 답 15:30 휴식 16:00 발 제 ① 일 본 국 헌 법 제 9조 재 해 석 에 대 해 W C C 총간사 울라프 트베이트 16:30 휴식(일 영 한 질문용지 배포) 16:50 질 의 응 답 17:10 스 토 리 쉐 어 링 ① ① 오 키 나 와 의 지 금 -‐ 평 화 를 지 향 한 다 치넨 마사유끼(오키나와 기독교학원) ② 동 경 의 회 에 제 언 프리도헤름 슈나이더（ 독일、ＥＭＳ） 18:30 리 셉 션 20:30 호텔로 이동 호텔 베르그란데숙박자 해당 013 Program Time Table Dec, 4th,Thur. Dec. 5th, Fri. 9:00 아 침 기 도 회 Dec. 6th, Sat. 9:00 아 침 기 도 회 9:30 발 제 ② 헌 법 9조 와 세 계 평 화 -‐ 내 셔 널 리 즘 을 어 떻 게 넣 을 것 인가 미야기 야스토시야( 10:00 휴식 9:30 공 동 성 명 토 의 ( 사 회 닉 메 레 -‐ 팍 스 크 리 스 티) 10:10 질 의 응 답 10:30 휴식 10:30 스 토 리 쉐 어 링 ② 10:45 성 명 에 관 한 최 종 확 인 ① 한국교회대표 ② 평 화 와 종 교 우 다마타라(불교도、미얌마） 11:30 연 대 를 향 해 ( 죠 나 단 홧 츠 -‐ IN E B ) 11:30 발 제 ③ 9조 -‐ 평 화 의 기 대 에 서 충 돌 로 챤도라 무자화（ 이슬람교도, 말레이지아) 12:00 평 화 행 진 오 리 엔 테 이 션 12:30 점심 12:30 점심 13:30 기 자 회 견 海 外 帰 国 14:00 그 룹 토 의 준 비 14:30 그 룹 토 의 ① 14:30 평 화 행 진 참 가 자 집 회 15:00 평 화 행 진 15:30 휴식 16:00 그 룹 토 의 ② 16:00 해산 16:30 휴식 17:00 그 룹 토 의 발 표 17:30 프 로 그 램 종 료 , 공 동 성 명 준 비 014 List of Participating Religious Communities and Organizations List of Participating Religious Communities and Organizations In Alphabetical Order OVERSEAS Buddhist Zay Gone Monastery, Myanmar （ミャンマー） International Network of Engaged Buddhists （ＩＮＥＢ） Muslim Muslim in Malaysia （マレーシア・ムスリム協会） Catholic Pax Christi USA （パックス・クリスティ（米）、カトリック） Protestant The Anglican Church of Korea （大韓聖公会） Common Global Ministries Board （CGMB：米国合同教会＆ディサイプルズ（クリスチ ャンチャーチ）） Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea （PROK：韓国基督教長老会） The United Methodist Church （UMC：合同メソジスト教会） Uniting Church in Australia （UCA：オーストラリア合同教会） Wider Church Bodies and NGOs Christian Conference of Asia （CCA：アジアキリスト教協議会） China Christian Council （CCC：中国基督教協会） Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD：ドイツ福音主義教会) Evangelical Mission in Solidarity（ EMS：ドイツ連帯福音宣教会） Hong Kong Christian Council （HKCC：香港キリスト教協議会） National Church Council in Korea （NCCK：韓国教会協議会） World Council of Churches （WCC：世界教会協議会） 015 List of Participating Religious Communities and Organizations JAPAN Buddhist Jōdo Shinｓhu Otani-ha 9 Jō no Kai （真宗大谷派九条の会） Ｎｅnbutsusha 9 Jō no Kai （念仏者九条の会） Nichirenshu Nipponzan Myōhōji （日本山妙法寺） Odaimoku Article 9 Association （お題目九条の会） Rissho Kosei-kai （立正佼成会） Shukyosha 9 Jō no Wa （宗教者九条の和） Catholic Catholic Council for Justice and Peace （カトリック中央協議会正義と平和協議会） Protestant Anglican/Episcopal Church of Japan （NSKK：日本聖公会） The Cumberland Presbyterian Church （CPC：カンバーランド長老教会） Japan Alliance Christian Church （JACC：日本同盟基督教団） Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church （JELC：日本福音ルーテル教会） Japan Baptist Convention （JBC：日本バプテスト連盟） Japan Baptist Union （JBU：日本バプテスト同盟） Korean Christian Church in Japan （KCCJ：在日大韓基督教会） United Church of Christ in Japan （UCCJ：日本基督教団） Wider Church Bodies and NGOs Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction （平和を実現するキリ スト者ネットワーク） Interboard Shadan （IBS：在日本インターボード宣教師社団） Japan Christian Women’s Organization （KYOFUKAI：日本キリスト教婦人矯風会） National Christian Council in Japan （NCCJ：日本キリスト教協議会） Niwano Peace Foundation （NPF：公益財団法人庭野平和財団） Okinawa Baptist Convention （沖縄バプテスト連盟） Okinawa Christian College Peace Institute （沖縄キリスト教平和研究所） 016 List of Participating Religious Communities and Organizations Okinawa Christian University (沖縄キリスト教学院大学) Okinawa Shukyosha 9 Jō Network （沖縄宗教者九条ネットワーク） Wesley Foundation （WF：ウェスレー・ファウンデーション） Women’s Board of National Christian Council in Japan （NCC 女性委員会） Young Men’s Christian Association of Japan （日本 YMCA） Young Women’s Christian Association of Japan （日本 YWCA） 017 List of Participants List of Participants (Note: Last Names are in capital letters) Name Institution/Organization, Country 1 YOO Sikyung The Anglican Church of Korea/Korea 2 KODAMA Setsuko Anglican/Episcopal Church of Japan/Japan 3 MAEJIMA Megumi Anglican/Episcopal Church of Japan/Japan 4 YAHAGI Shinichi Anglican/Episcopal Church of Japan/Japan 5 NISHIHARA Renta 6 McINTOSH David Asian Rual Institute/Japan 7 SHIMIZU Masato Buddhist/Japan 8 AKIYAMA Seiko Catholic Council for Justice and Peace/Japan 9 HIRUMA Noriko Catholic Council for Justice and Peace/Japan 10 KATSUYA Taiji Catholic Council for Justice and Peace/Japan 11 OKURA Kazuyoshi Catholic Council for Justice and Peace/Japan 12 SAIKI Toshiko Catholic Tokuden Church/Japan 13 Mengfei GU 14 MENSENDIEK Martha CGMB: Common Global Ministries Board/Japan 15 James MOOS CGMB: Common Global Ministries Board/U.S.A. 16 Xioling ZHU CGMB: Common Global Ministries Board/U.S.A. 17 KATAYAMA Hiroko 18 KAWAHARA Kazuyo 19 MURASE Toshio Anglican/Episcopal Church of Japan/WCC: World Council of Churches/Japan CCC: China Christian Council /China Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan 018 List of Participants 20 SUZUKI Reiko 21 TAIRA Aika 22 WATANABE Takako 23 TAIRA Masanori 24 Gabriele ZIEME-DIEDRICH 25 Friedhelm 26 Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan SCHNEIDER Regina KARASCH-BOETTCHER KLUGER Christian Network for Peace – Sticking to Peace Construction/Japan The Cumberland Presbyterian Church/Japan EKD: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland/Germany EMS: Evangelical Mission in Solidarity/Germany EMS: Evangelical Mission in Solidarity/Germany 27 Sabine EMS: Evangelical Mission in Solidarity/Germany 28 MIYAMOTO Hironari 29 OTAKI Kohji 30 SAITO Kenji 31 YI Kiho 32 PO Kam Cheong 33 Jonathan 34 Chandra MUZAFFAR 35 Mariam Binti Mohd Hashim 36 SHIBATA Chietsu Japan Alliance Christian Church/Japan 37 FUJISAWA Kazukiyo Japan Baptist Convention/Japan 38 HIGASHI Reika Japan Baptist Convention/Japan 39 KANAMORI Yuki Japan Baptist Convention/Japan Federation of New Religious Organization of Japan/Japan Federation of New Religious Organization of Japan/Japan Federation of New Religious Organization of Japan/Japan Hanshin University/Korea WATTS HKCC: Hong Kong Christian Council/Hong Kong INEB: International Network of Engaged Buddhists /U.S.A. International Movement for a Just World/Malaysia International Movement for a Just World/Malaysia 019 List of Participants 40 KUZUME Yoshi Japan Baptist Convention/Japan 41 YOSHITAKA Kanou Japan Baptist Convention/Japan 42 OHYA Naoto Japan Baptist Union/Japan 43 IMAHASHI Nobuko Japan Christian Women’s Organization/Japan 44 KAWANO Yasuko Japan Christian Women's Organization/Japan 45 SAITO Keiko Japan Christian Women's Organization/Japan 46 SHIMADA Katsuhiko Japan Christian Women's Organization/Japan 47 SHIMADA Yuriko Japan Christian Women's Organization/Japan 48 UEDA Hiroko Japan Christian Women's Organization/Japan 49 LEE Akio Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church/Japan 50 ENDO Yuko Japan Revival League/Japan 51 CHIBANA Syouichi J do Shinshu Otani-ha/Japan 52 CHO Youngsuk KCCJ: Korean Christian Church in Japan/Japan 53 HEO Baekki KCCJ: Korean Christian Church in Japan/Japan 54 KIM Byungho KCCJ: Korean Christian Church in Japan/Japan 55 PARK Yougja KCCJ: Korean Christian Church in Japan/Japan 56 AMINAKA Shouko 57 KATO Makoto 58 KOBASHI Kouichi 59 MINEDA Toshiyuki 60 KIM Kyrie NCCK: National Church Council in Korea/Korea 61 ODAKE Masanori Nenbutsusha 9 Jō no Kai/Japan 62 TAKEDA Takao Nichirenshu Nipponzan Myōhōji /Japan NCCJ: National Christian Council in Japan/Japan NCCJ: National Christian Council in Japan/Japan NCCJ: National Christian Council in Japan/Japan NCCJ: National Christian Council in Japan/Japan 020 List of Participants 63 NIWANO Munehiro Niwano Peace Foundation/Japan 64 NOGUCHI Yoichi Niwano Peace Foundation/Japan 65 TAKATANI Tadashi Niwano Peace Foundation/Japan 66 ITO Gikan Odaimoku Article 9 Association/Japan 67 KAMIYA Takehiro Okinawa Baptist Convention/Japan 68 KANAI Hajime 69 CHINEN Masayuki Okinawa Christian University/Japan 70 UCHIMA Kiyoharu Okinawa Shukyosha 9 Jō Network/Japan 71 Nicholas MELE Pax Christi USA/U.S.A. 72 HAN Gie-Yang 73 SHIN 74 SHIN Yeon-Shik 75 Francisco HERNANDO 76 KURIYAMA Takao The Shin-Syukyo Shinbun/Japan 77 MIYAGI Tainen Shukyosha 9 Jō no Wa/Japan 78 KURE Midori 79 KUROKI Seiji 80 MIYAKE Takako 81 MURAKOSHI Ayako 82 NAKAO Akiko 83 SAITO Fumie Seung-Min Okinawa Christian College Peace Institute/Japan PROK: Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea/Korea PROK: Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea/Korea PROK: Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea/Korea PROK: Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea/Philippine Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan 021 List of Participants Tokyo YWCA/International Language 84 SHIBATA Sachiko 85 SUZUKI Mayumi 86 TANI Yumiko 87 Hikari Kokai CHANG 88 HEUREUSE Kaj 89 LEE Hye-in 90 KUBO Hiroo United Church of Christ in Japan/Japan 91 NAGASAKI Tetsuo United Church of Christ in Japan/Japan 92 TAKADA Teruki United Church of Christ in Japan/Japan 93 Carlos OCAMPO Uniting Church in Australia/Australia 94 CHEON Young Cheol WCC: World Council of Churches/Korea 95 KIM Dong Sung WCC: World Council of Churches/Korea 96 Anna Bjorvatten TVEIT WCC: World Council of Churches/Norway 97 Olav Fykse TVEIT WCC: World Council of Churches/Norway 98 Mathew GEORGE WCC: World Council of Churches/India 99 HAYASHI Junji 100 HAYASHI Setsuko 101 HARA Mayumi 102 MIYAZAKI Yukio 103 MATANO Naoko Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan Tokyo YWCA/International Language Volunteers,/Japan UMC/ Wesley Foundation/U.S.A. UMC/Japan Christian Women’s Organization/Congo UMC/Japan Christian Women’s Organization/Korea Women’s Board of National Christian Council in Japan/Japan Women’s Board of National Christian Council in Japan/Japan Women's Board of National Christian Council in Japan/Japan YMCA: Young Men's Christian Association of Japan/Japan YWCA: Young Women's Christian Association of Japan/Japan 022 List of Participants YWCA: Young Women's Christian Association of 104 NISHIHARA Mikako 105 DAMMA Thara 106 HIROSHIMA Noriko STAFF/Japan 107 UEDA Tetsuji STAFF/Japan 108 UENO Seiji STAFF/TOPTOUR/Japan Japan/Japan Zay Gone Monastery, Khanda Ordination Hall/Myanmar 023 Concept Paper 東アジアの平和と憲法 9 条 Peace in East Asia and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution 日本国憲法 第二章 戦争の放棄 第九条 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動 たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、 永久にこれを放棄する。 第二項 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国 の交戦権は、これを認めない。 The Constitution of Japan Chapter II Renunciation of War Article 9 Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. （１）２０世紀は、人類にとって悲劇と受難の世紀であった。世界中を巻き込む大戦争 がわずかな期間に２度までも起き、兵士のみならず、女性、子ども、老人を含む、一般の 人々の命がおびただしく失われた。科学技術の発展は、人々の暮らしを豊かにしたが、同 時により巨大な破壊と殺戮をもたらした。飛行機による空襲、毒ガス、生物兵器、そして 最後には原子爆弾が人間の頭上で爆発した。 The 20th century was a century of tragedy and suffering for humanity. Two world wars happened in a short period of time, leading to the loss of countless lives, not only of soldiers but also of civilians, including women, children and the elderly. Advancements in science and technology have brought wealth and comfort to our lives, but they have also brought greater destruction and carnage. Air strikes, toxic gases, and biological weapons were developed, and finally atomic bombs exploded over our heads. 東アジアにとっても、この時代は過酷であった。侵略と戦争、植民地支配、民族解放戦 争、社会主義革命と反革命、内戦、そして飢餓と悲哀が、長い間、東アジアを覆っていた。 024 Concept Paper そしてこの過酷な世紀の前半において、朝鮮、中国、東南アジアに次々と介入し、侵略 し、暴れまわったのは、日本（大日本帝国）であった。周辺諸国より一足早く近代化を遂 げ、強大な軍を持った日本は、周囲に勢力を拡張し、植民地化し、資源と市場を押さえ、 暴力によって地域に覇を唱えようとしたのである。 This period was an atrocious one for East Asia as well. Invasions and war, colonization, wars of national liberation, socialist revolution and counter-revolution, civil war, famine and sorrow have prevailed over much of East Asia for a long time. During the first half of this cruel century, it was Japan (The Empire of Japan) that went on a spree of violence, advancing into and invading Korea, China and South East Asian countries, one after another. Having managed to industrialize before its neighboring countries and having amassed a huge military force, Japan expanded its into neighboring countries, colonized them, took control of their resources and markets, and tried to dominate the region. １９４５年、日本は敗北した。だが、東アジアに戦火は止まなかった。米ソの冷戦は、 世界を引き裂き、厳しい対立をもたらした。東アジアにおいては、米中対立となり、それ は冷戦 cold war ではなく、熱戦 hot war となり、暴力が吹き荒れた。中国国共内戦から朝 鮮戦争、ベトナム戦争、そして中越戦争にいたる 1970 年代末まで、東アジアに戦禍は続き、 政治は安定せず、人々の犠牲と悲嘆は止まなかったのである。 In 1945, Japan was defeated. However, the flames of war remained in East Asia. The Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union tore the world apart and created serious confrontations. In East Asia this became the U.S.-China confrontation and, in some places, the cold war became a hot war, which caused violence to sweep through the region. From the Chinese Civil War, through the Korean War and the Vietnam War, up to the Sino-Vietnamese War, politics did not stabilize and conflicts continued in East Asia until the late 1970s. （２）戦争と暴力の時代であった２０世紀は、同時に人類がそれを克服し、平和を作り 出そうと苦闘した、理想と希望の時代でもあった。1928 年には不戦条約が結ばれ、奴隷制 や拷問や性差別や植民地支配などと同様、戦争も違法なものにしようとする試みと挑戦が 続いた。集団安全保障の仕組みとして、国際連盟や国際連合が組織され、第二次世界大戦 末に生まれた国際連合憲章（1945 年）では、武力による威嚇、武力の行使が禁じられるこ とになった。ヨーロッパでは、再び悲惨な戦争を起こさないために、ヨーロッパ共同体（ヨ ーロッパ連合）が組織された。反戦平和運動が国境を超えて各地に生まれ、連帯と信頼を 深めた。 The 20th century was an era of war and violence, but at the same time it was a time of high ideals and hope, in which humanity struggled to overcome such atrocities and to 025 Concept Paper create peace. In 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed, and attempts and many efforts were made to make war illegal, just as had been done with slavery, torture, sexual discrimination, and colonization. The League of Nations and United Nations were formed as systems of collective security, and the U.N. Charter (1945) came to prohibit the use and threat of force as a means of settling international disputes. In Europe, the European Community (European Union) was formed in order to never to repeat harrowing wars. The anti-war peace movement was born and spread across borders around the world, strengthening a sense of solidarity and trust. この人類の理想と希望の流れの中に、１９４６年に生まれた日本国憲法、とりわけ非戦 と戦力の不保持を規定した第９条は位置づけられる。 敗戦以前、日本は東アジアを侵略し、戦火に巻き込み、多くの人々を殺戮し、財産を略 奪した。一方、ヒロシマ、ナガサキへの原爆投下や沖縄戦、日本中の都市を焼きつくした 空襲などによって、日本自身にも耐えがたい犠牲が出た。二度と戦争をしたくない、起こ したくない、巻き込まれたくない、というのが、１９４５年以降の日本人の心からの願い であり、祈りであった。 そして実際、それ以降現在にいたるまで、７０年近く（２０１５年は終戦７０年に当た る）、日本は武力の行使や威嚇をしなくなる。東アジアで、（あるいは国外で）日本の軍事 力は、１人たりとも殺していない In this movement of ideals and hope for humanity, the Japanese constitution and especially the Article 9 that renounces war and maintenance of armed forces and war potential were born in 1946. Before its surrender, Japan invaded East Asia, turned it into a battle field, killed countless numbers of people, and plundered as they went. On the other hand, there were atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Battle of Okinawa, and air strikes of major Japanese cities, which put Japan through unbearable sufferings. It has been the earnest wish and prayer of Japanese people since 1945, not to repeat, start or be implicated in any wars. From that day until now, Japan indeed has not used, or threatened to use military force for nearly 70 years (2015 will mark 70 years from the end of the Pacific War). In East Asia (or overseas), Japanese armed forces have not killed even a single person. （３）日本国憲法第 9 条（憲法 9 条）は、第一項で「国権の発動たる戦争と、武力によ る威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、永久にこれを放棄する」と し、この部分までは国連憲章などと合致する。日本国憲法がそれを超え、より理想に向け て進もうとしたのは、第二項に「前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、こ れを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めない」としているところである。 026 Concept Paper Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (Article 9) states in its first clause, “…the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” the UN Charter. This portion overlaps with It is in the second clause, where it reads, “…to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized,” that the Japanese Constitution goes further, reaching towards a higher ideal. （４）日本が米国と同盟を結び、その保護下にあったという側面はたしかにある。しか し、二度と殺すまい、殺されまいという強い誓いがなければ、軍事的思考からこれほど隔 たった社会は作れなかったであろう。人材や資源、技術は軍事に優先的に投入されること はなかった。様々な問題が起きても、それを軍事的に解決しようという発想は、いまの日 本からは出てこない。日本に生まれた子どもたちは、いつか自分が徴兵され、戦場に出る ことがあるかもしれないなどと想像することすらない。 Admittedly, Japan was protected under its alliance with the U.S. However, without a strong resolution never to kill or to be killed again, it would have been impossible to build a society so distant from military thinking. Personnel, resources and technology were not invested in military affairs with priority. Even when disputes arise, the current Japan would not be inspired to solve them by military force. Children born in Japan have never even imagined that they may one day be conscripted and sent to a battle field. 憲法９条の存在は、日本の人々にとって幸いであり、戦後の復興の原動力となった。同 時に、東アジアや世界にとっても、日本が大きな軍事的存在とならないと誓ったことは幸 いであった。憲法９条は、かつて侵略した東アジア諸国への不戦の誓約をも意味した。 The presence of Article 9 is a blessing for the Japanese people, and was a driving force in the nation’s reconstruction after the war. Furthermore, it was fortunate for East Asia and the world that Japan pledged not to become a great military power. Article 9 also carried the significance of a pledge toward East Asian countries that Japan once invaded that Japan would not fight a war again. （５）しかし、日本が経済的な成功をおさめ、世界の中でも有数の大国となると、米国 はその軍事的潜在力を自らの世界戦略のために使いたいと考えるようになった。とりわけ、 米国自身が財政的な苦境に立つようになり、軍事力を世界的に展開することが困難になる と、その要請はより強くなった。米軍と自衛隊を一体化させ、自衛隊を自国の防衛だけで なく、米軍とともに世界各地で戦争ができるようにすべきだというのだ。実際、 「９．１１」 （2001 年）以後、自衛隊はインド洋やイラクに派遣され、自衛隊発足以後、初めて戦場に 027 Concept Paper 立つことになった。日本の多くの市民がそれに反対し、裁判も起こした However, once Japan achieved economic success and became one of the major powers in the world, the U.S. became interested in taking advantage of Japan's military potential for its global strategy. Particularly when the U.S. started suffering from its financial down-turn and it became difficult to maintain its world-wide military presence, these demands grew stronger. The U.S. started demanding to unify the U.S. military and Japanese Self Defense Forces, so that the Japanese Self Defense Forces could not only engage in self-defense, but also join the U.S. army in wars abroad. In fact, after 9/11 (2001), the Japanese Self Defense Forces were deployed to the Indian Ocean and to Iraq, where they stood upon battle fields for the first time since their establishment. Many Japanese citizens opposed these deployments, and several law suits were initiated to contest them. 幸い、自衛隊は戦闘を行うことなく帰国したが、名古屋高等裁判所は、イラク派遣につ いて、憲法違反という判決を出した。戦闘行動をしなくても、戦場と見なされる地域への 自衛隊の派遣は、憲法を逸脱した行為と見なされるのである。憲法９条は、こうして常に 日本の軍事力行使にストッパーの役割を果たし、政権にとっては躓きの石になる。 憲法９条は、だからこそ、日本の権力にとっても、日本の軍事力を利用したい米国にと っても、邪魔な存在なのである。 Fortunately, the Japanese Self Defense Forces returned without engaging in actual battle. The high court of Nagoya judged that the dispatch of the Self Defense Forces to Iraq was unconstitutional. Even without engaging in actual battle, by merely sending the Self Defense Forces to a region perceived to be a war zone, was regarded as an act that transgresses the Constitution. In this way Article 9 has served as a constant stopper against the Japanese government using military force. For this very reason Article 9 is a hindrance for powers, both in Japan and the U.S., that wish to utilize Japan's military force. ２０１２年選挙で勝利した自民党安倍政権が行なおうとしている憲法の改定や、集団的 自衛権行使の解禁は、このような脈絡の中にある。２０１４年７月、安倍政権は内閣の決 定（閣議決定）で、日本は集団的自衛権を行使できると解釈を変えた。これまでは、憲法 ９条の存在によって、自国に対する侵略に対してのみ軍事力を使える（専守防衛）として きたのに、他国の防衛、戦争のためにも使えるとしたのである。制約は曖昧であり、自衛 隊は国外に出て戦争が出来ることも可能になる。結果的に憲法９条の意味がなくなるよう な決定を、安倍政権は憲法に定められている憲法改訂手続きを踏まず、また国会での議論 もなしに、密室における内閣の決定だけで行ったことになる。こうした決定の仕方は、「立 憲主義」を踏まえないとして、日本国内で大きな批判と反対運動が起きている。世論調査 によれば、６割以上がこの決定に反対している。 028 Concept Paper もし憲法の制約が実質的に外されれば、自衛隊は専守防衛ではなく、他国の軍隊と同じ 国防軍となる。それは、日本が東アジア地域に対する戦後の平和の誓いを破棄することを 意味する。日本の軍事力の強化と海外進出は、東アジア地域の不安定要因となるだろう。 It is out of this line of reasoning that the Liberal Democratic Party/Abe administration, which returned to power with victory in the 2012 election, has sought to revise the Constitution and appealed the “right to collective security” to lift the ban on use of military force. In July, 2014 the Abe administration changed, by cabinet decision, the government’s interpretation of the Constitution such that it would allow Japan to exercise the right to collective security. Whereas the longstanding interpretation has been, Article 9 permits Japan to use military force only in the event of attack upon its own territory (principle of exclusively defensive security), the new interpretation would allow military force to be used for the defense of another country, even for the purpose of war. The constraints are vague, so it will be possible for the Japan Self Defense Forces to be deployed for war abroad. This is to say, the Abe administration took a decision that effectively makes Article 9 of the Constitution meaningless, without following constitutionally prescribed procedures for constitutional change, and with no debate in legislature, by the closed door decision of Cabinet members alone. This decision process has aroused much criticism and opposition across Japan, as an action contrary to “Constitutional Government.” According to pinions polls 60% or more of Japanese are opposed to this decision. If this Constitutional constraint is actually removed, Japan’s “Self Defense Forces” will no longer be an exclusively defensive force, but will become a national defense force like that of other countries. This would signify an abandonment of Japan’s post-war pledge of peace to the East Asia region. Strengthening Japan’s military power and allowing its dispatch overseas will surely become an destabilizing factor in the East Asia region. （６） 安倍政権は、日本を、かつてアジアを侵略した１９４５年以前の旧体制に復古 させようとする傾向を強く持っている。それは、冷戦時代、日本の政治を担った保守とは 異質である。歴史修正主義に基づく彼らの歴史観によれば、１９４５年以前の日本の行動 は正当化されることになる。かつて日本から侵略、植民地支配を受けた中国や韓国が非常 に強い安倍政権批判を繰り返しているのはそのためである。安倍首相は、２０１３年末、 天皇のために死んだ軍人たちを祀っている靖国神社を公式に参拝した。神社は、侵略の責 任者をも祀っており、そこにはアジア侵略の反省はない。参拝は、日本がかつての侵略を 反省せず、戦後秩序への挑戦を始めたという表明に他ならない。中国、韓国のみならず、 米国、欧州、ロシアなどが批判や懸念の声を上げたのは当然である。安倍政権の改憲政策 は、もしそれが実現すれば、東アジアにとって、また世界にとって、きわめて危険なこと 029 Concept Paper になるだろう。 The Abe administration shows a strong tendency to seek to restore the old, pre-1945 regime that invaded other Asian nations. It differs in character from the conservatives that steered Japanese politics during the Cold War period. According to the new perspective, which is rooted in Historical Revisionism, the conducts of Japan prior to 1945 would be justified. This is why countries that were once under Japanese colonial rule, like China and Korea, are repeating criticisms of the Abe administration. In late 2013 Prime Minister Abe paid an homage visit to Yasukuni Shrine, where soldiers who gave their lives for the Emperor are enshrined. Also enshrined there are those who were responsible for Japan’s expansionist invasions, and therefore this official homage shows an absence of remorse for the former invasions across Asia. It signals none other than that Japan has started to challenge the post-war order. It is therefore a matter of course that not only China and Korea, but also the United States, Russia and several European nations are raising their voices in criticism or concern. If the Abe administration’s policy to revise the Japanese Constitution is realized, this could be very dangerous for East Asia and the world. （７）日本と米国の同盟の矛盾は、沖縄に集中している。沖縄は、もともと独立した王 国であったが、１９世紀の後半に日本に組み入れられ、第二次世界大戦末期、日米両軍が 激突した凄惨な地上戦の戦場となった。戦闘に巻き込まれ、「鉄の暴風」の中で、住民の３ 人に１人が死んだ。戦後は、日本政府の了承の下、米軍の施政権下におかれ、米軍基地が 島を覆い、東アジアを睨む冷戦の最前線となった。朝鮮戦争でもベトナム戦争でも、沖縄 の基地なしには、米軍は戦争ができなかったといわれる。１９７２年、施政権は日本に返 されたが、基地の重圧は一向に減じなかった。 The contradictions of the U.S.-Japan alliance are concentrated in Okinawa. The Okinawa Islands were originally an independent kingdom, but this was incorporated into Japan in the late 19th century. Okinawa became a gruesome battleground, where the U.S. and Japanese forces fought hard in the closing days of the Second World War. One in three Okinawans lost their lives in this “Typhoon of Steel.” After the war, the U.S. administered Okinawa with the consent of the Japanese government, and this resulted in U.S. bases covering the island of Okinawa and turning it into the front line of the Cold War in East Asia. It is said that the U.S. would not have been able to fight the Korean War or the Vietnam War, were it not for the bases in Okinawa. Although administrative rights were returned to Japan in 1972, there has been no visible decrease in the oppressive presence of U.S. bases. 沖縄は日本全土の０・６％に過ぎないが、現在、米軍施設の７４％が集中している。こ 030 Concept Paper のあまりに明白な矛盾について、近年、沖縄県民から強い異議が出されるようになった。 日本が米国との同盟を必要とするなら、その負担は全国民が平等に分かたねばならないは ずである、と。日本政府も日本国民も、沖縄からのこの問いに答えることが出来ない。 答えないばかりか、２０１２年には、沖縄の県民的な反対を押し切って、米軍は新型垂 直離発着機オスプレイの沖縄配備を強行した。また今も高江では森を破壊して 6 ヶ所もオ スプレイ離着陸帯が建設中であるし、辺野古の海を埋め立てて新基地が建設されようとし ている。さらにまた中国の海洋進出に備えるとして、南部の島（与那国島）に自衛隊を常 駐させようとしている。 Okinawa constitutes only 0.6% of Japanese territory, but 74% of all U.S. military-related facilities in Japan are concentrated in Okinawa. Against this apparent contradiction, residents of Okinawa have express their growing opposition over the past few years. They assert that if the alliance with the U.S. is needed, the burden should be carried by all the people of Japan. Neither the Japanese government, nor the majority of Japanese citizens, have an answer for this claim. Not only is there no answer, in 2012 the U.S. military stationed new aircrafts known as Ospreys, which are capable of landing and taking off vertically, despite overwhelming opposition by local residents. Now they are destroying forests at 6 locations in the Takae area, where landing pads are being constructed for the Ospreys. Also a new base is being created by land-filling the waters of Henoko Bay. Furthermore, a new, permanent base is being planned for the Japan Self Defense Forces on Yonaguni Island further South, supposedly in preparation for Chinese expansion into the seas. （８）東アジアは、あまりに酷薄な１５０年を過ごしてきたため、その歴史の傷はなお 深い。侵略と植民地支配を行なった日本は、その認識や反省が不十分であって、被害を受 けた諸国民との真の和解を果たしていない。冷戦時代に引かれた分断線は、南北朝鮮、両 岸（中国・台湾）、日露（北方四島）などの間にいまだ残ったままだ。それが、統合を実現 したヨーロッパとは違う、東アジアの現実である。 East Asia has lived through 150 years of severe callousness, and its historical wounds are still deep. Japan has not yet sufficiently recognized or reflected on its acts of invasion and colonization, and thus has not achieved true reconciliation with the victimized people. The lines of division that were drawn during the Cold War still remain between North and South Korea, China and Taiwan (the Taiwan Strait), and between Japan and Russia (the four northern islands). This is the reality of East Asia, in contrast with Europe, which has managed to integrate. この現実の中で、平和を脅かす事態が次々と起こっている。 031 Concept Paper 第一は、朝鮮民主主義人民共和国（ＤＰＲＫ）の核開発とミサイル開発である。ソ連・ 社会主義圏の崩壊と中国の改革開放政策によって孤立したＤＰＲＫが、米国と対峙し交渉 するためにとった政策であるが、様々な協議を経ながらも、２０１３年２月には、ついに ３回目の核実験を実施するにいたり、実質的な核保有国になりつつある。東アジア地域に とって、放置できない問題となっている. Amid this reality, there have been numerous incidents jeopardizing peace. First of all there is the nuclear and missile development efforts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). This is an initiative that was taken by the DPRK, which became isolated in the international community due to the collapse of the former Soviet Union and socialist block, as well as China's transition toward reform and liberalization. Despite several attempts at negotiation, the country conducted its 3rd nuclear test in February 2013, and is on its way to becoming a nuclear-armed state. This has become a problem that cannot be ignored in the East Asia region. 第二は、日本と中国・台湾の間、また日本と韓国の間で深刻化している、島をめぐる「領 土問題」である。いずれも、もともとは１９世紀末から２０世紀初頭にかけて、日本が勢 力を拡大していく中で領土に組み入れていった島である。そして、日本の敗戦後、植民地 が解放され、日本との間で領土を確定していく過程で、曖昧にされていたところである。 いわば、帝国日本の侵略政策と戦後の冷戦体制とが生み出した問題ともいえる。しかし、 特に中国との間には、武力衝突の危険さえあり、これも放置できない問題である。 Secondly, there is the issue of growing tension over territorial claims to islands in waters between China, Taiwan and Japan, and also between Japan and Korea. In each case the islands in question were made Japanese territory during Japan's expansion during the late 19th century and early 20th century. The question of ownership of these islands became ambiguous in the post-war process of colonial liberation and resetting borders between Japan and former colonies. It is fair to say, this problem is a product of Japan’s expansionist imperial policy, as well as the subsequent Cold War framework. As this problem could potentially lead to armed conflict, particularly between Japan and China, it cannot be ignored. 第三に、経済大国となった中国の軍事力の増大と周辺への進出である。第二ともかかわ るが、南シナ海では、海洋資源などをめぐってフィリピン、ベトナムなどと衝突している。 経済的には中国に依存しながら、同時に軍事的進出を警戒する周辺諸国は、アジア回帰を 標榜する米国を「抑止力」として頼ろうとする。また安倍政権は、対中包囲網を形成する ように、ASEAN 諸国に接近している。東アジアに「新しい冷戦」が生じる可能性がある。 Thirdly, China, which has now become an economic power, is increasing its military might and advancing into neighboring territories. And, related also to the second issue, China has been colliding with the Philippines and Vietnam over marine resources in the 032 Concept Paper South China Sea. While neighboring countries rely on China economically, they are at the same time wary of its military expansion. This in turn induces them to rely on the "deterrence capability" of the U.S., which seeks return to Asia. And the Abe administration is approaching ASEAN nations with suggestions of forming an alliance that would encircle China. This may lead to a "New Cold War" in East Asia. 第四に、韓国の済州島の海軍基地建設問題である。済州島は沖縄と似た歴史を持つ。韓 国本土の済州島に対する差別。そして１９４８年４月３日に勃発する４．３事件。済州島 住民の１０％にあたる 3 万人が米軍と韓国政府によって集団虐殺されるという歴史がそれ である。その済州島の多くの住民の反対にもかかわらず、カンジョン村に韓国政府は海軍 基地建設を進めている。韓国海軍基地ではあるが、いずれ米軍艦船も寄港する基地となる。 済州島の海軍基地、沖縄、そしてフィリピンの駐留米軍（Visit Force）が連動することに より、中国、DPRK に大きな圧力をかけることになり、軍事的危機は一層増大する。 The fourth issue is the construction of a naval base in Jeju island. Jeju island has a history similar to Okinawa, as seen in its discrimination by the Korean mainland, or the Jeju Uprising of April 3rd, 1948, in which 30,000 people, 10% of the total island population, were massacred by U.S. and Korean government forces. Despite opposition by many islanders, the Korean government is moving ahead with plans to construct a naval base in Gangjeong village. Although this is a Korean naval base, it is understood that U.S. naval ships call into the base sooner or later. By the interlinking of U.S. forces stationed at naval bases on Jeju Island and Okinawa, and also in the Philippines through the Visiting Forces agreement there, great pressure will be placed on China and the DPRK, thus intensifying the threat of a military crisis. 以上を踏まえ、準備委員会は、以下のように提案する。 Based on the above, we the Preparation Committee make the following recommendations. （１） 安倍自民党政権が、対アジア平和と不戦の誓いであった憲法９条を変えようとして いることに深い憂慮を表明する。日本の平和憲法改変は、東アジア地域に大きな不 安定をもたらすだろう。日本自身が、周辺諸国の脅威となったり、不安定要因にな ってはならない。安倍政権による憲法解釈の変更は、近代政治の根本としての立憲 主義を脅かし、また日本が軍事力を行使する可能性を開くものとして、強く非難す る。 We are deeply concerned that the Abe/Liberal Democratic Party administration intends to revise and amend Article 9, which is a pledge for peace in East Asia and to never fight again. Revising the peace constitution of Japan will bring 033 Concept Paper about serious instability in the region of East Asia. Japan should never be a threat to neighboring countries, nor become a destabilizing factor. The change of constitutional interpretation by the Abe administration is a threat to constitutional democracy, which is the foundation of modern politics. （２） 安倍政権は、２０世紀前半の日本の侵略、植民地支配の歴史を直視し、その反省を 世界に対して明確に表明すべきである。日本国民による不戦の誓いでもあった憲法 を守ることはもちろん、「河野官房長官談話」「村山総理談話」から「菅総理談話」 に至る、侵略と植民地支配を反省する、日本政府としての正式表明を維持すべきで あり、また靖国神社参拝は行うべきではない。日本政府の侵略、植民地支配への誠 実な反省こそが、東アジア地域に平和をもたらす基礎となる。 The Abe administration should squarely reflect upon Japan’s history of invasion and colonialism in the first half of 20th century, and express this reflection clearly before the world. Not only should the government of Japan protect the Constitution, which is also the Japanese people’s promise of non-belligerence, but it should uphold previously-made official Government statements that reflect upon Japan’s past invasions and colonialism, such as the (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Kōno Statement1, the (Prime Minister) Murayama Statement2 and the (Prime Minister) Kan Statement3. Members of the administration should also not pay official homage visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. Genuine reflection upon Japan’s invasions and colonial rule by the Japanese government forms the foundation for peace in the East Asia region. （３） 「領土」紛争については、日本政府は憲法９条の精神に沿って、相手と対話し、外 交交渉によって解決すべきことを求める。またいずれの国も、武力による威嚇、武 力行使は慎むよう、要請する。それは国連憲章違反であり、日中共同声明、日中平 和友好条約違反である。 We demand that the government of Japan strive to resolve “territorial” disputes in accordance with the spirit of Article 9, through dialogue and diplomatic negotiations. We call upon each country to refrain from the use, or threatened use, of armed force as a means of settling such disputes. This contravenes the Charter of the United Nations, and goes against the Japan-China Joint 1 Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the result of the study on the issue of "comfort women" 1993.08.04 2 Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama "On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end" 1995.08.15 3 Statement by Prime Minister Naoto Kan (on the occasion of 100 years since the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty) 2010.08.10 034 Concept Paper Communique of 1972, as well as the Japan-China Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1978. （４） 南シナ海、東シナ海いずれにあっても、領土、領海紛争のあるところで、実力によ って現状を変え、あるいは一方的な資源開発をしてはならない。 Whether in the South China Sea or the East China Sea, where there is a dispute over territory, or territorial waters, force must not be used to alter the status quo, and unilateral action must not be taken to develop natural resources. （５） 日本政府は、沖縄の過重な基地負担を早急に改善すべきである。すべての米兵及び 武力の米本土への撤収を求める。 The government of Japan should take action, without delay, to mitigate the crushing burden of U.S. military bases placed upon the people of Okinawa. We demand the return of U.S. forces to the U.S. mainland. （６） ＤＰＲＫの核開発問題は、東アジア地域全体の脅威である。私たちはＤＰＲＫの核 開発、核実験に反対し、非難する。同時に核保有国を含む周辺国は、ＤＰＲＫを軍 事的に脅かしてはならない。ＤＰＲＫは、１９９２年、韓国との間で締結した「朝 鮮半島の非核化に関する共同宣言」を再確認し、２００５年９月、６者協議で合意 した「朝鮮半島の非核化実現のための共同声明」を再確認し、核開発からの撤退に 進むよう要請する。同時に、これによって、日本や韓国が核開発の誘惑に捉えられ ないように強く望む。それは、安全保障のジレンマそのものであって、核開発競争 は地域をより危険にし、不安を増大させる。 Nuclear development by the DPRK is a threat to the entire East Asian region. We oppose and condemn the nuclear development and testing by the DPRK. At the same time, the neighboring countries, including nuclear powers, must not threaten the DPRK by means of military force. The DPRK shall reaffirm the "Joint Declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," ratified by North and South Korea in 1992. The DPRK shall also reaffirm the “Joint Statement for the realization of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” agreed to at the six-party talks in September of 2005, and withdraw from nuclear development. Simultaneously, we desire strongly that Japan and the Republic of Korea will not be ensnared by the temptation to conduct nuclear development. This is a security dilemma in itself: Competition over nuclear development increases the risks and volatility of the region. 035 Concept Paper （７） 東アジアのすべての国が、ナショナリズムの誘惑に打ち勝ち、日本国憲法の精神に ならって、非戦、和解、平等、相互尊重、互恵の関係を築いていくよう期待する。 We expect all countries in East Asia to overcome the temptations of nationalism, and following the spirit of the Japanese Constitution to construct relationships based on the principles of no-war, reconciliation, equality, mutual respect, and mutual benefit. 2014 年 10 月 10 日 October 10, 2014 9 条世界宗教者会議 準備委員会 Preparation Committee for the Global Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9 036 3rd Statement Final Statem ent of the 3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 From Seoul to Okinawa October 7, 2011 Okinawa Christian University Article 9 of Japan’s Peace Constitution Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. 1) The 3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution gathered 220 participants from Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, Italy, Canada and the USA to see and hear the experiences of the Okinawan people. The conference was held at the Okinawa Christian University from October 5 through 7th, 2011. With our thoughts turned toward the victims of disasters arising from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami, and Fukushima Number 1 Nuclear Power Plant incident, we prayerfully reaffirm the sanctity of life, and hereby issue this Statement. 2) Article 9 of the Constitution has never been realized in Japan and least of all in Okinawa, which holds roughly 74% of American military facilities as well as other Japan Self Defense Forces bases in just 0.6% of Japanese land. Furthermore, former Prime Minister Hatoyama’s declaration that he would have the military bases in Okinawa moved out of the prefecture or to another country has not been realized. Okinawa’s bases have not only been retained, but new bases are being constructed. On Jeju Island—designated an “Island of Peace” by the government of Korea—a new naval base is being built by the government and armed forces. We, the Asia Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution, categorically reject foreign military basing arrangements, be it the physical bases in Okinawa and the naval base in Jeju, Korea, or unhampered access to land, air, and naval facilities as contained in the Visiting Forces 037 3rd Statement Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. 3) For the foregoing reasons, be it resolved that • The US and Japanese governments must honor Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and we strongly oppose any attempt by the Japanese Government to revise the same. • We demand the Japanese government that the “sympathy budget” allocations toward the U.S. be abolished and reassigned to relief efforts in disaster-stricken areas. • We call upon communities of faith in the United States to consider their complicity as US citizens in US policies toward Okinawa, examine their consciences, and join in advocacy for the closure of Futenma and other bases in Okinawa as well as the abandonment of plans to build a new base in Henoko. • We demand that the proposed plan of the construction of the bases of Self Defense Forces in Miyako and Yaeyama be abandoned. • We demand the total abolition of nuclear weapons and challenge the continuous use of nuclear energy in all its applications. • Recognizing the horrific human toll of U.S. wars, expansionism, and hegemony, we call upon all persons of faith to join the global peace movement and oppose the imperial militarization of Asia, the Middle East and beyond. 4) In the statement issued in Seoul, Korea, on the occasion of the 2nd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution, we affirmed that, Article 9 is more than ever relevant for regional and international relations, and is forward-looking. It can be seen as the core value of a just, peaceful, and sustainable Asian community. 5) Despite Japan regaining independence in 1952, Okinawa has remained under U.S. military rule for another 20 years. All the U.S. military bases there remain intact. During this period, a large movement arose in Okinawa demanding the return of Okinawa to Japan, whose Constitution contained the war-renouncing Article 9. This wish was finally realized in 1972, in the so-called “Return of Okinawa.” However, this was essentially only a transfer of administrative rights, which resulted in the betrayal of Okinawa’s hopes and desires. As Okinawa was being returned to a Japan that had the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, these principles should have applied to Okinawa as well, but the governments of the 038 3rd Statement United States and Japan struck a secret agreement that left the portage of nuclear arms into Okinawa up to the discretion of the U.S. What Okinawa desired was to be a land without military bases, or at least “comparable to the mainland” in level. But even after the transfer of administrative rights, the situation of military base presence in Okinawa did not change. Furthermore, Okinawa has been made more “comparable to the mainland” by the construction of new military bases for the Japan Self Defense Forces. In recent years this military presence is even threatening to expand to the regions of Miyako and Yaeyama. 6) The post-war government of Japan has continually accepted the presence of U.S. and JSDF military bases, thus contravening Article 9. Removal of “the world’s most dangerous base” at Futenma and its return to Okinawans still has no schedule. Despite the opposition of 80% of Okinawa’s citizens, the government of Japan is attempting to build a new military base to replace Futenma, which will destroy and pave over the sea at Henoko. The government is also destroying its own rain forest by building a helipad in Takae. Both places support biodiversity that is 50 to 60 times as rich as the coastal waters and forests in the mainland. Furthermore, U.S. forces are planning to deploy new Osprey planes to the yet-to-be-removed base at Futenma, as well as to various facilities being constructed further north. The government of Japan speaks of reducing the burden of military bases upon Okinawa, but the reality is that the functions of bases and military armaments are being strengthened. 7) With the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, the military continues to cause daily suffering for the people of Okinawa. From these bases in Okinawa U.S. forces were sent into the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. And ever since the Gulf War the Japan Self Defense Forces have joined and collaborated as one with U.S. forces in what can only be described as acts of war. 8) The governments of both Japan and the U.S. say that the bases on Okinawa are a deterrent force. But the the military forces on Okinawa are a threat to neighboring nations. We cannot watch silently while bombers and warships are sent out from this precious land, passed down from our peace-loving ancestors, to terrorize, destroy and kill the inhabitants in every region on this earth. 039 3rd Statement 9) Arms cannot bring peace but respecting the rights of people can. In spite of the lies and fraudulent assertions of both the Japanese and U.S. governments, we, as written in the Preamble of the Constitution of Japan, “have determined to preserve our security, and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world.” We believe that there is a “nature that is true and real” in the peoples of all nations, and for this reason we resolve to continue walking forward towards a world without military bases. 10) Okinawa once had its own philosophical tradition of “non-military culture.” Through friendly relations and trade, not by arms, Ryukyu (Okinawa) established relations with various Asian countries. But in 1609 it came under the de facto rule of Japan’s Satsuma Clan, as a result of an invasion by Satsuma. This year marks the 402nd year from that date. In 1879 the Ryukyu Kingdom was again invaded, this time by the Meiji government, and was annexed by force to become part of Japan. This is what is known as the “Ryukyu Disposition,” and this year marks the 132nd year from that date. In the 15-year War, which began with the self-staged Manchurian “terrorist” Incident of 1931 and lasted until Japan’s surrender in 1945, Okinawa was sacrificed to ensure the continuity of the Japanese state system. The people of Okinawa were forced by the Imperial Japanese Army, deployed to defend Okinawa, to “Live Together and Die Together” with the military. During the Battle of Okinawa, in which land battles engulfed the island’s civilian inhabitants, massacres of local residents by Japanese forces, ejection of refugees from shelter caves, and “forced mass deaths” under military orders, occurred in many locations. The Japan Ministry of Education has shown a strong tendency to dilute such facts in Japanese school texts, giving rise even to court cases over the issue. Yet the Supreme Court found, in a 2011 judgment, that there were indeed Army orders to force “mass deaths” on the Islands of Zamami, Geruma, and Tokashiki 11) Holding the Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution here in Okinawa awakened us, people of many faiths, to the realities of the struggles of the Okinawan people. We truly pursue the realization of Article 9 in our own places, and walk together toward this realization. We commit ourselves to actively work to oppose the spread of American military bases across Asia and around the world and demand the closure of all military bases. We trust that the route to these aspirations can be found in each person’s faith. We pray for 040 3rd Statement the realization of peace and take action to build peace through non-violence. The answer to violence is to embody and animate the spirit of Article 9. Participants of the 3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 041 3rd Statement 最 終 版 第 3 回 「 ９ 条 ア ジ ア 宗 教 者 会 議 」 声 明 ソ ウ ル か ら 沖 縄 へ 2011・10・7 沖縄キリスト教学院大学 「日本国憲法 9 条」 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の発動たる戦争と、 武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、 永久にこれを放棄する。 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。 国の交戦権はこれを認めない。 1. 第３回 9 条アジア宗教者会議は、2011 年 10 月 5 日から 7 日まで、開催地沖縄 を始めとする日本、韓国、台湾、フィリピン、タイ、パキスタン、南アフリカ、 スイス、イタリア、カナダ、米国から 220 名が参集し、沖縄の人びとの体験に耳 を傾け、学ぶために沖縄キリスト教大学を会場として開催されました。また、こ のたびの東日本大震災と福島第一原子力発電所事故による被害者に思いをはせ祈 りつつ、いのちの重さを再認識し、ここに以下のことを声明いたします。 2. 日本のおいては、ただの一度も９条は実現したことがありません。とくに日本の 領土の０・６％を占めながら、在日米軍の専用施設の７４％と自衛隊の存在をお しつけられている沖縄は、憲法 9 条からもっとも遠い現実を抱え続けています。 そればかりでなく、沖縄の軍事基地の県外あるいは国外への移転を言明した鳩山 総理大臣は、それを貫徹することができず、むしろ沖縄の軍事基地は持続し、拡 大されようとしています。さらに韓国政府から「平和の島」に指定された済州（チ ェジュ）島では、政府と軍とによって新しく海軍基地が建設されつつあります。私 たち９条アジア宗教者会議は、陸、空、海軍施設の無制限の使用を可能にする外 国軍基地協定は、沖縄の基地、済州島の海軍基地あるいは訪問米軍に関する米比 協定など、すべてを断固として拒否するものであります。 3. 上記の理由に基づき、私たちはつぎのことを決意します。 ü 日米両国の政府にたいし、日本国憲法 9 条遵守を要求し、日本政府がこれを改悪する いかなる試みも退けます。 ü 日本政府にたいし米国への「思いやり予算」を撤廃し、被災地救援に充てることを求 めます。 042 3rd Statement ü 米国の宗教団体にたいし、米国政府の対沖縄政策について、米国民として加担してき た事実を良心に基づいて見直し、普天間基地と他の沖縄基地の撤去と辺野古の基地建 設計画の破棄を主張するように呼びかけます。 ü 日本政府にたいし、自衛隊の宮古、八重山基地建設計画の撤廃を要求します。 ü 核兵器の完全廃絶を求め、核エネルギーのすべての利用の継続について問題提起しま す。 ü 米国による戦争と「帝国」の構築がもたらしている殺戮の事実を認め、信仰者は、ア ジア、中東そして世界の軍事化に抵抗して、グローバルな平和運動に参加するように 働きかけます。 4. 私たちは、韓国のソウルで開かれた第２回 9 条アジア宗教者会議声明の中で、9 条 はこれまでにないほど地域的または国際的に有意義なビジョンであることを確認 しました。9 条は、正義と平和が実現され、かつ持続可能なアジア共同体の未来を 志向する中心的価値であります。 5. 1952 年に日本が独立を回復したにもかかわらず、なお 20 年間沖縄は米軍統治下 に置かれ、そのために米軍基地が存置されることになりました。この間、沖縄で は、戦争を放棄する憲法９条を持つ日本に復帰したいという願いが大きな運動に 発展していきました。その願いがついに実現したのが 1972 年のいわゆる「本土 復帰」でした。しかし、このことにおいてすら沖縄の期待と願いは裏切られる結果 となってしまいました。非核３原則を持つ日本に復帰したのですから、当然沖縄 にもその原則は適用されるはずでしたが、日米両政府は密約を交わし、沖縄への 核兵器持ち込みは米国の判断に委ねられることになりました。沖縄が望んだのは 軍事基地のない島、せめて「本土並み」の状態になってほしいということでした。 しかし、復帰後も沖縄に米軍基地が置かれる状況は変わりませんでした。そのう え、さらに「本土並み」ということで自衛隊基地まで置かれることになりました。 近年ではそれが宮古・八重山地方まで拡充されようとしています。 6. それは、憲法９条違反の米軍基地と自衛隊の存在を戦後の日本政府が認めてきて しまったからです。「世界で最も危険な基地」（ラムズフェルド元米国防長官の言 葉）と言われる普天間基地の撤去とその土地の返還はいまだに目途が立っていませ ん。80％以上の沖縄県民が反対しているにもかかわらず、日本政府は普天間基地 の代わりに県内に新たな基地を建設しようとしています。生物多様性の観点から みても日本本土の 50～60 倍の多様性に富んだ辺野古の海を破壊し、埋め立てて 新基地を作ろうとし、高江の森を破壊してヘリパッドを建設しようとしています。 そしていまだ撤去されない普天間基地に、また北部に建設しようとしている各施 043 3rd Statement 設に、米軍は新型機オプスレイを配備しようとしています。日本政府は沖縄の基 地負担軽減を口にしますが、実態はこのように世界的に貴重な沖縄の自然を破壊 し、基地や軍備の機能はますます強化されようとしているのです。 7. 日米安全保障条約と日米地位協定とによって、軍隊は日常的に沖縄の人々を苦し めています。その米軍が沖縄から出撃して、朝鮮戦争・ベトナム戦争・湾岸戦 争・アフガン戦争・イラク戦争に投入されたのです。そして湾岸戦争以来、日本 の自衛隊も米軍と一体となって戦争行為というほかないような行動をしているの です。 8. 日米両政府は沖縄の基地は「抑止力」だといいます。しかし逆にそれは近隣諸国へ の脅威となっています。私たちは、先祖から譲り受けた大事な土地から発進した 爆撃機や軍艦が、地球上のいかなる地域においてもその住民を脅かし、破壊、殺 戮するのを黙視することはできません。 9. 軍隊は平和をもたらしません。人びとの権利を尊重することこそ平和をもたらす のです。日米両政府の嘘とまやかしにもかかわらず、日本国憲法の前文に「平和を 愛する諸国民の公正と信義に信頼して、われらの安全と生存を保持しようと決意 した。」とあるように、私たちはすべての国の人民に「真実の性（しょう）」が有 ることを信ずる故に、軍事基地の無い世界を求めます。 10. 琉球（沖縄）は、清国（中国）とは冊封関係にありつつ、平和的交易によって広く アジアの諸国との友好関係を維持していました。1609 年、日本の薩摩藩の侵攻 によって実質的に薩摩の支配下に置かれることになりました。今年はその時から 数えて 402 年目にあたります。さらに琉球王国は明治政府によって、1879 年に、 侵略併合され、強制的に日本国の一部とされました。これが「琉球処分」であり、 今年はそれから 132 年目にあたります。沖縄には「非武」の思想の伝統がありま したが、15 年戦争の時には武器をとって戦うことを強制されました。さらに沖縄 戦では、日本の国家体制護持のための捨石とされました。沖縄の住民は、沖縄守 備軍として配置された日本軍によって、軍との「共生共死」を強いられました。住 民を巻き込んでの地上戦が行われた沖縄では、日本軍による住民の虐殺、避難壕 からの追い出し、さらに軍の命令による「強制集団死」が各地でおこりました。文 部科学省は日本の歴史教科書からそうした事実を薄めようとする傾向が強く、そ れが裁判にまで発展することになりました。しかし最高裁は 2011 年、座間味島、 慶留間島、渡嘉敷島における「集団死」には軍の命令があったことを認めました。 044 3rd Statement 11. ９条アジア宗教者会議がこのように沖縄で開催されたことの意義は、宗教者がこ の沖縄の人びとの闘いの現状に触れて真に９条の実現をそれぞれの場で追及し、 その実現に向かって歩むことにあるのです。私たちは、米軍基地がアジア各地と 全世界に展開されることを阻止し、すべての軍事基地の撤廃のために行動するこ とを誓います。このための道は、宗教者がそれぞれの宗教の立場から平和の実現 を祈り、非暴力によって平和を造りだすために行動することであると、私たちは 信じています。９条の精神を体現し、生かしていくところに、暴力への応えがあ るのです。 第 3 回「９条アジア宗教者会議」参加者一同 045 2nd Statement From Tokyo to Seoul – The Second Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9 The first Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace and Asia was held in Tokyo at the Korean YMCA from November 29 to December 1, 2007 with the participation of leaders from religious communities in Asia and the rest of the world. The Conference was hosted by an inter-religious body in Japan to respond to the move of the Japanese government towards militarization. It was able to consolidate an inter-faith network for peace and non-violence in the spirit of Article 9 in a meaningful and hopeful way. In October, 2008, the hosting committee in Japan organized a follow up meeting in Tokyo at which the International Working Committee (IWC) was formed to implement the recommendation and proposals given by the first Conference. The IWC decided to organize the Second Conference in Seoul in December, 2009, hosted by the Korean religious community including the National Council of Churches in Korea. A collaborative process was initiated to prepare a mission statement to be presented and approved by the Second Conference in Seoul. Based on the decision taken by the IWC, a letter was sent in December, 2008, to the President elect Obama to ask him: to study and reconsider the U.S. military presence with its ongoing plan of transformation and realignment; stop pressuring the government of Japan to revise Article 9; adopt a new multilateral policy that would guarantee peace and stability in East Asia; enable Japan’s disarmament and the withdrawal of the U.S. Forces; promote the vision of Nuclear Free East Asia as the first step. The Second Conference on Article 9 reiterates the calls made to US President Barack Obama. During this Second Conference attended by more than 80 religious leaders representing 046 2nd Statement Buddhist, Christian and Muslim faith communities, reports on developments in Japan and the rest of East Asia, stories from communities affected by the presence and actions by military forces were shared. Our deliberations and reflections brought many insights to light, including the following Supporting Article 9 has changed the interactions between religion and politics. In a sense, it has helped the communities re-learn what it means to be living their faith in an area of public concern; The issue of Article 9 is the first time that communities of faith as a group has taken a faith-based stand in public on peace; Supporting Article 9 has created solidarity among different religions; Shared concern for Article 9 has created new bonds between religious and other peace advocates; Many have been moved to reclaim Article 9 as part of the people’s agenda; Article 9 is more relevant for regional and international relations than ever, and is forward-looking. It can be seem as the core value of a future East Asian Community; Countries that have made war on their neighbors have to make right with their neighbors in order to find a lasting peace. Article 9 is a reminder that truth and reconciliation after past conflicts is necessary; Japan must move beyond its ‘One Nation Peace Identity’ to the joint building of regional peace with its neighbors; East Asia’s post-war race to prosperity and success has divided the region in new ways; Article 9 invites people of the region to promote a fuller understanding of peace. The “right to a peaceful existence” in the preamble of the Japanese Constitution is derived from the right to be free from fear in the Preamble and to be free from want in Article 25. The challenge is to create a world where all peoples have the right to live in peace free from fear and want. It is our resolve to actively pursue the following to advance the spirit of Article 9: 1) To broaden our perspective that peace is not just the absence of war but that which is based on justice and human dignity; 2) To undertake more vigorous cross-generational peace education (i.e., children, youth and adults), to include exposure programs, inter-religious dialogues and the 047 2nd Statement training of peace education facilitators and advocates, the use of creative media. And people need to be more vigilant in making their governments more accountable; 3) To support the Japanese people in their efforts to interpret in their own terms the spirit and application of Article 9; 4) To expand the peace network in countries experiencing conflict and violence, including the Philippines, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries; 5) To study the link between US foreign domination and peace building in Asia; 6) To espouse the abolition of nuclear weapons among powerful countries and in any part of the world; 7) To actively oppose the presence of US bases and self-defense forces, which are contradictory to Article 9; 8) To take inter-religious dialogues at the level of communities, where the impact of conflict and militarization is felt more intensely; 9) To recommend the inclusion of the Article 9 campaign in the Ecumenical Advocacy Day (Washington DC, March 2010) and the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (Jamaica, 2011); 10) To support all efforts at reunification in the Korean Peninsula. We commend this Statement to all religious communities for their prayerful consideration, commitment and deliberate actions as individuals and as communities. December 3, 2009 Academy House, Seoul, Korea. 048 2nd Statement 東 京 か ら ソ ウ ル へ － 第 二 回 ９ 条 ア ジ ア 宗 教 者 会 議 声 明 第一回９条アジア宗教者会議は、アジアや世界における宗教界の指導者たちの参加によっ て、2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日まで東京の在日大韓 YMCA にて開催されました。会 議を主催したのは、日本の軍国主義化をめざす政府の動きに対して対抗する日本の諸宗教 団体でした。会議によって９条の精神の示す平和と非暴力のための諸宗教の連帯が意義深 い形で形成されました。 2008 年の 10 月には, フォローアップのために日本で組織された運営委員会が、東京で開催 した会議において、第一回会議の提起した諸提言を実行するために、国際作業部会（IWC） が立ちあげられました。IWC は、第二回会議を NCCK を含む諸宗教団体を主催者として ソウルで開くことを決め、第二回会議において表明され承認されるべき「ミッションステ ートメント」（私たちの使命文書）を準備するための協働のプロセスを始めました。 さらに、IWC によって確認された決議に基づき、2008 年 12 月には、オバマ大統領に以下 を要求する手紙を送りました。 １）米軍再編と米軍の存在について検討し、考え直す ２）９条の改変について日本政府に圧力をかけない ３）東アジアにおける平和と安定を保障するような新しい総合的な政策の実現 ４）日本の非武装と米軍の撤退 ５）第一歩として、東アジアの非核化のビジョンを促進する 第二回９条アジア宗教者会議は、オバマ大統領に対するこれらの要求を改めて確認しま す。 仏教、キリスト教、イスラム教の信仰共同体を代表する８０名以上の宗教指導者たちの参 加を得た第二回９条アジア宗教者ソウル会議において、日本やそれ以外の東アジアの現状、 また軍事力の存在と行使によって悪影響を及ぼされている地域共同体からの報告が分かち 合われました。私たちの考察と話し合いによって以下の点が明らかにされました。 １） ９条を支持することは、宗教と政治の関係に変化をもたらした。この意味で、信 仰共同体は公共の関心事の分野において、真に信仰を生きることの意味を改めて学ん だと言える。 ２） ９条の提起した課題は、信仰共同体が平和に関して公に信仰的立場を持つ初めて の機会となった。 049 2nd Statement ３） ９条の支持を通して、諸宗教間の連帯が創られた。 ４） ９条運動は、宗教者たちと市民平和運動体との間に新たな連帯をもたらした。 ５） 多くの人々は、９条を民衆運動の課題とすることを改めて確認している。 ６） ９条は、東アジア共同体の未来を志向する中心的価値として、これまでにないほ どの地域的また国際的に有意義なビジョンである。 ７） 隣国に侵略を行った国々は、持続的平和を作り出すために関係を正す責任を持つ。 ９条は、紛争解決のために、真実究明と和解が必要であることを思い出させる。 ８） 日本は一国平和主義を乗り越えて、隣国を含めた平和構築に参与しなくてはなら ない。 ９） 東アジアにおける戦後の繁栄と成功の競争は、新しい形で地域を分断した。 １０） 9 条は、その分断された人々を、より十全な平和理解へ招いている。憲法前文の 謳う平和的生存権は、憲法 25 条が示す恐怖と欠乏からの自由という権利に由来する。 全ての人々が、恐怖と欠乏から自由である平和的生存権を行使する世界を創造するた めに努力することが求められている。 ９条の精神を進展させるために、私たちは以下の課題を積極的に追及することを決意しま す。 1. 戦争の非存在というだけではなく、正義と人間の尊厳に基づく平和概念を広める。 2. より精力的に世代を超えた平和教育を行うこと。（例えば、子どもたちや、若者、大 人。） その教育は、体験学習、宗教間対話、平和教育の指導者を育てることや創造的なメデ ィアの活用などを含む。すべての人々が、政府が責任をもって法律を遵守することに 関心をもち、行動しなければならない。 3. 日本人が、彼ら自身の言葉で憲法９条の精神を解釈し、実践する努力を助ける。 4. フィリピン、ミャンマー、スリランカ、パキスタン、インドネシアなど、紛争と軍事 力によって悪影響を及ぼされている地域共同体に平和ネットワークを構築し、広げ る。 5. 米国による支配とアジアにおける平和構築の関係についての研究を深める。 6. 大国間においても、世界のどの場所においても、核兵器廃絶を支持する。 7. 米軍基地と自衛隊の存在は、憲法 9 条に反する現実として積極的に反対を推し進め る。 8. 軍事化と紛争に影響を受けている共同体において、諸宗教間対話を促進する。 9. エキュメニカル・アドボカシー・デー（ワシントン 2010 年３月）と国際エキュメニカ ル平和会議（ジャマイカ 2011 年）において、９条キャンペーンを取り上げることを 勧める。 050 2nd Statement 10. 朝鮮半島の再統一に向かうあらゆる努力を支持する。 私たちは、すべての信仰共同体がこの声明文を、祈りのうちに深め、支持し、個人とし ても、共同体としても、積極的に行動するように勧めます。 ２００９年１２月３日 韓国・ソウル・アカデミーハウスにて 051 2nd Statement 도 쿄 에 서 서 울 까 지 – 일 본 평 화 헌 법 9조 제 2회 아 시 아 종 교 인 협 의 회 일 본 평 화 헌 법 9조 (이 하 헌 법 9조 )와 아 시 아 평 화 를 위 한 제 1회 아 시 아 종 교 인 협 의 회 가 2007년 11월 29일 부 터 12월 1일 까 지 일 본 도 쿄 한 국 YMCA에 서 아 시 아 와 세 계 각 국 의 종 교 인 지 도 자 들 이 참 석 한 가 운 데 개 최 되었다. 이 협의회는 일본의 종단들이 일본 정부의 군사주의의 움직임에 대 응 하 기 위 하 여 조 직 되 었 다 . 이 협 의 회 를 통 하 여 평 화 와 비 폭 력 의 헌 법 9조 의 정신을 구현하려는 종교계가 의미와 소망 속에 하나가 될 수 있었다. 2008년 10월 일 본 의 종 단 들 은 다 시 일 본 에 서 1차 헌 법 9조 협 의 회 의 합 의 사항을 실천하기 위한 모임을 조직하였고 이 모임에서 국제실행위원회 (IWC)가 구 성 되 었 다 . 국 제 실 행 위 원 회 는 2009년 12월 에 제 2회 협 의 회 를 한국기독교교회협의회를 비롯한 한국의 종단들의 협조 하에 서울에서 열 기 로 합 의 하 였 다 . 또 한 제 2회 협 의 회 시 에 채 택 될 미 션 성 명 서 의 초 안 작 업을 진행하였다. 아 울 러 국 제 실 행 위 원 회 는 2008년 12월 미 국 대 통 령 당 선 자 인 버 락 오 바 마 씨에게 다음과 같은 요구를 담은 서한을 발송하였다 : l 미 군 의 전 략 적 재 배 치 에 따 른 미 군 주 둔 의 문 제 를 연 구 하 고 재 고 하 여 줄 것. l 일 본 정 부 를 향 해 헌 법 9조 를 개 정 하 라 는 압 력 을 중 지 할 것 . l 동 아 시 아 의 평 화 와 안 정 을 보 장 하 는 다 자 간 정 책 을 채 택 할 것 . l 미 군 철 수 와 일 본 의 무 장 해 제 를 실 행 할 것 . l 그 첫 째 단 계 로 동 아 시 아 비 핵 화 비 젼 을 추 진 할 것 . 제 2회 헌 법 9조 협 의 회 는 이 상 과 같 은 요 구 의 중 요 성 을 상 기 하 였 다 . 80명 이 상 의 종 단 지 도 자 들 이 참 석 한 제 2회 헌 법 9조 협 의 회 는 일 본 동 아시아의 정세 분석과 평화운동과 미군 지기에서 들려 오는 이야기들을 함 께 나누었다. 성찰과 토론을 통하여 다음과 같은 통찰을 공유하였다. l 헌 법 9조 를 지 지 하 는 것 은 종 교 와 정 치 의 상 관 성 을 변 화 시 키 는 일 이 며, 종교인들로 하여금 공적인 영역에서 신앙인으로 살아가는 것의 의미를 다시 일깨우게 한다. l 헌 법 9조 의 주 제 는 종 교 인 들 이 평 화 를 위 하 여 함 께 공 적 으 로 협 력 하 는 좋은 사례가 되었다. l 헌 법 9조 를 지 지 하 는 것 은 종 교 들 간 의 연 대 를 형 성 하 게 하 였 다 . l 헌 법 9조 에 대 한 관 심 은 종 교 계 와 평 화 를 염 원 하 는 시 민 사 회 간 의 연 대를 형성하게 하였다. 052 2nd Statement l 헌 법 9조 를 민 중 의 주 제 로 천 명 하 는 일 에 많 은 이 들 이 동 의 하 게 되 었다. l 헌 법 9조 는 일 본 을 넘 어 서 동 아 시 아 지 역 과 국 제 관 계 성 에 서 더 유 효하며, 동아시아 공동체의 핵심 가치로 받아들여져야 한다. l 이 웃 나 라 들 과 전 쟁 을 치 른 국 가 들 은 영 속 적 인 평 화 를 추 구 하 기 위 하 여 노 력 하 여 야 하 며 , 헌 법 9조 는 과 거 의 분 쟁 을 치 유 하 기 위 하 여 진리와 화해가 필요하다는 것을 우리에게 상기하여 주고 있다. l 일 본 은 동 아 시 아 국 가 들 과 의 평 화 공 존 을 위 하 여 ‘일 국 가 평 화 정 체 성 (One Nation Peace Identity’의 한 계 를 극 복 하 여 야 한 다 . l 동 아 시 아 는 각 국 의 번 영 과 성 공 을 위 한 전 후 경 쟁 을 통 하 여 지 역 질서를 새로운 방향으로 분할하고 있다. l 헌 법 9조 는 동 아 시 아 시 민 들 로 하 여 금 통 전 적 인 평 화 를 이 해 하 도 록 촉 구 한 다 . 헌 법 9조 전 문 의 “평 화 롭 게 사 는 권 리 ”는 가 난 과 (25조 ) 공 포 (전 문 )로 부 터 의 해 방 되 는 권 리 에 기 안 한 다 . 우 리 의 과 제 는 모 든 이들이 가난과 공포로부터 해방되어 평화롭게 살 수 있는 세상을 만 드는 것이다. 헌 법 9조 의 정 신 을 실 현 하 기 위 하 여 다 음 과 같 은 일 에 매 진 할 것 이 다 : 1) 평 화 는 단 순 히 전 쟁 의 부 재 가 아 니 라 정 의 와 인 간 존 엄 의 수 호 를 의 미 함. 2) 세 대 간 의 벽 을 넘 어 평 화 교 육 을 더 욱 넓 게 확 장 하 여 체 험 프 로 그 램 , 대 화, 평화 교육가와 실천가들을 위한 훈련 프로그램, 창조적인 언론 활동 을 실천하며, 자국의 정부를 향해 평화에 대한 이해와 실천을 독려하는 일. 3) 일 본 국 민 들 이 헌 법 9조 의 정 신 을 구 현 하 는 일 을 주 체 적 으 로 할 수 있 도록 격려하는 일. 4) 필 리 핀 , 미 얀 마 , 스 리 랑 카 , 파 키 스 탄 , 인 도 네 시 아 등 분 쟁 과 폭 력 을 경 험 하고 있는 국가들과의 연대를 확장하는 일. 5) 아 시 아 에 서 ‘미 국 의 지 배 와 평 화 정 착 ’과 의 관 계 성 을 연 구 하 는 일 . 6) 강 대 국 들 이 소 유 하 고 있 는 핵 무 기 를 폐 지 하 는 일 에 최 선 을 다 하 는 일 . 7) 헌 법 9조 정 신 에 위 배 되 는 일 본 자 위 대 와 미 군 기 지 의 존 재 에 대 하 여 반 대하는 일. 8) 분 쟁 과 군 사 주 의 의 위 협 이 고 조 된 지 역 의 공 동 체 들 을 위 하 여 종 교 간 대 화를 격려하고 실천하는 일. 9) 2010년 3월 워 싱 톤 에 서 개 최 되 는 일 치 옹 호 의 날 (Ecumenical Advocacy Day)과 2011년 자메이카에서 개최되는 평 화 대 회 (Ecumenical Peace Convocation)의 의 제 에 헌 법 9조 주 제 를 포 함 시 키 는 일 . 10) 한 반 도 통 일 문 제 에 지 지 와 연 대 를 강 화 하 는 일 . 053 2nd Statement 이상과 같은 우리의 입장을 담은 성명서를 개인과 공동체의 구분을 넘어 모든 종단 구성원들이 기도하는 심정으로 함께 나누고 실천을 모색하기를 간절히 바라는 바이다. 2009년 12월 3일 서울 아카데미 하우스 054 1st Statement Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia November 29-December 1, 2007 Statement We, the participants of the Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia, call on the Japanese government to honor both the letter and the spirit of Article 9 of its constitution: to never act as an aggressor in war nor actively support any aggressor in any violent action or any action that may threaten the spirit of the preamble of the constitution, which says that all people of the world have the right to live free from fear and want. As religious people we believe that Article 9 honors the religious mandate of “You shall not kill” and promotes the nurture of all life. We call on Japan to honor its constitution to be a non-violent nation. In this conference, we have become aware that 62 years after World War II, Japan is accelerating a process of radical change in its involvement in war. From being a country that collaborates and supports war, it is now pushing to become a country that can wage war through a revision of Article 9. We were reminded that peace can never be achieved through military violence but only through promoting a culture open to patient dialogue and diversity that promotes justice, equality, and respect. The current transition is intimately connected to the global realignment of the United States (U.S.) strategy. Japan’s cooperation in this objective consolidates the defense structure of what the Pentagon calls the Arc of Instability, which spans from Eastern Europe over the Middle East and India to East Asia. The realignment, which is the greatest since the Korean War, lies in the whole gamut of strengthened military cooperation ranging from Japan’s commitment to full participation in ballistic missile defense, search and destroy operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counter-terrorism including fingerprinting of visitors to the U.S. and Japan. The realignment also ‘justifies’ Japan’s deployment of the Self Defense Forces outside Japan and the expansion of the U.S. military presence in Japan, use of her seaport and airport facilities, roads, water spaces, and control of airspaces and frequency bands. Along with this move, the efforts to strengthen “patriotism” in recent years through laws such as those on the Hinomaru (national flag), Kimigayo (national anthem), wire-tapping and emergency 055 1st Statement legislation were set in place. In addition to the Diet's passing of the amendment to the Fundamental Law on Education, which is patriotic-centric, the Japanese government has been in the process of changing the constitution and particularly targeting Article 9. The Diet on May 14, 2007, passed into law a controversial national referendum bill for constitutional revision. This law has paved the way for a change in the constitution, which has become a real political goal with parliamentary time set aside for it. In the light of these dangerous developments in Japan, we cannot be passive spectators. Based on our religious teaching, we believe that: l War is always a crime l War brings death both to the body of the victim and the soul of the perpetrator We commit ourselves to: l Sincerely practice the spirit of Article 9 at all times and in all places l Protect the dignity of the victims of all forms of violence Religious communities from Asia and the world were called to Japan to hold an “Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia.” In response, religious leaders from Korea, Taiwan, Okinawa, Hong Kong, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, India, Sri Lanka, United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany and Japan met to study and listen to keynote addresses and panel presentations, to discuss action plans, to pray and sing together in a peace concert and peace march. Appeals were made by participants from Burma and the Philippines to address the critical situations in their countries. The meeting was held at the Korean YMCA in Tokyo, Japan, November 29-December 1, 2007 and was attended by 220 people. The meeting expressed the need for ongoing gatherings of this kind. In order to promote the movement for Non-violence and Peace, and in line with our commitments we make the following appeals. I We petition the Japanese Government to: 1. Revise its treaties and commitments and rectify future treaties in accordance with Article 9 2. Revise Japan’s foreign policy away from U.S. influence towards a peace oriented diplomacy with special emphasis on North-East Asia 3. Stop the construction of the new base in Okinawa, reduce the number of bases, aiming for permanent closure 4. Withdraw troops deployed abroad 056 1st Statement 5. Repeal the National Referendum Bill 6. Acknowledge responsibility for aggression against the people of the Asia Pacific region and have the Diet make a formal apology 7. Abolish the “military” by transforming the Self Defense Forces into a civilian rescue and relief team 8. Rescind the immigration legislation requiring fingerprinting of foreigners entering Japan, which creates mistrust II 1. We call on religious circles and persons in Japan to: Be in solidarity with citizens’ peace movements, particularly by participation in the Global Article 9 Gathering to be held in Japan in May, 2008 2. Deepen your prayerful concern and commitment to peace-building, caring for all lives 3. Teach the next generation about the historical facts of aggression 4. Support actively “Declaration of a demilitarized zone” wherever each religious institution is located. 5. Encourage spiritual solidarity among religious leaders to promote life and peace 6. Create new peace education and discourse based on different religious traditions and actively engage in peace education III We call on religious circles and persons of Asia and the world to: 1. Treasure Article 9 as a patrimony of the whole human race and establish a global Article 9 network 2. Encourage a clause in favor of demilitarization and renunciation of war to be included in the constitution of every nation 3. Chart a new path for human history, using every opportunity to publicly call for abolishment of all war 4. Invite their community to pray and act for peace and non-violence and designate a special peace day in Asia 5. Stand up for their religion whenever it is being abused as a support for perpetrating violence and repent for any complicity 6. Share information about violations of human rights in the world, organize protest actions combined with prayer and promote democracy 7. Ask the Japanese government to keep Article 9 and make it a living reality 057 1st Statement 8. Establish an international people’s peace tribunal to expose as unconstitutional or unethical, acts or policies of war making 9. Look for a way to encourage conscientious objection 058 1st Statement 「9 条アジア宗教者会議」声明 ２００７・１２・１ 在 日 本 東 京 韓 国 YM CA 【日本国憲法９条】 日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、 国権の発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段としては、 永久にこれを放棄する。 前項の目的を達するため、陸海空軍その他の戦力は、これを保持しない。国の交戦権は、これを認めな い。 9 条アジア宗教者会議に参加した私たちは、日本政府にたいして、平和憲法の言葉と精神を尊 重し、日本が、これ以上戦争において加害者とならないこと、また憲法の前文に述べられてい るように、「全世界の国民が、ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ、平和のうちに生存する権利」を 脅かすいかなる暴力の行動にも加担しないことを要求します。宗教者として私たちは、「殺すな」 「不殺生」、すべてのいのちを育むという教えは、憲法 9 条と共鳴していると信じます。 この会議において、私たちは、戦後６２年を迎えた今日、日本政府が猛スピードで戦争への関 与のかたちを変貌させようとしていることに気づかされました。日本政府は憲法 9 条を変える ことによって、「戦争への加担、協力」から、自ら「戦争をする国」へと変貌しています。 私たちは、平和は決して軍事力では実現しないこと、忍耐深い対話と多様性に開いた対話のみ が、正義、平等と相互の尊敬をもたらすことを確認しました。 日本政府による現在の動きが、米国の「世界的国防態勢の見直し」と直結していることは言うま でもありません。日本は、東欧から中東、インド、東アジアにいたる「不安定な弧」における軍 備態勢の確立を支え、協力しています。アジア・太平洋地域では「朝鮮戦争以来最大」の大規模 な米軍再編が行われ、これによって日本がミサイル防衛体制、反テロ体制、破壊作戦、情報収 集、大量破壊兵器整備に全面的参加を実現し、日米新ガイドラインに基づき、自衛隊と米軍の 一体化によって、米軍が日本国内の港湾、空港、道路、水路、空路、電波網をコントロールし、 自由に使用することができるようになっています。 これらの動きに呼応して、近年、日本では、愛国心を強調する「日の丸・君が代－国旗・国歌 法」、「盗聴法」、「有事法制」などが制定されました。 さらに、愛国心教育を軸として「教 育基本法」が制定され、さらに政府は 9 条を焦点とする憲法「改正」への準備を進めています。 憲法「改正」を目的とした国民投票法が、２００７年５月１４日に成立して、改憲への道が大き 059 1st Statement く開かれ、平和憲法の「改定」は現実的な政治日程に組み込まれています。 このような危機的現状にたいして、宗教者は座視していることは許されません。それぞれの宗 教の教義に基づき、 「戦争は犯罪」であること 戦争においては殺される者の体も、殺す者のたましいも失われることを確認します 私たちは、いつ、どこでも憲法 9 条の理念を真剣に生き、実践すること あらゆる暴力の被害者のいのちと尊厳を守ることを誓います アジアと世界の宗教界は、「9 条アジア宗教者会議」への招きに応え、韓国、沖縄、台湾、香港、 フィリピン、マレーシア、シンガポール、インド、スリランカ、米国、英国、スイス、ドイツ から日本に参集しました。2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日まで、東京の在日本韓国ＹＭＣＡホ テルを会場にして、約２２０名が参加し、参加者は基調講演、パネル討論、発題に耳を傾け、 平和コンサート、祈りの集い、平和巡礼を共にし、フィリピン、ビルマの参加者からの緊急ア ッピールを受け、行動計画を協議しました。また、私たちはこのような集いを今後も継続して 開催することを確認しました。 私たちは、今、「非暴力・平和」への動きを推進するために行動することを決意して、以下を要 請し、呼びかけます。 I 日本政府にたいして要請します ① 憲法 9 条に基づき、外国との条約、協定を見直し、正しいあり方に訂正する ② 米国一辺倒の外交政策を、とくに東北アジアに視点をおいた平和外交に変える ③ 沖縄の基地建設を中止し、基地の全面廃止にむかって、縮小を実現する ④ 海外派兵の撤退 ⑤ 軍備放棄にむけて、現存する自衛隊を災害援助隊とする ⑥ 国民投票法の白紙撤廃 ⑦ 日本が犯したアジア太平洋地域の人びとへの加害責任を認め、国会で謝罪決議をする ⑧ 外国籍の人びとを、不信と疑惑の対象とする指紋押捺を義務づける現行の入管法を撤廃す る II 日本の宗教界、宗教者に呼びかけます ① 市民による平和運動に連帯する。特に、2008 年 5 月幕張において開催される 9 条世界会議 に参加する。 ② 祈りと共に、平和の実現に取り組み、全てのいのちを大切にする。 ③ 次世代の若者に加害の歴史的事実を伝える。 ④ 各宗派、教派、団体は、それぞれの地域で「非武装地域宣言」に向けて努力する。 060 1st Statement ⑤ いのちが大切にされ、平和が実現されるために、各宗教指導者間の霊的な連帯を強める。 ⑥ 異なる宗教的伝統に基づいた議論及び新たな平和教育を創出し、平和をつくり出す教育に 積極的に関与する。 III アジア、世界の宗教界、宗教者に呼びかけます ① 憲法 9 条を全人類の財産として大切にし、世界に 9 条ネットワークをつくる。 ② 各国の憲法の条文に戦争の放棄と非武装の条項が加えられるように働きかける。 ③ あらゆる機会に戦争放棄を公けに呼びかけ、人類の歴史に新しい道を開く ④ それぞれの置かれている地域、社会において祈り、非暴力と平和のために行動する平和の 日をアジアにおいて設定する。 ⑤ 宗教が暴力を固定化し、悪用される時、宗教者はその宗教のために立ち上がり、共犯者と しての行いを悔い改める。 ⑥ 日本政府に対して憲法 9 条を保持し、生きた現実となるように働きかける。 ⑦ 世界における人権侵害に関しての情報を共有し、祈りと共に民主主義を促進するための抗 議行動を組織する。 ⑧ 憲法に反し、非道徳的な戦争行為、政策を明らかにする民衆の国際平和法廷を設立する。 ⑨ 共に良心的兵役拒否の道を模索する。 「９条アジア宗教者会議」参加者一同 ２００７年１２月１日 日本、東京 061 Our Mission Our Mission: Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia Introduction The humankind experienced hell twice in the 20th Century. More than 100 millions were massacred in two world wars. The threat of nuclear weapons with the capability of annihilating the entire humankind looms. The Russel-Einstein Manifesto in 1955 challenged the existence of weapons of mass destruction such as the atomic and the hydrogen bombs saying: “Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” We cannot ignore this hard question which demands a clear response from us of either a YES or a NO. Incredible as it seems, the Constitution of Japan made an unmistakable option of renouncing war as if predicting the challenge posed by the Russel-Einstein Manifesto nine years later. Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution states: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. Article 9 is the expression of sincere apology and repentance of the war of aggression and colonial rule of the people of Japan for the crimes committed during the 20th century. It is an expression of the significance and value of an unarmed, democratic state in today’s world. In this sense, it can be said that the Constitution of Japan should be an inspiration for the constitution of any nation state. We believe in the importance of translating the principle of non-violence into other levels of our lives. Though the Liberal Democratic Party is no longer in power, the threat to revise Article 9 still remains. The unification of Japan’s Self Defense Forces and the United States Armed Forces in Japan is a disguise to support and participate in the U.S. led hegemonic war which practically strips Article 9 of its essential message. 062 Our Mission Our Mandate The Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia was organized to respond to this reality of grave concern. The Conference statement issued on December 1, 2007 affirms the following. In the light of these dangerous developments in Japan, we cannot be passive spectators. Based on our religious teaching, we believe that: l War is always a crime l War brings death both to the body of the victim and the soul of the perpetrator We commit ourselves to: l Sincerely practice the spirit of Article 9 at all times and in all places l Protect the dignity of the victims of all forms of violence All religions are universal, transcending races and nations. Today, however, there are cases where religions are used to instigate and justify violence. Religions should be purified to their original inspiration, and their followers should faithfully translate these truths and realities about life in word and deed in their respective contexts. Each religion should be an expression of the universal truths like peace, and lead to collectively proclaim and live these rather than insist on differences that may lead to disunity or even hostility.” Our Calls We are believers in the truth of unconditional love as we are aware of eternal life. Non-violence is based on this truth. We, the participants of the Second Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia, based on the religious truth of non-violence, refuse to accept any ideology and behavior that promote the culture of war. We commit ourselves to protect and enliven Article 9. We defend the life and dignity of all people, especially, victims of violence, guarantee “the right to live in peace, free from fear and want” (Preamble, Constitution of Japan) and create right human relationships based on trust and respect. We understand this to include gender and ecological justice in society and in our institutions. We call on citizens of the world to support and join our movement to make “renunciation of war” and “demilitarization” a concrete reality in Japan, Asia and the entire world. We commit ourselves to strive for this ardent desire of the 063 Our Mission human race and unite ourselves with all people who share the same prayer. _________________________________________________________________ _ Final form, Dec. 3, 2009 Academy House, Seoul, Korea 064 Keynote Address A Rightward Leaning Perception of Japanese History and the Constitution of Japan TAKAHASHI Tetsuya University of Tokyo Note: As there has been no change in the Japanese Government’s general perceptions, Professor Takahashi has based his talk on a lecture from approximately one year ago while including recent developments. １．Introduction Today I would like to speak to you about “A Rightward Leaning Perception of Japanese History and the Constitution of Japan.” Although I say “rightward leaning,” it is difficult to give a strict definition of what “right” means. If you say that it’s a return to Japan’s “militarism” previous to 1945, I don’t believe that is the case. However, it is an undeniable fact that nationalism is on the rise in Japan. The first eruption of nationalism since that period was due to the conflict with North Korea (in particular, the kidnapping of Japanese citizens); presently, however, significant factors are rather conflicts with South Korea and China over historical and territorial issues. The result is a sharp deterioration of sentiment toward South Korea and toward China by Japanese citizens. Conversely, there also appears to be a similar deterioration of sentiment toward Japan by South Korean and Chinese citizens. This is shown in numerous public opinion surveys recently conducted in each country. In a survey taking place in October 2012 by Japan’s Cabinet Office concerning feelings of friendliness toward Korea, only 39.2% of respondents had friendly feelings, a more than 20-point drop from the previous year; 59% did not have friendly feelings, marking a more than 20-point increase. As for China, a mere 18% had friendly feelings toward Japan, while 80.6% did not. According to data released in July 2013 by View Research Center in the USA, 77% of Koreans and 90% of Chinese answered that they had a “negative impression of Japan.” (In contrast, about 80% of Malaysians, Indonesians, Australians and Filipinos answered that they had a “positive impression of Japan.”) As well, the results of a joint opinion poll by the Japanese non-profit organization “The Genron NPO” and a Chinese media organization showed that 90.1% of Japanese held an “unfavorable opinion” of China, whereas 92.8% of Chinese held a similar view of Japanese; both results were at the worst level in the nine years of the poll. Regarding the possibility of military conflict between Japan, China and 065 Keynote Address Korea, 23.7% of Japanese and 52.7% Chinese respondents in the same poll either replied “There will be conflict within a few years” or “There will be conflict in the future.” Being that this conference is held for the purpose of “building peace in East Asia,” I doubt that there is anyone here that does not feel apprehensive about this situation. As I believe that we absolutely must avoid letting animosity build to the point of war, I want to do my best to see that a calm, rational perception of Japan’s history takes root so that a dangerous nationalism that has forgotten to reflect on the country’s history does not escalate within Japan. When considering this, I think that one of the greatest threats in present Japan is that the seat of political power is now occupied by political forces that have completely forgotten to reflect on past history. The Abe regime along with the largest political party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP), have an extremely nationalistic perception of history and the Constitution, and, are arguably the most “right-leaning” political force in postwar Japan since the 1947 enactment of the Constitution of Japan. But that does not mean that a large number, or even a majority, of Japanese citizens back Prime Minister Abe and the LDP’s perception of history and the Constitution. This may be somewhat confusing, but although Mr. Abe and the LDP obtained around 40% of the votes in the December 2012 general election and the July 2013 upper house election, these votes represented disillusionment with the former Democratic Party administration and expectations that Mr. Abe and the LDP’s economic reforms would be successful in reinvigorating the economy; it was rather a minority of voters that favored them due to their perception of history and the Constitution. However, while it is a reality that there are increased anti-Korean and anti-Chinese sentiments amongst citizens and in society concerning historical perceptions and territorial disputes, there is a growing likelihood that the Abe administration and LDP will take full advantage of this heightened nationalism by rolling out as policy “the most right-leaning” perceptions of history and the Constitution in postwar Japan. ２．”Breaking from the Postwar Regime” One of Prime Minister ABE Shinzō’s most well-known political slogans is “breaking from the postwar regime.” He used this in his first administration [2006 – 07], but continues to assert the call today. By “postwar regime,” Mr. Abe is specifically referring to Japan’s postwar system that centered on the Fundamental Law of Education enacted to realize The Constitution of Japan and the ideals of the Constitution. In December 2006, as the first 066 Keynote Address stage of Prime Minister Abe’s “breaking from the postwar regime,” the Revised Fundamental Law of Education was executed. After enacting the 2007National Referendum Law, which is essential for constitutional revision, Mr. Abe thought the country was on its way to revising the Constitution, but was unable to achieve this in his first administration. In 2012, Mr. Abe staged a comeback as the LDP president; the general election in the same year led to the formation of the second Abe administration. There is no doubt that he is strongly determined to bring about constitutional revisions this time around. It is in Mr. Abe’s book “Toward a New Country,” a republished version of his earlier “Towards a Beautiful Country” issued during his first administration, that he asserted, “breaking from the postwar regime is still the most important theme for Japan, just as it was five years earlier when I was prime minister.” Mr. Abe raised the slogan of “Take Back Japan.” in the general election. And printed in large red lettering on the paper band1 of “Toward a New Country” is written “In Order to Recover a Strong Japan.” What does this mean? At the close of “New Country,” Mr. Abe states: “This did not mean only to take back Japan from the Democratic Party government. I’ll go so far as to say that we are in a battle to take back the country of Japan from postwar history by the hands of the Japanese people” (pg. 254).2 Prime Minister Abe is saying that “postwar history” took away “the country of Japan” from “the Japanese people" and so, “take (it) back.” Well then, when did “the country of Japan,” the “strong Japan” that “postwar history” took away exist? That can only refer to before “postwar history,” that is to “prewar” or “wartime.” I don’t think that even Prime Minister Abe is considering making today’s Japan once again a nation of “militarism.” But, anyone can see that he wants to reject Japan’s “postwar history.” On the one hand, Mr. Abe is a strong supporter of the “Japan-U.S. alliance.” At various times he has repeated that Japan shares values of freedom and democracy with the U.S., 1 Paper band - a promotional strip wrapped around the cover of books in Japan. 2 Translation from “Shinzo Mr. Abe’s Civic Nationalism,” Kevin Doak, May 15, 2013, Center for Stategies & International Studies. 067 Keynote Address Korea as well as European and other countries. The following description is included in “New Country”: “Over the more than half-century since World War II, the nation of Japan has protected freedom, democracy and basic human rights, and contributed to international peace. And, it is no surprise that the world has been watching these acts by the people of Japan. We should be unashamedly proud of the image of this country, which the people of Japan have created themselves. We have absolutely no intention of changing the nature of this country in the future” (pg. 73). The “contribution” to “freedom and democracy,” “basic human rights” and “international peace” that he speaks of here is the “postwar Japan” clearly made possible by the Constitution of Japan enforced in 1947. Then that means in this instance, Mr. Abe is offering the “postwar regime” the highest praise. He even goes to the extent of saying that we must be proud because “the nature of the country” was made by Japanese themselves, and that “we have absolutely no intention of changing (it) in the future.” Within the same book he has asserted the need “to take back the country of Japan from postwar history by the hands of the Japanese people” while at the same time saying “we have absolutely no intention of changing” “the nature of this country” followed “over the more than half-century since World War II.” This is a blatant case of self-contradiction. How can there be such an obvious contradiction? Actually, the reason that Mr. Abe stresses “respect for freedom, democracy and basic human rights” is pure rhetoric to justify his visits to Yasukuni Shrine. He is trying to say that though Korea, China and other countries may criticize a visit to Yasukuni by a sitting prime minister as the militarization of Japan, just because he visits Yasukuni doesn’t mean that the country is returning to the path of militarism; that is proven by Japan’s postwar history. Mr. Abe’s opportunistic use of praising postwar Japan is a condition of self-contradiction. Regarding the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Mr. Abe says, “Protecting Japan means protecting the foundations of its political system, namely, freedom and democracy” (pg. 70). Isn’t it because of adopting the system of the Constitution of Japan, in other words, the “postwar regime,” which he is attempting to reject, that Japan is a nation with a postwar history that is one of freedom, democracy and basic human rights? 068 Keynote Address On April 28th, 2013, the Abe administration held a government-sponsored ceremony for the “Restoration of Sovereignty Day.” Here, too, self-contradiction can be seen. On April 28th, 1952, The San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect and Japanese sovereignty was restored, thereby returning the nation to the international community. Although Prime Minister Abe told government supporters that it wasn’t a celebration, it is a fact that LDP members intended to make the date a public holiday from the beginning. The previous year a bill was even submitted to do so. This move caused a huge backlash from the people of Okinawa who have remembered this day as the “Day of Humiliation,” when they were unilaterally separated from Japan. After doing away with the festive tone, the ceremony was pushed through. However, the postwar Japan, that is, the “postwar regime” that Mr. Abe has been attempting to reject all along, is the Japan that started with the return to the international community via the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Those who want to reject the “postwar regime” are celebrating the start of the “postwar regime.” I would have to say that that is a complete contradiction. ３・ Visitation to Yasukuni Shrine During his first administration, Prime Minister Abe was dissuaded from visiting Yasukuni Shrine. This was immediately after relations with China had dropped to an all-time low due to former Prime Minister Koizumi’s repeated visits to the shrine. For Mr. Abe, who even more often than his predecessor had stated that it was the prime minister’s “duty” to visit Yasukuni, it “was a matter of great regret” that he still often mentions. But he has taken a half-hearted attitude of not definitively saying whether he will visit Yasukuni or not. Although there is no doubt that his true intentions are to visit as prime minister, he did not visit the shrine for the spring ritual, neither for August 15th (known in Japan as “the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War”). The scheduled presentation of this paper between October 17 – 20, 2013 falls exactly at the same time as the fall ritual, so it is possible that the prime minister could visit Yasukuni Shrine then.3 Details on my views of the subject of Yasukuni Shrine can be found in my book, “The Yasukuni Issue,” which is translated into Korean and Chinese. I will limit myself to refuting one of the justifications for Yasukuni visitation that Prime Minister Abe has recently repeated to various media outlets. The Prime Minister relies on the opinion of Kevin Doak, professor at Georgetown University in the U.S., for this argument. Professor Doak 3 Note: As of Nov. 2014, PM Mr. Abe has visited Yasukuni Shrine once, on Dec. 26, 2014. 069 Keynote Address compares Yasukuni Shrine to America’s Arlington National Cemetery, where U.S. military officers and soldiers are interred. Although there are also Confederate soldiers who fought for slavery during the Civil War buried in Arlington Cemetery, no one imagines that when the U.S. president goes to pay tribute to the war dead that he/she is affirming slavery. That is because people consider the kind of ideology those soldiers held during their lifetimes to be separate from war memorials and tributes. In the same way, even if the prime minister of Japan visits Yasukuni Shrine, it doesn’t mean that he approves of the conduct of TŌJŌ Hideki and other Class A war criminals. According to Professor Doak, it is “natural” to mourn for a country’s war dead; therefore, the prime minister should be “encouraged” to visit Yasukuni Shrine. Prime Minister Abe has referred to this in saying, “It is right to show reverence for the souls of soldiers who died for our country.” However, Kevin Doak’s argument and the assertion by Prime Minister Abe which is based on it ignore an essential difference with Arlington Cemetery. As America’s national cemetery, Arlington Cemetery represents no specific perception of history, such as that slavery supported by the Confederate army was justified or that justification for the abolition of slavery was not truthful. Neither is the U.S. government pushing this type of perception on society. What about Yasukuni Shrine? Yasukuni Shrine has two self-proclaimed roles: one role is to commemorate and honor the souls of dead soldiers; the other is to “to clarify the truth of modern history.” And what is this “truth of modern history” as taught by Yasukuni Shrine? That would be that Japanese military wars since the Meiji Era [from 1868] were wars of “Self-sufficiency, Self-defense” and were not misdirected battles. But, through defeat in the Asia-Pacific War, Japan went from being a victorious nation to unilaterally being labeled an aggressor state. And that because of the “victor’s justice” known as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, falsely accused war criminals were categorized as “Class A War Criminals.” As a part of this “truth of modern history,” Yasukuni Shrine even displays Japanese military war history in Yūshūkan, a former military museum that was converted into a history museum in order to clarify that colonial rule and wars conducted by modern Japan were not mistakes. The enshrinement of Class A war criminals is just a further extension of this historical perspective. The point is that a visit by the U.S. president to Arlington Cemetery, which as an institution is in no way advocating slavery, and a visit by the Japanese prime minister to Yasukuni Shrine, which as an institution is working to convince the world of the justness of the Japanese military’s wars, obviously serve different purposes. 070 Keynote Address ４． The Definition of “Aggression” Even before Mr. Abe became prime minister he has said that he would like to review the statements made by former Prime Minister MURAYAMA Tomiichi on the 50th anniversary of World War II and by former Chief Cabinet Secretary KONO Yōhei regarding the issue of “comfort women” [military sexual slaves]. In 1995, 50 years after the staging of the Second World War, there was a need for Japan to face the global community and emphasize recognition of its history at a time when questions were once again being raised about its postwar responsibilities. Although efforts were made to apologize and demonstrate both domestically and overseas its will to renounce war through a parliamentary resolution, opposition by right-wing politicians meant that the resolution expressed neither an apology nor remorse, making a global appeal impossible. With that, the Cabinet-approved “Murayama Statement” was released. The latter half of the statement is as follows: “During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare the Japanese people in a fateful crisis, and, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology. Allow me also to express my feelings of profound mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, of that history.”4 It could be said that this was Japan’s minimal effort for the 50th anniversary. Thereafter, during times when problems arose with China and/or Korea centering on Japan’s perception of history, successive cabinets made it through the situation by declaring that they were following the Murayama Statement. Mr. Abe continually said that he would review even postwar Japan’s minimal effort. On April 22, 2013, at Upper House Budget Committee proceedings after he had assumed office, Mr. Abe stated that his administration “isn’t necessarily inheriting the Murayama Statement as it is.” Taking advantage of that opening, LDP Diet member MARUYAMA Kazuya posed a question the gist being that wording such as “during a certain period in the 4 Translation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 071 Keynote Address not too distant past” and “mistaken national policy” and furthermore, “colonial rule and aggression” are “vague” and apologizing with this kind of vague wording is a peace-at-any-price policy. To this Mr. Abe expressed his own negative opinion of the statement saying that it was true that this problem had been pointed out and that in this regard “the definition of ‘aggression’ is not firmly determined either by academics or the international community, and that it can be viewed differently depending on which side you are on.” This shows poor awareness on the part of a prime minister. The definition of aggression was clearly approved by a December 1974 United Nations General Assembly resolution (UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression)). Japan signed this resolution. When a member of an opposition party pointed this out, Prime Minister Mr. Abe responded that resolutions are for the UN Security Council’s “reference purposes” and, moreover, that “in the so-called academic field there are various ongoing debates and no firm definition.” Nevertheless, as prime minister, one should rely on the definition approved by the international community from the start, not an academic definition. In addition to this UN resolution, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which, as a matter of fact, tries acts of aggression, unanimously approved a provision on the definition for aggression in 2010. What is more, Japan played a significant role at the time of the approval. There is no possible way that the Prime Minister of Japan did not know that. Certainly, Prime Minister Abe believes he can deny Japan’s colonial rule and aggression by saying, “it can be viewed differently depending on which side you are on.” What he wants to say is that from Korea’s viewpoint, the Korean “Annexation” was unjustifiable colonial rule, but from Japan’s viewpoint, it was not; from China’s viewpoint, the Sino-Japanese War was aggression, but Japan does not view it as such. However, this questionable awareness will not be accepted by the international community. Prime Minister Abe’s remarks were criticized by large numbers of media outlets in the West, including the United States. A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service expressed severe criticism, saying that Prime Minister Mr. Abe “embraces a revisionist view of Japanese history that rejects the narrative of Imperial Japanese aggression and victimization of other Asians.”5 It was after this type of reaction from the United States that Prime Minister Abe started saying that the Murayama Statement would be upheld. For Mr. 5 “Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, Sept. 24, 2014 072 Keynote Address Abe, a supporter of the Japanese-U.S. alliance, more than anything else it is essential to avoid U.S. criticism and conflict. ５．The Issue of ”Comfort Women” Remarks made in 2013 by Ōsaka mayor HASHIMOTO Tōru, leader of the Japan Restoration Party, have also caused controversy: "For courageous soldiers who were mentally on edge and had risked their lives in circumstances where bullets were falling like rain, if you want them to get some rest, a comfort women system was necessary. That's clear to anyone." There is obviously a major problem with Mayor Hashimoto’s perception of history, but let’s narrow the focus to Prime Minister Abe. When Mayor Hashimoto’s remarks brought harsh backlash from Korea and strong criticism from the U.S., Prime Minister Abe stated that the mayor’s remarks “run completely counter to mine, the Abe Cabinet’s and the LDP’s.” And yet, Mr. Abe had previously praised Mr. Hashimoto for his historical perception, saying that they were “allies.” In an interview in the August 28, 2012 issue of the “Sankei Shimbun,” Mr. Abe raised Mr. Hashimoto’s criticism of former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono’s statement, saying that the mayor’s contention that there was no material or evidence demonstrating that the military had coerced the “comfort women” was “appreciated as a very courageous remark.” Furthermore, he was delighted that Mr. Hashimoto had based his criticism on a cabinet decision made during Mr. Abe’s first term in which as far as the Japanese Government had investigated, it had found no material showing coercion, even adding, “He is an ally in the fight.” Finally, Mr. Abe declared that the Kono Statement, the Murayama Statement and, additionally, the statement by former Prime Minister Miyazawa concerning issues over Japanese history textbooks “must be reviewed” as a “readjustment in East Asian diplomacy” and moreover, “excessive consideration of surrounding countries did not lead to true friendship.” Mr. Abe is showing his true colors. That Mr. Hashimoto and Mr. Abe are “allies” in their criticism of the Kono Statement is certain. In saying that no official documents exist demonstrating coercion of “comfort women,” they are trying to deny the Japanese Government’s responsibility concerning this issue. This mindset runs deeply among Japan’s right-wing, and ignores completely the results of successive investigations on the “comfort women” issue. 073 Keynote Address As soon as Mr. Abe became prime minister there were expectations that questions of historical perception would once again become an international issue. And it appears that just as before, every single remark regarding his perception of history has been questioned by the international community. In the end, this implies that their historical perception is only welcomed and consumed by a small portion of conservative and right-wing domestic media. A discussion is running rampant that says because of China’s and Korea’s ressentiment6 toward Japan, the countries will continually attempt to oppose Japan by using “history” politically. However, such discord doesn’t stop with Asia; this historical perception also results in clashes with the U.S. In other words, their views will never be accepted by the international community. Or putting it in the vernacular, it’s the “Galapagos syndrome” – it’s a discussion that can only happen in the isolated environment of Japan. Those with this perception of history are constantly stuck in this place, never understanding why there is so much criticism; then, after assuming an official position, they gradually reveal their perception, later having to pull back after receiving internationally criticism. This scenario is repeated over and over again. I would have to say that they are caught in a vicious circle of an increasingly perverted sense of victimization and growing obstinacy. It is clear what Japan’s policymakers and political leaders must do: confront straight on the history that led to extensive damage in neighboring Asian countries and defeat, and acknowledge the fact that it was a mistake. And upon reflecting on these, demonstrate that they are now creating a Japan for the future. ６．The Historical Perception of the Mr. Abe Administration and the LDP In Article 1, Clause 1 of the Liberal Democratic Party’s draft constitution, it clearly states that “the emperor is the head of state of the nation of Japan.” This is a provision that was not even included in the LDP’s 2005 “new draft constitution.” According to the LDP’s “Q&A for the Draft of the Constitutional Revision” the “head of state” is the “foremost figure of the country”; in short, the emperor is held above the sovereign people. As in the Constitution of the Empire of Japan [1890 – 1947], though the emperor is given no political power, he is given maximum authority. In the “preamble” of the party’s Draft, the opening sentences set out that “Japan has a long 6 “Deep-seated resentment, frustration, and hostility accompanied by a sense of being powerless to express these feelings directly.” (Merriam-Webster on-line) 074 Keynote Address history and distinctive culture, and is honored7 with an emperor who is a symbol of the unity of the people,” proclaiming that Japan is an emperor-centric country. Looking at Japan’s “long history,” the era of the samurai government occupies a great deal of that past, whereas the era of an emperor system under an imperial constitution was quite out of the ordinary. However, this use of “honored” is applied precisely in a structure in which the emperor reigns over the people, making him more than a “symbol,” rather an object of veneration. Additionally, the description of Japan having “a long history and distinctive culture” amounts to a prewar view of the “kokutai (national body/essence)”; that is to say, it is expressing a set of values in which the authority of the state is derived from an “unbroken line of emperors.” At the end of the Draft’s “preamble,” it says, “The people of Japan hereby enact this Constitution in order that our good traditions and our nation shall be inherited by our descendants for many years to come.” The nation of Japan is “a nation honored with an emperor” in which this “unbroken line of emperors” is made the “foremost figure of the country,” and that this nation has existed together with its “long history” of over some two thousand years, a “distinctive culture” and “good traditions” since before its generations of people and the constitution created by those people. This means that these many generations of citizens exist in order that this “nation honored with an emperor” “shall be inherited by our descendants for many years to come,” and for that purpose they “enact this Constitution.” This reveals a fundamentally different view of the nation than the current Constitution of Japan. In the present Constitution, first of all, people existed on the islands of Japan and those people enacted a constitution in order to administer the nation, and that these citizens have sovereign power. This Constitution was created to protect basic human rights against the power of the state. These rights were held by people even before constitutions and nations as the “universal principle of humankind.” However, the LDP’s Draft rejects the existence of the “universal principle of humankind.” As explained during the “Q&A,” “We do not accept the theory of natural rights.” The Draft expresses that “a nation honored with an emperor” came before the people, and that to ensure that that nation was inherited by descendants a “constitution” was enacted, and that because of this constitution “the rights” of “the people” were first recognized. 7 戴く(Itadaku), an honorific word meaning to have, receive or accept. 075 Keynote Address Moreover, Article 102 of the Draft, which covers the “obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution,” states that “members of the Diet, Ministers of State, judges and other public officials have the obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution,” but “the Emperor and the Regent” specified in Article 99 of the current Constitution, has been deleted. It seems the LDP would like to establish the emperor as a detached existence who does not bear the “obligation to respect and uphold this Constitution.” And as well, there is newly added wording in Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Draft prescribing “the national flag be the Rising-Sun and the national anthem be Kimigayo [“His Majestic Reign”]. 2. The people must respect the national flag and the national anthem.” This is an upgrading of the present “National Flag and National Anthem Law.” It means that because Japan is “an emperor-centric country,” “the Rising-Sun flag and the national anthem,” which are symbols of the emperor, must be respected by the people through the constitution. Even in the beginning when the “national flag and national anthem law” was approved in 1999, then-Prime Minister OBUCHI Keizō said in response to questions in the Diet, “I am not considering any requirements regarding the raising of the national flag.” But, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology created a situation in which many teachers were dismissed for their opposition to observance of “the national flag and national anthem” at school entrance and graduation ceremonies due to a “violation of duties.” If the duty of “the people” to “respect” is spelled out clearly in a constitution, this could lead to some form of compulsory observance of the “Rising-sun and Kimigayo” at graduation and entrance ceremonies by children, students and parents. As well, for all citizens attending sports and other events that attract large numbers of people, it will intensify feelings that freedom of thought and belief are being violated. In addition, raising the emperor’s status to head of state is closely connected to the LDP’s greatest objective – revision of Article 9. Their intent to turn Japan into "a country with fighting armed forces that is capable of war " is obvious in the Draft, which amends Article 9 for the worse by establishing the "National Defense Forces" and specifying "the right of self-defense" to enable exercising of the right of collective self-defense. But the Japanese people are accustomed to their postwar peace; it would not be easy for them to develop a “fighting spirit” even if they were told to do so. 076 Keynote Address In looking at the grammatical subjects of the previously mentioned preamble to the Draft, the first subject we find is “the nation of Japan,” followed by “our country,” and then finally, just when we think that the subject “the people of Japan” has made an appearance, it goes on to say “will protect their nation and birthplace with pride and spirit.” It is written such that “national defense” is the people’s greatest duty. Only after this does the provision on human rights for the people come up. This also clearly corresponds with the preamble’s thinking that first there is “a nation honored with an emperor” and the reason for the existence of the people is for their “descendants to inherit” the nation. In order for the descendants to inherit this “nation honored with an emperor,” all citizens must have an awareness of national defense. The “National Defense Forces” will exist as the vanguard. Even if Japan became "a country capable of war," it would have to be a nation that assumes that people will end up being killed. Bearing in mind that the present society and culture are accustomed to post-war peace, such an assumption will not be easy for the people to accept. Therefore, it will be absolutely necessary to inspire the people with a “sense of national defense” supported by "pride and spirit" such that they will be willing to fight and die for something. That "something" is not simply the abstract concept of the “state,” nor is it the Prime Minister. It would be difficult to think of anything other than the "foremost figure of the country“ – the one who rules over the people and embodies ”the long history and distinctive culture" that could not be found in any other person – that is, the Emperor with supreme authority, and Japan as the nation that "is honored." Moreover, if anyone is actually killed, there is no doubt that it would be difficult to maintain and/or increase the morale of “National Defense Forces soldiers” who also could be killed unless the nation and society appropriately expressed their respect and gratitude to them. Therefore, the emperor’s attendance at the supreme ceremony justifying the death of soldiers would be essential. And, of course, there is no place better for such an occasion than Yasukuni Shrine because it has been known as the "shrine of the Emperor" since its establishment, and considered to be a place for pledging allegiance to the Emperor and enshrining the "souls of the war dead.” Note the association in the Draft with Article 20 of the current Constitution, which provides for “Separation of Religion and State.” In the same way as the existing Constitution, Article 20 of the Draft specifies that "the state, local self-governments, or any other public institutions should not conduct education or other religious activities for specific religions," 077 Keynote Address but has a new clause: "except for those activities that do not go beyond the scope of social manners or convention." A number of cases were filed against former Prime Minister KOIZUMI Junichiro, who made official visits to Yasukuni Shrine during his term in office [2001 - 06], for violation of Article 20 of the Constitution. Of these, a case in 2005 tried in the High Court of Osaka ruled that the visits were unconstitutional. However, if this exceptional clause was specified in the constitution, official visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the Emperor, the Prime Minister or any other government official would be considered as "a social manner of paying respects to the war dead." Thereby, any suspicions of constitutional violation would be quickly resolved. (Neither the Showa Emperor (Hirohito) nor the current Emperor has visited Yasukuni Shrine since the revelation of the enshrinement service for Class A war criminals in 1979.) Seen in this light, the raising of the emperor’s status to head of state cannot merely be swept away as a simple reactionary act or an anachronism. Since its formation in 1955, the LDP has always asserted its intention to "establish an independent constitution." This inclination toward strengthening the Emperor's authority is “Japan's true character” that still permeates the LDP today and is a negative legacy of modern history. But, more than that, it should be seen as an essential plan to “Take Back Japan.” for the people who have lost their identities because of globalization and an increasing societal disparity that tears apart individuals. As well, it would respond to the new demand of the time – America’s encouragement of Japan to exercise the right of collective self-defense, meaning collaborating in war together. This is not only tied to a corruption of the very core of the existing Constitution, but also could link to a new demand of “Japanization” and oppression for people whose sense of identity does not include the emperor: Koreans residing in Japan [Korean-Japanese], Ainu, Okinawans and others. I am sure I am not the only one who is concerned about the present rising trend in anti-foreign movements represented by the anti-Korean group called “Zaitoku-kai.” Presented at the October 17, 2013 international symposium “"Historical Reconciliation and Challenges for Establishing Peace in Northeast Asia" held in Seoul, South Korea. 078 Keynote Address 右傾化する日本の歴史認識と憲法認識 高橋哲哉（東京大学） おことわり：ほぼ一年前のご講演原稿ですが、基本的認識に変わりはないとのことで、先 生にはこの内容をもとに、最近の情勢を踏まえお話しいただきます。 １．はじめに 私はここで「右傾化する日本の歴史認識と憲法認識」について申し述べたいと思います。 「右傾化する」と申しましたが、ここで「右」が何を意味するか厳密に定義するのは困 難です。日本でいま１９４５年以前のような「軍国主義」が復活しつつあるかと言えば、 そうではないと思います。しかし、日本でナショナリズム（国家主義および国民主義とい う意味での）が高まっていることは否定できない事実です。この間の日本でナショナリズ ムが高まった最初のきっかけは、北朝鮮との対立（特に日本人拉致事件）でしたが、現在 ではむしろ、韓国および中国との歴史問題および領土問題での対立が大きな要因になって います。 この結果、日本国民の韓国に対する感情、中国に対する感情が急激に悪化しています。 日本に対する韓国国民の感情、中国国民の感情も急激に悪化しているようです。このこと は、各国で最近行われた多くの世論調査の結果に現れています。日本の内閣府による昨年 １０月の調査では、韓国に対して親しみを感じる人が前年から２０ポイント以上激減して ３９，２％、親しみを感じない人が２０ポイント以上急増して５９．０％。中国に対して 親しみを感じる人はわずか１８、０％、親しみを感じない人は８０，６％。米国の View Research Center が今年７に発表したデータでは、韓国人の７７％、中国人の９０パーセ ントが「日本の印象は悪い」と答えました（これに対して、マレーシア、インドネシア、 オ－ストラリア、フィリピンではいずれも８０％前後が「日本の印象は良い」と答えた）。 また、日本の「言論 NPO」と中国のメディアが共同で行なった調査結果では、中国に対し て「良くない印象」をもつ日本人は９０，１％、日本に対して「良くない印象」をもつ中 国人は９２，８％で、いずれも過去９年で最悪の結果。またこの調査では、日中韓で軍事 紛争が「数年以内に起こる」と「将来的には起こる」という人が、日本側で２３，７％、 中国側で５２，７％にも達しています。 こうした状況に危惧の念をもたない人は、「東アジアの平和構築」を目的とするこの会 議の場にはおそらくいないでしょう。私は、敵対感情を高めるに任せて戦争に至ることだ けは絶対に避けなければならないという立場から、日本の中で過去の歴史に対する反省を 忘れた危険なナショナリズムが高まらないように、冷静で理性的な歴史認識が定着するよ うに微力を尽くしたいと考えています。そう考える時、現在の日本で最も危ういことの一 つは、まさに過去の歴史への反省を忘れた政治勢力が政権の座にあるということだと思い ます。安倍政権とその最大与党である自民党は、その歴史認識と憲法認識とにおいてきわ 079 Keynote Address めてナショナリスティックであり、日本国憲法が施行された１９４７年以降の戦後日本に おいて最も「右寄り」の政治権力であると言えるでしょう。 だからといって、安倍首相や自民党の歴史認識・憲法認識を、日本国民の大多数が支持 しているとか、過半数（マジョリティ）が支持しているというわけではありません。ここ が分かりにくいところなのですが、昨年１２月の総選挙や今年７月の参議院選挙において、 安倍自民党の得票率は４割程度であり、その多くは前の民主党政権に対する幻滅と安倍自 民党の経済政策が景気回復を実現してくれるだろうとの期待感から安倍自民党を支持した のであって、歴史認識や憲法認識への支持から安倍自民党に票を投じた有権者はむしろ少 数派だったのです。しかし一方で、歴史認識や領土問題をめぐって国民と社会に反韓感情、 反中感情が高まっている現実があり、安倍政権と自民党は、この高まったナショナリズム をうまく利用しながら、「戦後最も右寄り」の歴史認識と憲法認識を政策として展開して いく可能性が高まっているわけです。 ２．「戦後レジームからの脱却」 安倍晋三首相の政治的スローガンで最もよく知られているのは、「戦後レジームからの 脱却」というものです。第１次政権の時からこれを掲げていましたが、現在もその主張は 変わっていません。彼の言う「戦後レジーム」とは、具体的には日本国憲法やその憲法の 理想を実現するために制定された教育基本法を柱とする日本の戦後体制のことを指してい ます。安倍首相はこの「戦後レジームからの脱却」の第一段階として、教育基本法「改正」 を二〇〇六年一二月に実行しました。そして憲法改正のための国民投票法を制定し、改憲 に踏み込んでいくかと思われましたが、第１次政権ではそれは実現できませんでした。 昨年になって再び自民党総裁に返り咲き、総選挙を経て第二次安倍政権を組織するに至 って、今度こそ憲法改正を実現しようと強く決意していることは間違いありません。第一 次政権の際に刊行した著書『美しい国へ』の「完全版」として『新しい国へ』を安倍氏は 出版しましたが、そこでも「戦後レジームからの脱却」が「日本にとって最大のテーマ」 であり、それは「前回総理を務めていた５年前と何も変わっていない」と断言しています。 総選挙で安倍氏は「日本を取り戻す。」というスローガンを掲げました。『新しい国へ』 の帯には、「強い日本を取り戻すために」という文が太く赤字で大書されています。これ はどういう意味でしょうか。『新しい国へ』の末尾で安倍氏はこう述べています。 「これは単に民主党政権から日本を取り戻すという意味ではありません。敢えて言うな ら、これは戦後の歴史から、日本という国を日本国民の手に取り戻す戦いであります」 （P.254）。安倍首相はここで、「戦後の歴史」が「日本国民」から「日本という国」を奪 っていたから、それを「取り戻す」と言っています。では、「戦後の歴史」が奪っていた 「日本という国」「強い日本」はいつ存在したのか。それは「戦後の歴史」の前、「戦前」 や「戦中」の日本でしかありえないでしょう。安倍首相ですら、今日の日本を再び「軍国 080 Keynote Address 主義」国家にしようとは考えていないだろうと思います。しかし、安倍氏がここで日本の 「戦後の歴史」を否定したがっていることは誰の目にも明らかです。 他方で彼は「日米同盟」の強固な支持者です。様々な機会に、日本が自由と民主主義の 価値観を米国や韓国、欧州諸国と共有していると繰り返しています。『新しい国へ』には 次のような記述もあります。 「日本の国は、戦後半世紀以上にわたって、自由と民主主義、そして基本的人権を守り、 国際平和に貢献してきた。当たり前のようだが、世界は、日本人のそうした行動をしっか りみているのである。日本人自身がつくりあげたこの国のかたちにわたしたちは堂々と胸 を張るべきであろう。わたしたちは、こういう国のありかたを、今後も決して変えるつも りはないのだから」（p.73） ここで彼が言っている「自由と民主主義」、「基本的人権」、「国際平和」への「貢献」 等は、明らかに、１９４７年施行の日本国憲法によって可能となった戦後日本です。する と、ここでは安倍氏は日本の「戦後レジーム」をきわめて高く評価していることになりま す。そうした「国のありかた」は日本人自身が作り上げたものだから、それを誇るべきで あり、自分たちはそれを「今後も決して変えるつもりはない」とまで述べています。 同じ著書の中で、一方では「戦後の歴史から、日本という国を日本国民の手に取り戻す」 と主張しながら、他方では、「戦後半世紀以上」続いた「この国のありかた」を「決して 変えるつもりはない」と言う。明らかな自己矛盾です。 どうしてこんな明白な矛盾が生じるのか。実は、安倍氏が日本の「自由と民主主義、基 本的人権の尊重」を強調するのは、自身の靖国参拝を正当化するためのレトリックなので す。韓国や中国は日本の首相が靖国神社に参拝すれば日本が軍国主義化するとして批判す るけれども、靖国参拝したからといって日本が軍国主義の道に戻ることはありえない、そ れは戦後日本の歴史が証明している、と言いたいわけです。戦後日本への評価をご都合主 義的に使い分けているのが自己矛盾の実態なのです。 安全保障についても、「日本を守るということは、とりもなおさず、その体制の基盤で ある自由と民主主義を守ることである」と述べています（p.70）。日本が自由と民主主義、 基本的人権の国だと言えるような戦後の歩みを持ったのは、彼が否定しようとする日本国 憲法体制、すなわち「戦後レジーム」を採ったからこそではありませんか。 安倍政権は今年４月２８日、「主権回復の日」という政府主催の式典を執り行ないまし た。ここにも自己矛盾が表れています。サンフランシスコ講和条約が発効し、日本が主権 を回復して国際社会へ復帰したのが１９５２年４月２８日です。安倍首相はじめ政権関係 者は「祝典」ではないとしましたが、そもそも自民党がこの日を祝日にしようとしていた という事実があります。前年には「国民の祝日」にしようという法案を提出してもいます。 そのことが、この日を日本から一方的に切り離された「屈辱の日」として記憶してきた沖 縄の人たちから大きな反発を受け、祝典の色あいを消したうえで式典を強行したのです。 しかし、そもそも彼が否定しようとしている戦後の日本、「戦後レジーム」は、サンフラ 081 Keynote Address ンシスコ講和条約によって日本が国際社会に復帰したところから始まったのです。「戦後 レジーム」を否定したい人が「戦後レジーム」の始まりを祝う。全くの矛盾だと言わざる をえません。 ３・靖国神社参拝 安倍首相は第一次政権では靖国神社参拝を断念せざるをえませんでした。小泉首相の度 重なる参拝によって韓国、中国との関係が最悪のレベルに落ち込んだ直後だったためです。 本来は小泉首相以上に靖国参拝を首相の「責務」と述べてきた安倍氏にとって、それは「痛 恨の極み」だったと、現在に至るまで繰り返し述べています。しかし、現在は靖国に参拝 するとも参拝しないとも明言しないという中途半端な態度をとっています。彼が本心では 首相として参拝したいと思っていることは間違いありませんが、今年の春の例大祭にも８ 月１５日（日本で言う「終戦記念日」）にも本人は参拝しませんでした。秋の例大祭はま さに本稿の発表が予定されている１０月１７日から２０日までの行事ですが、ここで安倍 首相が参拝する可能性はないとは言えません。 靖国神社問題についての私の見解の詳細については、拙著『靖国問題』が韓国でも中国 でも翻訳出版されていますので、それを参照してください（韓国語版は歴史批評社、中国 語版は三連出版）。ここでは、安倍首相が最近、様々なメディアで繰り返している靖国神 社参拝正当化論の一つを論駁しておくにとどめます。首相はこの議論において、米国ジョ ージタウン大学のケヴィン・ドーク（Kevin Doak）教授の見解に依拠しています。ドーク 氏は、米軍将兵たちが葬られている米国のアーリントン国立墓地と靖国神社を比較します。 アーリントン墓地には、南北戦争で奴隷制維持のために戦った南軍の兵士も埋葬されてい るが、米国大統領が訪問して戦没者を追悼しても、それが奴隷制を肯定することになると は誰も考えない。戦没者が生前にどういうイデオロギーを信奉していたかは、戦没者の慰 霊・追悼とは区別して考えられていたからだ。それと同じで、靖国神社に日本の首相が参 拝しても、だからといって東条英機らＡ級戦犯の行為に賛同していることにはならない。 ドーク氏によれば、自国の戦死者を弔うのは「自然」な行為であるから、首相の靖国神社 参拝は「奨励」されるべきことだというのです。安倍首相は、この議論を引き合いに出し て、「国のために死んだ英霊に尊崇の念を表すのは当然のこと」というのです。 しかし、ケヴィン・ドーク氏の議論とそれに依拠した安倍首相の主張は、靖国神社とア ーリントン墓地の重要な違いを無視しています。アーリントン墓地は米国の国立墓地であ って、南軍の掲げた奴隷制維持は正しかったとか、奴隷制廃止が正しかったという歴史認 識は真実ではないというような歴史認識をもっているわけではありません。そのような認 識を社会に向けてアピールしているわけでもありません。靖国神社はどうでしょうか。靖 国神社は自ら二つの役割があると公言してきました。一つは英霊の慰霊・顕彰。もう一つ は「近代史の真実を明らかにすること」です。靖国神社のいう「近代史の真実」とはどう いうことでしょうか。明治以来の日本軍の戦争は「自存自衛」の戦争であり、間違った戦 082 Keynote Address 争ではなかったのだが、アジア太平洋戦争の敗北によって日本は戦勝国から一方的に侵略 国家とされ、東京裁判という「勝者の裁き」によって戦争犯罪人という濡れ衣を着せられ たのが「A 級戦犯」だった、ということです。近代日本の行った植民地支配や戦争は過ち ではなかったということを「近代史の真実」として明らかにするために、かつては軍事博 物館だった遊就館を歴史博物館にして日本軍の戦争の歴史を展示しているわけです。A 級 戦犯の合祀は、まさにこの歴史観の延長上にあるものです。要するに、奴隷制肯定を唱え ているわけではないアーリントン墓地に米国大統領が行くことと、日本軍の戦争の正当化 を世界にアピールしている靖国神社に日本の首相が参拝することとは、明らかに違った意 味をもつということなのです。 ４．「侵略」の定義 安倍氏は首相になる以前から、戦後五〇年の村山首相談話、「慰安婦」問題に関する河 野官房長官談話を見直したいと言ってきました。 第二次大戦集結５０年にあたる１９９５年、日本の戦後責任が改めて問われていた当時 の状況のもと、日本は国際社会に向けて歴史認識をアピールする必要がありました。国会 決議によって謝罪と不戦の意思を内外に明らかにしようという努力も行なわれましたが、 保守派の政治家の抵抗のために国会決議の内容は謝罪と反省を表すものにはならず、国際 的にアピールすることはできませんでした。そこで首相の談話として閣議決定された「村 山談話」が出されたのです。談話は後半部分で次のように述べています。 「我が国は、遠くない過去の一時期、国策を誤り、戦争への道を歩んで国民を存亡の危 機に陥れ、植民地支配と侵略によって、多くの国々、とりわけアジア諸国の人々に対して 多大の損害と苦痛を与えました。私は、未来に誤ち無からしめんとするが故に、疑うべく もないこの歴史の事実を謙虚に受け止め、ここにあらためて痛切な反省の意を表し、心か らのお詫びの気持ちを表明いたします。また、この歴史がもたらした内外すべての犠牲者 に深い哀悼の念を捧げます」。 これは日本の戦後５０年における最低限の成果だったと言えるでしょう。その後、日本 の歴史認識をめぐって中国や韓国との間で問題が生じた時には、歴代内閣は村山談話を踏 襲すると表明することで切り抜けてきました。その戦後日本の最低限の成果をすら安倍氏 は見直すと言い続けてきたのです。 安倍氏は首相就任後の今年４月２２日、参議院の予算委員会で、安倍内閣として村山談 話を「そのまま継承しているわけではない」と述べました。それに乗ずる形で自民党の丸 山和也議員が、「遠くない過去の一時期」や「国策を誤り」、さらに「植民地支配と侵略」 という文言は「曖昧」であり、曖昧なまま謝罪するのは事なかれ主義だという趣旨の質問 をしました。それに対して安倍氏は、村山談話にそういう問題が指摘されているのは事実 だと村山談話に否定的な見解を示し、その関連で「侵略という定義は学問的にも国際的に も定まっておらず、国と国との関係でどちらから見るかで異なる」と発言しました。 083 Keynote Address これは、首相としてお粗末な認識です。国際的には１９７４年１２月の国連総会決議に おいて、明確に侵略の定義について合意されています（国連総会決議３３１４号「侵略の 定義に関する決議」）。日本もこの決議に賛成しています。そのことを野党議員に指摘さ れた安倍首相は、決議は安保理の「参考とするためのもの」としたうえで、「いわゆる学 問的なフィールドで多様な議論があり、決まったものはない」と応じました。しかし、そ もそも首相として依拠すべきは学問的定義というよりも、国際社会で合意された定義であ るはずです。この国連決議に加えて、実際に侵略行為を裁くべき国際刑事裁判所（ＩＣＣ） の規定においても、２０１０年、侵略についての定義に各国が合意しています。しかもこ の合意にあたっては日本も重要な役割を果たしているのです。日本の首相がそのことを知 らないのでは話になりません。安倍首相としては、「国と国との関係でどちらから見るか で異なる」と言うことによって、日本の植民地支配と侵略が否定できるかのように思って いるのでしょう。韓国「併合」は、韓国から見れば不当な植民地支配であるが、日本から 見ればそうではなく、日中戦争は中国から見れば侵略だが、日本から見れば違う、という ことを彼は言いたいのです。 しかしこうした認識が、国際社会で通用するはずもありません。安倍首相の発言は米国 をはじめ欧米のメディアでも数多く批判的に取り上げられました。米国の議会調査局の報 告書では、安倍首相は「修正主義的見解を持ち、旧日本帝国の侵略とアジア諸国民の犠牲 を否定」しているなどと、かなり厳しい批判的な見方が報告されました。こうした米国の 動きが伝わると、安倍首相は村山首相談話を継承すると言い始めました。「日米同盟」主 義者である安倍首相にとって、米国から批判を受けたり、米国と対立することだけは避け なければならないからです。 ５．「慰安婦」問題 日本維新の会を率いる橋下徹大阪市長の「慰安婦」発言も大きな問題になりました。「銃 弾が雨嵐のごとく飛び交う中で命を懸けて走って行く時に、精神的にも高ぶっている猛者 集団をどこかで休息させてあげようと思ったら、慰安婦制度が必要なのは誰だって分かる」 などという発言です。 橋下市長の歴史観にも大きな問題があるのですが、ここでは安倍首相に焦点を絞りまし ょう。橋下市長の発言が韓国から激しい反発を受け、米国からも強い批判にさらされた時、 安倍首相は、「（橋下市長の発言は）私とも安倍内閣とも自民党とも全く違う」と発言し ました。ところが、安倍氏はもともと橋下氏の歴史認識について、自分の「同志」だと評 価していたのです。『産経新聞』（２０１２年８月２８日）に掲載された談話インタビュ ーで、安倍氏は、橋下氏の河野官房長官談話への批判を取り上げ、「慰安婦」の強制連行 を示す資料や証拠はないという橋下氏の主張は「大変に勇気のある発言だと高く評価して いる」と述べ、橋下氏がその根拠として、強制連行の資料は日本政府が調査した限り発見 できなかったとする安倍第一次内閣の閣議決定を引用したことを非常に喜んで、「闘いに 084 Keynote Address おける同志だ」とまで述べていたのです。そして、「東アジア外交を立て直す」うえで、 「周辺国に過度に配慮することは真の友好につながらなかった」として、河野談話、村山 談話、さらに歴史教科書問題に関する宮沢首相談話の全てを「見直す必要がある」と明言 していました。これが安倍氏の本音なのです。 橋下氏と安倍氏は、河野談話批判という点で「同志」であることは間違いありません。 強制連行を示す公的資料が存在ないとして「慰安婦」問題に対する日本政府の責任を否定 しようとしています。これは日本の右派の間で根強く存在している考え方ですが、その後 の調査の「慰安婦」問題に関する研究成果をまったく無視しています。 安倍氏が首相になった時、再び歴史認識問題が国際的に問題となるであろうことは、当 初から予想されていたことです。今回も、首相になってからの安倍氏の歴史認識にかかわ る発言のすべてが国際社会で問題にされている観があります。結局、彼らの歴史認識は、 国内の、それも一部の保守派・右派のメディアの中で歓迎され消費されていくものでしか ないことを意味しています。中国や韓国が日本へのルサンチマンからいつまでも「歴史」 を政治的に利用して日本に対抗しようとしているという言説が国内で氾濫していますが、 アジア諸国にとどまらずアメリカとの間でも、彼らの歴史認識は激突せざるを得ません。 要するに国際社会ではまったく通用しない、通俗的に言えば、日本国内だけで「ガラパゴ ス的進化」を遂げた言説なのです。いつまでもそこに執着し、いくら批判を受けても理解 せず、公的立場につくとその認識を小出しにし、国際的に批判されて引っ込めるというこ とを繰り返し、倒錯した被害者意識を募らせて、ますます凝り固まっていくという悪循環 に陥っていると言わざるを得ない。 日本の為政者、政治指導者がなすべきことは明確です。周辺アジア諸国に大きな被害を 与えて敗戦に至った歴史をきちんと直視し、誤りであったことを事実に即して認識し、そ の反省の上に今後の日本をつくっていくことを明らかにしていくことです。 ６．安倍政権・自民党の憲法認識 ２０１２年４月に発表された自民党改憲草案では、第一章第一条で「天皇は、日本国の 元首」と明記しました。これは、二〇〇五年に自民党が発表した「新憲法草案」にもなか った規定です。自民党の『日本国憲法改正草案Ｑ＆Ａ』によれば、この「元首」とは「国の第一人 者」と説明されていますが、要は主権者である国民の上位に天皇がまつり上げられている。のみ ならず帝国憲法のように政治権力こそ与えられてはいないものの、天皇に最大限の権威付けがな されています。 「草案」の「前文」では、冒頭に「日本国は、長い歴史と固有の文化を持ち、国民統合 の象徴である天皇を戴く国家」とし、日本が天皇中心の国であると宣言しています。日本 の「長い歴史」からみれば武家政治の時代が多くを占め、帝国憲法下のような天皇制権力 の時代はむしろ例外的であるのですが、この「戴く」というのは、まさに国民の上に天皇 085 Keynote Address が君臨する構図ですから、「象徴」に留まらない崇敬の対象とされている。そして「長い 歴史と固有の文化」という形容は、要するに戦前の「国体」観、すなわち「万世一系の皇 統」こそ国家の権威の由来であるとする価値観を指示しています。 「草案」の「前文」の最後には、「日本国民は良き伝統と我々の国家を末永く子孫に継 承するため、ここに、この憲法を確定する」とあります。日本国は「万世一系の天皇」を 「国の第一人者」とする「天皇を戴く国家」であり、この国家はその時々の国民やその国 民がつくる憲法以前に、二千数百年の「長い歴史」と「固有の文化」、その「良き伝統」 とともに存在する。その時々の国民は、この「天皇を戴く国家」を「末永く子孫に継承す るため」の存在であり、そのためにこそ「この憲法を制定する」のだ、というわけです。 ここには、現在の日本国憲法と根本的に異質な国家観が示されています。現行憲法では、 まず日本列島上に人々が存在し、その人々が国家を運営するために憲法を制定し、主権者 の国民となる。この憲法は、憲法や国家以前に人々が「人類普遍の原理」としてもってい る基本的人権を、国家権力に対して保障させるために作られるのです。ところが、自民党 の「草案」では、「人類普遍の原理」の存在は否定されています。『Ｑ＆Ａ』で、「天賦人権 説は採用しない」と解説されている通りです。「草案」では、人々の以前に「天皇を戴く国家」があ って、その国家を子孫に継承するために「憲法」を制定し、この憲法によってはじめて「国民」の 「権利」が認められるわけです。 しかも、現行憲法の九九条「憲法尊重擁護義務」にあたる「草案」の一〇二条には、国 民と共に「国会議員、国務大臣、裁判官その他の公務員は、この憲法を擁護する義務を負 う」とありますが、同九九条に明記されている「天皇及び摂政」がここでは消えている。 天皇を、「憲法尊重擁護義務」も負わない超然たる存在にしたいのでしょうか。これは、 立憲主義の否定にほかなりません。 さらに「草案」の第一章三条に、「国旗は日章旗とし、国歌は君が代とする。２ 日本国 民は、国旗及び国歌を尊重しなければならない」 という文言が加えられました。現在の「国 旗･国歌法」が、憲法に格上げされた形です。日本は「天皇中心の国家」だから、天皇のシ ンボルの「日の丸･君が代」は憲法で国民に「尊重」させるようにするということです。 そもそもこの「国旗･国歌法」ですら、一九九九年に成立した際の「国旗の掲揚に関し義 務づけなどを行うことは考えておりません」という小渕恵三首相（当時）の国会答弁に反 し、文部科学省によって、入学･卒業式での「日の丸･君が代」に反対する教職員への、「職 務命令違反」を理由とした処分乱発という事態が生み出されました。 これで憲法に「国民」の「尊重」義務が明示されたら、児童･生徒や父兄に対しても卒業･ 入学式での「日の丸･君が代」の強制が何らかの形で及びかねません。また、スポーツ行事 など人々が多数集まる場でもすべての国民に対し、思想･信条の自由を侵害した圧力が強ま るでしょう。 加えて天皇の元首化は、自民党が最大のターゲットとしている九条改憲と密接に連動し ています。「草案」では九条を改悪して「国防軍」を創設し、「自衛権」を明記して集団 086 Keynote Address 的自衛権の発動も可能にするなど、「戦う軍隊を持った戦争のできる国」にするという狙 いが露骨です。しかし戦後の平和に慣れきった国民にとって、今さら「戦う精神」を身に 付けよと言われても簡単ではありません。 そこですでに述べた「草案」の前文では、主語でみると最初に「日本国は」となってい る文面から始まり、次に「我が国は」と続き、その後ようやく「日本国民は」という主語 が登場したと思ったら「国と郷土を誇りと気概を持って自ら守り」となっている。「国防」 が、国民の最大の責務であるかのように記されているのです。国民の人権規定は、その後 にすぎません。これも、まず「天皇を戴く国家」があり、それを「子孫に継承する」こと が国民の存在理由だという「前文」の考え方に、明らかに対応しています。「天皇を戴く 国家」を子孫に継承するために、国民全員が国防意識をもたなければならない。「国防軍」 はその尖兵となる存在なのです。 かりに日本が「戦争のできる国」になったら、それは戦死者が出るのが前提になってい る国家のはずです。戦後の平和に慣れた現在の社会・文化を念頭に置けば、そのような前 提に国民が容易に耐えられるとは思えません。そこで今後、何かのために戦って死ぬこと もいとわないような「誇りと気概」に裏付けられた「国防意識」こそが必要になる。その 何かとは、単に抽象的な「国家」でもなければ、総理大臣でもない。国民の上に君臨し、 他者には求めようもない「長い歴史と固有の文化」を体現した「国の第一人者」、つまり最 高の権威としての天皇及びそれを「戴く」国家としての日本以外、考えにくいはずです。 さらに実際に戦死者が出た場合には、国家･社会がそれなりの敬意と感謝を払うのでない 限り、自分もまた戦死する可能性がある「国防軍兵士」の士気を維持し、高めるのは困難 であるに違いありません。そこで戦死者に対して命を失ったことの正当性を与える最高の 儀式では、やはり天皇の参列が不可欠となるはずです。そしてそのような参列の場は、靖 国神社以外に考えられないでしょう。なぜなら靖国神社こそ創建以来「天皇の神社」とさ れ、天皇に「忠誠」を誓って戦死した「英霊」を祀る場とされているからです。 ここで注意を払うべきは、「草案」での「政教分離」を定めた現行憲法二〇条との連動 です。「草案」の二〇条でも現行憲法と同様に「国及び地方自治体その他の公共団体は、 特定の宗教のための教育その他の宗教的活動をしてはならない」と明記されていますが、 「ただし、社会的儀礼又は習俗的行為の範囲を超えないものについては、この限りでない」 という例外規定が新たに設けられているのです。 在任中に靖国神社への公式参拝を強行した小泉純一郎元首相に対しては憲法二〇条違反 とする訴訟が複数起こされ、うち〇五年の大阪高裁判決では、違憲判断が下されました。 しかしこの例外規定が憲法で明記されると、「戦没者追悼という社会的儀礼」として天皇 あるいは首相･閣僚の靖国神社公式参拝への違憲の疑いが、一挙に解消されるでしょう（無 論、実際には一九七九年のＡ級戦犯合祀発覚以来、昭和天皇のみならず現天皇の靖国参拝 が中断している事情はありますが）。 このように見ると、天皇の元首化を単なる反動や時代錯誤と片付けるわけにはいきませ 087 Keynote Address ん。もともと自民党は一九五五年の結党以来今日まで「自主憲法制定」を掲げ、こうした 天皇の権威強化への志向は、現在の同党にも色濃い「日本の地金」とも言える近代史の負 の遺産でもあります。だがそれ以上に、グローバル化と個人をバラバラにする格差社会化 でアイデンティティを見失なった国民に「日本を取り戻」させ、さらには米国が求める集 団的自衛権の行使＝米軍と共同した戦争参加という、時代の新たな要請に応えるための不 可欠な方策と見なしていい。 それは現行憲法の根幹部分の改悪と連動しているのみならず、在日やアイヌ、沖縄等、 天皇に統合されない帰属意識を持つ人々に対する新たな「皇民化」の強要と抑圧にもつな がりかねません。「在特会」に代表される排外主義的動きが高まっている今日、それを危 惧するのは私だけではないでしょう。 ２０１３年１０月１７日 韓国ソウル・国際シンポジウム「東北アジアの歴史和解と平和構築の課題」における発表 088 Keynote Address 우경화하는 일본의 역사인식과 헌법인식 다까하시 테츠야(동경대학) 거의 일년 전 즘의 강연원고이지만, 기본적인 인식에 변한것은 없으므로 선생님에겐 이 내용을 토대로 최근의 정세를 듣겠습니다. 1. 들어가며 저는 여기에 ‘우경화하는 일본의 역사인식과 헌법인식’에 대해 말씀드리고자 합니다. ‘우경화한다’고 말씀드렸는데 ‘우’가 의미하는 것을 엄밀하게 정의하기는 곤란합니다. 일본에 지금 1945 년 이전과 같은 ‘군국주의’가 부활하고 있는가 라고 말하면 그렇지는 않다고 봅니다. 그러나 일본에 내셔널리즘(국가주의 또는 국민주의라는 의미)이 커져가고 있는 것은 부정할 수 없는 사실입니다. 과거 일본에서 내셔널리즘이 커진 계기는 북조선과의 대립(특히 일본인납치사건)이였는데, 오히려 지금은 한국이나 중국과의 역사문제나 영토문제에서의 대립이 큰 원인이 되고 있습니다. 그 결과 일본국민의 한국에 대한 감정,중국에 대한 감정이 급격히 악하되고 있습니다. 일본에 대한 한국 국민의 감정, 중국 국민의 감정도 급격히 악화되고 있는 것 같습니다. 이런 것은 최근 각국의 여론조사의 결과에 나타나고 있습니다. 일본의 내각부에 따른 작년 10 월 조사에서 한국에 대한 친밀한 감정을 느끼는 사람이 전년에 비해 20%이상 격감해서 39.2%, 친밀함을 느끼지 않는 사람이 20% 급증해서 59.0%, 중국에 대해 친밀함을 느끼는 사람은 불과 18.0%, 친밀함을 느끼지 않는 사람은 80.6%. 미국의 뷰리서치센터가 올해 7 월에 발표한 데이터에서 한국인의 77%, 중국인 90%가 일본의 인상은 나쁘다고 대답했습니다. (이에 대해 말레이시아, 인도네시아, 오스토레리아, 필리핀은 모두 80%전후가 일본의 인상은 좋다 고 대답했다.) 또 일본의 <언론 NPO>와 중국의 미디어가 공동으로 조사한 결과, 중국에 대해 <좋지 않은 인상>을 가진 일본인은 90.1%, 일본에 대해 <좋지 않은 인상>을 가진 중국인은 92.8%로 과거 9 년간 최악의 결과 입니다. 또 이 조사에서 일중한 간의 군사분쟁이 <수년내에 일어난다>와 <장래적으로 일어난다>고 대답한 사람이 일본은 23.7%, 중국은 52.7% 에 달합니다. 이러한 상황에 의구심을 갖지않은 사람은 <동아시아의 평화구축>을 목적으로 하는 이 회의의 장에는 아마도 없으실것 같습니다. 저는 적대감정을 격앙시켜 전쟁에 이르는 것 만큼은 절대로 피하지 않으면 안된다는 입장에서, 일본 내에 과거의 역사에 대한 반성을 잊은 위험한 내셔널리즘이 높아지지 않게, 냉정히 이성적으로 역사인식이 정착될 수 있도록 전력을 다하고 싶다고 생각합니다. 089 Keynote Address 그렇게 생각할 때, 현재 일본의 가장 위험한 것 중 한 가지는 과거 역사에 대한 반성을 잃은 정치세력이 정권을 잡고 있는 것이라고 생각합니다. 아베정권과 그 최대 여당인 자민당은 그 역사인식과 헌법인식에 있어서 극히 내셔널리스틱하며, 일본헌법이 시정된 1947 년 이후의 전후 일본에 있어서 가장 우파적인 정치권력이라고 말할 수 있습니다. 그렇다고, 아베수상과 자민당의 역사인식. 헌법인식을 일본국민 대다수가 지지하고 있다든지, 과반수(메이저리티)가 지지하고 있는 것은 아닙니다. 이건 좀 이해하기 어려운 부분이지만, 지난 12 월 총선거와 올 7 월의 참의원 선거에 있어서 아베자민당의 득표율은 4 할 정도로, 그 대부분은 전 민주정권에 대한 환멸과 아베 자민당의 경제정책이 경기회복을 실현해 줄거라는 기대감에서 아베 자민당을 지지한 것으로, 역사인식과 헌법인식에 대한 지지에서 아베 자민당에 표를 던진 유권자는 오히려 소수파 였습니다. 2. “전후 체제에서의 탈각” 아베신조 수상의 정치적 슬로건에서 가장 잘 알려져 있는 것은, “전후 체제에서의 탈각”이란 것입니다. 제 1 차 정권때부터 들고 나왔지만, 현재도 그 주장은 변하지 않았습니다. 그 ‘전후 체제’라는 것은, 구체적으로 일본국 헌법과 그 헌법의 이상을 실현하기 위해 제정된 교육기본법을 축으로 한 일본 전후 체제를 가리킵니다. 아베수상은 그 ‘전후 체제에서 탈각”의 제 1 단계로 , 교육기본법<개정>을 2006 년 12 월에 실행했습니다. 그리고 헌법개정을 위해 국민투표법을 제정해서 개헌에 착수할 것으로 보였는데, 제 1 차정권에서는 실현하지 못했습니다. 작년에 들어서 또다시 자민당총재에 복귀해 총선거를 거쳐 제 2 차 아베정권을 조직하고 이번이야 말로 헌법개정을 실현하고자 강하게 결의한 것은 틀림없습니다. 제 1 차 정권시에 간행한 저서 <아름다운 나라에로>의 완전판으로서 <새로운 나라에로>를 아베는 출판했습니다만, 거기서 ‘전후 체제에서의 탈각’이 ‘일본에 있어서 최대의 테마’이며, 그것은 ‘이전 총리로 있던 5 년간 아무것도 변한게 없다’고 단언하고 있습니다. 총선거에서 아베는 ‘일본을 되찾자’는 슬로건을 내세웠습니다. <새로운 나라에로>의 책 표지에는 “강력한 일본을 되찾기 위해서”라는 문구가 큰 빨간글씨로 적혀있습니다. 그건 무슨 뜻일까 . <새로운 나라에로>의 결말에 아베는 이렇게 말하고 있다. ‘이건 단순히 민주당 정권에서 일본을 되찾는다 는 의미는 아닙니다. 굳이 말하자면 그건 전후의 역사에서 일본이란 나라를 일본국민의 손으로 되찾는 싸움입니다’(p.254). 아베수상은 여기에서 ‘전후의 역사’가 ‘일본국민’에게서 ‘일본이라는 나라’를 빼앗았기 때문에 그것을 ‘되찾는다’고 말하고 있습니다. 그러면 ‘전후의 역사’가 빼앗은 ‘일본이라는 나라’ ‘강력한 일본’은 언제 존재했는가. 그것은 ‘전후의 역사’의 전인 ‘전쟁전’이나 ‘전쟁중’의 일본 밖에 없이 않은가. 아베수상 090 Keynote Address 조차도 지금의 일본을 다시 ‘군국주의’ 국가로 돌리겠다고는 생각하지 않는다고 봅니다. 그러나 아베가 여기서 일본의 ‘전후의 역사’를 부정하고 있는 것은 누구라도 확실히 알 수 있습니다. 한편으로 그는 ‘일미동맹’의 부동한 지지자이다. 여러번 일본은 미국과 한국, 유럽 각국과 자유와 민주주의의 가치관을 공유하고 있다고 반복하고 있습니다. <새로운 나라에로>에는 다음과 같은 기술되어 있다. “일본국은 전후 반세기 이상을 자유와 민주주의 그리고 기본적인 인권을 지키고, 국제평화에 공헌하고 있다. 당연한것 같지만 세계는 일본인의 그러한 행동을 주의깊게 지켜보고 있다. 일본인 자신이 쌓아 올린 이 나라의 모습에 우리들은 당당히 가슴을 펴야 한다. 우리들은 이러한 나라의 모습을 이후에도 결코 바꾸려 하지 않을 것이기 때문이다”(p.73) 여기서 그가 말하고 있는 ‘자유와 민주주의’, ‘기본적 인권’, ‘국제평화’에의 ‘공헌’등은 명확히 1947 년 시행의 일본국헌법에 의해 가능해진 전후 일본입니다. 그렇다면 여기서는 아베가 일본의 ‘전후 제제 ’를 지극히 높히 평가하고 있는 것이 됩니다. 그러한 ‘나라의 모습’은 일본인 자신이 쌓아 올린 것이기 때문에, 그것을 자랑해야 하고 그것을 ‘이후에도 결코 바꾸려하지 않을 것’고 까지 말하고 있습니다. 같은 저서안에서, 한편으로는 ‘전후의 역사에서, 일본이라는 나라를 일본국민의 손에 되찾는다’고 주장하면서, 한편으로는 ‘전후 반세기이상’ 계속된 ‘이 나라의 모습’을 ‘결코 바꾸려하지 않을 것’라고 말한다. 어떻게봐도 자기모순이 분명합니다. 왜 이러한 명백한 모순이 생기는가. 사실은 아베가 일본의 ‘자유와 민주주의, 기본적인권의 존중’을 강조하는 것은 자신의 야스쿠니 신사참배를 정당화하기 위한 수사입니다. 한국이나 중국은 일본수상의 야스쿠니신사 참배는 일본이 군국주의화 되는 것이라고 비판하고 있지만, 야스쿠니 참배로 일본이 군국주의의 길로 되돌아 가는 것은 있을수 없다, 그것은 전후 일본의 역사가 증명하고 있다 고 해명하고 있습니다. 전후 일본의 평가를 형편에 따라 갖다 붙이는 것이 자기 모순의 실태인 것입니다. 안전보장에 대해서도 ‘일본을 지킨다는 것은 바꿔말하면 그 체제의 기반인 자유와 민주주의를 지키는 것이다’고 말하고 있습니다.(p.70) 일본이 자유와 민주주의, 기본적 인권의 나라라고 말 할수 있는 전후의 흐름은, 아베가 부정하고자 하는 일본국헌법체제, 다시말하면 ‘전후 체제’를 취했기 때문인 것이 아닙니까. 아베정권은 올 4 월 28 일, ‘주권회복의 날’이란 정부주최의 식전을 집행했습니다. 여기에서도 자기모순이 드러나고 있습니다. 샌프란시스코 강화조약이 발효되어 일본의 주권을 회복하고 국제사회에 복귀된 것이 1952 년 4 월 28 일 입니다. 아베수상및 정권관계자는 ‘축전’은 아니라고 했습니다만, 애초부터 자민당은 이날을 축일로 지정하려고 했습니다. 전년도에도 ‘국민의 축일’로 지정하려고 하는 법안을 제출하기도 했습니다. 그것이 이날을 일본에서 일방적으로 버려진 ‘굴욕의 091 Keynote Address 날’로 기억해온 오키나와인들에게 큰 반발을 받아서 축전의 색조를 지운 뒤에 식전행사를 강행한 것입니다. 그러나 애초부터 아베가 부정하려 한 전후의 일본, ‘전후체제’는 샌프란시스코 강화조약에 따라 일본이 국제 사회에 복귀한 즘에서 시작된 것입니다. ‘전후체제’을 부정하고 싶은 사람이 ‘전후체제’의 시작을 축하하는 그야말로 모순이라고 밖에 말할 수 없습니다. 3. 야스쿠니 신사참배 아베 수상은 제 1 차정권에서 야스쿠니 신사참배를 단념할 수 밖에 없었습니다. 고이즈미 수상의 거듭된 참배에 따른 한국, 중국과의 관계가 최악의 수준에 떨어진 직후였기 때문입니다. 본래는 고이즈미 수상 이상으로 야스쿠니 참배를 수상의 ‘임무’라고 말해온 아베에게는 그것은 ‘극도의 통한’ 이였다고 지금까지 반복해 말하고 있습니다. 그러나 현재는 야스쿠니 참배에 대해 명확히 하지 않는 어중간한 태도를 취하고 있습니다. 그가 본심에서는 수상으로서 참배하고 싶어하는 것은 틀림없지만, 올 봄 예대제에서도 8 월 15 일(종전기념일)에도 본인은 참배하지 않았습니다. 가을의 예대제는 본원고가 발표될 10 월 17 일에서 20 일까지 의 행사입니다만, 여기에서 아베 수상이 참배할 가능성이 없다고는 할수 없습니다. 야스쿠니 신사문제에 대해 저의 자세한 견해에 대해서는 <야스쿠니문제>에 한국과 중국에 번역 출판되어 있으므로 참조해 주시기 바랍니다(한국어출판은 역사비평사). 여기에선 최근 아베 수상이 다양한 미디어에서 반복해서 말하고 있는 야스쿠니 신사참배 정당화론의 하나를 논박하는 것으로 하겠습니다. 수상은 그의 기론에 있어서, 미국 조지타운대학의 케빈 도크 교수의 견해에 의거하고 있습니다. 도크는 미군장병들이 장례되고 있는 미국의 아린톤의 국립묘지와 야스쿠니 신사를 비교합니다. 아린톤 묘지에는 남북전쟁에서 노예제도 지지를 위해 싸우다 죽은 남부병사도 장사되어 있지만, 미국대통령이 방문해서 군역자를 추도해도, 그것이 노예제를 긍정하는 것이라고는 누구도 생각하지 않는다. 전역자가 생전에 어떤 이데오로기를 믿고 있었는지는 전역자의 위령. 추도와는 구별해서 생각되기 때문이다. 그것과 마찬가지로 야스쿠니 신사에 일본이 수상이 참배한다 해도, 도죠 히데끼같은 A 급범죄 행위에 찬동하는 것이 되는건 아니다. 도그에 의하면 자국의 전사자를 추도하는 것은 ‘자연’스런 행위이므로 수상의 야스쿠니 신사참배는 격려되야 하는 것이라는 뜻입니다. 아베 수상은 그 기론을 인용해서 ‘나라를 위해 죽은 영웅에게 존경의 뜻을 나타내는 것은 당연한 것’이라는 것입니다. 그러나 케빈 도크의 기론과 그에 의거한 아베 수상의 주장은, 야스쿠니 신사와 아린톤 묘지의 중요한 차이를 무시하고 있습니다. 아린톤 묘지는 미국의 국립묘지로 남부군의 노예제유지가 정당했는가, 노예제폐지가 정당했는가에 대한 역사인식을 갖고 있는것은 아닙니다. 그러한 역사인식을 사회에 어필하고 있는것도 아닙니다. 야스쿠니신사는 어떻습니까? 야스쿠니 신사는 092 Keynote Address 두가지의 역할이 있다고 공언하고 있습니다. 하나는 영령의 위령 , 현창입니다. 또 하나는 ‘근대사의 진실을 명확하게 하는 것’입니다. 야스쿠니신사가 말하는 ‘근대사의 진실’이란 어떤 것일까요. 명치이후의 일본군의 전쟁은 ‘자존자위’전쟁으로 잘못된 전쟁은 아니였지만, 아시아태평양전쟁에서 패배함으로 일본은 패전국에서 일방적으로 침략국가가 되어 , 동경재판이라는 ‘승자의 심판’에 의해서 전쟁범죄인이라는 누명을 입었다는것이 ‘A 급전범’이였다 는 것입니다. 근대일본이 자행한 식민지지배와 전쟁은 잘못된 것은 아니였다라는 것을 ‘근대사의 진실’로 명확히 하기위해서, 이전은 군사박물관이였던 슈우유우관을 역사박물관으로 일본군의 전쟁의 역사를 전시하고 있는 것입니다. A 급전범을 함께 제사하는 것은 이 역사관의 연장선위에서 있는 것입니다. 말하자면 노예제도를 제창하지 않는 아린톤 묘지에 미국 대통령이 가는것과 ,일본군의 전쟁을 정당화하하며 세계에 어필하는 야스쿠니 신사에 일본 수상이 참배하는 것은 명확히 다른 의미를 갖는 것입니다. 4. ‘침략’의 정의 아베는 수상이 되기 이전부터 전후 50 년의 무라야마 수상담화 ‘위안부’문제에 관해서 고노관방장관담화를 재검토하고 싶다고 말해왔습니다. 제 2 차대전집결 50 년에 이른 1995 년, 일본의 전후책임이 다시한번 문제시된 당시의 상황위에, 일본은 국제사회에 역사 인식을 어필할 책임이 있었습니다. 국회결의에 의해 사죄와 부전(不戦)의 의사를 내외에 확실히 하려는 노력도 있었습니다만, 보수파의 정치가의 저항에 의해서 국회결의의 내용은 사죄와 반성을 드러내지 못하고 국제적으로 어필하는 것은 이뤄지지 못했습니다. 당시에 수상 담화로서 각의결정된 ‘무라야마담화’가 제출된 것입니다. 담화는 후반부분에 다음과 같이 진술하고 있습니다. “우리나라는 멀지않은 과거의 한때, 잘못된 국책에 의해 전쟁의 길을 걸어 국민을 존망의 위기에 떨어뜨리고, 식민지배와 침략에 의해 많은 나라들, 특히 아시아의 많은 나라의 사람들에게 막대한 손해와 고통을 주었습니다. 저는 미래에 이러한 잘못이 없도록, 의심할 여지도 없는 이 역사의 사실을 겸허히 받아들이고, 여기서 다시한번 뼈저리는 반성의 뜻을 나타내며, 마음에서부터 사죄의 듯을 표명하고 싶습니다. 또 이 역사에 의해 동반된 내외 모든 희생자에게 깊히 애도의 뜻을 표합니다” 이는 일본의 전후 50 년에 있어서 최저한의 성과였다고 말할수 있겠지요. 그 후 일본의 역사인식을 둘러싸고 중국이나 한국간에 문제가 발생하면, 역대내각은 무라야마담화를 답습하는 것으로 위기를 넘겨왔습니다. 그 전후 일본의 최저한의 성과조차 아베는 재검토할 것이라고 누누히 말해왔습니다. 아베는 수상 취임후 올 4 월 22 일, 참위원의 예산위원회에서 아베 내각으로서 무라야마담화를 “그대로 계승할 이유는 없다”고 말했습니다. 거기에 자민당의 마루야먀카즈야의원이 “멀지 않은 과거의 한때” 나 “잘못된 국책”, 거기에다 “식민지배와 침략”이라는 문구는 “애매모호”해서 093 Keynote Address 애매모호한 사죄를 하는 것은 무사안일주의라는 취지의 질문을 했습니다. 여기에 대해 아베는, 무라야마담화에 이런 문제가 지적되고 있는것은 사실이다 라고 무라야마담화에 대해 부정적인 견해를 보이며, 그에 관련하여 “침략이라는 정의는 학문적으로도 국제적으로도 정해지지 않았고, 나라와 나라의 관계에서 어느 편에서 보느냐에 따라 다르다”고 발언했습니다. 이것은 수상으로서는 부족한 인식입니다. 국제적으로는 1974 년 12 월 유엔총회결의에 있어서, 명확히 침략의 정의에 대해서 합의 되었습니다. (유엔총회결의 3314 호 ‘침력의 정의에 관하여 결의’) 일본도 이 결의에 찬성하고 있습니다. 이에 대해 야당 의원에게 지적당한 아베 수상은, 결의는 안보리가 ‘참고로 하기 위한 것’이라고 상정하고, ‘말하자면 학문적 필드로 다양한 의결이 있고, 결정된 것은 없’라고 답했습니다. 그러나 본래 수상으로서 의거해야 할것은 학문적 정의라기 보다, 국제사회에서 합의된 정의인 것은 말할 것도 없습니다. 이 유엔 결의에 덧붙여, 실제로 침략행위를 재판하는 국제형사재판소(ICC)의 규정에 따라, 2010 년 침략에 대한 정의에 있어 각국이 합의하였습니다. 게다가 이 합의에 일본도 중요한 역할을 기여했습니다. 일본의 수상이 이런 것을 모른다는 것은 말도 안되는 것입니다. 아베 수상으로서는 ‘나라와 나라의 관계는 어느쪽에서 보느냐에 따라 다르다’고 말함에 따라서 일본의 식민지배와 침략이 부정될다는 듯이 생각하고 있겠겠요. 한국 ‘합병’은 한국에서 보면 부당한 식민지배지이지만, 일본에서 보면 그렇지 않고 중일전쟁은 중국에서 보면 침략이지만, 일본에서 보면 다르다는 것이 아베가 말하고 싶은 것입니다. 그러나 이러한 인식은 국제사외에서 통용할 리가 없습니다. 아베 수상의 발언은 미국을 시작해서 구미 미디어도 많이 비판적으로 다루고 있습니다. 미국의 의회조사국의 보고서에서 아베 수상은 ‘수정주의적 견해를 가진, 구일본제국의 침략과 아시아나라들의 희생을 부정’하고 있다 등, 매우 따가운 비판적인 견해가 보고되었습니다. 이러한 미국의 움직임이 전해지자, 아베 수상이 무라야마수상담화를 계승하겠다고 말을 바꾸기 시작했습니다. ‘일미동맹’주의자인 아베 수상에게 미국으로부터 비판을 받는다든지 대립하는것 만큼은 피하지 않으면 안되기 때문입니다. 5. ‘위안부’문제 일본유신회를 이끄는 하시모토 도루 오사카시장의 ‘위안부’문제발언도 큰 문제가 되었습니다. ‘총알이 빗발치는 속에서 목숨을 걸고 달려온 때에, 정신적으로도 날카로와진 미친집단을 어디서든 쉴 틈을 주려고 생각한다면, 위안부제도가 필요하다는 것은 누구라도 알수있다’ 등의 발언입니다. 하시모토 시장의 역사관에도 큰 문제가 있긴 하지만, 여기서는 아베 수상에게 촛점을 두도록 하겠습니다. 하시모토 시장의 발언이 한국에서 크게 반발을 일으키고, 미국에서 강도높은 비판을 받았을때, 아베수상은 ‘(하시모토시장의 발언은) 저도 아베 내각도 자민당도 전혀 다릅니다’고 발언했습니다. 그런데, 아베는 원래 하시모토의 역사인식에 대해 자신의 ‘동지’라고 평가하고 있는 094 Keynote Address 것입니다. <경제신문>(2012 년 8 월 28 일)에 게재된 담화 인터뷰에서, 아베는 하시모토의 고노관방장관담화에 대한 비판을 취급하며, ‘위안부’의 강제연행을 보여주는 자료나 증거는 없다는 하시모토의 주장은 ‘매우 용기 있는 발언이다 고 높이 평가하고 있다’고 말하며, 하시모토의 그 근거로서 강제연행의 자료는 일본정부가 조사한 한 없었다는 아베제 1 차 내각의 각의 결정을 인용했다는 것을 매우 흡족해 하며, ‘투쟁에 있어서 동지다’라고 까지 말하고 있는 것입니다. 그리고 ‘동아시아 외교를 다시 세운다’ 고 상정하고 ‘주변국에 과도하게 배려하는 것은 진짜 우호를 맺지 못했다’고 고노담화, 무라야마담화, 더불어 역사교과서문제에 관한 미야자와 수상담화 모두 다시볼 필요가 있다고 확실하게 말하고 있습니다. 이것이 아베의 본 뜻인 것입니다. 하시모또와 아베는 고노담화비판 이라는 점에서 ‘동지’인 것은 틀림 없습니다. 강제연행을 드러내는 공식자료가 존재하지 않는다고 하며 ‘위안부’문제에 대해 일본정부의 책임을 부정하고자 하고 있습니다. 그것은 일본의 우파간에 뿌리깊게 존재하고 있는 생각이지만, 그 후 조사한 ‘위안부’문제에 관한 연구성과를 일체 무시하고 있습니다. 아베가 수상이 되고, 다시금 역사인식 문제가 국제적으로 문제가 될 것이라는 것은 당초부터 예상되었던 것입니다. 이번에도 수상이 된 후 아베는 역사인식에 관련된 발언 모두가 국제사회에서 문제화 되고 있다는 견해가 있습니다. 결국 그들의 역사인식은 국내의 그것도 일부 보수파, 우파의 미디어에서 환영받고 받아들여지는 것에 불과하다는 것을 의미합니다. 중국이나 한국이 일본에 대한 증오에서 언제까지 ‘역사’를 정치적으로 이용해서 일본에 대항하려고 하고 있다 란 언설이 국내에 범람하고 있지만, 아시아 나라들뿐만 아니라 아메리카 와의 관계에서도, 그들의 역사인식은 격돌하지 않을 수 없습니다. 말하자면 국제사회에서는 전혀 통용하지 않는, 통속적으로 말하면, 일본 국내에서만 ‘갈라파고스적 진화’를 이룬 언설인 것입니다. 마냥 그것에 집착해서 아무리 비판을 받아도 이해하지못하고, 공적입장에 이르면 그 인식을 조금씩 표출해서 국제적으로 비판받아 움출어 드는 것을 반복해서, 어긋난 피해자의식을 쌓아, 점점 굳어져가는 악순환에 빠져들어가고 있다고 말하지 않을 수 없습니다. 일본의 위정자, 정치지도자가 해야 할 일은 명확합니다. 주위 아시아 나라들에 큰 피해를 주고 패전에 이른 역사를 똑바로 직시하고, 잘못됐다는 것을 사실로 인식해, 이러한 반성위에 앞으로의 일본을 만들어 가는 것을 명확히하는 것입니다. 6. 아베정권, 자민당의 헌법의식 2012 년 4 월에 발표된 자민당개헌 초안에서, 제 1 장 제 1 조로 ‘천황은 일본국의 원수’라고 명시하였습니다. 그것은 2005 년에 자민당이 발표한 ‘신헌법 초안’에도 없었던 기정입니다. 자민당의 “일본국헌법개정 초안 Q & A”에 따르면, 이 ‘원수’란 ‘나라의 제 1 인자’라고 설명되고 095 Keynote Address 있습니다만, 요는 주권자인 국민 위에 천황이 떠받들려지고 있다. 뿐만아니라 황국헌법 처럼 정치권력은 주어지지 않지만, 천황에게 최대한의 권위가 붙여진 것입니다. ‘초안’의 ‘전문’ 서두에 ‘일본국은 긴 역사와 고유의 문화를 가진, 국민통합의 상징인 천황을 모시는 국가’로서 일본이 천황중심의 나라인 것을 선언하고 있습니다. 일본의 ‘긴 역사’에서 보면 무가정치의 시대가 대부분이며 황국헌법 아래의 천황제권력의 시대는 오히려 예외적인 것이지만, 그 ‘모시다’란 것은 국민의 위에 천황이 군림하는 구조이기 때문에, ‘상징’에 머물지않고 숭배의 대상으로서 되어 있습니다. 그리고 ‘긴 역사와 고유의 문화란 형용은, 말하자면 전쟁전의 ‘국체(国体）’관 다시말해 ‘만세 일계의 황통’ 이야말로 국가의 권위의 유래가 되는 가치관을 지시하고 있습니다. ‘초안’의 ‘전문’의 마지막에는 ‘일본국민은 좋은 전통과 우리들의 국가를 길이 자손에게 계승하기 위해, 여기에 이 헌법을 확정한다’가 있습니다, 일본국은 ‘만세 일계의 천황’을 ‘국가의 제 일인자’로하는 ‘천황을 모시는 국가’이며, 그 국가는 그당시의 국민이나 그 국민이 만드는 헌법이전에, 이천수백년의 ‘긴역사’와 ‘고유의 문화’ 그’좋은전통’과 함께 존재한다. 그 당시의 국민이 이 ‘천황을 모시는 국가’를 ‘길이 자손에게 계승하기 위해’존재하며, 이를 위해서야 말로 ‘그 헌법을 제정한다’는 것이다 이런 이유입니다. 여기에는 현재의 일본헌법과 근본적으로 다른 국가관이 제시되어 있습니다. 현행헌법에는 우선 일본열도위에 사람들이 존재하고, 그 사람들이 국가를 운영하기 위해서 헌법을 제정하고, 주권자는 국민이다. 이 헌법은 헌법이나 국가이전의 사람들이 ‘인류보편의 원리’로서 가지고 있는 기본적 인권을 국가권력에 대해 보장받기 위해 만들어 진 것입니다. 그런데 , 자민당의 ‘초안’에서 ‘인류보편의 원리’의 존재는 부정되고 있습니다. <Q&A>에서 ‘천부인권설은 채택하지 않는다’고 해설되고 있는 대로 입니다. ‘초안’에서 사람들은 이전에 ‘천황을 모시는 국가’가 있었고, 그 국가를 자손에게 계승하기 위해서 ‘헌법’을 제정하고, 그 헌법에 따라 처음으로 ‘국민’의 ‘권리’가 인정되는 것이기 때문입니다. 게다가 현행헌법의 99 조 ‘헌법존중옹호의무’에 해당하는 ‘초안’의 102 조에, 국민과 함께 ‘국회의원, 국무대신, 재판관 그 외 공무원은 이 헌법을 옹호하는 의무를 진다’고 되어있는데, 동 99 조에 명기되어 있는 ‘천황및 섭정’이 여기에는 없어졌다. 천황을 ‘헌법존중옹호의무도 지지않는 초연한 존재로 하고 싶은 것일까. 이것은 입헌주의의 부정밖에 되지 않습니다. 그 위에 ‘초안’의 제 1 장 3 조에 ‘국기는 일장기로서 국가는 기미가요로 한다. 2 일본국민은 국기 및 국가를 존중하지 않으면 안된다’이런 문언이 첨가되었습니다. 현재의 ‘국기 국가법’이 헌법에 격상된 모습입니다. 일본은 ‘천황중심의 국가’ 이기 때문에 천황의 상징인 ‘히노마루/기미가요’는 헌법으로 국민에게 ‘존중’시키기위해서 란 것입니다. 096 Keynote Address 애초 ‘국기/ 국가법’에서 조차도 , 1999 년 성립될 당시 ‘국기게양에 관한 의무부과 등의 이행은 고려하고 있지 않습니다’라고 고이즈미 수상(당시)의 국회 답변에 반해서, 문부과학성에 의해서 입학/졸업식에서 ‘히노마루/ 기미가요’에 반대하는 교직원에게 ‘직무명령위반’을 이유로 처분난발 이라는 사태가 발생했습니다. 여기에 ‘국민’의 ‘존중’의무가 명시된다면, 아동/학생,학부형에 대해서도 졸업/입학식에서 ‘히노마루/기미가요’를 강요하는 방식으로 나타날수 있습니다. 또 스포츠행사나 행사장에서도 국민에 대해 사상/신조의 자유를 침해하는 압력이 강해질 것입니다. 덧붙여 천황의 원수화는 자민당이 최대로 목적으로 삼는 9 조개정과 밀접하게 관련되어 있습니다. ‘초안’에서 9 조를 나쁘게 개정해서 ‘국방군’을 창설하고, ‘자위권’을 개명해서 집단적 자위권의 발동도 가능하게 하는 등, ‘싸울수 있는 군대를 가진 전쟁 가능한 나라’가 되기 위한 의도가 노골적입니다. 그러나 전후의 평화에 익숙해진 국민에게, 이제와서 ‘전쟁의 정신’을 지니게 하는 것을 간단한 것이 아닙니다. 앞서 언급한 ‘초안’의 전문에서, 주어로 보면 처음에 ‘일본국은’이라는 문장에서 시작해서, ‘우리 나라는’이라고 이어지고, 그 다음에서야 ‘일본국민은’이라는 주어가 등장했나 했더니 ‘나라와 향토를 자부심과 기백을 가지고 몸소 지킴’이라고 되어 있다. ‘국방’이 국민의 최대의 의무인 것처럼 기재되어 있는 것입니다. 국민의 인권규정은 그 다음 밖에 되지 않습니다. 그것도 우선 ‘천황을 모시는 국가’가 있고, 그것을 ‘자손에게 계승한다’는 것이 국민의 존재이유라는 ‘전문’의 사고방식에 명확하게 나타나고 있습니다. ‘천황을 모시는 국가’를 자손에게 계승하기 위해서, 국민전원이 국방의식을 가지지 않으면 안된다. ‘국방군’은 그 선봉대인 것입니다. 만약 일본이 ‘전쟁가능한 나라’가 된다면, 그것은 전사자가 나오는 나라가 될 것이라는 전제가 분명합니다. 전후의 평화에 익숙해진 현재의 사회/문화를 염두에 둔다면, 그런 전제에 국민이 쉽게 견딜수 없다고 생각합니다. 여기에 앞으로는 뭔가를 위해서 싸우다 죽는 것도 마다하지 않는 ‘자부심과 기백’에 뒷바쳐줄 ‘국방의식’이 필요하게 된다. 그 뭔가라는 것은 단순히 추상적인 ‘국가’도 총리대신도 아니다. 국민의 위에 군림하고 ‘긴 역사와 고유의 문화’를 체현한 ‘국가의 제 일인자’, 말하자면 최고의 권위인 천황및 천황을 ‘모시는’ 국가로서의 일본이외엔 생각하기 어렵습니다. 더불어 실제로 전사가가 나올 경우에는 국가/사회가 적절한 경의와 감사를 표하지 않는 한, 자신도 전사할 가능성이 있는 ‘국방군병사’의 사기를 고양시키는 것은 곤란할 것이 분명합니다. 거기에 전사자가 생명을 잃은 것에 대한 정당성을 부여하는 최고의 의식으로, 역시 천황의 참례는 불가결 할 것입니다. 그래서 그 참례의 장소는, 야스쿠니신사외엔 생각하기 어렵겠습니다. 왜냐하면, 야스쿠니 신사야말로 건국이래 ‘천황의 신사’로서 천황에 ‘충성’을 맹세하고 전사한 ‘영령’을 기리는 장소로 되어있기 때문입니다. 097 Keynote Address 여기서 주의할 점은, ‘초안’에서 ‘정교분리’를 정한 현행헌법 20 조와 연관 있습니다. ‘초안’의 20 조에서도 현행법과 같이 ‘국가 및 지방자치체 그외 공동단체는 특정의 종교를 위한 교육과 종교적활동을 해선 안된다’고 명기되어있지만, ‘만일 사회적 의례 혹은 관습적 행위의 범위를 넘지 않는 것에 대해서는 그 범위에 들지 않는다’는 예외적인 규정이 새롭게 만들어진 것입니다. 임기중에 야스쿠니 신사에 공식 참배를 강행한 고이즈미 전 수상에 대해서는 헌법 20 조에 위반한다는 몇개의 소송이 걸렸는데, 그중 2005 년의 오사카고등법원에서는 위헌판결이 내려졌습니다. 그러나 그 예외 규정이 헌법에 명시되면, ‘전역자 추도라는 사회적 의례’로서 천황이나 수상/ 각료의 야스쿠니 신사공식참배가 위헌이라는 의심이 한번에 사라질 것 입니다. (물론, 실제로 1979 년의 A 급전범을 함께 제사한것이 발각된 이후, 쇼화천황 뿐만아니라 현 천황의 야스쿠니 신사참배가 중단되고 있는 있습니다만) 이렇게 보면, 천황의 원수화를 단순히 반동이나 시대착오라고 정리해 버릴수는 없습니다. 원래 자민당은 1955 년 결당이래 오늘까지 ‘자주헌법제정’을 내세웠다. 이러한 천황의 권위강화적인 지향은, 현재의 자민당에도 농후하고 그것은 ‘일본의 본색’이라고도 말할수 있는 현대사의 부정적인 유산입니다. 그러나 이 이상으로, 글로벌화와 개인을 개별화하는 격차사회화로 인해 아이덴티티를 잃은 국민에게 ‘일본을 되찾’게 한다. 거기다가 미국이 원하는 집단자위권의 행사=미군과 공동으로 전쟁참여한다. 이러한 것들은 시대의 새 요구에 부응하기 위한 불가결한 방책이라고 간주해도 무방합니다. 이것은 현행헌법의 근간부를 개악(改悪)하려는 것과 연관해 있을 뿐만아니라, 재일동포나 아이누, 오키나와 등 천황에 통합되지않는 귀속의식을 가진 사람들에 대한 새로운 ‘황민화’의 강요와 억압이라고 할 수 있습니다. ‘재특회’로 대표되는 배외주의적 움직임이 높아지고 있는 지금, 이를 걱정하는 것은 저 뿐만은 아닐 것입니다. 2013 년 10 월 17 일 한국 서울/ 국제심포지엄 ‘동북아시아의 역사화해와 평화구책의 과제’의 발제 098 Presentation 1 Statement on the Re-‐interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution 07 July 2014 If we want to survive, let there be no more war! It destroys people like me; children, youth, women, everybody. – Ms Gil Won Ok, 87 years old, one of the last surviving representatives of the Korean “Comfort Women”. The 1947 Japanese Constitution has been hailed around the world for many decades as a “Peace Constitution”. Article 9 is an apology for the military dominance and aggression of Japan in the 20thcentury, and the aspiration for a democratic state striving for lasting peace. Indeed, its Article 9 is a forward-looking pacifist clause that prohibits an act of war by the state. According to Article 9, the state renounces war as a sovereign right, rejects settlement of international disputes through the use of force and does not allow for armed forces to wage war. After World War II, Japanese churches and organizations have worked hard to uphold the “Peace Constitution” in hope that Japan would become a truly peaceful nation. The image of post-war Japan as a peace-loving nation has been a diplomatic asset for decades and its non-military contributions have been received positively in different parts of the world. The peace policy helped Japan to re-develop relationships with neighbouring states, and has also worked to prevent conflicts in the region. The recent decision by the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet to re-interpret Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution in order to allow Japan to exercise collective self-defence with allies goes against this decades-long peace heritage which has been a model for many countries worldwide. We recall recent proposals to develop collective and non-military cooperative peace and security arrangements in the region, which we affirm as a move in the right direction. 099 Presentation 1 Renunciation of war is the oath by post World War II Japan not to repeat its mistakes. The tragic history of women throughout East Asia who have been forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II is one of the constant reminders of the abhorrence of war and its destructive impact on the lives of innocent and vulnerable people. Changing the interpretation of Article 9 can therefore have serious consequences internationally. We look for Japan to provide leadership for stability in Northeast Asia, rather than yielding to pressure from allies and adversaries. To the eyes of peace-loving Japanese people and churches, this decision to allow the exercise of collective self-defence is perceived as an outrage. It is clearly prohibited by the Japanese Constitution. The central committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, 2-8 July 2014, therefore: 1. Expresses its grave concern at the direction indicated by the Japanese government’s initiative to reinterpret or change article 9 of the constitution, and its impact on regional security, on the positive example provided by this constitutional prohibition, and on efforts towards global peace and non-violence; 2. Calls on the Japanese government to honour and respect both the letter and the spirit of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which upholds non-violence as a means to settle disputes; 3. Urges the government of Japan to live up to its “Peace Constitution” and build non-military collective peace and security agreements with all neighbouring states in Northeast Asia; 4. Encourages the Japanese government not to surrender to external pressures to change or re-interpret Article 9 of their Constitution; 5. Invites member churches to accompany the struggles of peace-loving Japanese people and churches in prayer. 100 Presentation 1 世界教会協議会(WCC)中央委員会決議 2014 年 7 月 7 日 『日本国憲法第 9 条 の再解釈についての声明』 「もし、私たちが生き残りたいならば、もう戦争をさせてはいけません！戦争は、私のよ うな者を壊し、子どもたち、若者たち、女性たち、すべての者たちを踏みにじるのです。」 （生き残られた韓国の「従軍慰安婦」のお一人、87 歳になられる吉元玉(キル・ウォンオク)さんの証言から） 1947 年に制定された「日本国憲法」は、長年にわたって、 『平和憲法』として世界中から讃 えられてきました。同憲法 9 条が意味するのは、20 世紀における日本の支配と侵略への謝 罪であり、永久に続く平和のために、民主的な国となることへの希求です。事実、この憲 法 9 条は、将来にわたって不戦を誓う条項であり、国家による戦争行為を禁じています。 憲法 9 条には、国は、国権の発動たる戦争を放棄し、国際紛争を解決する手段として軍事 力を使用すること、ならびに、戦争行為として武力を行使することを拒絶するとあります。 第二次世界大戦後、日本のキリスト教諸教会と諸団体は、日本が真に平和的な国になるこ とを願い、 『平和憲法』を守るために懸命に取り組んできました。平和を愛する国としての、 戦後日本のイメージは、長年にわたり外交的な財産となり、その非軍事的貢献は、世界の 至るところで積極的に受け止められてきたのです。平和的政策は、日本が近隣諸国との関 係を再び広げ、またこの地域における紛争を防ぐことに役立ってきました。 日本の安倍晋三首相と内閣による、日本が同盟国との集団的自衛権を行使できるようにす るため、日本国憲法 9 条を再解釈するという最近の決定は、長年にわたり多くの世界諸国 にとって模範であり続けた平和の遺産に反するものです。私たちは、近年、この地域で提 案されている集団的、非軍事的な協調的安全保障のための協定が、正しい方向であること も、あらためて確認します。 戦争放棄は、第二次世界大戦後の日本が、過ちを繰り返さないことの誓いです。第二次世 界大戦中に日本軍によって強制的に性奴隷とされた東アジア中の女性たちをめぐる、悲劇 の歴史は、常に戦争に対する憎悪と、罪なき弱き人々の生に破滅的な衝撃を与えたことを 思い起こさせるものの一つです。憲法 9 条の解釈を変えることは、それゆえ、国際的に深 刻な結果をもたらします。私たちは、日本が、同盟国や敵対国からの圧力に屈するのでは なく、北東アジアの安定のために指導性を発揮することを求めます。 平和を愛する日本の人々、日本の諸教会にとって、集団的自衛権の行使を認める決定は、 101 Presentation 1 法を踏みにじる行為以外の何ものでもありません。それは、明らかに日本国憲法によって 禁じられているのです。 それゆえ、2014 年 7 月 2 日から 8 日にかけてジュネーブで開催された世界教会協議会・中 央委員会は： 1 日本政府が、日本国憲法第 9 条を再解釈もしくは変更しようとする方向を主導的に示し ていることに対し、またそれが、この地域の安全、同憲法が禁じてきたことによって提示 されてきた建設的な範例、また、世界の平和と非暴力に向けた諸努力に与える衝撃に対し て、重大な懸念を有していることを表明するものである(express)。 2 日本政府が、紛争を解決する手段として非暴力を堅持する日本国憲法第 9 条の文言及び 精神の双方を尊び、大切にすることを勧告する(call)。 3 日本政府が、『平和憲法』に従い、北東アジアにおける近隣諸国の非軍事的な集団的安全 保障合意を構築するために働くよう促す(urge)。 4 日本政府が、自国の憲法 9 条を変更、あるいは再解釈を求める外的圧力におもねること がないよう奨励する(encourage)。 5 世界教会協議会に加盟する全教会が、平和を愛する日本の人々と、日本の諸教会の闘い に、祈りの内に寄り添うよう、招く(invite)。 102 Presentation 1 세계교회협의회(WCC)중앙위원회결의 2014 년 7 월 7 일 [일본국헌법제 9 조의 재해석에 대한 성명] [만약, 우리들이 살아남길 원한다면, 더이상 전쟁이 있어선 안됩니다! 전쟁은 우리같은 사람을 망가뜨리고, 어린이들, 젊은이들, 여성들 모두를 짓밟는 것입니다] (살아남은 한국의 ‘종군위안부’의 한사람, 87 세된 길원옥씨의 증언 중에서) 1947 년에 제정된 ‘일본국헌법’은 오랫동안에 걸쳐 ’평화헌법’과 함께 세계에 칭송받아 왔습니다. 동헌법 9 조가 의미하는 것은, 20 세기에 들어 일본의 지배와 침략에 대한 사죄이며, 영구히 계속될 평화를 위해, 민주적인 나라가 되는 것에 대한 희망과 요구입니다. 사실, 헌법 9 조는 장래에 있어서 부전(不戦)을 맹세하는 조항이며, 국가에 의한 전쟁행위를 금하고 있습니다. 헌법 9 조에는, 나라는 국권의 발로로서의 전쟁을 포기하고, 국제분쟁을 해결하는 수단으로서 군사력을 사용하는 것, 또한 전쟁행위로서 무력 사용을 거부하고 있습니다. 제 2 세계대전후, 일본 기독교교회들과 단체들은, 일본이 진정 평화적인 나라가 되기를 기원하고, ‘평화헌법’을 지키기 위해 헌신적으로 필사적으로 노력해 왔습니다. 평화를 사랑하는 나라로서의 전후 일본의 이미지는 오랜 동안에 걸쳐 외교적인 재산이 되어, 비군사적 공헌은 세계 각지에 적극적으로 받아들여져 왔습니다. 평화적 정책은 일본이 근접국가들과 관계를 다시 넓히고, 또 그 지역에 있어서 분쟁을 막는 것을 도와왔습니다. 일본의 아베신조 수상과 내각에 따른, 일본동맹국과의 집단적자위권을 사용할수 있게 하기위해, 일본국헌법 9 조를 재해석한다는 최근의 결정은, 오랜기간에 걸쳐 많은 세계나라들에게 모범으로 있어왔던 평화의 유산에 반하는 것입니다. 우리들은 최근, 그 지역에서 제안된 집단적, 비군사적인 협조적 안전보장을 위한 협정이 바른 방향에 있는 것도 다시한번 확인하겠습니다. 전쟁포기는 제 2 차세계대전후의 일본이 또다시 잘못을 반복하지 않을 것을 맹세하는 것입니다. 제 2 차세계대전중의 일본군에 따른 강제적인 성노예로 된 동아시의의 여성들을 둘러싼, 비극적인 역사는 늘 전쟁에 대한 증악과 함께, 죄없는 약한자들의 삶에 파멸적인 충격을 안겨준 것을 상기시켜 주는 것 중의 하나입니다. 헌법 9 조의 해석을 바꾸는 것은 따라서 국제적으로 심각한 결과를 초래합니다. 우리들은, 일본이 동맹국이나 적대국에서의 압력에 굴하는 것이 아닌, 북동아시아의 안정을 위해 지도성을 발휘할 것을 요구합니다. 평화를 사랑하는 일본인들, 일본의 교회들에 있어서, 집단적자주권의 행사를 용인하는 결정은, 법을 짓밟는 행위이상의 어떤 것도 아닙니다. 그것은 명백하게 일본국헌법에 의해 금지된 것입니다. 103 Presentation 1 따라서, 2014 년 7 월 2 일부터 8 일에 걸쳐 제네바에서 개최된 세계교회협의회 중앙위원회는 : 1 일본정부가 일본국헌법제 9 조를 재해석 또는 개정하려는 방향성을 적극적으로 보이고 있음에 대해 심각한 우려를 표명한다. 그 움직임이 이 지역에 안전에 미치게 될 영향과, 이 헌법의 금지사항들에 의해 이루어져온 긍정적인 사례들이 받게 될 영향, 또한 세계의 평화와 비폭력을 향한 노력들에 주게 될 충격에 대해 또한 심각한 우려를 표명한다. 2 일본헌법 9 조가 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 수단으로 비폭력을 지지하는 그 조문과 정신 모두를 아끼고 존중하기를 일본정부에게 호소한다. 3 일본정부가 “평화헌법”을 이행하고 동북아시아의 근접국과 비군사적 집단적 평화와 안전보장 합의를 구축하기를 촉구한다. 4 일본정부가 헌법 9 조를 개정이나 재해석하는 외부의 압력에 굴하지 않기를 격려한다. 5 평화를 사랑하는 일본 사람들과 교회들의 노력에 기도로 함께 할 것을 초청한다. 104 Story Sharing 1-① Okinawa Now – Considering Peace CHINEN Masayuki Greetings to everyone. My name is CHINEN Masayuki and I am a fourth-year student at Okinawa Christian University as well as founder and representative of the student organization, Team Ryūkyū. Team Ryūkyū was founded to both put an end to the omission of Okinawan history in the educational wasteland of Japanese history and to call to task a Japanese education system that proceeds with a seeming lack of interest and participation in societal problems and politics. It is not easy for Okinawan youth to learn about their local history and issues. Our goal has been to provide interested students with a space where they are able to learn as well as an environment in which Okinawan phenomena can be passed on. Currently, we are conducting programs such as a national student symposium and guided field trips to battle sites. It was through encounters and experiences during these activities that we became convinced that it was essential to communicate the state of affairs in Okinawa to all Japanese, and so we decided to go on a nationwide tour. Sadly, there is little coverage of the issue of Okinawa bases by either the regional or major media outlets. Even when covered, the information is often far from the actual situation, and at times the coverage is even arbitrary and the truth greatly distorted. For that reason, we set out on our trip with the thought that through talking with people, we would like them to recognize that the circumstances of Okinawa are not affecting some far off stranger, but this person right in front of them. We have been using the title “Okinawa Now – Considering Peace” throughout this trip. Though I am sure we all understand the meaning of the words considering peace, have you ever really thought about the meaning of peace? Many people say the word peace, but what kind of society is that? 105 Story Sharing 1-① Under what definition of peace are they using the word? I think that most people in Japan today believe that it is a peaceful country. But is that really true? In Fukushima, the problem of radioactive fallout has been abandoned with virtually no progress made, leaving some residents languishing without proper assistance. Somewhere nearly every day, hate speech is directed toward South and North Koreans residing in Japan. And, the criminal activities and accidents of U.S. military personnel have not ceased over the 69 years since World War II ended and U.S. bases were located in Okinawa. Can a society with social problems such as these and many people continuing to suffer, be described as peaceful? We would be speaking of an abstract and hollow peace. Well then, what is peace? What society is peaceful? Specifically thinking about these questions – that is “contemplating peace.” I would like to take this occasion to inform you about peace from the perspective of Okinawa. Okinawa was originally called the Ryūkyū Kingdom, and was a prosperous country for a 450-year period from 1429 to 1879, at which time Japan invaded. The kingdom system was then ended through the abolishment of the Ryūkyū Kingdom and creation of prefectures, making Okinawa a part of Japan. However, despite saying that it was a part of Japan, Okinawans were not treated as equal Japanese citizens and became objects of discrimination, referred to as Ryūkyū savages and people of an inferior race. Of course, not only those from Ryūkyū, but also Ainu and other Asian ethnicities have been victims of discrimination. It was on this historical backdrop that the self-identity of Japanese as a superior race was established. And it was from there that inhumane acts such as invasion, massacre and human experimentation were repeated again and again throughout Japan’s wartime conquests. During its territorial expansion, the fires of war were also spread to Okinawa as a result of ultimately provoking war with the United States. Of Okinawa’s pre-war population, one in four residents lost their lives in the Battle of Okinawa. “Forced mass deaths” were ordered by the Japanese 106 Story Sharing 1-① Imperial Army and massacres were carried out by Japanese soldiers. After an incredibly tragic war, Japan was placed under American occupation as a defeated nation. In 1952, in order to be released from U.S. occupation, Japan offered over Okinawa, leading to the large concentration of U.S. military bases within the prefecture. Okinawa has been forced to live alongside the U.S. military in an environment in which human rights and other freedoms cannot be protected. Land is forcibly seized, fatal vehicle accidents occur and even schoolgirls have been raped, but still American soldiers have not been properly tried. Many tears and much blood have been shed leading up to today. But despite it now being the 21st century, crimes and accidents still frequently occur. One example is the 2012 forced deployment of the MV-22 Osprey, a large transport aircraft, once again clearly showing the discrimination against Okinawa. In 2014, the most well-known issue has been the construction of a new U.S. military base in the village of Heneko in Nago, Okinawa Prefecture. No resolution has yet been reached since a 2004 - 2007 on-sea opposition movement to stop the seabed boring survey needed to prepare an environmental impact report. A thorough report was virtually impossible to conduct due to the intense opposition at that time. Nevertheless, the Japanese government announced that there was no cause for concern over environmental preservation and took a stance on forcing the base construction at Henoko. In the beginning of July this year, construction first started with the land portion of the base. Numerous protestors gathered at the base gate to stop the delivery of materials, showing their opposition to base construction along with repeatedly clashing with the police force and riot squad. In an attempt to intimidate the opposition movement, the government then set up a sharply pointed, wave-shaped length of sheet iron against the sidewalk where protestors assembled. The stance of a government to brazenly set up, against the public, a dangerous barrier that could cause serious injury, creates a situation that is completely removed from democracy. 107 Story Sharing 1-① By mid-July, construction proceeded not only on land but also on sea. And so, as in previous times, a small band of boats and canoes resumed its objections and opposition. To confront this, the government has used power and money to employ a structure of suppression. Nearby fishery cooperatives were bought off and the Japan Coast Guard was dispatched to, among other things, exert state power to remove protestors, creating a situation in which some were injured. Protestors were detained without any true legal basis. On top of that, even though there had been injuries, illegalities were left unaddressed and security patrolling simply continued unrestricted. Many Okinawans are making strenuous efforts at Henoko every day – this is the present state of Okinawa. But this isn’t something that just started recently; Okinawa has been placed in this type of unjust situation going back to the 1879 Ryūkyū invasion. Nonetheless, there are many who automatically say that Japan is peaceful. But does Okinawa have peace while under these conditions? Japan has many problems: radioactive fallout in Fukushima; hate speech toward South and North Koreans living in Japan. By no means is a society with these extensive problems peaceful. So, what is peace? We must desire a concrete concept of peace; nothing abstract. And within that, there is something we must protect. I believe that is Article 9. Let the power of the people protect that which must be protected, change that which must be changed. That is democracy. Let us together build a society in which all life is respected. Thank you very much. 108 Story Sharing 1-① 沖縄のいま〜平和を思考する〜 知念優幸 みなさまこんにちは。知念優幸と申します。沖縄キリスト教学院大学４年生、 学生団体 Team 琉球の創設者兼代表者をしております。この学生団体は昨今の 荒廃した日本の歴史教育の中で忘れ去られていく沖縄の歴史、そして社会問題 や政治に無関心、無関与でいるように進められている教育に少しでも歯止めを かけるために創設した団体です。沖縄の若者が沖縄の歴史や問題を教育の中で 学ぶことはなかなかできません。少しでも興味を持つ学生たちが学ぶことがで きる空間、そして沖縄の事象を伝えていくことができるような環境づくりを目 指してきました。現在では全国学生シンポジウムや修学旅行での戦跡ガイドな どを実施しております。そういった活動の中での出会いや経験を通して日本一 周の旅に出ることに至りました。沖縄の現状を全国の人へ伝えることの必要性 を感じたからです。残念ながら地方や大手の報道機関では沖縄の基地問題に関 しての報道は多くありません。報道されたとしても実状とはほど遠い情報であ る場合が多く、時には大きく事実をねじ曲げた恣意的な報道までされてしまい ます。故に直接出会い、語りかけることで沖縄の現状を他人事ではなく、当事 者であるということを認識してもらいたいと考え旅にでました。この旅では一 貫して、 「沖縄のいま〜平和を思考する〜」というタイトルを使っています。平 和を思考するという言葉の意味はわかるでしょう。しかし、本当に平和の意味 を考えたことはありますか？多くの人が平和という言葉を口にしますが、それ はどんな社会のことでしょう？どういった定義で平和という言葉を使っていま すか？現在の日本ではほとんどの人がこの国は平和だと思っているように思い ます。本当にそうでしょうか？福島では放射能問題がほとんど進展のないまま に放置され、まともな支援も受けられないままで苦しい生活を送っている人が います。毎日のようにどこかで在日韓国朝鮮人の人々に向けてヘイトスピーチ が行われています。沖縄には戦後６９年間米軍基地が置かれ、米兵による事件 や事故が絶えません。このような社会問題があり、多くの人が苦しみ続けてい る社会は平和と形容されるのでしょうか？抽象的な、空虚な平和を語っている のではと思います。平和とはなんなのか？どんな社会が平和なのか？それを具 体的に考えること。それが平和を思考するということです。今回は沖縄という 109 Story Sharing 1-① 視点から平和を知っていただきたいと思います。 そもそも沖縄は琉球王国という国であり。１４２９年から１８７９年に日本の 侵略を受けるまで４５０年間栄えた国でした。しかし、廃琉置県を通して、王 国体制に終止符を打ち、日本の一部となっていきます。日本の一部になったと いえ、同等の日本国民として扱われることはなく、琉球土人や劣等民族といっ て差別の的にされていきます。もちろん琉球だけでなくアイヌ民族や、アジア 諸外国の民族も同じく差別の対象にされてきました。こういった時代背景をも とに日本人のアイデンティティーは民族として優位性を確立していきました。 そこから戦争に邁進していく最中で、侵略、虐殺、人体実験など、非人道的な 行為を繰り返していきました。領土を拡大していく日本が最終的に米国に戦争 を仕掛けたことによって、沖縄にも戦火が広がっていきました。その沖縄戦に より当時の沖縄県民の４人に１人が命を奪われていきます。日本軍の命令によ る集団強制死、また日本軍による一般住民の虐殺事件も起こりました。そうい った悲惨な戦争を経て、日本は敗戦国として米国の占領下に置かれました。そ こから、日本が米国の占領下から解かれていくために沖縄を米国に差し出し、 多くの米軍基地施設が沖縄に集中していきました。人権など守られないような 環境の中で米軍と隣り合わせの生活が沖縄に強いられていきます。強制的に土 地を接収され、轢殺事故が起き、少女暴行事件も起き、それでもまともに米兵 が裁かれることはない。多くの血と涙が流され続け現在に至りました。２１世 紀に入っても事件事故は頻発している。そんな中で、２０１２年には大型輸送 機 MV２２オスプレイの強行配備が行われ、ここでもまた沖縄に対しての差別 が明確にされました。２０１４年現在で最も騒がれている問題は沖縄県名護市 辺野古での新米軍基地建設問題です。２００４年から２００７年の間に環境影 響調査報告書を作成するためのボーリング調査を止める海上反対活動から、現 在まで解決することなく持ち越されている問題です。この時に激しい反対があ ったためにほとんどまともな調査は行われませんでした。しかし、それでも政 府は環境保全に問題はないと公表し、辺野古での新基地建設を強行する姿勢を 見せました。今年の７月に入り、まずは陸上部分から工事が始まりました。資 材の搬入を止めるために基地のゲートの前にて多くの反対者が集い、基地建設 反対の意思表示と共に、警官隊や機動隊との衝突を繰り返しました。そこで政 府は反対活動を威圧することを目的に、先が鋭利に尖った波形の鉄板を反対者 が集まる歩道に設置しました。大怪我を負うことも想定できるような危険物を 110 Story Sharing 1-① 民衆に対してあえて設置する政府の姿勢は、民主主義とはとうてい掛け離れた 現状を生み出しています。７月の半ばに入ると陸だけではなく、海上での工事 も進められることになりました。そこで前回の反対活動と同じく、少数の船舶 とカヌー隊によっての抗議、反対活動が再開されました。それに対して政府は 権力と金を使い、圧倒的な弾圧構造を用いてきました。周辺漁協を買収し、海 保を派遣して強権的な排除活動を行うなどして、怪我人まで出す状況となりま した。まともな法的根拠の無いままでの身柄の拘束。あげくに怪我まで負わせ、 違法性を無視したまま警備を続けました。このような中で連日多くの方が辺野 古で奮闘しているのが今の沖縄の現状です。これは今に始まったことではなく、 遡れば１８７９年の琉球侵略からこのような不条理な状態に置かれています。 これでも日本は平和だと言ってしまう人が多くいる。沖縄がこのような状況で も平和なのでしょうか？日本は多くの問題を抱えています。福島の放射能問題。 在日韓国朝鮮人に対するヘイトスピーチ。それらが蔓延る社会は決して平和で はないと思います。それでは平和とはなんなのか？抽象的ではなく具体的な平 和の観念を希求しなければいけません。その中に守るべきものがあります。憲 法九条もその一つだと思います。民衆の力で守るべきものを守り、変えるべき ものを変えていきましょう。それが民主主義です。すべての生命が尊重される 社会を共に作っていきましょう。ありがとうございました。 111 Story Sharing 1-① 오키나와의 지금 - 평화를 생각한다 치넨 마사유끼 여러분 안녕하세요. 知念優幸라고 합니다. 오키나와 기독교학원대학 4 학년, 학생단체 Team 유구의 창업자겸 대표자입니다. 이 학생단체는 작금의 황폐한 일본의 역사교육 가운데 잊어지고 있는 오키나와의 역사, 그리고 사회문제나 정치에 무관심, 무관여하게 흘러가는 교육에 조금이라도 제동을 걸기위해 만들어진 단체입니다. 오키나와의 청년들이 오키나와의 역사나 문제를 교육으로 배우는 것은 좀처럼 어렵습니다. 조금이라도 흥미를 가진 학생들이 배울수 있는 공간, 그리고 오키나와의 사상을 전해 갈 수 있는 환경 만들기를 지향해 왔습니다. 현재에는 전국학생 심포지엄이나 수학여행에서의 전쟁유적 가이드 등을 실시하고 있습니다. 이러한 활동중에 만남이나 경험을 통해서 일본 일주여행을 떠나게 되었습니다. 오키나와 현황을 전국의 사람들에게 알릴 필요성을 느꼈기 때문입니다. 유감스럽게도 지방이나 큰 보도 기관에서는 오키나와 기지문제에 관해 크게보도하지 않습니다. 보도된다 하더라도 실상과는 좀 먼 정보인 경우가 많아서 , 때로는 크게 사실을 왜곡해 자의적인 보도 마저도 되어집니다. 그러므로 직접 만나, 말을 전하는 것으로 오키나와 현황을 남의 일이 아닌, 당사자의 일이라는 것을 인식시키고 싶은 마음에 여행에 나섰습니다. 이 여행에는 일관되게 ‘오키나와의 지금-평화를 생각한다’는 주제를 걸고 있습니다. 평화를 생각하자는 말의 의미는 아시겠지요? 그러나 , 진정으로 평화의 의미를 생각한 적이 있습니까? 많은 사람들이 평화란 말을 하지만, 그것은 어떤 사회를 말합니까? 어떤 정의로 평화란 말을 사용하고 있습니까? 현재의 일본에는 대부분의 사람들이 이 나라는 평화라고 생각하지만 정말 그렇습니까? 후쿠시마에서 방사능문제가 거의 진전없는채 방치되어, 온전히 지원도 받지 못한 채 힘겹게 살아가는 사람들이 있습니다. 매일같이 어디선가 재일한국조선인들이 헤이트 스피치를 받고 있습니다. 오키나와에서는 전후 69 년간 미군기지가 주둔하고 있어, 미군에 의한 사건이나 사고가 끊이지 않고 있습니다. 이러한 사회문제가 있고, 많은 사람들이 고통받고 있는 사회는 평화라고 형용할수 있습니까? 추상적인 공허한 평화를 말하고 있는 것은 아닌가요? 평화란 어떤 것입니까? 어떤 사회가 평화인가? 그것을 구체적으로 생각하는 것. 그것이 평화를 생각하는 것입니다. 이번에는 오키나와란 시점에서 평화를 생각해보고자 합니다. 112 Story Sharing 1-① 원래 오키나와는 유구왕국이란 나라로, 1429 년 에서 1879 년에 일본 침략을 당하기까지 450 년간 번영했던 나라입니다. 그러나 廃琉置県을 통해서, 왕국전체에 종지부를 찍고 일본의 일부가 되었습니다. 일본의 일부가 됐다 해서, 동등한 일본국민으로 취급당하지 못하고, 유구토인이나 열등민족으로 차별의 표적이 되었습니다. 물론 유구뿐만 아닌, 아이누민족이나 아시아 제외국민족도 같은 차별의 대상이 되었습니다. 이러한 시대배경 하에 일본인의 아아덴티티는 민족으로서 우위성을 확립해 왔습니다. 거기에서 전쟁에 매진되어 갈 때, 침략, 학살, 인체실험등, 비인도적인 행위를 반복해 왔습니다. 영토를 확대해가는 일본이 최종적으로 미국에 전쟁을 걸자 오키나와에도 전쟁의 불씨가 퍼져갔습니다. 그 오키나와 전쟁에 따른 집단강제사, 또 일본군에 의해 일반주민의 학살사건도 일어났습니다. 이러한 비참한 전쟁을 거쳐 일본은 패전국이라는 미국의 점령하에 놓였습니다. 거기에서 일본이 미국의 점령에서 해방되기 위해 오키나와를 미국에게 주어, 많은 미군기지시설이 오키나와에 집중하게 되었습니다. 인권과 같은 것은 지켜지지 않는 환경 속에서 미군과 이웃해 살아가기를 강요받고 있습니다. 강제적으러 토지를 접수하고, 차에 깔려 죽고, 소녀폭행사건이 일어나도 온전히 미군이 재판받는 것도 없습니다. 많은 피와 눈물이 끊이지않고 흘려지고 있고 현재에 이르고 있습니다. 20 세기에 들어서도 사건사고는 빈발하고 있습니다. 그 중에 2012 년 대형운송기 MV22 오스프레이의 강행비치가 일어나, 여기서도 또 오키나와에 대한 차별이 명확히 나타났습니다. 2014 년 현재 가장 큰 이슈는 오키나와현 나고시 헤노꼬의 신 미군기지건설문제입니다. 2004 년부터 2007 년 사이에 환경영향조사보고서를 작성하기 위해서 시굴조사를 멈추는 해상반대활동에서,현재까지 해결한 것 없이 미루어진 문제입니다. 이 때 격하게 반대가 있었기 때문에 제대로된 조사는 이루어지지 못했습니다. 그러나 그래도 정부는 환경보전에 문제는 없다고 공표, 헤노꼬의 신기지건설을 강행하는 자세를 보였습니다. 올 7 월에 들어서 우선 육상부분부터 공사가 시작되었습니다. 자료의 반입을 금하는 기지의 게이트 앞에 많은 반대자들이 모여서 기지건설반대의 의사표명과 함께, 경관대나 기동대와의 충돌을 반복했습니다, 거기서 정부는 반대활동을 위압하는 것을 목적으로, 앞이 뾰족하고 예리한 철판을 반대자가 모이는 보도에 설치했습니다. 큰부상이 예상될수 있는 위험물을 민중에게 대항해 고의적으로 설치하는 정부의 자세는, 민주주의와는 너무나 동떨어진 상황을 낳고 있습니다. 7 월 중순에 들어서서 육지뿐만 아닌, 해상 공사도 진행되게 되었습니다. 거기에 앞선 반대활동과 같이 소수의 선박과 카누대가 모여서 항의하고, 반대활동을 재개했습니다. 거기에대해, 정부는 권력과 돈을 이용해서 압도적인 강압구조를 사용했습니다. 주위 어협을 매수해, 해상보안청을 파견하고 강권적인 배제활동 등, 부상자가 나올 정도 였습니다. 제대로 된 법적근거도 없이 신병을 구속하고, 급기야 부상까지 입히는, 위법성을 무시한 채 경비를 계속했습니다. 113 Story Sharing 1-① 이러한 중에 연일 많은 분들이 헤노꼬에서 분투하고 있는 것이 지금의 오키나와 상황입니다. 이것은 요즘 시작된 것이 아닌, 거슬러올라가면, 1879 년 유구침략부터 이러한 부조리한 상태에 놓여있습니다. 이래도 일본은 평화라고 말해 버리는 사람이 많이 있고, 오키나와가 이러한 상황에도 평화인 것일까요? 일본은 많은 문제를 안고 있습니다. 후쿠시마의 방사능문제, 재일한국조선인에대한 헤이트스피치, 이런것이 만연하는 33 사회는 결코 평화라고는 생각하지 않습니다. 그렇다면, 평화란 무엇입니까? 추상적인 것이 아니고 구체적인 평화의 관념을 바라지 않으면 안됩니다. 그 중에 지켜야할 것이 있습니다. 헌법 9 조도 그 하나라고 생각합니다. 민중의 힘으로 지켜야 할 것을 지키고, 바꿀 것을 바꿔갑시다. 그것이 민주주의 입니다. 모든 생명이 존중받는 사회를 함께 만들어 갑시다. 감사합니다. 114 Story Sharing 1-② Contribution to the Tokyo Conference Dear friends of peace, At the beginning I would like to thank you very much for your invitation. Speaking to you on behalf of the Evangelical Mission in Solidarity (EMS) I am working now for more than 30 years as director of the Peace and Ecology Bureau of the Evangelical Church of the Palatinate in south-west Germany. As long as conscription was in force we supported conscientious objectors to military service. At present we accompany volunteers in social and ecological activities and we focus on peace education in school because it is particularly important that the next generation of citizens and politicians will be open-minded about nonviolence and non-military resolution of conflicts. It is an honour for me to share with you my story which deals with the contradiction between the original peace orientation of the German constitution and its relativisation by the representatives of governmental politics. Bearing in mind that the peace responsibility of my country appears to be less developed than it should be I am full of respect for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and I am convinced that its peace heritage is an indispensable orientation and inspiration for a humanity that is again and again tempted by violence and war. My personal motivation to be committed in these questions relates to different contexts: As I am the son of a father who returned heavily disabled from World War II, the permanent experience of my childhood was that war destroys the life even of those who survive it. As a Christian I rely on the promise and obligation of a peaceable world that is in accordance with the will of God. As member of a religious community which is part of our civil society it seems obvious to me to take part in the life of society and to advocate for the religious as well as humanistic values of non-violence and international understanding. Let me share with you some experiences from Germany and reflect on the development of a constitutional promotion of peace that has been weakened in the practice of politics. So mainly I shall refer to the German constitution and its evolution. Furthermore I shall mention the commitment of churches and draw some conclusions. 1. “Animated by the resolve to serve world peace” – so it is written in the preamble - the “Basic Law” for the Federal Republic of Germany was adopted in 1949. Article 1 underlines that peace is based on the respect of human rights. It reads: “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.” For the mothers and fathers of our Constitution the absolute obligation to respect human dignity was an essential conclusion to be drawn from German history after 1933. Under the Nazi rule more than 30.000 death sentences had been pronounced against persons accused to undermine the military morale. This fact induced the 115 Story Sharing 1-② authors of the Basic Law to incorporate the right of conscientious objection into the German Constitution – at a time when neither rearmament nor conscription was in sight. Article 4 defines conscientious objection to military service as inherent to the freedom of faith and conscience. In its third paragraph it reads: “No person shall be compelled against his conscience to render military service involving the use of arms.” In the discussions of the first Parliamentary Assembly the hope was expressed that this paragraph would have a pedagogical effect for the future German democracy. As to the task to promote peace Article 26 of the German Constitution says: “Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be made a criminal offence.“ All these legal provisions seem to be clear without ambiguity. After World War II the coalition of states who fought against Germany planned the demilitarization of Germany and most people in Germany shared the conviction “No more war! Never!”. This specific situation had an important impact on the new constitution. In the course of the Cold War, however, conservative governments in West Germany together with US military representatives worked towards the remilitarization of Germany. In 1955 the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO and re-introduced armed forces. In 1956 the Basic Law was amended accordingly. The new Article 87a determined now: “The Federation shall establish Armed Forces for purposes of defence.” The same development was to be observed in East Germany with the support of the Soviet Union. Later on even nuclear weapons were installed in both German states. All these measures of remilitarization have encountered numerous, widely spread and enduring protests of the German peace movement. In 1990 the end of the Cold War and the success of the Peaceful Revolution in East Germany enabled the reunification of Germany. In the same year the Treaty on the Establishment of German Unity was signed and confirmed by the consent of the victorious allies of World War II. Article 2 of the so called Two plus Four Treaty underlines: “The governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their declarations that only peace will emanate from German soil.” Unfortunately the political commitment that only peace will emanate from German soil has never been consequently implemented – till today. At present about 3500 German soldiers take part in 14 out of area missions. US airbases in Germany support military interventions and drone missile strikes worldwide. Last but not least Germany is one of the world’s largest arms exporters. How was it possible to prepare the ground for this problematic situation? 116 Story Sharing 1-② In 1994 the German Constitutional Court dealt with Article 24 (2) of the 1949 Basic Law which reads: “With a view to maintaining peace, the Federation may enter into a system of mutual collective security; in doing so it shall consent to such limitations upon its sovereign powers as will bring about and secure a lasting peace in Europe and among the nations of the world.” Originally this regulation was not aimed at incorporating Germany into a military alliance, instead it tended to integrate Germany into a concept of collective security including also potential enemies in the framework of an international legal system. Today we would speak of cooperative, common or human security. Nevertheless the Constitutional Court decided that Article 24 covers also military actions of collective assistance within a military alliance – provided that a majority of the Parliament consents. This decision cleared the way for out of area missions of the German army in the following decades. Till this day a majority of German people do not agree with the mentioned paradigm change. In order to improve the acceptation of military out of area missions euphemistic notions like “humanitarian intervention” have been propagated. Moreover the notion of military defence underwent an almost unlimited extension – from territorial defence over the defence of a military alliance all over the world to the point of defending political or economic national interests like the unhindered access to natural resources. Finally military defence is seen as prevention of unpredictable risks. This type of definition may be used as blank cheque for any type of military action. All these assertions can be found in different documents or statements of the German Ministry of Defence. It seems important to me to observe closely this process of a stealthy militarization of politics and to raise awareness for the priority of nonviolent policy-making. 2. Let me shortly add some remarks on the role of the Evangelical Church in this development. After World War II the Evangelical Church of Germany agreed to the consensus of the first assembly of the World Council of Churches (1948): “War is contrary to the will of God.” Its representatives refused clearly the rearmament in West as well as in East Germany. And from the beginning they supported conscientious objectors and underlined the right of conscientious objection to military service as a fundamental human right that has priority over even democratically sanctioned military measures. During the Cold War the Evangelical Church always stressed the need of communication, of cooperation and reconciliation instead of suspiciousness and deterrence. Since 1997 an annual report on German arms trade is published by an ecumenical group of experts who make transparent facts that are regularly concealed or played down by the government. Though the attitude of their members towards the use of violence as last resort differs Churches stand for the preference of non-violent conflict resolution and for a peace education that immunizes against indifference and the reduction of politics to military measures. Unlike some of their political representatives most Germans share the conviction that a culture of military reticency is an achievement and not a deficit. 117 Story Sharing 1-② Churches have contributed to this collective comprehension that slows down efforts of political militarization. 3. I am grateful that this conference widens the perspectives of promoting peace and putting a break on militarism. I am convinced that as inter-religious partners concerned about peace we can locally and globally raise the awareness of developments that put peace at risk, as these are e.g. heedless nationalism, the militarization of politics and societies, an arms trade based solely on profit regardless of its consequences. My hope is that our meeting may foster a network of information, of advocacy and political support in the problems we deal with. May this conference strengthen us each other in our commitment for nonviolence and peace. Reverend Friedhelm Schneider 118 Story Sharing 1-② 東京会議への提言 平 和 の 友 の 皆 様 はじめに、お招きくださったことに感謝を述べたいと思います。私は 30 年以上にわた り、南西ドイツ、プファルツにあるドイツ福音主義教会の平和とエコロジー部門の代表 として働いています。今日は、EMS(南西ドイツ宣教会)を代表してお話ししたいと思 います。ドイツで徴兵制が行われていた間、EMS は良心的兵役拒否者を支援していま した。現在は、社会・環境活動にボランティアの派遣を行い、学校での平和教育に力を 注いでいます。それは、これからの世代の市民、政治家が非暴力・非軍事による紛争解 決に対してオープンな考えを持つことが特に重要だと思うからです。元々平和を目指し たドイツ憲法と国の代表者によるその相対的な解釈との間に矛盾が生じています。この 問題について、みなさんにお話しできることを光栄に思っています。私の国の平和責任 が本来あるべき姿に達していないとの思いから、私は日本の憲法 9 条に対し最大限の敬 意を表したいと思います。その平和の遺産は、人類にとって絶対に必要な理念であり希 望であると強く思います。これは、武力と戦争に何度も侵害されようとも、変わること がないと思います。 このような問題に私が取り組むようになった個人的な理由には、様々な背景があります。 私の父は第二次世界大戦で重度の障害を負いました。息子として、私が子供時代に感じ たのは、戦争は生き残った人の人生さえも奪うということで、これは忘れることはあり ません。クリスチャンとして、神の意志に基づいた平和な世界の未来を信じ、義務を果 たしたいと思います。我々の市民生活の一部となっている教団の一員として、私にとっ て社会活動に参加し、非暴力や国際理解などに対しての人道的のみならず、宗教的意義 を訴えることは至極当然なことなのです。 ドイツでの経験から、政治的過程で弱められた憲法の平和的活用についてお話ししたい と思います。主にドイツ憲法とその変遷についてお話します。その次に教会の役割とそ こから導き出される結論をお話ししたいと思います。 １．1949 年に制定されたドイツ連邦共和国の「基本法」の前文に、 「世界平和に貢献し ようとする決意に満ちて」と書かれています。第１条は、平和は人権の尊重の上に成り 立っていると規定しています。そこには、 「人間の尊厳は不可侵である。これを尊重し、 保護することはすべての国家権力の義務である。ドイツ国民はそれゆえに侵すことので きない、奪うことのできない人権を、世界のあらゆる人間社会、平和、および正義の基 礎として認める。」と書かれています。わが国の憲法の生みの親にとって、人間の尊厳 119 Story Sharing 1-② を尊重するという絶対的な義務は、1933 年以降のドイツの歴史から導かれた当然の結 果なのです。 ナチスの支配下では、軍の士気を下げたという理由で死刑を宣告された人が3万人以上 もいました。この事実を受けて、基本法の起草者らは、ドイツ憲法に良心的兵役拒否権 を盛り込むことにしました。その時には、再軍備化も、徴兵制も全く考えられていませ んでした。第4条は、良心的兵役拒否とは信仰・良心の自由に基づく固有の権利である と定義しています。第3項では、 「何人も、その良心に反して、武器をもってする戦争の 役務を強制されない」と書かれています。第一回議会評議会では、この条項が、将来の ドイツ民主主義に大きな教育的変化をもたらすよう希望が述べられました。 平和を推し進めるにあたって、ドイツ憲法第26条は、「諸国民の平和的共存を阻害する おそれがあり、かつこのような意図でなされた行為、とくに侵略戦争の遂行を準備する 行為は、違憲である。これらの行為は処罰される。」と定義しています。これらすべて の法規定は曖昧さがなく、はっきりとしています。 第二次世界大戦後、ドイツと戦った連合国はドイツの非軍事化を計画し、ドイツ国内の 多くの人も「もう戦争はしない！絶対に！」という信念を持っていました。この際立っ た状況は新しい憲法に重要な影響を与えました。 しかしながら、冷戦の間に、西ドイツの保守政権とアメリカ軍幹部は、ドイツの再軍備 に向けて協力していました。1955年、ドイツ連邦共和国はNATO（北大西洋条約機構） に加盟し、再軍備宣言をしました。それに伴い1956年に基本法は改定されました。新 しい第87条aは、「ドイツ連邦共和国は、防衛の為に軍隊を設立する。」と定義していま す。東ドイツでもソビエト連邦の支援により同じような動きが、見られました。その後、 核兵器さえも両ドイツに配備されました。これらすべての再軍備化に対して、ドイツ平 和運動がおこり、各地で多数の抗議運動が長い間なされました。 1990年の冷戦終結と東ドイツの平和的革命の成功により、ドイツは再び一つになりま した。同じ年に、第二次世界大戦の戦勝国の連合国によって、ドイツ再統一条約が調印、 承認されました。いわゆる2プラス4条約の第２条は次のように定義しています。「ドイ ツ連邦共和国とドイツ民主共和国の政府は、その国土から平和のみが生ずるという宣言 を再確認する。」 残念ながら平和のみがドイツ国土から生ずるという公約は結果的には今日まで実現さ れることはありませんでした。現在、約3500人のドイツ人兵士が14の域外軍事行動に 120 Story Sharing 1-② 参加しています。ドイツ駐留の米軍基地が各国への軍事介入と無人機ミサイル攻撃を支 えています。最後になりますが、ドイツは世界でも有数の武器輸出国の一つなのです。 このような問題山積の状況を生んだ土台はどのようにして作られたのでしょうか。 1994年、ドイツ連邦憲法裁判所が1949年制定の基本法の第24条(2)についての判断を下 しました。その内容は、「連邦は、平和を維持するために、相互集団安全保障制度に加 入することができる。その場合、連邦は、ヨーロッパおよび世界諸国民間に平和的で永 続的な秩序をもたらし、かつ確保するような主権的権利の制限に同意する。」です。元々 この法律は、ドイツを軍事同盟国に入れる目的ではなく、ドイツを集団安全保障という コンセプトで統一することでした。国際法の枠組み内での仮想敵国をも想定しています。 今日私達は、各国に共通の、つまり人類共通の、協力的安全保障について語りたいので す。しかしながら、連邦裁判所は、議会の過半数の賛成が得られればという条件付きで、 第24条には軍事同盟国での集団的軍事行動も含まれるという判決を下しました。これが その後、ドイツ軍の域外軍事活動の道を開いてしまいました。 今日までドイツ国民の大多数がさきほど説明した重大な変更に賛成していません。域外 軍事活動に賛成してもらうように、「人道的介入」という婉曲的な言い方が用いられま した。さらに軍事防衛という言葉は、無制限に拡張されました。領域防衛から世界中の 軍事同盟の防衛へと広がり、さらに天然資源に制限なくアクセスできるような国家の政 治的、経済的利益の防衛まで含むようになりました。最後には、軍備は予想できないリ スクを防ぐものとして認識されるようになりました。このような解釈では、いかなる軍 事的行動も白地小切手として使われてしまうかもしれません。これらの論理は、ドイツ 防衛省のいろいろな文書や声明等で見られます。 このように、政治が密かに軍事化を進めるプロセスを細かく観察し、非暴力に根ざす政 策決定が優先課題であるとの認識を高めることは重要だと思います。 ２．この過程の中での福音主義教会の役割について何点か短く説明したいと思います。 第二次世界大戦後、ドイツ福音主義教会は1948年の第一回世界教会協議会のコンセン サスに同意しました。「戦争は神の意志に反している」として、代表者らは、西だけで なく東ドイツの再軍備化にも断固反対しました。最初から、良心的兵役拒否者を支援し、 軍事活動への良心的拒否権とは民主的に認められた軍事的政策よりも優先されるべき 基本的人権であると強く主張しました。冷戦中、福音主義教会は不信感や戦争抑止力よ りもコミュニケーション、協力、和解の必要性を常に強調していました。1997年以来、 ドイツの武器取引に関する年次報告書をエキュメニカルな専門家グループが制作し、政 府が秘密にしたり、重要性をわざと過小評価している事実について真実を伝えています。 121 Story Sharing 1-② 最終手段としての武力使用については宗派間で異なる意見もありますが、教会は非武力 での紛争解決と人々の無関心さを防ぐ教育、政府による軍事政策の削減を支持していま す。 政治家の代表者とは違って、ほとんどのドイツ人は軍事的発言を控えるという文化は獲 得した成果であり、欠陥ではないと強く感じています。教会は政治による軍事化の動き を減速させる集団的な意見の形成に大きな役割を果たしました。 ３．この会議が平和を推し進め、軍国主義化を阻止する運動に対する視野を広げてくれ ることを嬉しく思います。異なる宗教の人々も平和について関心を持っています。私達 は地域だけでなく、世界でも平和を脅かすもの、例えば、身勝手な国家主義、政治や社 会の軍事化、結果を顧みない利益優先の武器取引などに対して警笛を鳴らすことができ ます。私は、この会議が、我々が取り組んでいる問題についての情報、社会運動、政治 的支援などのネットワークづくりなどに役立つことを望んでいます。 この会議が私達をより強くして、非暴力と平和が達成されることを望みます。 フリードヘルム・シュナイダー牧師 122 Presentation 2 Article 9 & Global Peace -‐ Transcending Nationalism -‐ MIYAGI Tainen Regarding the threat to peace, it is essential to both promote concrete action and to speak out. At this time, however, I would like to start out by considering the proposition from my position as a religious person – as a mountain ascetic seeking a place to meditate in nature (dōjō). Since recorded history, there has been no period on Earth in which there has not been strife. Even during Buddha’s lifetime, warfare between countries did not cease. Neither have the mass destruction nor genocides of the modern era ended with the development of tools and technology. In fact, the development of tools is the progression of weaponry, and that progression will be difficult to stop as long as insatiable human greed exists. The revision of Japan’s “Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology” and the export of infrastructure are greed-‐related businesses. Can Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution serve as a force to deter such greed? Since the Meiji Era (1868-‐1912), Japan has developed through pursuing the path of modernization. TANAKA Shōzō, a Meiji politician, denounced pollution resulting from industrial development saying, “True civilization does not devastate mountains, nor rivers, nor villages; nor does it kill humans.”1 However, Tanaka’s words went unheeded, and modern industry supported both World Wars I and II, resulting in war claiming the lives of millions of people and also contaminating Earth. As well, people’s hearts and minds were devastated, breeding and encouraging conflict, division and discrimination. 1 Translation from a documentary film on Shozō TANAKA; http://www.sekihin.net/english/index.html 123 Presentation 2 Seventy years after losing the war, how has this changed? “We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.” With this preamble, the nation of Japan promulgated a peace constitution revered worldwide. Postwar recovery steadily progressed, with Japan experiencing economic development in particular due to the Korean and Vietnam Wars that divided those countries north and south. Japan’s development was a result paid for by the blood of others. Upon reflection, I too was living a comfortable life at that time. Japanese citizens have supported a consumption-‐based economy, leaving us with a country that now has established a fundamental economic growth strategy of corporate globalization and deregulation. The postwar efficiency-‐oriented society even raised a question as to whether the satisfaction of human greed created further greed and therein built a peaceful society. These days as the world globalizes, governments, economies, industries and information each consist of multi-‐layered relationships. And running alongside globalization are the ethnic conflicts and wars that are built on nationalism. Conflicts in today’s world are incomparable to those of the past in their steady progress toward global destruction. Nationalism includes patriotism, but the feeling of love for country and the attitude of valuing tradition are important. Due to globalization, regional characteristics are now being lost, traditions are fading and local culture is disappearing in exchange for convenience; people today are spiritually distressed. 124 Presentation 2 The important thing is to avoid turning a spirit of patriotism into an ideology or an “ism.” For every ideology, there is always an opposing ideology. It is not “isms” that join nation to nation, but each nation giving life to the other nation through respect and understanding. Conflicts due to “isms” are set against a background of political authority and are born of greed and prejudice, extoling self while denigrating others in the name of justice. This is where conflicts develop, leading to national and political wars. Fighting an adversary is human instinct; war resides within human nature. Therefore, in answer to the question of whether Article 9 is a deterrent, my answer would be “No.” Article 9 does not make peace; human hearts and minds make peace. It is those hearts and minds that made Article 9 and protect it. We must recognize that to no small extent we all have mistaken opinions of our own superiority and others' inferiority due to religious, ideological or other differences and that those opinions breed conflict; we must cut the bonds that that greed has on each person’s heart because it is impossible to understand others when we have lost the heart to value and respect them. This one global world is connected through relationships and exists because of mutual commitment. We must understand that nothing exists independently. Once these ethics are attained in the political world then it seems that the provisions in Article 9 will no longer be necessary. However, just as no garden is without weeds forever, this is also impossible. Even Buddha was unable to prevent his own country from being conquered by a 125 Presentation 2 neighboring country. And so goes for we mere humans. The energy to turn from anxiety to tranquility, from war to peace requires a much, much greater effort and a recognition of human character. That becomes the foundation. Wanting the Peace Constitution and protecting it depend on each person’s heart and actions. 126 Presentation 2 憲法９条と世界平和 ナショナリズムをどう超えるか 宮城泰年 平和を脅かす事柄に対して、具体的に運動すること、述べることは重要なこ とである。が、今回はまず宗教者として、自然の中に道場を求める山岳修行者 としての立場から与えられた命題を考えたい。 有史以来、地球上に争いのない歴史はない。釈尊在世の時代でさえ国同士の 戦いは絶えなかった。近現代の大量破壊、大量殺戮は技術・道具の発達でとど まる所を知らない。道具の発達は兵器の進歩であり、人間の飽くなき欲望があ る限りブレーキをかけることは難しい。 防衛装備移転３原則見直しやインフラの輸出なども欲望の関連事業である。 日本国憲法９条は、そうした欲望を抑止する力になり得るであろうか。 明治以後日本は近代化を追い求め発展して来た。「真の文明は、山を荒らさ ず 川を荒らさず 村を荒らさず 人を殺さざるべし。」明治の政治家、田中 正造は産業発展による公害をこのように告発した。だが正造の言葉は省みられ ることなく、近代産業は第一次世界大戦、第二次世界大戦を支え、戦争は数百 万人の命を奪い地球を汚染した。そのうえ人々の心を荒廃させ、対立、分断、 差別を生み、助長した。 敗戦後７０年、どのように変わったであろうか。 日本国は「われらは、全世界の国民が、ひとしく恐怖と欠乏から免かれ、平 和のうちに生存する権利を有することを確認する。」（前文）として世界に誇 れる平和憲法を公布した。 戦後復興は着々と進み、ことに南北分断され戦った朝鮮戦争とベトナム戦争 で、日本は戦後経済の発展を見た。他国民の血であがなった結果であった。省 みればその中で易々として生きてきた私もいる。 国民は消費経済を支え、今では企業のグローバル化と規制緩和を経済成長戦 略の基本に据えた日本がある。 127 Presentation 2 戦後の効率化社会は、人間の欲望満足が更なる欲望を生み、それが平和な社 会を築くのかさえも疑問視されるようになった。 今や世界はグローバル化し政治・経済・産業・情報などそれぞれに幾重にも 関係し合って成り立っている。そのグローバル化と平行してナショナリズムに 土台する民族間の対立、戦争がある。世界での対立は、過去の時代とは比べも のにならないほどの地球規模での破壊へと進む。 ナショナリズムは国粋主義・愛国主義であるが、国を愛する気持、伝統を重 んじることは大切である。グローバル化により利便と引き換えに地域性がうす くなり、伝統も薄れ地域文化も弱くなって来た今、現代人の心も病んできてい る。 大事なことは愛国心を、主義・イズムとしてはならない。主義となるとそこ には対立する主義がある。ネイションとネイションを繋ぐものはイズムではな く、互いに生かし合う尊重と理解であるべきである。 イズムによる対立は政治的権威を背景に欲望と偏見から生まれ、正義の名の もと己を是とし、他を非とする。そこに闘争を生じ、国家的政治的には戦争を 惹き起こす。 敵対するものと争うのは人間にとって本能的なものであり、戦争は人間の本 性の中にある。 ９条は抑止力になるであろうか、の問であるが NO である。 ９条が平和を作るのではなく、人の心が平和を作るのである。その心が９条 を作りまた守れるのである。宗教の違い、主義の違いなどにより我を是とし他 を非として対立する誤った見解を、誰もが少なからず持っていることを認識 し、一人一人の心にその欲望に対するくさびを打たねばならない。それは他を 尊ぶ、尊重する心がなくして他への理解はあり得ないからである。一つの地球 世界は縁でつながれ、互いにかかわり合って存在している。何一つ独立して存 在するものはない、と心得ねばならない。 政治の世界にその倫理観が実現できたときに憲法９条の条文が不要となるの ではないか。しかし永遠に雑草の生えない土地はないのと同じく不可能なこと 128 Presentation 2 である。 釈尊でさえ自分の国が隣国から攻め滅ぼされることを防ぐことはできなかっ た。ましてや私たち凡人は・・である。 不安を平安へ、戦争を平和へ向けるエネルギーは戦争するよりもっともっと 強大な努力と人間の本性の認識が必要で、基本となろう。平和憲法をのぞむの も、守り続けるのも各人の心と行いである。 129 Presentation 2 헌법 9 조와 세계평화 내셔널리즘을 어떻게 넘을 것인가 미야기 야스토시야 평화를 위협하는 것에 대항해서, 구체적으로 운동하는 것과 진술하는 것은 중요한 것이다. 그러나 이번엔 우선 종교자로서, 자연 속에서 수행을 하는 산악수행자로서의 입장에서 부여된 명제를 생각하고 싶다. 유사이래, 지구상에 전쟁이 없는 역사는 없었다. 석가모니의 시대에 조차 국가간의 전쟁은 끊이지 않았다. 근현대의 대량파괴, 대량살육은 기술/ 도구의 발달로 멈추는 곳은 없다. 도구의 발달은 병기의 진보이며, 인간의 욕망이 끊이지 않는 한 브레이크를 걸기는 어렵다. 방위장비이전 3 원칙 재검토나 인플레의 유출등도 욕망에 연관된 사항이다. 일본헌법 9 조는 이러한 욕망을 억제하는 힘이 될 수 있을까. 명치이후 일본은 근대화를 추구 발전해 왔다. ‘참문명은 산을 황폐시키지 않고, 강을 황폐시키지 않고, 마을을 황폐시키지 않으며, 인간을 살상하지 않는다’고 명치 정치가 다나카 쇼우조는 산업발달에 따른 공해를 이렇게 고백했다. 그러나 쇼우조의 발언은 반성되지 않고, 근대 산업은 제 1 차세계대전, 제 2 차세계대전을 지지, 전쟁은 수백만인의 생명을 빼앗고 지구를 오염시켰다. 거기다가 사람들의 마음을 황폐시켜서 대립과 분단, 차별을 낳고 조장시켰다. 그리고 폐전후 70 년 어떻게 변했을까요. 일본국은 ‘우리는 전세계의 국민이 동등하게 공포와 빈부에서 탈피해 평화속에 생존할 권리가 있다는 것을 확인한다’(전문) 라는 세계에 자랑할 만한 헌법을 공포했다. 전후 부흥은 착실히 진행되서 , 남북분단과 조선전쟁과 베트남전쟁으로 일본은 전후경제의 발전을 보았다. 타국민의 피로 이루어진 성과였다. 되돌아보면 그 속에는 쉽게 살아온 우리가 있다. 국민은 소비경제를 지지, 지금에는 기업의 글로벌화와 규제완화를 경제성장 전략의 기본에 둔 일본이 있다. 전후의 효휼화 사회는, 인간의 욕망만족이 나아가 또 욕망을 낳고, 그것이 평화로운 사회를 건설할 것인가 라는 것도 의문시 되게 되었다. 지금 세계는 글로벌화 되어 정치/ 경제/ 산업/정보 등 각각 겹겹이 관련되어 성립되어 있다. 그 글로벌화와 평행해서 내셔널리즘에 토대하는 민족간의 대립, 전쟁이 있다. 이러한 대립은, 과거의 시대와는 비교할 수 없을 정도의 지구규모 정도의 파괴로 나갈수 있다. 130 Presentation 2 내셔널리즘은 국수주의/ 애국주의이지만, 나라를 사랑하는 마음, 전통을 중요시하는 것은 소중한 것이다. 글로벌화에 따른 편리와 맞바꿔 지역성이 없어지고 전통도 엷어지고 지역문화도 약해지고 있는 지금, 현대인의 마음도 병들고 있다. 중요한 것은 애국심을 주의/이즘으로서 삼아선 안된다. 주의가 되면 그것에 대립하는 주의가 있다. 국가와 국가를 연결하는 것은 이즘이 아닌, 서로 살리는 존중과 이해이여야 한다. 이즘에 의해 대립하는 것은 정치적 권위를 배경으로 욕망과 편견에서 생기고, 정의의 이름아래 자기를 옳다하고, 남을 부정한다. 그것에 투쟁이 생기고, 국가적 정치적에는 전쟁을 일으킨다. 적대하는 것과 싸우는 것은 인간에게 본능적인 것으로, 전쟁은 인간의 본성의 가운데 있다. 9 조는 억제하는 힘이 되지 않을까 란 물음에서 No 이다. 9 조가 평화를 만드는 것이 아니고, 인간의 마음이 평화를 만드는 것이다. 그러한 마음이 9 조를 만들고 또 지키는 것이다. 종교의 차이, 주의의 차이 등에 따라 내가 옳고 남이 틀리다고 대립하는 잘못된 견해, 누구라도 조금씩이라도 가지고 있는 것을 인식하고, 한사람 한사람의 마음에 그 욕망에 대한 쐬기를 박지 않으면 않된다. 그것은 남을 존중하고, 존중하는 마음이 없으면 남에 대한 이해는 있을 수 없기 때문이다. 하나의 지구세계는 인연이 이어져, 서로 얽혀 존재한다. 홀로 독립해서 존재하는 것은 어떤 것도 없다고 마음에 새기지 않으면 안된다. 정치의 세계에 그 윤리관이 실현될 때에 헌법 9 조의 조문이 불필요하게 되는 것은 아닐까. 그러나 영원히 잡초가 나지않는 땅은 없다는 것과 마찬가지로 불가능한 것이다. 석가모니 조차도 자국이 이웃나라의 공격으로 멸망당할 것을 막을 순 없었다. 우리같은 보통사람들이야 말할것도 없다. 불안을 평안으로, 전쟁을 평화로 돌리는 에너지는 전쟁하는 것 보다 훨씬 많은 강한 노력과 인간의 본성에 대한 인식이 필요한 것이며 기본이라 하겠다. 평화헌법을 바라는 것은 계속 지켜나가는 각 사람의 마음과 행함이다. 131 Story Sharing 2-② Peace and Religion U DAMMA THARA I pray for all ladies and gentlemen who appear in this occasion to be healthy and wealthy. The fact I have to talk about now is Peace and Religion. Let me introduce myself before this talk. I am called DHAMMATHRA and I am Myanmar. That is all my introduction. During these days, the ones with religion and without religion are staying together. Some usually say themselves that they are the ones of free thought. I am a Buddhist monk and that is why I have to refer the condensed teachings of Buddha. That is - Don't do any sin. Do good deed. Keep your own mind clean. And Buddha taught to also respect to other religions. There are five Precepts at least to P be kept everyday by a Buddhist. They are - (1) No killing, (2) No theft, (3) No changing for the worse with any woman who stands under the guardianship, (4) No lie and (5) No drinking. There are such precepts and ethics to be kept and observed in all other religions not only in Buddhism. Religious freedom is fairly completed in Myanmar. Anyone can take any religion he/she likes. There are gazetted holidays for the noble days concerning religious affairs. Population is 60 millions completed. There are 135 national races standing lawfully and they speak 8 main languages. Legal religion in the state is Buddhism. Therefore, Buddhism is 80% and second most is Muslim, and then Christian. There are also the ones paying worship to Nat. Muslim is 90% in some larger villages in middle Myanmar and there are still other Buddhist villages. Nothing problems there. Myanmar Buddhist like staying cool and helpful. They respect to the aged, masters and parents. They have been paying worship to their parents keeping in the same gang with Buddha. They are known as the race of charity welfare in the world. Most of national races are Christian. To say how much religious freedom in Myanmar, Yangon is a capital in Myanmar. There are over 15 mosques in Yangon downtown. And then, there is a heavy mosque of Muslim, a pagoda titled Sule for Buddhists and a large church for Christian standing on line abreast in the centre called Heart of Yangon (downtown). There is only one Buddhist monastery. But, Buddhist monk is very narrow. Buddhist monasteries are opening 24 hours regularly as usual and therefore, not only Buddhists but also the people of other religions come to take rest there. Everyone is allowed what kind of his/her religion it is. Pagoda and monastery mean peaceful. Besides, it is a place helpful to those who lack of shelter and food. And, it is also a place teaching to the children lad< of money for their education. Actual condense of religion is Peace. It is also called salvation. Furthermore, it is also meant giving help, care and guideline. However, sometimes, if anyone extremely believes upon his/her religion, he/she use to be radical. Here, right thought, right learning and right practice become essential in 132 Story Sharing 2-② any way. All kinds of religion have beautiful and meaningful admonitions, ethics, terms and conditions since before. So, those who will succeed as leaders in religious affairs must have intellectual power and wisdom more than ordinary people. They must think high and be patient and studious in also teaching sector. They must be able to sacrifice giving not only their lives but also their ownerships if necessary for others. They must have ability to analyze most affairs right or wrong. Some religious leaders are out of qualification, but the tasks and responsibilities they take are too much. In fact, they themselves do not know they are out of ability. They actually want to be responsible. Nowadays, unnecessary religious conflicts happens in most countries in the world especially because of their leadership. The ugly religious conflicts and the events not worthy to be mentioned take place. For example - The religious riot happened since last 20th March at Meiktila in middle Myanmar where I lived as a consequence of tiny case between Muslim and Myanmar. Finally, happened for 3 days in a row till (20-21-22) not only religious conflict but also race conflict and killed over 40 during the period of conflict for 3 days and destroyed religious buildings, residential houses and businesses including schools. Over thirty thousands of people were homeless and found countless number of losses. Rescue camps were opened and saved people by variety of religions providing emergency assistance such as food, medicine and consumer products etc. Most of Muslim took shelter in the Buddhists houses, monasteries and Buddhist rest-houses during the said 3 days period. Buddhist monks also arranged everything what they wanted. Especially Buddhist monks, novices and Buddhism persons took care of them day and night for over 2 months for their security. Buddhists arranged and allowed them to to pray and pay worship under Muslim tradition in the monasteries and rest-houses of Buddhist while they took shelter during the period of the said 3 days. Furthermore, religious leaders were invited and celebrated religious talks. That bad effect was because of religious affairs, but the ones actually suffered from pain was human. There might be hate, grudge and pains in both sides. Nevertheless, we hardly passed with terror, unsafe and unpeace for over 2 months. The leaders from the religions who want to have peace led all classes and discussed face to face to seek the best ways for settlement. Besides, internal/enteral donors and voluntary services kept Meiktila as assembly point and fulfilled requirements to both sides and sought answer drawing emergency plans and long term plans. No one talked about religious affairs during those days, but sought how to make peace, respect to one another, believe and stay peacefully like former period. A Multi Religious Friendship Association was founded under common agreement selecting (4) patrons of (4) Religions. Everyone felt happy and accepted. It was solved for the doubt before by coordination among them. For example - No one of other religion was formerly allowed to enter Mosque especially to Buddhist monks. But, monks 133 Story Sharing 2-② and other religious leaders were invited into mosque and donated and gifted with food, money, medicine and medical equipment since last May. It was really celebrated in dignity. As a consequence, almost every town founded multi religious friendship associations for cooperation and implementing peace. The religious ceremonies used to celebrated on noble days were held unitedly with a friendship. Now, Meiktila was deemed as the most studious town in the activities concerning religious affairs and friendship in Myanmar. Buddhist monks were invited and preached on the Sabbath day of Muslim, Muslim also respectfully accepted and that was a strange fact. The people of other religions became take meditation long term in the practicing meditation camps conducted by Buddhist monks. We see that they go to their friends’ house and pray for them signing religious songs cooperating with Christian and Hindu. That is a sign of goodness. The people from various religions come to learn in my classes. In my classes, religious lessons are taught one time a week. It is not a lesson of Buddhism alone. I let anyone of any religion take part in discussion and decide. Religion, male or female is not divided. I founded a little group in my voluntary service with the members of various religion. They mutually respect to one another themselves. They entrust in one another. Monks are admired too much in Myanmar. People follow and comply the admonitions and teachings of monks. Nowadays, religious conflict and race conflict are unnecessarily taking place in every part of the world. Religious violence and religious radicals are appearing up almost out of control. It is into 3 years after passing for 2 years happening religious conflict, race conflict and violence at Rakhine State in Myanmar near the boundary of Myanmar - Bangladesh and it has been watched by UN. Necessary assistances are provided by internal/external. The place lack of peace is a type of hell how they provide with which kind of assistance. And, there are national races holding arm as insurgents to fight against the state government in Myanmar as am revolution till now. That arm revolution has been starting since receiving Independence in 1948, but endless till now. It left disable persons, weird people, parentless children, the quarrelsome children who have grown in poor life, homeless people, widows and the people who feel afraid and won-y forever and ever as a bad result of it. No any aircraft carrier, submarine, or nuclear weapon in Myanmar, but there is the longest civil war of the world in Myanmar. It is also existing now. The fact to be happy is - current government and insurgents are coordinating by mutual consent to absolutely stop war. Discussion is being held in the title Peace Talk. Satisfactory answers came out and both sides have satisfactorily signed. People in the whole country also hope to have absolute peace soon. Both sides achieve to substitute schools, play grounds and religious buildings in military camps. 134 Story Sharing 2-② They are trying to substitute computers and laptops for weapons and achieving to hear religious songs, Bible reciting and sound of Dhamma instead of explosive voices. It is trying to give birth to a Peace as an inheritance to new generation. During these days, there is no colonialism enlarging territory by any country suppressing to other lands, but civil wars and religious wars are spreading out all over the world basing on unnecessary religious conflict and religious radicals in the other hand. We must try to stop these wars. Race, religion, or complexion is important nothing. It is more important to accept as human than race in case of trouble. All kinds of religion pay attention to help and rescue. Peace is appreciated by all religions. All persons who are here now are somebody in each religion. They are the one who sacrifice neglecting selfishness for voluntary services. Language, religion, complexion and tradition may be different from one another, but all of us in the world appreciate world peace and living in peace in full percent and no need to be doubtful about it. Not only the people attending in this ceremony but also the ones concerning them shall be ready for world peace. There are also so many works we can do. When we lose physical substances, we can substitute better parts, but, we may take long time to reach original situation in case of mental pain. We must prevent our best not to appear mental pain. If anyone, or many persons become suffering from mental pain like that, other persons have to help him/them with physical assistance and religious teachings. Sometimes, it gets wrong in negative view to the helpful persons and gets insulted by word. We must be patient and must forgive them. We must change them from negative view to positive view. The problem we usually find from time to time is when other religious leader tries to help the one of different religion, he thinks of it as attracted to be converted into his religion. We find such case from time to time in Myanmar. What type of situation it is, religious leader must be payer; guide and creator to change anger of anyone into happiness. He must dare to share his portion of food with other hungry ones. He must dare to sleep in roofless place keeping victims into the safe building. Leaders are more responsible. During those days, we stayed under the military government in Myanmar. Even in such situation, I served voluntary services too much with the assistance of foreign donors. I was tailed forever and ever by military government and I got checked and inspected from time to time, but I never felt down-hearted. I was proud myself thinking I was serving to a certain extent my best. I have been opening language center since 1996 in free of charges as a voluntary service. I helped the patients of leprosy, the ones lack of sight, the ones who were in hot water and the children who were not able to go to school. I shared my portion of food and money with them. I have not collected any kind of luxury goods till now. I was pleased to see my disciples successful. I have many pupils who have graduated and who are studying in this Japan. There are the students learning for Ph-D. The strange one among my disciples is MA HAY MAR WIN now serving as a patron in Japan Myanmar Culture Centre (JMCC) and she is also a founder. She is also running NGO and NPO here. She is teaching the Japanese 135 Story Sharing 2-② and Myanmar who are interested in Myanmar language, Myanmar culture and tradition opening course at Takadanobaba in Tokyo. I have talked fairly enough. Peace can not be implemented by mouth. We must cooperate. We must coordinate to seek answer: We must accept various views of all races and chose anything we think best. Here, let me use a Myanmar proverb. That is - "The child lack of love since his childhood does not know how to love when he has grown enough." It means a thought without sympathy. We must teach him to be sympathetic. I will stop this talk here. I am very grateful to the persons who assist with manpower; money power and advices to appear up this ceremony and the ones who invited. May all of us be the ones who create healthy and peaceful world mutually giving and taking lave among all of us. Apologize to forgive me if I make any mistake in my talk. Million thanks. 136 Story Sharing 2-② 平和と宗教 U DAMMA THARA まずは、ここにいらっしゃる皆様のご健勝とご多幸を祈念します。私がこれから皆さん にお話ししなければならないのは、平和と宗教についてです。話を始める前に自己紹介 させて下さい。私は、DHAMMATHRA と申します。ミャンマー人です。私の紹介はこ のくらいにしておきましょう。現代は、宗教を信じる者と信じない者が、共存する世の 中となっています。自らを、思想上の自由人と称する人達もいます。私は、仏教の僧侶 であるので、仏教の教えに触れなければなりません。つまり、いかなる罪も犯すべから ず、ということです。良いことだけを行いなさい。心を清らかにしておきなさい。また、 仏教徒は他の宗教を敬うべきという教えも受けています。仏教徒には日々守るべき戒律 が、少なくとも５つあります。それは、１）生き物を殺してはいけない、２）他人のも のを盗んではいけない、３）不道徳な性行為を行ってはならない、４）嘘をついてはい けない、５）酒を飲んではいけない、の５つです。仏教徒だけではなく、他の宗教にも 同様に、その信者が日々守るべき戒律や規律があります。 宗教の自由は、ミャンマーでも確立されています。誰もが、自分の信じる宗教の宗徒に なることができます。宗教に関連した祝日があります。人口は 6 千万人おりますが、135 の民族が公に認められており、主に 8 つの言語が使われています。この国の主たる宗教 は仏教です。したがって、仏教徒が 80％を占め、イスラム教徒とキリスト教徒がこれ に続きます。ナッを崇拝する人々もいます。ミャンマーの中部地方では、イスラム教徒 が 90％を占める大きな村もあり、仏教徒の多い村もあります。しかし、問題はありま せん。ミャンマーの仏教徒は、粛々と、そして、みんなに役立つ存在でいたいのです。 彼らは年輩者や先生、そして、両親を敬います。仏陀に対するのと同じように両親に敬 意を払うのです。彼らは、慈悲に富んだ民族として世界で知られています。ミャンマー にいる少数民族の大半は、キリスト教信者です。 ミャンマーにどの程度の宗教上の自由があるか、お伝えしたいと思います。ミャンマー の首都であるヤンゴンの中心部には、15 以上のモスクがあります。ハート・オブ・ヤ ンゴンとよばれる市の中心部には、大きなイスラム教徒のモスク、スーレーという名の 仏教のパゴダ、キリスト教の大きな教会が並んでいます。仏教徒の修道院も一つありま す。しかし、そこはとても小さな所です。修道院は 24 時間、常に開いており、仏教徒 のみならず、他の宗教の信者もここに休憩に来られます。どのような宗教の方でも、こ こに入ることが許されています。パゴダや修道院が意味するのは、平和です。また、こ こは、住む場所がなかったり、食料が不足している方々を助ける場所でもあるのです。 貧しく教育を受けられない子供達に、教える場でもあるのです。 137 Story Sharing 2-② 宗教の現実の教義は、平和です。それは救済とも言えます。さらにそれは、助けること、 気遣い、導きも意味します。しかしながら、時に、自らの宗教を極端に信じすぎると、 その人は過激な方向に向かってしまいます。正しい考え、正しい学び、正しい行いがい かなる場合でも必要不可欠となります。あらゆる種類の宗教には、美しく、意義深い訓 戒、誠実さ、神との契約が昔から存在しています。ですから、宗教指導者は、一般の人々 よりも機知に富んでいなければなりません。また、高いレベルで物事を考え、教える際 には忍耐力をもち、熱心でなければなりません。必要であれば、生活や財産をも犠牲に できなければなりません。ほとんどの事柄について、善悪を見極める能力を有していな ければなりません。宗教指導者の中には、それに見合った資質を有していない者もおり ますが、そのような場合、職責はその宗教指導者には荷が重すぎます。実際のところ、 彼ら自身が宗教指導者としての資質を有していないことに気づいていません。彼らは、 ただ、職責を果たしたいだけなのです。 今日、世界中のほとんどの国々で指導的立場を巡って、無用な宗教上の対立が見られま す。醜い宗教上の争いや言葉にするまでもない酷い事件が起こっています。例えば、私 が住んでいたミャンマー中部の Meiktila（メイッティーラ）では、イスラム教徒と仏 教徒との小さな争いの結果、宗教上の暴動が昨年の 3 月 20 日以来発生しています。こ の争いは 20 日から 22 日までの 3 日間続きましたが、対立は宗教上のことだけに留ま らず、民族間にまで拡大し、40 人以上の死者を出し、宗教施設や一般の住居、会社、 学校が破壊されました。3 万人以上の人々が家を失い、数え切れ合いほどの損失を被る ことになりました。避難キャンプが開設され、様々な宗教団体が食料品、医薬品、日用 品を提供しながら、このような人々を援助しています。イスラム教徒のほとんどが、衝 突のあった 3 日間、仏教徒の家や仏教の施設に避難しました。仏教の僧侶達は、避難し て来た人々が必要なものを全て用意してあげました。特に、仏教徒の僧侶やその見習い、 一般信徒は、昼夜を問わず、2 ヶ月間以上、避難民を保護すべく、世話をしました。仏 教徒は、イスラム教徒が仏教の施設に避難している間も彼らがイスラム教の伝統に則っ て礼拝出来るような環境を整え、また、それを容認しました。 更に、各宗教の宗教指導者達が招集され、宗教上の会談を行いました。先程述べた酷い 出来事は宗教上の問題から生じたのですが、実際にそこで苦しんでいるのは人間なので す。憎悪、怨念、痛みは、双方に存在するでしょう。それにも関わらず、我々は 2 ヶ月 以上、恐怖、不安、危険とともに厳しい状況の中で過ごしてきました。平和を求める宗 教指導者達は、あらゆる階層の人間を指導し、解決に向けた最善策を求めて、直接、議 論をしました。加えて、内外の協力者、ボランティア団体が Meikitila を拠点として、 双方の要求事項を勘案しながら、緊急対処計画と長期計画を策定し、解決策を模索しま した。この間、誰も宗教上の事柄については触れず、平和の回復や互いの尊重、以前の ように穏やかに信仰しながら過ごせる道を追求しました。多宗教友好協会（Multi 138 Story Sharing 2-② religious Friendship Association）が、４宗教から４人のパトロンを選出するという同 意の下、設立されました。皆がこれを納得し、受け入れました。互いの協力で、以前の 不信感は解決されました。例えば、以前は他の宗教の者、特に仏教徒は、モスクに入る ことが認められませんでした。しかし、昨年の 5 月以来、仏教徒や他の宗教の教徒もモ スクに招かれ、食料や金銭、医療機器を寄贈されています。このことは、尊厳をもって 真に祝福されたことです。この結果、ほとんどの町には、多宗教友好協会が、互いの協 力関係と平和の実現のために設立されました。以前はそれぞれの宗教がそれぞれの聖な る日に行っていた宗教儀式が、違う宗教の人も友情をもって一緒に行われたのです。現 在、Meiktila は、ミャンマーで宗教的な事柄と友好に関する活動について最も勉強熱 心な町と見なされています。仏教の僧侶達は、イスラムの安息日に招かれて共に礼拝し、 イスラム教徒は敬意をもって彼らを受け入れたのです。それはいままでになかった事実 です。 他宗教の信者は長い期間に亘って、仏教の僧侶達が用意した瞑想施設で瞑想を行うよう になりました。彼らは、まるで友人の家に行くようにそこに行き、友人のために祈った のです。キリスト教徒やヒンドゥー教徒と共に、宗教の歌を歌いながら。これは、関係 改善に向けた兆候です。様々な宗教の信者達が、私のクラスに学びに来ます。私のクラ スでは、週に一度宗教の授業がありますが、そこでは仏教の事だけを教えるのではあり ません。私は、いかなる宗教の信者であっても、クラスで行われる議論に参加すること を認めます。宗教や性別で分けられることはありません。私はボランティアサービスの 一環として、他の宗教の方々と小さなグループを設立しました。彼等は、互いに尊重し 合っています。信じ合っています。仏教の僧侶達は、ミャンマーでは大変尊敬されてい ます。人々は、僧侶達の教えに従います。今日、宗教間の対立や民族間の対立が、意味 もなく世界中で発生しております。宗教上の暴力や急進派の活動は、歯止めがきかなく なっています。ミャンマーとバングラディッシュの国境に近い Rakhine State（ラカイ ン州）における宗教、民族間の争い、暴動は、その発生から 2 年が経ち 3 年目に突入し ました。現在は国連の監視下に置かれ、国内外から必要な援助が寄せられています。 どのように、また、どんな手助けをしたとしても、平和のない場所は、ある種の地獄で す。ミャンマーには反政府の立場で武装した民族もおり、武力による革命はミャンマー が独立した 1948 年に始まり、現在まで続いています。この結果、人々は身体障害や精 神障害を負い、子供達は両親を奪われ、貧困地域で生まれ育った子供達は暴力化し、人々 は家を奪われ、夫を奪われ、永久に恐怖に怯えることになりました。ミャンマーには、 空母も潜水艦も核兵器もありません。しかし、世界で最も長い内戦があります。それは、 今でも続いています。現政権と反政府軍が全面的終戦に合意すること、これが我々の望 みです。交渉は、Peace Talk という名のもとに実施されています。双方が満足いく結 論を得て、合意書ができました。国中の人々が、完全な平和が直ちに実現することを望 139 Story Sharing 2-② んでいます。双方とも、軍事施設を学校や公園、宗教施設として使用するようになりま した。 双方とも、武器の代わりにコンピューターやノートパソコンを用意しようとし、怒りに 溢れた声の代わりに宗教の歌や聖歌隊の歌、ダーマの声を聞こうとしています。それは 後世へ残すべき平和を実現しようとする試みなのです。現在では、他の領土を奪いなが ら、自国の領土を拡大する植民地主義は見られませんが、一方で、意味のない宗教上の 対立や急進派の動きをきっかけとした内戦や宗教戦争は、世界中で拡大しています。 我々は、このような争いをやめなければなりません。人種、宗教、外見の違いは、さほ ど重要なことではありません。より重要なのは、問題が起こったときに人種を見るので はなく、同じ人間として相手を受け入れることです。全ての宗教が、人を助け、救うこ とを大切にしています。平和は、全ての宗教によって尊重されています。今、ここにい る人たち、一人一人が自分たちの宗教を持っています。自らを省みず、奉仕の精神で生 きる人達です。言語、宗教、外見、伝統は、一人一人異なりますが、世界中の皆が目一 杯世界の平和を、そして平和のうちに暮らすことを望んでいます。そこには疑いの余地 はありません。 この式典に参加している人々だけでなく、これに関わる全ての人々が世界平和に向けて、 動き出す時です。我々が出来ることは沢山あります。ものは失われても、また、別のも ので代用することが出来ます。しかし、心の病は、その回復に多くの時間が必要となり ます。我々は、大切な人達が心を痛めないようにしないといけません。もしも、誰かが、 あるいは、多くの人々が心に傷を負うようになれば、周りの人々はその方々を、物質的 な援助や宗教上の教えを通じて助けてあげなければなりません。時には、そのような手 助けをしている人々に誹謗中傷を浴びせる、誤った状況が生じることもあります。その 時も、我々はそれに耐え、彼等を許さなければなりません。そのような否定的な見方を している彼等の目線を、肯定的なものに変えてあげなければなりません。ただ、時には、 他の宗教の人々を助けようとすると、自分たちの宗教に改宗させようとしているのでは ないかととられることがあり、これが大きな問題です。ミャンマーでも、そのようなこ とは見られます。いかなる状況であれ、宗教指導者は、人の怒りを幸せに変えるべく、 祈り、導き、創造する人でなければなりません。空腹に苦しんでいる人には、積極的に 食事を分け与えなければなりません。犠牲者を安全なところに避難させるため、自ら屋 根のないところで睡眠を取ることもしなければなりません。宗教指導者は、普通の人た ちよりも大きな責任を有しています。当時、我々はミャンマーにおいて軍事政権の支配 下で生活をしていました。そのような状況でも、我々は外国からの寄付を得て、ボラン ティア活動を実施していました。ずっと、軍事政権に尾行され、時には取り調べを受け ることもありました。しかし、全く失望しませんでした。私は、自分の出来る範囲で精 一杯、活動してきたことを誇りに思っています。私は、ボランティア活動として、1996 140 Story Sharing 2-② 年以来、無料で通える言語学校を運営しています。また、ハンセン病者や視力を失った 方々、窮地に陥った方々、学校に通えない子供達を助けてきました。私は、彼らと食べ 物やお金を分け合いました。現在まで、高価なものを収集したことはありません。また、 自分の弟子たちが立派に育つのを見るのも嬉しいことです。私には、日本の学校を卒業 し、日本に滞在している弟子が大勢います。博士課程で勉強している者もいます。珍し い例では、日本ミャンマー文化センターの支援者であり、設立者の一人である MA HAY MAR WIN（ヒー・マー・ウィン）がいます。彼女は、日本で NGO や NPO も運営し ています。また、東京の高田馬場で、ミャンマーの言語や文化、伝統に興味のある方々 に向けた公開講座も実施しています。 私は、十分に語り尽くしました。平和は、言葉だけでは実現できません。我々は協調し なければなりません。我々は協力して、解決策を見いださなければなりません。我々は 全ての民族の様々な価値観を受け入れ、自分たちが最善と思うものは何でも受け入れて いかなければなりません。ここで、ミャンマーの格言を引用させて下さい。「愛に飢え た子供は、大人になっても人の愛し方を知らない」。つまり、我々はその人に思いやり を教えなければなりません。この話は、この辺にしておきましょう。この式典に出席で きるように、財政支援や助言をして頂いた方々や、招待して下さった方々に対して、非 常に感謝しております。我々皆で、互いに協力しながら、健全かつ平和な世界を造り上 げましょう。もし、今日私が話した中に間違いがありましたら、お許し下さい。ご静聴、 ありがとうございました。 141 Presentation 3 FROM SEEKING PEACE TO CREATING CONFLICT: THE RE-‐INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 9. Chandra Muzaffar Paper presented at the Fourth Global Inter-‐Religious Conference on Article 9 and Global Peace Transcending Nationalism at YMCA Asia Youth Center in Tokyo from 1st to 5th December 2014. On the 1st of July 2014, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet decided to re-‐ interpret Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to enable Japan to exercise “collective self-‐ defense.” What this means in effect is that Japan can now get involved in military operations in other countries as long as they are in Japan’s interests. She can send her troops to other lands and sell her military hardware to other states. This represents a major shift for a nation which after the second world war adopted a constitution that states clearly that “aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes”. (Article 9) (1) As an aside, it may be observed that though war is renounced in its Constitution, “Japan has a well-‐equipped standing military (also known as Self-‐Defense Forces) of 225,000 personnel, including by most conventional standards, a formidable Navy (Maritime SDF).” (2) Based upon its share of world military expenditure in 2013, Japan occupies the eighth position globally, tying with Germany. Its actual military expenditure for that year amounted to 48.6 billion dollars. (3) This makes Japan -‐-‐-‐ even before its re-‐interpretation of Article 9 -‐-‐-‐ one of the most formidable military powers on earth. Influences It is against this background that we should look at the re-‐interpretation of Article 9 which undoubtedly has been influenced by a number of factors. There has always been a view 142 Presentation 3 within Japanese society associated with the political Right that only a militarily strong Japan would be able to defend its vulnerable, insular situation and circumstance. Besides, it is only with military muscle that the nation would be able to ensure that it has the capacity to secure oil and other much needed natural resources in which it is so deficient. As a prominent global economic actor, Japan also has no choice but to protect its vast economic assets which the Right believes requires military strength. (4) The rise of Abe has also played a major part in the reinterpretation of Article 9. A right-‐ wing nationalist who has downplayed Japan’s war-‐time atrocities, including the issue of comfort women in Korea and other Asian countries and who insists that class A war criminals are not criminals under Japanese domestic law, Abe has increased defense expenditure since becoming Prime Minister for a second time in December 2012. He has also announced a five year military expansion plan. On a number of regional issues, involving notably China and South Korea, Abe has adopted a belligerent stance. His solid majority in parliament -‐-‐-‐ his party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) commands 294 out of 480 seats in the Lower House -‐-‐-‐ has given him the confidence to pursue a militaristically oriented nationalistic policy. It is not without significance that Abe’s rise has coincided with the “US pivot to Asia”. The phrase itself is a misnomer since the US has remained a principal political and economic force in Asia, in spite of its defeat in Vietnam in the seventies and the closing down of its air and naval bases in the Philippines in the nineties as a result of a popular uprising. Describing its current approach to Asia as a sort of “re-‐balancing” is also off the mark since the assumption is that there is already a dominant power in our continent that the US is helping to check or re-‐balance. What the US is doing is to re-‐assert its power in Asia in an organized and systematic manner. Japan is certainly central to that strategy. The re-‐assertion of US power is driven by at least three factors. One, the rise of China as an economic powerhouse in the region and globally which has endowed it with increasing political clout. The US views this as a challenge to its hegemony. Two, the emergence of Asia as the epicenter of the global economy with China, Japan and South Korea playing pivotal roles. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and possibly India are also important in this changing scenario. The US wants to ensure that it has a huge slice of the Asian cake. Three, because of factors one and two, the US fears that if it does not re-‐ assert its power at this stage it will not be able to perpetuate its position as the world’s leading economy and its sole military superpower. To put it differently, the re-‐assertion of US power in Asia today is about the maintenance of its global hegemony. The US knows that it cannot achieve this goal without the support and cooperation of its allies such as Japan. After two expensive wars in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, in 143 Presentation 3 the last 13 years, the US needs Japan’s financial wherewithal to sustain its military infrastructure in Asia. This is why it has been pushing Japan to go beyond Article 9 and commit itself to US-‐ led military operations in other parts of the world. That push has become more concerted in light of the US’s own economic decline and the rise of China as an economic power. That Japan shares the US fear of China’s rise is an understatement. It is said in some circles that when China overtook Japan as the world’s second largest economy it made a dent on the Japanese psyche. But more than the question of economic ranking, there is a serious maritime dispute over the Senkaku Islands (the Chinese refer to them as Diaoyu) which has widened the rift between the two nations. (5). Competing claims over the five tiny islands and three rocks covering a mere seven square kilometers have gotten worse since 2010 leading to several clashes in recent years. This maritime conflict should be viewed against the backdrop of China’s deep unhappiness over Japan’s invasion and occupation of parts of China from 1937 to 1945 and the latter’s reluctance to issue a genuine apology over the war and the accompanying atrocities. (6). Because this has always rankled the Chinese collective memory, the Japanese Right is convinced that China will remain hostile towards Japan and Japan should accordingly be militarily prepared to deal with this reality. For the Right in Japan, the South Korean public also feels the same way about Japan. The Japanese colonization of Korea for 35 years from 1910 to 1945 left an indelible mark upon the Korean psyche. It is partly because of the suffering and humiliation that the people went through that the Koreans remain angry and bitter about the issue of Korean comfort women and sex slavery in general. Instead of demonstrating genuine remorse for what had happened in the past, the present Japanese leadership in particular appears to be skirting around the issue through all sorts of rationalizations. The Right sees Koreans as implacable and that becomes a justification for its own agenda of greater military alertness on the part of Japan. Then there is North Korea or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Its nuclear tests and its military stances have helped to strengthen the hand of the Japanese Right and those who are in favor of a re-‐interpretation of Article 9. They argue that North Korea is a constant reminder of the dangers that lurk in Japan’s neighborhood. If the proponents of re-‐interpretation have discovered yet another argument it is in the tensions that are expressing themselves in the region from the re-‐assertion of US power, on the one hand, and the rise of China, on the other. The maritime dispute between the Philippines and China over what the former calls the Scarborough Shoal and the latter calls the Huangyan Island which has led to a series of collisions have drawn in both the US and Japan(7). Initially, it was just the US at times encouraging and at times provoking the 144 Presentation 3 Philippines, its longtime ally, to adopt a hardline position against China. Now Japan has also come out in support of the Philippines through its promise of closer security ties (8). Japan is also forging stronger military relations with Australia, another intimate US ally in the region. (9) To these ties with the two US allies, one should also add Japan’s growing friendship with India. Some foreign policy analysts in both countries regard the rapport between Japanese Prime Minister, Shinto Abe, and the new Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, as a bond borne of their common concern for China’s rise -‐-‐-‐ a bond that the US would like to see getting stronger as a counterweight to Chinese power (10). It would serve the US’s larger agenda of containing China while engaging her. (11) From the various influences shaping Article 9, it is obvious there are significant geopolitical and geo-‐economic forces propelling Abe and Japan in a certain direction. The desire and determination of the US elite to pursue and perpetuate its hegemony with the active collaboration of surrogates such as Abe’s Japan is a critical factor. Sometimes the drive for hegemony reinforces longstanding frictions and conflicts among neighbors in the region. At other times, current disputes and disagreements are igniting fresh tensions. But whatever the actual dynamics, the importance of Article 9 goes beyond Japanese shores. This is why it is crucial to examine the implications and consequences of Article 9 for Japan, for Asia and for the world. Implications and Consequences. For Japan, the re-‐interpretation of Article 9 could lead to a vigorous resurgence of the political Right -‐-‐-‐ a resurgence not witnessed since the end of the second world war. The military budget could be increased substantially. There could be greater acceptance of military bases, including those in Okinawa. There may even be a push for developing nuclear weapons. Japan could be inducted into military alliances. It may even take a lead role in military adventures abroad. At the same time, the militaristic trend could prompt peace movements to re-‐organize and re-‐strategize with a greater sense of purpose. The opposition to US bases in Japan could become stronger. The campaign against not just nuclear weapons but also nuclear plants that generate nuclear energy for electricity and other peaceful purposes could gather momentum. The Japanese people may mobilize against military alliances and sending combat soldiers abroad. There may even emerge a powerful movement to 145 Presentation 3 compel the elite to adhere to the original meaning of Article 9 as envisaged in the Constitution. Outside Japan, in the rest of Asia, the resurgence of Japanese militarism would be viewed with grave concern. Though the actual victims of Japanese aggression including the diminishing cohorts of comfort women may not be around in a few years’ time, the collective memories of Japanese atrocities in various Asian countries will live on forever. Even among allies such as the Philippines, there will be no jettisoning of this memory of pain and suffering. It is quite conceivable that as a reaction to Japanese militarism, other countries could expand their military budgets. There could be an arms race in the region. Even as it is, there is an arms build-‐up in Asia which the mainstream Western media and its Asian counterparts are blaming upon the so-‐called China threat. (12). The truth is that China -‐-‐-‐ unlike Japan or Western nations -‐-‐-‐ has not conquered or occupied any other country. If Asian countries have to fear conquest or occupation, the threat from Japan and the West is more real -‐-‐-‐ based upon historical facts -‐-‐-‐ than an imaginary threat from China. This is the reason why a militarily resurgent Japan is a much greater danger to the rest of Asia than a China reacting to a re-‐assertive United States. As in the case of Japan, militarization in various Asian countries may induce peace groups to enhance their commitment. They may speak up against their governments for not only increasing their military expenditure but also for forging military links with other states that only serve to escalate tensions and frictions in the region. In this regard, I can see peace activists in countries such as the Philippines and India voicing their opposition to any attempt to establish a special military relationship with the US or with the US through Japan. This brings us to the US’s role in Asia and the world mediated through Japan. Since the US’s hegemonic power is declining -‐-‐-‐ as pointed out by a number of thinkers and analysts from different parts of the world (13) -‐-‐-‐ any move to perpetuate its hegemony by getting allies like Japan to employ money, men and machine on its behalf would be resented by a lot of people who realize that US dominance and control has been a bane upon humankind. Japan would also incur the wrath of an expanding segment of the global community. Indeed, if Japan plays this surrogate role, it is very likely that whatever goodwill Japan has accumulated over the decades especially in Asia as a result of its extensive business and trade ties in the region will dissipate quickly. Japan, in other words, will be perceived in an extremely negative light. 146 Presentation 3 Opposition to Re-‐Interpretation of Article 9. Though Japan’s militaristic role in the future and the US’s continuing attempt to perpetuate its hegemony may be detrimental to the interests of the people, at the moment there does not seem to be much opposition to the re-‐interpretation of Article 9 in countries outside Japan. It has not become a major concern among the masses anywhere in Asia or the West for that matter. This is mainly because of the media which has not given any emphasis to the question of Article 9. There has been hardly any in-‐depth analysis of the issue in any major media outlet in the continent outside Japan. Most people are just ignorant of Article 9 and what it implies and how it will impact upon their own lives. No non-‐Japanese NGO in the region of some weight (with the exception of some Church groups) has campaigned vigorously against the re-‐interpretation of the Article. Intellectuals in Asia as a whole have given scant attention to this vitally crucial issue that will have an enormous impact upon present and future generations. The exception as I have alluded to are some Churches. It is significant that the central committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) itself meeting in Geneva from 2nd to 8th July 2014 adopted a resolution which: -‐ 1.“Expresses its grave concern at the direction indicated by the Japanese government’s initiative to reinterpret or change article 9 of the constitution, and its impact on regional security, on the positive example provided by this constitutional prohibition, and on efforts towards global peace and non-‐violence; 2. Calls on the Japanese government to honour and respect both the letter and the spirit of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which upholds non-‐violence as a means to settle disputes; 3. Urges the government of Japan to live up to its “Peace Constitution” and build non-‐ military collective peace and security agreements with all neighbouring states in Northeast Asia; 4. Encourages the Japanese government not to surrender to external pressures to change or re-‐interpret Article 9 of their Constitution; 5. Invites member churches to accompany the struggles of peace-‐loving Japanese people and churches in prayer.” (14) 147 Presentation 3 Though the Abe government has yet to respond positively to the WCC resolution, the churches’ bold and brave stand is commendable. It is the sort of stand that an institution founded upon religious principles should take when confronted by a fundamental moral issue. Others Should Also Stand Up. If Christian institutions and groups are prepared to openly oppose the re-‐interpretation of Article 9, there is no reason why people of other faiths should not also make their voices heard. After all, any move that justifies war and violence in whatever guise is unacceptable to all the religions. All religions value life, each and every life. Because people of faith cherish the sacredness of life, the destruction of life is abhorrent to them. In this regard, Muslims and Islam have an important role to play. (15) The Muslim population of Japan may be infinitesimal but Islam is the religion with the biggest number of followers in Asia. Muslims should be concerned about the re-‐interpretation of a law that will alter significantly Japan’s role in Asia and as a result change the political landscape of the entire continent. To re-‐ interpret “collective self-‐defense” to legitimize the formation of military alliances and Japan’s participation in foreign wars goes against the concept of resisting aggression or fighting oppression in Islam. The wars that Japan’s protector, the US, has helmed since the early sixties have been essentially wars of aggression. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq would be three examples. It is towards these types of wars that Japan would be expected to contribute money, men and machine. Muslims should not only oppose these types of wars but also reject any attempt to camouflage their real intent through the usage of terms such as “collective self-‐defense.” It should also be emphasized that resisting aggression or combating oppression through arms -‐-‐-‐ legitimate as it is in Islam as in international law -‐-‐-‐ is but an act of last resort. It is only when other peaceful, non-‐violent means of resolving a conflict have failed that one is permitted to protect one’s integrity and dignity as a victim of aggression and oppression by taking up arms. What this implies is that the peaceful resolution of conflicts is the preferred option in Islam. Building a culture that encourages this is the religion’s real aim (16). This is why Article 9 and Japan’s Peace Constitution would be highly prized in Islamic thought. Islam would want laws and constitutions of this kind to be promoted and popularized since they bring forth the essence of the faith. 148 Presentation 3 Conclusion. At a time when Article 9 is being re-‐interpreted, people of faith everywhere and indeed, all human beings, should join hands and reiterate the singular significance of the Article to the future of humankind. We should not just be reactive. We should be proactive and proclaim to the world that it is this Article in its original sense that should be incorporated into the constitution of every nation on earth. This would be in line with what we did at the ‘Inter-‐Religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia’ held in Tokyo from 29 November to 1st December 2007. We called upon religious circles and persons in Asia and the world to:-‐ 1) “Treasure Article 9 as a patrimony of the whole of the human race and establish a global Article 9 network. 2) Encourage a clause in favor of demilitarization and renunciation of war to be included in the constitution of every nation. 3) Chart a new path for human history, using every opportunity to publicly call for the abolishment of all war.” (17) There were many other messages that emanated from that conference. Seven years later, as we encounter a determined drive by powerful forces within and without Japan to change the very meaning of Article 9 in order to pursue their agenda of hegemony through war and violence, we would do well to re-‐dedicate ourselves to the ideas and ideals that the conference presented to the world. We should perhaps do something more. We should pledge to ourselves that each of us will do what we can to translate those lofty goals into concrete realities. For deeds speak louder than words. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) Malaysia. 149 Presentation 3 16 September 2014. END NOTES 1) Quoted from Concept Paper for WCC Busan Madang Workshop Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution, November 7 2013. 2) See B.A. Hamzah, “Abe-‐san walks a tightrope” New Straits Times, August 11, 2014. 3) Sourced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s Yearbook 2014. Online version. 4) See my “Article 9 and the Militarized World -‐-‐-‐ What Can We Do?” Paper presented at the Inter-‐Religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia, Tokyo, November 29 -‐-‐-‐ December 1, 2007. 5) See my “The China Japan Dispute Over Diaoyu : Let The Truth Prevail!” JUST Commentary October 2012. 6) See Wikipedia Second Sino-‐Japanese War. 7) See my “An ASEAN-‐China Forum for the South China Sea” JUST Commentary June 2012. 8) Julius Cesar I. Trujano, “Japan and the Philippines Unite Against China” East Asia Forum 21 August 2013. 9) Andrew Carr and Harry White, “Japanese Security, Australian Risk? The Consequences of our Special Relationship.” The Guardian.com 8 July 2014. 10) See Mitsuru Obe and Niharika Mandhana, “India and Japan Pursue Closer Ties to Counter China,” The Wall Street Journal 1 September 2014. 11) For an analysis of this strategy see my “ Containing China: A Flawed Agenda,” in my Hegemony, Justice; Peace ( Shah Alam Malaysia: Arah Publications, 2008) 12) For example see “Asia arms up to keep rising China threat at bay,” New Straits Times 12 September 2014. 13) There have been a number of studies on the decline of the United States. Among them, Richard Falk, The Declining World Order (New York: Routledge, 2004) and James Petras Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, USA: Clarity Press, 2008). I have also been writing on the signs of an American decline for almost 150 Presentation 3 12 years now. My latest thoughts on it can be found in, “The decline of US helmed Global Hegemony: The Emergence of a More Equitable Pattern of International Relations? in my A World in Crisis: Is There a Cure? ( www. Just-‐international.org, 2013) ( e-‐book) 14) See Statement on the Re-‐interpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution Documents ( Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2014) p. 2 15) I make this point in my paper “Article 9 and the Militarized World… Op.Cit at the Inter-‐Religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia held in Tokyo from 29 November to 1st December 2007. 16) For some reflections on Islam’s commitment to peace see Hassan Hanafi, Islam in the Modern World Vol 11 ( Heliapolis, Egypt: Dar Kebaa Bookshop, 1995) especially the section on “ Islam and World Peace.” 17) See Statement from Inter-‐religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia, November 29 -‐-‐-‐ December 1, 2007 in Article 9 Global Inter-‐Religious Conference, p.23 151 Presentation 3 ９条の再解釈 ～平和の希求から紛争の誘発へ～ チャンドラ・ムザファー この内容は 2014 年 12 月 1 日～5 日に東京の YMCA アジア青少年センターで開 催される第４回９条世界宗教者会議における原稿である。 2014 年 7 月 1 日、安倍内閣は憲法 9 条解釈によって「集団的自衛権」を容認す る閣議決定を下した。これにより国益という名のもとに日本は他国への軍事介 入が事実上可能となり、また他国への軍の派遣および軍用品の販売も可能とな る 憲法再解釈は日本の大きな転換を意味する。日本は第二次大戦後、憲法９条の 中で「日本国民は、正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠実に希求し、国権の 発動たる戦争と、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は、国際紛争を解決する手段 （１） としては、永久にこれを放棄する。」 と謳い、これを守ってきた。 補足になるが、憲法では戦争放棄を謳う一方で、 「日本は十分に装備された独自 の軍隊である自衛隊を持ち、その隊員数は 22 万 5 千名である。この中には圧倒 的な力を持つ海軍、いわゆる海上自衛隊も含まれている。」（２）また、2013 年の 世界の軍事支出の内訳をみると、日本はドイツと並び 8 位であり、2013 年の実 （３） 質軍事支出額は計 486 億ドルである。 この事実は、憲法９条の再解釈がされ る以前でも、日本が地球上で圧倒的な軍事力を持つ国であることのゆるぎない 証明である。 再解釈の後押しとなったこと 憲法９条の再解釈を考えるに当たり、様々な要因がその背景にある。まず、日 本社会には、常に軍事力を持つことこそが、立場の弱い、島国の日本を守る手 段であるという政治的右翼に結びついた考え方がある。加えて、天然資源が少 ないため、石油やその他の必要な資源の確保のために軍事力が不可欠と考える 向きがある。右翼的立場の人々は、世界経済の立役者である日本がその巨大な （４） 経済を守るためには軍事力が必要と考えている。 安倍氏の躍進も憲法再解釈の上で大きな役割を果たしていると言えよう。国粋 主義者である安倍氏は、太平洋戦争時の日本の蛮行、例えば韓国を含むアジア 地域における慰安婦問題、を軽んじ、日本の法律のもとではＡ級戦犯は犯罪者 152 Presentation 3 ではないと主張している。安倍氏は 2012 年 12 月の第二次安倍内閣発足以来、 防衛費の増額を行っていることに加え、５年間での軍備拡張をも謳っている。 多くの地域問題、特に中国や韓国との問題に対して、安倍氏の態度は好戦的だ。 安倍氏が率いる自民党は衆議院の 480 議席中 294 議席を占めており、国会にお ける圧倒的優勢が安倍氏の軍国主義的政策に根差す国粋主義追求の後押しとな っている。 また安倍氏の躍進が、いわゆる「アメリカのアジアへの転換」と同時に進行し ているということは少なからず意味はある。しかし「アジアへの転換」という 言葉自体適切ではない。アメリカは 70 年代にはベトナム戦争で敗北し、フィリ ピンでは 90 年代の民衆の蜂起によって、空・海軍基地を失う事態となったが、 未だにアジアにおける政治的、経済的勢力は残しているからだ。近年のアメリ カのアジアへの取り組みを「リバランス」の一環とみなすのも事実とは外れて いる。アジア地域にはアメリカが動向を確認し、再均衡を図ろうとする支配的 な力が既に存在するという前提で言われていることだからだ。アメリカが目論 んでいるのは、むしろアジアで組織的、制度的に、自らの権威を再び主張する ことだ。日本は間違いなくこの戦略の中心的役割を果たしている。 アメリカの権威回帰の動きは少なくとも 3 つの事象により拍車がかかっている。 一つ目は中国の台頭である。中国は経済大国として、アジア地域においても世 界的にも政治的影響力を高めている。アメリカは中国の台頭を自国の覇権に対 する脅威と捉えている。二つ目に、グローバル経済の中心地としてのアジアの 台頭である。中国、日本、韓国が極めて重要な役割を担っており、ASEAN と 今後はおそらくインドも、この変化の構図の中で重要である。アメリカはアジ アというケーキのうまみの大部分を手中に収めたいと考えている。三つ目は、 中国の台頭、アジア勢の進出があるなか、アメリカはもし現段階で権威回帰に 失敗した場合、世界経済をけん引する立場、また唯一の軍事的超大国の立場を 永続できなくなることを恐れている。別の言い方をすれば、今日のアメリカの アジアにおける権威回帰はまさに同国の世界での覇権の維持に他ならないので ある。 この目的を達成するためには、アメリカは日本などの同盟国の協力が不可欠で あると考えている。莫大な出費を伴った 13 年に及ぶアフガニスタンやイラクと の戦争後、アメリカはアジアでの軍事インフラのために日本の資金提供を必要 としている。このため、アメリカは日本が憲法９条の枠を超えてアメリカ主導 の他国での軍事行動に対して協力せざるを得ない状況となることを推進してい 153 Presentation 3 る。アメリカの経済が停滞し、経済大国としての中国が台頭するなか、この流 れはますます強くなっている。 日本がアメリカとともに中国台頭に危惧しているというのは控えめな表現だ。 中国が日本を追い抜き世界第二位の経済大国に躍進したことは、日本に精神的 ダメージを与えた。しかし、経済的優位性以上に、尖閣諸島（中国では「Diaoyu」） の領有問題が 2 国間の亀裂を広げている。（５）5 つの小さな島と 3 つの岩石から なる、たった 7 平方キロメートル四方の領有に関する争いが深刻化し、2010 年 以来の度重なる衝突が起こっている。この領有権をめぐる争いの背景には、1937 年から 1945 年にかけて日本に侵攻され、占領下に置かれたことへの中国側の深 い恨みと、戦争や戦時に日本軍が行った蛮行に対して日本が真摯な謝罪をすす んで行おうとしなかったことがあることは明らかだ。（６）この感情は、常に中国 国中で渦巻いている。中国はいまだに日本に対して敵対心を持っており、対抗 するには軍備の必要があると日本の右翼が主張する理由となっている。 日本の右翼は韓国人も中国人と同様の感情を持っていると受け止めている。 1910 年から 1945 年の 35 年間におよぶ日本の朝鮮半島の植民地化は、朝鮮半島 の人々に禍根を残している。人々が受けた被害や屈辱が、従軍慰安婦や性奴隷 の問題に対する根強い怒りと苦しみにつながっている。過去を反省する代わり に、特に今の日本のリーダーは、全てを正当化して問題を回避しようとしてい ることは明白だ。右翼は韓国人を執念深いと見做し、日本の軍備拡張の正当化 の理由にしている。 そして北朝鮮。北朝鮮の核実験や軍事行動の動きは、右翼と９条の再解釈推進 派に好機を与えることとなっている。北朝鮮は常に日本のそばにある危険と見 做されている。 ９条再解釈推進派は、アメリカの権威回帰と中国の台頭の他にも９条を再解釈 する理由としてアジア地域の緊張関係を挙げるであろう。フィリピンではスカ ボロー礁と呼ばれ、中国では黄岩島と呼ばれる地域における両国の衝突はアメ リカや日本をも巻き込み度重なる紛争に発展している。（７）当初は、アメリカが 長い間同盟関係にあるフィリピンに、中国に対して強硬な姿勢で臨むことを求 めるだけだったが、今や日本もフィリピンとより強い安全保障協力を結ぶこと で後押しすることとなっている。（８）他にも日本はアメリカとの深い同盟関係に あるオーストラリアとも強い軍事協力関係を結んでいる。（９） 154 Presentation 3 アメリカの同盟国であるフィリピンやオーストラリアとの結束に加え、日本が インドとの友好関係を構築していることも見過ごせない。多くの外交政策の専 門家たちの見方では、安倍総理とインドのナレンドラ・モディ首相が親密さを 深める要因として互いの懸念事項である中国の台頭があると考えている。この 連携に対して、アメリカは中国に対する拮抗勢力にしたいと考えている。（10）ア （11） メリカは中国との関係を深めつつ、中国を抑え込む魂胆である。 憲法 9 条を方向づける様々な影響力の中に安倍政権や日本をある方向に向かわ せる重大な地政学上、地理経済上の力があることは明らかだ。安倍氏率いる日 本のようなアメリカの代理的役割を果たす国を取りこんで、自国の覇権維持を 追及しようとするアメリカ支配層の願望と決定力は 9 条解釈に大きく影響する 要素である。覇権を強める動きは、時に近隣諸国において摩擦や紛争を長引か せることにつながる。また、論議や不調和が新たな緊張関係を生むこともある。 しかし実際の力関係がどうであれ、憲法９条は国を越えて重要である。 日本やアジア、世界にとって、９条が持つ意味とその影響を考えることが重要 であるのはそのためである。 その意味と影響 第二次大戦後、これまで日本において政治的右翼が復活することはなかった。 しかし、憲法 9 条の再解釈がその着実な復活のきっかけとなる可能性がある。 軍事費は大幅に増額されるであろう。沖縄を含めた地域で、より多くの軍事基 地の受け入れが起こるかもしれない。核兵器の開発を要求されることすらある かもしれない。日本は軍事同盟への参加を強いられるかもしれない。日本が外 国における軍事行動のイニシアチブを取らざるを得ない状況になることさえ想 像される。 同時に、軍国化が強まれば、より大きな目的意識を持った、再組織化、再戦略 化した平和運動が起こるであろう。アメリカ軍基地に対する反発はより強くな り、核兵器に対する反対運動のみならず、電力供給やその他平和的目的で稼働 している原子力発電所に対する反対運動の勢いも増すであろう。国民は軍事同 盟や海外への派兵に対する反対運動を起こす可能性もある。憲法に謳われた 9 条の本来の意味を忠実に守ることを指導者に求める新たな勢力が出てくること さえも想定される。 155 Presentation 3 国外に目を向ければ、アジアの国々にとって、日本の軍国主義の復活は重大な 懸念事項として捉えられている。日本の侵攻により実際に被害を受けた慰安婦 は数年中にいなくなってしまうかもしれないが、アジアの国々における日本の 蛮行の記憶は、永遠に消えることはない。フィリピンのように日本と同盟関係 を結んだ国においてでさえ、痛みと被害の記憶が消え去ることはない。 日本の軍事増強に対しての各国の対抗策として最も考えられるのは、軍事費の 増額である。アジア地域における軍事競争となるかもしれない。とはいえ、ア ジア各国の軍備増強の背景として、西欧諸国やアジアのメディアで非難される のは、いわゆる中国の脅威である。（12）しかし実際には日本や西欧諸国と違い、 中国はどこの国も征服していないし、占領した歴史はない。アジア各国が征服 や占領を恐れるならば、警戒すべきは、歴史的事実から考えても中国でなく、 日本や西欧諸国である。このため、中国のアメリカの復権に対する対抗策の動 きよりも日本の再軍国化のほうがアジアの国々にとっては危険なのである。 日本のように、アジアの国々の軍事化によって、平和活動団体の動きはより活 発になるかもしれない。平和活動団体は軍事費増額に反対するのみならず、ア ジア地域の緊張や摩擦をより深いものにするだけの他国軍との関係強化の動き に対して政府に異を唱えるであろう。この点については、フィリピンやインド などの平和活動家が、直接、もしくは日本が介在して、アメリカとの特別な軍 事関係を結ぶことに対して反対の声を上げている例を見ることができる。 これまで述べてきたことから、アジアや世界でのアメリカの立場に日本が大き く関わっていることが分かる。世界の様々な分野の思想家や専門家の多くが指 摘している通り、アメリカの覇権が弱まる中、（13）同盟を結ぶことによって、日 本のような同盟国にヒト、モノ、カネを集めさせ、覇権を永続的なものにしよ うとするアメリカの動きに対して不快感を示す人は多い。アメリカの世界統治 が人類にとって悪だと気付いているからである。日本は国際社会のますます多 くの国の逆鱗に触れることになるだろう。日本がアメリカの代理的役割を果た すとすれば、これまで何十年にも亘ってビジネスや貿易関係の強化によって培 ってきた親善は間違いなく台無しになるだろう。すなわち、日本は苦しい立場 に立たされることになるのだ。 9 条再解釈への抵抗 日本の将来的な軍国化、アメリカの覇権維持の動きは人々の利益を大きく損な 156 Presentation 3 う可能性があるにもかかわらず、日本以外の国で憲法の再解釈についての大き な反発は起きていないようだ。さらに言うと、９条の再解釈はアジアや西欧諸 国にとっては未だに重要な問題だとは認識されていないということだ。 主な要因としてメディアが、憲法 9 条に対する問題を重要視していないことが 挙げられる。日本以外の主要な報道機関で、憲法９条について掘り下げた分析 を行っているところはほとんどない。皆、９条自体をよく理解しておらず、9 条 に暗示されている内容、また９条が自分の生命にどんな影響を及ぼすかについ て理解していない。キリスト教系の数団体を除き、憲法 9 条の解釈に対して精 力的に反対活動を行う外国 NGO 団体はない。アジアの有識者は総じて、今の世 代やこれからの世代に大きな影響を与えるであろう極めて重要なこの問題にほ とんど注視していない。 先に述べたように、キリスト教諸教会が例外的存在である。2014 年 7 月 2 日か ら 8 日にジュネーブで開催された世界教会協議会中央委員会において、以下の 決議が採択されたことは注目すべきことである。 1、 日本政府が、日本国憲法第 9 条を再解釈もしくは変更しようとする方向を 主導的に示していることに対し、またそれが、この地域の安全、同憲法が禁じ てきたことによって提示されてきた建設的な範例、また、世界の平和と非暴力 に向けた諸努力に与える衝撃に対して、重大な懸念を有していることを表明す る(express)。 2、 日本政府が、紛争を解決する手段として非暴力を堅持する日本国憲法第 9 条の文言及び精神の双方を尊び、大切にすることを勧告する(call)。 3、日本政府が、『平和憲法』に従い、北東アジアにおける近隣諸国の非軍事的 な集団的安全保障合意を構築するために働くよう促す(urge)。 4、日本政府が、自国の憲法 9 条を変更、あるいは再解釈を求める外的圧力にお もねることがないよう奨励する(encourage)。 5、世界教会協議会に加盟する全教会が、平和を愛する日本の人々と、日本の諸 （14） 教会の闘いに、祈りの内に寄り添うよう、招く(invite)。 157 Presentation 3 安倍政権からこの WCC 宣言に対する明確な回答は未だ得られていないが、キリ スト教諸教会のこの大胆かつ勇敢な姿勢は賞賛に値する。根本的な道徳問題に 直面した場合、教義に支えられた団体はこのような姿勢を貫くべきである。 キリスト教諸教会・諸団体以外で立ち上がるべき人々とは キリスト教諸教会と諸団体が憲法 9 条の再解釈に対して公然と抵抗する姿勢を 見せる覚悟を見せる一方、もちろんキリスト教以外の信者も声を大にして訴え ていくべきだ。いかなる宗教においても、どんな口実があったとしても、戦争 や暴力の正当化は認められてはいない。全ての宗教が全ての生きとし生けるも のに価値を置いている。宗教は生命の神聖さを重んじ、殺生を忌み嫌っている。 （15） この点において、イスラム教徒とイスラム教が果たす役割は大きい。 日本に おけるイスラム教徒の数は少ないが、イスラム教はアジアにおいてもっとも多 い信仰者数を有している。イスラム教徒は、アジアにおける日本の役割を大き くに変え、果ては、全世界の政治状況を変えてしまう可能性がある９条再解釈 について、懸念を示すべきである。 軍事同盟や他国の戦争に加担することを合法にする集団的自衛権の再解釈は、 イスラム教の武力侵略に抵抗する理念および抑圧と戦う理念に反している。60 年代初期に端を発した、日本の庇護者であるアメリカ主導の戦争はつまるとこ ろ侵略戦争であった。ベトナム、アフガニスタン、そしてイラクの 3 つの戦争 が好例であろう。このような戦争で、日本はヒト、モノ、カネでの貢献を期待 されることになるであろう。イスラム教徒はこのような戦争に反対するだけで なく、 「集団的自衛権」のような言葉を使って本当の意図を煙に巻くような動き 全てに対しても許さない姿勢を貫くべきである。 武力を持って侵略や抑圧に対して抵抗し、戦うことはイスラム教や国際法でも 認められているが、あくまで最終手段である。武力行使は、平和的・非暴力的 手段での紛争解決が困難なときにのみ、国の品位と尊厳を守る手段として侵略 された側に許される行為である。これはイスラム教において、平和的解決が望 ましい方法であるとされていることを示している。平和的解決を望む風土を作 ることがイスラム教の真の意図である。日本の憲法９条と平和憲法がイスラム 思想において高く評価されている理由はここにある。イスラム教の本質から、 憲法９条のような法律や憲法が広まり、一般化することはイスラム教の願うこ とである。 158 Presentation 3 結論 憲法９条の再解釈に当たり、どこの信者も、そしてすべての人類は手を携え、 将来の人類に憲法９条の唯一無二の重要さを繰り返し伝えていく必要がある。 後手にまわってはならない。世界に向けて、憲法９条が持つ本来の意味を全世 界の憲法に組み入れるよう、先手を打って訴えかけていくべきだ。 この動きは 2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日にかけて東京で開催された「9 条 アジア宗教者会議」のなかで我々が行ったことに沿っている。我々は宗教団体、 アジアの人々、そして世界に対して次のことを訴えかけた。 １） 憲法 9 条を全人類の財産として大切にし、世界に 9 条ネットワークをつく る。 ２） 各国の憲法の条文に戦争の放棄と非武装の条項が加えられるように働きか ける。 ３） あらゆる機会に戦争放棄を公けに呼びかけ、人類の歴史に新しい道を開く。 この会議では、他にも様々なメッセージが生まれた。あれから７年。我々は戦 争や暴力で覇権を維持しようとする日本内外の強大な力によって憲法９条の本 来の意味を変えようとする強い動きに遭遇することとなった。あらためて、我々 は９条アジア宗教者会議で表明した考えや理念を世界に訴えかけていく必要が ある。 やるべきことはたくさんある。この高い目標の実現のために行動することを自 分自身に誓う必要がある。言葉よりも行動こそが重要である。 公正な世界のための国際運動（JUST）代表 チャンドラ・ムザファー マレーシア 2014 年 9 月 16 日 159 Presentation 3 9 条の再解釈 チャンドラ・ムザファー 注 １）2013 年 11 月 7 日、韓国釜山で開催された、世界教会協議会マダンワーク ショップ「日本の平和憲法９条」の趣旨文より引用 ２）2014 年 8 月 11 日 ニュー・ストレｰツ・タイムズ紙 B.A. Hamzah 氏の 記事「阿部さんの綱渡り」参照 ３）ストックホルム国際平和研究所の 2014 年、年報（オンライン版）より ４）2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日まで、東京で開催された「憲法 9 条とア ジアの平和に関する宗教者会議」で私が提出した記事「9 条と軍国社会‐‐私 たちに何ができるか」 参照 ５）2012 年 10 月、JUST（公正な世界のための国際運動）コメンタリーに記載 された私の記事「尖閣諸島を巡る中国と日本の論争‐‐真実は何か」 参照 ６）ウィキベディア（英語版）Second Sino – Japanese War を参照 ７） 2012 年 6 月、JUST の論評に記載された私の記事「南シナ海を巡る ASEAN 中国フォーラム」参照 ８）2013 年 8 月 21 日、東アジアフォーラムにおける、Julius Caesar I. Trujano の記事「日本とフィリピン、対中国で協力」より ９）2014 年 7 月 8 日 ザ・ガーディアン（電子版） Andrew Carr と Harry White 「日本の安全はオーストラリアの危機？ 両者の特別な関係のもたらす もの」 10）2014 年 9 月 1 日 ウォールストリートジャーナル Mitsuru Obe と Niharika Mandhana 「インド首相、日本との関係強化に期待‐‐‐中国を 視野に」 160 Presentation 3 11）この戦略解析については、私の著書『支配と正義 そして平和』 （マレーシ ア シャーアラム、アラ出版 2008 年）の中の「中国を封じ込める：問題点」 参照 12） 2014 年 9 月 12 日 ニュー・ストレーツ・タイムズ紙 「アジアは台頭す る中国の脅威を食い止めるため軍備増強」 など参照 13） アメリカの衰退に関しては諸説ある。Richard Falk の「崩れゆく世界秩 序」（ニューヨーク ラウトレッジ 2004 年）、James Patras の「ユダヤ主 義、軍国主義 そしてアメリカパワーの衰退」 （アメリカ アトランタ クラ リティープレス 2008 年）など。私自身も 12 年前からこのアメリカ衰退に ついては書いている。最近では「危機にある世界：救済はあるのか？」 （www.Just-International .org, 2013 年） （電子書籍）の中の「アメリカ主導 の世界覇権の衰退：より公平な国家関係の到来」にこのことについての記事 がある。 14）日本国憲法 9 条の再解釈に関する資料 2 ページ目に宣言が記載されている。 （ジュネーブ 世界教会協議会 2014 年） 15） これについては、2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日にかけて東京で開催 された「9 条とアジアの平和に関する宗教者会議」に「9 条と軍国社会・・・ （４．に既出）」という記事を提示した。 16） イスラム教が平和のために果たすべき役割については、Hassan Hanafi の 「現代社会におけるイスラム教」11 巻（エジプト ヘリオポリス ダ・ケバ・ ブックショップ 1995 年）、特に「イスラム教と世界平和」に詳しい。 17） 9 条世界宗教者会議が 2007 年 11 月 29 日から 12 月 1 日にかけて催した 「9 条とアジアの平和に関する宗教間会議」の宣言参照。 161 Article 9 Global Inter-Religious Conference c/o NIWANO PEACE FOUDATION, Shamvilla Catherina 5F, 1-16-9 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0022 JAPAN Tel: 03-3226-4371 Fax: 03-3226-1835 E-mail: [email protected] 162
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
