ダニエル・イノウエ上院議員の話

　ダニエル・イノウエ上院議員が下院の対日謝罪要求決議案に対する意見書をつけ、ラントス外交委員長にも書簡を送った話は「アメリカ上院議員Daniel Inouyeさん」で取り上げましたが、産経新聞の古森記者が今日「慰安婦決議案に断固、反対するアメリカ長老議員」で取り上げました。

　中身は直接お読みになればいいので引用しませんが、率直な感想は「古森さんも相変わらずだな」ですね。
　起承はあるけれども転と結がないんですが、これはおそらく故意じゃないかと思います。
なんとなれば、まず意見書はあくまでも意見書であり、法的にはなんの効果もないということがあるし、この意見書の反応ってのはマスコミにおいても世論においても黙殺されている、さしたる波紋は起きていないということがあるから転と結にはおよべない、こういうことかと思います。

　さて僕ですが、前にも書いたように、イノウエさんの言っていることは文脈的に支持できない、でもこの古森さんを含めたイノウエさんの意見書に喝采を送っている人達は絶対にそこには触れようとしない。
それは何かといえば、イノウエさんの論はすべて「日本の一部の特殊な連中や中韓朝の言うような事実」があったという前提で出発していて、「もう何回も謝ったんだからいいぢゃん」という展開になっているんですが、争っているのは「無かった」ということと「なんでアメリカ下院に言われなければいかんのよ？」ということの筈なんですよ。

　中韓朝が言うと居丈高に吠えたてるこれらの人が相手がアメリカだとなぜこうなんでしょうか？　僕には笑えるほどに不思議でなりません。

　参考までに引用しますが、以下は、安倍訪米時に総理の「従軍慰安婦問題」に対するスタンスを非難したワシントンポストに抗議文を送った北野駐米公使が、2005年9月23日にニューヨークタイムズの記事に対する反論としてワシントンポストに寄稿されたコラムです。

　このコラムで主張されている中核は中国政府の国家主義的反日扇動批判なんですが、この中で述べられている危険というものは、これはそれぞれの立場のネガティブな特性故なのでしょうが、反中の裏側に存在する媚米に対しても充当できる、こんな気がします。

Nationalism and democracy
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Mitsuru Kitano September 23, 2005
The contentious issues between Japan and China - such as the demonstrations in April in China and the territorial disputes between Japan and South Korea -remind us that managing nationalism is the key to the future stability of East Asia. Managing nationalism in the region is equally important as dealing with such issues as China's rapid development, the Cross Strait relations, North Korea, surging food and energy demand and demographic change. At present, nationalism is a more pronounced phenomenon in Asia than in Europe, particularly in East Asia. As we learned from the birth of the nation-states in Europe in the 18th to 19th centuries, nationalism tends to run stronger in younger countries, especially if they are developing rapidly. As we seek ways to manage nationalism in East Asia, democracy assumes an overriding importance. Democracy matters in managing nationalism because democracy presents myriad opportunities for the expression of views and public discourse on policy. How diplomacy with neighboring countries should be conducted, how history should be understood, how to respond to territorial issues - all come to the public roundtable. In the democratic countries, government policies are examined and tested in the "policy market." Only the most persuasive and enlightened policies survive this process. Democracy can also aggravate tensions in handling nationalism. When the people take a hard-line stance toward an adversary, governments with populist tendencies are easily tempted to adopt that stance as an official policy line. Further, democratic systems can also harbor extremely exclusive or self-centered views. In this age of globalism, such attitudes are immediately communicated to other countries, and in turn, elicit a strong response. Thus, the vicious cycles can actually be perpetuated by democracies. And further, during the early stages of democratization, nationalism tends to surge and be especially aggressive. However, all things considered, the development of democracy facilitates the good management of nationalism. In diplomacy, the worst-case scenario in this content is when a government fans the flames of nationalism among the people. Nationalism itself is a strong emotion. Once inflamed, it easily burns out of control. But the public review characteristic of democratic systems highlights the dangers and exerts a calming influence. Such checks and balances on the actions of government are absent in non-democratic systems. In order to avoid the vicious cycle of criticism of a country's nationalism and retribution for that criticism, democracy, as a channel for exchange and competition among a diverse set of opinions, helps generate more balanced policies. When such channels are not operative within a country, the role of the international media is of decisive importance as a mirror that faithfully reflects the truth about a country. Another point of juncture between democracy and nationalism relates to the legitimacy of authority. In Asia there have been more than a few countries that draw their legitimacy to rule from authoritarianism or ideology rather than the legal-rational authority conferred by democracy. Recently, however, as seen in the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Indonesia, democracy has played an increasingly important role as a basis of legitimacy of rule. Considering nationalism in the context of legitimacy of authority, attention must be paid to the tendency of a country's leaders to resort to fanning the flames of nationalism when they are faced with an erosion of their legitimacy. It goes without saying that when nationalism is used in this way, management of nationalism among neighboring countries becomes very difficult. Thus, once democracy is achieved, it becomes a reliable basis for legitimacy of authority that diminishes the need to use nationalism as a tool. In this sense, the advance of democracy in East Asia is an encouraging phenomenon. However, as much as we hope for such advances in some countries, they do not seem likely. That situation requires careful scrutiny from the outside to assure that these countries do not exhibit dangerous signs of resorting to nationalism to help legitimize their rule. In order to manage nationalism, we need to craft appropriate approaches to specific issues, such as history and territorial disputes, strengthen regional frameworks and bilateral relations to foster mutual trust and devise ways to prevent issues from escalating to untenable levels. But we should not forget the importance of promoting democracy to that end.Mitsuru Kitano is the public affairs minister for the Embassy of Japan.

　これはおまけですが、昨日の国務省の定時会見での決議案に関するやりとりです。

QUESTION: The Japanese warned -- have warned in the last couple of days that the relationship with the United States could suffer lasting and harmful effects if the House of Representatives passes this resolution demanding that Japan apologize officially for the comfort women policy.
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: And I'm wondering whether the Administration has tried to importune Congress not to do that, whether you thought that -- how serious you thought this was.
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll take a look, Carol.
It's -- I have to admit, it's not an issue that has been --

QUESTION: At the top of your calendar.
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it just hasn't -- it hasn't come up recently.
I know that President Bush, when he met with Prime Minister Abe, talked about -- you know, talked about this issue.
And President Bush was reassured by his conversation with Prime Minister Abe specifically on this issue.
Now, as for whether or not the Administration has taken a position on this particular piece of legislation, I'll be happy to look into it for you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

　下院本会議の採決が延期されましたが、これの結果かどうかはさておき、延期は延期であり、アメリカ政府の公式な立場も、誰が何を言おうが「アリ」であり「有ったから謝罪したんじゃないかよ」です。

　そしてその淵源を辿り詰めるとやはり加藤官房長官発表、その延長線上にあるこの発展型の河野談話、宮沢政権の残した過ちがあるということです。
そして、我々がこの軛から脱出するにはこれらは政府として否認するしか無いということですね。

（2007/07/20の22:50加筆再掲）