このページはフレーム対応ブラウザ用に作成されています。下のリンクは非フレーム使用ページですのでそちらをご覧ください。
この記事をプリントする
「封じ込め」から「先制攻撃」への転換
アメリカの外交政策が急激に変化すれば、
安保条約の意味合いも急激に変化することになる。
安保支持者には自らの立場の再考を望みたい。
Political madness and the sward
At the beginning of Plato's "Republic," Socrates asks old Cephalus if he can say what justice is. Cephalus replies that justice means to tell the truth and to give back what you have borrowed. Socrates then asks, what if someone loaned you a sword, then went mad and asked for it back. would it be "just" in this situation to return the sword?
In the context of the book, it is clear that Socrates doesn't mean ordinary madness, but political madness, the kind of madness that despots often fall victim to.
When a person has too much power, he (rarely she) begins to have the illusion that his power is absolute, that nothing in the world can oppose it. The despot begins to imagine that there is no longer any reason for him to follow the rules and laws that others must follow. Rules and laws are for the weak; to the despot, everything is permitted.
In the final stage of his disintegration, the rules and laws inside the despot's own mind - those that govern his thinking - begin to fall apart. He eventually loses all power of judgment. Is it right, Socrates asks, to hand a sword (i.e., political/military power) to a person in such a state of political madness?
One could ask a similar question in the context of international politics. Suppose Country A signs a treaty with Country B, and then Country B a while later undergoes a radical change of character. Suppose, for example, your country signs a military treaty with Germany's Weimar Republic, and the Weimar Republic becomes the Nazi Reich. Of course, under the rules of international law the treaty would still be binding. But as a matter of justice, would your country really be obligated to support the Nazi Reich in military adventures that were not part of the policy of the Weimar Republic at the time the treaty was signed?
By now the reader will have guessed what I am driving at. At the time the Japan-U.S. Mutual Security Treaty was signed, the strategy of U.S. foreign policy was containment. Containment meant using military power to prevent "enemy" countries from expanding their power, but not to attack them directly.
Under that policy the United States involved itself in some terrible, unjustifiable wars. But at least in its official policy, the United States agreed that the sovereignty of other states should be respected, and that pre-emptive attacks were (as the U.N. Charter says) illegal. Japanese who supported the Security Treaty did so on the assumption that the United States would continue to follow those principles.
But U.S. foreign policy has radically changed. As I have written in this column before, the U.S. government now says it has the right (which no other government has) to make pre-emptive attacks on other countries, to force regime changes in other countries, and to arrest foreign nationals in foreign countries.
So the meaning of the Security Treaty for Japan has also radically changed. Isn't it time for supporters of this treaty to start rethinking their position?
Shukan ST: July 11, 2003
(C) All rights reserved
- madness
- 狂気
- sword
- 剣
- Plato
- プラトン(古代ギリシャの哲学者)
- "Republic"
- 『国家』
- Socrates
- ソクラテス(プラトンの師)
- Cephalus
- ケパロス(ソクラテスの「対話」の相手。親から譲り受けた財産を増やし、悠悠自適の性格を送る老人)
- justice
- 正しいこと
- have borrowed
- 借りた
- loaned
- 貸した
- went mad
- 気が狂う
- just
- 正しい
- context
- 文脈
- 〜 that despots often fall victim to
- しばしば独裁者が取りつかれる〜
- power
- 権力
- illusion
- 幻想
- oppose
- はむかう
- follow
- 従う
- the weak
- 弱い人々
- everything is permitted
- 何をしても許される
- disintegration
- 崩壊
- fall apart
- 崩れ落ちる
- power of judgment
- 判断力
- i.e.
- すなわち
- (in)a state of 〜
- 〜の状態にある
- Suppose 〜
- 〜だとする
- signs
- 調印する
- treaty
- 条約
- undergoes a radical change of character
- 性質ががらりと変わってしまう
- military treaty
- 軍事協定
- Weimar Republic
- ワイマール共和国
- Nazi Reich
- ナチス帝国
- international law
- 国際法
- would still be binding
- 依然として拘束力がある
- would 〜 really be obligated to 〜
- 〜は本当に〜する義務を負うのか
- military adventures
- 軍事紛争
- what I am driving at
- 私が言わんとすること
- Japan-U.S. Mutual Security Treaty
- 日米安全保障条約
- strategy
- 戦略
- containment
- 封じ込め
- prevent 〜 from 〜
- 〜が〜するのを防ぐ
- unjustifiable
- 正当化し得ない
- sovereignty
- 国家主権
- should be respected
- 尊重されるべきだ
- pre-emptives attacks
- 先制攻撃
- U.N. Charter
- 国連憲章
- illegal
- 法律違反の
- on the assumption that 〜
- 〜という想定で
- principles
- 原則
- foreign policy
- 外交政策
- As I have written in this column before
- 5月23日号でのこと
- force
- 強いる
- regime changes
- 政権の交代
- foreign nationals
- 外国人
- position
- 立場