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
パナマの平和憲法
パナマと日本はどちらも平和憲法を持っており、国内に米軍基地がある。パナマでは多くの人々が米軍基地に反対しているが…。
Panama's Peace Constitution
By DOUGLAS LUMMIS
Until recently I had thought the only country other than Japan to have a peace constitution was Costa Rica. But there is one other: Panama.
The story begins in 1977, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Gen. Omar Torrijos signed treaties in which the United States promised to return the Panama Canal to Panama and to withdraw all military forces by Dec. 31, 1999.
The treaties also provided that on Jan. 1, 1990, the person in charge of administering the canal, until then a U.S. appointee, would be replaced by someone appointed by the government of Panama. At that time Panama was under the dictatorship of Manuel Noriega, a former CIA agent now hostile to the United States. In late December 1989 the U.S. invaded Panama (the 20th U.S. military intervention in that country), "arrested" Noriega (for drug dealing), and installed Guillermo Endara as president.
The invasion was a classic mix of U.S. "idealism," national interest and brutality. It was clearly a violation of international law. Based on the number of people killed and wounded, it was the most violent event in Panamanian history. Through it, the United States succeeded in getting a "friendly" person appointed to head the canal administration (just in time!). The military dictatorship was overthrown and a less repressive regime was installed. And the Panamanian military (called the Panamanian Defense Forces) was dissolved. In 1993 the constitution was amended to become the world's third peace constitution.
The reader can see the similarities with the case of Japan, and the differences. The big difference is that Panama never invaded any foreign country. The military was mainly for the purpose of controlling Panamanians, its abolition was primarily a matter of democratization.
The big similarity with Japan's case is that the United States still has military bases there. Under the Panama Canal Treaty, they are to be returned by the end of 1999. And some have already been returned. But now the U.S. government is pressuring Panama to renegotiate the treaty to allow some U.S. military to remain after 1999. Panama's government elite (this is another similarity with Japan) seem willing. Why? There are many reasons, but according to the Panamanian Nationalist Forum, the main reason is "so that the U.S. military may intervene in Panama to keep the oligarchy in power, as happened in 1925, 1989, and other times."
The U.S. government, on the other hand, gives the absence of a Panamanian military as a reason for keeping its military there. To do what? To protect the canal, they say (against whom?). To help fight the "drug war" (a chief raison d'etre for the U.S. military after the end of the Cold War). To carry out jungle warfare training (To fight where? The U.S. has no jungles.).
As in Okinawa, many people in Panama are campaigning to get the U.S. bases out. If they succeed, perhaps we can say that Panama has finally become an autonomous, postcolonial state. If they fail?
Until recently I had thought the only country other than Japan to have a peace constitution was Costa Rica. But there is one other: Panama.
The story begins in 1977, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Gen. Omar Torrijos signed treaties in which the United States promised to return the Panama Canal to Panama and to withdraw all military forces by Dec. 31, 1999.
The treaties also provided that on Jan. 1, 1990, the person in charge of administering the canal, until then a U.S. appointee, would be replaced by someone appointed by the government of Panama. At that time Panama was under the dictatorship of Manuel Noriega, a former CIA agent now hostile to the United States. In late December 1989 the U.S. invaded Panama (the 20th U.S. military intervention in that country), "arrested" Noriega (for drug dealing), and installed Guillermo Endara as president.
The invasion was a classic mix of U.S. "idealism," national interest and brutality. It was clearly a violation of international law. Based on the number of people killed and wounded, it was the most violent event in Panamanian history. Through it, the United States succeeded in getting a "friendly" person appointed to head the canal administration (just in time!). The military dictatorship was overthrown and a less repressive regime was installed. And the Panamanian military (called the Panamanian Defense Forces) was dissolved. In 1993 the constitution was amended to become the world's third peace constitution.
The reader can see the similarities with the case of Japan, and the differences. The big difference is that Panama never invaded any foreign country. The military was mainly for the purpose of controlling Panamanians, its abolition was primarily a matter of democratization.
The big similarity with Japan's case is that the United States still has military bases there. Under the Panama Canal Treaty, they are to be returned by the end of 1999. And some have already been returned. But now the U.S. government is pressuring Panama to renegotiate the treaty to allow some U.S. military to remain after 1999. Panama's government elite (this is another similarity with Japan) seem willing. Why? There are many reasons, but according to the Panamanian Nationalist Forum, the main reason is "so that the U.S. military may intervene in Panama to keep the oligarchy in power, as happened in 1925, 1989, and other times."
The U.S. government, on the other hand, gives the absence of a Panamanian military as a reason for keeping its military there. To do what? To protect the canal, they say (against whom?). To help fight the "drug war" (a chief raison d'etre for the U.S. military after the end of the Cold War). To carry out jungle warfare training (To fight where? The U.S. has no jungles.).
As in Okinawa, many people in Panama are campaigning to get the U.S. bases out. If they succeed, perhaps we can say that Panama has finally become an autonomous, postcolonial state. If they fail?
Shukan ST: Aug. 15, 1997
(C) All rights reserved
- Costa Rica
- コスタリカ。1949年、憲法によって軍隊が廃止され、警備隊のみを持つ
- Gen. = General
- 将官
- Omar Torrijos(1921-1981)
- パナマの軍人で政治家のトリホス。中南米諸国を味方につけて、カーター大統領との交渉で今世紀末のパナマ運河返還の約束をとりつけた
- signed treaties
- 条約(新パナマ運河条約)に調印した
- withdraw
- 撤退させる
- person in charge of administering 〜
- 〜 の管理責任者
- U.S. appointee
- アメリカ側から任命された人
- dictatorship
- 独裁
- Manuel Noriega
- 元パナマ国軍最高司令官・将軍のノリエガ。パナマ国家警備隊を率いて、すべての権力を掌握していた
- CIA agent
- 米中央情報局(CIA)への情報提供者
- hostile to 〜
- 〜 に敵対している
- invaded
- 侵攻した
- intervention
- 介入
- drug dealing
- 麻薬取引
- installed
- 就任させた
- Guillermo Endara
- ギジェルモ・エンダラ・ガリマニ大統領。1989年の米軍パナマ侵攻によりノリエガ将軍が失脚し、野党のエンダラ氏が大統領に就任。侵攻時の戦闘でパナマ側に大量の犠牲者が出た
- classic mix of 〜
- 典型的な 〜 の混合
- "idealism"
- 理想主義。ノリエガ将軍を追放し、民主主義を回復するということ
- national interest
- 国家としての利益
- brutality
- 野蛮さ
- international law
- 国際法。一国の国内管轄事項に他の国家、国際組織が干渉してはならない、などの原則がある
- wounded
- 負傷した
- was overthrown
- 打倒された
- less repressive regime
- それほど抑圧的でない政権
- was dissolved
- 解散させられた
- was amended
- 修正された
- abolition
- 廃止
- primarily a matter of 〜
- 主に 〜 を目的としたもの
- Panama Canal Treaty
- 新パナマ運河条約
- renegotiate
- 再交渉する
- seem willing
- 同意しようとしているようだ
- oligarchy
- 少数独裁政治
- in 1925, 1989
- 1925年にパナマ人の反米闘争が起こったが、米軍が鎮圧した。1989年には米軍が侵攻してエンダラ政権を発足させた
- absence of 〜
- 〜 がないこと
- "drug war"
- 麻薬戦争
- raison d'etre
- 存在理由、レゾンデートル
- carry out
- 実行する
- jungle warfare training
- 密林で戦闘が起こったときのための訓練
- autonomous, postcolonial state
- 自治権のある、植民地支配から解放された国家