Opinion Weapons of Mass Destruction By DOUGLAS LUMMIS	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
大量破壊兵器 大量破壊兵器 　先月、イラクが核査察を拒否したことを理由に、アメリカとイギリスはイラクを攻撃した 「核がないことを目で確認するまで認めない」というアメリカの姿勢は、日本の非核運動にうまく利用できると筆者は考えている…

War is legal killing. But under international law, it is legal only when it is primarily members of military organizations who kill each other. The intentional or wanton killing of noncombatants is a war crime. That is the purpose of military uniforms and insignia: They enable soldiers to distinguish enemy soldiers, who they are permitted to kill, from civilians, who they must try not to harm.

Weapons of mass destruction make nonsense of this basic law. "Mass destruction" means just that: Every living thing within a certain area is killed. A bullet, carefully aimed, may find the heart of an individual soldier. But poison gas cannot distinguish soldier from civilian; it kills whatever breathes.

The U.S. government is worried that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction. And the United States is not willing to accept Iraq's word on the matter. It says: We won't believe it until we see it. It wants Iraq to permit a United Nations inspection team to search everywhere such weapons might be hidden. And recently when Iraq refused entry to certain sites, the United States and Great Britain bombed the country (incidentally killing a lot of noncombatants).

Now here is something to think about. Of all weapons of mass destruction, the most destructive is the nuclear bomb. The Japanese government has a policy — the Three Non-nuclear Principles — under which no one may bring nuclear weapons into this country. But no one knows whether the United States obeys this policy. The United States itself won't say. Government spokespersons always give the same answer: "It is our policy neither to affirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in any specific location." Saying this forces potential enemies to assume that there ARE nuclear weapons in Japan. That's how the "nuclear umbrella" works. Nevertheless, the Japanese government insists that the United States does not keep nuclear weapons here. On what basis?

I suggest a good rule for judging this would be the one the United States is using in Iraq: Don't believe it until you see it.

In 1975 the city of Kobe instituted a policy requiring all ships entering Kobe Harbor to submit a document certifying that they carried no nuclear weapons. Since then no U.S. warship has entered Kobe Harbor. Now the government of Kochi Prefecture is planning to adopt a similar policy (which, interestingly, the Foreign Ministry is trying to block).

These are positive moves. But why not go one step further? Many local government assemblies in Japan have passed non-nuclear declarations. But to my knowledge none has insisted on the right to send inspection teams into places where such weapons might be hidden. If you live in an area where there are U.S. bases (e.g. Hokkaido, Tokyo, Kanagawa or Yamaguchi) why not propose that your local government assembly establish such an inspection team? How could U.S. government leaders object? It was they who set the precedent.

Shukan ST: Jan. 22, 1999

(C) All rights reserved