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
帝国には報復の時が訪れる
他国市民の権利や威厳を軽視することは、自国の市民のそれらを軽視することにつながる。
帝国の犠牲となるのは、結局自国の市民なのだ。
Why not have empire?
For half a century after World War II, empire was taboo. As the United Nations Charter stated, the post-war world was to be based on "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" (Art. 1). The United Nations would usher in a new age, and empire would become a thing of the past.
There were still people who accused the Western powers, especially the United States,of, neo-imperialism or neo-colonialism. They (rather, we; I was one of them) argued that while these countries were not ruling the poor countries as colonies the way the 19th-century imperialists did, they were still dominating and exploiting them through economic means.
The argument would go like this. The critic of a government would say, "That's imperialism," and the defender would respond, "No, it isn't." Both would agree that imperialism was wrong, but disagree on whether the government's policies were, in fact, imperialistic.
In the past three years, this has changed. Now if you accuse the U.S. government of building an empire, the answer is, "That's right. So what?"
When empire was taboo, you didn't have to explain what was wrong with it. "Empire" was another word for "wrong." Not any more. Arundhati Roy, the Indian writer, talked about this in her Jan. 16 speech to the World Social Forum in Mumbai, India. "In the great cities of Europe and America," she said, "where a few years ago these things would only have been whispered, now people are openly talking about the good side of imperialism. Occasionally some of us are invited to 'debate' the issue on 'neutral' platforms. Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape. What can we say? That we really miss it?"
Indeed, what can we say? But it seems we have to say something. As I have pointed out in this column before, U.S. foreign policy has become openly imperialist. Its defenders no longer deny it. To cry out, "But that's empire!" no longer has any effect. You have to explain what's wrong with that.
One person who has offered an answer is Chalmers Johnson, in his books "Blowback" (2000) and "The Sorrows of Empire" (2004). What is wrong with empire is summarized in the title to the earlier work: blowback. If you try to rule foreign peoples through violence, which is what empire is, the violence will return to destroy you.
Blowback can take the form of direct violence (Johnson has described the 9/11 attacks as quintessential blowback). Or it can take indirect forms. A government's contempt for people's rights and dignity abroad eventually becomes contempt for rights and dignity at home. Law becomes corrupted, freedoms are infringed upon, lying becomes normal political discourse. Eventually the people in the imperial homeland, who perhaps imagined they would gain something from their empire, find themselves its victims.
This is not the only argument against empire, not necessarily even the best one, but it's pretty good. Its greatest flaw is that it is aimed only at the people in the imperial homeland. But of course the victims of empire don't need such an argument. For them blowback, far from being a drawback, may be the only part of empire that they like.
Shukan ST: April 9, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
- empire
- 帝国
- half a century
- 半世紀
- taboo
- タブー
- United Nations Charter
- 国連憲章
- post-war
- 戦後の
- principle
- 原則
- equal rights and self-determination of peoples
- 平等と民族自決
- Art. 1(=Article 1)
- 第一条
- usher in 〜
- 〜の到来を告げる
- accused 〜 of 〜
- 〜を〜で非難した
- powers
- 強国
- neo-imperialism
- 新帝国主義
- neo-colonialism
- 新植民地主義
- (were)ruling
- 統治していた
- (were)dominating and exploiting
- 半世紀
- means
- 手段
- critic
- 批判的な人
- defender
- 擁護する人
- So what?
- それがどうかしたかね?
- Not any more
- もはやそうではない
- Arundhati Roy
- アルンダティ・ロイ。1997年の処女作『小さきものたちの神』でブッカー賞を受賞。同書は30以上の言語に翻訳され、世界的ベストセラーになった。
- World Social Forum
- 世界社会フォーラム。新自由主義的グローバライゼーションに対し、人権中心のビジョンを民主的に議論するための場
- Occasionally
- 時々
- 'naeutral' platforms
- 「中心的な」立場
- pros and cons
- 賛否
- have pointed out
- 指摘した
- foreign policy
- 外交政策
- no longer 〜
- もはや〜しない
- Chalmers Johnson
- チャルマーズ・ジョンソン。カリフォルニア大教授を退任後、日本政策研究所を設立。"Blowback" 『アメリカ帝国への報復』(集英社刊)(blowback は「報復」の意)
- take the form of 〜
- 〜の形を取る
- quintessential
- 典型的な
- contempt
- 軽視
- dignity
- 尊厳
- becomes corrupted
- 腐敗する
- 〜 are infringed upon
- 〜が侵害される
- lying
- うそをつくこと
- political discourse
- 政治の議論
- victims
- 犠牲者
- flaw
- 欠陥
- far from being a drawback
- 欠点であるどころか