Again, from the daily press briefing by U.S. Department of State Assistant Secretary Phillip Crowley, it is clear that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did NOT call in the Japanese Ambassador Fujisaki, as much of the Japanese media reported. Fujisaki came to see Clinton instead. アメリカ国務省は多くのメディアが報道しているような「クリントンが藤崎駐米大使を異例にも呼びだした」という事実はなかったと表明している。
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133952.htm
See the conversation between Crowley and Reporter, cited in green below.
クローリー国務次官補の記者会見（下記に緑で引用）を見て欲しい。
Phillip Crowley denied the report and said Fujisaki is the one who came to see Clinton. Anybody who has any sense about things would know that somebody like Clinton, who just had a conversation directly with Hatoyama in Copenhagen, has no reason to call in a Japanese bureaucrat to discuss this issue. She has better things to do with her time. クローリーによると、藤崎大使自身がクリントンに会いに来たのだという。コペンハーゲンで鳩山首相と直接会話したばかりのクリントン氏がどうしてわざわざ日本の官僚を呼びだす理由があるのか。クリントン氏はそこまで暇ではない。
The US repeatedly has expressed their understanding for Japan's need for more time.
We should not get fooled by the media frenzy over the Futenma Air Station relocation issue and their negative campaign against Hatoyama Administration. 米国は日本がもっと時間が必要だということに対する理解を繰り返し表明している。市民は、普天間問題についてのメディアの鳩山政権に対するネガティブキャンペーンにだまされてはいけない。
Satoko Norimatsu 乗松聡子
Here is from the press conference.
QUESTION: Do you have any readout of the Secretary’s meetings yesterday with the Japanese ambassador? I had heard she called him in to talk about Futenma.
MR. CROWLEY: The – I think the Japanese ambassador came by to see both Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell, stopped by to see Secretary Clinton. During the course of the meeting, the ambassador gave us an indication that they needed more time to work through issues related to the basing agreement. We continue to believe that the current plan provides the best way forward, but we’ll continue our discussions with Japan on this issue.
QUESTION: You said that – “stopped by.” You wouldn’t describe him as being called in on a --
MR. CROWLEY: All right, let me --
QUESTION: -- day when the government was being closed and --
MR. CROWLEY: He was – I think – my – I mean, he – I don’t think he was called in. I think actually he came to see us.
Yes.
QUESTION: There were some reports in the Japanese press that the Secretary perhaps took issue with some comments that the prime minister had made in Copenhagen. He said something like she showed understanding, or basic understanding over the Futenma issue. Can you confirm?
MR. CROWLEY: I was with the Secretary in Copenhagen, and she had an encounter with the prime minister in the hallway as they were both moving to meetings. I think they also interacted during the course of a dinner there hosted by the Queen of Denmark. I don’t know, very specifically, what the nature of their discussions were. Obviously, this remains important to us and we will continue to work with the Japanese Government on these issues.
We continue to think that the realignment plan that currently exists is the best way in reducing the burden on Okinawa and – but maintaining our ability to defend Japan and to maintain security in the region. I think the message that Japan gave to us yesterday was just it’s going to take a little more time.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: One more on Japan.
MR. CROWLEY: All right. We have some – we’re – go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I ask on North Korea? Has the U.S. suggested North Korea setting the liaison office in Pyongyang or diplomatic office? Has the U.S. suggested North Korea setting a diplomatic office in Pyongyang?
MR. CROWLEY: You had a briefing last week by Steve Bosworth. I’m not aware that this issue came up.
QUESTION: And one more question on North Korea.
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: We know that U.S. has been in close consultation with South Korea and other countries to find a way to resume the Six-Party Talk. And South Korean official said today in Seoul that it’s very important to resume the Six-Party Talk before February. And if we fail to do that, the Six-Party Talk could be dead. So is – that timeframe is why you were talking with other countries to resume the talk? Is that the timeframe discussed now?
MR. CROWLEY: There have been a number of times where people declared the Six-Party process dead before. I think those claims of mortality have been premature. As Ambassador Bosworth told you last week, our message to North Korea during his recent visit to Pyongyang was very clear. We want to see North Korea return to the Six-Party process. We thought we had a constructive meeting, but we obviously await a formal indication from North Korea as to what it’s prepared to do.
QUESTION: But you haven’t gotten that indication yet from North Korea?
MR. CROWLEY: No.
QUESTION: Can I go to (inaudible)?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) How do you make sure that the commitments made by these countries – four countries plus U.S.A. are adhered to?
MR. CROWLEY: I’m glad you asked that question. I mean, one of the significant issues when the Secretary arrived on Thursday morning and worked through these issues during the day on Thursday and the President on Friday was, in fact, to make sure that there was a significant verification aspect to the accord. And we think, at the end of the day, through some very intensive dialogue by the President and the Secretary with world leaders, that what emerged from Copenhagen, in fact, have – has the kind of transparency and mechanism so that, in fact, we can have access to data with – not in an intrusive way, but just so we’ll have sufficient transparency and access to data so that everyone can fairly evaluate whether countries are living up to their agreements.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: There was a document discovered yesterday in Japan that seems to confirm a U.S. and Japanese agreement over nuclear weapons to be stationed in Japan, a secret pact. Are you aware of this document’s existence and --
MR. CROWLEY: I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) P.J., I’m sorry. (Inaudible) question on Futenma. Do you think (inaudible) makes the decision on Futenma issue for the proper timeline for the U.S.?
MR. CROWLEY: As we’ve said many times, the Japanese have told us as late as yesterday that they need some additional time to work through these issues, and we will continue our discussions with them.
QUESTION: And also, (inaudible) the U.S.-Japan relationship?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, Japan has a new government in place. We understand that transitions can be difficult. We’ve just gone through one of our own. Now, we will continue to work with Japan. And obviously, we have concerns potentially about the impact that this will have on the timeline for implementation of the existing plan, but we will continue to work very closely with Japan to help resolve the questions that it has.
Thank you.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
A Year-End Message from Yuki Tanaka (English Version)
Here is a year-end message from Yuki Tanaka, Professor of Hiroshima Peace Institute. The Japanese version is here. 広島市立大平和研究所 田中利幸先生からの年末メッセージですー２００９年の総括です。日本語版はこちらです。
2009 End of Year Message
Yuki Tanaka
On May 8 this year, a village called Granai in Farah Province of Afghanistan received heavy air-strikes by U.S. forces. The U.S. claimed that the attack was aimed at Taliban insurgents who were hiding in this village. According to a New York Times report on May 15, “The bombs were so powerful that people were ripped to shreds. Survivors said they collected only pieces of bodies. Several villagers said that they could not distinguish all of the dead and that they never found some of their relatives.” However, the victims of this aerial bombing were not Taliban fighters but civilians. The Afghan government said that 140 civilians were killed and 25 wounded, and that 12 houses were destroyed. According to the above-mentioned report, “An independent Afghan organization, Afghanistan Rights Monitor, said on Wednesday that at least 117 civilians were killed ― including 26 women and 61 children ― drawing on interviews with 21 villagers and relatives of the dead. The group criticized both the Taliban for fighting among civilians, and the United States military for using excessive force.” Amongst the more than 10,000 people at a refugee camp near Kabul there are many people who lost their relatives and friends through similar bombings conducted by the U.S. forces, many of which are now carried out using remote-controlled predator drones.
In his recent Nobel Peace Prize speech, the U.S. President, Barack Obama, said: “security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.” I agree entirely with this view.
On December 27 last year, Israeli forces stared dropping bombs on Gaza and continued their attack on civilians for the following 22 days. Many of the victims of this indiscriminate attack were also children. A recent Guardian report says: “Some children no longer look on their homes as a place of safety, security and comfort. Others don’t even have a home to go to. The Israeli bombardment damaged or destroyed more than 20,000 houses, forcing some families into tents and others into crowding in with relatives.”
In early November this year the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of the resolution endorsing the Goldstone report, an UN-sponsored report into war crimes committed during Israel’s war on Gaza. The report accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. However, most of the criticism in the Goldstone report was directed towards Israel’s conduct during the offensive, in which human rights organizations say about 1,400 Palestinians - many of them women and children - were killed. (Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed over the course of the war.) This report was endorsed by the assembly by a margin of 114 to 18.
In the above mentioned Nobel Peace Prize speech Obama also said: “we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.” Yet, his government voted against the U.N. resolution, supporting the Israeli government. Unashamedly, the Japanese government abstained.
Thanks to Obama’s efforts, the world situation concerning the popular demand for the abolition of nuclear weapons has changed considerably – for the better – over the last year or so, although the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is actually increasing. Yet, in listening to Obama’s speeches, I find the contradiction between the repetition of a rhetorical and eloquent emphasis on human rights and human dignity and the actual policies that he has so far implemented extremely ironic.
Although I sincerely hope that Obama will narrow the gap between his flowery words and damaging actions in the coming new year, it is my strong belief that it will not be the acts of politicians but our persistent grass-roots daily efforts, which certainly effect the actions of politicians, that will ultimately bring a real change to our world.
As far as the issue of abolishing nuclear weapons is concerned, there are a number of NGOs, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who are working hard to establish a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention by providing model conventions. As the world push for the abolition of nuclear weapons is now heightened, we, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel it is time to take effective action and enact an international convention. For this purpose we strongly support movements such as those of the ICAN and IALANA.
However, I believe that, as a step towards the establishment of such a convention, one of the existing international conventions should be fully utilized to quickly criminalize the use of nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium (DU) weapons. In particular, I believe that Chapters II and III of Part IV, Section I “Civilian Population” of the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977” are extremely useful for this purpose. It is crystal clear that the use of nuclear and DU weapons are a violation of Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population) and Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) of this Additional Protocol. (Please see the attached copy of the Articles 51 and 55.)
In actual fact, during the process of drafting this Protocol, countries such as Romania, Yugoslavia and North Korea strongly suggested that there should be a provision to name the specific types of weapons of mass destruction to be banned, e.g.: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, due to political pressures from nuclear powers, in particular the U.S., Britain and France, proposals to include such a provision were eventually rejected. The United States declared that ‘nuclear weapons were the subject of separate negotiations and agreements,’ and that ‘the rules established by this protocol were not intended to have any effects on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.’ Britain also issued the similar statement and made sure that their policy would not be affected by this Protocol.
It is immediately obvious, on reading the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, that the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably contravenes this Protocol. However, because of the above-mentioned destructive attitude of nuclear powers, we need to include a provision which clarifies the criminality of the use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons as well as all weapons of mass destruction. Thus I would like to propose the addition of a straightforward and simple provision to the Protocol which would make the ban of the use of nuclear weapons a positive international law. It is an extremely simple formula and would therefore not require comprehensive discussion to draft the text of regulation. It only requires the political will of the majority of the nations in the world for it to become possible. Once we succeed in criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons by introducing a simple, new provision, we can start working to draft a separate and more comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, including provisions to ban the production and testing of nuclear weapons.
It is expected that nuclear powers such as the U.S. and Russia will not agree to such a scheme and will refuse to ratify it even if it is endorsed by many other nations. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that once a ban on the use of nuclear weapons becomes a positive international law, it will also serve to regulate the conduct of non-signatory nations.
I feel that the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May next year will be a great opportunity to strengthen the rising popular call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and to make realistic proposals for criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons. To this end, together with the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolishment (HANWA) – the largest nonpartisan anti-nuclear organization in Hiroshima, which includes many A-bomb survivors among its members – I am planning to start campaigning to propose the above mentioned scheme to criminalize the use of nuclear weapons using the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
Your comments and ideas would be most appreciated.
Best wishes for a peaceful end of year and a happy 2010.
Attachments
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Art 55. Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
2009 End of Year Message
Yuki Tanaka
On May 8 this year, a village called Granai in Farah Province of Afghanistan received heavy air-strikes by U.S. forces. The U.S. claimed that the attack was aimed at Taliban insurgents who were hiding in this village. According to a New York Times report on May 15, “The bombs were so powerful that people were ripped to shreds. Survivors said they collected only pieces of bodies. Several villagers said that they could not distinguish all of the dead and that they never found some of their relatives.” However, the victims of this aerial bombing were not Taliban fighters but civilians. The Afghan government said that 140 civilians were killed and 25 wounded, and that 12 houses were destroyed. According to the above-mentioned report, “An independent Afghan organization, Afghanistan Rights Monitor, said on Wednesday that at least 117 civilians were killed ― including 26 women and 61 children ― drawing on interviews with 21 villagers and relatives of the dead. The group criticized both the Taliban for fighting among civilians, and the United States military for using excessive force.” Amongst the more than 10,000 people at a refugee camp near Kabul there are many people who lost their relatives and friends through similar bombings conducted by the U.S. forces, many of which are now carried out using remote-controlled predator drones.
In his recent Nobel Peace Prize speech, the U.S. President, Barack Obama, said: “security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.” I agree entirely with this view.
On December 27 last year, Israeli forces stared dropping bombs on Gaza and continued their attack on civilians for the following 22 days. Many of the victims of this indiscriminate attack were also children. A recent Guardian report says: “Some children no longer look on their homes as a place of safety, security and comfort. Others don’t even have a home to go to. The Israeli bombardment damaged or destroyed more than 20,000 houses, forcing some families into tents and others into crowding in with relatives.”
In early November this year the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of the resolution endorsing the Goldstone report, an UN-sponsored report into war crimes committed during Israel’s war on Gaza. The report accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. However, most of the criticism in the Goldstone report was directed towards Israel’s conduct during the offensive, in which human rights organizations say about 1,400 Palestinians - many of them women and children - were killed. (Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed over the course of the war.) This report was endorsed by the assembly by a margin of 114 to 18.
In the above mentioned Nobel Peace Prize speech Obama also said: “we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.” Yet, his government voted against the U.N. resolution, supporting the Israeli government. Unashamedly, the Japanese government abstained.
Thanks to Obama’s efforts, the world situation concerning the popular demand for the abolition of nuclear weapons has changed considerably – for the better – over the last year or so, although the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is actually increasing. Yet, in listening to Obama’s speeches, I find the contradiction between the repetition of a rhetorical and eloquent emphasis on human rights and human dignity and the actual policies that he has so far implemented extremely ironic.
Although I sincerely hope that Obama will narrow the gap between his flowery words and damaging actions in the coming new year, it is my strong belief that it will not be the acts of politicians but our persistent grass-roots daily efforts, which certainly effect the actions of politicians, that will ultimately bring a real change to our world.
As far as the issue of abolishing nuclear weapons is concerned, there are a number of NGOs, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who are working hard to establish a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention by providing model conventions. As the world push for the abolition of nuclear weapons is now heightened, we, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel it is time to take effective action and enact an international convention. For this purpose we strongly support movements such as those of the ICAN and IALANA.
However, I believe that, as a step towards the establishment of such a convention, one of the existing international conventions should be fully utilized to quickly criminalize the use of nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium (DU) weapons. In particular, I believe that Chapters II and III of Part IV, Section I “Civilian Population” of the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977” are extremely useful for this purpose. It is crystal clear that the use of nuclear and DU weapons are a violation of Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population) and Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) of this Additional Protocol. (Please see the attached copy of the Articles 51 and 55.)
In actual fact, during the process of drafting this Protocol, countries such as Romania, Yugoslavia and North Korea strongly suggested that there should be a provision to name the specific types of weapons of mass destruction to be banned, e.g.: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, due to political pressures from nuclear powers, in particular the U.S., Britain and France, proposals to include such a provision were eventually rejected. The United States declared that ‘nuclear weapons were the subject of separate negotiations and agreements,’ and that ‘the rules established by this protocol were not intended to have any effects on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.’ Britain also issued the similar statement and made sure that their policy would not be affected by this Protocol.
It is immediately obvious, on reading the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, that the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably contravenes this Protocol. However, because of the above-mentioned destructive attitude of nuclear powers, we need to include a provision which clarifies the criminality of the use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons as well as all weapons of mass destruction. Thus I would like to propose the addition of a straightforward and simple provision to the Protocol which would make the ban of the use of nuclear weapons a positive international law. It is an extremely simple formula and would therefore not require comprehensive discussion to draft the text of regulation. It only requires the political will of the majority of the nations in the world for it to become possible. Once we succeed in criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons by introducing a simple, new provision, we can start working to draft a separate and more comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, including provisions to ban the production and testing of nuclear weapons.
It is expected that nuclear powers such as the U.S. and Russia will not agree to such a scheme and will refuse to ratify it even if it is endorsed by many other nations. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that once a ban on the use of nuclear weapons becomes a positive international law, it will also serve to regulate the conduct of non-signatory nations.
I feel that the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May next year will be a great opportunity to strengthen the rising popular call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and to make realistic proposals for criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons. To this end, together with the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolishment (HANWA) – the largest nonpartisan anti-nuclear organization in Hiroshima, which includes many A-bomb survivors among its members – I am planning to start campaigning to propose the above mentioned scheme to criminalize the use of nuclear weapons using the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
Your comments and ideas would be most appreciated.
Best wishes for a peaceful end of year and a happy 2010.
Attachments
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Art 55. Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
Appeal to Hatoyama Government to Close Futenma Immediately and Cancel Henoko Plan 鳩山連立政権に、普天間基地の即時閉鎖・撤去と辺野古移設断念を要求しよう！
【緊急アピール】（転載・転送を歓迎します）
鳩山連立政権に、普天間基地の即時閉鎖・撤去と辺野古移設断念を要求しよう！
２００９年１２月２２日
◆呼びかけ人
平良 修（沖縄・沖縄市、沖縄平和市民連絡会）
安里英子（沖縄・島尻郡佐敷町、沖縄大学・珊瑚舎スコーレ非常勤講師）
浦島悦子（沖縄・名護市、ヘリ基地いらない二見以北十区の会）
まついゆうこ（沖縄・南風原町、沖縄靖国合祀取消し訴訟団）
鈴木雅子（沖縄・名護市、北限のジュゴンを見守る会）
木村 朗（鹿児島大学教員）
舟越耿一（長崎県長崎市、市民運動ネットワーク長崎）
梶原得三郎（大分県中津市、草の根の会）
渡辺ひろ子（福岡県築上郡築城町、平和といのちをみつめる会）
廣崎リュウ（山口県下関市、下関のことばと行動をつなぐ『海』編集委員）
奥田恭子（愛媛県松山市、心に刻む集会・四国）
山本みはぎ（愛知県名古屋市、不戦へのネットワーク）
近藤ゆり子（岐阜県大垣市）
細井明美（神奈川県横浜市、ピースアクティビスト）
小牧みどり（神奈川県相模原市、ブログ：ブーゲンビリアのきちきち日記）
田鎖麻衣子（東京都新宿区、弁護士）
近藤豊子（東京都練馬区、『週刊金曜日』練馬読者会）
加藤賀津子（東京都葛飾区、基地はいらない！女たちの全国ネット）
井上澄夫（埼玉県新座市、沖縄・一坪反戦地主会関東ブロック）
加賀谷いそみ（秋田県男鹿市、男鹿の自然に学ぶ会）
七尾寿子（北海道・札幌市）
〔順不同〕
鳩山連立政権は２００９年１２月１５日、基本政策閣僚委員会で以下の方針を決めました。
普天間基地移設先については結論を来年に先送りし、結論の期限は今後与党３党で調整する。／そのために３党で実務者協議機関を設置する。／移設先は辺野古案を含め、新たな候補地を検討する。／来年（２０１０年）度予算にアセスメント継続を含む移設関連経費を計上する。
この「政府の方針」は、依然、辺野古案を選択肢に含んでいます。方針中の来年（２０１０年）度予算に計上される移設関連経費については、１２月１７日の普天間関係閣僚協議で、防衛省予算ではなく、財務省の予備費（いわゆる「総理枠」）として計上されることになりましたが、移設関連経費であることに変わりはありません。「政府の方針」を一口に言えば、「あくまで辺野古への移設計画を放棄せず、他の移設先も検討する」ということです。
この「政府の方針」について、マスメディイアの多くが「移設先決定の先送り」を批判していますが、問題の核心は「いつ決定するか」ではなく、政府が「辺野古移設を断念するか、しないか」ではないでしょうか。
１２月１５日、鳩山首相はこう語りました。「沖縄県民の思いも理解する中で、名護市辺野古ではない地域を模索し、できれば決めるという状況を何としてもつくり上げたい」。そしてその翌日、首相は「従来通り（沖縄県名護市への移設に）決めることはやさしいが、かえって沖縄の反発が高まる」と発言しました。
しかし鳩山首相のそれらの発言は、日本国憲法の前文と９条を顧みない姿勢に基づいていると言わざるを得ません。日本に米軍基地が存在すること自体がそもそも憲法に違反しています。普天間飛行場（基地）は米海兵隊の出撃拠点です。イラク侵略戦争では同基地から５０００人の実戦部隊がイラクに送られ、その一部は「ファルージャの虐殺」に加わりました。侵略の拠点はまた、周辺住民を騒音を含む基地被害で脅（おびや）かしています。鳩山首相はそのおぞましい事実を凝視することから「普天間問題」を考えるべきです。
あってはならない侵略の拠点は、どこにもあってはなりません。移設はまったく問題の解決にならないどころか、基地被害を広げるばかりです。普天間基地が周辺住民にもたらしている危険は、同基地の移設ではなく、即時閉鎖・返還（撤去）によって除去されるべきです。
鳩山連立政権に以下の３項目を強く要求する運動を始めます。要求の対象は、鳩山首相、岡田外相、北沢防衛相、前原沖縄担当相、福島消費者・少子化相（社民党代表）、亀井金融・郵政改革相（国民新党代表）です。
上記の閣僚に送る文章は次のものです。
【市民の共同の要求】
鳩山連立内閣は２００９年１２月１５日、普天間基地移設問題について「政府の方針」を決めました。「方針」は新たな移設候補地を検討するとしていますが、移設先には依然として名護市辺野古案（キャンプ・シュワブ沿岸域案）が含まれています。沖縄の人びとが一致して「県内移設反対」をはっきり表明しているにもかかわらず、現内閣がこのような「方針」を打ち出したことに、私たちは深い憤りを禁じ得ません。
私たちは「世界一危険な」普天間基地を「移設」することは何の問題の解決にもならず、かえって基地被害を広げるだけであると思います。米海兵隊の出撃拠点である普天間基地は「移設」されるのではなく、ただちに閉鎖され撤去されるべきです。普天間基地の即時閉鎖・撤去によってこそ、沖縄の人びとが切望する「基地のない平和な島」を実現する第一歩が踏み出されるのです。そのような思いから私たちは、以下の３項目を鳩山連立内閣に強く要求します。
１ 鳩山首相が、米国政府に普天間基地の即時閉鎖と撤去を毅然として要求すること
２ 沖縄の思いに応え、日本政府として辺野古移設を断念すること
３ ２０１０年度予算に普天間移設関連経費を計上せず、辺野古での環境影響評価（アセスメント）関連調査を一切中止すること
みなさん、この共同の要求にどうかご賛同下さい。賛同の要領は以下のとおりです。
◆賛同は個人・団体（グループ）を問いません。
○ 賛同者になっていただける場合は、大まかな在住の地（たとえば、大分県中津市、和歌山県東牟婁郡太地町）をお知らせ下さい。
○団体（グループ）賛同の場合は所在地（たとえば、愛知県名古屋市）をお知らせ下さい。ただし名称に地名がついているときはその限りではありません。
● 賛同表明の連絡先は次の通りです。
henoko.no-hutenma.out@mbn.nifty.com
※ お名前・おおまかな住所、団体（グループ）名・所在地に加えて、必ず「声明に賛同します」とご明記下さい。なお上記メールアドレスはご賛同の連絡専用です。
◆賛同の締めきりと連絡先
▼ ２０１０年１月末の臨時国会召集まで続けます。
【ご協力のお願い】この共同声明にご賛同のみなさんにお願いします。このメールをみな さんのご友人やお知り合いの方々にご転送下さい。またご関係のメーリングリストやそれぞれのブログ、ホームページでご紹介下さい。どうか、よろしくお願いします。
◆〔個人情報の保護について〕 賛同者の氏名や賛同団体名をインターネット上で公表することはありません。ただし賛同件数については、声明提出後、賛同者と賛同団体のみなさんに運動の経過とともに報告します。また賛同件数はインターネット上で公表します。
◆ご賛同の集約と鳩山連立政権の閣僚への送付等実務を担当するのは以下の４人です。
井上澄夫（埼玉県新座市、沖縄・一坪反戦地主会関東ブロック）
加賀谷いそみ（秋田県男鹿市、男鹿の自然に学ぶ会）
奥田恭子（愛媛県松山市、心に刻む集会・四国）
廣崎リュウ（山口県下関市、下関のことばと行動をつなぐ『海』編集委員）
鳩山連立政権に、普天間基地の即時閉鎖・撤去と辺野古移設断念を要求しよう！
２００９年１２月２２日
◆呼びかけ人
平良 修（沖縄・沖縄市、沖縄平和市民連絡会）
安里英子（沖縄・島尻郡佐敷町、沖縄大学・珊瑚舎スコーレ非常勤講師）
浦島悦子（沖縄・名護市、ヘリ基地いらない二見以北十区の会）
まついゆうこ（沖縄・南風原町、沖縄靖国合祀取消し訴訟団）
鈴木雅子（沖縄・名護市、北限のジュゴンを見守る会）
木村 朗（鹿児島大学教員）
舟越耿一（長崎県長崎市、市民運動ネットワーク長崎）
梶原得三郎（大分県中津市、草の根の会）
渡辺ひろ子（福岡県築上郡築城町、平和といのちをみつめる会）
廣崎リュウ（山口県下関市、下関のことばと行動をつなぐ『海』編集委員）
奥田恭子（愛媛県松山市、心に刻む集会・四国）
山本みはぎ（愛知県名古屋市、不戦へのネットワーク）
近藤ゆり子（岐阜県大垣市）
細井明美（神奈川県横浜市、ピースアクティビスト）
小牧みどり（神奈川県相模原市、ブログ：ブーゲンビリアのきちきち日記）
田鎖麻衣子（東京都新宿区、弁護士）
近藤豊子（東京都練馬区、『週刊金曜日』練馬読者会）
加藤賀津子（東京都葛飾区、基地はいらない！女たちの全国ネット）
井上澄夫（埼玉県新座市、沖縄・一坪反戦地主会関東ブロック）
加賀谷いそみ（秋田県男鹿市、男鹿の自然に学ぶ会）
七尾寿子（北海道・札幌市）
〔順不同〕
鳩山連立政権は２００９年１２月１５日、基本政策閣僚委員会で以下の方針を決めました。
普天間基地移設先については結論を来年に先送りし、結論の期限は今後与党３党で調整する。／そのために３党で実務者協議機関を設置する。／移設先は辺野古案を含め、新たな候補地を検討する。／来年（２０１０年）度予算にアセスメント継続を含む移設関連経費を計上する。
この「政府の方針」は、依然、辺野古案を選択肢に含んでいます。方針中の来年（２０１０年）度予算に計上される移設関連経費については、１２月１７日の普天間関係閣僚協議で、防衛省予算ではなく、財務省の予備費（いわゆる「総理枠」）として計上されることになりましたが、移設関連経費であることに変わりはありません。「政府の方針」を一口に言えば、「あくまで辺野古への移設計画を放棄せず、他の移設先も検討する」ということです。
この「政府の方針」について、マスメディイアの多くが「移設先決定の先送り」を批判していますが、問題の核心は「いつ決定するか」ではなく、政府が「辺野古移設を断念するか、しないか」ではないでしょうか。
１２月１５日、鳩山首相はこう語りました。「沖縄県民の思いも理解する中で、名護市辺野古ではない地域を模索し、できれば決めるという状況を何としてもつくり上げたい」。そしてその翌日、首相は「従来通り（沖縄県名護市への移設に）決めることはやさしいが、かえって沖縄の反発が高まる」と発言しました。
しかし鳩山首相のそれらの発言は、日本国憲法の前文と９条を顧みない姿勢に基づいていると言わざるを得ません。日本に米軍基地が存在すること自体がそもそも憲法に違反しています。普天間飛行場（基地）は米海兵隊の出撃拠点です。イラク侵略戦争では同基地から５０００人の実戦部隊がイラクに送られ、その一部は「ファルージャの虐殺」に加わりました。侵略の拠点はまた、周辺住民を騒音を含む基地被害で脅（おびや）かしています。鳩山首相はそのおぞましい事実を凝視することから「普天間問題」を考えるべきです。
あってはならない侵略の拠点は、どこにもあってはなりません。移設はまったく問題の解決にならないどころか、基地被害を広げるばかりです。普天間基地が周辺住民にもたらしている危険は、同基地の移設ではなく、即時閉鎖・返還（撤去）によって除去されるべきです。
鳩山連立政権に以下の３項目を強く要求する運動を始めます。要求の対象は、鳩山首相、岡田外相、北沢防衛相、前原沖縄担当相、福島消費者・少子化相（社民党代表）、亀井金融・郵政改革相（国民新党代表）です。
上記の閣僚に送る文章は次のものです。
【市民の共同の要求】
鳩山連立内閣は２００９年１２月１５日、普天間基地移設問題について「政府の方針」を決めました。「方針」は新たな移設候補地を検討するとしていますが、移設先には依然として名護市辺野古案（キャンプ・シュワブ沿岸域案）が含まれています。沖縄の人びとが一致して「県内移設反対」をはっきり表明しているにもかかわらず、現内閣がこのような「方針」を打ち出したことに、私たちは深い憤りを禁じ得ません。
私たちは「世界一危険な」普天間基地を「移設」することは何の問題の解決にもならず、かえって基地被害を広げるだけであると思います。米海兵隊の出撃拠点である普天間基地は「移設」されるのではなく、ただちに閉鎖され撤去されるべきです。普天間基地の即時閉鎖・撤去によってこそ、沖縄の人びとが切望する「基地のない平和な島」を実現する第一歩が踏み出されるのです。そのような思いから私たちは、以下の３項目を鳩山連立内閣に強く要求します。
１ 鳩山首相が、米国政府に普天間基地の即時閉鎖と撤去を毅然として要求すること
２ 沖縄の思いに応え、日本政府として辺野古移設を断念すること
３ ２０１０年度予算に普天間移設関連経費を計上せず、辺野古での環境影響評価（アセスメント）関連調査を一切中止すること
みなさん、この共同の要求にどうかご賛同下さい。賛同の要領は以下のとおりです。
◆賛同は個人・団体（グループ）を問いません。
○ 賛同者になっていただける場合は、大まかな在住の地（たとえば、大分県中津市、和歌山県東牟婁郡太地町）をお知らせ下さい。
○団体（グループ）賛同の場合は所在地（たとえば、愛知県名古屋市）をお知らせ下さい。ただし名称に地名がついているときはその限りではありません。
● 賛同表明の連絡先は次の通りです。
henoko.no-hutenma.out@mbn.nifty.com
※ お名前・おおまかな住所、団体（グループ）名・所在地に加えて、必ず「声明に賛同します」とご明記下さい。なお上記メールアドレスはご賛同の連絡専用です。
◆賛同の締めきりと連絡先
▼ ２０１０年１月末の臨時国会召集まで続けます。
【ご協力のお願い】この共同声明にご賛同のみなさんにお願いします。このメールをみな さんのご友人やお知り合いの方々にご転送下さい。またご関係のメーリングリストやそれぞれのブログ、ホームページでご紹介下さい。どうか、よろしくお願いします。
◆〔個人情報の保護について〕 賛同者の氏名や賛同団体名をインターネット上で公表することはありません。ただし賛同件数については、声明提出後、賛同者と賛同団体のみなさんに運動の経過とともに報告します。また賛同件数はインターネット上で公表します。
◆ご賛同の集約と鳩山連立政権の閣僚への送付等実務を担当するのは以下の４人です。
井上澄夫（埼玉県新座市、沖縄・一坪反戦地主会関東ブロック）
加賀谷いそみ（秋田県男鹿市、男鹿の自然に学ぶ会）
奥田恭子（愛媛県松山市、心に刻む集会・四国）
廣崎リュウ（山口県下関市、下関のことばと行動をつなぐ『海』編集委員）
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Numerous Recounts of Military Sex Slavery Discovered
According to a Kyodo News Agency report on December 20, 2009, The Center for Research and Documentation on Japan's War Responsibility (JWRC) discovered that about 260 documents published between 1990 and 2006, including personal notes written by those who experienced war, had concrete descriptions of "comfort stations" installed throughout different parts of Asia, "comfort women," and other sexual violence in the battlefields. Among those are reports of kenpeitai, or military police officers examining "comfort women" and drawings of "comfort stations."
JWRC went through about 2,000 documents, including battlefield diaries and personal memoirs, stored in the National Diet Library, from March to June this year. These documents were published during 1990's and after, when the former "comfort women" started to call for apologies and compensation from the Japanese government. Chuo University Professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi, who examined those documents points out that there are many specific details reported in these documents, including the deep military involvement with the sex slavery system.
Most of the documents with reference to the "comfort women" are personal memoirs, instead of public documents. Yoshimi suspects there was pressure within veterans' associations for not
speaking out about the issue. The result of this research will be published in the December 2009 and March 2010 issues of "The Report on Japan's War Responsibility," the quarterly journal by JWRC.
JWRC went through about 2,000 documents, including battlefield diaries and personal memoirs, stored in the National Diet Library, from March to June this year. These documents were published during 1990's and after, when the former "comfort women" started to call for apologies and compensation from the Japanese government. Chuo University Professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi, who examined those documents points out that there are many specific details reported in these documents, including the deep military involvement with the sex slavery system.
Most of the documents with reference to the "comfort women" are personal memoirs, instead of public documents. Yoshimi suspects there was pressure within veterans' associations for not
speaking out about the issue. The result of this research will be published in the December 2009 and March 2010 issues of "The Report on Japan's War Responsibility," the quarterly journal by JWRC.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Nippon TV Interview with Ginowan Mayor Yoichi Iha 宜野湾市長伊波洋一 インタビュー（日テレ News 24）
This is transcription (by Peace Philosophy Centre) of Nippon TV's interview with Yoichi Iha, Mayor of Ginowan City which hosts Futenma Air Station. The interview was aired on December 11, 2009. An English translation will be coming up soon. In the mean time, please see Tanaka Sakai's analysis on this which was just uploaded on Japan Focus.
Nippon TV (Nittere) News 24 link to the interview:
http://www.news24.jp/articles/2009/12/11/04149543.html
日テレの「News 24」に普天間飛行場をかかえる宜野湾市の伊波市長が出演したときのインタビュー（１２月１１日）の内容をピース・フィロソフィー・センターのスタッフがテープ起こししたものです。
伊波 宜野湾市長のインタビュー
小西美穂：こんばんは、司会の小西美穂です。。。今日のキーマンは沖縄県の宜野湾市伊波洋一市長です。市長よろしくお願いします。
伊波洋一：よろしくお願いします。
小西：今ちょうど沖縄、普天間基地移転問題に年内決着も持ち越しの見通しになり、揺れてるわけなんですけども、伊波市長は普天間基地を抱える宜野湾市の市長であるということで、普天間から移設しようと、いわゆる世界一危険な基地だということで、そこから移設しようということで市民のいろんな声を聞いてらっしゃると思うのですけど、市長の立場からすると移設してどっかへ出て行ってもらうことで、まぁ良しとされてるんだと思っていたら、どうも市長はこれ全部を変えても、全部含めてグアムに全面移転するということをおっしゃっているという風に伺っておりました。昨日から上京されているということで、今回はどういう方々と会ってどういう話をされたんですか？
伊波：防衛省長島政務官、それから外務省と内閣府、それぞれ副大臣にお会いして、要請をしてまいりました。普天間の問題は本当に政権の課題になってますが、課題になっている普天間の問題、辺野古に移すとか移さないとかいう話になってるんですけれども、実はアメリカ自身が沖縄の海兵隊をグアムに移す計画を着々と取り組んでいまして、その計画に日本政府も60億ドルのお金を出しているのにも関わらず、その中身が一向に国民にも、国会にも、沖縄県民にも説明が無いんですよ。しかし、米国の中で環境影響評価書とかそういうのがきちんと出ておりますので、そのことをちゃんと伝えて欲しい。そしてそのことの上で、辺野古の問題ですとか、沖縄県内の基地の問題ですとか、もう一度整理しなおして下さい、と。そもそも、沖縄の海兵隊が殆どグアムに行くのに、普天間自体もグアムに行くのに、なんで辺野古が必要なんですか？と。
小西：そういうことをおっしゃっているんですね。そこで伊波市長に対する第1の質問です。グアムへの全面移転は本当に可能なんですか？ということなんですが、これは、北沢防衛大臣が、グアムに視察にいかれてましたよね。それで耳にしたのが、全面移転なんて無理ですよと早々におっしゃっているんですけれども、これは伊波市長がおっしゃっていることと違いますね。このあたりいかがですか？
伊波：ロードマップの合意では、普天間飛行場の機能を辺野古の方に移すということになってます。飛行場を移すという話になってるんですけれども、普天間の部隊を移すという話にはなっていない。ところが、このロードマップというのは２００６年の6月の合意ですけど、丁度その半年前2005年の10月までは、普天間の部隊も辺野古に移すという話だったんです。ところが、翌年５月には、実はアメリカ政府は、国防総省は、沖縄の海兵隊全体をグアムに移転する方針に変えたんですね。
小西：人がいなくなる？
伊波：殆どいなくなります。8000の海兵隊をグアムに移すことは聞いてますね。9000名の家族もグアムに移すという話も聞いてますね？沖縄に海兵隊の家族は9000名もいないんです。今8000名もいないと言われています。
小西：それは適当に言ってるんですか？どういうことなんですか？
伊波：9000名分の家族の住宅を日本政府に作らせるということが合意されているんです。
小西：じゃあ沢山来るということですか？
伊波：いや、グアムに。グアムには沖縄の8000名だけではなくて、その他からも入って、実際は１万６百名の兵隊が行くことになってるんです。
小西：北沢防衛大臣がおっしゃってることって言うのは、間違ってるんですか？
伊波：北沢さんが言ってるのは、普天間飛行場の代わりをグアムに作る話というのは、日米合意とかけ離れている、と。日米合意では普天間の代わりは辺野古に作りましょう、という風になってたんですよ。部隊の話じゃないんですよ。飛行場の話。確かに飛行場の話でいうなら、辺野古に作る話とグアムに作る話ではずいぶんかけ離れてますので、グアムにも飛行場があるんですよ、二つ、だからこれ以上は作れないはずだから、それは無いでしょう。しかし、一番最初の辺野古に基地を作る原因は普天間の部隊を移すために飛行場が必要だったんです。
小西：良く考えますと、北沢さんがなぜこの時期にグアムに視察に行ってるかなんですけれども、今おっしゃってるような８０００とか９０００って言うのは、現地行かなくても分かるじゃないですか？北沢さんが見たかったのって言うのは本当にこれで全面移転が本当に出来るのか、それを確かめに行かれたのではないですか？
伊波：もっと違う理由で行ってると思います。何かっていいますとね、今までの話では、司令部（海兵隊の司令部の心臓分）だけがグアムに移るという話になってます。実戦部隊は移らないというのがこれまでの政府の説明なんです。そのことで、殆ど議論がされてますが、実はこれは2005年の10月までの議論なんですね。2005年の10月に合意したときには第3海兵機動展開部隊の司令部はグアムあるいはハワイを想定してますけど、そこに移って行くという風に合意されてるんですけど、残りの部隊について、グアムに移る話は全く無いんです。だけど2006年の5月になると、アメリカ軍自身がグアムへの拠点作りというのに舵を切ったんです。それで、沖縄の海兵隊8000名が、部隊を一体化してグアムに移るということを決定してるんですよ。そしてその計画が2006年の7月に出来上がっています。私たちはそれを読んでおりますけども、そのグアム軍事開発統合計画という統合計画の環境影響評価が3年間行われて、こないだ11月20日に公表されたのがそれです。
小西：その資料も用意させてもらってます。ちょっと突っ込んで聞きたいのが、伊波市長から見て、この北沢さんの動きや今回こういう発言をしたということは、どう受け止めてらっしゃいますか？
伊波：この発言とは別にですね、どちらかの紙面で書かれてましたけれども、沖縄の海兵隊は戦術的な配備ということが分かったと、つまりどういう事かといいますと、今まで沖縄の海兵隊と言うのは、沖縄にいるけども全部に派遣するための拠点だったんですよ。実はこの拠点がグアムに移るんですね、じゃ沖縄に少し残るかもしれないけども、それは何のためかと言うと、沖縄のためだけに残るという意味だと思います。沖縄に行くために部隊が配置されるんですけど、今までの沖縄の部隊は沖縄からイラクに行ったりあるいは彼方此方行ったりしてますね。全体の中枢だったんですよ、沖縄が、これまで。今も。2014年以降はその機能が全部グアムに移って行くんです。
小西：そこで北沢さんの考えというのは？
伊波：どうなってるか分かりませんけど、少なくとも二つ以上の事は見てると思います。
小西：北沢さんは伊波さんがこういうことを言っているということを考慮した上でこういう発言を今日されてましたよね？全面移転の可能性を探っている様なことを耳にするけども、ちょっと無理かなという展開でしたよね？
伊波：一番大事なのはですね、いろんな報道等でも議論されてる時に、皆の頭の中には2005年の10月までの考え方、つまり司令部だけがグアムに行って、沖縄には海兵隊隊が残っていると思ってるんです。しかし、それは間違えなんです。でもその間違えは、北沢防衛大臣グアムに行って、しっかり受け止めて来たと思います。そういう説明はきちんとするはずですから、グアムのそういう関連の部署ではね。だから沖縄の位置が今までとは違うと言う事を説明されたのは確かではないかなと思います、まあ聞いてみないと分かりませんけどね。
小西： でも今日のところの発言ではそのあたり出てなかったですね。
伊波：いや、一つだけ出てたんです。だから戦術的配備だということが分かった、つまり戦略的配備というのと戦術的配備ということと、まあ事が難しい話なんですけれども、多分こんな言い方すると分かります。今沖縄には海兵隊が何人いるかご存知ですか？
小西：どのくらいでしょうか？
伊波：定数が1万8千人と言われてますが、１万１千ぐらいです、居るのは。で、その内から8千人居なくなります、グアムに。多くても3千人しか残らない、だけど、日本政府は1万人残っていると言ってるんです。
小西：岡田さんがおっしゃっているように？
伊波：そうですね。多分埋まらないと思います、その3000人以上は、そんなに多くはね、グアムに拠点作るのに、グアムでも1万人しか海兵隊いないのに、沖縄に1万人いる話は成り立たないと思います。
小西：どうも伊波さんの話聞いてると、今、岡田さんとか北沢さんが説明している事と、伊波さんがおっしゃっていることは、本当に溝が埋まらない、どっちの情報が本当なんだろうか、もっといろんなこと教えて欲しい気持ちになるんですけども、伊波市長から見て今の日本側の対応はどう写ってますか？
伊波：結局一番何が問題なのかというと、このグアムの移転計画について、詳細を米側が日本に伝えてないんです。伝えてないからロードマップのあとの説明が出来てない。２００６年5月以降の今の状況が無いんですね。（書類を取り出す：今までの流れを表しているタイムラインを指す）2006年5月から状況が変わってるんです。グアムの軍事統合計画というのが策定されて、そして私達は、沖縄の中部の市町村長とグアムの調査を2007年に行ったんですよ。そのとき、向こうでは沖縄の海兵隊が来るということ、普天間のヘリの部隊などが来るということと、その場所もちゃんと説明を受けてるんです。次に2008年の9月15日には海軍長官が米国の連邦議会、下院議会に、報告書を出してるんです。ここに部隊の詳細がでています。沖縄の部隊が、これこれが、グアムに行きますよと。それからですね、次は、今年（2009年）の6月ですけど、海兵隊総司令官が連邦上院の軍事委員会に報告書を出してるんですよ。これもちゃんと沖縄から8000名の部隊がグアムに行くけれども、これは何を理由にしてるかと言うと、沖縄の基地との問題ですね、沖縄の基地が住民地域ととても密接に近ずいているので、この問題を解決するためにグアムに行きますと、ちゃんと書いてあるんですよ。この流れがですね（2006年5月から2009年11月の間の流れ）完全に国内で説明されていない。国会の中でも説明されていないし、政府もこのことに対して一つも説明をしてないんです。
小西：その説明無しに今辺野古への移設なのかどうかといって進んでいることがおかしいんじゃないか？とおっしゃっているわけですね？そこでですね、第2問に参ります。どうして基地の移設問題は進まないのでしょうか？なんでこう進まないのかと言うところに、誰かが嫌なんじゃないかと、日本政府が嫌なのか？アメリカが嫌なのか？移設するのが。沖縄県民がいやなのか？それはどこにあると考えたらいいんですか？
伊波：それは沖縄県民がこの県内に移設させることに対して強い反対があるんです。戦後64年もたって、これは13年前の話なんですけども、当時1996年に合意されましたので、そのときも撤去可能な移設建設がありまして、それも拒否されたんですけれども、沖縄県民にとってはやはり新しい基地をもうこれ以上作るということに対して、とても抵抗感があります。よく言われるんですけれども、わずか０．６％の面積の沖縄県に全国の７５％の米軍基地が集中している。その集中している米軍基地の解決のためには一つ基地を無くすために、もう一つ基地を作らなくてはいけない。こういう事はですね、もう納得のいく話ではないわけです。そのことが一番大きな抵抗になってるんです。だから県内移設が進まないのは沖縄県民の反対が強いからなんです。
小西：日本政府がここまでずっと長らく引っ張ってきたという背景には県民の感情だけではないんじゃないですか？何か、それこそ利権だとか、誰かがうまみを持っているのでは、伊波さん指摘されてましたよね？
伊波：それは、よくありますよね、報道とかですね。私たちは、そのことの側面からの議論をしている訳ではありませんけども、ただ、これまで長い間、日米安保条約の元で基地が必要とされているというのが、政府の立場でしたから、その時に置ける場所は沖縄しか無いと最初から決めてかかってるんですよ。つまり辺野古が選ばれたのも、よく言われてましたけども、前政権の下でですね、辺野古しか置き場所が無いから辺野古にするんだと、じゃほかのどこにどこに持って行けるんだって事を公然としていたんですね。だからそういう意味では沖縄の気持ちはですね私は踏みにじまれ続けられていたんではないかと思います。
小西：先ほどちょっと途中だったので改めてこちらをお見せしたい（資料を取り出す）
「Environmental Impact Statement 7
Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
Relocating Marines from Okinawa,
Visiting Aircraft Carrier Berthing, and
Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force
Executive Summary
November 2009」
これが、伊波さんがなぜグアムへの全面移転が可能なのかの論拠とされている主な資料の一つですけれども（取り合えず日本語英語でタイトルを読み上げる）、、、月日を見てみると、2009年11月なんですね。環境影響評価と書かれていますが、結局海兵隊が移転するときに移転先の地域とか、住民とか、自然とか、あらゆる環境をどういうふうに影響するのかを調べた書類ですよね？これはもともとは8000ページありますよね、そしてこれは宜野湾市のホームページでも見られるほどオープンになっている資料ということで。これで市長が重要視されている部分ちょっと一つ（フリップを取り出す）あるんですが、これ説明してもらえますか？
資料：１．４－３表 移転候補地分析の概要
候補地 判断基準(Criteria)
■同盟及び条約上の要件 ■対処（配備）時間 ■活動の自由
沖縄（現在） ＋ －
ハワイ － － ＋
西海岸（アラスカ等） － － ＋
マリアナ（グアム） ＋ ＋ ＋
フィリピン － ＋ －
タイ － ＋ －
オーストラリア － ＋ －
シンガポール － ＋ －
韓国 － ＋ －
伊波：そもそもなぜ沖縄の海兵隊を移すことになったのかと言いますと、2002年に始まったアメリカの地球規模の基地の見直しがあるんです。沖縄の海兵隊、それは何処に移すべきか、という議論になりまして。（資料の候補地を指す）この中で唯一三ツ星だったのがグアムなんですね。
小西：プラス、プラス、プラスの評価をもらっているのが、実はグアムだったんですね。星三つとおっしゃってますけれども。
伊波：沖縄ですら一つしか無いんですよ。
小西：沖縄見てみますと、いろんな用件書いてますけれども、プラスは一個。ここで要は伊波さんは星3個のグアムの方がいいじゃないかと、言ってるんですね？
伊波：いや、私が言ってるんじゃなくて、アメリカがこの評価をしたんですね。アメリカが決めて、その合意に乗っ取ったのロードマップなんですよ、だから、日本政府も、日本政府の方がこのことを説明されたか分からないですけども、アメリカにとっては、このグアムに移転するということは、米国の戦略上の選択なんですね。普天間問題解決のためではないんです。ですから、多分大方の海兵隊をこれからグアムに移していくという作業が来年当たりから始まるわけです。
小西：でもね、本当にそもそも、こういう物（資料を片手に）全部公表されているんですから、伊波さんだけに分析されてるわけじゃないじゃないですか、外務省も防衛賞の偉い人が皆見てるのにどうして伊波さんと同じお考えとか主張をされないんですか？
伊波：見ないんですよ、外務省は。本当です。ここが日本の国のおかしなところで、見てないんですよ。
小西：いや、外務省の方に見ていただかないと。。。
伊波：ここに、一番の問題があるんです。日本の60.9億ドル使うって言っているんですよ、だけどもそれで何が行われているのかといことに付いて十分な知識が無いわけです。
小西：例えばですね、これ知ってるけれども、もう外交上後戻りできないから、これはスルーと言うか、このままにしておこうと言う様な作為があったのでは？
伊波：そうではないんです。私も先週、岡田大臣と話したんですけれども、伊波市長が言ってることは聞いてない、と言うんですよ、アメリカの首脳との会議では。私の言ってることがね、無効のアセス（Environmental Impact Statement）に対して言ってることは聞いてないというんですよ。
小西：つまり岡田さんは、伊波さんに指摘されて始めて気づいたんですか？
伊波：気づいたというよりも、それでも、それは違うと言われたんです。多分違うんだろうと。それで、伊波市長からも指摘されてるんで、実際のグアムへの8000名の移転が本当にどれが実働なのか検証する必要があるといってました。岡田さんが理解してるのは１万８千人定数増やすことなんですよ、今7千人しかいないんですけど、でも1万人いるんだという思い込みがあるんですね。アメリカからそういう説明を受けてるんですよ。沖縄にも1万人の部隊を置くんだということを言ってるから、要するにこういう計画、実戦部隊が行くということは考えていない、と言うんですよ。
小西：どうしてそういう事がおきるんですか？正確な情報が伝わっていないということは、基本的なことがなってない。
伊波：これは3年間続いてますよ、、その間、2006年の7月に計画が作られまして、2006年9月に太平洋軍司令部のホームページにアップされたんですよ、計画が。私たちはそれを入手して、翻訳もして、この通りだということを含めて、説明したんです。（書類を取り出す「グアム統合軍事開発計画」）例えばこれがグアムの実際のその時（2006年9月）に出された計画書です。次は（次の資料を取り出す）飛行場の話ですね。グアムのアンダーセン空軍基地の（詳しい話、部隊配置、地図を指す）この部分（地図を指す）は日本政府が出してるんですよ。そういう計画が現実に3年前から動いているんですね。そして今までアセスが行われて、そして環境影響評価ですね。そしてこれがグアムの住民の皆さんに公開されて、いろんな意見聞いて、その上でいろんな意見の上で修正するべき事を修正して、許可すればいよいよ実施になります。これは予定では、（2010年）7月30日までには一応許可される予定です。
小西：結局評価するという段階にきているということは、実際の計画を評価してるわけで、こうなるかも知れないと言う所から、これをやりますよと、普天間の海兵隊のヘリ部隊も新しい基地を作って受け入れますよなんていうことが、この実際の計画を書いている（計画書を指す）ものなんですから、非常に重要だし、これで論じないといけないと言う事じゃないんですか？
伊波：そうですね。今年の予算としては日本は３００億円出してますよ、これに対して（計画書を指差す）、建設費に。アメリカも3億ドル以上出してますので、あわせれば700億ぐらいの予算が2010年会計年度できちんと出ますので工事が始まります。そして２０１０年から最初の部隊がグアムに移るんですね。司令部が中心になると思いますけれども、出来次第ですね。そして2010年、11年、12年、13年、14年で全部が移るという計画になってます。
小西：でも今の状況では、合意を白紙に戻すことも有り得るとも言ってます。
伊波：有り得ない話です。アメリカが選択してる、アメリカが普天間問題解決のためではなく、アメリカの世界的戦略の拠点としてグアムにこの海兵隊基地を作るという計画が今回のグアムへの統合計画なんです。
小西：じゃあ、この白紙に戻すことも有り得る、なんて言っているのはなんなんでしょうか？
伊波：辺野古を作らすための交渉上の脅しだと思います。多分グアム移転は白紙に戻らないです。どうしてかというと、7月に条約というレベルで合意されてますし、これに60.9億ドルの日本のお金を出すということも条約として合意されていて、それに基づいてアメリカは40億ドルを出してグアムの移転計画を実施するという合意を得ているわけですから。ただ、これと普天間の代替の辺野古への建設は切り離されてるんです。国会の審議のなかでも明らかになりましたけれども、これは普天間移設を義務付けるものでは無い。だけど、グアムの移転の作業自体は着々と進んでいます。
小西：最後の質問は、日本政府にこれだけは言いたいということはありますか。
伊波：今申し上げました、グアムへの移転計画、これをですね、きちんと説明して欲しい、つまり、日本のお金がこれだけ使われていて、この3年間本当に一つの説明もしてないんです、この一番の原因はアメリカ政府が説明しないから、だからアメリカ政府にこの情報の提供を求めて欲しいと思います。そして沖縄からどの様な部隊がどの様な形でグアムに移っていくのか、そのことを明確にした上でですね、辺野古の問題にあたって欲しい。本当に辺野古が必要なのかどうか。私はもう必要無いと思います、建設そのものがですね。ですからその理由にしても、やはり国民に明らかにする必要があるし、国会に明らかにする必要がある。それは私は今の鳩山政権にかされた義務でもあると思いますし、鳩山政権自体にはやはり辺野古に付いては建設しないで、建設無しにこの普天間の問題の解決、そして沖縄全体の海兵隊移転の解決に取り組んで欲しい。
小西：伊波さんの話を聞いてると、いち、普天間基地を抱えている宜野湾市の市長としてではなく、本当に沖縄県民のことを考えたご発言じゃないかって、すごく最近の行動を見て感じるんですけど。来年11月県知事選とかありますけど、ご自身の旗振って頑張ろうかとか？
伊波：いや、そういうのは別の話として、これから色々あるでしょうけども、私としては、今抱えている普天間の問題の解決に向けてしっかり頑張っていきたいと思います。
Nippon TV (Nittere) News 24 link to the interview:
http://www.news24.jp/articles/2009/12/11/04149543.html
日テレの「News 24」に普天間飛行場をかかえる宜野湾市の伊波市長が出演したときのインタビュー（１２月１１日）の内容をピース・フィロソフィー・センターのスタッフがテープ起こししたものです。
伊波 宜野湾市長のインタビュー
小西美穂：こんばんは、司会の小西美穂です。。。今日のキーマンは沖縄県の宜野湾市伊波洋一市長です。市長よろしくお願いします。
伊波洋一：よろしくお願いします。
小西：今ちょうど沖縄、普天間基地移転問題に年内決着も持ち越しの見通しになり、揺れてるわけなんですけども、伊波市長は普天間基地を抱える宜野湾市の市長であるということで、普天間から移設しようと、いわゆる世界一危険な基地だということで、そこから移設しようということで市民のいろんな声を聞いてらっしゃると思うのですけど、市長の立場からすると移設してどっかへ出て行ってもらうことで、まぁ良しとされてるんだと思っていたら、どうも市長はこれ全部を変えても、全部含めてグアムに全面移転するということをおっしゃっているという風に伺っておりました。昨日から上京されているということで、今回はどういう方々と会ってどういう話をされたんですか？
伊波：防衛省長島政務官、それから外務省と内閣府、それぞれ副大臣にお会いして、要請をしてまいりました。普天間の問題は本当に政権の課題になってますが、課題になっている普天間の問題、辺野古に移すとか移さないとかいう話になってるんですけれども、実はアメリカ自身が沖縄の海兵隊をグアムに移す計画を着々と取り組んでいまして、その計画に日本政府も60億ドルのお金を出しているのにも関わらず、その中身が一向に国民にも、国会にも、沖縄県民にも説明が無いんですよ。しかし、米国の中で環境影響評価書とかそういうのがきちんと出ておりますので、そのことをちゃんと伝えて欲しい。そしてそのことの上で、辺野古の問題ですとか、沖縄県内の基地の問題ですとか、もう一度整理しなおして下さい、と。そもそも、沖縄の海兵隊が殆どグアムに行くのに、普天間自体もグアムに行くのに、なんで辺野古が必要なんですか？と。
小西：そういうことをおっしゃっているんですね。そこで伊波市長に対する第1の質問です。グアムへの全面移転は本当に可能なんですか？ということなんですが、これは、北沢防衛大臣が、グアムに視察にいかれてましたよね。それで耳にしたのが、全面移転なんて無理ですよと早々におっしゃっているんですけれども、これは伊波市長がおっしゃっていることと違いますね。このあたりいかがですか？
伊波：ロードマップの合意では、普天間飛行場の機能を辺野古の方に移すということになってます。飛行場を移すという話になってるんですけれども、普天間の部隊を移すという話にはなっていない。ところが、このロードマップというのは２００６年の6月の合意ですけど、丁度その半年前2005年の10月までは、普天間の部隊も辺野古に移すという話だったんです。ところが、翌年５月には、実はアメリカ政府は、国防総省は、沖縄の海兵隊全体をグアムに移転する方針に変えたんですね。
小西：人がいなくなる？
伊波：殆どいなくなります。8000の海兵隊をグアムに移すことは聞いてますね。9000名の家族もグアムに移すという話も聞いてますね？沖縄に海兵隊の家族は9000名もいないんです。今8000名もいないと言われています。
小西：それは適当に言ってるんですか？どういうことなんですか？
伊波：9000名分の家族の住宅を日本政府に作らせるということが合意されているんです。
小西：じゃあ沢山来るということですか？
伊波：いや、グアムに。グアムには沖縄の8000名だけではなくて、その他からも入って、実際は１万６百名の兵隊が行くことになってるんです。
小西：北沢防衛大臣がおっしゃってることって言うのは、間違ってるんですか？
伊波：北沢さんが言ってるのは、普天間飛行場の代わりをグアムに作る話というのは、日米合意とかけ離れている、と。日米合意では普天間の代わりは辺野古に作りましょう、という風になってたんですよ。部隊の話じゃないんですよ。飛行場の話。確かに飛行場の話でいうなら、辺野古に作る話とグアムに作る話ではずいぶんかけ離れてますので、グアムにも飛行場があるんですよ、二つ、だからこれ以上は作れないはずだから、それは無いでしょう。しかし、一番最初の辺野古に基地を作る原因は普天間の部隊を移すために飛行場が必要だったんです。
小西：良く考えますと、北沢さんがなぜこの時期にグアムに視察に行ってるかなんですけれども、今おっしゃってるような８０００とか９０００って言うのは、現地行かなくても分かるじゃないですか？北沢さんが見たかったのって言うのは本当にこれで全面移転が本当に出来るのか、それを確かめに行かれたのではないですか？
伊波：もっと違う理由で行ってると思います。何かっていいますとね、今までの話では、司令部（海兵隊の司令部の心臓分）だけがグアムに移るという話になってます。実戦部隊は移らないというのがこれまでの政府の説明なんです。そのことで、殆ど議論がされてますが、実はこれは2005年の10月までの議論なんですね。2005年の10月に合意したときには第3海兵機動展開部隊の司令部はグアムあるいはハワイを想定してますけど、そこに移って行くという風に合意されてるんですけど、残りの部隊について、グアムに移る話は全く無いんです。だけど2006年の5月になると、アメリカ軍自身がグアムへの拠点作りというのに舵を切ったんです。それで、沖縄の海兵隊8000名が、部隊を一体化してグアムに移るということを決定してるんですよ。そしてその計画が2006年の7月に出来上がっています。私たちはそれを読んでおりますけども、そのグアム軍事開発統合計画という統合計画の環境影響評価が3年間行われて、こないだ11月20日に公表されたのがそれです。
小西：その資料も用意させてもらってます。ちょっと突っ込んで聞きたいのが、伊波市長から見て、この北沢さんの動きや今回こういう発言をしたということは、どう受け止めてらっしゃいますか？
伊波：この発言とは別にですね、どちらかの紙面で書かれてましたけれども、沖縄の海兵隊は戦術的な配備ということが分かったと、つまりどういう事かといいますと、今まで沖縄の海兵隊と言うのは、沖縄にいるけども全部に派遣するための拠点だったんですよ。実はこの拠点がグアムに移るんですね、じゃ沖縄に少し残るかもしれないけども、それは何のためかと言うと、沖縄のためだけに残るという意味だと思います。沖縄に行くために部隊が配置されるんですけど、今までの沖縄の部隊は沖縄からイラクに行ったりあるいは彼方此方行ったりしてますね。全体の中枢だったんですよ、沖縄が、これまで。今も。2014年以降はその機能が全部グアムに移って行くんです。
小西：そこで北沢さんの考えというのは？
伊波：どうなってるか分かりませんけど、少なくとも二つ以上の事は見てると思います。
小西：北沢さんは伊波さんがこういうことを言っているということを考慮した上でこういう発言を今日されてましたよね？全面移転の可能性を探っている様なことを耳にするけども、ちょっと無理かなという展開でしたよね？
伊波：一番大事なのはですね、いろんな報道等でも議論されてる時に、皆の頭の中には2005年の10月までの考え方、つまり司令部だけがグアムに行って、沖縄には海兵隊隊が残っていると思ってるんです。しかし、それは間違えなんです。でもその間違えは、北沢防衛大臣グアムに行って、しっかり受け止めて来たと思います。そういう説明はきちんとするはずですから、グアムのそういう関連の部署ではね。だから沖縄の位置が今までとは違うと言う事を説明されたのは確かではないかなと思います、まあ聞いてみないと分かりませんけどね。
小西： でも今日のところの発言ではそのあたり出てなかったですね。
伊波：いや、一つだけ出てたんです。だから戦術的配備だということが分かった、つまり戦略的配備というのと戦術的配備ということと、まあ事が難しい話なんですけれども、多分こんな言い方すると分かります。今沖縄には海兵隊が何人いるかご存知ですか？
小西：どのくらいでしょうか？
伊波：定数が1万8千人と言われてますが、１万１千ぐらいです、居るのは。で、その内から8千人居なくなります、グアムに。多くても3千人しか残らない、だけど、日本政府は1万人残っていると言ってるんです。
小西：岡田さんがおっしゃっているように？
伊波：そうですね。多分埋まらないと思います、その3000人以上は、そんなに多くはね、グアムに拠点作るのに、グアムでも1万人しか海兵隊いないのに、沖縄に1万人いる話は成り立たないと思います。
小西：どうも伊波さんの話聞いてると、今、岡田さんとか北沢さんが説明している事と、伊波さんがおっしゃっていることは、本当に溝が埋まらない、どっちの情報が本当なんだろうか、もっといろんなこと教えて欲しい気持ちになるんですけども、伊波市長から見て今の日本側の対応はどう写ってますか？
伊波：結局一番何が問題なのかというと、このグアムの移転計画について、詳細を米側が日本に伝えてないんです。伝えてないからロードマップのあとの説明が出来てない。２００６年5月以降の今の状況が無いんですね。（書類を取り出す：今までの流れを表しているタイムラインを指す）2006年5月から状況が変わってるんです。グアムの軍事統合計画というのが策定されて、そして私達は、沖縄の中部の市町村長とグアムの調査を2007年に行ったんですよ。そのとき、向こうでは沖縄の海兵隊が来るということ、普天間のヘリの部隊などが来るということと、その場所もちゃんと説明を受けてるんです。次に2008年の9月15日には海軍長官が米国の連邦議会、下院議会に、報告書を出してるんです。ここに部隊の詳細がでています。沖縄の部隊が、これこれが、グアムに行きますよと。それからですね、次は、今年（2009年）の6月ですけど、海兵隊総司令官が連邦上院の軍事委員会に報告書を出してるんですよ。これもちゃんと沖縄から8000名の部隊がグアムに行くけれども、これは何を理由にしてるかと言うと、沖縄の基地との問題ですね、沖縄の基地が住民地域ととても密接に近ずいているので、この問題を解決するためにグアムに行きますと、ちゃんと書いてあるんですよ。この流れがですね（2006年5月から2009年11月の間の流れ）完全に国内で説明されていない。国会の中でも説明されていないし、政府もこのことに対して一つも説明をしてないんです。
小西：その説明無しに今辺野古への移設なのかどうかといって進んでいることがおかしいんじゃないか？とおっしゃっているわけですね？そこでですね、第2問に参ります。どうして基地の移設問題は進まないのでしょうか？なんでこう進まないのかと言うところに、誰かが嫌なんじゃないかと、日本政府が嫌なのか？アメリカが嫌なのか？移設するのが。沖縄県民がいやなのか？それはどこにあると考えたらいいんですか？
伊波：それは沖縄県民がこの県内に移設させることに対して強い反対があるんです。戦後64年もたって、これは13年前の話なんですけども、当時1996年に合意されましたので、そのときも撤去可能な移設建設がありまして、それも拒否されたんですけれども、沖縄県民にとってはやはり新しい基地をもうこれ以上作るということに対して、とても抵抗感があります。よく言われるんですけれども、わずか０．６％の面積の沖縄県に全国の７５％の米軍基地が集中している。その集中している米軍基地の解決のためには一つ基地を無くすために、もう一つ基地を作らなくてはいけない。こういう事はですね、もう納得のいく話ではないわけです。そのことが一番大きな抵抗になってるんです。だから県内移設が進まないのは沖縄県民の反対が強いからなんです。
小西：日本政府がここまでずっと長らく引っ張ってきたという背景には県民の感情だけではないんじゃないですか？何か、それこそ利権だとか、誰かがうまみを持っているのでは、伊波さん指摘されてましたよね？
伊波：それは、よくありますよね、報道とかですね。私たちは、そのことの側面からの議論をしている訳ではありませんけども、ただ、これまで長い間、日米安保条約の元で基地が必要とされているというのが、政府の立場でしたから、その時に置ける場所は沖縄しか無いと最初から決めてかかってるんですよ。つまり辺野古が選ばれたのも、よく言われてましたけども、前政権の下でですね、辺野古しか置き場所が無いから辺野古にするんだと、じゃほかのどこにどこに持って行けるんだって事を公然としていたんですね。だからそういう意味では沖縄の気持ちはですね私は踏みにじまれ続けられていたんではないかと思います。
小西：先ほどちょっと途中だったので改めてこちらをお見せしたい（資料を取り出す）
「Environmental Impact Statement 7
Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
Relocating Marines from Okinawa,
Visiting Aircraft Carrier Berthing, and
Army Air and Missile Defense Task Force
Executive Summary
November 2009」
これが、伊波さんがなぜグアムへの全面移転が可能なのかの論拠とされている主な資料の一つですけれども（取り合えず日本語英語でタイトルを読み上げる）、、、月日を見てみると、2009年11月なんですね。環境影響評価と書かれていますが、結局海兵隊が移転するときに移転先の地域とか、住民とか、自然とか、あらゆる環境をどういうふうに影響するのかを調べた書類ですよね？これはもともとは8000ページありますよね、そしてこれは宜野湾市のホームページでも見られるほどオープンになっている資料ということで。これで市長が重要視されている部分ちょっと一つ（フリップを取り出す）あるんですが、これ説明してもらえますか？
資料：１．４－３表 移転候補地分析の概要
候補地 判断基準(Criteria)
■同盟及び条約上の要件 ■対処（配備）時間 ■活動の自由
沖縄（現在） ＋ －
ハワイ － － ＋
西海岸（アラスカ等） － － ＋
マリアナ（グアム） ＋ ＋ ＋
フィリピン － ＋ －
タイ － ＋ －
オーストラリア － ＋ －
シンガポール － ＋ －
韓国 － ＋ －
伊波：そもそもなぜ沖縄の海兵隊を移すことになったのかと言いますと、2002年に始まったアメリカの地球規模の基地の見直しがあるんです。沖縄の海兵隊、それは何処に移すべきか、という議論になりまして。（資料の候補地を指す）この中で唯一三ツ星だったのがグアムなんですね。
小西：プラス、プラス、プラスの評価をもらっているのが、実はグアムだったんですね。星三つとおっしゃってますけれども。
伊波：沖縄ですら一つしか無いんですよ。
小西：沖縄見てみますと、いろんな用件書いてますけれども、プラスは一個。ここで要は伊波さんは星3個のグアムの方がいいじゃないかと、言ってるんですね？
伊波：いや、私が言ってるんじゃなくて、アメリカがこの評価をしたんですね。アメリカが決めて、その合意に乗っ取ったのロードマップなんですよ、だから、日本政府も、日本政府の方がこのことを説明されたか分からないですけども、アメリカにとっては、このグアムに移転するということは、米国の戦略上の選択なんですね。普天間問題解決のためではないんです。ですから、多分大方の海兵隊をこれからグアムに移していくという作業が来年当たりから始まるわけです。
小西：でもね、本当にそもそも、こういう物（資料を片手に）全部公表されているんですから、伊波さんだけに分析されてるわけじゃないじゃないですか、外務省も防衛賞の偉い人が皆見てるのにどうして伊波さんと同じお考えとか主張をされないんですか？
伊波：見ないんですよ、外務省は。本当です。ここが日本の国のおかしなところで、見てないんですよ。
小西：いや、外務省の方に見ていただかないと。。。
伊波：ここに、一番の問題があるんです。日本の60.9億ドル使うって言っているんですよ、だけどもそれで何が行われているのかといことに付いて十分な知識が無いわけです。
小西：例えばですね、これ知ってるけれども、もう外交上後戻りできないから、これはスルーと言うか、このままにしておこうと言う様な作為があったのでは？
伊波：そうではないんです。私も先週、岡田大臣と話したんですけれども、伊波市長が言ってることは聞いてない、と言うんですよ、アメリカの首脳との会議では。私の言ってることがね、無効のアセス（Environmental Impact Statement）に対して言ってることは聞いてないというんですよ。
小西：つまり岡田さんは、伊波さんに指摘されて始めて気づいたんですか？
伊波：気づいたというよりも、それでも、それは違うと言われたんです。多分違うんだろうと。それで、伊波市長からも指摘されてるんで、実際のグアムへの8000名の移転が本当にどれが実働なのか検証する必要があるといってました。岡田さんが理解してるのは１万８千人定数増やすことなんですよ、今7千人しかいないんですけど、でも1万人いるんだという思い込みがあるんですね。アメリカからそういう説明を受けてるんですよ。沖縄にも1万人の部隊を置くんだということを言ってるから、要するにこういう計画、実戦部隊が行くということは考えていない、と言うんですよ。
小西：どうしてそういう事がおきるんですか？正確な情報が伝わっていないということは、基本的なことがなってない。
伊波：これは3年間続いてますよ、、その間、2006年の7月に計画が作られまして、2006年9月に太平洋軍司令部のホームページにアップされたんですよ、計画が。私たちはそれを入手して、翻訳もして、この通りだということを含めて、説明したんです。（書類を取り出す「グアム統合軍事開発計画」）例えばこれがグアムの実際のその時（2006年9月）に出された計画書です。次は（次の資料を取り出す）飛行場の話ですね。グアムのアンダーセン空軍基地の（詳しい話、部隊配置、地図を指す）この部分（地図を指す）は日本政府が出してるんですよ。そういう計画が現実に3年前から動いているんですね。そして今までアセスが行われて、そして環境影響評価ですね。そしてこれがグアムの住民の皆さんに公開されて、いろんな意見聞いて、その上でいろんな意見の上で修正するべき事を修正して、許可すればいよいよ実施になります。これは予定では、（2010年）7月30日までには一応許可される予定です。
小西：結局評価するという段階にきているということは、実際の計画を評価してるわけで、こうなるかも知れないと言う所から、これをやりますよと、普天間の海兵隊のヘリ部隊も新しい基地を作って受け入れますよなんていうことが、この実際の計画を書いている（計画書を指す）ものなんですから、非常に重要だし、これで論じないといけないと言う事じゃないんですか？
伊波：そうですね。今年の予算としては日本は３００億円出してますよ、これに対して（計画書を指差す）、建設費に。アメリカも3億ドル以上出してますので、あわせれば700億ぐらいの予算が2010年会計年度できちんと出ますので工事が始まります。そして２０１０年から最初の部隊がグアムに移るんですね。司令部が中心になると思いますけれども、出来次第ですね。そして2010年、11年、12年、13年、14年で全部が移るという計画になってます。
小西：でも今の状況では、合意を白紙に戻すことも有り得るとも言ってます。
伊波：有り得ない話です。アメリカが選択してる、アメリカが普天間問題解決のためではなく、アメリカの世界的戦略の拠点としてグアムにこの海兵隊基地を作るという計画が今回のグアムへの統合計画なんです。
小西：じゃあ、この白紙に戻すことも有り得る、なんて言っているのはなんなんでしょうか？
伊波：辺野古を作らすための交渉上の脅しだと思います。多分グアム移転は白紙に戻らないです。どうしてかというと、7月に条約というレベルで合意されてますし、これに60.9億ドルの日本のお金を出すということも条約として合意されていて、それに基づいてアメリカは40億ドルを出してグアムの移転計画を実施するという合意を得ているわけですから。ただ、これと普天間の代替の辺野古への建設は切り離されてるんです。国会の審議のなかでも明らかになりましたけれども、これは普天間移設を義務付けるものでは無い。だけど、グアムの移転の作業自体は着々と進んでいます。
小西：最後の質問は、日本政府にこれだけは言いたいということはありますか。
伊波：今申し上げました、グアムへの移転計画、これをですね、きちんと説明して欲しい、つまり、日本のお金がこれだけ使われていて、この3年間本当に一つの説明もしてないんです、この一番の原因はアメリカ政府が説明しないから、だからアメリカ政府にこの情報の提供を求めて欲しいと思います。そして沖縄からどの様な部隊がどの様な形でグアムに移っていくのか、そのことを明確にした上でですね、辺野古の問題にあたって欲しい。本当に辺野古が必要なのかどうか。私はもう必要無いと思います、建設そのものがですね。ですからその理由にしても、やはり国民に明らかにする必要があるし、国会に明らかにする必要がある。それは私は今の鳩山政権にかされた義務でもあると思いますし、鳩山政権自体にはやはり辺野古に付いては建設しないで、建設無しにこの普天間の問題の解決、そして沖縄全体の海兵隊移転の解決に取り組んで欲しい。
小西：伊波さんの話を聞いてると、いち、普天間基地を抱えている宜野湾市の市長としてではなく、本当に沖縄県民のことを考えたご発言じゃないかって、すごく最近の行動を見て感じるんですけど。来年11月県知事選とかありますけど、ご自身の旗振って頑張ろうかとか？
伊波：いや、そういうのは別の話として、これから色々あるでしょうけども、私としては、今抱えている普天間の問題の解決に向けてしっかり頑張っていきたいと思います。
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A Tokyo Meeting In Response to the Racists' Attack on the Korean School in Kyoto ［集会報告と御礼］１２・１９緊急報告会 民族差別を許すな！ 京都朝鮮学校襲撃事件を問う
Akira Maeda, a law professor of Tokyo Zokei University reported the meeting held starting at 6 PM, December 19 in Tokyo called "12.19 Emergency Report Meeting: Do not allow racial discrimination - Kyoto Korean school incident." The meeting took place at Tokyo Shigoto Centre in Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, in response to the recent incident of this right-wing and xenophobic group zaitokukai's public harassment of a Korean school in Kyoto. According to Akira Maeda, the meeting was attended by about 200 people, and probably 240, including security volunteers. About 30 people could not get in because the room was too full. Following is an English summary of Maeda's report of the meeting (Translation: Satoko Norimatsu). The original text in Japanese is below the translation.
1) A successful meeting
The 10-minute video clip of the incident was played, and the Principal of Kyoto Korean school reported the incident. It was made clear that the claim by "zaitokukai" regarding the use of the public park was ungrounded. Then Maeda explained what hate crime was. Then Kim Donghak, Chair of the Association of Korean Human Right in Japan, presented the historical concept of discrimination against Koreans and against Korean schools. At the end, Shigeru Tokoi, the head of the steering committee of the Human Rights Seminar, suggested what we Japanese must do (Maeda was going in and out to look after the security issue so could not report the details of all the speeches.)
2) Security by Police
On the morning of the 19th, a request for security provision was made to the Kojimachi Branch of the Metropolitan Police Department. The police officer in charge said, "We have already had information about right-wing campaign occurring, so we were going to be there anyway. We will take care of outside of the building. We would like the organizers to take care of inside. Let's have a meeting beforehand."
Police arrived and started to get ready around 3PM. Police and we had a meeting at 4:30PM. We were told that the police would not let the right-wingers enter the building, but a few might still slip in, and that it was our responsibility to eliminate those who disrupted the event. Many police officers were deployed at in front of the building. We were satisfied with the level of security the police provided. After the event, the police officer in charge came and told us that they were leaving, but would still keep an eye on the place as there was a slight possibility that the right-wingers would come back.
The security provided by the Kojimachi Branch of the Police Department was well-controlled and systematic. Their professionalism for protecting the safety of citizens was remarkable. It was unlike the cases in Mitaka and Kyoto.
3) Security at Shigoto Centre
Shigoto Centre, where the meeting was held, looked after the security matter well too. They posted warning posters, their staff members were equipped with handheld microphones and armbands, and the security company increased the staff to five. The employees of the Centre and the security staff patrolled in front of the entrance and in the entrance lobby with firm and controlled manners. They stayed until our meeting was over and made sure everyone left the facility safely. We were so grateful for the devotion that these people showed for our safety.
4) Our own security
At the seminar meeting, we provided our own security measures. The event proceeded smoothly, without the kind of trouble we were expecting. However, several right-wingers did manage to get into the building. There were already a few at 2 PM. By 5 PM, they broke into the hallways and in front of the elevator hall. Some were ranting in the hallway. Two entered the seminar room, but we detected them before the start of the meeting, and asked them to leave. They went back and forth in the hallway, but left without doing anything.
5) Zaitokukai (short for "Zainichi Tokken o Yurusanai Shimin no Kai," meaning "Association of citizens who would not tolerate the privileges of foreign residents." They typically refer to Korean residents in Japan when they refer to "zainichi," or "foreign residents.")
The right-wingers parked their campaign trucks in front of the main entrance of the building, and making loud noises. There were about 30 of them. There were probably about 50 of them in total, including those who were in the building. We were told that they had brought the letter of protest, so we decided to receive it. When the police told the group that we had the intention to receive the letter, they suddenly decided not to submit it. We didn't know what that meant.
6) Gratitude
We had so much support and cooperation from so many people to make this meeting happen. We are grateful for the Kojimachi Branch of Police Department, staff members of Shigoto Centre and their security staff, and those citizens who volunteered to help with security. We appreciate the participants who came from afar on a Sunday evening and shared our determination for not tolerating the Korean school incident. We also apologize for those who could not enter the seminar room. Thanks also to those who sent us the numerous emails of support, and to the people all over the country who condemn this incident and the exclusionist nationalism behind it.
7) What We Should Do Now
There will be a meeting on December 22 held in Kyoto, where the incident happened. There will be activities in Osaka as well.
Racism, racial discrimination and exclusionist nationalism usually manifest in abnormally aggressive behaviours against their targets, and they are at the same time expression of human weakness. The kind of mentality to reaffirm one's sense of superiority by despising, demeaning, and disgracing others is perhaps latent in many of the people. This could explain why the hate crimes committed by this kind of extreme group is effective to a certain extent. If we let this "disease" be as it is now, it might spread across the whole society quickly. We should raise our voices and act so that racism would not prevail.
Thank you everybody.
Akira Maeda
１）充実した報告会
最初に１０分ほど京都朝鮮学校事件の映像を上映し、続いて京都朝鮮学校校長からの現地報告がありました（私は外にいたので、残念ながら聞くことができませんでした）。公園の利用に関して、在特会などの主張は事実に反することが明快に報告されたそうです。次に私が集会の経過報告と、ヘイトクライムとは何かについて少し話しました。さらに、金東鶴さんが、日本における朝鮮人差別、朝鮮学校差別について、歴史的により広い文脈におきなおして報告がありました。会場発言も、コンパクトにまとめた、いいお話が続きました。最後に床井茂（人権セミナー実行委員長）が、日本人としてなさねばならないこととして、私たちの課題をまとめる発言をしました。（警備関連でばたばたして、出たり入ったりし
ていたため、私は他の方の発言をきちんと聞けませんでしたので、旨く報告できません。すみません）。
２）警察の警備
１９日午前に麹町署に警備要請をしました。担当者は、「街宣情報があったの警備に行く予定でした。外の警備は警察がしっかりやります。建物の中は施設と集会主催者でやってください。開始前にきちんと打ち合わせをしましょう」。
午後３時頃にはすでに警察が出動し、警備体制が敷かれ始めました。４時半に警備責任者ら５人の方がいらして、簡単な打ち合わせを行いました。右翼を中に入れないようにするが、全部をおさえることはできないので、中に紛れ込む者もいるから、集会の趣旨に反して騒ぐものは自分たちで排除してください、とのことでした。会場前には制服・私服の多数の警察官が配置され、しっかりと警備してくれました。飯田橋駅寄りや九段寄りの路上に数台の警察装甲車が並んでいたうです。
街宣終了時に、担当者がきて、終了したので警備体制を解くが、彼らが戻ってくる可能性がないとは言えない、個別に残っているメンバーもいるので、監視は続けるし、何かあれば即座に対応します、とのこと。
一言で言って、麹町署の警備は非常によく統制され、見事な体制でした。三鷹や京都のケースとは違って、麹町署は警備のプロとして、市民の安全を守るために万全の仕事をしてくれたと思います。
３）しごとセンターの警備
１９日、しごとセンターもきっちりと警備体制を敷いてくれました。午後１時半に要請にいったのですが、前日とはうってかわって、「注意事項・禁止事項」の大きな張り紙、職員はハンドマイクと腕章を用意、そして警備会社の警備員も５名に増員。西沢課長は「会館に出入りする人間の安全のために、できることは全部やります。体を張ってやるつもりです」。
実際、４時半頃から街宣終了まで、職員と警備員が玄関前や玄関ホールで整然と、毅然と、警備を行っていました。街宣終了後も、万が一、一部の右翼が残っているかもしれないので、私たちの集会が終了するまで残られ、私たちの退場まですべて確認。献身的なお仕事ぶりに頭が下がる思いでした。
４）私たちの警備
会場セミナー室前では私たち自身が警備体制を敷きました。施設側がしっかりしてくれたので、当初予想されたような混乱はなく、無事に済みました。とはいえ、実際には何人もの右翼が会館内に紛れ込んでいました。すでに午後２時には何人もが中に入っていました。午後２時からの西谷文和さんのイラク報告会の時点で、こちらの様子を探りに入れ替わり立ち代り出没していました。午後５時過ぎには、廊下やエレベータホール前に押し入ってきました。廊下で暴言を吐く者もいました。セミナー室に入ったものも２名いましたが、開会前に早期発見、退場していただきました。いずれも廊下をうろうろしながら妨害を画策していたようですが、何もできずに帰っていきました。
５）在特会
右翼は、会館玄関前に街宣車を乗りつけ、ワーワー騒いでいました。そこには約３０名。事前に会館内に入り込んで妨害行為をもくろんでいたメンバーたちも含めると、おそらく全部で５０名ほどが来ていたのではないかと思います。
抗議書を持ってきていると言うので、受け取ることにしました。警察が「受け取るそうだ。どうする」と伝えたところ、なぜか「じゃあ、渡さない」となったそうです。意味不明。結局、私宛の抗議書を見ることもできませんでした。
６）御礼
集会実現のために多くの方たちのご協力、ご支援をいただきました。
万全の警備を敷いていただいた麹町署に感謝いたします。暴力集団の違法活動を監視し、市民の安全を守るために任務を的確にこなされました。
街宣行動の対象にされたのは初めてと困惑しながらも、右翼の脅迫や恫喝に耐えて、しっかりと警備体制を敷き、たんたんと職務をこなされたしごとセンター職員と警備の方たちに感謝します。
自主的な防衛の為にボランティアで駆けつけてくださった警備協力者の方たちに感謝申し上げます。本当にありがとうございました。
休日の夜に、民族差別を許すな、朝鮮学校襲撃事件を許すなという思いを共有していただき、各地からおこしいただいた参加者の皆さんに感謝いたします。
せっかく会場におこしいただいたのに、入場できずにお帰りいただくことになった皆さん、大変申し訳ありませんでした。
ＳＯＳメールを転送していただいた皆さん、精神的支援のメールを送っていただいた皆さん、排外主義に眉をひそめ朝鮮学校襲撃事件に批判の声をあげられている全国のみなさん、ご協力、ご支援、ありがとうございます。
７）これから
２２日には、事件が起きた京都の市民の方たちによって集会が準備されています。大阪での取り組みも準備中です。
人種主義、人種差別、排外主義は、被害者に対しては異様に攻撃的な形で現象しますが、実は、人間の弱さの現われでもあります。他者を侮蔑し、貶め、辱めることによって、自分の優位を確認したがるメンタリティは、おそらく多くの人々の中に潜んでいるのかもしれません。在特会のような異常な犯罪集団による扇動が一定の効果を持つのもそのためでしょう。こうした「病」を放置しておくと、あっという間に社会に広がるかもしれません。人種差別の蔓延を防ぐために、適時に的確に声をあげていくことが大切です。
みなさん
今後ともよろしくおねがいいたします。ありがとうございました。
（前田 朗さんによる報告）
1) A successful meeting
The 10-minute video clip of the incident was played, and the Principal of Kyoto Korean school reported the incident. It was made clear that the claim by "zaitokukai" regarding the use of the public park was ungrounded. Then Maeda explained what hate crime was. Then Kim Donghak, Chair of the Association of Korean Human Right in Japan, presented the historical concept of discrimination against Koreans and against Korean schools. At the end, Shigeru Tokoi, the head of the steering committee of the Human Rights Seminar, suggested what we Japanese must do (Maeda was going in and out to look after the security issue so could not report the details of all the speeches.)
2) Security by Police
On the morning of the 19th, a request for security provision was made to the Kojimachi Branch of the Metropolitan Police Department. The police officer in charge said, "We have already had information about right-wing campaign occurring, so we were going to be there anyway. We will take care of outside of the building. We would like the organizers to take care of inside. Let's have a meeting beforehand."
Police arrived and started to get ready around 3PM. Police and we had a meeting at 4:30PM. We were told that the police would not let the right-wingers enter the building, but a few might still slip in, and that it was our responsibility to eliminate those who disrupted the event. Many police officers were deployed at in front of the building. We were satisfied with the level of security the police provided. After the event, the police officer in charge came and told us that they were leaving, but would still keep an eye on the place as there was a slight possibility that the right-wingers would come back.
The security provided by the Kojimachi Branch of the Police Department was well-controlled and systematic. Their professionalism for protecting the safety of citizens was remarkable. It was unlike the cases in Mitaka and Kyoto.
3) Security at Shigoto Centre
Shigoto Centre, where the meeting was held, looked after the security matter well too. They posted warning posters, their staff members were equipped with handheld microphones and armbands, and the security company increased the staff to five. The employees of the Centre and the security staff patrolled in front of the entrance and in the entrance lobby with firm and controlled manners. They stayed until our meeting was over and made sure everyone left the facility safely. We were so grateful for the devotion that these people showed for our safety.
4) Our own security
At the seminar meeting, we provided our own security measures. The event proceeded smoothly, without the kind of trouble we were expecting. However, several right-wingers did manage to get into the building. There were already a few at 2 PM. By 5 PM, they broke into the hallways and in front of the elevator hall. Some were ranting in the hallway. Two entered the seminar room, but we detected them before the start of the meeting, and asked them to leave. They went back and forth in the hallway, but left without doing anything.
5) Zaitokukai (short for "Zainichi Tokken o Yurusanai Shimin no Kai," meaning "Association of citizens who would not tolerate the privileges of foreign residents." They typically refer to Korean residents in Japan when they refer to "zainichi," or "foreign residents.")
The right-wingers parked their campaign trucks in front of the main entrance of the building, and making loud noises. There were about 30 of them. There were probably about 50 of them in total, including those who were in the building. We were told that they had brought the letter of protest, so we decided to receive it. When the police told the group that we had the intention to receive the letter, they suddenly decided not to submit it. We didn't know what that meant.
6) Gratitude
We had so much support and cooperation from so many people to make this meeting happen. We are grateful for the Kojimachi Branch of Police Department, staff members of Shigoto Centre and their security staff, and those citizens who volunteered to help with security. We appreciate the participants who came from afar on a Sunday evening and shared our determination for not tolerating the Korean school incident. We also apologize for those who could not enter the seminar room. Thanks also to those who sent us the numerous emails of support, and to the people all over the country who condemn this incident and the exclusionist nationalism behind it.
7) What We Should Do Now
There will be a meeting on December 22 held in Kyoto, where the incident happened. There will be activities in Osaka as well.
Racism, racial discrimination and exclusionist nationalism usually manifest in abnormally aggressive behaviours against their targets, and they are at the same time expression of human weakness. The kind of mentality to reaffirm one's sense of superiority by despising, demeaning, and disgracing others is perhaps latent in many of the people. This could explain why the hate crimes committed by this kind of extreme group is effective to a certain extent. If we let this "disease" be as it is now, it might spread across the whole society quickly. We should raise our voices and act so that racism would not prevail.
Thank you everybody.
Akira Maeda
１）充実した報告会
最初に１０分ほど京都朝鮮学校事件の映像を上映し、続いて京都朝鮮学校校長からの現地報告がありました（私は外にいたので、残念ながら聞くことができませんでした）。公園の利用に関して、在特会などの主張は事実に反することが明快に報告されたそうです。次に私が集会の経過報告と、ヘイトクライムとは何かについて少し話しました。さらに、金東鶴さんが、日本における朝鮮人差別、朝鮮学校差別について、歴史的により広い文脈におきなおして報告がありました。会場発言も、コンパクトにまとめた、いいお話が続きました。最後に床井茂（人権セミナー実行委員長）が、日本人としてなさねばならないこととして、私たちの課題をまとめる発言をしました。（警備関連でばたばたして、出たり入ったりし
ていたため、私は他の方の発言をきちんと聞けませんでしたので、旨く報告できません。すみません）。
２）警察の警備
１９日午前に麹町署に警備要請をしました。担当者は、「街宣情報があったの警備に行く予定でした。外の警備は警察がしっかりやります。建物の中は施設と集会主催者でやってください。開始前にきちんと打ち合わせをしましょう」。
午後３時頃にはすでに警察が出動し、警備体制が敷かれ始めました。４時半に警備責任者ら５人の方がいらして、簡単な打ち合わせを行いました。右翼を中に入れないようにするが、全部をおさえることはできないので、中に紛れ込む者もいるから、集会の趣旨に反して騒ぐものは自分たちで排除してください、とのことでした。会場前には制服・私服の多数の警察官が配置され、しっかりと警備してくれました。飯田橋駅寄りや九段寄りの路上に数台の警察装甲車が並んでいたうです。
街宣終了時に、担当者がきて、終了したので警備体制を解くが、彼らが戻ってくる可能性がないとは言えない、個別に残っているメンバーもいるので、監視は続けるし、何かあれば即座に対応します、とのこと。
一言で言って、麹町署の警備は非常によく統制され、見事な体制でした。三鷹や京都のケースとは違って、麹町署は警備のプロとして、市民の安全を守るために万全の仕事をしてくれたと思います。
３）しごとセンターの警備
１９日、しごとセンターもきっちりと警備体制を敷いてくれました。午後１時半に要請にいったのですが、前日とはうってかわって、「注意事項・禁止事項」の大きな張り紙、職員はハンドマイクと腕章を用意、そして警備会社の警備員も５名に増員。西沢課長は「会館に出入りする人間の安全のために、できることは全部やります。体を張ってやるつもりです」。
実際、４時半頃から街宣終了まで、職員と警備員が玄関前や玄関ホールで整然と、毅然と、警備を行っていました。街宣終了後も、万が一、一部の右翼が残っているかもしれないので、私たちの集会が終了するまで残られ、私たちの退場まですべて確認。献身的なお仕事ぶりに頭が下がる思いでした。
４）私たちの警備
会場セミナー室前では私たち自身が警備体制を敷きました。施設側がしっかりしてくれたので、当初予想されたような混乱はなく、無事に済みました。とはいえ、実際には何人もの右翼が会館内に紛れ込んでいました。すでに午後２時には何人もが中に入っていました。午後２時からの西谷文和さんのイラク報告会の時点で、こちらの様子を探りに入れ替わり立ち代り出没していました。午後５時過ぎには、廊下やエレベータホール前に押し入ってきました。廊下で暴言を吐く者もいました。セミナー室に入ったものも２名いましたが、開会前に早期発見、退場していただきました。いずれも廊下をうろうろしながら妨害を画策していたようですが、何もできずに帰っていきました。
５）在特会
右翼は、会館玄関前に街宣車を乗りつけ、ワーワー騒いでいました。そこには約３０名。事前に会館内に入り込んで妨害行為をもくろんでいたメンバーたちも含めると、おそらく全部で５０名ほどが来ていたのではないかと思います。
抗議書を持ってきていると言うので、受け取ることにしました。警察が「受け取るそうだ。どうする」と伝えたところ、なぜか「じゃあ、渡さない」となったそうです。意味不明。結局、私宛の抗議書を見ることもできませんでした。
６）御礼
集会実現のために多くの方たちのご協力、ご支援をいただきました。
万全の警備を敷いていただいた麹町署に感謝いたします。暴力集団の違法活動を監視し、市民の安全を守るために任務を的確にこなされました。
街宣行動の対象にされたのは初めてと困惑しながらも、右翼の脅迫や恫喝に耐えて、しっかりと警備体制を敷き、たんたんと職務をこなされたしごとセンター職員と警備の方たちに感謝します。
自主的な防衛の為にボランティアで駆けつけてくださった警備協力者の方たちに感謝申し上げます。本当にありがとうございました。
休日の夜に、民族差別を許すな、朝鮮学校襲撃事件を許すなという思いを共有していただき、各地からおこしいただいた参加者の皆さんに感謝いたします。
せっかく会場におこしいただいたのに、入場できずにお帰りいただくことになった皆さん、大変申し訳ありませんでした。
ＳＯＳメールを転送していただいた皆さん、精神的支援のメールを送っていただいた皆さん、排外主義に眉をひそめ朝鮮学校襲撃事件に批判の声をあげられている全国のみなさん、ご協力、ご支援、ありがとうございます。
７）これから
２２日には、事件が起きた京都の市民の方たちによって集会が準備されています。大阪での取り組みも準備中です。
人種主義、人種差別、排外主義は、被害者に対しては異様に攻撃的な形で現象しますが、実は、人間の弱さの現われでもあります。他者を侮蔑し、貶め、辱めることによって、自分の優位を確認したがるメンタリティは、おそらく多くの人々の中に潜んでいるのかもしれません。在特会のような異常な犯罪集団による扇動が一定の効果を持つのもそのためでしょう。こうした「病」を放置しておくと、あっという間に社会に広がるかもしれません。人種差別の蔓延を防ぐために、適時に的確に声をあげていくことが大切です。
みなさん
今後ともよろしくおねがいいたします。ありがとうございました。
（前田 朗さんによる報告）
A Year-End Message from Yuki Tanaka (Japanese Version)
Here is a year-end message from Yuki Tanaka, Professor of Hiroshima Peace Institute. An English version is here. 広島市立大平和研究所の田中利幸さんの「年末メッセージ」です。
世界には、ルールに従わず、市民を抑圧する悪質な国やテログループがある。正義と平和を追求する米国は、戦争は極力避けたいのだが、こうした無分別で暴力的な敵とどうしても闘わなければならない場合がある。相変わらず修辞的な表現をふんだんに使ったオバマ大統領の、ノーベル平和賞受賞演説の骨子はこの一言に要約できると思います。つまり、市民を抑圧するのは他国やテロであり、アメリカは常に正義と平和のために苦悩・奮闘している国という、典型的な独善観に立つ考えです。
「米国は６０年以上に及んで自国民の流した血と軍事力によって、世界の安全保障を保証する助けになってきた」とオバマは述べましたが、そのアメリカがベトナム戦争やアフガン、イラク戦争で流した大量の「市民の血」について彼はどう考えているのでしょうか。「ルールを破る政権は責任をとらなければならない」と彼は他国を批判し、「米国は戦争遂行上の（規範を守る）旗手であり続けなければならない。それが我々と戦う相手との違いだ」と誇ります。では、無差別爆撃というルール（ジュネーブ条約）違反を世界の様々な場所で犯し、今もアフガニスタンやパキスタンで犯し続けている自分の政権の「責任」はどうとると言うのでしょうか。
「すべての個人の持つ尊厳と生来の権利に基づく公正な平和だけが、本当に持続することができるのだ」とオバマは述べ、「子どもたちがまっとうな教育や、家族を養える仕事を望めないところにも安全は存在しない。希望の欠如は、社会を内側から腐らせうる」と主張します。まさに彼の主張する通りだと私も思います。
しかし、そのような理念を掲げたオバマ政権が、アフガニスタンではブッシュ前政権の政策をそのまま継承し、無人飛行機も活用した空爆を引き続き行っており、その結果、アフガニスタンのみならずパキスタン北西部で多くの市民に死傷者を出しています。「テロ打破」の目的と称して行われているこのような無差別爆撃のために、テロを壊滅させるどころか、この地域でますます反米勢力を拡大させ、ひいてはテロによる無差別攻撃の可能性を高めているのが実情です。最近、アメリカ政府は、パキスタンの核兵器がタリバンの手に渡る危険性がなきにしもあらずという憂慮を表していますが、そのような状況を作り出している大きな要因の一つが、まさに、この地域で自分たちが展開している軍事行動そのものであることを認識すべきです。
今年５月初め、アフガニスタンのファラア県にある一村落が米軍による空爆を受けました。空爆の理由は、「タリバン兵士が村に入り込んでいた」というものでした。アフガニスタン政府の公式発表によれば死者１４７人、負傷者２５人、破壊された家屋１２軒。アフガン人権モニターというNGOの調査によると、死者は少なくとも１１７人、そのうち２６人が婦人、６１人が子供。爆撃の威力が凄まじく、死者の身体がバラバラになって吹き飛ばされたため、誰の身体か確認ができないひどい状態との報告でした。これは多くの「誤爆」の一例に過ぎません。かくして、「子どもたちがまっとうな教育や、家族を養える仕事を望めないところにも安全は存在しない。希望の欠如は、社会を内側から腐らせうる」とオバマが述べた、まさにそのような状況がアメリカの軍事行動によって作り出されているのが現状です。
ノーベル賞選考委員会は、オバマへのノーベル平和賞授与の理由として、彼がアメリカを単独行動主義から国連中心の多国間外交の舞台に引き戻し、「よりよい未来に向けて人々に希望を与えた」ことを挙げています。アフガニスタンの首都カブール郊外にある国内避難民キャンプには、現在１万人近い人たちが苦しい生活を余儀なくされており、その中には、米軍の空爆で親族を失った人たちが多く含まれています。この人たちにとって「よりよい未来に向けての希望」などはありません。
昨年の今頃から始まり、年を越して長く続いたイスラエルのガザ攻撃で、多くのパレスチナ人が殺傷されました。今年１０月には国連でこのガザ攻撃が戦争犯罪であるという決議が行われましたが（この決議は、同時に、ハマスの武装勢力のロケット攻撃の戦争犯罪性も指摘しました）、米国はイスラエルを支持してこの決議に反対し、恥ずべきことには、日本政府は棄権しました。
「一人殺せば悪党で、百万人殺せば英雄。数が殺人を神聖化する」という言葉は、チャーリー・チャップリンが、１９４７年の自作自演映画『殺人狂時代』で演じる連続殺人犯ヴェルドゥに吐かせる有名な台詞です。ブッシュからオバマに政権が変わり、核廃絶へのかけ声だけは高まっているものの、アメリカは、チャップリンがこの映画で痛烈に批判した国家暴力を、アフガニスタンやパキスタンで展開し続けています。ノーベル平
和賞の授与は、結局は、オバマのこの国家暴力の正当化につながるものです。したがって、私は秋葉市長が推進している「オバマジョリティ運動」に、正直なところ、不快感を憶えます。
年末に当たり、もう少し心地よいメッセージを送ることができれば良いのですが、普天間基地の問題や核抑止力問題での日本政府の対応など、情けない現状を考えると、相変わらず憤慨せずにはおられません。
やはり、地道に反核平和運動を草の根のレベルで続けていくより他に、真の意味での「チェンジ」を社会にもたらす方法はないと信じます。
皆様にとって、穏やかで希望の見えるような年末年始となりますことを祈りつつ、
YouTube のクリスマス曲を送ります。
世界には、ルールに従わず、市民を抑圧する悪質な国やテログループがある。正義と平和を追求する米国は、戦争は極力避けたいのだが、こうした無分別で暴力的な敵とどうしても闘わなければならない場合がある。相変わらず修辞的な表現をふんだんに使ったオバマ大統領の、ノーベル平和賞受賞演説の骨子はこの一言に要約できると思います。つまり、市民を抑圧するのは他国やテロであり、アメリカは常に正義と平和のために苦悩・奮闘している国という、典型的な独善観に立つ考えです。
「米国は６０年以上に及んで自国民の流した血と軍事力によって、世界の安全保障を保証する助けになってきた」とオバマは述べましたが、そのアメリカがベトナム戦争やアフガン、イラク戦争で流した大量の「市民の血」について彼はどう考えているのでしょうか。「ルールを破る政権は責任をとらなければならない」と彼は他国を批判し、「米国は戦争遂行上の（規範を守る）旗手であり続けなければならない。それが我々と戦う相手との違いだ」と誇ります。では、無差別爆撃というルール（ジュネーブ条約）違反を世界の様々な場所で犯し、今もアフガニスタンやパキスタンで犯し続けている自分の政権の「責任」はどうとると言うのでしょうか。
「すべての個人の持つ尊厳と生来の権利に基づく公正な平和だけが、本当に持続することができるのだ」とオバマは述べ、「子どもたちがまっとうな教育や、家族を養える仕事を望めないところにも安全は存在しない。希望の欠如は、社会を内側から腐らせうる」と主張します。まさに彼の主張する通りだと私も思います。
しかし、そのような理念を掲げたオバマ政権が、アフガニスタンではブッシュ前政権の政策をそのまま継承し、無人飛行機も活用した空爆を引き続き行っており、その結果、アフガニスタンのみならずパキスタン北西部で多くの市民に死傷者を出しています。「テロ打破」の目的と称して行われているこのような無差別爆撃のために、テロを壊滅させるどころか、この地域でますます反米勢力を拡大させ、ひいてはテロによる無差別攻撃の可能性を高めているのが実情です。最近、アメリカ政府は、パキスタンの核兵器がタリバンの手に渡る危険性がなきにしもあらずという憂慮を表していますが、そのような状況を作り出している大きな要因の一つが、まさに、この地域で自分たちが展開している軍事行動そのものであることを認識すべきです。
今年５月初め、アフガニスタンのファラア県にある一村落が米軍による空爆を受けました。空爆の理由は、「タリバン兵士が村に入り込んでいた」というものでした。アフガニスタン政府の公式発表によれば死者１４７人、負傷者２５人、破壊された家屋１２軒。アフガン人権モニターというNGOの調査によると、死者は少なくとも１１７人、そのうち２６人が婦人、６１人が子供。爆撃の威力が凄まじく、死者の身体がバラバラになって吹き飛ばされたため、誰の身体か確認ができないひどい状態との報告でした。これは多くの「誤爆」の一例に過ぎません。かくして、「子どもたちがまっとうな教育や、家族を養える仕事を望めないところにも安全は存在しない。希望の欠如は、社会を内側から腐らせうる」とオバマが述べた、まさにそのような状況がアメリカの軍事行動によって作り出されているのが現状です。
ノーベル賞選考委員会は、オバマへのノーベル平和賞授与の理由として、彼がアメリカを単独行動主義から国連中心の多国間外交の舞台に引き戻し、「よりよい未来に向けて人々に希望を与えた」ことを挙げています。アフガニスタンの首都カブール郊外にある国内避難民キャンプには、現在１万人近い人たちが苦しい生活を余儀なくされており、その中には、米軍の空爆で親族を失った人たちが多く含まれています。この人たちにとって「よりよい未来に向けての希望」などはありません。
昨年の今頃から始まり、年を越して長く続いたイスラエルのガザ攻撃で、多くのパレスチナ人が殺傷されました。今年１０月には国連でこのガザ攻撃が戦争犯罪であるという決議が行われましたが（この決議は、同時に、ハマスの武装勢力のロケット攻撃の戦争犯罪性も指摘しました）、米国はイスラエルを支持してこの決議に反対し、恥ずべきことには、日本政府は棄権しました。
「一人殺せば悪党で、百万人殺せば英雄。数が殺人を神聖化する」という言葉は、チャーリー・チャップリンが、１９４７年の自作自演映画『殺人狂時代』で演じる連続殺人犯ヴェルドゥに吐かせる有名な台詞です。ブッシュからオバマに政権が変わり、核廃絶へのかけ声だけは高まっているものの、アメリカは、チャップリンがこの映画で痛烈に批判した国家暴力を、アフガニスタンやパキスタンで展開し続けています。ノーベル平
和賞の授与は、結局は、オバマのこの国家暴力の正当化につながるものです。したがって、私は秋葉市長が推進している「オバマジョリティ運動」に、正直なところ、不快感を憶えます。
年末に当たり、もう少し心地よいメッセージを送ることができれば良いのですが、普天間基地の問題や核抑止力問題での日本政府の対応など、情けない現状を考えると、相変わらず憤慨せずにはおられません。
やはり、地道に反核平和運動を草の根のレベルで続けていくより他に、真の意味での「チェンジ」を社会にもたらす方法はないと信じます。
皆様にとって、穏やかで希望の見えるような年末年始となりますことを祈りつつ、
YouTube のクリスマス曲を送ります。
Saturday, December 19, 2009
A Korean School in Kyoto Attacked by Xenophobic Groups
On December 4, 20o9, a Korean school in Kyoto was attacked by members of xenophobic groups.
Youtube video with English subtitles:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/video/youtube/2szx-WWR0rw
"Zaitokukai," the same group as one that sabotaged the exhibit on the "comfort women" issue in Mitaka this summer, is involved with this incident.
See the Kyodo News report below.
I feel enraged to find out such racist acts are being tolerated and not reported widely enough in my country of origin. Can you imagine, if something like this happened in Canada or in the US, what the consequences would be?
Here is the link to the Japan Today news.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/men-yell-children-of-spies-at-korean-school-in-kyoto
They may cut the link soon, so I pasted the whole news below.
(Kyodo News)
> KYOTO
> A group of around 10 men yelled ‘‘children of spies’’ through a bullhorn at the main gate of a Korean elementary school in the city of Kyoto earlier this month, sources with knowledge of the matter said Friday. Around 170 children were at the school at the time. Regarding the act as a hate crime, the school will file a criminal complaint against the men with the Kyoto prefectural police next week, the sources said.
>
> As the school was keeping some of its equipment in a municipal government-controlled park in front of its building, the group went to protest against ‘‘the illegal occupation,’’ according to its leader, Makoto Sakurai.
>
> Since the school does not have a schoolyard, it uses the park for gym classes. While the municipal government has allowed the school to use the park, the school and neighboring residents were expected to discuss the matter early next year.
>
> Video footage shot by the school showed some of the men carrying the equipment and asking school officials to open the gate. The officials told the men, ‘‘This is a school,’’ but they yelled, ‘‘This is not a school,’’ and, ‘‘Let’s push Korean schools out of Japan.’’
It is never comfortable for me to dislose these shameful acts happening in my country of origin, but I still do this, because these people need to know they cannot get away with what they are doing and that the international community is watching.
Youtube video with English subtitles:
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/video/youtube/2szx-WWR0rw
"Zaitokukai," the same group as one that sabotaged the exhibit on the "comfort women" issue in Mitaka this summer, is involved with this incident.
See the Kyodo News report below.
I feel enraged to find out such racist acts are being tolerated and not reported widely enough in my country of origin. Can you imagine, if something like this happened in Canada or in the US, what the consequences would be?
Here is the link to the Japan Today news.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/men-yell-children-of-spies-at-korean-school-in-kyoto
They may cut the link soon, so I pasted the whole news below.
(Kyodo News)
> KYOTO
> A group of around 10 men yelled ‘‘children of spies’’ through a bullhorn at the main gate of a Korean elementary school in the city of Kyoto earlier this month, sources with knowledge of the matter said Friday. Around 170 children were at the school at the time. Regarding the act as a hate crime, the school will file a criminal complaint against the men with the Kyoto prefectural police next week, the sources said.
>
> As the school was keeping some of its equipment in a municipal government-controlled park in front of its building, the group went to protest against ‘‘the illegal occupation,’’ according to its leader, Makoto Sakurai.
>
> Since the school does not have a schoolyard, it uses the park for gym classes. While the municipal government has allowed the school to use the park, the school and neighboring residents were expected to discuss the matter early next year.
>
> Video footage shot by the school showed some of the men carrying the equipment and asking school officials to open the gate. The officials told the men, ‘‘This is a school,’’ but they yelled, ‘‘This is not a school,’’ and, ‘‘Let’s push Korean schools out of Japan.’’
It is never comfortable for me to dislose these shameful acts happening in my country of origin, but I still do this, because these people need to know they cannot get away with what they are doing and that the international community is watching.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Futenma Air Station Relocation Issue 普天間返還問題
（下の方に日本語解説があります。１２月１７日付の「きっこのブログ」に日本語の部分が引用されました。また、翻訳家 平和活動家の池田香代子さんのブログにも引用されました。池田さんのブログの方には、私がここで引用しているクローリー国務省次官補の１２月１５日の記者会見の日本語による要約も出ております。この要約の翻訳はサトウマキコさんによるものです）
Much has been discussed around the Futenma Air Station relocation plan. The Japanese media, from left to right, has been busy creating an impression (i.e. lying) that the U.S. is angry over Hatoyama Administration's indecision. There are numerous examples, but let's look at what happened today, and let's get to the source of it, the daily press briefing of Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State. Somehow this interviewer, whom Phillip Crowley calls "Matt," is desperate to get some, or any negative response from Crowley as if he would be killed by his wife if he went home empty-handed. Now my question is who that wife is! Anybody who has an idea, let me know.
Japanese media horizontally reported Crowley expressed a firm US Government's attitude to refuse to renegotiate the 2006 accord. He started his answers with "I defer to the Government of Japan..." and ends it with "we are happy to oblige." A 10-year-old would know that this is not about refusal; this is about cooperation. We should replace all the Japanese correspondents in Washington with my daughter's classmates and put those people in the Grade 3 classroom of the elementary school she attends.
日本のメディアは横並びで「海兵隊トップのコンウェー司令官は普天間先送りを「遺憾」」としたと報道している。「国務省のクローリー次官補（広報担当）も同日の記者会見で、移設先修正をめぐる再交渉には応じない考えを重ねて示した。 」（共同）このクローリー氏と「マット」と呼ばれる記者のやり取りを見てほしい。「再交渉に応じない」などとはどこにも書いていない。まず 「I will defer to the Government of Japan to describe its position」（日本政府にその立場を表明することを任せる）と始めている。 ２００６年「ロードマップ」に沿う意向、引き続き協議を重ねる姿勢、沖縄の問題が複雑で日本側にも時間が必要なことに対する理解を示し、最後には 「We'd be happy to oblige.」 (（日本側がもっと時間が必要というのなら)喜んで従います）)とまで言っているのだ。「任せる」から始まり「従う」に終わったこの話のどこから「再交渉に応じない考えを重ねて示す」という、あたかも強硬的な態度を取ったかのような解釈ができるのだろうか。そして、この、何か収穫（日本政府の普天間決定延期に対する否定的な反応）を持って帰らないと奥さんに殺されるといった勢いの記者は一体何者か。その「奥さん」は誰なのか。心当たりのある人は教えてほしい。
そして、国務省を代表したクローリー氏から期待したような否定的な答えがどれだけ必死に誘導尋問を試みても得られなかったため、海兵隊の司令官の発言を引っ張ってきてこれがアメリカ政府を代表した意見のように演出している日本の横並びメディアたちは一体何なのだろう。
Source: US State Department Website
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133596.htm
Excerpts from the briefing where Crowley is asked about the Futenma issue and the US reaction to Hatoyama's decision to postpone the decision to mid-2010.
QUESTION: Thank you. I would like to ask about the U.S. base realignment issue in Japan, so-called Futenma issue. The Japanese – the Government of Japan officially made a decision today that not – will not to make a decision sometime and will continue to consider where to relocate. And what is the government’s response of that?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I will defer to the Government of Japan to describe its position. We have been in consultations with the Government of Japan on this issue since the new government came into office. I think we had discussions today with Japanese officials and our Ambassador in Tokyo. We will continue to discuss this issue with the Government of Japan going forward.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, Japanese Government is saying that they might decide by next year, May or June, but U.S. officials are saying that they want answer as soon as possible. And also, at the same time, there may be talk of moving those into Guam. Is there any --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, there is an agreement that the United States reached with the previous Japanese government. We still think that roadmap is the best way forward and we’ll continue to consult closely with the Government of Japan as it works its way through this issue.
QUESTION: And also, are you in touch with the regional countries? It might affect them also to move.
MR. CROWLEY: I think that the – our presence of military forces in Okinawa is a manifestation of primarily our U.S.-Japanese bilateral relationship and alliance. Obviously, it does have regional ramifications, but I think that most people continue to appreciate the robust U.S. presence in the region.
QUESTION: Can I just – on this whole thing, is it not a little bit frustrating that it’s taking the Japanese – the new Japanese Government so long to --
MR. CROWLEY: We will continue to work with them. We understand that these are complex issues for them. They’re getting up to speed on a range of issues. I don’t think it --
QUESTION: Well, don’t you think they’ve had enough time to get up to speed on this considering – I mean, Campbell’s been over there how many times?
MR. CROWLEY: A couple.
QUESTION: Yeah. And they’ve had people here. So what’s --
MR. CROWLEY: We’ll continue to work with them.
QUESTION: So you’re prepared to draw this out – you’re prepared to let them drag this out indefinitely?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – I mean, we have a roadmap. We’re continuing to plan based on that roadmap, but we’ll continue to have our high-level consultations with the Japanese in the coming weeks and months.
QUESTION: Are you sure you want to use the word “roadmap?” In other contexts – (laughter) – that roadmap really leads to nowhere. So is that what you’re prepared --
MR. CROWLEY: If it leads to Guam. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, I’m serious. P.J., I’m serious.
MR. CROWLEY: Matt --
QUESTION: How long are you prepared to let the Japanese drag this out?
MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that our presence in Okinawa has an impact on the people of that island and is of significant importance and interest to the Japanese people. We’ll continue to work with the Japanese Government.
QUESTION: But that doesn’t answer the question. How long are you prepared to let them drag this out?
MR. CROWLEY: Matt --
QUESTION: What? It’s a simple question.
MR. CROWLEY: Let the record show that the spokesman shrugged. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So you don’t know?
MR. CROWLEY: Huh?
QUESTION: You don’t know? This could go on indefinitely and that doesn’t bother the Administration?
MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t characterize this as an indefinite conversation. The Japanese Government has indicated to us that they’d like a little more time to work through these issues and we’re happy to oblige.
("Matt" concedes and after moving onto other topics, he comes back again!)
QUESTION: Can we go back to Japan basement issue? Actually, the Government of Japan is considering to find a new location of Futenma basement, and it is totally different from the (inaudible). And my question is: Can the U.S. --
MR. CROWLEY: Or the planet.
QUESTION: Can the U.S. Government accept that?
MR. CROWLEY: There is an existing plan and it – we think it is the best way forward, but as I said earlier, we will continue to discuss this with the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Yeah. All of us know that the roadmap is the best plan, but actually, the Government of Japan is considering the new location. So my question is --
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. And we will continue to discuss the issue with the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Okay.
Much has been discussed around the Futenma Air Station relocation plan. The Japanese media, from left to right, has been busy creating an impression (i.e. lying) that the U.S. is angry over Hatoyama Administration's indecision. There are numerous examples, but let's look at what happened today, and let's get to the source of it, the daily press briefing of Phillip Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State. Somehow this interviewer, whom Phillip Crowley calls "Matt," is desperate to get some, or any negative response from Crowley as if he would be killed by his wife if he went home empty-handed. Now my question is who that wife is! Anybody who has an idea, let me know.
Japanese media horizontally reported Crowley expressed a firm US Government's attitude to refuse to renegotiate the 2006 accord. He started his answers with "I defer to the Government of Japan..." and ends it with "we are happy to oblige." A 10-year-old would know that this is not about refusal; this is about cooperation. We should replace all the Japanese correspondents in Washington with my daughter's classmates and put those people in the Grade 3 classroom of the elementary school she attends.
日本のメディアは横並びで「海兵隊トップのコンウェー司令官は普天間先送りを「遺憾」」としたと報道している。「国務省のクローリー次官補（広報担当）も同日の記者会見で、移設先修正をめぐる再交渉には応じない考えを重ねて示した。 」（共同）このクローリー氏と「マット」と呼ばれる記者のやり取りを見てほしい。「再交渉に応じない」などとはどこにも書いていない。まず 「I will defer to the Government of Japan to describe its position」（日本政府にその立場を表明することを任せる）と始めている。 ２００６年「ロードマップ」に沿う意向、引き続き協議を重ねる姿勢、沖縄の問題が複雑で日本側にも時間が必要なことに対する理解を示し、最後には 「We'd be happy to oblige.」 (（日本側がもっと時間が必要というのなら)喜んで従います）)とまで言っているのだ。「任せる」から始まり「従う」に終わったこの話のどこから「再交渉に応じない考えを重ねて示す」という、あたかも強硬的な態度を取ったかのような解釈ができるのだろうか。そして、この、何か収穫（日本政府の普天間決定延期に対する否定的な反応）を持って帰らないと奥さんに殺されるといった勢いの記者は一体何者か。その「奥さん」は誰なのか。心当たりのある人は教えてほしい。
そして、国務省を代表したクローリー氏から期待したような否定的な答えがどれだけ必死に誘導尋問を試みても得られなかったため、海兵隊の司令官の発言を引っ張ってきてこれがアメリカ政府を代表した意見のように演出している日本の横並びメディアたちは一体何なのだろう。
Source: US State Department Website
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133596.htm
Excerpts from the briefing where Crowley is asked about the Futenma issue and the US reaction to Hatoyama's decision to postpone the decision to mid-2010.
QUESTION: Thank you. I would like to ask about the U.S. base realignment issue in Japan, so-called Futenma issue. The Japanese – the Government of Japan officially made a decision today that not – will not to make a decision sometime and will continue to consider where to relocate. And what is the government’s response of that?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, I will defer to the Government of Japan to describe its position. We have been in consultations with the Government of Japan on this issue since the new government came into office. I think we had discussions today with Japanese officials and our Ambassador in Tokyo. We will continue to discuss this issue with the Government of Japan going forward.
QUESTION: Just to follow up, Japanese Government is saying that they might decide by next year, May or June, but U.S. officials are saying that they want answer as soon as possible. And also, at the same time, there may be talk of moving those into Guam. Is there any --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, there is an agreement that the United States reached with the previous Japanese government. We still think that roadmap is the best way forward and we’ll continue to consult closely with the Government of Japan as it works its way through this issue.
QUESTION: And also, are you in touch with the regional countries? It might affect them also to move.
MR. CROWLEY: I think that the – our presence of military forces in Okinawa is a manifestation of primarily our U.S.-Japanese bilateral relationship and alliance. Obviously, it does have regional ramifications, but I think that most people continue to appreciate the robust U.S. presence in the region.
QUESTION: Can I just – on this whole thing, is it not a little bit frustrating that it’s taking the Japanese – the new Japanese Government so long to --
MR. CROWLEY: We will continue to work with them. We understand that these are complex issues for them. They’re getting up to speed on a range of issues. I don’t think it --
QUESTION: Well, don’t you think they’ve had enough time to get up to speed on this considering – I mean, Campbell’s been over there how many times?
MR. CROWLEY: A couple.
QUESTION: Yeah. And they’ve had people here. So what’s --
MR. CROWLEY: We’ll continue to work with them.
QUESTION: So you’re prepared to draw this out – you’re prepared to let them drag this out indefinitely?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we – I mean, we have a roadmap. We’re continuing to plan based on that roadmap, but we’ll continue to have our high-level consultations with the Japanese in the coming weeks and months.
QUESTION: Are you sure you want to use the word “roadmap?” In other contexts – (laughter) – that roadmap really leads to nowhere. So is that what you’re prepared --
MR. CROWLEY: If it leads to Guam. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, I’m serious. P.J., I’m serious.
MR. CROWLEY: Matt --
QUESTION: How long are you prepared to let the Japanese drag this out?
MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that our presence in Okinawa has an impact on the people of that island and is of significant importance and interest to the Japanese people. We’ll continue to work with the Japanese Government.
QUESTION: But that doesn’t answer the question. How long are you prepared to let them drag this out?
MR. CROWLEY: Matt --
QUESTION: What? It’s a simple question.
MR. CROWLEY: Let the record show that the spokesman shrugged. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So you don’t know?
MR. CROWLEY: Huh?
QUESTION: You don’t know? This could go on indefinitely and that doesn’t bother the Administration?
MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t characterize this as an indefinite conversation. The Japanese Government has indicated to us that they’d like a little more time to work through these issues and we’re happy to oblige.
("Matt" concedes and after moving onto other topics, he comes back again!)
QUESTION: Can we go back to Japan basement issue? Actually, the Government of Japan is considering to find a new location of Futenma basement, and it is totally different from the (inaudible). And my question is: Can the U.S. --
MR. CROWLEY: Or the planet.
QUESTION: Can the U.S. Government accept that?
MR. CROWLEY: There is an existing plan and it – we think it is the best way forward, but as I said earlier, we will continue to discuss this with the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Yeah. All of us know that the roadmap is the best plan, but actually, the Government of Japan is considering the new location. So my question is --
MR. CROWLEY: I understand that. And we will continue to discuss the issue with the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Okay.
Monday, December 14, 2009
2010 Events
January 30 (Sat.)
Film Screening
"The Sirota Family and the 20th Century"
1:30 PM Japanese Version
3:30 PM English Version
Location: Peace Philosophy Centre, Vancouver, BC(email info@peacephilosophy.com for direction)
RSVP by January 29
Admission by Donation (suggested: $5 - $10)
Organized by: Vancouver Save Article 9, Peace Philosophy Centre
February 10 (Wed.)
Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific
Film Screening
"The Sirota Family and the 20th Century"
1:30 PM Japanese Version
3:30 PM English Version
Location: Peace Philosophy Centre, Vancouver, BC(email info@peacephilosophy.com for direction)
RSVP by January 29
Admission by Donation (suggested: $5 - $10)
Organized by: Vancouver Save Article 9, Peace Philosophy Centre
February 10 (Wed.)
Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific
Saturday, December 12, 2009
International Human Rights Day Student Symposium
Here is my closing plenary speech at the International Human Rights Day Student Symposium, organized by Vancouver School Board and BC ALPHA. I would like to express sincere thanks to Thekla Lit and Angela Brown to allow me to be part of this important event, and congratulations for the great success of the event.
International Human Rights Day Student Symposium
Theme: Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific 1931-1945
December 10 and 11, 2009 at Vancouver School Board
Closing Plenary: Towards Peace & Reconciliation – Endeavours of Human Rights & Peace Activists in Japan
Satoko Norimatsu, Director, Peace Philosophy Centre
December, 72 years after
Thank you ALPHA and Vancouver Board of Education for this opportunity to speak to high school students and teachers. This time of December is an emotional time for me, as this is the time when the Japanese Imperial Army invaded Nanking, 72 years ago, leading into the series of massive war crimes now known as the Rape of Nanking. I think about the people of Nanking, who spent sleepless nights with the fear of night-time air-bombing. I think about the people who drowned in the freezing water of Yangtze River trying to escape. I think about the people in the surrounding farming communities, where food was stolen, fire was set on the houses, women were raped and killed, and men were falsely accused of being soldiers and executed.
The Japanese military assault of Nanking actually started earlier on August 15th of the same year. Most Japanese people remember August 15 as the anniversary of the end of the war, but few know that was the day when the 20 bombers of the Japanese Imperial Navy left its base in Nagasaki for the first air-bombing of the city, the beginning of the over 50 such raids leading up to the city’s occupation on December 13.
In 1937, my father was a 10 year-old elementary school student in Tokyo. My mother was only to be born in the following year. Our family connection with China was my grandfather, who was a scholar of Chinese Literature. He lived in Hankou, part of the city now known as Wuhan, for thirty years from 1897 to 1927. He died right after he and his family came back to Japan, when my father was only a few months old. I was born 20 years after the war.
Like many other Japanese of my generation, I learned about the WWII at school, but not in real depth. I knew about the atomic-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebombing of cities across Japan, but not about the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army and Navy outside of Japan. When I was 17, I left Japan for the first time to study at this international school in Victoria. Only there, I learned about the cruel acts by the Japanese soldiers, from my Asian classmates. In 1982, I read a book about Unit 731’s biological and chemical warfare research that used live human bodies for experimentation. I still remember how shocked I was then, to learn of the savagery of those acts by the men of my own country. I was almost in disbelief, and it took me a long time to process such knowledge.
Indeed, it is very difficult for many Japanese to learn about this chapter of history, and to think about the possibility of their fathers and grandfathers being involved with such crimes. For me too, even though my family members were not directly involved, I feel deeply shameful and remorseful.
Today, my role is to present some of the efforts by Japanese people who are working for peace and reconciliation in Asia. I have a deep respect for those people in Japan who are working for these causes despite the constant threat from right-wingers. Although it is impossible to talk about all of those people’s efforts in 20 minutes, I will share a few examples that speak of the essence of the Japanese activism for Asian reconciliation.
Textbook debate, and China/Korea/Japan creating a common textbook
First I would like to touch on the textbook issue, which many of you may be familiar with, because of the infamous textbook written by the organization commonly called “Tsukurukai,” which justified Japanese imperial and military aggression in Asia and had little or no mention of atrocities Nanjing Massacre or sex slavery. A contrasting example is Tokyo Shoseki’s textbook. This textbook mentioned “comfort women,” forced labour, myths of “Greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere,” atrocities like Bataan Death March and Nanjing Massacre.
The adoption rate of the problematic “Tsukurukai” textbook is less than 2 %, and more honest textbooks like Tokyo Shoseki ‘s are still used by the majority of schools in Japan. But the fact that the Tsukurukai textbook is approved by the government itself is a problem, and a more serious problem is that the reference to the “comfort women” issue, which used to be in every approved textbook back in 1997, has almost completely disappeared from the junior high school textbooks.
To countervail such move, an organization called “Children and Textbooks Network Japan 21” was established in 1998, and has over 5,000 members – teachers, scholars, activists and journalists. This Network recently hosted the 8th Conference of the annual “Historical Consciousness and Peace in East Asia” Forum. This Conference started in Nanjing in 2002, with teachers, scholars, and citizens of the three countries – China, Korea, and Japan, in response to the establishment of “Tsukuru-kai.” Instead of just criticizing Tsukuru-kai’s textbook, the trilateral committee decided to create a textbook together. The textbook called “Mirai o Hiraku Rekisi.(History that Opens the Future)” was created by over 50 committee members from the three countries.
Japanese manga exhibit at Nanjing Massacre Museum
One of these committee members was Zhu Cheng Shan, Director of Nanjing Massacre Museum. I will next tell you about the special exhibit he decided to do this summer. This past August 15, he held a special exhibit of 130 pieces of manga art, brought by a group of Japanese graphic artists who experienced war. Yoshimi Ishikawa, the writer who brought this project to China, asked many publishers in China if they are interested in publishing these manga, and he was rejected by all. Japanese war-related publications were just not acceptable. The Ishikawa brought the matter to the President of “People’s Daily,” and after a series of negotiation and censorship, the book got published. Then Ishikawa got in touch with Zhu Chengshan, the Director of Nanjing Museum. As soon as Ishikawa met him, he congratulated Zhu for having created a museum based on the idea that war should never happen again.
Zhu was surprised, because he had only met two types of Japanese before – one just tried to negotiate the number of people killed in Nanjing Massacre, and the other simply apologized. He had never met a Japanese who praised the museum. Zhu liked Ishikawa’s ideas of showing Japanese people’s war experience at the Nanjing Museum, and the exhibit held on August 15th was attended by 20,000 people. There were some criticism, but the overall response from the Chinese people was very positive. For example, Chinese children did not know that Japanese cities were firebombed. It was the power of manga and its graphic presentation of the people’s real experience that moved Chinese people with curiosity.
Peace museums in Japan
Nanjing Massacre Museum is one of the many museums for peace around the world. There are 204 peace museums around the world, and 66 of them are in Japan According to Kazuyo Yamane’s research, 67% percent of the Japanese peace museums surveyed had display contents about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and 30% of them displayed those about the Japanese aggression on other countries. The peace museums in Japan tend to emphasize on the victim side of Japan in the war. This tendency definitely needs to be corrected, but we should still recognize the fact that more than 10 museums in Japan honestly display the past wrongdoing, and act as public peace education centre and bases for activism. Among those museums, the most notable is Oka Masaharu Memorial Nagasaki Peace Museum, which exclusively exhibits Japanese colonization, atrocities and Korean victims of the atomic bombing. This Museum has a partnership with the Nanjing Museum, and raise funds every year to send Japanese students to China.
Another courageous museum is WAM, or Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace in Tokyo, which specializes in Japan’s military sex slavery. This museum was funded by late Yayori Matsui, who was a renowned journalist who was also one of the conveners of the International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sex Slavery held in 2000 in Tokyo. Not just this museum, there are 50 to 60 organizations across Japan that are committed to supporting the victims, but again, there are under constant threat. This summer, one of these organizations held a special exhibit in Mitaka City in the suburbs of Tokyo, and it was sabotaged by right-wing organizations. On the day of the exhibit, they blocked the entrance of the building with more than 100 people, scaring many visitors away. One of my activist friends in Tokyo said that the “comfort women” supporters get the worst sort of death threats and attacks among the other issues. These threats, however, seem to solidify these women’s support network even firmer. The organizer of this event received a nation-wide encouragement, and from the victims’ organization in the Philippines.
Cities and MPs in action
In fact, this Mitaka City, where this exhibit was held, is one of the 11 municipalities in Japan that have submitted position statements to the central government on the wartime military sex slavery. Most of these statements criticize the Japanese Government for its inaction and insincere attitude among the growing international calls for resolution of this issue.
They also call for 1) investigation of the truths of the military sex slavery system, including the public hearing with the victims, 2)an official apology and compensation from the Japanese Government, 3)recovery of the honour and dignity of the victims, and 4)inheritance of the historical knowledge.
On the central government front, three political parties, including the leading Democratic Party, have jointly submitted the bill for legislative resolution for compensation for the total of 8 times since 2001 . Recently, a group of activists, scholars, and artists have come together to start a petition campaign for a resolution by legislation, and their goal is to collect 1.2 million signatures.
This year, we have seen other positive moves by some Members of Parliament. On May 5th, Kumiko Aihara, a Member of the House of Councillors, went to Fushun, in the Northeast China, to apologize to the victims of Pingdingshan Massacre, in which more than 3,000 Chinese civilians were slaughtered by Japanese soldiers on September 16, 1932. Aihara brought a letter of apology representing 24 Members of Parliament, and met one of the survivors of the Massacre.
Another example is that Yukihisa Fujita, a House of Councillors member who disclosed the declassified document that verified the fact that Aso Mining, the mining company owned by the family of former Prime Minister Taro Aso, was abusing 300 Allied Nations’ POWs.
From Devils to Humans – former soldiers working for peace
Fushun, where Pingdingshan Massacre happened, is a place that should not be forgotten for another reason, for the story called “Miracle of Fushun.” After the defeat in the war, over 600,000 Japanese soldiers were sent to labour camps in Siberia. Of those people, about 1,000 were sent to Fushun War Criminal Management Centre.
In Fushun, the way they were treated was completely opposite from that in Siberia. There was no labour involved, and the war criminals were treated with respect, given three Japanese-style meals a day. They were engaged in cultural activities like reading, discussion, and music. By the time the criminals were investigated, they were ready to confess their wrongdoing during the war, and one by one, some in tears, they started to talk about the atrocious acts they committed against the Chinese POWs and civilians. The former soldiers were allowed to go back to Japan in 1956, and the following year, they formed an organization called “Chugoku Kikansha Renrakukai,” or “Association of Returnees from China.” The group was called “Chukiren” for short. Their mandate was to tell people in Japan what they did in China ,and let them know how war and militaristic education could turn ordinary people into devils. In February 1957, the book called “Sanko,” the collection of those former soldier’s accounts was published. “Sanko” is the Japanese war strategy in China – “kill all, loot all, and burn all.” It quickly became a bestseller. Chukiren was dissolved in 2002, due to the aging of the members, but their causes were carried on by younger people, including those in 20’s and 30’s. The new group is called “Continuing Miracle of Fushun.”
The promise of Article 9 and its popular support
Shin-ichiro Kumagai, one of the young leaders of this new group says,
“When I think about these people’s sincere efforts after the war, I believe this is the way the post-war Japan should have been. Unfortunately we Japanese have neither developed enough sensitivity to feel other people’s pain, nor have we regained our conscience to squarely face our past mistakes and learn from them.”
This path that the members of Chukiren chose to follow, one that has never been easy, is a true embodiment of Japan’s post-war Constitution. Japanese people chose to embrace this Constitution that declares they are “resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government,” and in its Article 9, they “forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.” For that purpose, “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained..” This, according to Chalmers Johnson, is Japan’s declaration to its neighbouring countries that “they have no reason to fear the kind of militarism seen in Japan in 1930’s and 1940’s will be repeated again, because Japan officially, legally, abandoned the use of military might, except in the last-resort self-defense.”
This Article 9’s pledge is alive in the fact that there are over 7,000 pro-Article 9 organizations across Japan and outside of Japan, including one in Vancouver.
Why do we learn history? How are younger generations responsible?
Shuichi Kato, a prominent public intellectual, was among the 9 people who started networking the thousands of grass-roots Article 9 groups in Japan. He taught Japanese culture at universities around the world, including UBC in 1960’s. In later years of his life, he spoke extensively about the young generations’ relationship to the past war. In 2005, Kato said in the NHK radio interview,
"Young people of today's Japan are not responsible for the war crimes of their previous generations, but they have a responsibility for learning the history and examine whether the elements of the society that caused those crimes are still found in today's society or not."
In his talk, Kato pointed out four such elements – 1)information manipulation through mass media, 2)conformism, 3)national isolationism (leading to ethnocentrism), and 4)discrimination of all sorts. Those elements did underlie the Japanese soldiers’ mentality and behaviours in their neighbouring countries. All media was strictly controlled, people’s behaviours were monitored through neighbourhood associations, and Japanese people were taught to believe that they were superior to other Asian peoples. Are these elements present in the current society, not just in Japan, but in other areas, including our own, Canada? Is there racism? Is there ethnocentrism? Is there discrimination? It is easy to detect those in other people, but we also need to recognize them in ourselves, and that is the hardest but most important part. Here in Vancouver, I feel my children are fortunate to grow up with children who have parents from all over the world, including the countries that Japan was at war with, only six, seven decades ago. You learn from each other about the experience of your parents and grandparents, and the older generations can learn from the younger.
In Canada, working together for peace in Asia
For this reason, I believe Vancouver is an ideal place for creating peace and historical reconciliation in Asia, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. This past July, Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko came to visit Canada. When I heard about it, the first question that came to my mind was whether Akihito was aware that visiting a city like Vancouver was equivalent to visiting China, Korea, and Philippines altogether, as the majority of city’s residents were those originally from Asia-Pacific countries and their children. Thekla Lit, who is the organizer of today’s symposium, and I decided to write an open letter together and hold a press conference. The letter would welcome the couple to Canada, let them know what we Asian Canadians are doing to bring healing and justice to the victims of war in Asia, and encourage them to do more of their efforts to pay tribute to the war dead, like they did in China, Saipan, and Okinawa.
ALPHA and Peace Philosophy Centre, two peace organizations were eventually joined by 6 other local organizations - one Japanese, three Filipino, one Korean, and one women’s. Our Press Conference was attended by 16 newspapers and TV stations, and it was reported across Japan through Kyodo News Agency.
We received many positive comments, including one from a Canadian living in Japan, “Excellent piece of work. It does put forward a lot of Canadian values and that's great.” I hope to continue such work that utilizes Canada’s diversity and multicultural environment for peace and reconciliation in Asia.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
"The Start of the Pacific War" Day Reported in the NHK News - the 68th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor (or no mention of it)
Last night at 1 AM (December 8), I saw the most weird news report in NHK Morning News (6 PM on the same day by the Japan time). I can't recall the details, but it went like this.
At this temple somewhere in Japan, people gathered to commemorate the anniversary of "the start of the Pacific War." Each rings a bell, then "prays for peace." The purpose of the event is to "recognize the importance of peace." At this street at another place in Japan, women handed out flyers in the shopping arcade. It was the replication of "Akagami," or the "Red Slip" which the government used to send to draft men. Then people on the street were interviewed. An old man says, "War is no good. War should not happen again." A woman says, "Peace is so precious." A young man says, "We should remember the suffering of the previous generations."
There was no mention of the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy. There was no explanation of how the "Pacific War" started. There was no mention of the recent controversy over the former Air SDF chief Tamogami's article in which he claimed Pearl Harbor was a set-up. There was no mention of whom Japan fought the war with. There was no mention of the fact that Japan actually lost the war.
For the young people who don't know the history, this news would imply that the war was somewhat like a typhoon or an earthquake that just "happened," and what one can and should do to avoid another war is to pray and wish. The "prayer for peace" is like what many Japanese do in the new year - visit a Buddhist temple or a Shinto shrine, and make a wish that the coming year would be a happy and eventless one.
This kind of ritual I saw in the news can be repeated exactly in the same way whether it is to commemorate Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombing, the air raids on other cities of Japan, Nanjing Massacre (if they do at all), or even Yasukuni Shrine. There is no reflection of what mistake exactly was made by whom and no suggestion of the concrete lesson we the current generation should learn from that specific chapter of history. It is harmless, meaning it is nothing. It avoids debate, and uncomfortable discussion of the past wrong.
I know this kind of tendency is in the Japanese mindset. What happened happened, and there is nothing we could have done about it, so just let it go and live today peacefully and harmoniously, and pray that no bad thing will happen in the future. And let's frown upon people who make a fuss about the past and disturb the "precious peace" we enjoy. That's the kind of reaction that victims of Japanese aggression in Asia have been getting, and the victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Okinawa are getting from their own people.
I acknowledge the Japanese cultural value of prioritizing on harmony and avoiding trouble or disagreement, but we should squarely face the fact that the people of our country made terrible decisions before and caused so much pain and suffering to the people in other countries and our own country, in the fifteen year of Japan's invasive war in China (1931-1945), and four destructive years of the war with the United States, Britain and its Allies (1941-1945). We should seriously think about at whose expense we are enjoying this "precious peace" like it was mentioned in the NHK news.
Right now, activists in Japan are working hard to collect signatures for the petition campaign for the legislative resolution to compensate for the suffering of the victims of Japan's military sex slavery. The on-line petition form is here, but right now the form is only in Japanese. I will announce as soon as the English version is ready.
For peace,
Satoko
At this temple somewhere in Japan, people gathered to commemorate the anniversary of "the start of the Pacific War." Each rings a bell, then "prays for peace." The purpose of the event is to "recognize the importance of peace." At this street at another place in Japan, women handed out flyers in the shopping arcade. It was the replication of "Akagami," or the "Red Slip" which the government used to send to draft men. Then people on the street were interviewed. An old man says, "War is no good. War should not happen again." A woman says, "Peace is so precious." A young man says, "We should remember the suffering of the previous generations."
There was no mention of the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese Navy. There was no explanation of how the "Pacific War" started. There was no mention of the recent controversy over the former Air SDF chief Tamogami's article in which he claimed Pearl Harbor was a set-up. There was no mention of whom Japan fought the war with. There was no mention of the fact that Japan actually lost the war.
For the young people who don't know the history, this news would imply that the war was somewhat like a typhoon or an earthquake that just "happened," and what one can and should do to avoid another war is to pray and wish. The "prayer for peace" is like what many Japanese do in the new year - visit a Buddhist temple or a Shinto shrine, and make a wish that the coming year would be a happy and eventless one.
This kind of ritual I saw in the news can be repeated exactly in the same way whether it is to commemorate Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombing, the air raids on other cities of Japan, Nanjing Massacre (if they do at all), or even Yasukuni Shrine. There is no reflection of what mistake exactly was made by whom and no suggestion of the concrete lesson we the current generation should learn from that specific chapter of history. It is harmless, meaning it is nothing. It avoids debate, and uncomfortable discussion of the past wrong.
I know this kind of tendency is in the Japanese mindset. What happened happened, and there is nothing we could have done about it, so just let it go and live today peacefully and harmoniously, and pray that no bad thing will happen in the future. And let's frown upon people who make a fuss about the past and disturb the "precious peace" we enjoy. That's the kind of reaction that victims of Japanese aggression in Asia have been getting, and the victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Okinawa are getting from their own people.
I acknowledge the Japanese cultural value of prioritizing on harmony and avoiding trouble or disagreement, but we should squarely face the fact that the people of our country made terrible decisions before and caused so much pain and suffering to the people in other countries and our own country, in the fifteen year of Japan's invasive war in China (1931-1945), and four destructive years of the war with the United States, Britain and its Allies (1941-1945). We should seriously think about at whose expense we are enjoying this "precious peace" like it was mentioned in the NHK news.
Right now, activists in Japan are working hard to collect signatures for the petition campaign for the legislative resolution to compensate for the suffering of the victims of Japan's military sex slavery. The on-line petition form is here, but right now the form is only in Japanese. I will announce as soon as the English version is ready.
For peace,
Satoko
Nanking Film Festival in Tokyo 南京・史実を守る映画祭
This if the flyer of the upcoming film festival in Tokyo with the line-up of four films related to the Nanjing Massacre (1937-1938) and a symposium. 日本、特に関東地方の人注目！日本で南京大虐殺事件を扱う映画を観る機会は驚くほど限られています。そういう意味で一日に４本も上映してしまうこのイベントの大胆さ、いや正常さには脱帽します。それも制作は中国、日本、カナダ、アメリカ、オーストラリア、ドイツといった多国籍の視点を網羅したバランスのいいプログラムであると言えます。「引き裂かれた記憶」の英語版が来年のベルリン映画祭にエントリーされた(英語題 Torn Memories of Nanking) と聞きました。国際的な関心が高まる中、日本人だけが知らない、または間違った知識を植えつけられている状況は是正しなければいけません。１２月１３日、ぜひ東京近辺にいらっしゃる方は行ってみてください。遠くからでも出かけていく価値は十分にありの催しと思います。チラシはクリックすれば拡大して見られます。以前の投稿でも紹介しています。オフィシャルウェブサイトはこちらです。
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Nuclear Issues – The Basic Standpoint of the Citizens of Hiroshima 核問題における広島市民の立場 広島市立大平和研究所 田中利幸教授
Toshiyuki Tanaka, Professor of Hiroshima Peace Institute submitted this letter to Gerard Cossette, Associate Deputy Minister Foreign Affairs of Canada, and Jonathan Fried, Ambassador of Canada to Japan at the luncheon hosted by the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo on December 4, 2009.
*********************************************************
Nuclear Issues – The Basic Standpoint of the Citizens of Hiroshima
The fundamental issue for the citizens of Hiroshima when discussing nuclear issues is the incomprehensibly vast number of people affected by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima that occurred on August 6 1945. That morning, the atomic bomb instantly killed 70,000 to 80,000 civilians and by the end of 1945, 140,000 residents of Hiroshima had died as a result of the bombing. Many others have subsequently died or are still suffering from various diseases caused by radiation. Hiroshima’s anti-nuclear and peace movements are hence firmly embedded in the understanding that the indiscriminate and mass killing of civilians using nuclear weapons is genocide and that the use of nuclear weapons – under any circumstances – is therefore clearly a crime against humanity. We also regard nuclear deterrence policies to be crimes against peace as explicated by the Nuremberg principle, as “nuclear deterrence” effectively means planning and preparing to commit indiscriminate mass killing, i.e., a crime against humanity, using nuclear weapons. To fail to recognize these fundamental views would mean a complete loss of the momentum of our anti-nuclear and peace movements. I strongly believe that these views are also shared by the citizens of Nagasaki.
As advocates for nuclear abolition, as well as citizens of the first city to feel the effects of a nuclear attack, we are often disappointed by the fact that many politicians, bureaucrats and academics tend to engage in discussions on various nuclear issues, including nuclear deterrence and disarmament, neglecting this basic and indisputable fact – that these in fact signify the massacre of a large number of human beings (as well as many other creatures) using a weapon of mass destruction. They tend to deal with nuclear issues mainly within the frameworks of the “balance of power” between the nuclear states and of international political relations. We therefore would like to strongly urge those involved with these issues never to forget the extreme cruelty of the atomic bombing when entering into discussions on nuclear issues.
“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.” Henri Verdoux, a murderer, makes this statement shortly before being hanged in the film Monsieur Verdoux, produced by Charlie Chaplin in 1947. It seems that many of us are still influenced by this way of thinking. Indeed, despite countless publications, films and talks on the brutality of atomic bombing over the last 64 years, there is still not a single law anywhere in the world that criminalizes the use of nuclear weapons.
As far as the criminality of the use of nuclear weapons is concerned, worldwide there is so far only one judicial judgment, delivered by the Tokyo District Court in 1963, concerning the so-called Shimoda Case. This judgment plainly stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a clear violation of international law and regulations respecting aerial warfare. The court cited a number of international laws including the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and Land of 1899, the Declaration Prohibiting Aerial Bombardment of 1907, the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922-1923, and the Protocol Prohibiting the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Deleterious or Other Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. (For details, please see my article ‘The Atomic Bombing, The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and the Shimoda Case: Lessons for Anti-Nuclear Legal Movements.’*) The judgment delivered by the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in July 2007 also stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime as it ‘violated the principles prohibiting the mass murder of civilians, wanton destruction of cities and villages resulting in excessive death not justified by military necessity.’ In other words, it constitutes as a ‘War Crime established in Principle VI (b) of the Nuremberg Principles, and in Article (5) paragraph (b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.’ (For details, see the judgment passed by this Tribunal.**)
Despite this, as mentioned above, we have not yet succeeded in establishing an international convention to criminalize and ban the use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of NGOs, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who are working hard to establish a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention by providing model conventions. As the world push for the abolition of nuclear weapons is now heightened, we, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel it is time to take effective action and enact an international convention. For this purpose we strongly support movements such as those of the ICAN and IALANA.
However, we believe that, as a step towards the establishment of such a convention, one of the existing international conventions should be fully utilized to quickly criminalize the use of nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium (DU) weapons. In particular, we believe that Chapters II and III of Part IV, Section I “Civilian Population” of the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977” are extremely useful for this purpose. It is crystal clear that the use of nuclear and DU weapons are a violation of Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population) and Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) of this Additional Protocol. (Please see the attached copy of the Articles 51 and 55.)
In actual fact, during the process of drafting this Protocol, countries such as Romania, Yugoslavia and North Korea strongly suggested that there should be a provision to name the specific types of weapons of mass destruction to be banned, e.g.: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, due to political pressures from nuclear powers, in particular the U.S., Britain and France, proposals to include such a provision were eventually rejected. The United States declared that ‘nuclear weapons were the subject of separate negotiations and agreements,’ and that ‘the rules established by this protocol were not intended to have any effects on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.’ Britain also issued the similar statement and made sure that their policy would not be affected by this Protocol.
It is immediately obvious, on reading the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, that the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably contravenes this Protocol. However, because of the above-mentioned destructive attitude of nuclear powers, we need to include a provision which clarifies the criminality of the use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons as well as all weapons of mass destruction. Thus we would like to propose the addition of a straightforward and simple provision to the Protocol which would make the ban of the use of nuclear weapons a positive international law. It is an extremely simple formula and would therefore not require comprehensive discussion to draft the text of regulation. It only requires the political will of the majority of the nations in the world for it to become possible. Once we succeed in criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons by introducing a simple, new provision, we can start working to draft a separate and more comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, including provisions to ban the production and testing of nuclear weapons.
It is expected that nuclear powers such as the U.S. and Russia will not agree to such a scheme and will refuse to ratify it even if it is endorsed by many other nations. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that once a ban on the use of nuclear weapons becomes a positive international law, it will also serve to regulate the conduct of non-signatory nations.
Fortunately, the world situation concerning the popular demand for abolishing nuclear weapons has changed considerably – for the better – over the last year or so, although the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is actually increasing. We, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel that the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May next year will be a great opportunity to strengthen the rising popular call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and to make realistic proposals for criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons. To this end, the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolishment (HANWA) – the largest nonpartisan anti-nuclear organization in Hiroshima, which includes many A-bomb survivors among its members – plans to start campaigning to propose the above mentioned scheme to criminalize the use of nuclear weapons using the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
If governments of nations like Canada, which are leading the world in Human Security, based upon a “Responsibility to Protect,” could provide assistance in the realization of this scheme, it would be of tremendous moral support to both Hiroshima’s anti-nuclear movement and to the A-bomb survivors, who long for the immediate abolition of nuclear weapons.
December 4, 2009
Yuki Tanaka
Executive Committee Member of HANWA,
Research Professor of the Hiroshima Peace Institute
* ‘The Atomic Bombing, The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and the Shimoda Case: Lessons for Anti-Nuclear Legal Movements,’ with comment by Richard Falk posted at Japan Focus (http://japanfocus.org/-Richard-Falk/3245) November 2009.
** http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~a-bomb/indexen.htm
Attachments
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Art 55. Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
*********************************************************
Nuclear Issues – The Basic Standpoint of the Citizens of Hiroshima
The fundamental issue for the citizens of Hiroshima when discussing nuclear issues is the incomprehensibly vast number of people affected by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima that occurred on August 6 1945. That morning, the atomic bomb instantly killed 70,000 to 80,000 civilians and by the end of 1945, 140,000 residents of Hiroshima had died as a result of the bombing. Many others have subsequently died or are still suffering from various diseases caused by radiation. Hiroshima’s anti-nuclear and peace movements are hence firmly embedded in the understanding that the indiscriminate and mass killing of civilians using nuclear weapons is genocide and that the use of nuclear weapons – under any circumstances – is therefore clearly a crime against humanity. We also regard nuclear deterrence policies to be crimes against peace as explicated by the Nuremberg principle, as “nuclear deterrence” effectively means planning and preparing to commit indiscriminate mass killing, i.e., a crime against humanity, using nuclear weapons. To fail to recognize these fundamental views would mean a complete loss of the momentum of our anti-nuclear and peace movements. I strongly believe that these views are also shared by the citizens of Nagasaki.
As advocates for nuclear abolition, as well as citizens of the first city to feel the effects of a nuclear attack, we are often disappointed by the fact that many politicians, bureaucrats and academics tend to engage in discussions on various nuclear issues, including nuclear deterrence and disarmament, neglecting this basic and indisputable fact – that these in fact signify the massacre of a large number of human beings (as well as many other creatures) using a weapon of mass destruction. They tend to deal with nuclear issues mainly within the frameworks of the “balance of power” between the nuclear states and of international political relations. We therefore would like to strongly urge those involved with these issues never to forget the extreme cruelty of the atomic bombing when entering into discussions on nuclear issues.
“One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify.” Henri Verdoux, a murderer, makes this statement shortly before being hanged in the film Monsieur Verdoux, produced by Charlie Chaplin in 1947. It seems that many of us are still influenced by this way of thinking. Indeed, despite countless publications, films and talks on the brutality of atomic bombing over the last 64 years, there is still not a single law anywhere in the world that criminalizes the use of nuclear weapons.
As far as the criminality of the use of nuclear weapons is concerned, worldwide there is so far only one judicial judgment, delivered by the Tokyo District Court in 1963, concerning the so-called Shimoda Case. This judgment plainly stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a clear violation of international law and regulations respecting aerial warfare. The court cited a number of international laws including the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and Land of 1899, the Declaration Prohibiting Aerial Bombardment of 1907, the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922-1923, and the Protocol Prohibiting the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Deleterious or Other Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. (For details, please see my article ‘The Atomic Bombing, The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and the Shimoda Case: Lessons for Anti-Nuclear Legal Movements.’*) The judgment delivered by the International Peoples’ Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in July 2007 also stated that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime as it ‘violated the principles prohibiting the mass murder of civilians, wanton destruction of cities and villages resulting in excessive death not justified by military necessity.’ In other words, it constitutes as a ‘War Crime established in Principle VI (b) of the Nuremberg Principles, and in Article (5) paragraph (b) of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.’ (For details, see the judgment passed by this Tribunal.**)
Despite this, as mentioned above, we have not yet succeeded in establishing an international convention to criminalize and ban the use of nuclear weapons. There are a number of NGOs, such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who are working hard to establish a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention by providing model conventions. As the world push for the abolition of nuclear weapons is now heightened, we, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel it is time to take effective action and enact an international convention. For this purpose we strongly support movements such as those of the ICAN and IALANA.
However, we believe that, as a step towards the establishment of such a convention, one of the existing international conventions should be fully utilized to quickly criminalize the use of nuclear weapons and other radioactive weapons such as depleted uranium (DU) weapons. In particular, we believe that Chapters II and III of Part IV, Section I “Civilian Population” of the “Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977” are extremely useful for this purpose. It is crystal clear that the use of nuclear and DU weapons are a violation of Article 51 (Protection of the civilian population) and Article 55 (Protection of the natural environment) of this Additional Protocol. (Please see the attached copy of the Articles 51 and 55.)
In actual fact, during the process of drafting this Protocol, countries such as Romania, Yugoslavia and North Korea strongly suggested that there should be a provision to name the specific types of weapons of mass destruction to be banned, e.g.: nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, due to political pressures from nuclear powers, in particular the U.S., Britain and France, proposals to include such a provision were eventually rejected. The United States declared that ‘nuclear weapons were the subject of separate negotiations and agreements,’ and that ‘the rules established by this protocol were not intended to have any effects on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.’ Britain also issued the similar statement and made sure that their policy would not be affected by this Protocol.
It is immediately obvious, on reading the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions, that the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably contravenes this Protocol. However, because of the above-mentioned destructive attitude of nuclear powers, we need to include a provision which clarifies the criminality of the use of nuclear, radioactive, chemical and biological weapons as well as all weapons of mass destruction. Thus we would like to propose the addition of a straightforward and simple provision to the Protocol which would make the ban of the use of nuclear weapons a positive international law. It is an extremely simple formula and would therefore not require comprehensive discussion to draft the text of regulation. It only requires the political will of the majority of the nations in the world for it to become possible. Once we succeed in criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons by introducing a simple, new provision, we can start working to draft a separate and more comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, including provisions to ban the production and testing of nuclear weapons.
It is expected that nuclear powers such as the U.S. and Russia will not agree to such a scheme and will refuse to ratify it even if it is endorsed by many other nations. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that once a ban on the use of nuclear weapons becomes a positive international law, it will also serve to regulate the conduct of non-signatory nations.
Fortunately, the world situation concerning the popular demand for abolishing nuclear weapons has changed considerably – for the better – over the last year or so, although the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is actually increasing. We, the citizens of Hiroshima, feel that the upcoming NPT Review Conference in New York in May next year will be a great opportunity to strengthen the rising popular call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and to make realistic proposals for criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons. To this end, the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolishment (HANWA) – the largest nonpartisan anti-nuclear organization in Hiroshima, which includes many A-bomb survivors among its members – plans to start campaigning to propose the above mentioned scheme to criminalize the use of nuclear weapons using the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
If governments of nations like Canada, which are leading the world in Human Security, based upon a “Responsibility to Protect,” could provide assistance in the realization of this scheme, it would be of tremendous moral support to both Hiroshima’s anti-nuclear movement and to the A-bomb survivors, who long for the immediate abolition of nuclear weapons.
December 4, 2009
Yuki Tanaka
Executive Committee Member of HANWA,
Research Professor of the Hiroshima Peace Institute
* ‘The Atomic Bombing, The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and the Shimoda Case: Lessons for Anti-Nuclear Legal Movements,’ with comment by Richard Falk posted at Japan Focus (http://japanfocus.org/-Richard-Falk/3245) November 2009.
** http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~a-bomb/indexen.htm
Attachments
The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Signed on 12 December 1977
Art 51. - Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Art 55. Protection of the natural environment
1. Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.
2. Attacks against the natural environment by way of reprisals are prohibited.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
White Rock Meeting December 2009 ホワイトロックの会２００９年１２月のお知らせ
How are you in the frosty winter? The holiday season is approaching... Look at the photo of the more than one hudred "9" (3X3) quilts, symbolizing Article 9, the Peace Constitution. Thanks to Kyoko, we are about to complete this project, and we invite you at Mariko's house at 1:30 PM, Saturday December 12 at Mariko's home in White Rock. Please email whiterock@peacephilosophy.com if you would like to come, and let us know if you would like a ride from Vancouver.
ここのところ 急に寒さが増し、霜の降りる朝が続いています。また クリスマスライトをあちこちの家並みで見かけ、１２月を感じさせます。
皆さん、この会で いつか キルトに挑戦しようと 鍋つかみをつくったことを覚えていらっしゃいますか。
あのあと "平和をつなぐキルト"を作ろうと 皆さんから９枚はぎの"ナインキルト”をたくさん寄せていただきました。 集まった１００枚以上のナインキルトを 京子さんが一生懸命に縫い合せてくださり いよいよ 念願の"平和をつなぐキルト”が完成に近づいてきました。
大きくて素敵なキルトに仕上がりつつあります。写真を参考にしてください。
今回のホワイトロックの会は 仕上げの作業のキルティングを皆さんと一緒にやっていきたいと思います。
針は糸はこちらで用意しますが、指ぬきが必要な各自で持ってきてください。
たくさんの方々の参加をお待ちしています。
日時：１２月１２日（土曜日）１時半
場所： Mariko's Home in White Rock ( whiterock@peacephilososphy.com にメールください。行き方を案内します。バンクーバーから車でピックアップもできます。）
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Living Through the History - Salon with Tatsuo Kage
Our salon on Saturday, the last one of this term, reminded me of the power of learning history through people who have lived through it. I was fortunate to share this salon with about twenty people - students from Ritsumeikan, UBC, SFU, a urologist working at Vancouver General Hospital as a visiting researcher and his early childhood educator wife and their four children, an elementary school teacher who hosts peace meetings at her White Rock home, an art curator/film director and her biologist/engineer husband, former head of the National Association of Japanese Canadians who went through the internment as a child, and former director of a long-established community volunteer organization/a Hiroshima hibakusha. We had such a wealth of diverse experience and knowledge, and curious and youthful energy.
Kage-san's talk was wide-ranging and still coherent. Each picture had a powerful story to tell, and the hour and a half talk felt like ten minutes. Year 1935 felt real to the younger ones, with the baby photo of Kage-san with his well-built and confident military-officer father and his beautiful mother clad in kimono, something an a
verage Japanese woman now wears only a few times for the entire life. The "military boy" as Kage-san described his childhood, holds the toy sword and gun proudly. The world, however changed upside-down in 1945. He showed the photo of his elementary school textbook, in which all war-sort of things had to be blackened with ink, the practice of "kuronuri textbook" in the post-war Japan. Even the part of a snow-ball fight had to be erased.
verage Japanese woman now wears only a few times for the entire life. The "military boy" as Kage-san described his childhood, holds the toy sword and gun proudly. The world, however changed upside-down in 1945. He showed the photo of his elementary school textbook, in which all war-sort of things had to be blackened with ink, the practice of "kuronuri textbook" in the post-war Japan. Even the part of a snow-ball fight had to be erased.Kage-san's curiosity never got erased, though. He studied European History at the university, and studied in Germany. He learned about Weimer's Republic and the rise of Nazi - something we would like to hear more about in another occasion. He taught at Meijigakuin University before he immigrated to Canada in 1975. Kage-san made a significant contribution to the Japanese Canadians' Redress Movement by searching for and assisting those 4,000 Japanese-Canadians who were exiled to Japan after the internment. His book "Nikkei Canada jin no Tsuih
o" ("The Exile of Japanese Canadians," Akashi Shoten, 1998), with in-depth interviews with the Japanese-Canadians in Japan whom Kage-san found, has been translated into English but he has not found a publisher yet. There has never been any other work of this kind before, so I hope an English version will be published soon. (Photo is from the Sendai meeting, one of the nine meetings held in August 1989 across Japan, to provide information about the Redress, by the Canadian Government and the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Kage-san acted as a coordinator and translator for the mission.)
o" ("The Exile of Japanese Canadians," Akashi Shoten, 1998), with in-depth interviews with the Japanese-Canadians in Japan whom Kage-san found, has been translated into English but he has not found a publisher yet. There has never been any other work of this kind before, so I hope an English version will be published soon. (Photo is from the Sendai meeting, one of the nine meetings held in August 1989 across Japan, to provide information about the Redress, by the Canadian Government and the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Kage-san acted as a coordinator and translator for the mission.)Kage-san's subsequent work for human rights covers a wide spectrum of issues and different minotiry groups, from the First Nations People, the victims of Japan's military sex slavery, the second-generation trauma of Jewish and Japanese, to this Japanese diplomat in Lithu
ania Chiune Sugihara, who disobeyed the government order and issued thousands of visas to the Jews who were seeking to escape Poland. In the picture is Sugihara's wife and family members of one of the Jew survivors whom Sugihara saved.
ania Chiune Sugihara, who disobeyed the government order and issued thousands of visas to the Jews who were seeking to escape Poland. In the picture is Sugihara's wife and family members of one of the Jew survivors whom Sugihara saved. Kage-san has also been involved with many activities to raise awareness about the Japanese atrocities in Asia during the war, including the petition campaign to support the Ienaga Textbook Lawsuits in which historian Saburo Ienaga sued the Japanese Government for censoring the textbooks he authored. The first lawsuit was filed in 1965 followed by two more in 1967, and 1984. The issues of debate were the description in Ienaga's textbooks about the Rape of Nanking
, military sex slavery, forced suicides in the Battle of Okinawa, and the Korean resistance against Japan during the Sino-Japan War, among others. Although "kyokasho kentei," the government's intervention with the textbooks which many regard as censorship, was not deemed unconstitutional, the final judgment by the Supreme Court in 1997 ruled many of the government's revision recommendations illegal. The 32-year long trial was recorded in the Guiness Book as the longest civil trial ever. (In the Photo is Saburo Ienaga speaking at the press conference after the Supreme Court Ruling)
, military sex slavery, forced suicides in the Battle of Okinawa, and the Korean resistance against Japan during the Sino-Japan War, among others. Although "kyokasho kentei," the government's intervention with the textbooks which many regard as censorship, was not deemed unconstitutional, the final judgment by the Supreme Court in 1997 ruled many of the government's revision recommendations illegal. The 32-year long trial was recorded in the Guiness Book as the longest civil trial ever. (In the Photo is Saburo Ienaga speaking at the press conference after the Supreme Court Ruling)I feel privileged finally to have gotten to know more of Kage-san's human rights work, after working with him for five years for Vancouver Save Article 9. I admire Kage-san's decades of tireless devotion for peace and historical reconciliation, which transcends national borders and ethnic boundaries and brings people with different backgrounds together for common goals. I am sure 
the young members of our salon saw as much of a role model as I saw in Kage-san.
the young members of our salon saw as much of a role model as I saw in Kage-san. Please see feedback from the participants below, or by clicking "comments" if they are not showing. I will keep adding more comments as they come in. Of course readers are all welcome to leave a comment as well.
In peace and love,
Satoko
P.S.
This salon was the last official event of 2009 by Peace Philosophy Centre. There are two more events in December that the Centre is associated with. The International Human Rights Day event takes place this Saturday, December 5, at Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, and the last White Rock meeting of this year will take place on Saturday, December 12. We will post the 2010 schedule some time in January.
沖縄 - 友人からのメッセージ Okinawa - A Message from a Friend
A friend of mine sent me this message, knowing that I will be in Okinawa soon. This message touched my heart, and I wanted to share it with you. Thank you Yasuko.
私がもうすぐ沖縄に行くと知った友人がメッセージをくれました。 優しく、心に響く言葉に満ち溢れていて、みなさんと共有します。Yasuko さんありがとう。
★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆
恐らく聡子さんのことだから現在の沖縄の普天間基地の問題の件も兼ねて行くのでしょうか。私が今回沖縄へ行って感じたことがいくつかありました。
妹は沖縄に住んで１０年になりますが、彼女曰く、辺野古は沖縄本島でも唯一残されたきれいなビーチがあるところであそこを失ってしまうと、環境の面だけでなく、沖縄の今後のツアーリズムにも大きな損害となると言っていました。
沖縄の人はとてもシャイで最初に会ったときに笑ってくれる人たちではありません。でもとっても優しくて、慣れてくれると表立った優しさではなく、本当に心のこもった優しさを出してくれます。これは今までの沖縄の人達が経験した歴史が背景にあるのでしょうか。
妹は子供が生まれる前は保育士をしていました。彼女の友人はアメリカ基地がある街で保育士をしているらしいのですが、他の所の保育士は基本的に休憩時間がないのに対し、お金があるので追加でスタッフを追加したり、ボーナスが出たりと待遇が大分違うそうです。沖縄は日本で一番貧しい県で、アメリカ軍が居ることによって経済が潤っていると言う辛い現実があるというところが歯がゆいです。
離島でも沖縄本島へ居ても軍のジェットがあちらこちらで飛んでいました。普通の飛行機と違って音が全然違います。どうして？何のためにこのジェットは飛んでいるんだろうと疑問に思うと同時に怒りが込み上げてきました。
あか島へ行く途中のフェリーでお年寄りのグループが戦争中船を攻撃されて沈没して亡くなった人達（親族の方もいたそうです）を偲ぶ方達が印象的でした。菊の花をフェリーから投げて黙祷をしたあと、あるおじいさんが他のおじいさんに「あなたの親族もここでしたか？」と言う問いに、「いいえ、家はフィリピンでした」と言う淡々とした会話を聞き、そのお年寄りの人達は涙をぬぐうこともなく、そのまま席に戻ってお弁当を食べ、TVを見る姿が印象的でした。あるお年寄は、日本軍は沖縄の人達にひどいことをしたからね。。とおっしゃっておりました。
養蜂所を探して居るときに道に迷ってしまい、普天間基地のゲートに来てしまいました。すごく悲しい気持ちになりました。普天間基地は４つか５つの市にまたがって大きな土地を持っているようでその為に沖縄の道がそこを避けて結果的に通まわりをして無理をして作られているようです。
沖縄の人達の犠牲は余りにもひどいと感じました。本当に閉鎖をして、日本政府は今までの罪を償い、素晴らしい沖縄の自然、文化、人達を守ってあげ平和な沖縄にしてあげる責任があると痛感しています。
気をつけて行って来て下さい。すごく感じることがいっぱいあると思います。
Yasuko B.
★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆
私がもうすぐ沖縄に行くと知った友人がメッセージをくれました。 優しく、心に響く言葉に満ち溢れていて、みなさんと共有します。Yasuko さんありがとう。
★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆
恐らく聡子さんのことだから現在の沖縄の普天間基地の問題の件も兼ねて行くのでしょうか。私が今回沖縄へ行って感じたことがいくつかありました。
妹は沖縄に住んで１０年になりますが、彼女曰く、辺野古は沖縄本島でも唯一残されたきれいなビーチがあるところであそこを失ってしまうと、環境の面だけでなく、沖縄の今後のツアーリズムにも大きな損害となると言っていました。
沖縄の人はとてもシャイで最初に会ったときに笑ってくれる人たちではありません。でもとっても優しくて、慣れてくれると表立った優しさではなく、本当に心のこもった優しさを出してくれます。これは今までの沖縄の人達が経験した歴史が背景にあるのでしょうか。
妹は子供が生まれる前は保育士をしていました。彼女の友人はアメリカ基地がある街で保育士をしているらしいのですが、他の所の保育士は基本的に休憩時間がないのに対し、お金があるので追加でスタッフを追加したり、ボーナスが出たりと待遇が大分違うそうです。沖縄は日本で一番貧しい県で、アメリカ軍が居ることによって経済が潤っていると言う辛い現実があるというところが歯がゆいです。
離島でも沖縄本島へ居ても軍のジェットがあちらこちらで飛んでいました。普通の飛行機と違って音が全然違います。どうして？何のためにこのジェットは飛んでいるんだろうと疑問に思うと同時に怒りが込み上げてきました。
あか島へ行く途中のフェリーでお年寄りのグループが戦争中船を攻撃されて沈没して亡くなった人達（親族の方もいたそうです）を偲ぶ方達が印象的でした。菊の花をフェリーから投げて黙祷をしたあと、あるおじいさんが他のおじいさんに「あなたの親族もここでしたか？」と言う問いに、「いいえ、家はフィリピンでした」と言う淡々とした会話を聞き、そのお年寄りの人達は涙をぬぐうこともなく、そのまま席に戻ってお弁当を食べ、TVを見る姿が印象的でした。あるお年寄は、日本軍は沖縄の人達にひどいことをしたからね。。とおっしゃっておりました。
養蜂所を探して居るときに道に迷ってしまい、普天間基地のゲートに来てしまいました。すごく悲しい気持ちになりました。普天間基地は４つか５つの市にまたがって大きな土地を持っているようでその為に沖縄の道がそこを避けて結果的に通まわりをして無理をして作られているようです。
沖縄の人達の犠牲は余りにもひどいと感じました。本当に閉鎖をして、日本政府は今までの罪を償い、素晴らしい沖縄の自然、文化、人達を守ってあげ平和な沖縄にしてあげる責任があると痛感しています。
気をつけて行って来て下さい。すごく感じることがいっぱいあると思います。
Yasuko B.
★☆★☆★☆★☆★☆
Monday, November 30, 2009
The International Human Rights Day Student Symposium
International Human Rights Day
Student Symposium:
Theme: Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific
1931-1945
This event is sponsored by Vancouver School Board and BC ALPHA.
From the official website -
International Human Rights Day marks the anniversary of the Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The founding nations of the UN have focused on the promotion and protection of human rights in order to prevent the recurrence of the horrors that resulted from the Second World War. This International Human Rights Day Student Symposium has been organized to help students better understand and reflect on issues of human rights violations during the Asia-Pacific War (1931- 1945) and to make connections to present day local and global issues.
Date: December 10, 2009 (International Human Rights Day) &
December 11, 2009 (due to great interest from teachers, the program will repeat for a 2nd day)
Venue: Vancouver Board of Education, 1580 West Broadway, Vancouver
SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM
08:00 - 08:30
Registration
08:30 – 08:45
Opening
Welcoming by Angela Brown, Anti-Racism Consultant, VSB
Opening Address by Thekla Lit, President of BC ALPHA
08:45 – 09:30
Plenary 1: Backgrounder of Human Rights Violations in the Asia Pacific War - Prof. John Price, History Department of University of Victoria. Prof. Price was also served as a historian for the BC Ministry of Education developed teacher’s guide, “Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific 1931-1945: Social Responsibility and Global Citizenship"
9:30 – 10:20
Plenary 2: Survivors' Testimony – Miriam van Veen and Marius van Dijk van Nooten
The survivor testimony helps students to face the bitterest of truths, the most shattering of experiences, the pity and the terror of tragedy and to come forth a bit humbler, a bit more dedicated, a bit more compassionate about other people’s sufferings and hopefully a bit wiser than before.
Miriam van Veen was born to a missionary family on a small island off Celebes, now Sulawesi in Indonesia. In 1942, just before Miriam turned two, her family was put into many concentration camps in Sumatra by the Japanese Imperial Army. Her family was eventually reunited and moved to the Netherlands in 1946. There, she became a teacher, a principal and a registered nurse. In 1965, she immigrated to Canada and worked as a RN.
Marius van Dijk van Nooten was born in the Netherlands in 1930 and grew up in the Dutch East Indies. He was eleven when Japan invaded in 1942 and was put into many concentration camps. After the war, he returned to the Netherlands and joined the merchant marines. In 1954, he moved to Canada and became a sea captain.
Facilitator: James Knihniski, Southridge School, Surrey
James met with survivors of the Asian Holocaust and visited museums and historical sites related to the Asia-Pacific War during his visit to China in the summer of 2005. Since then, he has been inviting Canadian survivors of WWII in Asia to speak in his class so to facilitate his students’ understanding of this chapter of history.
10:20 – 10:40
Break (light refreshment provided)
10:40 – 12:10
Workshop Session 1
1. “Comfort Women” & Violence Against Women in War and Peace
From the video, “You can never forget, never…” – Her Stories produced by the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan in 2008, students will learn about the issue of “comfort women” in its totality by relating it to the structure of colonial, military, state, race, class and gender oppression. Since the 1990s, the unveiling “comfort women” issue has become the cutting edge of the global movement against violence against women in war and peace. In 2007, the Canadian House of Commons of Canada unanimously passed a resolution to support proper acknowledgment and justice for the “comfort women” victims. Similar parliamentary resolutions were also passed by other countries including US and the European Union.
Presenter: Greg van Vugt, Fraser Heights Secondary School, Surrey
During the summer of 2008, Greg visited China, Korea and the Philippines to meet with survivors who had been abducted as sexual slaves by the Japanese military during World War II in Asia.
2. Canadian Hong Kong veterans as POWs: Wounds and Closure
1,975 Canadian soldiers were sent to defend the British Colony of Hong Kong in 1941. 550 of them never returned home. In this workshop, students will make explicit connection of the Asia-Pacific War to Canada as they investigate the crimes against humanity committed against these Canadian prisoners of war and examine which international agreements were breached. The students will also consider ways to bring proper closure to the Canadian Hong Kong veterans and their families.
Presenter: Graeme Stacey, Kelowna Secondary School, Kelowna
Graeme has pioneered the inclusion of the Canadian Hong Kong veterans material in classrooms in B.C. He was invited by the BC Ministry of Education to become a writing team member of the Teacher’s Guide, “Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific 1931-1945: Social Responsibility and Global Citizenship” in which the lesson on the Hong Kong veterans is included. For many years Graeme has presented the Hong Kong veterans story at BC Provincial Studies workshops.
3. Dr. Josef Mengele’s & Dr. Shiro Ishii’s Human Experimentations & Biochemical Warfare - Role & Ethics of Medical Personnel and Scientists
This workshop will present a comparative historical and ethical study of human medical and biochemical warfare research conducted by Dr. Josef Mengele and Nazi scientists at Auschwitz and by Dr. Shiro Ishii and Imperial Japanese scientists in China.
Presenter: Dale Martelli, Vancouver Technical Secondary School, Vancouver
Dale visited the Unit 731 Museum in Harbin, in north eastern China, during the summer of 2008. Unit 731 was the biological and chemical warfare unit of the Imperial Japanese Army during 1932 – 1945. In collaboration with King David High School, students from Van Tech collaborated with students from King David High School on a comparative genocide project between Shoah and Asian Genocide. This project culminated in a presentation on Yom Ha’Shoah, the Jewish Holocaust Remembrance Day, in March 2009. He also attended the Yad Yashem International School for Holocaust Studies in Israel In the summer of 2009.
4. Rescuers and Global Citizenship in the Rape of Nanking
A group of over twenty foreigners (mostly American, but also some German, Danish, and Russian) established a neutral area in Nanking called the International Safety Zone to shelter Chinese refugees whose lives had been threatened by the invading Japanese soldiers. The committee members of the Safety Zone toiled to provide these refugees with basic needs, and more importantly, to protect them from atrocities; often risking their own lives. This workshop helps students to understand the spirit of global citizenship and the roles played by individuals in times of crisis: Perpetrator, Victim, Bystander, or Rescuer. Through an examination of individuals and events in the International Safety Zone, students will connect with history, develop an awareness of the personal strength and qualities demonstrated by the committee members, and investigate what can be learned from their courage.
Presenter: Derek Smith, Mount Boucherie Secondary School, West Kelowna
In the summer of 2008, Derek personally met with survivors of the Rape of Nanking and visited the Memorial Museum for the Victims of the Nanking Massacre. He also visited the former residence of John Rabe, now a Memorial Museum. Rabe was the Chair of the International Safety Zone in Nanking during the massacre. Derek and a colleague won the 2009 Kron Award for Excellence in Holocaust Education for a lesson that looked at the roles of Rescuers (including Rabe), both in historic and contemporary contexts.
5. Forgotten Holocaust – Atrocious Human Rights Violation and It’s Impact on Victims Now and Then
This workshop features the video documentary, Forgotten Holocaust which contains the stories of Nanking Massacre, “Comfort Station” and Forced Labour during the Asia-Pacific War. Through examples in the documentary, presenters will help students to examine immediate and lingering impacts of atrocious human rights violations on victims.
Presenters:
Raymond Lemoine, Principal of Ecole des Pionniers, Port Coquitlam
Raymond is producer of the documentary, “Forgotten Holocaust” which was recorded during his participation in the Peace & Reconciliation Study Tour for Canadian Educators in 2006.
Karen Symonds, South Delta Secondary School, Delta
Karen was also a participant of the Peace & Reconciliation Study Tour for Canadian Educators in 2006 and contributed in the making of the documentary. Karen teaches Pre-AP English, History 12 and History Through Film 12 at South Delta Secondary School in Tsawwassen.
12:10 – 13:00
Lunch Break (free lunch bag provided)
13:00 – 14:30
Workshop Session 2
Repeat the workshops as listed in Workshop Session 1. Participants will attend a different workshop from the one they will have attended in the morning.
14:30 – 14:50
Closing Plenary: Towards Peace & Reconciliation – Endeavours of Human Right & Peace Activists in Japan – Satoko Norimatsu, Founder of Peace Philosophy Centre in Vancouver
14:50 - 15:00
Closing Remarks - Angela Brown, Anti-Racism Consultant, VSB & Thekla Lit, President of BC ALPHA
15:15– 17:00 (Attendance Optional)
Screening of Docudrama, Iris Chang - The Rape of Nanking, co-directed by Anne Pick & Bill Spahic
Iris Chang - The Rape of Nanking is a moving and powerful film on the story of Iris Chang who almost single-handedly brought this forgotten Holocaust in Asia during WWII to the awareness of the western world. Her book, The Rape of Nanking - the Forgotten Holocaust of WWII made the best seller list of New York Times for over 5 months when it was published in 1997. Until her untimely death in 2004, Iris had continued to be voice for the voiceless victims, despite vicious vilifications from deniers. Iris’ legacy for us all is the ray of hope, justice and peace. This feature docudrama is produced by Real to Reel Productions based in Toronto.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
International Human Rights Day Celebration on December 5
Peace Philosophy Centre is endorsing this event. I hope many will come! (Click on the picture for a larger view.) The Peace Philosophy Centre's Year-end Social will be replaced by this event. We thought it best for us to network with other like-minded organizations.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Salon This Weekend: Special Guest Tatsuo Kage 鹿毛達雄さんを迎えて
Upcoming Peace Philosophy Salon
7 - 9:30 PM, Saturday November 28th
"My Life in Japan and Canada
- Growing up in Japan in and after the War, Working for the Japanese Canadian Redress, and for Reconciliation in Asia"
Special Guest Tatsuo Kage
For the upcoming salon, we will be privileged to have Tatsuo Kage, a historian and a human rights activist who has dedicated the past four decades in bringing justice and peace to the victims of WWII, including the Japanese Canadians who were sent to internment camps, and the Asian victims of the Japanese aggression. Tatsuo will share the photographs from his childhood in the war-time Japan to his recent activities, including his involvement with the Ienaga Textbook Lawsuit and with the establishment of the Article 9 group in Vancouver. Tatsuo's talk will be followed by a Q & A and discussion. All are welcome, and friends are welcome.
Location:
Peace Philosophy Centre, Vancouver, BC
(Email info@peacephilosophy.com for direction)
* We will start the optional pizza social from 6PM. The cost will be about $5.
*RSVP: Email info@peacephilosophy.com by November 27
(Please indicate whether you will join pizza or not)
*Free Admission. Donations to cover expenses are welcome. Snack donations are welcome.
****************************************************
Tatsuo Kage
Born in 1935, he was brought up in Tokyo. He studied European history at University of Tokyo and continued his graduate study at the University of Tubingen, Germany. As a professor he taught Political and Diplomatic History at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo. In 1975 he immigrated to Canada. For ten years he worked as a Bilingual Counsellor at MOSAIC, a multicultural immigrant and refugee settlement service agency in Vancouver.
In the 1980's he participated in the Redress movement for Japanese Canadians. In the early 1990’s he continued human rights work participating in the formation of Human Rights Committee in the Greater Vancouver JCCA and supporting redress for WWII victims.
His research work on Exiled Japanese Canadians after the end of WW II was published in 1998 in Tokyo. He participated in the writing of A Resource Guides for Teachers: Human Rights in the Asia Pacific War (1931-1945), published in 2001 by the BC Ministry of Education.
***************************************************
7 - 9:30 PM, Saturday November 28th
"My Life in Japan and Canada
- Growing up in Japan in and after the War, Working for the Japanese Canadian Redress, and for Reconciliation in Asia"
Special Guest Tatsuo Kage
For the upcoming salon, we will be privileged to have Tatsuo Kage, a historian and a human rights activist who has dedicated the past four decades in bringing justice and peace to the victims of WWII, including the Japanese Canadians who were sent to internment camps, and the Asian victims of the Japanese aggression. Tatsuo will share the photographs from his childhood in the war-time Japan to his recent activities, including his involvement with the Ienaga Textbook Lawsuit and with the establishment of the Article 9 group in Vancouver. Tatsuo's talk will be followed by a Q & A and discussion. All are welcome, and friends are welcome.
Location:
Peace Philosophy Centre, Vancouver, BC
(Email info@peacephilosophy.com for direction)
* We will start the optional pizza social from 6PM. The cost will be about $5.
*RSVP: Email info@peacephilosophy.com by November 27
(Please indicate whether you will join pizza or not)
*Free Admission. Donations to cover expenses are welcome. Snack donations are welcome.
****************************************************
Tatsuo Kage
Born in 1935, he was brought up in Tokyo. He studied European history at University of Tokyo and continued his graduate study at the University of Tubingen, Germany. As a professor he taught Political and Diplomatic History at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo. In 1975 he immigrated to Canada. For ten years he worked as a Bilingual Counsellor at MOSAIC, a multicultural immigrant and refugee settlement service agency in Vancouver.
In the 1980's he participated in the Redress movement for Japanese Canadians. In the early 1990’s he continued human rights work participating in the formation of Human Rights Committee in the Greater Vancouver JCCA and supporting redress for WWII victims.
His research work on Exiled Japanese Canadians after the end of WW II was published in 1998 in Tokyo. He participated in the writing of A Resource Guides for Teachers: Human Rights in the Asia Pacific War (1931-1945), published in 2001 by the BC Ministry of Education.
***************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
