2015年08月08日
７０年談話懇報告 首相も「侵略」を明確に認めよ
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Abe must clearly admit ‘aggression’ in anniversary statement on WWII
７０年談話懇報告 首相も「侵略」を明確に認めよ
◆過去への反省と謝罪が欠かせぬ◆
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe must send a clear message that Japan made a fresh start in the postwar period based on its reflection on the past misguided war.
戦後日本が過去の誤った戦争への反省に立って再出発したことを、明確なメッセージとして打ち出さねばならない。
The Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japan’s Role and World Order in the 21st Century has submitted to Abe a report compiled after its discussions on the statement he will release next week to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.
来週発表される戦後７０年談話を巡って議論を重ねてきた２１世紀構想懇談会が、安倍首相に報告書を提出した。
The report evaluated the postwar international contribution Japan made after learning lessons from its prewar failures and pointed out the need to make greater efforts to realize its proactive contribution to world peace.
報告書は、戦前の失敗に学んだ戦後日本の国際協調の歩みを評価し、積極的平和主義を一層具現化していく必要性を指摘した。
The report determined that Japan expanded its “aggression” against the continent after the Manchurian Incident of 1931. This historical perspective can be regarded as hitting the nail on the head.
その中で、日本が１９３１年の満州事変以後、大陸への「侵略」を拡大したと認定した。的を射た歴史認識と言える。
A turning point
◆「満州事変」が分岐点だ
However, the report contained a footnote that there were some dissenting views among panel members concerning the use of the word “aggression.” According to the report, the reasons for this included that the definition of “aggression” has not been established under international law and there is an objection from a historical perspective to stating that the series of events from the Manchurian Incident onward constituted “aggression.”
一方で報告書は、「侵略」に脚注を付し、一部委員から異議が出たことも示した。国際法上「侵略」の定義が定まっていないこと、歴史的にも満州事変以後を「侵略」と断定するには異論があることなどが理由に挙げられた。
But acts of sending troops into territories of a foreign country and infringing on its sovereignty have been defined by historians as “aggression.”
だが、歴史学者の間では、軍隊を送り込んで他国の領土や主権を侵害することが「侵略」だと定義されてきた。
In this sense, the series of acts from the Manchurian Incident onward obviously constituted “aggression.” It is irrational to refute that it was for the purpose of defense. The events also constituted a violation of the antiwar treaty signed in 1928 that banned wars except for defensive purposes.
その意味で、満州事変以後の行為は明らかに侵略である。自衛のためという抗弁は通らない。自衛以外の戦争を禁止した２８年の不戦条約にも違反していた。
It is not acceptable to argue defiantly that the United States and European countries also committed aggression. It is also wrong to assert that Japan waged the war for the liberation of Asia.
他の欧米諸国も侵略をしたという開き直りは通用しない。日本はアジア解放のために戦争をしたという主張も誤りと言えよう。
The report also said: “Japan acted counter to the tide of self-determination. Colonial rule became particularly harsh from the second half of the 1930s on.”
報告書はまた、日本が「民族自決の大勢に逆行し、特に３０年代後半から、植民地支配が過酷化した」との見解を示した。
It added that “Japan’s postwar trajectory is based on a thorough reflection of its actions in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.” The report also pointed out the need to work toward achieving reconciliation with China and South Korea. Both points are significant.
戦後日本の歩みは「３０年代から４０年代前半の行動に対する全面的な反省の上に成り立っている」と記した。中国や韓国との和解に向けた努力が必要なことにも言及した。いずれも重要な指摘だ。
The report expresses no opinion on whether Abe should offer an apology. “Whether or not to make an apology is the prime minister’s decision,” Shinichi Kitaoka, the panel’s deputy chairman and president of International University of Japan, said at a press conference. Even so, we think it would have been good if the panel had considered how such an apology might be offered.
報告書は、謝罪に関しては提言していない。座長代理の北岡伸一国際大学長は記者会見で、「お詫わびするかどうかは首相の判断だ」と述べたが、お詫びの仕方を検討してもよかったのではないか。
National interests at stake
◆誤解招けば国益を害す
The report’s introduction states, “The Panel hopes that this Report serves as a reference for the statement to be issued on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war.”
報告書前文には「戦後７０年を機に出される談話の参考となることを期待する」と記されている。
One closely watched element of Abe’s statement will be his handling of key words that were contained in the statement issued by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, and the statement by then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to mark the 60th anniversary. Both of these statements explicitly expressed “deep remorse” for Japan’s “colonial rule and aggression” and stated a “heartfelt apology.”
安倍首相談話で注目されているのは、戦後５０年の村山首相談話と６０年の小泉首相談話に盛り込まれたキーワードの扱いだ。これら二つの談話には「植民地支配と侵略」への「痛切な反省」と「心からのお詫び」が明記されていた。
We don’t think the political meaning of Abe’s statement should be judged automatically by its use − or omission − of key words from the earlier statements. Be that as it may, the international community will be carefully observing what kind of historical perception is displayed by the Japanese prime minister.
過去の首相談話のキーワードの有無だけで、今回の談話の政治的意味を機械的に判断すべきではないだろう。とはいえ、日本の首相がどのような歴史認識を示すのか、国際社会は注視している。
Abe previously stirred up controversy when he said the word “aggression” has no established definition in the international community.
安倍首相は「侵略の定義は国際的にも定まっていない」と語り、物議を醸したことがある。
In an article contributed to The Yomiuri Shimbun, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone asserted, “From the viewpoint of those peoples, the Japanese military stepped into their countries with their boots on, and this was unmistakably an act of aggression.”
中曽根元首相は、本紙への寄稿の中で「現地の人からすれば日本軍が土足で入り込んできたわけで、まぎれもない侵略行為だった」と明言している。
Sense of apology
◆心に響くお詫びの意を
If Abe omits the word “aggression” from his statement, he will inevitably be viewed as not wanting to accept the fact that Japan committed aggression. If suspicions are harbored over Japan’s actions and trust in Japan is shaken because of this, it will damage the national interest.
談話に「侵略」と書かなければ、首相は侵略の事実を認めたくないと見られても仕方がない。それにより、日本の行動に疑念が持たれたり、対日信頼感が揺らいだりすれば、国益を損なう。
There are strong concerns that not offering any gesture at all to the many people who were forced to endure tremendous suffering and sacrifice because of Japan’s actions before the end of the war could generate the misunderstanding that “Japan does not feel remorse for what happened.”
日本の戦前の行為により多大な苦痛と犠牲を強いられた人々に対し、何の意思表示もしないことは、「反省なき日本」という誤解を与える恐れが強い。
We can understand why many Japanese people feel uncomfortable about continuing to apologize generation after generation.
子々孫々の代まで謝罪を続けることに、国民の多くが違和感を抱くのは理解できる。
We suppose it is time to draw a line, and make this the final apology, for once and for all.
今回限りということで、けじめをつけてはどうか。
Even if Abe’s statement uses expressions that indirectly touch on the views of previous cabinets, such as quotes from the Murayama statement, it should also include words that convey sincere feelings of apology regarding Japan’s “aggression” and “colonial rule.”
安倍談話は、村山談話の引用など歴代内閣の見解を踏まえる間接的な表現であっても、「侵略」と「植民地支配」に対する心からのお詫びの気持ちが伝わる言葉を盛り込むべきである。
Or it should incorporate words of apology from the prime minister himself that will resonate in the hearts of people who suffered during the war.
あるいは、戦争で被害を受けた人々の心に響く、首相自身のお詫びの言葉を示すことだ。
Leaders of Germany, a nation that has squarely reflected on its Nazi-era past, have gained the confidence of France and other nearby countries by using heartfelt expressions, even if they did not use direct words of apology.
ナチス時代を率直に反省したドイツの指導者たちは、お詫びを示す直接の言葉でなくても、思いのこもった表現で、フランスなど周辺諸国の信頼を得てきた。
This could be an example from which Japan can learn.
そうした例も参考になろう。
Abe has spoken of his desire to issue a future-oriented statement. However, he should keep in mind that properly reviewing the past is precisely the way to ensure that Japan’s international contributions and policy of proactive contribution to peace are positively evaluated.
首相は未来志向の談話を目指したい、と述べている。しかし、過去をきちんと総括した上でこそ、国際貢献も、積極的平和主義も評価されることを銘記すべきだ。
Opinions within the government and ruling parties are split over whether the 70th anniversary statement should be issued after a decision by the Cabinet to support it. Considering that this is a statement for which the Cabinet should take responsibility, we think the Cabinet needs to make such a decision.
政府・与党内では、７０年談話を閣議決定すべきか否かで意見が分かれている。内閣として責任を持つべき談話である以上、やはり閣議決定する必要がある。
The statement should confidently tell the world about the path Japan has taken in the 70 years since the war ended.
戦後７０年の日本の歩みを堂々と世界に発信すべきだ。
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 7, 2015)Speech
Abe must clearly admit ‘aggression’ in anniversary statement on WWII
７０年談話懇報告 首相も「侵略」を明確に認めよ
◆過去への反省と謝罪が欠かせぬ◆
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe must send a clear message that Japan made a fresh start in the postwar period based on its reflection on the past misguided war.
戦後日本が過去の誤った戦争への反省に立って再出発したことを、明確なメッセージとして打ち出さねばならない。
The Advisory Panel on the History of the 20th Century and on Japan’s Role and World Order in the 21st Century has submitted to Abe a report compiled after its discussions on the statement he will release next week to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.
来週発表される戦後７０年談話を巡って議論を重ねてきた２１世紀構想懇談会が、安倍首相に報告書を提出した。
The report evaluated the postwar international contribution Japan made after learning lessons from its prewar failures and pointed out the need to make greater efforts to realize its proactive contribution to world peace.
報告書は、戦前の失敗に学んだ戦後日本の国際協調の歩みを評価し、積極的平和主義を一層具現化していく必要性を指摘した。
The report determined that Japan expanded its “aggression” against the continent after the Manchurian Incident of 1931. This historical perspective can be regarded as hitting the nail on the head.
その中で、日本が１９３１年の満州事変以後、大陸への「侵略」を拡大したと認定した。的を射た歴史認識と言える。
A turning point
◆「満州事変」が分岐点だ
However, the report contained a footnote that there were some dissenting views among panel members concerning the use of the word “aggression.” According to the report, the reasons for this included that the definition of “aggression” has not been established under international law and there is an objection from a historical perspective to stating that the series of events from the Manchurian Incident onward constituted “aggression.”
一方で報告書は、「侵略」に脚注を付し、一部委員から異議が出たことも示した。国際法上「侵略」の定義が定まっていないこと、歴史的にも満州事変以後を「侵略」と断定するには異論があることなどが理由に挙げられた。
But acts of sending troops into territories of a foreign country and infringing on its sovereignty have been defined by historians as “aggression.”
だが、歴史学者の間では、軍隊を送り込んで他国の領土や主権を侵害することが「侵略」だと定義されてきた。
In this sense, the series of acts from the Manchurian Incident onward obviously constituted “aggression.” It is irrational to refute that it was for the purpose of defense. The events also constituted a violation of the antiwar treaty signed in 1928 that banned wars except for defensive purposes.
その意味で、満州事変以後の行為は明らかに侵略である。自衛のためという抗弁は通らない。自衛以外の戦争を禁止した２８年の不戦条約にも違反していた。
It is not acceptable to argue defiantly that the United States and European countries also committed aggression. It is also wrong to assert that Japan waged the war for the liberation of Asia.
他の欧米諸国も侵略をしたという開き直りは通用しない。日本はアジア解放のために戦争をしたという主張も誤りと言えよう。
The report also said: “Japan acted counter to the tide of self-determination. Colonial rule became particularly harsh from the second half of the 1930s on.”
報告書はまた、日本が「民族自決の大勢に逆行し、特に３０年代後半から、植民地支配が過酷化した」との見解を示した。
It added that “Japan’s postwar trajectory is based on a thorough reflection of its actions in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.” The report also pointed out the need to work toward achieving reconciliation with China and South Korea. Both points are significant.
戦後日本の歩みは「３０年代から４０年代前半の行動に対する全面的な反省の上に成り立っている」と記した。中国や韓国との和解に向けた努力が必要なことにも言及した。いずれも重要な指摘だ。
The report expresses no opinion on whether Abe should offer an apology. “Whether or not to make an apology is the prime minister’s decision,” Shinichi Kitaoka, the panel’s deputy chairman and president of International University of Japan, said at a press conference. Even so, we think it would have been good if the panel had considered how such an apology might be offered.
報告書は、謝罪に関しては提言していない。座長代理の北岡伸一国際大学長は記者会見で、「お詫わびするかどうかは首相の判断だ」と述べたが、お詫びの仕方を検討してもよかったのではないか。
National interests at stake
◆誤解招けば国益を害す
The report’s introduction states, “The Panel hopes that this Report serves as a reference for the statement to be issued on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war.”
報告書前文には「戦後７０年を機に出される談話の参考となることを期待する」と記されている。
One closely watched element of Abe’s statement will be his handling of key words that were contained in the statement issued by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, and the statement by then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to mark the 60th anniversary. Both of these statements explicitly expressed “deep remorse” for Japan’s “colonial rule and aggression” and stated a “heartfelt apology.”
安倍首相談話で注目されているのは、戦後５０年の村山首相談話と６０年の小泉首相談話に盛り込まれたキーワードの扱いだ。これら二つの談話には「植民地支配と侵略」への「痛切な反省」と「心からのお詫び」が明記されていた。
We don’t think the political meaning of Abe’s statement should be judged automatically by its use − or omission − of key words from the earlier statements. Be that as it may, the international community will be carefully observing what kind of historical perception is displayed by the Japanese prime minister.
過去の首相談話のキーワードの有無だけで、今回の談話の政治的意味を機械的に判断すべきではないだろう。とはいえ、日本の首相がどのような歴史認識を示すのか、国際社会は注視している。
Abe previously stirred up controversy when he said the word “aggression” has no established definition in the international community.
安倍首相は「侵略の定義は国際的にも定まっていない」と語り、物議を醸したことがある。
In an article contributed to The Yomiuri Shimbun, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone asserted, “From the viewpoint of those peoples, the Japanese military stepped into their countries with their boots on, and this was unmistakably an act of aggression.”
中曽根元首相は、本紙への寄稿の中で「現地の人からすれば日本軍が土足で入り込んできたわけで、まぎれもない侵略行為だった」と明言している。
Sense of apology
◆心に響くお詫びの意を
If Abe omits the word “aggression” from his statement, he will inevitably be viewed as not wanting to accept the fact that Japan committed aggression. If suspicions are harbored over Japan’s actions and trust in Japan is shaken because of this, it will damage the national interest.
談話に「侵略」と書かなければ、首相は侵略の事実を認めたくないと見られても仕方がない。それにより、日本の行動に疑念が持たれたり、対日信頼感が揺らいだりすれば、国益を損なう。
There are strong concerns that not offering any gesture at all to the many people who were forced to endure tremendous suffering and sacrifice because of Japan’s actions before the end of the war could generate the misunderstanding that “Japan does not feel remorse for what happened.”
日本の戦前の行為により多大な苦痛と犠牲を強いられた人々に対し、何の意思表示もしないことは、「反省なき日本」という誤解を与える恐れが強い。
We can understand why many Japanese people feel uncomfortable about continuing to apologize generation after generation.
子々孫々の代まで謝罪を続けることに、国民の多くが違和感を抱くのは理解できる。
We suppose it is time to draw a line, and make this the final apology, for once and for all.
今回限りということで、けじめをつけてはどうか。
Even if Abe’s statement uses expressions that indirectly touch on the views of previous cabinets, such as quotes from the Murayama statement, it should also include words that convey sincere feelings of apology regarding Japan’s “aggression” and “colonial rule.”
安倍談話は、村山談話の引用など歴代内閣の見解を踏まえる間接的な表現であっても、「侵略」と「植民地支配」に対する心からのお詫びの気持ちが伝わる言葉を盛り込むべきである。
Or it should incorporate words of apology from the prime minister himself that will resonate in the hearts of people who suffered during the war.
あるいは、戦争で被害を受けた人々の心に響く、首相自身のお詫びの言葉を示すことだ。
Leaders of Germany, a nation that has squarely reflected on its Nazi-era past, have gained the confidence of France and other nearby countries by using heartfelt expressions, even if they did not use direct words of apology.
ナチス時代を率直に反省したドイツの指導者たちは、お詫びを示す直接の言葉でなくても、思いのこもった表現で、フランスなど周辺諸国の信頼を得てきた。
This could be an example from which Japan can learn.
そうした例も参考になろう。
Abe has spoken of his desire to issue a future-oriented statement. However, he should keep in mind that properly reviewing the past is precisely the way to ensure that Japan’s international contributions and policy of proactive contribution to peace are positively evaluated.
首相は未来志向の談話を目指したい、と述べている。しかし、過去をきちんと総括した上でこそ、国際貢献も、積極的平和主義も評価されることを銘記すべきだ。
Opinions within the government and ruling parties are split over whether the 70th anniversary statement should be issued after a decision by the Cabinet to support it. Considering that this is a statement for which the Cabinet should take responsibility, we think the Cabinet needs to make such a decision.
政府・与党内では、７０年談話を閣議決定すべきか否かで意見が分かれている。内閣として責任を持つべき談話である以上、やはり閣議決定する必要がある。
The statement should confidently tell the world about the path Japan has taken in the 70 years since the war ended.
戦後７０年の日本の歩みを堂々と世界に発信すべきだ。
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 7, 2015)Speech
【このカテゴリーの最新記事】
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
-
no image
この記事へのコメント
コメントを書く