The War Against Iraq and the Palestinian Issue
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Former NHK Commentator
March 28, 2003
In the early hours (local time) of March 20, 2003, U.S. and British forces launched their attack against Iraq. President Saddam Hussein, who was reported to have been "hit (killed) in the first strike," made his appearance on Iraqi national television three hours later. Hussein concluded his speech calling on Iraqis to fight to the death with the words "Allah is great. Long live Iraq, long live Palestine." While questions concerning his 'double' and pre-recorded broadcast theories have not been completely resolved, it was clear that - as expected - Iraq had the same intentions as in the Gulf War, trying to appeal to the Arab-Islamic World by defining this war as a "Jihad (Holy War)" against an "America that has joined forces with Zionism."
It is a well-known fact that men like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfovitz and Richard Perle who have long advocated an attack against Iraq - America's so-called''Neo-Conservatives' that flock to the Department of Defense - are in synch with Israel's ultra-rightists such as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Thus it is not hard to understand the concern among the Arab World that this "re-drawing of the political map in the Middle East" under the pretense of "decommissioning weapons of mass destruction" is in reality aimed at establishing "security" in the region that precludes Israel's absolute superiority.
During the Gulf War, Iraq argued that its invasion of Kuwait and the Israeli occupation of the 'West Bank' and Gaza should be discussed within the same international framework, in an argument known as the "Palestinian Linkage" concept. At the time, then U.S. President George Bush (senior), while rejecting Iraq’s assertion, nevertheless gave post-war priority to finding a political settlement to the Palestinian issue. As a consequence, Secretary of State James Baker made as many as seven trips to the region within six months, in an energetic diplomatic effort which culminated in the Madrid Peace Conference attended by both the Arab and Israeli sides.
The current President Bush has also touched upon the need for creating a Palestinian state, immediately before attacking Iraq, first in Washington D.C., and again at the U.S.-U.K.-Spanish mini-summit that was held in the Azores. But this has only given the impression of lip service intended to provide political backup for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has become isolated within the European Union on the Iraqi issue. With regard to this comment, reaction from circles close to the current Israeli government indicate their calculation that with presidential elections looming ahead, there is little possibility that America would exercise undue pressure on Israel to comply in the aftermath of the war against Iraq. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Autonomy is reportedly cracking down on pro-Iraqi demonstrations with severity, perhaps in view of its past political failure that resulted from having supported Iraq during the Gulf War. It could also be an indication that the Palestinians hold some measure of hope in the Bush administration.
It is clear that one of the crucial points in mending the deepening rift between America and the Arab World and between America and European countries lies in the future pursuit of fair and vigorous diplomatic action by the Americans to resolve the Palestinian issue. This will also pose an issue it cannot afford to ignore in waging its "global battle against terrorism."
One would hope that the Japanese government, which has continuously expressed its support for America since the start of the war, would at the very least incorporate the subtle drift of such developments in declaring its standpoint - which could be moderate in terms of wording - both at home and abroad. Japan should recall the bitter experience of having earned the scorn of the world for its silence during the Gulf War.
The writer is a former NHK Commentator.
It is a well-known fact that men like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfovitz and Richard Perle who have long advocated an attack against Iraq - America's so-called''Neo-Conservatives' that flock to the Department of Defense - are in synch with Israel's ultra-rightists such as former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Thus it is not hard to understand the concern among the Arab World that this "re-drawing of the political map in the Middle East" under the pretense of "decommissioning weapons of mass destruction" is in reality aimed at establishing "security" in the region that precludes Israel's absolute superiority.
During the Gulf War, Iraq argued that its invasion of Kuwait and the Israeli occupation of the 'West Bank' and Gaza should be discussed within the same international framework, in an argument known as the "Palestinian Linkage" concept. At the time, then U.S. President George Bush (senior), while rejecting Iraq’s assertion, nevertheless gave post-war priority to finding a political settlement to the Palestinian issue. As a consequence, Secretary of State James Baker made as many as seven trips to the region within six months, in an energetic diplomatic effort which culminated in the Madrid Peace Conference attended by both the Arab and Israeli sides.
The current President Bush has also touched upon the need for creating a Palestinian state, immediately before attacking Iraq, first in Washington D.C., and again at the U.S.-U.K.-Spanish mini-summit that was held in the Azores. But this has only given the impression of lip service intended to provide political backup for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has become isolated within the European Union on the Iraqi issue. With regard to this comment, reaction from circles close to the current Israeli government indicate their calculation that with presidential elections looming ahead, there is little possibility that America would exercise undue pressure on Israel to comply in the aftermath of the war against Iraq. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Autonomy is reportedly cracking down on pro-Iraqi demonstrations with severity, perhaps in view of its past political failure that resulted from having supported Iraq during the Gulf War. It could also be an indication that the Palestinians hold some measure of hope in the Bush administration.
It is clear that one of the crucial points in mending the deepening rift between America and the Arab World and between America and European countries lies in the future pursuit of fair and vigorous diplomatic action by the Americans to resolve the Palestinian issue. This will also pose an issue it cannot afford to ignore in waging its "global battle against terrorism."
One would hope that the Japanese government, which has continuously expressed its support for America since the start of the war, would at the very least incorporate the subtle drift of such developments in declaring its standpoint - which could be moderate in terms of wording - both at home and abroad. Japan should recall the bitter experience of having earned the scorn of the world for its silence during the Gulf War.
The writer is a former NHK Commentator.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
対イラク戦争とパレスチナ問題
平山健太郎 / 元NHK解説委員
2003年 3月 28日
2003年3月20日の早暁（現地時間）米英軍によるイラクへの攻撃が始まった。「初弾命中」（死亡）かと取り沙汰されたサダム・フセイン大統領は、３時間後、イラク国営テレビに登場。徹底抗戦を呼び掛ける演説の最後を「神は偉大。イラク万歳、パレスチナ万歳」の言葉で結んでいる。「影武者」説、事前収録説など、懸念は払拭されていないにせよ、イラク側の意図が、先の湾岸戦争のときと同じく、今回の戦争を「シオニズムと結託したアメリカ」に対する「聖戦」として、アラブ－イスラム世界に訴えている点、予想通りの動きになった。
イラクへの攻撃を長年提唱してきたラムスフェルド、ウォルフヴィッツ、パールといったアメリカ国防総省に集まる「新保守主義者」（いわゆるネオコン）たちが、ネタニヤフ元首相らイスラエルの超タカ派と気脈を通じた人々であることは周知の事実であり、「大量破壊兵器の武装解除」を名分に掲げた「中東政治地図の書き換え」が、イスラエルの絶対的な優位性を織り込んだ地域の「安全保障」を目指すものと見るアラブ世界の懸念は、容易に理解できる。
湾岸戦争では、当時のブッシュ（父）大統領が、イラクのクウエート占領とイスラエルの「西岸」、ガザ占領を、同じ国際会議で討議すべきであるという、イラク側の主張（いわゆる「パレスチナ・リンケージ」論）を拒絶しながらも、パレスチナ問題の政治的な解決を、戦後の優先課題として採りあげ、ベーカー国務長官が、半年間に7回という精力的な現地への訪問外交で、アラブ、イスラエルの双方が出席するマドリード平和会議の開催にこぎつけている。
ブッシュ（現）大統領も、イラク攻撃の寸前、まずワシントンで、続いてアゾレスでの米英西三国ミニ・サミットの場で、「パレスチナ国家」樹立の必要性に言及しているが、対イラク政策をめぐりEU内で孤立しているブレア英首相への政治的な援護射撃を狙ったリップサービスの域を出ない印象は拭えない。この言及についてイスラエル現政権周辺の反応は、来年の大統領再選を控え、対イラク戦後のアメリカが、イスラエルに強硬な圧力をかけてくる懸念は少ないと多寡をくくっているようだが、パレスチナ自治機関側は、湾岸戦争でのイラク支持がもたらした政治的失点に懲りてか、親イラク・デモを厳しく取り締まっていると伝えられる。ブッシュ政権へのいくぶんかの期待もあるからだろう。
イラク攻撃により深まっているアメリカとアラブ世界、そしてアメリカと欧州諸国の亀裂を修復するかなめの一つが、パレスチナ問題へのアメリカの公正で精力的な今後の外交活動にあることは明白である。「世界規模でのテロとの戦い」でも、無視して通ることのできない課題になろう。
開戦以来アメリカへの支持を表明し続けている日本政府も、せめてこの辺の機微を視野に織り込んだ見解を、控え目なものであっても、内外向けに発信して欲しいところだ。湾岸戦争での、その辺の沈黙ぶりが、世界の失笑を買った苦い体験をくみ取るべきだろう。
（筆者は元NHK解説委員）
イラクへの攻撃を長年提唱してきたラムスフェルド、ウォルフヴィッツ、パールといったアメリカ国防総省に集まる「新保守主義者」（いわゆるネオコン）たちが、ネタニヤフ元首相らイスラエルの超タカ派と気脈を通じた人々であることは周知の事実であり、「大量破壊兵器の武装解除」を名分に掲げた「中東政治地図の書き換え」が、イスラエルの絶対的な優位性を織り込んだ地域の「安全保障」を目指すものと見るアラブ世界の懸念は、容易に理解できる。
湾岸戦争では、当時のブッシュ（父）大統領が、イラクのクウエート占領とイスラエルの「西岸」、ガザ占領を、同じ国際会議で討議すべきであるという、イラク側の主張（いわゆる「パレスチナ・リンケージ」論）を拒絶しながらも、パレスチナ問題の政治的な解決を、戦後の優先課題として採りあげ、ベーカー国務長官が、半年間に7回という精力的な現地への訪問外交で、アラブ、イスラエルの双方が出席するマドリード平和会議の開催にこぎつけている。
ブッシュ（現）大統領も、イラク攻撃の寸前、まずワシントンで、続いてアゾレスでの米英西三国ミニ・サミットの場で、「パレスチナ国家」樹立の必要性に言及しているが、対イラク政策をめぐりEU内で孤立しているブレア英首相への政治的な援護射撃を狙ったリップサービスの域を出ない印象は拭えない。この言及についてイスラエル現政権周辺の反応は、来年の大統領再選を控え、対イラク戦後のアメリカが、イスラエルに強硬な圧力をかけてくる懸念は少ないと多寡をくくっているようだが、パレスチナ自治機関側は、湾岸戦争でのイラク支持がもたらした政治的失点に懲りてか、親イラク・デモを厳しく取り締まっていると伝えられる。ブッシュ政権へのいくぶんかの期待もあるからだろう。
イラク攻撃により深まっているアメリカとアラブ世界、そしてアメリカと欧州諸国の亀裂を修復するかなめの一つが、パレスチナ問題へのアメリカの公正で精力的な今後の外交活動にあることは明白である。「世界規模でのテロとの戦い」でも、無視して通ることのできない課題になろう。
開戦以来アメリカへの支持を表明し続けている日本政府も、せめてこの辺の機微を視野に織り込んだ見解を、控え目なものであっても、内外向けに発信して欲しいところだ。湾岸戦争での、その辺の沈黙ぶりが、世界の失笑を買った苦い体験をくみ取るべきだろう。
（筆者は元NHK解説委員）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟