Japan's Reason for Supporting Iran's Khatami Government
MAGOSAKI Ukeru / Professor, National Defense Academy
January 17, 2005
After Iraq, Iran is the next target in America's initiative for democratizing the Middle East. Iran's nuclear development program, undemocratic domestic politics, ties with Al Qaeda and support for resistance groups in Iraq - there are many reasons that could lead America to launch a military attack on the country. In Iraq, confrontation between the Shi'ites and Americans will inevitably arise in the near future. Shi'ite policies are antithetical to the American initiative, and Iran will be seen to be lurking behind the hard-line policy pursued by the Shi'ites. How should we respond to the growing tensions surrounding Iran?
Let me first recount an episode. In the 1980s, a man who fought in the Iranian revolution arrived in Japan as Ambassador. He made the rounds among leading figures within Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, arguing that now that his people had defeated the oppressive regime of the Shah, it was time to combat American imperialism and the oppressed peoples of the world must stand up. One day, he visited former prime minister Nakasone Yasuhiro. Nakasone, after hearing the Ambassador speak, asked: "By the way, is the sky over Tehran still blue?" While serving as Minister of International Trade and Industry at the time of the Oil Shock in 1974, Nakasone had paid a visit to Iran and remembered the blue skies over Tehran, located at an altitude of 1,400 meters.
The Iranian Ambassador was greatly shocked by this question. He had interpreted Nakasone's remarks thus: "You speak of the need for revolution. However, in Tehran the sky is as blue as ever. It hasn't changed one bit. Has the revolution really changed the Iranian people? I don't see much change since the days of the Shah. You may be enthusiastic about your revolution, but how much has it changed Iran?" Since that day, the Ambassador realized he must cease to be a revolutionary and instead become a politician who understands the limits of action.
A quarter of a century has passed since the revolution, and Iran is a different place from the Iran at the time of the revolution. There is major significance in President Mohammad Khatami's call for a "dialogue among civilizations." Our opinions may differ, but this difference cannot be resolved through force. It signified a clear departure from Iran's policy of exporting revolution, and the Iranian people gave their support. And this is precisely the reason Japan gave its approval to President Khatami. Oil rights were a secondary effect of that support, and by no means the aim.
I often spoke with Americans visiting Iran. I would say: "True, dogmatic factions exist and are active in Iran. However, President Khatami has done everything within his power to promote a cooperative approach with neighboring countries and the West. Why doesn't America support the moderate factions in Iran? Supporting President Khatami coincides with the broad interests of the United States." To this, one American responded in the following manner: "Had America's relationship with Iran been normal, there would have been many groups arguing for broad American interests, such as the business community. Lacking such a relationship, this particular group hasn't raised its voice. At the moment, Middle East policy is being decided by a domestic group with vital interests in the region."
In the Islamic community, there are groups that act according to dogmatic reasoning based on religion. However - be it Iran or Palestine - there are times when moderates gain the majority. Adopting policies to empower such factions represents the most effective way for guiding the Middle East countries towards a path of cooperation with the West.
The writer is Professor at Japan's National Defense Academy.
Let me first recount an episode. In the 1980s, a man who fought in the Iranian revolution arrived in Japan as Ambassador. He made the rounds among leading figures within Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, arguing that now that his people had defeated the oppressive regime of the Shah, it was time to combat American imperialism and the oppressed peoples of the world must stand up. One day, he visited former prime minister Nakasone Yasuhiro. Nakasone, after hearing the Ambassador speak, asked: "By the way, is the sky over Tehran still blue?" While serving as Minister of International Trade and Industry at the time of the Oil Shock in 1974, Nakasone had paid a visit to Iran and remembered the blue skies over Tehran, located at an altitude of 1,400 meters.
The Iranian Ambassador was greatly shocked by this question. He had interpreted Nakasone's remarks thus: "You speak of the need for revolution. However, in Tehran the sky is as blue as ever. It hasn't changed one bit. Has the revolution really changed the Iranian people? I don't see much change since the days of the Shah. You may be enthusiastic about your revolution, but how much has it changed Iran?" Since that day, the Ambassador realized he must cease to be a revolutionary and instead become a politician who understands the limits of action.
A quarter of a century has passed since the revolution, and Iran is a different place from the Iran at the time of the revolution. There is major significance in President Mohammad Khatami's call for a "dialogue among civilizations." Our opinions may differ, but this difference cannot be resolved through force. It signified a clear departure from Iran's policy of exporting revolution, and the Iranian people gave their support. And this is precisely the reason Japan gave its approval to President Khatami. Oil rights were a secondary effect of that support, and by no means the aim.
I often spoke with Americans visiting Iran. I would say: "True, dogmatic factions exist and are active in Iran. However, President Khatami has done everything within his power to promote a cooperative approach with neighboring countries and the West. Why doesn't America support the moderate factions in Iran? Supporting President Khatami coincides with the broad interests of the United States." To this, one American responded in the following manner: "Had America's relationship with Iran been normal, there would have been many groups arguing for broad American interests, such as the business community. Lacking such a relationship, this particular group hasn't raised its voice. At the moment, Middle East policy is being decided by a domestic group with vital interests in the region."
In the Islamic community, there are groups that act according to dogmatic reasoning based on religion. However - be it Iran or Palestine - there are times when moderates gain the majority. Adopting policies to empower such factions represents the most effective way for guiding the Middle East countries towards a path of cooperation with the West.
The writer is Professor at Japan's National Defense Academy.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
日本は何故ハタミ大統領を支持したか
孫崎 享 / 防衛大学教授
2005年 1月 17日
米国の中東民主化構想の中、イラクの次の目標はイランである。イランの核、非民主的国内政治、アルカエダとの結びつき、イラク抵抗勢力支援問題等米国がイランに対して武力攻撃を行う理由は多々ありうる。イラクにおいて近い将来シーア派と米国間で必ず対立が生じる。シーア派の政策は米国の中東民主化構想の対極にある。シーア派の強硬路線の後ろにイランありとなる。イラン情勢緊迫の中、我々はどう対応すべきであろうか。
先ず、一つのエピソードを紹介したい。1980年代、日本に一人のイラン革命の闘士が大使として赴任した。日本の自民党の主な政治指導者を回っては説いた。「我々は抑圧者シャーを倒した。今や米国帝国主義と戦う時だ。世界の被抑圧者は立ち上がるべきだ」。彼はある日中曽根氏（首相経験者）を訪れた。聞き終わった中曽根氏は次の質問をした。「ところでテヘランの空は今も青いか」。1974年石油危機時通産大臣であった中曽根氏はイランを訪問、標高1400メートルのテヘランの空が青かったことを記憶していた。
中曽根氏の問いを聞いた大使は大変な衝撃を受けた。大使は中曽根氏の問いを次のように解釈した。「君は革命の必要性を説いている。しかし、テヘランの空は昔と同じように青い。何の変化もない。では革命はイランの人々を変えたか。イランの人はシャーの時代と変らないではないか。革命革命と騒ぐが一体どこまでイランを変えられたのかね」。この日以降、この大使は革命家ではなく、行動の限界を知る政治家としての意識が出たという。
革命後25年経過したイランは革命時のイランではない。ハタミ大統領は「文明間の対話」を訴えた。その意味は大きい。主義主張は異なる。しかし、この異なりを武力でもって解決はしない。イランの革命輸出路線との決別である。そして国民が支持した。日本がハタミ大統領を支持した理由はここにある。石油利権は副次的成果でそれが目的でない。
私はイランを訪問した米国人にしばしば述べた。「イランに教条主義的勢力が存在し行動している。しかし、ハタミ大統領は自己の権限の及ぶ中で、確実に近隣諸国、西側との協調路線を実施してきた。米国は何故イスラムの穏健勢力を支援しないのか。ハタミ大統領支援は広い米国の国益に合致するはずだ」。ある米国人が答えた。「もし、米イラン関係が正常なら、米国経済界など広い国益を主張するグループの勢力はあろう。しかし、関係のない今、このグループは何ら発言しない。現時点では対イラン、中東はこの地に死活的利益を持つ米国内勢力で決定されているといっていい」。
イスラム社会には確かに宗教に基づき教条主義的行動をとる勢力はある。しかし、イランであれ、パレスチナであれ、穏健派が多数になった時がある。この勢力を助長する政策をとること、そのことは最も効果的に中東諸国を西側との協調路線にもっていく道と思う。
（筆者は防衛大学教授。）
先ず、一つのエピソードを紹介したい。1980年代、日本に一人のイラン革命の闘士が大使として赴任した。日本の自民党の主な政治指導者を回っては説いた。「我々は抑圧者シャーを倒した。今や米国帝国主義と戦う時だ。世界の被抑圧者は立ち上がるべきだ」。彼はある日中曽根氏（首相経験者）を訪れた。聞き終わった中曽根氏は次の質問をした。「ところでテヘランの空は今も青いか」。1974年石油危機時通産大臣であった中曽根氏はイランを訪問、標高1400メートルのテヘランの空が青かったことを記憶していた。
中曽根氏の問いを聞いた大使は大変な衝撃を受けた。大使は中曽根氏の問いを次のように解釈した。「君は革命の必要性を説いている。しかし、テヘランの空は昔と同じように青い。何の変化もない。では革命はイランの人々を変えたか。イランの人はシャーの時代と変らないではないか。革命革命と騒ぐが一体どこまでイランを変えられたのかね」。この日以降、この大使は革命家ではなく、行動の限界を知る政治家としての意識が出たという。
革命後25年経過したイランは革命時のイランではない。ハタミ大統領は「文明間の対話」を訴えた。その意味は大きい。主義主張は異なる。しかし、この異なりを武力でもって解決はしない。イランの革命輸出路線との決別である。そして国民が支持した。日本がハタミ大統領を支持した理由はここにある。石油利権は副次的成果でそれが目的でない。
私はイランを訪問した米国人にしばしば述べた。「イランに教条主義的勢力が存在し行動している。しかし、ハタミ大統領は自己の権限の及ぶ中で、確実に近隣諸国、西側との協調路線を実施してきた。米国は何故イスラムの穏健勢力を支援しないのか。ハタミ大統領支援は広い米国の国益に合致するはずだ」。ある米国人が答えた。「もし、米イラン関係が正常なら、米国経済界など広い国益を主張するグループの勢力はあろう。しかし、関係のない今、このグループは何ら発言しない。現時点では対イラン、中東はこの地に死活的利益を持つ米国内勢力で決定されているといっていい」。
イスラム社会には確かに宗教に基づき教条主義的行動をとる勢力はある。しかし、イランであれ、パレスチナであれ、穏健派が多数になった時がある。この勢力を助長する政策をとること、そのことは最も効果的に中東諸国を西側との協調路線にもっていく道と思う。
（筆者は防衛大学教授。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟