Questions Surrounding the Simultaneous Terrorist Attack on the United States
SAISHU Koji / Advisor on energy issues
October 7, 2001
The simultaneous terrorist attack on the United States was truly heartrending and unforgivable. However, several questions come to mind concerning media coverage and government response with regard to the incident. The first is news reporting out of the United States which portrayed the incident as "the worst tragedy since Pearl Harbor." To set the record straight, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack launched against a military base, and thus differs in nature from the latest terrorist attack. Perhaps the latter has more in common with the dropping of the atomic bomb on non-military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that resulted in the massacre of an unspecified number of civilians.
The second is the U.S. government's interpretation that this was "a challenge against civilization." Until now, Osama bin Laden's alleged targets have been U.S. installations, and - taking the logic further - the double standards exercised by the U.S. government. bin Laden's was reportedly born to a Palestinian mother. To this day, U.S.-backed Israel has not observed the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 - which called for its withdrawal from occupied territory, and has reneged on the provisional agreement son Palestinian self-government - which requires recognition of and withdrawal from Palestinian territory. And when Palestinians protested by throwing stones, the Israeli army has been ruthless in firing their guns to disperse them. On the other hand, during the Gulf War the United States used its military might to eliminate occupying Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and bombed Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. At the "grass root" level in Arab and Islamic countries, the people may be troubled by the obstinacy of the Taliban, but at the same time they feel that their anger at U.S. double standards is given expression through the words and deeds of bin Laden and his group - though they may not say so outright. The U.S. government is avoiding the real issue by describing the terrorist attack as a "a challenge against civilization," when in reality there is a danger that this could escalate into a "clash of cultures" or a "racial war" between Europe and the United States against Islam, industrialized nations against developing nations, or white against colored.
At the time of the Gulf War ten years' ago, the Arab nations believed the U.S. government's intention of "resolving the Palestinian issue once this war is over." Thus they participated in the U.S.-led multi-national forces and lent a hand in attacking Iraq. But not only did this fail to bring about a resolution, it only worsened matters. By introducing the idea of a "civilized world," the U.S. government is feigning ignorance of its past mistake.
The third is the silence of so-called "environmentalist" citizens. Nothing denies the right to life of all living things and causes more widespread pollution to the earth's environment than war. Emissions of greenhouse gases are incomparably larger in quantity than exhaust gases emitted by thermal power stations or automobiles. What could environmentalists in the United States be thinking, after their government announced its departure from the COP3 Kyoto Protocol on the grounds of defending its global competitiveness, and has now decided to spend $3 billion on military expenditure.
The fourth is the content of U.S.-made standards which lie underneath the heavy makeup of "global standards." The meeting of European Union leaders in Stockholm, the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and the Summit meeting of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, all encountered violent citizen protests. What demonstrators saw behind these meetings was the dubious and brazen nature of standards imposed by a super-super-power that has achieved single-country rule of the world for the first time in human history. Shouldn't there be concern that the undercurrent of "anti-U.S. standards" could unite demonstrations with terrorism, to one day emerge as a surface current?
The fifth is the question of why Japan must continue to cling to the tail of the United States. Japan will never become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council as long as it pursues a variation of U.S. "double standards" - professing "U.N.-centered diplomacy" while remaining servile to the United States. If Japan is a true partner of the United States, it must demonstrate its friendship by cautioning the U.S. on matters it is unaware of, and by playing a supplementary role in what it cannot do. A follower can never be a friend. It takes courage to nurture friendship.
The author is an advisor on energy issues. He is former Editorial Writer, Tokyo Shimbun.
The second is the U.S. government's interpretation that this was "a challenge against civilization." Until now, Osama bin Laden's alleged targets have been U.S. installations, and - taking the logic further - the double standards exercised by the U.S. government. bin Laden's was reportedly born to a Palestinian mother. To this day, U.S.-backed Israel has not observed the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 - which called for its withdrawal from occupied territory, and has reneged on the provisional agreement son Palestinian self-government - which requires recognition of and withdrawal from Palestinian territory. And when Palestinians protested by throwing stones, the Israeli army has been ruthless in firing their guns to disperse them. On the other hand, during the Gulf War the United States used its military might to eliminate occupying Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and bombed Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. At the "grass root" level in Arab and Islamic countries, the people may be troubled by the obstinacy of the Taliban, but at the same time they feel that their anger at U.S. double standards is given expression through the words and deeds of bin Laden and his group - though they may not say so outright. The U.S. government is avoiding the real issue by describing the terrorist attack as a "a challenge against civilization," when in reality there is a danger that this could escalate into a "clash of cultures" or a "racial war" between Europe and the United States against Islam, industrialized nations against developing nations, or white against colored.
At the time of the Gulf War ten years' ago, the Arab nations believed the U.S. government's intention of "resolving the Palestinian issue once this war is over." Thus they participated in the U.S.-led multi-national forces and lent a hand in attacking Iraq. But not only did this fail to bring about a resolution, it only worsened matters. By introducing the idea of a "civilized world," the U.S. government is feigning ignorance of its past mistake.
The third is the silence of so-called "environmentalist" citizens. Nothing denies the right to life of all living things and causes more widespread pollution to the earth's environment than war. Emissions of greenhouse gases are incomparably larger in quantity than exhaust gases emitted by thermal power stations or automobiles. What could environmentalists in the United States be thinking, after their government announced its departure from the COP3 Kyoto Protocol on the grounds of defending its global competitiveness, and has now decided to spend $3 billion on military expenditure.
The fourth is the content of U.S.-made standards which lie underneath the heavy makeup of "global standards." The meeting of European Union leaders in Stockholm, the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle and the Summit meeting of industrialized nations in Genoa, Italy, all encountered violent citizen protests. What demonstrators saw behind these meetings was the dubious and brazen nature of standards imposed by a super-super-power that has achieved single-country rule of the world for the first time in human history. Shouldn't there be concern that the undercurrent of "anti-U.S. standards" could unite demonstrations with terrorism, to one day emerge as a surface current?
The fifth is the question of why Japan must continue to cling to the tail of the United States. Japan will never become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council as long as it pursues a variation of U.S. "double standards" - professing "U.N.-centered diplomacy" while remaining servile to the United States. If Japan is a true partner of the United States, it must demonstrate its friendship by cautioning the U.S. on matters it is unaware of, and by playing a supplementary role in what it cannot do. A follower can never be a friend. It takes courage to nurture friendship.
The author is an advisor on energy issues. He is former Editorial Writer, Tokyo Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
米国同時多発テロ事件での疑問
最首 公司 / エネルギー・アドバイザー
2001年 10月 7日
米国での同時多発テロ事件はまことに痛ましく、許し難い出来事だったが、この報道や政府の対応に疑問がある。その一は「パールハーバー以来の惨劇だ」と伝える米国からの報道。日本の真珠湾攻撃は軍事基地に奇襲攻撃をかけたもので、今回の事件と性質が違う。むしろ非軍事地区を狙い、不特定多数の市民を大量虐殺したヒロシマ、ナガサキの原爆投下に近いのではないか。
その二は「文明への挑戦」という米政府の見解。ウサマ・ビン・ラディンがこれまで標的にしてきた、といわれるのはいずれも米国の施設であり、さらに突き詰めれば米国のダブル・スタンダードである。パレスチナ人を母親に持つといわれるウサマは、イスラエルが1967年の国連安保理決議242号（占領地からの撤退）をいまだに履行せず、暫定自治協定（パレスチナ自治区の承認と同地区からの撤兵）を反故にし、これに怒ったパレスチナ人が投石で抗議すると、重火器を持ったイスラエル軍が容赦なく発砲し、追い散らす。一方でクウェートを占領したイラク軍を武力排除し、首都バグダッドにミサイル攻撃をかける（湾岸戦争）。アラブやイスラム国の「草の根」はタリバンの頑迷さに頭を抱えながらも、米国のダブル・スタンダードに怒り、口には出さないが、ウサマ一派が自分たちの怒りの代弁、代行をしていると感じている。米政府のいう「文明への挑戦」は議論のすり替えであり、それこそ欧米対イスラム、先進国対開発途上グループ、白人対有色人種という「文明の衝突」「人種戦争」にエスカレートする危険性を持つ。
10年前の湾岸戦争では「これが終わったら次はパレスチナ問題の解決」とい米政府の意向をアラブは信じた。だから米主導の多国籍軍に参加し、イラク攻撃に加担したのだが、結果は解決どころかますますの悪化だった。米政府は今回「文明」を引き出すことによって、前回の非に頬被りしようとしている。
その三は"環境派"市民の沈黙。戦争ほどあらゆる生物の生存権を否定し、生態系を大規模に破壊し、地球環境を広範囲に汚染するものはない。そしてその地球温暖化ガスの発生量は火力発電所や自動車からの排気ガスの比ではない。国際競争力の低下を理由にCOP3京都議定書からの離脱宣言をしながら、30億ドルもの戦費を決めた米国で、環境保護論者はいまなにを考えているのだろう。
その四は「グローバル・スタンダード」という厚化粧をした米国産スタンダードの中身である。ストックホルムでのEU首脳会議、シアトルでのWTO、そしてイタリー・ジェノバでの先進国サミットは、いずれも激しい市民デモに襲われた。デモ参加者がこれらの会議の背後に見たのは、人類史上初めて一国支配を実現した超々大国が押しつけるスタンダードのいかがわしさ、厚かましさだろう。「反米スタンダード」という地下潜流がテロとデモを結びつけ、表層流になるおそれはないのだろうか。
その五だが、日本はどうしていつまでも米国の尻尾にしがみついているのか。「国連中心外交」といいつつ米国に追従する米国亜流の「ダブル・スタンダード」では、いつまで経っても国連安保理の常任理事国にはなれまい。米国の真のパートナーであるならば、米国の気付かない点を忠告し、できないことを補ってやるのが友情というものである。追従から友情は生まれない。友情を育てるには勇気が要る。
（筆者はエネルギー・アドバイザー。元東京新聞編集委員。）
その二は「文明への挑戦」という米政府の見解。ウサマ・ビン・ラディンがこれまで標的にしてきた、といわれるのはいずれも米国の施設であり、さらに突き詰めれば米国のダブル・スタンダードである。パレスチナ人を母親に持つといわれるウサマは、イスラエルが1967年の国連安保理決議242号（占領地からの撤退）をいまだに履行せず、暫定自治協定（パレスチナ自治区の承認と同地区からの撤兵）を反故にし、これに怒ったパレスチナ人が投石で抗議すると、重火器を持ったイスラエル軍が容赦なく発砲し、追い散らす。一方でクウェートを占領したイラク軍を武力排除し、首都バグダッドにミサイル攻撃をかける（湾岸戦争）。アラブやイスラム国の「草の根」はタリバンの頑迷さに頭を抱えながらも、米国のダブル・スタンダードに怒り、口には出さないが、ウサマ一派が自分たちの怒りの代弁、代行をしていると感じている。米政府のいう「文明への挑戦」は議論のすり替えであり、それこそ欧米対イスラム、先進国対開発途上グループ、白人対有色人種という「文明の衝突」「人種戦争」にエスカレートする危険性を持つ。
10年前の湾岸戦争では「これが終わったら次はパレスチナ問題の解決」とい米政府の意向をアラブは信じた。だから米主導の多国籍軍に参加し、イラク攻撃に加担したのだが、結果は解決どころかますますの悪化だった。米政府は今回「文明」を引き出すことによって、前回の非に頬被りしようとしている。
その三は"環境派"市民の沈黙。戦争ほどあらゆる生物の生存権を否定し、生態系を大規模に破壊し、地球環境を広範囲に汚染するものはない。そしてその地球温暖化ガスの発生量は火力発電所や自動車からの排気ガスの比ではない。国際競争力の低下を理由にCOP3京都議定書からの離脱宣言をしながら、30億ドルもの戦費を決めた米国で、環境保護論者はいまなにを考えているのだろう。
その四は「グローバル・スタンダード」という厚化粧をした米国産スタンダードの中身である。ストックホルムでのEU首脳会議、シアトルでのWTO、そしてイタリー・ジェノバでの先進国サミットは、いずれも激しい市民デモに襲われた。デモ参加者がこれらの会議の背後に見たのは、人類史上初めて一国支配を実現した超々大国が押しつけるスタンダードのいかがわしさ、厚かましさだろう。「反米スタンダード」という地下潜流がテロとデモを結びつけ、表層流になるおそれはないのだろうか。
その五だが、日本はどうしていつまでも米国の尻尾にしがみついているのか。「国連中心外交」といいつつ米国に追従する米国亜流の「ダブル・スタンダード」では、いつまで経っても国連安保理の常任理事国にはなれまい。米国の真のパートナーであるならば、米国の気付かない点を忠告し、できないことを補ってやるのが友情というものである。追従から友情は生まれない。友情を育てるには勇気が要る。
（筆者はエネルギー・アドバイザー。元東京新聞編集委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟