Japan Opinion: The Disintegrating Nation State and the Quagmire in Iraq
KITAMURA Fumio / Journalist
April 7, 2006
March 20 marked the third anniversary of the Iraq War. Three years ago, it took a mere three weeks for the U.S. government of President George Bush to overwhelm and oust the government of Saddam Hussein by mobilizing the latest in military technology. However, the downfall of the infamous dictatorship was only a prelude to greater bloodshed and destruction. According to the Associated Press, the death toll among U.S. soldiers has exceeded 2,300 since the beginning of the war, while more than 32,000 Iraqi citizens have fallen victim to fighting between religious sects and attacks by U.S. Forces.
In December last year, elections were held in Iraq for the National Assembly as the final step of the roadmap to reconstruction. The election resulted in a landslide victory for Shi'ite Muslims. And in an ironic twist, as hardliners in the sect intensified their drive to monopolize power, resentment among Sunni Muslims and ethnic Kurds rose to the surface with explosive fervor. The third anniversary of the Iraq War thus arrived amid disastrous circumstances described as a "civil war" by Iyad Allawi, former Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq. The United States has been dragged deeper into the quagmire of Iraq and now finds itself at an impasse with no exit in sight.
The Afghan War and the Iraq War were triggered by the multiple terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. President Bush immediately proclaimed it an act of war, and launched an offensive against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. A year and a half later, he forged ahead with a preemptive attack on Iraq on the pretext that the Hussein government possessed weapons of mass destruction and was harboring terrorists. Perhaps in the mind of President Bush "war" was an inter-state conflict where victory came with the conquest of enemy territory. He may have envisioned an end to war marked by the emergence of an obvious winner and loser.
However, as demonstrated by the actions of Al Qaida, today's terrorists possess no sense of loyalty or belonging to any specific state. International terrorist organizations cannot be choked off by simply muscling out the Taliban regime or the Hussein government. Such organizations ignore international rules that assign the role of actors in international relations to sovereign states. In fact, they reject conventional international order altogether. Herein lies the critical difference between the past U.S. experience of the Vietnam War and today's war against terrorism. In the Vietnam War, the communist regime of North Vietnam and South Vietnam's National Liberation Front backed by the North constituted the enemy. And the United States was able to end the war by signing the Paris Peace Accords with the two parties.
The Iraq War will be recorded in history not only for its difference with conventional wars, but also for undeniably revealing the complexities of modern war. Latest developments have led to the disintegration of the nation state itself, accompanied by a dramatic transformation in the concept of war. The impetus for this phenomenon was provided by the end of the Cold War, which saw ideological conflict between liberalism and socialism being taken over by a wave of free market mechanism that now sweeps the world.
The principle of free competition aims to reach all regions of the world. As a matter of course, it seeks to eliminate all regulations and limitations, including the regulatory rights over which sovereign states had exercised discretionary power. The ideological counterbalance against this tide of our times was lost with the disappearance of socialist regimes. The tide of a globalized economy, bringing prosperity to the strong and poverty to the weak, has begun to transcend national borders to deliver direct hits on each country. "Independent nation-building," once a slogan proudly championed by Third World countries, has now been rendered obsolete.
The wealth gap has widened without end since the 1990's, and pent-up frustration among "have-nots" in the developing countries has become almost palpable. The majority of people suffering from inequality are rapidly losing their confidence and sense of belonging in the disintegrating nation state. The expanding paradox caused by the tide of globalization has served as a hotbed for international terrorist organizations. While it may seem a contradiction, the secret of Iraq's relative internal stability lay in the oppressive rule of the Hussein government that blocked interaction with the outside world. The Iraq War destroyed Hussein's dictatorship, and with the "lid" thus blown open, contradictions that lay hidden within Iraqi society, namely the hostility between privileged and poor, distrust between religious sects and resistance among ethnic minorities, surged to the surface in one violent eruption. By applying drastic surgery, the Bush administration had forced open a Pandora's Box.
Prior to the Iraq War, the majority of Middle East experts in Japan had opposed the war, foreseeing such tragic consequences. Had the U.S. government, which boasts the world's best intelligence gathering capability, decided to go to war without preparing for the situation in Iraq today, its decision would have indeed been nothing but mystifying.
Under the confusion that has shrouded Iraq, tens of thousands of its citizens have already been killed. Still, we have yet to see the possibility of an "Iraqi government by the Iraqi people" that will serve as the main mechanism for reviving the country. With the nation state system itself in a shambles, citizens gripped by anxiety can only turn to militias and regional communities centered on religious sects. Such exclusive solidarity incites mutual distrust and hatred among citizens, deepens the rift within the country and further lessens the chances of creating a united government. With no hopes of a bright future under this state of siege, radical groups rush to vent their frustration by further escalating their armed resistance. President Bush has reportedly said the Iraq War may not be concluded by the end of his term in January 2009. An honest confession that may be, but irrelevant with respect to the totally different issue of the responsibility for starting the war.
The writer is a former Professor of Shukutoku University and former Senior Editor and London Bureau Chief of the Yomiuri Shimbun.
In December last year, elections were held in Iraq for the National Assembly as the final step of the roadmap to reconstruction. The election resulted in a landslide victory for Shi'ite Muslims. And in an ironic twist, as hardliners in the sect intensified their drive to monopolize power, resentment among Sunni Muslims and ethnic Kurds rose to the surface with explosive fervor. The third anniversary of the Iraq War thus arrived amid disastrous circumstances described as a "civil war" by Iyad Allawi, former Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq. The United States has been dragged deeper into the quagmire of Iraq and now finds itself at an impasse with no exit in sight.
The Afghan War and the Iraq War were triggered by the multiple terrorist attacks that took place on September 11, 2001. President Bush immediately proclaimed it an act of war, and launched an offensive against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. A year and a half later, he forged ahead with a preemptive attack on Iraq on the pretext that the Hussein government possessed weapons of mass destruction and was harboring terrorists. Perhaps in the mind of President Bush "war" was an inter-state conflict where victory came with the conquest of enemy territory. He may have envisioned an end to war marked by the emergence of an obvious winner and loser.
However, as demonstrated by the actions of Al Qaida, today's terrorists possess no sense of loyalty or belonging to any specific state. International terrorist organizations cannot be choked off by simply muscling out the Taliban regime or the Hussein government. Such organizations ignore international rules that assign the role of actors in international relations to sovereign states. In fact, they reject conventional international order altogether. Herein lies the critical difference between the past U.S. experience of the Vietnam War and today's war against terrorism. In the Vietnam War, the communist regime of North Vietnam and South Vietnam's National Liberation Front backed by the North constituted the enemy. And the United States was able to end the war by signing the Paris Peace Accords with the two parties.
The Iraq War will be recorded in history not only for its difference with conventional wars, but also for undeniably revealing the complexities of modern war. Latest developments have led to the disintegration of the nation state itself, accompanied by a dramatic transformation in the concept of war. The impetus for this phenomenon was provided by the end of the Cold War, which saw ideological conflict between liberalism and socialism being taken over by a wave of free market mechanism that now sweeps the world.
The principle of free competition aims to reach all regions of the world. As a matter of course, it seeks to eliminate all regulations and limitations, including the regulatory rights over which sovereign states had exercised discretionary power. The ideological counterbalance against this tide of our times was lost with the disappearance of socialist regimes. The tide of a globalized economy, bringing prosperity to the strong and poverty to the weak, has begun to transcend national borders to deliver direct hits on each country. "Independent nation-building," once a slogan proudly championed by Third World countries, has now been rendered obsolete.
The wealth gap has widened without end since the 1990's, and pent-up frustration among "have-nots" in the developing countries has become almost palpable. The majority of people suffering from inequality are rapidly losing their confidence and sense of belonging in the disintegrating nation state. The expanding paradox caused by the tide of globalization has served as a hotbed for international terrorist organizations. While it may seem a contradiction, the secret of Iraq's relative internal stability lay in the oppressive rule of the Hussein government that blocked interaction with the outside world. The Iraq War destroyed Hussein's dictatorship, and with the "lid" thus blown open, contradictions that lay hidden within Iraqi society, namely the hostility between privileged and poor, distrust between religious sects and resistance among ethnic minorities, surged to the surface in one violent eruption. By applying drastic surgery, the Bush administration had forced open a Pandora's Box.
Prior to the Iraq War, the majority of Middle East experts in Japan had opposed the war, foreseeing such tragic consequences. Had the U.S. government, which boasts the world's best intelligence gathering capability, decided to go to war without preparing for the situation in Iraq today, its decision would have indeed been nothing but mystifying.
Under the confusion that has shrouded Iraq, tens of thousands of its citizens have already been killed. Still, we have yet to see the possibility of an "Iraqi government by the Iraqi people" that will serve as the main mechanism for reviving the country. With the nation state system itself in a shambles, citizens gripped by anxiety can only turn to militias and regional communities centered on religious sects. Such exclusive solidarity incites mutual distrust and hatred among citizens, deepens the rift within the country and further lessens the chances of creating a united government. With no hopes of a bright future under this state of siege, radical groups rush to vent their frustration by further escalating their armed resistance. President Bush has reportedly said the Iraq War may not be concluded by the end of his term in January 2009. An honest confession that may be, but irrelevant with respect to the totally different issue of the responsibility for starting the war.
The writer is a former Professor of Shukutoku University and former Senior Editor and London Bureau Chief of the Yomiuri Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
「国家の溶解」とイラク戦争の泥沼化
北村文夫 / ジャーナリスト
2006年 4月 7日
イラク戦争は3月20日に三周年を迎えた。ブッシュ米政権は、最先端技術を駆使する圧倒的な軍事力でサッダム・フセイン政権をわずか3週間で放逐した。だが悪名高い独裁政権の崩壊は、より大規模な流血抗争と破壊への序曲に過ぎなかった。ＡＰ通信によると、開戦以来の米軍兵士の死者は2300人を越え、3万2000人以上のイラク市民が宗派間抗争や米軍攻撃の巻き添えで死亡した。
イラクでは再建ロードマップの仕上げとなる国民議会選挙が昨年12月に実施された。皮肉なことにこの選挙でイスラム・シーア派が圧勝し、同派の強硬勢力が権力独占への主張を強めるにつれ、イスラム・スンニ派やクルド民族勢力の反発が一挙に表面化した。アラウィ元イラク暫定政府首相が「内戦状態」と形容した悲惨さのなかで、イラク戦争は3周年を迎えた。米国はいま、泥沼化するイラク情勢に引きずり込まれ、出口を見いだせない苦境に立たされている。
アフガン戦争、イラク戦争の端緒になったのは、2001年9月11日の多発テロだった。テロ事件直後にブッシュ大統領は「これは戦争だ」と宣言し、タリバン・アフガン政権への攻撃を開始し、その1年半後にはフセイン政権の大量破壊兵器保持とテロリスト支援を口実に、イラクへの先制攻撃を強行した。おそらくブッシュ大統領にとっての「戦争」とは国家間抗争であり、敵国領土の制圧が勝利を意味するものだったのだろう。勝利国と敗戦国が明白になることで、戦争は終結すると考えていたのかもしれない。
しかしアル・カーイダの行動が示すように、現代テロリストは特定国家への忠誠心も帰属意識ももっていない。タリバン政権、フセイン政権を放逐しても、国際テロ組織の息の根は止められない。国際テロ組織は、国際関係のアクターを主権国家と定めた国際ルールを無視し、これまでの国際秩序そのものをいっさい拒否する。米国がかつて経験したベトナム戦争と、現代の対テロ戦争の決定的な相違点がここにある。ベトナム戦争での米国の敵は、社会主義政権をもつ北ベトナムとその支援を受けた南ベトナム解放戦線だった。両者とパリ和平協定を締結することでベトナム戦争は終結した。
イラク戦争は在来型の戦争との相違だけでなく、現代の戦争がもつ複雑さをまぎれもなく露呈させたものとして歴史に刻まれるだろう。それは国家そのものが溶解する新状況によって、戦争の概念が大きく変わったことだ。この現象を生み出す原動力になったのは、東西冷戦の終結によって自由主義対社会主義のイデオロギー対立に代わり、自由競争市場化の波が世界を席巻しだしたことだ。
自由競争原理は世界のすべての地域への浸透をめざす。競争原理は当然のこととして、主権国家が裁量権をもってきた規制権限を含めて、あらゆる規制や制限の排除を求める。この時代潮流を押し止める対抗イデオロギーは、社会主義体制の消滅によって失われてしまった。強者を富ませ、弱者を貧窮化させるグローバル化経済の潮流が、国境を越えてそれぞれの国の内部を直撃するようになった。かつて第三世界の国々が誇りをもって唱導してきた「独自の国造り」というスローガンは死語になってしまった。
1990年代から貧富格差が限りなく拡大し、開発途上諸国では「持たざる者」の怒りと欲求不満が充満しだしている。不平等にあえぐ国民の多数は、「溶解する国家」への信頼感と帰属意識を急速に失いつつある。国際的なテロ組織の温床は、グローバル化潮流が膨れ上がらせた矛盾拡大だった。ひどく逆説的な言い方をするなら、イラク国内で相対的な安定が保たれてきた秘密は、外部世界との交流を遮断するフセイン政権の強圧的な支配だった。イラク戦争はフセイン独裁支配という重しの蓋を破壊することで、イラク内部に潜んでいた特権層と貧困層の対立、宗派間の不信、少数民族の反抗などの矛盾を一挙に噴出させた。ブッシュ政権による荒療治は、「パンドラの箱」をこじ開けてしまった。
イラク戦争の開戦前に日本の中東専門家の大勢は、こうした悲劇的な状況を予見しつつ戦争に反対してきた。世界最高の情報収集能力をもつはずの米政府が、現在のイラクが陥っている状況への対応策を準備せずに戦争に踏み切ったのなら、それは不可解な決断というほかに言いようがない。
イラクを覆う混迷状況のなかですでに数万人のイラク市民が殺されながら、イラク再生への主要装置となるはずの「イラク人によるイラク政府」が生まれる可能性はまだ見えてこない。国家体制そのものが崩壊するなかで、不安におののく市民にとって頼りになるのは、宗派を軸にした戦闘集団や地域共同体だけである。この閉鎖的な結束が、市民の間の相互不信と憎悪をかき立て、国内の亀裂をさらに深め、統合政府の誕生をいっそう遠のかせてしまう。前途への明るい光明が浮かんでこない閉塞状況が、焦燥感にかられる過激勢力をさらに武装抵抗へと走らせる。ブッシュ大統領は任期中（2009年1月まで）には、イラク戦争は終結しないだろうと述べたと伝えられる。正直な告白だろうが、それと開戦決断の責任とはまるで別問題である。
（筆者は元淑徳大学教授、元読売新聞編集委員、ロンドン総局長）
イラクでは再建ロードマップの仕上げとなる国民議会選挙が昨年12月に実施された。皮肉なことにこの選挙でイスラム・シーア派が圧勝し、同派の強硬勢力が権力独占への主張を強めるにつれ、イスラム・スンニ派やクルド民族勢力の反発が一挙に表面化した。アラウィ元イラク暫定政府首相が「内戦状態」と形容した悲惨さのなかで、イラク戦争は3周年を迎えた。米国はいま、泥沼化するイラク情勢に引きずり込まれ、出口を見いだせない苦境に立たされている。
アフガン戦争、イラク戦争の端緒になったのは、2001年9月11日の多発テロだった。テロ事件直後にブッシュ大統領は「これは戦争だ」と宣言し、タリバン・アフガン政権への攻撃を開始し、その1年半後にはフセイン政権の大量破壊兵器保持とテロリスト支援を口実に、イラクへの先制攻撃を強行した。おそらくブッシュ大統領にとっての「戦争」とは国家間抗争であり、敵国領土の制圧が勝利を意味するものだったのだろう。勝利国と敗戦国が明白になることで、戦争は終結すると考えていたのかもしれない。
しかしアル・カーイダの行動が示すように、現代テロリストは特定国家への忠誠心も帰属意識ももっていない。タリバン政権、フセイン政権を放逐しても、国際テロ組織の息の根は止められない。国際テロ組織は、国際関係のアクターを主権国家と定めた国際ルールを無視し、これまでの国際秩序そのものをいっさい拒否する。米国がかつて経験したベトナム戦争と、現代の対テロ戦争の決定的な相違点がここにある。ベトナム戦争での米国の敵は、社会主義政権をもつ北ベトナムとその支援を受けた南ベトナム解放戦線だった。両者とパリ和平協定を締結することでベトナム戦争は終結した。
イラク戦争は在来型の戦争との相違だけでなく、現代の戦争がもつ複雑さをまぎれもなく露呈させたものとして歴史に刻まれるだろう。それは国家そのものが溶解する新状況によって、戦争の概念が大きく変わったことだ。この現象を生み出す原動力になったのは、東西冷戦の終結によって自由主義対社会主義のイデオロギー対立に代わり、自由競争市場化の波が世界を席巻しだしたことだ。
自由競争原理は世界のすべての地域への浸透をめざす。競争原理は当然のこととして、主権国家が裁量権をもってきた規制権限を含めて、あらゆる規制や制限の排除を求める。この時代潮流を押し止める対抗イデオロギーは、社会主義体制の消滅によって失われてしまった。強者を富ませ、弱者を貧窮化させるグローバル化経済の潮流が、国境を越えてそれぞれの国の内部を直撃するようになった。かつて第三世界の国々が誇りをもって唱導してきた「独自の国造り」というスローガンは死語になってしまった。
1990年代から貧富格差が限りなく拡大し、開発途上諸国では「持たざる者」の怒りと欲求不満が充満しだしている。不平等にあえぐ国民の多数は、「溶解する国家」への信頼感と帰属意識を急速に失いつつある。国際的なテロ組織の温床は、グローバル化潮流が膨れ上がらせた矛盾拡大だった。ひどく逆説的な言い方をするなら、イラク国内で相対的な安定が保たれてきた秘密は、外部世界との交流を遮断するフセイン政権の強圧的な支配だった。イラク戦争はフセイン独裁支配という重しの蓋を破壊することで、イラク内部に潜んでいた特権層と貧困層の対立、宗派間の不信、少数民族の反抗などの矛盾を一挙に噴出させた。ブッシュ政権による荒療治は、「パンドラの箱」をこじ開けてしまった。
イラク戦争の開戦前に日本の中東専門家の大勢は、こうした悲劇的な状況を予見しつつ戦争に反対してきた。世界最高の情報収集能力をもつはずの米政府が、現在のイラクが陥っている状況への対応策を準備せずに戦争に踏み切ったのなら、それは不可解な決断というほかに言いようがない。
イラクを覆う混迷状況のなかですでに数万人のイラク市民が殺されながら、イラク再生への主要装置となるはずの「イラク人によるイラク政府」が生まれる可能性はまだ見えてこない。国家体制そのものが崩壊するなかで、不安におののく市民にとって頼りになるのは、宗派を軸にした戦闘集団や地域共同体だけである。この閉鎖的な結束が、市民の間の相互不信と憎悪をかき立て、国内の亀裂をさらに深め、統合政府の誕生をいっそう遠のかせてしまう。前途への明るい光明が浮かんでこない閉塞状況が、焦燥感にかられる過激勢力をさらに武装抵抗へと走らせる。ブッシュ大統領は任期中（2009年1月まで）には、イラク戦争は終結しないだろうと述べたと伝えられる。正直な告白だろうが、それと開戦決断の責任とはまるで別問題である。
（筆者は元淑徳大学教授、元読売新聞編集委員、ロンドン総局長）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟