To view articles in English only, click HERE. 日本語投稿のみを表示するにはここをクリック。点击此处观看中文稿件한국어 투고 Follow Twitter ツイッターは@PeacePhilosophy and Facebook ★投稿内に断り書きがない限り、当サイトの記事の転載は許可が必要です。 にメールをください。Re-posting from this blog requires permission unless otherwise specified. Please email to contact us.

Friday, July 30, 2010

One has to see Film ANPO to appreciate it. 映画『ANPO』はすごい。観てこそ価値がわかります。

We went to the press screening of film "ANPO," held in Ginza, Tokyo, on July 30. 映画『ANPO』試写会に行ってきた。

I won't write so many words about the film, because it is 感想を書くつもりでいたが、何度も下手な言葉で書いたあげく、こうしか書けない:

A film beyond description and one that has to be seen in order to appreciate it.


It is a truly magnificient film that speaks deeply to all your senses. 観る人の五感に訴えかける、忘れられない映画となるでしょう。

Here is the trailer. 日本語の情報、予告編はここをクリック。

"ANPO" Trailer from Scott Burgess on Vimeo.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

News Report: Court ups damages over base noise, rejects demand to halt flights 報道:<普天間爆音訴訟>国の賠償を倍増 福岡高裁那覇支部

(Photo from Jiji News Agency, of lawyers who show the ruling to supporters, afternoon of July 29, in Naha)

Court ups damages over base noise, rejects demand to halt flights
Thursday 29th July, 03:27 PM JST

The Fukuoka High Court on Thursday awarded damages totaling about 369 million yen to plaintiffs over noise caused by flights at a U.S. military base in Okinawa Prefecture, a 2.5-fold increase from the amount awarded by a lower court. But the three-judge panel at the high court’s Naha branch upheld the 2008 lower court decision that rejected residents’ demands for a halt to early morning and evening flights at the U.S. Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station.

Presiding Judge Yoshinori Kawabe acted on appeals against the June 2008 decision by the Naha District Court’s Okinawa branch over the suit filed by some 390 residents near the Futenma base, which is located in a densely populated area in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture. In the lower court decision, the district court rejected demands for a halt to night flights, mainly by helicopters, saying that the Japanese government cannot restrict the activities of U.S. forces in Japan. It also ordered the government to pay a total of about 146 million yen in compensation to the plaintiffs over noise pollution suffered to date and for psychological damage due to fear of possible aircraft crashes. But it rejected the plaintiffs’ claim for future compensation.

<普天間爆音訴訟>国の賠償を倍増 福岡高裁那覇支部
7月29日14時26分配信 毎日新聞








 榛葉賀津也・副防衛相の話 過去分の損害賠償請求の一部が認容され、裁判所の十分な理解が得られなかった。今後については判決を慎重に検討し、適切に対処したい。普天間飛行場周辺の方々の負担軽減を図るため、早期移設・返還に向け努力したい。






Friday, July 23, 2010

Linda Hoaglund's film "ANPO" リンダ・ホ―グランド監督の映画『ANPO』トロント国際映画祭上映決定、日本でも9月から公開

Linda Hoaglund's film "ANPO" has been invited by prestigious Toronto International Film Festival. The world premiere will be in Toronto on September 12. In Japan, it will open at Shibuya Uplink in September, followed by theatres across the nation. リンダ・ホ―グランド監督のドキュメンタリー映画『ANPO』がトロント国際映画祭で上映決定しました。日本でも9月から渋谷アップリンク等全国で上映されます。以下のトレイラーをご覧ください。乞うご期待!

See the new trailer below.

"ANPO" Trailer from Scott Burgess on Vimeo.

See Film ANPO's website.

Join ANPO's Facebook Group.

Here is film description from ANPO website.

ANPO: Art X War depicts resistance to U.S. military bases in Japan through an electrifying collage of paintings, photographs and animated, narrative and documentary films by Japan’s foremost contemporary artists. The artwork vividly resurrects a forgotten period of Japan’s history, while highlighting the insidious, enduring effects of “ANPO”, Japanese shorthand for the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. The treaty permits the continued presence of 90 U.S. military bases throughout Japan, an onerous presence that has poisoned U.S.-Japanese relations and disrupted Japanese life for decades.

The film’s stunning artwork grabs the viewer from the opening scenes and never lets go. “Japan’s relationship with America has always been complicated,” muses contemporary artist, Aida Makoto, “always vacillating between love and hate…” Close-ups and wide shots of his massive, gorgeous Japanese screen painting from 1996, depicting a squadron of Japanese Zero fighter planes encircling New York, punctuate his rueful commentary.

The film briefly surveys the contemporary impact of the 30 U.S. military bases on Okinawa and effortlessly travels back to 1960, when Japanese citizens from all walks of life came together in a democratic uprising largely forgotten today. These massive protests had been presaged throughout the 1950s in largely peaceful, sometimes violent protests again the U.S. military presence that made a mockery of Japan’s sovereignty and a constitution that forever prohibited Japan from waging war. By 1960 these protests had grown into a nationwide movement as millions of citizens took to the streets to expel American bases from Japanese soil.

The demonstrator’s hopes were soon crushed by Prime Minister Kishi, backed by the C.I.A and aided by an American government worried about losing a key strategic ally during the height of the Cold War. As Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA, ruefully comments, “During the Cold War, the U.S. would work with any son of a bitch, as long as he was anti-Communist.” But the movement endured to resurface in protests against the Vietnam War. It has also left an indelible mark on the lives of the artists who participated, many of which would rise to international prominence in ensuing decades. ANPO tells these artists’ stories through their art, most of which has been hidden from public view in museum vaults, for over half a century.

ANPO: Art X War breathes new life into other art forms from this contentious period of Japanese history. Footage shot by an ad hoc coalition of filmmakers, including Oshima, vividly telegraphs the passion and commitment protestors brought to the fight against renewing the security treaty in 1960. Photographs from the personal archive of Magnum photographer, Hamaya Hiroshi, capture the ferocity and violence with which the Japanese government clamped down. The viewer is transported back in time and viscerally experiences the hopes and fears of millions of students, housewives, shopkeepers, and laborers, terrified of getting sucked back into war, who thronged the streets during those tumultuous months to stand up for democracy and demand an end to the U.S. military presence.

Instead of conventional narration, the film’s iconic artwork acts as a mesmerizing guide, escorting us back and forth through history to explore the origins of the 1960 protests and the effects of the government response that reverberate in Japanese society to this day. As the film progresses, the artwork gives voice to the humiliating experiences of those living in the shadow of the crime, environmental degradation and noise pollution that inevitably shadow U.S. military bases and provocative reveals how those experiences sparked a collective rage, spawning a nationwide movement 50 years ago.

The artwork finally brings us into the present and demonstrates how the spirit of 1960 lives on today. Closing scenes from the film show how contemporary artists have drawn on the rich work of their predecessors to fashion their own creative resistance to the continued American presence. There are signs that Japan’s citizens are following suit. Japan’s Prime Minister was recently forced to resign after failing to keep a promise to the Okinawan people to relocate a dangerous U.S. military base off the island. And for the first time in five decades, the Japanese are openly beginning to question the terms of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. The closing scenes of the film suggest that Japan’s democratic spirit remains alive and well, waiting just below the surface of everyday life for the right combination of individuals and circumstances to resurrect long-buried resentments and passions.

In the words of celebrated Japanese film director, Kore-eda Hirokazu, ANPO: Art X War is “a priceless record of how 50 years ago, Japanese artists grappled with politics and the U.S. military presence in Japan, spinning their trauma into art. The film is an unexpected boon, arriving as it does when the issue of U.S. military bases in Japan has become controversial yet again”

ANPO: Art X War is directed and produced by Linda Hoaglund, an American born and educated in Japanese public schools and completely fluent in Japanese. The film evolved out of her bilingual and bicultural experiences and extensive background subtitling Japan’s most celebrated films, from Kurosawa Akira to Miyazaki Hayao and Kurosawa Kiyoshi. Yamazaki Yutaka, one of Japan’s most accomplished cinematographers, shot the film in high-definition. Yamazaki has filmed hundreds of documentaries as well as the award-winning films of Kore-eda Hirokazu. He also filmed the 1960 ANPO protests as a film student. Also playing a key advisory role is Dr. John Dower, Professor Emeritus at MIT and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Embracing Defeat, the definitive study of the U.S. occupation of Japan.

All content copyright (c) 2009 Anpo Movie

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Jean Downey's Message to former Govenor Ota and Okinawans

Oura Bay, adjacent to USMC Camp Schwab. US and Japanese governments plan to build a massive military base over ths ocean to "replace" dangerous Futenma Air Station. The sit-in by local residents and supporters marked 2,285th day on July 21, when this photo was taken.

Sharing a message from Jean Downey to former Governor of Okinawa Ota Masahide, and other Okinawans.

"Please thank Masahide Ota, the mayors, and other Okinawans for their humanity and grace in their exercise of responsive political leadership and citizen responsibility and agency.

They are an inspiration to all of us who believe in democratic government, nonviolent conflict resolution, respect for natural environment;traditional culture; and the sanctity of life.

Their moral and political clarity; integrity; self-respect; fearlessness; confidence; and dignity elevates us all."

Sunday, July 18, 2010

4 new types of seaweed found at Henoko 辺野古に海藻4新種 

See Asahi article below, which reports that four new species of seaweeed have been discovered in Oura Bay, near Cape of Henoko, where the Japanese and U.S. governments plan to build a new USMC base to "replace" Futenma Air Station.

Photos are from Ryukyu Shimpo website. The area with the red dot is where the four new types of of seasweed have been discovered. The two white lines are the V-shape plan for a new base, previously agreed between the U.S. and Japan's LDP government. The current DPJ government has expressed their intention to follow through this agreement, where over 80% Okinawans oppose the construction of a new base within the prefecture already saturated with U.S. military bases. The below photograph is those of the four new types of seaweed.

See Asahi article in English below, and the Okinawa Times article in Japanese further below.
From Asahi Shimbun, July 17


Four previously unidentified types of seaweed have been found off Henoko in Nago, Okinawa Prefecture, near the likely relocation site for the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma.

A team led by Hideo Ohba, an assistant professor studying tropical seaweed at the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, discovered four kinds of seaweeds that are believed to be new species.

The team collected samples at about 10 sites, including the Henokozaki district in Oura Bay in March and April. Divers collected samples from the seabed up to 30 meters deep.

Of the five specimens thought to be newly discovered species, four were concentrated on the east coast of the Henokozaki district. One of them, 5 to 6 centimeters high, is of the sea fan family. Another, which is 10 to 25 centimeters high, is of the family of halymenia red algae.

The area is a calm inner bay, but has complex seabed topography. Some areas are 50 meters deep. Team members said this new seaweed adapted to the unusual environment and thrived in the closed inner bay.

Although not yet confirmed, the air base relocation plan is expected to entail filling in this sea area to reclaim the land.

Team members say they are worried that reclaiming the land for the relocation could make their finds fruitless.

"It would be a shame if these seaweeds were extinguished so soon after they were discovered," Oba said.

辺野古崎に海藻4新種 東京海洋大大葉氏採取
2010年7月17日 09時38分









Friday, July 16, 2010

Yuki Tanaka: The Outcome of 2010 NPT Review Conference and Criticism of Obama's Nuclear Policy 「2010 NPT 再検討会議」の結果とオバマ政権の核政策批判

With author Yuki Tanaka's permission, here is the text of his talk on July 13 for the group of lawyers in Hiroshima working for nuclear weapons abolition, in Japanese. (Photo: Yuki Tanaka speaking at the workshop "Atomic Bombing and Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians, at Riverside Church, on May 1, 2010 as part of the two-day NGO Conference preceding the UN NPT Conference.)

For articles written by Yuki Tanaka in English, see Japan Focus: Asia-Pacific Journal.

「2010 NPT 再検討会議」の結果とオバマ政権の核政策批判 

− 今後の核廃絶運動の展望に向けて —


広島平和研究所 教授
2010年7月13日 広島弁護士会平和・憲法問題対策委員会向け講演ノート

A) NPT再検討会議の失敗

ブッシュ政権によるCTBTの批准拒否、ABM条約からの脱退、新型核兵器の開発という米国の核兵器拡大政策と「対テロ戦争」遂行政策という影響をもろに受けてNPT再検討会議が大失敗に終わった5年前と比較して、今回は、昨年4月5日のオバマ大統領のプラハ演説による核軍縮政策の提唱と、それに続く米露間の核削減にむけての具体的交渉の推進、オバマのノーベル平和賞受賞といった比較的明るい条件のために、今年のNPT再検討では核廃絶という最終目的に向けて、なんらかの進展が見られるのではないかという期待が一般に強かった。とくに、「核兵器禁止条約 Nuclear Weapons Convention(以下NWCと略)」の早期締結をこの数年強く訴えてきた市民社会側としては、NWCの設定に向けて、今回の再検討会議では、かなりの進展があるのではないかという希望的な観測を持っていた。

例えば、今年2月に長崎市で開催された「第4回 核兵器廃絶・地球市民集会ナガサキ」で採択された長崎アピール2010においても、再検討会議に向けてNWCの必要性について次のように言及された。


5月初旬、実際に再検討会議が開かれ、「最終文書」に含むべき事項についての議論が始まると、期待していたごとくNWCの必要性を訴える声が聞かれるようになり、5月14日段階での主委員会Iの議長草案にはNWCに関して次のような明確な提言が含まれた。すなわち、「核兵器国は核軍縮の最終段 階と核兵器のない世界の維持に必要な法的枠組みを確立するために特別の努力を払うべきである。この目的には、国連事務総長の5項目提案、とりわけ核兵器禁止条約や相互に補強し合う条約の枠組みが役立つ」(強調—田中)のであり、「核兵器国は(戦術核を含めた核軍縮、非核国に配備された核兵器の問題など)7項目を含む具体的措置について2011年までに協議し、その結果を2012年の準備委員会に報告すべきである。この協議を踏まえて、国連事務総長は時間枠を決めて核兵器を完全廃棄するためのロードマップに合意する方法と手段について協議する国際会議を2014年に招集すべきである」(強調−田中)というものであった。



B) 失敗の一原因=オバマ政権の核・軍事政策に対する分析と警告の甘さ



(3)今年4月に発表された米国政府の「核体勢見直し Nuclear Posture Review(以下NPRと略)の内容
(4)2010年度国防費ならびに2011年度国防費要求額の驚くべき増加と、非核兵器戦略である「即時世界攻撃Prompt Global Strike(以下PGSと略)」の内容


C) オバマ政権の核兵器関連予算の実態とNPR

オバマが大統領に就任して間もなくの昨年2月末に出された2010会計年度予算教書では、ブッシュ前政権が2006年に着手したが08年以降は議会の反対で凍結されている「信頼性代替核弾頭 (PRW)」(=長期保管・配備可能な高性能小型核弾頭)開発計画を、引き続き凍結すると発表。しかし、それに代わる措置として、「寿命延長計画(LEP)」(=老朽化し、2040年までに寿命を終える現存の核兵器を、単純で堅牢な新型弾頭で置き換えるという計画)の継続を提案した。この提案に基づいて昨年5月にエネルギー省が議会に提出した核兵器関連予算の説明では、「現在の能力の維持」を計りつつも、「今後の核戦略政策決定により変動する」こともあるというフレキシブルな方針が明らかにされた。



長期計画によると、核兵器関連予算の総額として、2015年まで毎年平均3億ドルづつの増額を見込んでいる。今後10年間では、核兵器と関連施設の近代化のために800億ドル、運搬手段の近代化のために1000億ドル、合計1800億ドルという膨大な金額を投入する計画とのこと。しかも、その使途内容は、ブッシュ前政権が着手した「信頼性代替核弾頭 (PRW)」開発プログラムの事実上の復活に直結するようなものが多いのである。つまり、米露核削減交渉で作戦配備用の戦略核弾頭の数は大幅に減らすが、備蓄用の核兵器を維持するだけではなく、それらを高性能なものに取り替えて行こうという意図がここには明らかに見えるのである。「新しい核兵器の開発はしない」と繰り返し述べているオバマであるが、実質的には、それと同じようなプログラムを多額の予算で進めているのが実情である。すなわち、オバマがプラハ演説で「我々は安全かつ効果的な(核)兵器を維持して敵に対する抑止力を保つ」と述べた、その具体的な姿がここに如実に現れているのである。

したがって、2月に出たこの核兵器関連予算要求額の詳細を見てみれば、4月6日に出されたNPRの内容は、2月段階で容易に推測できるものであった。NPRでは、核弾頭の削減を一方で強調しながらも、核抑止力の維持と、小規模ながら高性能で高能力(“smaller and highly capable”)の核兵器攻撃力という点が幾度も強調されている。核攻撃の対象となりうるのは、他の核兵器保有国、NPT非加盟国、そしてNPTに違反する国家とされており、核兵器保有国の中に北朝鮮、NPTに違反する可能性のある国としてイランやシリアが想定されているのである。しかも、「核兵器を持たないイラン対ししては、必要な場合には、核先制攻撃もありうる」というのが国防省の方針であり、オバマの「核抑止力にのみ限定」という公式政策と矛盾する。では、オバマがプラハで格調高く唱えた「核廃絶の目的」はどうなったのか。この問いに対して、エネルギー省のある高官は、NPRの中には、大統領の最終目的に向けての「全般的に哲学的な一歩が含まれている(There is this overall philosophical step)」と説明している。「哲学的一歩」とは、アメリカの官僚が産み出すなんとも巧妙な表現であるが、これは「具体的なものは何もない」ということの口実でしかない。

D) 増大する軍事予算と戦費=オバマ政権の軍事戦略の実相

増大したのは核兵器関連予算だけではない。2010年度に国防省に配分された予算額は6800億ドル(約61兆円 比較:日本の国家予算85兆円)であるが、これがアメリカが使う軍事費の総額ではない。この数字には、前述の核兵器関連予算や、国内警備関連予算、情報収集関連予算、退役軍人年金など諸々の国防省以外に配分されている予算は含まれていない。したがって、実質的には、アメリカの軍事支出は国防省予算の倍額になると言われている。その上、アフガニスタンでの戦費200億ドルもまた、これとは別建ての予算である。2009年ブッシュ政権下での国防省予算・核兵器関連予算・戦費の合計が6810億ドルであったので、今年度のオバマ政権の軍事費は、それをはるかに超える金額となっている。2011年度国防省予算として、オバマは7080億ドルを要求している。かくして、実に皮肉なことに、ノーベル平和賞を授与された大統領の下で、軍事費が史上最大のものとなっているのである。

なぜこれほどまでに多額の軍事費が必要なのか。それを理解するためには、4年ごとに国防省が発表する『Quadrennial Defense Review (以下QDRと略)』を見てみる必要がある。最も最近のQDRは今年2月に出されている。それによれば、現在、世界中に1千以上の数に上る米軍基地が存在し、常にこれらの基地設備がアップグレードされているのみならず、基地の数も増加している。例えば、つい最近、南米コロンビアには6つの新しい基地が設置された。アメリカの目的は言うまでもなく、これらの基地を活用しての「世界支配」である。国防長官ゲーツは、このQDRの中で、「我々の最優先事項は、アフガニスタン、パキスタン、イラク、イエメンでの現在の戦争に勝利すること」であり、「将来の戦争の成功は、現在のこれらの戦争が成功するかどうかにかかっている」と述べている(強調—田中)。

「将来の戦争 “wars to come”」とはいったいどんな戦争を想定しているのであろうか。最大の仮想敵国は中国とロシア、とくに中国であることが、QDRには明確に述べられている。核兵器を使わないとしても、最新の航空宇宙技術とミサイル防衛システムで中国とロシアを封じ込めるという戦略であり、この戦略の背後には、ますます減少していく石油をはじめとする資源供給源の支配という目的がある(詳しくは、ブルース・ギャグノン著「宇宙的視野から核兵器廃絶の展望を考える」私と藤岡惇の共訳『世界』2010年6月号参照)。資源供給源の確保と支配の目的のためには、世界のどの地域であろうとも、必要であれば、航空宇宙技術と長距離ミサイル攻撃システムを駆使して1時間以内で壊滅的な攻撃を敵に加えることができるシステム、「即時世界攻撃Prompt Global Strike(PGS)」と呼ばれるシステムを構築することをアメリカは目下企てている。このPGS開発研究のために、オバマ政権は2億4千万ドルを2011年度要求予算の中に含ませている。





つい最近、アフガン駐留米軍のマクリスタル司令官が、オバマ政権のアフガニスタン政策を批判したため解任された。不思議なことに、アメリカのメディアのみならず各国のメディアがこの「批判」の内容についてほとんど何も詳しく報道していないことである。実は、マクリスタルの批判の中には、この「市民無差別殺戮」が含まれていた。マクリスタルは、「米軍が市民一人を殺害すれば、そのことが市民を敵に回し、一人の新しい敵を産み出す」と唱え、これを彼は「叛徒(増加)の数学理論 “insurgent math”」と呼んだのである。そのため、現地の実戦部隊員に、市民かどうか判断がつかない場合は、疑わしくとも発砲しないことを徹底させる命令を出し、厳しく検証する方法をとったため、現地部隊員からひじょうに嫌われた。こともあろうか、オバマ大統領はこうしたマクリスタルの戦闘方法を支持するどころか、解任してしまったのである。

激しい無差別空爆が市民を敵に回してしまい、結局は戦争に負けるという苦い経験をアメリカはベトナム、カンボジアで学んだはずである。タリバン勢力がますます拡大し、パキスタンの核兵器略奪の危険性まで国防省が心配する今、オバマはもう一度、この歴史を勉強し直してみる必要があろう(私とメリリン・ヤングによる共編著『Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History』を参照)。


E) オバマの中近東政策=核拡散への危険性


イスラエルによるたびたびの攻撃で、ガザ地区の農地の8割が破壊され、鉄条網で分断されたイスラエルとの境界線地区近くで作物を植えたり土を耕そうとでもするならば、イスラエル兵の銃で狙い撃ちされる。同じように、ガザ沿岸では漁業も全くできない状況である。現在、140万人のガザ地区の住民の96パーセントが、自分たちの生活必需品の入手を人道支援に頼っているが、その援助も全く不十分なものである。政治的にも経済的にも孤立を強いられているガザ地区は、文字通り「世界最大の刑務所」なのである。こうした状況にあるパレスチナ住民を少しでも助けようと、生活必需品の輸送に当たっていた非武装貨物船団である自由艦隊(フリーダム ・フロティラ)を銃撃し、船員数名を殺害した上で船を乗っ取った6月初旬のイスラエルの行動は、明白に国際法に触れる重大な犯罪である。この事件に関しても、オバマはほとんどコメントを控えた。






イランの核兵器開発疑惑問題の背景には、このような複雑な政治経済問題が絡んでいるため、核兵器開発の真偽のほどを判断するのはひじょうに難しい。2003年以来、アメリカはイランが核兵器開発を企てていると主張しているのに対し、イラン側は核開発は平和利用である原子力発電のみを目的としていると反論し続けている。しかし、アメリカをはじめ他の国連安保理事会常任理事国であり核兵器国でもあるロシア、中国、イギリス、フランスは、イランは軍事目的の核兵器開発の偽装工作を行っているとし、国連安保理で、2006年12月、2007年3月、2008年3月、イランに対する制裁決議を採択した。これに対し、イラン政府は、イランには核の平和利用の権利があるとあくまでも主張し、国連安保理の制裁決議の拒否を表明した。アメリカの国家情報会議(National Intelligence Council)が、2003年にイランは核兵器開発を中止しており、アメリカ政府が主張するイランの核兵器開発疑惑は事実ではないと政府に報告しているにもかかわらず、オバマ政権は相変わらずイラン政府を「偽装工作」で非難し続けている。








F) オバマ政権の「極東政策」=核抑止力の維持



核兵器と基地との問題では、これまで日本でもアメリカでもほとんど報道されていない重大な問題がある。それは、アメリカが、日本にある米軍基地をアジアにおける核戦争計画のための重要な拠点ととらえているということである。1967年、米軍太平洋司令部は、府中の米空軍基地の第5空軍内に、「太平洋作戦連絡事務所」(Pacific Operation Liaison Office 以下POLOと略)を設置した。その後、POLOは、太平洋地域で空海両軍を駆使して核戦争を遂行するSingle Integration Operation Planなる統一作戦計画を立て、訓練を行う任務を負った。その訓練の中には、横田基地ならびに嘉手納基地を使い、これらの基地から飛び立つ飛行機から、日本の近辺海域で行動する原子力潜水艦や爆撃機に核攻撃の命令を発信する「ブルー・イーグル作戦」呼ばれる実戦訓練があり、この訓練が70年代から90年代に頻繁に行われたし、現在も行われている可能性が極めて高いのである。(詳細は、ノーチラス研究所のウエッブ・サイトを参照。)







G) これからの展望:問題にどう対処すべきか








— 完 —

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

John Hallam "Life, the Universe and (Avoiding) the end of Everything"

Posted with author John Hallam's permission, before this is published as a CPACS (Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney) working paper, with edition and references.

Life, the Universe and (Avoiding) the End of Everything

John Hallam

Let's make one thing clear.

Nuclear weapons are still, and have been ever since their large-scale deployment in the 1960's, about the end of pretty much everyone and everything, or at least of all that we, as distinct from an anaerobic bacterium, might consider to be useful, interesting, and valuable.

They are not literally about the 'end of the world' as after their use, the world - this planet that is - will still be here, and rotating on its axis, notwithstanding some Hollywood disaster movies and the end of the Mayan calendar next year - which may signify the end of an aeon or may signify nothing at all. Even the coronal mass ejections predicted for 2012 will at worst (hopefully anyway) destroy no more than all global telecommunications, the net, and perhaps the global financial system (with luck).

The same result could be achieved by half a dozen to a dozen megaton-sized nuclear weapons exploding in outer space: The electromagnetic pulse, just like a coronal mass ejection, would destroy both satellite-based communication systems and black out electrical systems (not only delicate electronics but right up to high-tension switchyards) on earth, taking us back to a pre-electrical age.

This is a great deal less than the end of everything and some might even find the change attractive. (Though I have become addicted to the net).

However it has long been recognised that the large-scale use of nuclear weapons (ie more than 1000 warheads of 200Kt-1Megaton size) for their default function of 'city - busting' would:

1)Kill anything between 1 and 3-4 billion people in 40-90 minutes;

2) Convert upwards of 1000 large cities. mostly but not exclusively in the Northern Hemisphere, into firestorms that would burn until nothing is left to burn.( from whence comes the above body - count);

3) Loft roughly 150 million tonnes of very black, sunlight-absorbing, soot into the stratosphere where it would seem likely to stay for decades;

The black soot would severely drop global temperatures both in northern and in tropical and subtropical regions, the extent of the effect being most marked in the north and gradually dropping in the southern hemisphere. The best place to be is Antarctica or the South Sandwich Islands, the Falklands, Patagonia, or the south island of NZ.

Crops would not grow, possibly for as long as a decade.

Even a 'mini' nuclear war, say between India and Pakistan, involving a 'mere' 100-150 or so weapons on each side, 0.3% of global nuclear arsenals, and 0.03% of megatonnage, would according to a recent article in Scientific American by Toon and Robock, and studies by Ira
Helfand of IPPNW,

--Cause the complete destruction of both India and Pakistan as functioning societies;

--Bring about either 50 million, or 150 million or up to 300 million, 'prompt' casualties (including my many Indian friends), depending exactly which horrible scenario you decide to model;

--Cause global climatic effects of a 'nuclear autumn' type in which widespread crop failure could bring about a further billion or so deaths from starvation.

A major US-Russian nuclear exchange of the kind that would have resulted somewhere between a dozen and half a dozen times (but this can only actually ever happen once - there are no second chances) - from miscalculation, computer error and/or blind panic - the ultimate 'bad-hair-day' as it were, at Stratcom, Cheyenne Mountain, Serpukhov-15 or Kosvinsky Mountain - would certainly terminate what we call civilisation, and lead to questions as to our survival as a species. In addition, the abrupt drop in temperatures, possibly to as low as zero at the equator, would destroy tropical ecosystems completely, together with 95% of all land-based living species, even
at current New START warhead levels, in a similar manner to the impact of a largish asteroid.

To get a feel for this kind of event, see 'The Road' or 'The Testament of Eli', two somewhat realistic post - apocalypse movies, noting that what makes movies such as this interesting - the continued survival of at least some humans - is not to be taken as a given. Note Jonathan Schell's quote in 'The Fate of the Earth' 'The more megatons, the less there is to say'.

To put things in proper perspective there is the article in the September 2008 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists whose title says it all, really: 'Minimising the risk of human extinction'. After noting that we will anyway be lucky to survive beyond a million or so years, the article gives us a rather important 'to do' list to maximise our chances in the next century or so, which apart from
urging us to keep watching briefs on large incoming asteroids, experiments at LHC that might possibly cause the entire solar system to disappear in a flash of gamma rays and exotic particles, on nanotech especially self-replicating 'grey goo', and on biotech, and of course to take action to mitigate and prevent climate change, places at the very top of that 'to do' list the lowering of the
operational status of nuclear weapons systems (number one) and the elimination of nuclear weapons (number two).

Now I've done the really cheery bits, so now for the mind-glazing alphabet soup.

The stakes for which nuclear weapons are rightly objects of concern truly don't get any higher, and this is a fact which while forgotten by the wider public since 1990, has not been forgotten by governments and receives regular if ritualistic, repetition at nuclear - weapons - related conferences. While attending this years NPT Review Conference, at one point in the proceedings more or less at random I realised that in the space of about 15 minutes I'd heard three governments say that in one way or another the fate of humans depended on the elimination of nuclear weapons or that they are the number one short term threat to civilisation and survival. Such statements have become routine.

So....are we teetering on the brink of a terrible abyss, or sensibly pulling back from it? Who is closest to the crumbling edge?

There are currently some 23,000 nuclear warheads, tactical and strategic, in the world, of which 95% are still in the hands of Russia and the US.

It is well to note that as of now, Iran still currently has no warheads (and says it has no intention to obtain them), the DPRK possibly has ten and as it has supplied the Pakistani delivery system, (The Ghauri missile is simply a Nodong) I have difficulty believing that it has no delivery system itself. Pakistan has somewhere between 60 and 100, and India roughly the same (with the
edge in delivery systems and warheads now belonging to Pakistan and estimates of 60-80 warheads probably now too low), Israel has somewhere between 100 and 300 warheads, China somewhere between 150 and 300 warheads seemingly closer to the lower figure, France has
around 300 warheads trending downwards toward 250, and the UK around 150 warheads these days, entirely in submarines, and (as in the case of France also), with the 'notice to fire' altered in 1998 from 'minutes' to 'days'.

Of the 22,000 US and Russian warheads, there is a considerable 'bounce' in the numbers, resulting from the question of 'when is a warhead no longer a warhead?' When it is moved from the 'operational' category to the 'non-operational' category (it can be moved back in days or even hours)? When it is removed from its delivery system (but gravity bombs are routinely kept not attached to aircraft) ? When it is in some way 'de-activated' (but a few turns of a screwdriver could activate it once more)? or when it is decisively made permanently non-operational (a good way is to fill it with molasses it seems).

Of those 22,000 US and Russian warheads, a relatively small fraction (5-8,000) are in the 'operational' category, with all the vagueness and caveats that implies.

Some approx 2000 warheads each can be said to be on high alert, able to be fired in minutes.

Russia has something of a preponderance in total warhead numbers, though the number on alert on each side is near to the same. However, Russian command and control systems, though 'harder' than US ones, are generally in worse shape, and Russia still relies on cold - war era SS-18 and 19 missiles (still entirely capable of lobbing a megaton - sized warhead on Sydney), which it is only slowly replacing with the state of the art Topol-M missile, while replacing its SLBMs ith the Bulava missile with which it has had trouble. (though the most recent Bulava test seems to have been successful). Russia is also home to the cheerily - named 'Perimeter', or 'Dead-Hand' 'doomsday machine', a system that when activated, essentially monitors the communications of its own general staff and if that communication system goes dead is supposed to launch verything, via a couple of communication missiles that trail long aerials.

Presumably there is a human someplace in the loop who can pick up a phone to general staff and verify if they have in fact been vaporised or are merely having a coffee - break.

We noted that the US and Russia maintain approximately 2000 warheads on high alert, essentially the land-based ICBM component of their missile forces. The operational procedures that would call for a launch in two minutes of those ICBMs involve lightning- fast - unrealistically so) - decision-making by senior officials and presidents, who have as little as 8 minutes (or less) to make apocalyptic decisions after a 30 second briefing by the chief of STRATCOM. The recent Nuclear Posture Review, while (alas!) not proposing any relaxation in nuclear weapons operating posture (in spite of calls to do so from almost the entire planet in UNGA,(141-3) the ICNND, the Blix Report and the Canberra Commission), DID concede that a 30 second briefing followed by eight minutes max to decide the fate of the world was not really satisfactory, and admitted the need for greater presidential decision-making time. And that is kind of progress. But the only way to do that is, admitting it or not, to lower operational readiness, even if by another name.

Lowering operational readiness has indeed been pushed for by a range of high - level commissions into nuclear weapons and WMD, most recently by the Blix Commission recommendation 17) and by the ICNND who note that accidental nuclear war is not a fantasy but a terrifying reality. Lowering operating status/operational readiness has been the subject of 4 resolutions on a regular basis in the General Assembly, including in 2007 and 2008, the Operational Readiness of Nuclear Weapons Systems resolution that came as a result of lobbying by this author and others and is sponsored by Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Switzerland. I understand it will again be submitted in 2010, having been suspended in 2009 in order to facilitate a favourable outcome by the NPR. When adopted in 2008 it was adopted by 141-3.(with Australia voting yes) The other resolutions that refer to Operating Status are the Reducing Nuclear Dangers resolution sponsored by India, Renewed Determination sponsored by Japan and Australia, and the NAM resolution.

We've just had a series of high - level meetings on nuclear weapons, and of these the most consequential surely, has been the NPT Review Conference of May 2010 at which this author attended for week two of its four weeks, holding a workshop on operating status of nuclear
weapon systems on 13 May which was addressed by the NZ and Swiss Ambassadors, ommander Robert Green, Nancy Gallagher of University of Michigan, Steven Starr of PSR and myself.

The other truly consequential event was of course, the signature (with ratification now mired in the US Congress and utterly insane and unfactual comments being made by some republicans) - of the New START treaty between the US and Russia (who held a very good briefing about it at the NPT Review Conference which I attended).

Neither New START nor the NPT Review Conference's final declaration could be said to be exactly radical. Both are however in my view modest (if rather too modest) moves in more or less the right direction. Both have been greeted with poisonous venom by the US hard right, who seem unfortunately to set the terms of the debate especially in the US Congress who have to ratify New START. This very venom should suggest to those of a more rational mindset that perhaps the NPT Review final dec and New START have some merit even if not as much as we'd like!

Yet all that New START really does, is to lower US and Russian land-based ICBM, Bomber, and SLBM warhead numbers to 1500 (Tactical nukes are not counted, and the limits apply to operational warheads only). There is a curious counting rule whereby bombers are counted as only one warhead, in spite of the fact that a bomber can take up to 24 warheads, though bombers are not normally loaded with nuclear warheads. Still, by attributing warheads to bombers, real warhead numbers could considerably exceed 1500.

New START says nothing at all about the operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems in spite of considerable lobbying on that subject by myself and others. The best we get in terms of real strategic stability and confidence building is a promise by Obama and Medvedev on the margins of the treaty negotiations to consider again the setting up of the Joint Data Exchange Centre, where US officers are to look at Russian radar screens and Russian officers are to look at US radar screens (at least, this was the original understanding), thereby making less likely miscalculations that could prove terminal. This has now been agreed to four times by both governments: we will see whether or not it will ever be a reality, and believe it when we see it.

......As for the NPT Review Conference Final Declaration, it was in the words of George Perkovitch, and Deepti Choubey, 'An incremental success'. Some commentators including early comments by ICAN were much more critical, and I confess I joined in that early criticism. I don't think this was entirely warranted (see my 'A Slightly Heretical Report On the NPT Review Conference'- (especially I don't think that it is true that the 2010 NPT Revcon final dec does not advance at all from the year 2000 final dec and is merely 'treading water'. This really is not fair.)).

I would instead point to:
--Language on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear
weapons use, that goes far toward de-legitimising the possession of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states tried hard to remove this but failed.
--more detailed language on operational status/operational readiness, albeit watered down (Partly at the behest of Russia) from earlier drafts.
--Two clear mentions of a nuclear weapons convention both on its own, and as an 'interlocking framework of agreements', and as part of the Ban Ci moon five - point plan.
--A clearer, more unambiguous commitment to going to global nuclear zero.

These are all significant advances on the Year 2000 final declaration and the 13 points.

However (as I point out in my 'Slightly heretical report'), whatever the path may be up the mountain of global nuclear zero, we have to actually walk it. And to walk in an upward direction is more important than to debate forever which is the 'right' path.

Otherwise, even if it is not literally the 'end of the world' (which will after all still be there), it might just, if someone has enough of a bad day, be the end of everything humans find to be important including possibly ourselves.

And those are quite high enough stakes.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

A Toronto Conference for Educators - "Forgotten Voices; Living History" トロントでの歴史教育会議

There will be an important conference "Forgotten Voices; Living History" held in Toronto, Canada, from October 1 to 3. See HERE for the conference website. See below for the program information.

“Forgotten Voices; Living History”
International Conference for Educators on History of World War II in Asia

The atrocities of WWII in Europe are well documented and taught extensively in the western world. At the same time, the history of WWII in Asia including the violation of human rights has not been studied or taught to the same extent. This exclusion is due to a variety of complex political, economic and cultural factors. The continued denial of the Japanese Government with regard to war crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial Army in Asia has been a stumbling block to peace and reconciliation among East Asian countries, and the world at large.

Canadian education is based on a belief in the importance of inclusive curriculum. The 2010 Education Conference on Asian WWII atrocities organized by the Toronto Association for Learning and Preserving the History of WWII in Asia (ALPHA) will provide a comprehensive and unique learning opportunity to Canadian educators and students on an important, yet forgotten chapter in the history of human rights violation. By studying war and conflict from a global perspective, Canadian students will gain the skills, knowledge and attitudes to stand up as global citizens and safeguard the values of social justice, mutual respect, and racial harmony.

The War ended 65 years ago on Aug. 15, 1945. The diminishing voices of the aging survivors have been forgotten; this living history continues to be neglected under a collective amnesia. The challenge for educators is to bring this history alive to their students.

2010 International Education Conference on Asian WWII atrocities On October 1‐3, 2010, Toronto ALPHA will host an Education Conference for educators and student teachers. It will be the first ever of its kind, and over 500 participants are expected to attend the conference, exhibits and related activities.

Survivors, scholars, educators and activists from China, Korea, Japan and North America have been invited to Canada to share their experience, insight and knowledge at symposiums, ectures, workshops and other academic activities.

In addition to the academic learning, there will be museum exhibits, drama performances and film festivals during the conference period. Parallel programs for high school students will take place in various venues during the week.

The Organizers and Organizing Committee Organizer:
• Toronto ALPHA

• Canada ALPHA Educational Fund

• Dufferin‐Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB)
• Toronto District School Board (TDSB)
• Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)
• York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB)
• OISE –Adult Education and Counselling Psychology
• OISE – Centre for Women’s Studies in Education
• OISE – Initial Teacher Education
• OISE – Sociology and Equity Studies in Education
• University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs, Asian Institute
• University of Toronto, Massey College
• York University, Faculty of Education
• Facing History and Ourselves
• Northeast Asian History Foundation

The Conference chairs are Gerry Connelly, former Director of Education of TDSB; Margaret Wells, instructor at University of Toronto, OISE; and Flora Chong, Vice Chair of Toronto ALPHA. These co‐chairs, together with Dr. Joseph Wong, founder and Chair of Toronto ALPHA and Judy Cho, ALPHA Conference Director, are working with a committed group of educators and volunteers to make this large scale professional conference a success.

For conference and registration information please visit .

Friday, July 09, 2010

Okinawa's Prefectural Assembly Calls for Revision of Japan-U.S. Agreement to Build a New Base in Okinawa 沖縄県議会、日米共同声明見直し決議を採択

(Photo from Ryukyu Shimpo Website)

On July 9, Okinawa Prefectural Assembly unanimously (except two who left) adopted a resolution to call for a revision of the joint statement by the U.S. and Japanese governments on May 28, 2010, in which the two governments confirmed their intention to build a "Futenma replacement" base in Henoko, Okinawa.

See below for the Mainichi Shimbun (Kyodo) report of the resolution. For Japanese readers, see towards the bottom of this post for the full text of the resolution, and Ryukyu Shimpo's July 9 Editorial.

Summary of the above-mentioned Rykyu Shimpo's editorial:
  • The resolution calls the Japan-U.S. Joint Statement "an act of violence that tramples democracy," and "one that ridicules Okinawans."
  • The anger in the resolution is only natural. The Prefectural Assembly in February passed an unanimous resolution calling for swift closure of Futenma Air Station and opposing construction of a "replacement" base in Henoko, but it was totally ignored by former Prime Minister Hatoyama.
  • The anger of the Prefectural Assembly is directed against new Prime Minister Kan, who unscrupulously inherited Hatoyama's irresponsible "Japan-U.S. agreement."
  • The resolution also protests Kan's statement of "apology and gratitude for Okinawa's burden" at the Battle of Okinawa memorial ceremony on June 23, saying it was "an act that paid no consideration to the feeling of Okinawans."
  • Prime Minister Kan attempts to impose further base burden on Okinawans. If he had any heart for making that apology, he should cancel that imposition. That would be the only right thing to do.
  • Kan, in his policy speech in June, stressed on the "realization of relocation and closure of Futenma Base, and transfer of components of U.S. Marines to Guam." The bilateral agreement specifies the relocation of "8,000 Marines and 9,000 family members," but the most important information is missing, which is how many Marines will be left in Okinawa.
  • According to Okinawa Prefecture's statistics at the end of September, 2009, the number of Marines stationed in Okinawa was 14,958, and that of the family members was 9,035. In theory, the number of Marines remaining in Okinawa after the Guam transfer would be approximately 7,000, with no family members remaining. However, according to research by Ginowan Mayor Iha, "the majority of Okinawa Marines have been dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are actually less than 5,000 Marines in Okinawa."
  • For the past seven years, the number of military personnel in Okinawa, including family members, has decreased by more than 10,000, from 50,000 (2003) to 40,000(2008).
  • So what is the rationale for transferring 8,000 Marines? Hatoyama, in his visit to Okinawa on May 4, said, "The more I learned, the more the deterrence effect of U.S. Marines I came to understand." The reality is, if one starts to "learn" anything, one will quickly discover that the bilateral agreement is full of contradictions.

(Above English summary by Peace Philosopher)

****** See related Japan Focus Article by Yoshida Kensei:
Okinawa and Guam: In the Shadow of U.S. and Japanese “Global Defense Posture”

Below are newspaper articles and Okinawa Prefectural Assembly resolution mentioned above:
Okinawa resolution calls for review of Japan-U.S. Futenma statement

NAHA, Japan (Kyodo) -- The Okinawa prefectural assembly on Friday called on the Japanese and U.S. governments to review the joint bilateral statement promising to move a controversial U.S. Marine base within the prefecture largely in line with a previous agreement between them.

The opinion sheet and resolution adopted by the assembly charge that the statement was issued "over the heads of" the people in the prefecture, against their consensus that they oppose relocating the Futenma Air Station within Okinawa.

The opinion sheet, addressed to Cabinet ministers including Prime Minister Naoto Kan, and the resolution, addressed to several others like U.S. President Barack Obama, note that the April mass rally in which organizers say 90,000 people protested the planned relocation "clearly shows" that the islanders want the prefecture to be free of U.S. military bases.

Of the resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last month thanking the Japanese, especially those in Okinawa, for continuing to host U.S. forces, the documents say, "That was an act borne out of their insufficient understanding of the feelings of the people in the prefecture and has enraged them."

At a news conference on the same day, Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima suggested that the base should not be forcibly relocated over the opposition among local people, noting that Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine opposes Futenma's relocation from Ginowan to a coastal area of his city under the bilateral agreement.

"The Nago mayor is against it. The only way to overcome it is to employ bulldozers, guns and swords, but I don't think they can do it," Nakaima said, referring to the United States' construction of military facilities in Okinawa while it was under U.S. control.

In the joint statement issued on May 28, Japan and the United States confirmed "the intention to locate the replacement facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters" and that they decided to complete a study by experts on its "location, configuration and construction any event no later than the end of August."

Former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who had once vowed to seek Futenma's relocation "at least outside of the prefecture," resigned days after the announcement.

(Mainichi Japan) July 9, 2010


                                                               沖 縄 県 議 会

外務大臣 あて

琉球新報 2010年7月9日 社説

普天間決議 矛盾多い日米合意の危うさ

2010年7月9日  県議会は9日、普天間返還・移設問題に関する日米共同声明の見直しを求める意見書を決議予定だ。

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Ochiai Eiichiro's Article in Nikkan Berita on Oura Bay Documentary 大浦湾軍港計画ドキュメンタリーについての日刊ベリタ記事

(Photo from Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting's website)

This is Ochiai Eiichiro's article in Nikkan Berita, an on-line alternative journal in Japanese, on Ryukyu Asahi's documentary on the U.S. plan to build a military port in Oura Bay, Okinawa. See Japan Focus article (with YouTube links) for the English introduction and summary of this documentary.

私が『Japan Focus: Asia-Pacific Journal』誌のために紹介記事を書いた琉球朝日放送のドキュメンタリー番組について、落合栄一郎さんが『日刊ベリタ』に紹介してくれました。以下に貼り付けます。『ベリタ』の記事はここにあります





映した「狙われた海—沖縄・大浦湾 幻の軍港計画」



なお、英文の解説も含めて、 でも見る事が出来ます。


(付記―上のリンクはピースフィロソフィーセンターが Japan Focus 誌の記事を転載したものなので、元の記事については をご覧ください。)

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Information about Cheonan Sinking in Japanese 天安艦沈没事件についての日本語情報

Some updated information about the Cheonan Sinking in Japanese. For English articles about the issue, see Vancouver Sun's article by Jonathan Manthorpe and the collection of related material on this blog.



天安艦沈没をめぐる10の真実 (日朝ネットより
                                2010,7,4 日朝ネット作成


① 北朝鮮の魚雷設計図と示されたものが発見された魚雷とは別の機種であることを調査団は認めた。15日に魚雷推進体を発見し20日の発表に間に合わせるため無理をして間違えたと釈明。(6/29)しかもいまだに設計図の出典は隠されている。
② 素人でも疑問を持つ魚雷推進体の腐食状態について調査団は当初「科学的な分析で1~2か月と判明」と説明していたが、「肉眼で判断した」と修正した。(6/29)
③軍民合同調査団はペクリョン島の哨兵の証言をもとに「水中爆発によるバブルジェットが天安艦を真っ二つにした」と主張しているが、韓国国会の天安艦真相調査特別委の野党議員は国政調査権を使って、「水柱(バブルジェット)は見なかった」という 哨兵の陳述書を明らかにしている。(7/1)




「浅い砂地で座礁した後に米艦と衝突した海難事故」と主張する野党選出の軍民合同調査団員に対し、韓国政府は調査発表直後に名誉棄損で告発。今ではインターネット上で「北魚雷説はねつ造」と主張した高校生まで逮捕される状況になっている。 国連登録NGOが自国政府の国連報告に対して異論を唱えるのは国連ではよくあることだが、韓国参与連帯が6月11日に国連安保理に「国連安保理がすべての根拠と証拠を慎重に検討し、公正で合理的な決定をするよう求める」要請文を提出したことを韓国政府は、「国家保安法違反」と攻撃している。




韓国国会に設置された天安艦真相調査特別委員会は、与党ハンナラ党が開始を遅らせ、途中から欠席し、疑惑に蓋をしたまま終了。決議も強行採決によるものであり、 韓国内の世論を代表したとはとても言えない。6月2日の統一地方選挙の与党の敗北は、韓国民衆の「北朝鮮魚雷説を信じるが戦争はやめてほしいという意思」ではなく、「過去の独裁政権と同じように北朝鮮を悪者にして民衆の責任追及を逃れようとする政府への不信」とみるほうが妥当ではないか。




中国政府も一貫して合同調査団の報告に疑問を投げかけ、関係国に冷静な対応を求めている。クリントン米国務長官が5月24日から25日に北京を訪問し説得を試みたと言 われているが、変わっていない。




G8サミットの首脳宣言は、「軍民合同調査団の調査報告を支持し、その脈絡で我々は、 天安艦沈没をおこした攻撃を非難する。朝鮮民主主義人民共和国に対して韓国への攻撃や敵対的な行為慎むように求める。また、事件の責任所在究明のための韓国政府の努力を支持する。」と発表(6/26)。これを日本のマスコミは「北朝鮮を事実上非難」 (朝日)と報道したが、よく読めば朝鮮の事件への関与は認めていない。韓国のメディア は、ロシア代表団関係者が「調査結果は最終的なものとは見なされておらず、北朝鮮を非難することは否定的な結果につながる」と語ったと報道している。(聯合ニュース6/26) 調査報告の信憑性に問題が生じれば、この声明は当然効力を失う。
6月27日に閉幕したG20サミットでは、採択された首脳宣言と議長声明では、天安艦 問題は全く触れられなかった。韓国は共同議長国として北朝鮮非難を盛り込んで国連安保理決議に向けた流れを作ろうとしたが、中国などの反対により実現しなかったと言われている。


日本政府は合同調査団の報告に一切の疑問を提起せず、G8サミットなどで韓国政府の立場を援護。この間の国会では、朝鮮の船舶に対して臨検を可能にする法案を成立させる(5/28)など独自の制裁を実施。マスメディアも、韓国国内で調査報告の真偽を めぐり与野党が激しく対立している事実すら伝えない。朝鮮バッシングがあたりまえの 体質に陥っている。


以下は、バンクーバー九条の会 会長 落合栄一郎さんが7月3日、『日刊ベリタ』に書いたものです。


先に(日刊ベリタ2010.06.23)、この事件についての韓国国内での民間からの疑問提出を韓国政府が躍起になって押さえつけようとする様が報告された。日本では、世界中でも最も早い時期に田中宇氏が非常に重大な疑問符を投げかけた( ;  )が、主要なメデイアや政府は、公式報告(北朝鮮による魚雷攻撃と結論)を鵜呑みにして、沖縄普天間基地/辺野古移転への正当化、軍備強化、日米同盟深化などをすすめる道具に使っている。

一方、当の韓国政府は国連の安保理への書翰( )では、検討を要請するのみで、北朝鮮制



New Italian Film on Global U.S. Military Base Empire 世界の米軍基地についてのイタリア映画

See trailor of this new Italian film on the U.S. global military empire. イタリア人監督によるアメリカの軍事基地帝国についての新しい映画についての情報です。下記リンクで予告編をご覧ください。

Official Webpage of the film is here.

Facebook Page of the film is here.

Read Asahi Newspaper report on this film.


Saturday, July 03, 2010

A Japan Focus Article: "Assault on the Sea: A 50-Year U.S. Plan to Build a Military Port on Oura Bay, Okinawa" 大浦湾軍港計画ドキュメンタリー 紹介記事

Reposted from Japan Focus: Asia-Pacific Journal article. See below for YouTube links to the documentary.

2009年10月に放映された琉球朝日放送のドキュメンタリー『狙われた海~沖縄・大浦湾 幻の軍港計画50年』の英語による紹介・要約記事です。普天間基地「移設」という名目で計画されている大浦湾(辺野古)の新基地計画は実は1960年代から存在するものだったのです。この貴重な映像をどうぞ見逃さないでください。日本語がわかる方は直接下の YouTube リンクでご覧ください。

Assault on the Sea: A 50-Year U.S. Plan to Build a Military Port on Oura Bay, Okinawa

Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting (Video) and Norimatsu Satoko (Introduction and translation)

So often, Okinawan voices go unheard outside of Okinawa. So often, probing TV documentaries on such sensitive issues as the Battle of Okinawa or on Okinawa-Japan-U.S. relations are shown once and archived, never to return to public view. So often, even if they are broadcast outside of Okinawa, they are aired at odd times. This was the fate of this documentary on Oura Bay, which TV Asahi scheduled at 2:40 a.m., but it deserves the attention of more than a few night owls. The documentary, “Nerawareta Umi: Okinawa,Oura-wan - Maboroshi no gunko keikaku 50 nen” (The Targeted Sea - A 50-year Unrealized Plan for a Military Port in Oura Bay, Okinawa), was produced by QAB (Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting) and broadcast in the first week of October 2009. This program reveals the little-known fact that the plan to build a large-scale U.S. military complex in Oura Bay, including a military port, was initiated as early as the mid-1960s. Oura Bay is located on the northeastern shore of Okinawa Island, adjacent to USMC Camp Schwab and Cape Henoko, where the U.S. and Japanese governments are planning to build the controversial “replacement facility” for the Futenma Air Station. While it is widely believed that this facility is being built as a substitute for the dangerous Marine airbase in a crowded residential area of Ginowan City, the evidence disclosed here confirms that the U.S. aims to take advantage of this opportunity to close an obsolete base and build (for the most part at Japanese expense) the brand-new military complex that it has sought to build since the 1960s.

Previous Japan Focus articles have examined the controversy over the base in detail. What this special report adds is its detailed and sensitive visual depiction of the subtle and mixed emotions of the local residents toward the base construction plan. Residents, including the uminchu (fishermen) who appear in this documentary, have been largely ignored by government planners. Over generations, those plans appeared in many different forms, ranging from coercive land expropriation, to the destruction of coral reefs in the name of “land surveys,” and rumors of hefty compensation for individual households. Henoko, which has hosted USMC Camp Schwab for the last 53 years, is now confronted with a plan for a new high-tech base – a “Futenma relocation” base. For the past six decades, the base issue has divided the remote fishing village, whose residents cherished the value of cooperation through cultural traditions like Shima (Okinawan sumo wrestling) and the Henoko Tug-of-War Festival, events that have often welcomed the participation of USMC members.

This documentary was filmed before the historic regime change in Japan in September 2009, with the landslide victory of the left-of-centre Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) over the long-ruling conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Viewers may notice the general apathy among residents over the base plan and their reluctant acceptance of their inability to stop it. They did not anticipate the dramatic turn of events in the offing after Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio took office, having pledged to reverse the previous government’s commitment to the base construction plan. After his failure to follow through on that pledge led to Hatoyama’s resignation in early June 2010, new Prime Minister Kan Naoto disappointed Okinawans by endorsing the Henoko base plan within hours of his appointment. At the Battle of Okinawa Memorial on June 23, Kan reinforced Okinawans’ fear and anger by expressing his “apology” and “appreciation” to the islanders for bearing the additional burden of the new base.

The Okinawan struggle to stop the new base construction will continue. This documentary sheds new light on the historical context of the controversy over the new base plan in Henoko/Oura Bay.

Since the documentary is in Japanese, an English summary is provided below, but the beauty of Oura Bay, and the richness and liveliness of such cultural expressions as Okinawan-style sumo wrestling (shima) and the Henoko Tug-of-War can only be appreciated by watching the video. See below for YouTube links.

Norimatsu Satoko

Henoko fisherman (“uminchu” in the Okinawan language) Gishitomi Shoji, 35 years old and the father of a fifth-grade boy, is a champion of Shima, Okinawan-style sumo wrestling.

He fishes in Oura Bay, adjacent to Camp Schwab. Except when military drills are underway, he is allowed to fish within waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Camp Schwab was built in 1957, during the U.S. military occupation of Okinawa. Around that time, many tracts of land in Okinawa were forcibly expropriated by the U.S. military for new base construction. For example, in 1953, the military came to the island of Iejima to conduct a “land survey,” bearing guns. When they returned, they burned houses, including those in which sick people lived. Hundreds sat-in to protest, but they were removed by force, with bulldozers. [See Ahagon Shoko and C. Douglas Lummis, I Lost My Only Son in the War: Prelude to the Okinawan Anti-Base Movement.] To Okinawans, “land survey” came to mean “a warning of land expropriation.”

In 1955, a “land survey” came to Henoko too, alarming residents. 85-year old Kayo Soshin recalls, “It wasn’t even like, ‘This place may become a base.’ It was just going to be a base. There was no consultation, nothing. It was the same as the Japanese military (during the war) – suppression from above.” Kayo, then a community leader, fiercely opposed the plan at the beginning, but the power of the military was overwhelming. Confronted with the choice of being arrested and losing his land or agreeing to give up the land, he chose the latter. “There was no way to win. I shifted to thinking about how we can profit from this situation.”

In the 1950s, anti-base movements spread across Okinawa, including the “Island-Wide Struggle” (1956) to oppose land expropriation and permanent land use by the U.S. military. In that political climate, many Okinawans were disappointed to learn that Henoko had given in. Of course there were gains such as having electricity, and the establishment of shopping and entertainment districts. But Henoko has lived with the base (Camp Schwab) for the last fifty years, despite accidents and crimes associated with the base (4 felonies; 11 assaults/thefts/break-ins; 14 plane accidents/misfire incidents).

Fisherman Gishitomi does not directly profit from the base, as do landowners who earn rent, but he has accepted the reality that his community has relied on the base-related income. Around the time when his son was born, however, Henoko was confronted with another problem. In 1995, Okinawan rage erupted after the rape of a 12-year old girl by three GIs. Then-Governor Ota Masahide announced his refusal to provide any land to the U.S. military. The Japanese and the U.S. governments, fearing the AMPO relationship would be adversely affected, announced that they would return the dangerous Futenma Air Station in crowded Ginowan City. Somehow, however, this decision shifted into a plan to build a “replacement facility” in Henoko. When the environmental survey started, a division occurred within Henoko, between those who sat-in to protest and those who supported the base, with conflict centered on the fishermen whose boats were hired by the government to cooperate with the survey. Gishitomi is among those fishermen who earn charter fees from the government. Contention over the base continues to divide the residents of the small town.

The division among residents is also shown in the second part of the documentary on YouTube, which starts with an Okinawa Defense Bureau information meeting for Henoko residents about the environmental assessment. As Defense Bureau staff describe the minimal effects they anticipate on the coral reefs, Gishitomi gets frustrated with the lack of information on the possible effects on fishing. One of the residents says, however, “Many people agreed, having heard that each household would receive money.” In April 2004, the chief of Henoko District went to Tokyo and asked the Defense Facilities Administration Agency for compensation of 150 million yen (approx. $1.5 million) for each household in Henoko. The central government did not promise to compensate individual families, but rumors of this kind of compensation continued to divide the Henoko residents.

The plan to build a base in Henoko is called a “relocation plan,” but the Henoko plan entails a military port in addition to an air station. Rather than a “relocation facility,” it is a new military complex quite different in nature from Futenma Air Station. With a military port, weapons can be loaded directly onto ships from the Henoko Ammunition Depot.

Gishitomi fears that his fishing grounds would be reduced by the port construction. “Neither the governor nor the mayor met with the local fishermen to explain the base plan. They just come to tell us what they are going to do. I am angry, and this is why I just say, ‘Is that so?’ It’s not because I agree. Even if I protest, they will do it anyway. Japan and the U.S. just do whatever they want to do here.”

This has not always been the case. The documentary introduces a group of fishermen who formerly opposed the plan.

Asato Fumio, an 82-year old fisherman, still sets out to sea every day with his wife Chiyo. 47 years ago (April 19–25, 1962), the U.S., after warning of drills, suddenly blasted the coral reefs in Oura Bay. The first time they did it, “I went to the village chief and protested, ‘Are they allowed to do that?’ I saw many dead fish.” Chinen Chuji, who was a reporter for the newspaper Jinmin (People) at that time, knew that there was already a plan to build a military port there. Chinen wrote about those fishermen who stood up to stop that project. Tamaki Akinobu, one of the fishermen who protested then, recalls, “It was shortly after the Henoko base (Camp Schwab) was built. Fishermen acted together to stop it. There were seven or eight boats.”

The U.S. military blasted the coral reefs because they were in the way of their drills. The fishermen’s catches dropped drastically, and the drills became more intense. The damage to the bay worsened. On July 9, 1969, the U.S. military blasted Oura Bay again. Newspapers reported that the U.S. was planning to build a base to host nuclear-powered submarines. Journalist Chinen says, “The U.S. faced a problem if they couldn’t build a base to host nuclear submarines there. They used to call at Naha Port, but because of the strong protests there, they were kicked out.”

On May 27, 1966, Albert Watson, then U.S. High Commissioner on Okinawa, announced that the U.S. planned to build a new military port. Chinen also reported on October 29, 1966 that a possible site for the military port was Oura Bay, which was deep enough to accommodate nuclear submarines. The neighborhoods of Abu and Kayo, on the northern shore of Oura Bay were covertly surveyed with an eye to building an ammunition depot. Two documents support this allegation: in December 1965, the chief of Kushi Village approved a plan for the U.S. military to survey 1,584 acres on the north side of Oura Bay; in 1966, the Master Plan of Navy Facilities on Okinawa had a complete blueprint of the new military port – including an air station and a military port at Camp Schwab, an Army ammunition depot on the northern shore of Oura Bay, and a pier for Army use.

The blueprint for a new air station, a military port, and a pier, from the Master Plan of Navy Facilities on Okinawa, 1966 (Photograph from Makishi Yoshikazu,”US Dream Come True? The New Henoko Sea Base and Okinawan Resistance,” Japan Focus, February 12, 2006)

“Military bases are like cancer cells. They spread. People talk about reorganizing and reducing them, but they just don’t work that way,” Chinen argues. “The whole Oura Bay would be an ammunition depot.”

(The third part of the documentary, as it appears on YouTube) Oura Bay became the target of the plan to build a military port, in the middle of the Cold War and during the escalation of the Vietnam War. The plan, however, did not materialize. Resistance against military bases accelerated during 1960s. Movements to protect land spread across the Ryukyus, including land struggles on Miyagi Island and in Gushikawa Village, the movement to stop construction of an electric power substation in Uema, Naha, and opposition to an urban training facility in Onna Village. Without these struggles, Okinawa would have many more bases than it now does. The U.S. gave up its plan to build a military port in Oura Bay. Asato Fumio says, “At that time all the uminchu were against it.”

This U.S. military port plan of more than 40 years ago has now been revived as a plan to “replace” Futenma Air Station. The government is conducting an environmental impact survey, and this time, many uminchu are cooperating. The charter fees that the government pays are a reliable source of income for many. Asato, however, refuses to cooperate. “I have no use for it,” Asato says. “For a while, you lead a good life with money, but what happens afterwards?”

In 1996, Okinawans were happy to hear that the Futenma Air Station would be returned, but fifteen years later, it has not been returned. Meanwhile, Henoko, the village that has hosted a military base for the past 50 years, has been subjected to heavier burdens. The title of an email written by Colonel Richard W. Lueking, Commander of the Futenma base on April 17, 1996 is shown on screen as “Futenma Relocation.” It reads, “I HAVE A COPY OF A DEC 1966 DOCUMENT SUBJ: ‘MASTER PLAN OF NAVY.’" “THE ESSENSE OF THIS PLAN IS COMBINED NAVAL STATION–MARINE CORPS AIR FACILITY AT OURA-WAN.” This document shows that the 1966 plan provided the basis for the “Futenma relocation plan.”

The military port plan has returned. Tamaki says, “We are receiving money from Japan’s Ministry of Defense. It helps with the fishermen’s household expenses. We have thoughts in our minds, but we can’t speak them.” Gishitomi, during his night-fishing, says, “What can we do? The plan has been there for a long time. There is no way we can stop it. We have to turn this to our benefit…. Sometimes I wonder if it’s right to build a base. Other times I think it is good, and it will help my child’s life. I don’t know.” Camp Schwab is brightly lit all through the night. Gishitomi has never known an Okinawa without bases.

It has been over ten years since Japan and the U.S. decided to build this “relocation” base. Lately we don’t hear the outspoken protests at Henoko that we once heard. The residents cannot speak out, with the weight of the base burden and the compensation offer on their shoulders. The inability to speak out, however, is different from acceptance of the base. Kayo says, “We don’t protest because it would do no good. We did protest before… it seems like a dream now. We have grown used to this (the reality of the bases). We are desensitized.”

The Tug-of-War Festival in Henoko is held every three years. Residents weave a thick, 90-meter (300-feet) rope, and on the day of the festival, wind their way through the village, carrying it. Even with differing opinions, Henoko residents work together on such occasions. The festival brings the 2,000 Henoko residents together.

Henoko residents have never been asked, “Is it okay to place a base here?” For all these years, Okinawans were confronted with the choice to accept or oppose the bases, but with the assumption that the bases would be built anyway. Japan is now trying to build yet another base there. The sea has been targeted for 50 years… Today, only a few surviving fishermen in Oura Bay remember an Okinawa without bases.

Links to the documentary on YouTube:

Part I

Part II

Part III

The official program website.

Related Articles:

Makishi Yoshikazu, US Dream Come True? The New Henoko Sea Base and Okinawan Resistance

Ahagon Shoko and C. Douglas Lummis, I Lost My Only Son in the War: Prelude to the Okinawan Anti-Base Movement

Gavan McCormack, Ampo’s Troubled 50th: Hatoyama’s Abortive Rebellion, Okinawa’s Mounting Resistance and the US-Japan Relationship

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Kikuno Yumiko and Norimatsu Satoko, Henoko, Okinawa: Inside the Sit-In

Norimatsu Satoko, a Japan Focus Associate, leads various peace initiatives, including Peace Philosophy Centre, Vancouver Save Article 9, and Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Studies Tour.

Recommended citation: Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting and Norimatsu Satoko, "Assault on the Sea: A 50-Year U.S. Plan to Build a Military Port on Oura Bay, Okinawa," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 27-1-10, July 5, 2010.

For all articles by this author click here