＜米大統領選と東アジア　日米同盟、基地はどうなるのか＞４　米６識者に聞く

　今回の米大統領選が沖縄の基地問題にどう影響するかについて、米国人識者６人の見解を紹介する。（取材・翻訳　高嶺朝太）

ジョン・フェッファー氏／選挙と基地政策無関係

　二大政党の候補者の顔ぶれを見ると、選挙の結果が米国政府の基地政策に影響を及ぼすとは思えない。しかし、米国の政策は議会での予算審議、紛争地域、同盟国における変化に非常に影響される。国防総省に予算削減のプレッシャーがかかり、海外米軍基地の縮小につながる可能性はある。
　「米国は世界の警察」ではない、という不干渉主義の外交政策を支持する米国民の傾向は１９９０年代から続いているが、それが米国の政策を変えるまでには至っていない。トランプ氏は政治的理由から共和党内の孤立主義支持層にアピールしようとしてきた。また同氏は、国防総省への予算増を約束し、政治家や官僚制度へ反対する傾向にある現役米兵、イラク、アフガン戦争への政府の対応に不満を抱いている兵士たちにもアピールし共感を得ている。
　選挙の結果が日米同盟に影響を与えるとは思えない。米国は安倍政権の自衛隊を「普通」の軍隊にしようとする姿勢を支持し続けるだろう。
　私は、米国の安倍政権支持には反対だ。なぜなら、それは東アジア全体を最終的に不安定にするからだ。
　沖縄の基地反対運動は、東アジアにおいて数少ない希望の光だ。闘争は長期に及んできている。しかし、私は日米政府の政治家たちより沖縄県民の忍耐力が最終的にはまさると思う。
…………………………………………………………………………

　Ｆｏｒｅｉｇｎ　Ｐｏｌｉｃｙ　Ｉｎ　Ｆｏｃｕｓ　ディレクター。著書に『アメリカの悪夢―９・１１テロと単独行動主義』（耕文社）など。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
John Feffer is director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.　 He is the author of several books and numerous articles.

Question 1: In the U.S. presidential election this year, there have been candidates who criticize foreign military bases and call for non-interventionist foreign policy, such as Republican Party candidate Donald Trump, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. How do you see this election?

A: I’m afraid that non-intervention is not a major issue. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are marginal candidates. And Donald Trump doesn’t really believe in non-intervention. For instance, he would escalate bombing in Syria and send tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers to the conflict as well. As for foreign bases, it’s quite clear that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about since he thinks that U.S. allies don’t contribute to “host nation support.” Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is firmly committed to U.S. military presence around the globe and has a generally more hawkish view on military intervention than the Obama administration.

Q 2: Depending on how the election goes, do you think there is a possibly the U.S. government’s policies in these areas could change? Specifically is there a possibility the U.S. government could head in the direction of scaling down foreign military bases and taking more non-interventionist foreign policy?　

A: Based solely on the two frontrunners and their positions, no, I don’t think there will be a change in U.S. policy. However, U.S. policy is very much influenced by two other factors: the budget battle in Washington and what is happening on the ground in conflict zones and with American allies. I can imagine a situation in which there is pressure on the Pentagon to cut its budget, and that might lead to a scaling down of overseas bases. And if there is a significant shift on the ground in Syria — a ceasefire, for instance — that could reduce support for increased intervention there.　

Q 3: In the Pew Research Center’s polls (http://www.people-press.org/2016/05/05/public-uncertain-divided-over-americas-place-in-the-world/)(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/02/most-americans-think-the-u-s-is-great-but-fewer-say-its-the-greatest/), a majority of the U.S. citizens support non-interventionist foreign policy and don’t think the U.S. “stands above all other countries in the world.” While Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton supports American exceptionalism and stresses the importance of the U.S. leading other countries, Trump occasionally said that U.S. cannot afford to police the world.
How do you see this tendency? Do you think there is a change in American people’s thinking?

A: The polling is correct. But it’s also not new. Polls going back to the 1990s demonstrate that Americans support a non-interventionist policy (in general) and reject the “world’s policeman” approach. But those polls didn’t have much influence over U.S. policy over the last 20 years or so. Trump also supports American exceptionalism and the overwhelming use of military power. But for political reasons he has tried to appeal to the isolationist strain in the Republican Party.

Q 4: Candidates who call for non-interventionist foreign policy, such as Trump and Johnson, gain strong support from active duty officers (http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/this-poll-of-the-us-military-has-gary-johnson-tied-with-donald-trump-in-the-race-for-president). How do you see this tendency?

A: Trump gets support from the military because he calls for more money spent on the Pentagon and he has played up the anti-political and anti-bureaucratic tendencies of active-duty officers. At the same time, a good portion of the military is not happy with civilian leaders sending troops into conflict without considering the consequences — either for the troops or for U.S. policy more generally. The military was not happy with the way the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought. So, they warm to Trump’s critique of those wars.

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: I don’t see any changes. The United States will continue to support Shinzo Abe’s efforts to create a “normal” military. I personally think that the United States shouldn’t support Abe in his campaign. It is ultimately destabilizing for East Asia as a whole.

Q 6: Do you have any suggestions for Okinawa, in which a total of 74 percent of U.S. military facilities in Japan that are being used exclusively by U.S. forces are concentrated, and where there is strong opposition to the U.S. military?

A: The protests conducted by Okinawans have been one of the few bright lights in East Asia. It’s been a long struggle. But I think that ultimately the people of Okinawa have greater endurance than the bureaucrats in Tokyo or the government officials in Washington.

―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

ジャン・ユンカーマン氏／民衆圧力が唯一の希望

　選挙で海外米軍基地が争点に浮上したのは、多くの米国人が米軍の海外駐留に多額の費用が浪費され非生産的だと思い、その存在意義に疑問を抱くようになってきたからだ。トランプ氏の、在日米軍駐留費増に日本政府が応じなければ撤退させる用意があるという発言は、多くの日本人の興味をかき立てているが、彼は無知からそのような発言をしているだけだ。選挙期間中は、外交政策に関して中身のある議論はされていない。
　選挙の結果が日米同盟を変えるとは思わない。日米間における軍事力の統合プロセスは長年続いてきており、安倍政権の集団的自衛権の行使容認はそれを加速させているだけだ。どの政権が誕生しても、東アジアの安定と安全保障を維持するという名目で、このプロセスを容認するだろう。日米間における軍事同盟は東アジアの恒久的平和確立への障壁であり、在日米軍基地は２０世紀から引き継がれた時代遅れの考えだ。日本の軍備増強と米国のアジア回帰政策は資源と人材の無駄だ。
　米軍基地に反対する沖縄県民にとって唯一の希望は、日米両国の民衆が政府に辺野古の新基地、高江のヘリパッド建設を中止するように圧力をかけさせ、合理的に短い期間で、米軍基地を縮小させる政策を実施させることだ。沖縄県民の米軍基地への反対は消えず、より高まっていく。沖縄に基地を押しつけることは、人権侵害で民主主義と正義の理念を劣化させるものだ。
…………………………………………………………………………

　映画監督。作品に『劫火（ごうか）―ヒロシマからの旅―』『沖縄　うりずんの雨』など。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
John Junkerman is a director and producer, known for Hellfire: A Journey from Hiroshima (1986), Power and Terror: Noam Chomsky in Our Times (2002) and Noam Chomsky: Distorted Morality (2003): Okinawa: The Afterburn” (“Okinawa: Urizun no Ame”) (2015).

A: I think many Americans are increasingly skeptical of the US presence overseas, because it is not only expensive but counterproductive. A healthy political process would bring these issues out and perhaps lead to the development of new ideas and approaches. These three politicians are responding to (and appealing to) that skepticism, though Johnson and Stein do so because of their political ideologies (without any hope of being elected). Johnson is especially generating support, though I think this is largely because the two major party candidates are so unappealing. Many Japanese have been intrigued (and encouraged) by Trump’s statement that he would withdraw troops from Japan if Japan doesn’t bear more of the costs, but he is really speaking from ignorance (I don’t think he’s ever heard of omoiyari yosan) and you can’t accept this as a serious position. If (God forbid) he is elected president, I would predict he will modify this position to be more in line with standard American diplomatic and military policy. If Clinton wins, which I think she will, she will follow these standard policies, probably with increased interventionist tendencies. I don’t think the election will lead to fundamental change, but Sanders’ campaign and the emergence of other progressives (such as Elizabeth Warren) may make it somewhat easier for progressives to get their ideas heard. But we are a long way from having a fundamental shift in direction.

A: Trump’s statements have raised this as an issue, but there has actually been very little substantive debate or discussion about foreign policy during the campaign. The fundamental assumptions (that the US must have undisputed military superiority, that it has the right to intervene at will across the world, that doing so protects American “interests”) have gone unchallenged. I think politicians are to blame (even Obama was constrained by fears of appearing weak on defense, though he was able to put some constraints on the interventionist tendency), along with the military and foreign policy establishment. All of them see the world in ways that serve their interests, rather than the world as it is.

A: (I think I addressed this above)

A: I think you are mistaken to believe that Trump is a non-interventionist. He has talked about bombing Islamic State to smithereens, and seizing their oil. I don’t think he has serious policies at all, but it is a big mistake to think that his comments about Japan, South Korea, etc. paying the bills for the US bases are anything more than pandering to populist sentiments. Many of his arguments are badly out of date, reflecting biases that he has retained from the “Japan-bashing” years of the 1970s and 1980s.

But support for a less interventionist policy among military officers, I think, reflects their assessment that the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly to the military without producing results (and especially in Iraq, leading directly to the spread of terrorism).

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: The election will not change the dynamics of the Japan-US alliance. The process of integrating Japanese and American military forces has been underway for many years, and Abe’s move to enable collective self-defense only accelerates that process. Any incoming administration will endorse this process in the name of maintaining the stability of the relationship and security in East Asia. I think the militarization of the US-Japan alliance is actually a barrier to establishing lasting security in East Asia, and the US bases in Japan are a legacy of outmoded 20th century thinking. The arms buildup in Japan and the American pivot to Asia are wastes of resources, talent, and energy. They represent a failure of imagination, as well as a failure of intellectual analysis and comprehension.

A: The only hope for Okinawa is for Japanese and American citizens to put political pressure on the Japanese and American governments to halt construction in Henoko and Takae, and to implement a program of reducing the American bases on Okinawa in a reasonable but short timeframe. The opposition in Okinawa is not going to go away. It only grows stronger, year by year. Continuing to force the bases on Okinawa is a violation of human rights, and a degradation of principles of democracy and justice.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

ジョン・レットマン氏／国内変革を促すべきだ

　大統領選挙の結果が、日米同盟に及ぼす影響に関して、トランプ氏が勝利した場合、予測することは困難だ。同氏は、経済や貿易の観点からしか日本を見ておらず、日本や中国は米国から多くのものを奪っていると批判している。日米関係は緊迫したものになるだろう。
　クリントン氏はもっと分かりやすい。北朝鮮と中国に対して強硬路線をとり、アジア回帰政策を継承していくだろう。右傾化する日本の政権とうまく連携し、日本の軍事化を促進させ、米国の軍事介入に日本を引き込む可能性もある。大きな変化が起きない限り、同氏が日本や韓国における米軍の影響力を減らすとは思えない。
　緑の党候補のジル・スタイン氏が、米国の海外米軍基地に疑問を呈しているのは素晴らしいが、もっと影響力を持たないといけない。
　トランプ氏とクリントン氏しか選択肢のない米国の二大政党制には非常に大きな問題がある。緑の党やリバタリアン党、独立メディア、平和団体、非政府組織（ＮＧＯ）、米国市民一人一人が、米国の過剰で無用な軍事主義に焦点を当て続けることは重要だ。次の大統領に誰がなろうと、米国市民は見識を広げ、国内の変革を促すように積極的になるべきだ。
　沖縄には、昨年訪れた時、現地の人々や、美しい自然に感動した。多くの人が非常に不公平な状況だと見ている米軍基地問題に対しても、忍耐強く強い決意を持って平和的抗議を続けている。多くの米国人やメディアが沖縄の基地問題を知らないし、取り上げない。私はこの問題を世界に伝えるためにできることは何でもやっていくつもりだ。
…………………………………………………………………………

　ハワイを拠点にするジャーナリスト。英紙「ガーディアン」、テレビ局「アルジャジーラ」などに寄稿。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
Jon Letman is an independent journalist on Kauai. He writes about people, plants and politics in Hawaii and the Asia-Pacific region. His stories have appeared in Al Jazeera English, Christian Science Monitor, Honolulu Civil Beat and elsewhere.

A: In spite of Jill Stein and Gary Johnson’s campaigns, America’s presidential politics are exclusionary and far too narrow in scope. If Americans’ choice for president is between Hillary and Trump, there is something profoundly wrong. The fact that the presidential debates are tightly controlled by Democratic and Republican party-operated Commission on Presidential Debates and don’t allow for other parties to join in the debate tells us something very troubling about how democracy is very narrowly, very rigidly defined in the U.S. Fortunately there are robust independent media outlets like the daily news hour Democracy Now! that questions and expands the range of voices in American politics. We need much more of that.

Regarding candidates calling for non-interventionist foreign policy, it’s good to hear Jill Stein question America’s global empire of military bases but it needs to become a much more mainstream question than just coming from a Green party candidate. I’m not very familiar with Gary Johnson’s foreign policy position and I’m not sure he is familiar with foreign policy himself? Trump operates on the premise that America is being taken advantage of by every other country — friends and foes alike. He’s quick to criticize China, Mexico, Japan, Russia, the EU and others and complains that (in particular) Japan, South Korea and Germany aren’t “paying their fair share” for the U.S. to defend (or occupy) their territory. Trump is such an unpredictable character, it’s impossible to believe that what he says today is an indication of what he would do if he had the ultimate political power. A Trump presidency would be disastrous for America and the world. That leaves us with Hillary. She was one of the primary voices defining Obama’s Asia-Pacific Pivot announced in 2011. Her views on the region were spelled out in a 5,000 word article for Foreign Policy magazine. It’s hard to imagine her making any sudden or dramatic changes to America’s military base culture or the general direction of U.S. foreign policy. She’s generally considered more hawkish than Obama. Over the last eight years, under President Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, America has been fighting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and elsewhere, conducting covert operations, secret drone wars and extrajudicial executions of U.S. citizens that include at least one American-born teenager. Under Obama the U.S. military is supposedly “rebalancing” its forces from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific (increasingly called the more inclusive Indo-Asia-Pacific) region and yet we are mired in wars in the Middle East and West Asia and expanding both our military footprint in parts of Africa even as we conduct an endless calendar of military training and exercises in Asia, the Pacific and various places in Europe. I’m not terribly hopeful that the U.S.’s hyper-militarized foreign policy will in anyway retract or soften under a President Hillary Clinton.

A: I believe I addressed this in the latter part of the above question but again, no, I don’t think it is in America’s DNA to scale down foreign military bases or become less interventionist — at least not at this time and certainly not under Hillary Clinton. And again, Trump says all kinds of things but he absolutely must not be given the opportunity to try them. The danger of a Trump presidency cannot be overstated.

In the meantime, it is important for alternative parties like the Greens or Libertarians and for independent media, peace groups, NGOs and private citizens to keep the spotlight on America’s excessive and unhelpful culture of militarism. No matter who the next president is, Americans need to become much better informed and much more assertive in demanding — actually forcing — change.

A: If American’s support non-interventionism, it is probably because they are tired of seeing the high cost we pay in “blood and treasure” (dead soldiers and wasted money) by pursuing wars like Afghanistan and Iraq. And yet if you look at some of the data in the above Pew poll (5/5/16) , the number of Americans that say they support increasing (35%) or maintaining (40%) current military spending levels (from ‘Rising Support for Defense Spending’) is 75%. So there seems to be a disconnect. If Americans want to be less militarily engaged around the world, why do they also support current or greater levels of military spending?

I think a lot of Americans, perhaps an increasing number, recognize that even though we grossly outspend something like the next ten biggest spending nations (most of whom are partners or allies) on our military, it hasn’t translated to peace, stability or security. Many Americans can see we have tremendous problems here in the United States and they don’t want to see that money wasted on more wars that only increase instability.

At the same time, it never seems to take much effort to convince Americans that a few well-placed bombs in a faraway country might be the solution, or at least an appropriate reaction, to a given problem, especially if it is in response to a perceived injustice (9/11, the 1998 East African U.S. Embassy bombings, etc.).

A: I can’t really speculate on what motivates active duty military officers and who they support. I suppose there is a range in the political views of soldiers just as there is among civilians. Undoubtedly there is some percentage of active duty military officers who want to serve in the military but also feel that American politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties are sending them into harm’s way unnecessarily. How common that view is, however, I do not know. My guess is that it increases with age and experience.

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: The next president is either going to be named Donald or Hillary. If it’s Donald, there’s no telling what will happen. I would expect lots of irrational behavior and a lot of increased friction and tension both inside the U.S. and abroad. Trump probably views Japan in terms of economics and trade and not much more. He mentions Japan often (along with China and Mexico) and he constantly talks about how Japan is “ripping off” the United States. I suspect he would do all he could to “gain the upper hand” and dominate, control and manipulate Japan as he sees fit. U.S.-Japan relations would be strained.

If the next president is Hillary Clinton, her course would probably be fairly predictable. My guess is that she would take a hard line with North Korea and China and probably continue the Asia-Pacific Pivot trajectory that has started under Obama. She would probably be happy to work with an increasingly right wing Japanese government and would probably encourage Japan’s government, no matter who holds power, to militarize further. She might even encourage Japan to join the U.S. in our next military adventure wherever that may be. I don’t think a President Hillary would do anything to dramatically reduce or change the U.S. military presence in Japan or South Korea unless something major happened. Even then, it’s easier to imagine the U.S. pushing to get in deeper rather than back off the region.

Do I think the U.S.-Japan alliance should change? It seems only reasonable that people in Japan (and especially Okinawa) should have a greater say in how their air, land and seas are being used (for military purposes). Japanese citizens need to ask themselves what kind of country they want to be and if they think Article 9 should be preserved. Based on the protests and demonstrations across Japan in 2015, it seems pretty clear most Japanese don’t want to go down a new militarized path.

My hope would be that Japan and America would continue to be close allies, not in a military or even economic sense, but in a cultural and societal sense. I would hope that friendship, understanding and exchanges (cultural, educational, scientific, etc.) would increase and deepen. It would be very sad if Japan and the U.S. were only tied together by economics, trade and militarism.

A: After visiting Okinawa in 2015, I was deeply moved by the people of Okinawa and the beauty of the islands. The people of Okinawa are very impressive for their strength, determination and peaceful resistance to what so many see as a grossly unjust situation. I hope that Okinawans can maintain their strength and commitment to peace as they resist militarization from both the U.S. and Japan. Okinawa should be an example for all the world and the people of Okinawa deserve the respect and support from people around the world.

My observation is that most Americans know almost nothing about the hyper-militarized state of Okinawa and the terrible toll its people pay from the large number of U.S. bases, soldiers and all that comes with it (crime, pollution, noise, danger, etc.). The U.S. media continues to fail miserably at scrutinizing the situation in Okinawa and the result is that most Americans have no clue what is happening. I’ve found that when they learn the reality of Okinawa, they either say “well, that’s too bad but it can’t be helped 「しょうがない」” or else they recognize the injustice and will hopefully be moved to take some sort of action to support Okinawa.

I recognize that is must be exhausting to continuously battle against forced militarization from Washington and Tokyo. It must be exhausting mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually and economically. The people of Okinawa deserve to spend their lives in real peace and security and in pursuit of whatever they decide is important and valuable. But at the same time, this resistance seems to be the only way they can regain control of their air, land and sea. Okinawa’s peaceful resistance is powerful and, I believe, it is effective. I will continue to do whatever I can to raise awareness and understanding of what is happening there and to encourage others to pay attention and support Okinawa in its struggle.　　
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

デイヴィッド・ヴァイン氏／海外基地縮小ありうる

　選挙の展開によっては、米国政府が海外米軍基地の縮小・閉鎖、不干渉主義の外交政策に向かってかじを切ることは大いにありうる。基地維持の経費だけを見ても、米軍は支出を別の分野に回し、海外基地を閉鎖せざるをえない可能性がある。政治家の間でも、米軍内でも、海外に多くの基地を維持していることが時代遅れの戦略と考える人々が増えている。彼らは海外基地が多くの点で米国と世界の安全保障に悪影響を与えていると考えている。
　選挙で海外の米軍基地の存在意義が争点に浮上したことは素晴らしいことだが、共和党の大統領候補ドナルド・トランプ氏は非常に危険だ。
　イラク、アフガンでの悲惨な戦争は数十万の人々が犠牲になり、数百万の人々が居場所を失った。多くの米国民は大規模な戦争や介入に嫌気をさしているため不干渉主義の外交政策を支持している。
　大統領選の日米同盟に与える影響を単純に予測するのは危険だが、両国間の関係が変化し、在沖米軍基地など日本にある不必要な基地が閉鎖されて、辺野古新基地建設の中止につながれば良いと思う。
　沖縄の米軍基地への反対運動は、米国だけでなく世界中の人々の刺激となっている。抗議の市民は、地元市民の力が国際政治に影響を与えることができるということを示している。多くの土地を米軍から返還させ、辺野古の新基地建設を１０年以上も阻止している。日米両政府の指導者たちが抗議の市民に耳を傾け、多くの人々が反対している辺野古新基地建設を無謀に強行しようとする姿勢を終わらせることを、私は願っている。
…………………………………………………………………………

　アメリカン大学准教授。著書に『米軍基地がやってきたこと』（原書房）など。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
David Vine is Associate Professor of Anthropology at American University in Washington, DC. He is the author of Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World.

Answer: On the one hand, I am encouraged that three of the four major candidates have critiqued US bases overseas or called for their closure (in Stein’s case, she calls for the closure of all bases abroad). On the other hand, Trump in particular is racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamaphobic (among others he dislikes), and he is an extraordinarily dangerous candidate for the US and the world.

A: There is definitely a possibility that policy will change. The expense of US bases alone may force the military to shift spending elsewhere and close bases abroad. People across the political spectrum and growing numbers in the military itself are realizing that maintaining large numbers of US bases abroad is an outdated military strategy that in many ways undermines US and global security.

A: The disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions have turned a large proportion of US citizens against large-scale wars and invasions. The anti-war movement that began with the invasion of Afghanistan helped greatly in this shift.

A: I see the Military Times poll to be in keeping with long-term trends that show members of the military tend to support Republicans and conservatives more than Democrats and people on the left.

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: Predicting the future is dangerous but I very much hope that the alliance changes, beginning with the closure of unnecessary bases in Okinawa and elsewhere in Japan and stopping construction of the proposed new base at Henoko.

A: Opposition to US bases in Okinawa has been an inspiration to people around the world, including in the US. Protestors have shown the power of local people to shape international politics. They have won back large pieces of formerly occupied base land in Okinawa and blocked the construction of a new base at Henoko for decades. I only hope that US and Japanese leaders listen to protestors and end their foolhardy insistence on building a base in Henoko, where so many are opposed to its construction.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

ピーター・カズニック氏／クリントン氏に圧力を

　トランプ氏が海外米軍基地の縮小、ロシアとの融和政策を提唱しているが、それは筋が通っている。しかし、同氏は現実的な政策や世界情勢に完全に無知で、大統領になったとしてもそれらの政策を実行するとは思えない。
　一方で、クリントン氏がタカ派なのはよく知られており、また米国覇権主義を信奉している。クリントン氏が勝利すると思うが、同氏は国務長官時代に外交よりも軍事的解決を支持してきた。クリントン氏はオバマ政権のアジア回帰政策の主要な立案者の一人であり、沖縄などのアジア太平洋地域の米軍基地を強化すると思う。
　候補者争いから撤退したが、上院議員のバーニー・サンダース氏が民主党の候補者になっていれば、米国の海外米軍基地の縮小など不干渉主義の外交政策を実行できていたと思う。
　現実には、米国はかつてないほど不人気の候補者が本選挙を争っている。私は、狂っている男トランプ氏にではなく、主戦論者のクリントン氏に投票しようと呼び掛けている。なぜなら、悲しいことにクリントン氏は予測可能で、トランプ氏のように危ない人間に核兵器の発射コードを委ねるべきではないからだ。イラク、アフガンなど相次ぐ戦争に市民は疲弊し、多くが不干渉主義の外交政策を支持している。そのような反戦の動きは、クリントン氏にすでに好戦的な政策をやめるように圧力をかけている。
　沖縄の基地反対運動は、米国覇権主義に対する世界的な反対運動を引っ張っている。沖縄の人々の闘争は、世界中の進歩主義者たちが共感している。
　私たちは、沖縄の外から最大限、米軍基地反対の動きをサポートしていきたい。
…………………………………………………………………………

　アメリカン大学准教授。共著書に「オリバー・ストーンが語る　もうひとつのアメリカ史」（早川書房）など。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
Peter Kuznick, a History Professor and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University at American University, Washington D.C., with Oliver Stone co-authored the 10 part Showtime documentary film series and book, both titled The Untold History of the United States.

A: I think that Johnson and Stein are sincere in their views and would, if elected, revoke America’s empire of bases and avoid foreign involvements. Unfortunately, neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, though many progressives will vote for Stein in states that are non-competitive. In states that are still in play, that would be a foolhardy thing to do. So the real choice comes down to Trump or Clinton. Trump has been much more critical of U.S. foreign policy overreach. His instincts in that regard are fine and his words have been reasonable, especially his call for cutting back on U.S. bases and for developing a positive working relationship with Russia. He understands how dangerous U.S. demonization of Putin is and pledges to end this provocative and myopic behavior, which threatens to provoke a war. But he is completely ignorant when it comes to actual policy and the world situation. I have no faith at all that once in office he will actually follow through on his positive commitments. He favors strengthening the U.S. military. He will surround himself with advisors who are perhaps even more hawkish than Clinton’s advisors. We can’t know this for certain, but we do know that Trump is always saying one thing and then quickly saying the opposite. He has not only shown no signs of consistency, he has shown little real knowledge of the global situation. So there is no reason to believe that he will avoid foreign military involvements or reduce America’s military footprint overseas.

Clinton, on the other hand, is a known hawk and proponent of the American empire. Whichever one of them gets elected–and it looks almost certain that it will be Clinton–we are in for trouble. Clinton has never found a war that she doesn’t want to fight. Despite serving as Secretary of State, she often favors military solutions over diplomacy. Her policy prescriptions in Syria could prove to be disastrous, landing American forces in war with Russia, with possible dire consequences, even nuclear war. She is the one of the leading architects of the Obama administration’s Asia pivot. She authored the seminal article in Foreign Policy magazine in November 2011 titled ominously “America’s Pacific Century.” She pushed a policy of reestablishing American hegemony in the Pacific by containing China in much the same way the U.S. endeavored to “contain” the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. She has proposed military alliances, troop expansion, and arms sales throughout Asia. Trump has also adopted a hostile stance toward China. I expect that Clinton will double down on U.S. bases in Okinawa, Korea, and elsewhere in the Pacific.

A: I’m not optimistic about this. The one candidate who might have been able to achieve this was Bernie Sanders, who ran an insurgent campaign within the Democratic Party that almost succeeded. If this latest batch of WikiLeaks emails showing how duplicitous Clinton was had come out during the primaries, Sanders might have won. They confirmed exactly what he was saying about her being two-faced and untrustworthy. But now there’s buyers’ remorse in both parties. The Republicans are jumping off the Trump campaign like rats fleeing a sinking ship. They know he can’t win and don’t want to go down with him. The Democrats are planning to hold their nose and vote for Clinton. Both candidates are rancid, though Trump is more so than Clinton. Never have two such unpopular candidates faced each other in a presidential election. I’ve been saying it is necessary to support Clinton the warmonger over Trump the madman. With Clinton, we know pretty much what we will get. She is sadly predictable. With Trump, all bets are off. We have no idea what he might do, but we have no reason to expect anything good and his nuclear policies will keep us all up at night. As Clinton says, a madman like Trump should be anywhere near the nuclear codes.

A: The American people, overall, are fed up with the American empire, much like many Brits were fed up with the British empire before it collapsed. The Americans are tired of wars. They are tired of seeing their sons and daughters coming home in body bags. I have warned the Japanese that that is exactly what they will get if they let Abe succeed in entirely abrogating Article 9–Japanese boys and girls coming home in body bags. When people criticize Obama for drawing a red line in Syria over chemical weapons and then backing down over bombing when Putin offered a peaceful way of resolving that dispute, they forget how strong the public opposition to bombing was. A coalition of left-wing antiwar progressives and libertarians had mobilized to put so much pressure on Congress that both houses would almost certainly have voted to defeat Obama’s request for authorization to carry out the bombing. That sentiment still prevails in the U.S. Antiwar forces are already mobilizing to pressure Clinton to adopt a less bellicose foreign policy and to abandon attempts to fortify the American empire. Trump has thus far defied the Republican foreign policy establishment, most of which has joined with the neocons in supporting Clinton. So it has turned into a classic case of the capitalist elites versus the people–both left and right–in rethinking American priorities. This gives us a chance to organize to change American policy. During her race against Sanders, Clinton opportunistically adopted more progressive policies. So even though she has openly embraced hawkish and empire-friendly policies, there is reason to believe that she can be forced to renege if there is enough organized opposition. Her views are dangerous but, despite what Trump said during the second debate, she is not intrinsically evil.

A: The military is split. One can find support among military leaders for interventionism as well as non-interventionism. Trump and Johnson have their supporters but so does Clinton. Military leaders usually understand what war actually entails in terms of the human costs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will avoid it. They know that it represents their path to career enhancement. Some have learned important lessons from the debacles in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but that hasn’t necessarily make them advocates of more peaceful approaches to world problems. There is often a bomb-first talk later attitude within the military, which is good at blowing things up but not creating peace.

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: I don’t anticipate any real change in the Japan-U.S. alliance after the election. Obama’s policy toward the Okinawa base issue has been reprehensible in my opinion. He crushed Hatoyama-san when the prime minister tried to challenge the base relocation from Futenma to Henoko. Clinton was his Secretary of State when that took place. She will support the Abe administration in its own warmongering and historical revisionism. She will fight to retain the bases in Okinawa. She will bolster America’s military presence in Asia.

I would support a dramatic, fundamental change in U.S.-Japanese relations. I would place the relationship on a less militarized basis. I would begin by revoking AMPO. I would seek to ease tensions with China and North Korea to undercut the Abe administration’s case for militarization. I would expedite the base closure at Futenma and drop plans to relocate to Henoko. I would stop the construction of the helipads at Takae. I would close America’s bases on Okinawa and return the land to the people. I would try to create a peaceful climate in Asia that will allow for the U.S. to end its nuclear umbrella without Japan feeling the need to develop its own nuclear arsenal. We need to reduce tensions throughout the region and recognize that Japan is quite capable of defending itself. U.S. policy has been to ratchet up the tensions to justify its own militarization of the region and increase its allies’ dependence on U.S. military protection. The opposite is what is called for. And China must be pressured to do its part in the East and South China Seas to reduce tension. Its hardline and inflexible policies and bullying behavior have been counterproductive. There is more than enough mineral wealth in those seas to go around with everyone profiting from joint exploration and production. And finally I would end the Status of Forces Agreement that gives impunity to American troops serving throughout Japan but especially in Okinawa.

A: The people of Okinawa have struggled valiantly to resist even further U.S./Japanese military encroachment upon their islands. They represent the cutting edge of the global anti-base movement. They must not relent in that struggle. The longer they can delay reconstruction, the greater becomes the likelihood that the U.S. will just give up its futile, costly, and unpopular efforts. This is a war of attrition. The Abe administration, with U.S. backing, has shown a willingness to use force to prevail, but the anti-base forces are equally committed and resilient and much more creative. My advice for my Okinawan colleagues is to always note the environmental and social justice/democracy concerns, but keep the focus on the anti-war, anti-militarism, anti-base, and anti-empire aspects of the struggle. The Okinawan resistance forces are leading the global struggle against imperial overreach. Their struggle is the struggle of progressive people everywhere. And those of us outside Okinawa will do our best to publicize, promote, and support their efforts.
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

ティム・ショロック氏／日米同盟は変わらない

　この選挙は、タカ派の外交政策の提唱者（クリントン氏）とビジネスの分野での経験しかない外交の新人（トランプ氏）からの二者択一だ。現時点では、クリントン氏が勝利すると思う。
　残念ながら、選挙の結果によって、米国政府が海外米軍基地の縮小、不干渉主義の外交政策をとることはないと思う。民主、共和両党ともオバマ政権の推進してきた、特に東アジアにおける軍事増強政策を引き継ぐだろう。
　トランプ氏は、日本や韓国の同盟国に駐留米軍費負担増を要求しているようだが、米国の利益になるように、米日韓は軍事同盟で結ばれていることを分かっていない。在沖、在韓米軍の問題が米国にとって大きな問題にならないかぎり、米軍基地の縮小はないだろう。
　しかし、沖縄県民の基地反対運動が盛り上がると、現在の日米同盟に亀裂を生じさせる可能性がある。
　選挙の結果により、日米同盟が変わるとは思わない。新政権は、ワシントンの外交政策に従属する自民党を支持し、自衛隊は米国に尽くし続けることになる。
　私は２０１５年、内部告発サイト「ウィキリークス」の本にオバマ政権から流出した外交公電について寄稿した。
　その公電によると、米国の外交官と軍当局は自民党、野党のリーダーに圧力をかけ、在沖米軍基地の完全使用権を維持させるようにし、日本を忠実な同盟国のままにしている。
　米軍基地に反対する沖縄県には大義があり、抵抗し続けることだ。日米両政府にプレッシャーを与え続けるべきだ。
　米国世論も徐々に沖縄に向かい始め、多くの米国人が米軍の沖縄駐留を根本的に不公平だとみていると思う。
　私たちは、徐々に太平洋で強く団結している。米国軍事主義からの独立を求める沖縄の闘争は、米国を含む世界中の平和運動家に勇気を与えている。
（おわり）
…………………………………………………………………………

　ジャーナリスト。著書に『雇われスパイ―外部委託された諜報活動の秘密の世界』（未邦訳）など。
　　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇　　　◇
Tim Shorrock is the author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing. He was raised in Japan and South Korea and has been covering the intersection of national security and capitalism since the late 1970s. During the Vietnam War he was active in the peace and antiwar movement and writes and comments frequently about US military policies in Asia and the Korean peninsula.

A: I see it as a choice between a foreign policy hawk (Hillary Clinton) and a complete neophyte experienced only in business (Donald Trump). I don’t think the third party candidates will make much difference, unless it becomes a very tight race. At the present, Clinton seems to be in good shape to win.

A: Unfortunately not. Both parties will continue whatever military buildup Obama is doing now, particularly in East Asia. Trump seems to want US “allies” such as Japan and South Korea to pay more for US security protection, but doesn’t seem to understand that both countries are tightly integrated into a three-way military alliance that benefits US interests around the world. So I don’t see any kind of scaling down – unless the issue of US military bases on Okinawa and in Korea becomes a major problem for the United States. I see a crisis coming for US-Japan relations over Okinawa as the movement against the expansion of the US Marine bases grows.

A: There is definitely a strong tendency for a US pullback from huge military commitments around the world. This will increase as the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria drag on with no apparent progress in finding peace. At the same time, American voters are easily swayed into believing that an expansion of US military power is necessary to defeat terrorism and other threats to the so-called “homeland.” Whenever there is a major crisis, the US government and Pentagon are very skilled at manipulating public fears to press for policies that require a strong military response. So I don’t really see a tendency away from the exercise of US military power abroad.

A: Many returning vets who have seen the face of war close up understand the human costs of intervention. Because we have so many vets now, many with combat experience, they are becoming a very important political force. Often, they will support US policies, but they may become a check on aggressive actions such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Americans have learned from that to pay attention to the “evidence” offered by US leaders and intelligence officials. Nobody wants another unnecessary war like Iraq.

Q 5: Following the presidential election, do you think there will be a change in the Japan-U.S. alliance? Do you think the Japan-U.S. alliance should change?

A: I would like to see a change, but I don’t think it will come without strong public pressure, from within both Japan and the United States. Clinton, who I believe will be the next president, will press for the same kind of policies with Japan that Obama followed and that her husband Bill Clinton followed in the 1990s. Basically, that means backing the LDP and conservative governments in Japan so the country continues to be a proxy army for the United States and subservient to Washington in its foreign policy. I wrote a chapter in a WikiLeaks book in 2015 based on leaked diplomatic cables from the Obama administration; they show that U.S. diplomats and military officials apply heavy pressure on Japanese leaders from both the LDP and opposition parties to maintain full use of US bases in Okinawa and to keep Japan as a loyal ally. I’d like to see that change, so our countries can develop into true mutual friends in peace, as opposed to a military alliance in which Japan is always the junior partner. But that will require a strong democratic movement in both of our countries, and expanded solidarity around issues of peace and demilitarization.

A: Keep fighting the Marine bases. Your fight is just. Keep the pressure on both Japan and the United States. I believe public opinion is slowly changing towards Okinawa, and that many Americans see US domination of Okinawa as fundamentally unfair. We are slowly building a strong solidarity movement across the Pacific. The Okinawan struggle for independence from US militarism is encouraging peace activists here and all over the world.

＜米大統領選と東アジア　日米同盟、基地はどうなるのか＞４　米６識者に聞く

カテゴリ

琉球新報社より

琉球新報について