New York Times 2009/8/26 批判 池田信夫ブログ アゴラ
A New Path for Japan
By YUKIO HATOYAMA
In the post-Cold War period, Japan has been continually buffeted
by the winds of market fundamentalism in a U.S.-led movement that
is more usually called globalization. In the fundamentalist pursuit of
capitalism people are treated not as an end but as a means.
Consequently, human dignity is lost.
How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and
financial capitalism, that are void of morals or moderation, in
order to protect the finances and livelihoods of our citizens?
That is the issue we are now facing.
In these times, we must return to the idea of fraternity - as in
the French slogan “liberte, egalite, fraternite”(自由、平等，博愛) - as a force for moderating the
danger inherent within freedom.
Fraternity as I mean it can be described as a principle that aims
to adjust to the excesses of the current globalized brand of
capitalism and accommodate the local economic practices that have
been fostered through our traditions.
The recent economic crisis resulted from a way of thinking based
on the idea that American-style free-market economics represents
a universal and ideal economic order, and that all countries
should modify the traditions and regulations governing their
economies in line with global (or rather American) standards.
In Japan, opinion was divided on how far the trend toward
globalization should go. Some advocated the active embrace of
globalism and leaving everything up to the dictates of the
market. Others favored a more reticent approach, believing that
efforts should be made to expand the social safety net and
protect our traditional economic activities. Since the
administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006),
the Liberal Democratic Party has stressed the former, while we in
the Democratic Party of Japan have tended toward the latter
position.
The economic order in any country is built up over long years and
reflects the influence of traditions, habits and national
lifestyles. But globalism has progressed without any regard for
non-economic values, or for environmental issues or problems of
resource restriction.
If we look back on the changes in Japanese society since the end
of the Cold War, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the
global economy has damaged traditional economic activities and
destroyed local communities.
In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses.
But in the real world people support the fabric of the local
community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle,
traditions and culture. An individual gains respect as a person
by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and
being able to maintain his family’s livelihood.
Under the principle of fraternity, we would not implement
policies that leave areas relating to human lives and
safety -
such as agriculture, the environment and medicine - to the mercy
of globalism.
Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention on
those non-economic values that have been thrown aside by the
march of globalism. We must work on policies that regenerate the
ties that bring people together, that take greater account of
nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical
systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support,
and that address wealth disparities.
Another national goal that emerges from the concept of fraternity
is the creation of an East Asian community. Of course, the Japan-U.S.
security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese
diplomatic policy.
But at the same time, we must not forget our identity as a nation
located in Asia. I believe that the East Asian region, which is
showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan’s basic sphere of being. So we
must continue to build frameworks for stable economic cooperation
and security across the region.
The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S.
unilateralism
may come to an end. It has also raised doubts about the permanence of the
dollar as the key global currency.
I also feel that as a result of the failure of the Iraq war and
the financial crisis, the era of U.S.-led globalism is
coming to an end and
that we are moving toward an era of multipolarity. But at present no one country is
ready to replace the United States as the dominant country. Nor
is there a currency ready to replace the dollar as the world’s key currency. Although the
influence of the U.S. is declining, it will remain the world’s leading military and economic
power for the next two to three decades.
Current developments show clearly that China will become one of the world’s leading economic nations while
also continuing to expand its military power. The size of China’s economy will surpass that of
Japan in the not-too-distant future.
How should Japan maintain its political and economic independence
and protect its national interest when caught between the United
States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world’s dominant power, and China, which
is seeking ways to become dominant?
This is a question of concern not only to Japan but also to the
small and medium-sized nations in Asia. They want the military
power of the U.S. to function effectively for the stability of
the region but want to restrain U.S. political and economic
excesses. They also want to reduce the military threat posed by
our neighbor China while ensuring that China’s expanding economy develops in an
orderly fashion. These are major factors accelerating regional
integration.
Today, as the supranational political and economic philosophies
of Marxism and globalism have, for better or for worse,
stagnated, nationalism is once again starting to have a major
influence in various countries.
As we seek to build new structures for international cooperation,
we must overcome excessive nationalism and
go down a path toward rule-based economic cooperation and
security.
Unlike Europe, the countries of this region differ in size,
development stage and political system, so economic integration
cannot be achieved over the short term. However, we should
nonetheless aspire to move toward regional currency
integration
as a natural extension of the rapid economic growth begun by
Japan, followed by South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and then
achieved by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
and China. We must spare no effort to build the permanent
security frameworks essential to underpinning currency
integration.
Establishing a common Asian currency will likely take more than
10 years. For such a single currency to bring about political
integration will surely take longer still.
ASEAN, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), South Korea and Taiwan
now account for one quarter of the world’s gross domestic product. The
economic power of the East Asian region and the interdependent
relationships within the region have grown wider and deeper. So
the structures required for the formation of a regional economic
bloc are already in place.
On the other hand, due to historical and cultural conflicts as
well as conflicting national security interests, we must
recognize that there are numerous difficult political issues. The
problems of increased militarization and territorial disputes
cannot be resolved by bilateral negotiations between, for
example, Japan and South Korea, or Japan and China. The more
these problems are discussed bilaterally, the greater the risk
that emotions become inflamed and nationalism intensified.
Therefore, I would suggest, somewhat paradoxically, that the
issues that stand in the way of regional integration can only be truly resolved
by moving toward greater integration. The experience of the E.U. shows
us how regional integration can defuse territorial disputes.
I believe that regional integration and
collective security
is the path we should follow toward realizing the principles of
pacifism and multilateral cooperation advocated by the Japanese
Constitution. It is also the appropriate path for protecting
Japan’s political and economic
independence and pursuing our interests in our position between
the United States and China.
Let me conclude by quoting the words of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi,
founder of the first popular movement for a united Europe,
written 85 years ago in “Pan-Europa”
(my grandfather,
Ichiro Hatoyama, translated his book, “The Totalitarian State Against
Man,” into Japanese): “All great historical ideas started
as a utopian dream and ended with reality. Whether a particular
idea remains as a utopian dream or becomes a reality depends on
the number of people who believe in the ideal and their ability
to act upon it.”
Yukio Hatoyama
heads the Democratic Party of Japan, and would become prime
minister should the party win in Sunday’s elections. A longer version of
this article appears in the September issue of the monthly
Japanese journal Voice.
米紙に寄稿の「鳩山論文」相次ぎ批判 米国内の専門家ら
民主党の鳩山代表が２７日付の米ニューヨーク・タイムズ紙（電子版）に寄稿した論文をめぐり、米国内に波紋が広がっている。「米国主導」の世界経済の体制を批判的にとらえ、アジア中心の経済・安全保障体制の構築を強調した内容が、米側の目には「現実的でない」と映るようだ。専門家 らの間には日米関係の今後に懸念を抱くむきもある。
鳩山氏は論文のなかで、「冷戦後、日本は米国主導の市場原理主義、グローバリゼーションにさらされ、人間の尊厳が失われている」と指摘。自ら掲げる「友愛」の理念のもと、地域社会の再建や、東アジア地域での通貨統合と恒久的な安全保障の枠組みを作る考えを強調した。
これに対し、日本政治に詳しい米外交問題評議会のシーラ・スミス上級研究員は２７日、朝日新聞の取材に「グローバリゼーションは米国式の資本主 義、との批判だが、これはＧ２０における日本の役割にとって、何を意味するのか。民主党政権は国際通貨基金（ＩＭＦ）体制の支援から離れて、他の体制を見 いだすのか。経済再生の努力から優先順位を移すのか。米ドル体制の支援とは、別な立場をとるのだろうか」と疑問を投げかけた。
元米政府関係者は「オバマ政権は、（鳩山氏の）論文にある反グローバリゼーション、反アメリカ主義を相手にしないだろう。それだけでなく、この論文は、米政府内の日本担当者が『日本を対アジア政策の中心に据える』といい続けるのを難しくするし、Ｇ７の首脳も誰一人として、彼の極端な論理に同意しな いだろう。首相になったら、評論家のような考え方は変えるべきだ」と批判した。
別の元米政府関係者も「グローバリゼーションについての米国への批判は一方的に過ぎるし、日米同盟の重要性に触れたくだりも、非常に少ない。鳩山氏はもっと日米関係に理解のある人だと思っていたが、変わったのだろうか」と話す。
ニューヨーク・タイムズとワシントン・ポストは、いずれも２７日付で、日本の総選挙に関する記事を掲載。いずれも民主党が勝利して政権交代が起きる可能性が高いことを伝える内容で、今回の総選挙に関する米国の関心の高さを示している。