2001年12月21日 HPI研究フォーラム
講師 定森大治（朝日新聞東京本社外報部記者）
1. テーマ
「アフガン情勢とイスラム世界」
2. 日時
2001年12月21日（金）
3. 場所
広島平和研究所 会議室
4. 講演の概要
9月11日のテロ事件以降の国際情勢はどうなっているのか。問題点を整理してみたい。第1に、今回のテロは「新しい戦争」なのかどうか。過去のテロに比べて犠牲者が多かったのは確かだが、過去にも飛行機乗っ取りテロや自爆テロは頻発しており、ベトナム戦争をはじめ非対称的戦争も数多い。今回新しいのは、燃料を満タンにした航空機を自爆させた点だが、実行犯もテロが成功するか確信はなく、たまたま成功した。「新しい戦争」と決め付けるのは疑問だ。むしろ今後は、大型タンカーのテロなどを警戒すべきだ。
第2に、湾岸戦争との違いについて。まず、今回は石油ショックが起きていない。米国の中東戦略の3本柱は、（1）石油の適正価格安定供給、（2）湾岸産油国の体制維持、（3）イスラエルの安全保障、といわれるが、今回はいずれも影響をうけていない。次に、湾岸戦争で米国は「人権」「民主主義」といった概念は全く使わなかった。当事国のクウェートやサウジアラビアも非民主的国家であり、概念を持ち出せば矛盾点をさらけ出していたからだ。しかし今回ブッシュは「アフガンに民主主義政権を」とアピールしている。だが、アラブ世界や中東に本来、民主主義は存在していない。
もう一つの相違点は、湾岸戦争でアラブ世界が分裂したのに対し、今回はアラブが割れていないことだ。米国や英国は、ビンラディン氏がある時期までアラブの英雄だったこと、彼の論理がいまも一部で共有されていることを理解すべきだ。メッカやメジナがあるアラビア半島はイスラム教徒にとり最も大事な聖地であり、異教徒である米軍が今もサウジに駐留していることをビンラディン氏は批難してきた。その主張は、心情的にはかなりのイスラム教徒に受け入れられている。
問題点の整理の第3は、テロの定義だ。確かに一般市民を巻き添えにした今回のテロは非人道的だ。だがイスラム世界には「パレスチナの占領者（イスラエル）に対するテロは正当な解放闘争で容認されるべき」だとして、テロを区別する見方が存在する。パレスチナの原理主義グループ「ハマス」の軍事部門は自爆テロを繰り返しているが、それ以外の部門は医療、福祉などに徹している。米国がテロ対策で敢えてハマス撲滅に走ると、イスラム世界への宣戦布告と受け止められかねない。
第4に、今回の戦争は情報戦の色彩が強い。米政府は会見でも「特殊部隊投入による秘密作戦」を口実に質問に答えないことが多く、報道管制が顕著で情報操作がしやすい。米国プレスが頑張ればいいのだが、今回はマスコミにも9・11ショックが大きく、政府に楯突くと非国民扱いされるので自己規制が見られる。
第5にサウジアラビアへの米軍駐留問題について。湾岸戦争時にサウジには50万人の米軍が駐留したが、その後も5,000人が残り、地元の反発を招いた。1996年にダーランでの爆弾テロで米兵19人が死亡し、数十人が負傷して以来、米兵はおとなしくしている。対アフガン作戦にサウジのプリンス・スルタン米軍基地を使用したい、との米国の要請をサウジ政府は拒否したが、同基地が今回の司令の中枢であるのは間違いない。
米国の一つの選択肢は、米軍のサウジからの撤退だ。そうなれば、テロリストの側も口実を失う。サウジでなくカタール駐留という代替案も、米国防総省内部に存在する。「近い将来サウジから引き上げる用意がある」と表明するだけでも、意味はあるだろう。
最後に、サウジの米国離れの中、日本外交はサウジへの直接投資拡大も含めた関係改善をめざす千載一遇のチャンスだと思う。
（水本和実 広島平和研究所助教授）
HPI Research Forum on December 21, 2001
The War in Afghanistan and Its Implications in the Islamic World
By Daiji Sadamori, Correspondent for the Foreign News Department, The Asahi Shimbun
1. Topic
"The War in Afghanistan and Its Implications in the Islamic World"
2. Date
December 21, 2001 (Fri.)
3. Venue
HPI Conference Room
4. Summary of the presentation
How has the international situation changed since the September 11 terrorist attacks? First, we must decide whether or not the terrorist attacks constituted a new kind of war, dubbed as "asymmetrical warfare." The number of victims was certainly greater than in previous terrorist atrocities. However, hijacking airliners and suicide attacks had happened before, and the similar patterns abound in the past conflicts. The September 11 attacks, though, were new in that the hijackers deliberately crashed fuel-laden aircraft. They did not live to see the results of their efforts, but it may be said that they succeeded. It may not be right to describe the attacks as a "new war," but we must nevertheless be vigilant against similar attacks on such targets as large oil tankers.
The terrorist attacks and the Gulf War had different consequences. First of all, there was no oil shock this time. Washington's strategy in the Middle East is said to have three pillars: stable oil prices, the maintenance of the status quo in the oil-producing countries in the Gulf, and the security of Israel. None of these has been affected by the events of September 11. Furthermore, the United States did not invoke the causes of humanity or democracy during the Gulf War because the nations involved, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, were not democracies. If the United States had stated such ideals, it would have been rightly accused of hypocrisy. This time, however, President George W. Bush has talked of democratic government for Afghanistan, though no democratic government has ever existed in the Arab world or the Middle East.
Furthermore, the Arab world reacted to the recent attacks as one, whereas it was divided over the Gulf War. The United States and Britain should understand that Osama bin Laden has been a hero in the Arab world for some time and that his beliefs are still shared by a number of people. The Arabian Peninsula, where Mecca and Medina are located, is the most important and holy place for Muslims. Bin Laden says that the presence in Saudi Arabia of the U.S. military, most of whose members are non-Muslims, is unacceptable. On the emotional level, many Muslims agree with him.
Third, there are problems with defining terrorism. The attacks, which were targeted at civilians, were of course an affront to humanity. But there exists another view of terrorism in the Islamic world that holds that terrorist attacks against Israel, seen as the unlawful occupier of Palestine, are a justified element of the struggle for liberation. The military wing of the Islamic fundamentalist group, Hamas, has repeatedly carried out suicide attacks, while other parts of the organization are active in the medical and welfare fields, of which many Arab governments can not afford to take care. Any attack on Hamas by the United States in its war against terrorism could be regarded by some as a declaration of war against the entire Islamic world.
Fourth, an unprecedented propaganda war is being waged in the current conflict. U.S. officials have often refused to answer questions in news conferences, saying that details of the operation need to be kept secret to protect their Special Forces and troops. The media blackout makes it easier for the United States to manipulate information. The country's media should assert their independence, but instead they are self-restraining. This is partly because the shock caused by the September 11 attacks is still keenly felt, but also because media organizations fear being labeled unpatriotic if they question Washington's actions.
The fifth point concerns the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. About 500,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. About 5,000 still remain there, generating resentment in the region. Those troops have kept a low profile since terrorists bombed barracks in Dharan in 1996, killing 19 U.S. soldiers and injuring dozens more. Although the Saudi government refused U.S. requests to use the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia for its campaign in Afghanistan, the base is certainly being used as the campaign's central command center.
The United States could choose to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia. If that should happen, the terrorists would lose one of their justifications for attacking the United States. The Pentagon has an alternative plan that involves deployment of U.S. troops in Qatar instead of Saudi Arabia. The mere suggestion by Washington that it is ready to pull out of Saudi Arabia would have an immediate and favorable effect in the entire Islamic world.
Japan has an unique, if not ideal, opportunity to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia and to expand its economic activities there. For its part, Saudi Arabia continues to distance itself from the United States.
(By Kazumi Mizumoto, associate professor at HPI)