2016/12/27

Transition Quaker: The Soul of Quakerism

Transition Quaker: The Soul of Quakerism



Friday, 27 July 2012

The Soul of Quakerism


I have been reading and reflecting a lot recently about Thomas Moore's approach to the 'care of the soul' in modern life. His concept of 'soul' is not a specifically religious idea – instead it refers to the side of life that is earthy, passionate, imaginative and sensual, and that is touched and expressed in myth, dreams, symbols, the natural world and sensual experience.

Moore argues that many people in modern societies are suffering from a lack of soul in their lives, as our culture and daily routines have become excessively rational and bureaucratic. Modern life and urban environments often have a superficiality, flatness and ugliness that ignore our 'soul needs' for connection both to the physical world and the symbolic 'underworld' of myth and ritual. He sees signs of this soul hunger in many of the familiar symptoms of modern dis-ease – a pervading sense of meaninglessness, depression, anxiety and addiction.

The approach that Moore recommends involves bringing more awareness and respect for the needs of the soul into our everyday lives, through greater attentiveness to the nourishing potential of dreams and stories, small household rituals, beautiful surroundings and objects, music, food and poetry. All of this I find deeply helpful and full of practical wisdom, but there is also no doubt that it contains a challenge to the characteristic style of Quaker spirituality. Quakers have historical roots in a 17th Century Puritan culture that continues to influence us, through an enduring suspicion of symbols, ritual and art (evident in some of the reasons given for the recent rejection of a James Turrell 'Skyspace' art installation at Friends House). Modern British Quakers have perhaps been even more powerfully shaped by the secular rationalism of modern culture, with its emphasis on intellectual consistency, bureaucratic organization, and abstract moral principles, all of which tend to ignore the more subtle and ambiguous needs of the soul.

Thankfully this is not the whole story though. Quaker spirituality also has its 'soulful' side, and it might be helpful to identify elements of Quaker life that nourish the soul, which we might benefit from developing and practising more deeply.

It is one of the myths of British Friends that 'we don't have rituals'. We have some beautiful ritual practices that can be all the more powerful becauseof their extreme simplicity – a 'silent grace' before mealtimes, the handshake that welcomes everyone to the Meeting room and ends a time of Worship, the beautiful sincerity of a Quaker wedding; these are all rituals that touch the soul's need for practical expressions of gratitude, reverence and belonging.

Perhaps we would do well to develop the ritual expressions of Quaker life further, retaining the essential character of simplicity and authenticity. Some Friends have held special Meetings to celebrate the birth of a child, inviting friends and family members from outside the Quaker Meeting, and including readings, poems or songs that express the community's shared commitment to nurturing this new life. It would be a short step from this to arranging a Meeting specifically to welcome an adult into membership of the Society, rather than the very perfunctory acknowledgement that tends to take place at present. At the last Meeting I attended which accepted a new member, the first words of greeting they received were 'watch out for the nominations committee'. For many people the decision to formally join the Religious Society of Friends is a major life event, which deserves honouring with a genuine celebration that includes the Meeting's commitment to supporting the new member in their spiritual and practical life.

We might also think about small rituals of our home lives – meals and bedtimes, weekends and birthdays. Are there ways that we could nourish our daily life and relationships by giving more attention to these important times, while honouring the Quaker insight that 'all of life is sacramental'? My family got used to eating dinner by candlelight in Zimbabwe during the frequent power cuts, and found that it added a sense of occasion to mealtimes, so we have continued to light a candle at the table when we eat dinner together. Different families have other ways of making shared meals special, but small rituals like this help to build up a unique family culture, which can meet our soul needs for belonging and rootedness.

The soul of Quaker spirituality is also expressed in the simple beauty of many old Meeting Houses, and even in the homes of some Friends. One of the first times I visited a Quaker home I was struck by the practical simplicity of its furnishings – well-made wooden furniture, a hand-made quilt, and even a functioning (and well-used) spinning-wheel. Nothing in the house was disposable, shoddy or ostentatious. It felt like an echo of the quietist Quaker culture of the 18th Century - the kind of house where John Woolman would have felt at home. This is a distinctive kind of beauty that Thomas Moore describes as 'the spiritual richness of simplicity':
Simplicity doesn't mean meagreness but rather a certain kind of richness, the fullness that appears when we stop stuffing the world with things... Let us feel the textures and see the colours, and then we won't need so many things in the place to make it nurturing.'
Of course there is no value in trying to copy someone else's style of life, or aiming for a uniform aesthetic in our homes or lives. The soul thrives on the uniqueness of our tastes, drawing on our own personal histories, including elements from different cultures and life-experiences. Every person and every family will have their own images and objects that feed their imagination and senses. But we might consider how we are nourished by our home environments and the things we see and touch every day, and consider introducing something of the richness of simplicity into our daily lives through simple elements such as home-grown food, freshly-baked bread, shared music-making, or a thoughtfully-tended garden.

We might also give more attention to our Meeting Houses as places that nourish the soul as well as the mind. Quaker tradition includes a strong current of opposition to the images and music of mainstream churches. Friends have always emphasised that it is not the building that is sacred, but the presence of the Spirit in the gathered Meeting, and our Meeting Houses have traditionally been bare of ornamentation and symbols. Some old Meeting Houses do embody a powerful sense of place, through a beautiful simplicity that draws attention to the lustre of old wooden benches, or the quality of light through plain windows. But some modern Meeting Houses seem to have replaced this beauty of simplicity with an anonymous functionalism, sometimes hardly distinguishable from a conference centre or airport lounge.

Our Meeting House in central Sheffield has often seemed to me a rather bland modern space, so it has been a pleasure recently to see more soulful elements gradually creeping into it. Artworks by local Friends are on display in some of the rooms and common areas, inviting imagination and beauty into the space. Our small terrace garden has also become a focus of soulful beauty, especially as it has been transformed into an 'edible roof garden' as one response to the national Quaker commitment to become a 'sustainable, low-carbon community'. At the purely pragmatic level a small roof garden with potted trees and climbing plants is an insignificant contribution to our Meeting's carbon reduction. But at the level of soul and symbol, it is a powerful way of creating a space within the Meeting House for a vision of interdependence with nature. As well as the rational projects of carbon-footprinting and changes to travel and consumption, we need the kinds of images, sounds, smells and spaces that nourish our souls with a glimpse of life-sustaining human community.

In a future post I will be exploring another area of modern Quaker culture that can often seem hostile to the needs and movements of the soul - the controversial subject of Quaker 'values' and 'principles'.

4 comments:


jezsmith31 July 2012 at 22:43

I work for Britain Yearly Meeting in Friends House. After the 2011 refurbishment we moved into our new offices and were told that we couldn't put anything on the walls (the old offices had paintings from the Friends House library collection) and our cupboard tops were meant to be kept clear. Early on I was told to remove two plants that I had put on top of the cupboard behind my desk though they're still there. So it is refreshing to read your pleasure in seeing artworks by Friends appearing on your meeting house walls.Reply

Replies



Craig Barnett1 August 2012 at 13:08

I assume it is managerialism rather than puritanism going on here - I have a friend in the police force who had the same directive. I would have thought that both Friends House and the police might do better to attend more to the needs of the soul.


Reply



Alice Y.8 August 2012 at 10:24

I think you are really onto something here Craig. I've recently been inspired by Diana's writing from her years at Innermost House, a tiny simple house in the mountains of North California. She writes of what she calls 'the conversation' as the driving force - that she attended to her soul need and this beautiful simplicity came from letting everything else fall away. I think that is very Quaker, or very close to the heart of christian mystical experience, if those are different.Reply



Jnana Hodson18 August 2012 at 20:26

Moore's use of "soul" points to a linkage I sense with the early Quaker concept of the Seed, with all of its metaphoric senses of response to the Inward Light. This is a line of thought I believe will be productive in our own times, especially as we see other connections to contemporary intellectual frontiers.
Metaphor, of course, is based on experience(s). Now we're really talking Quaker!
Reply

Five years of Kim Jong Un: Are human rights getting worse? | NK News - North Korea News

Five years of Kim Jong Un: Are human rights getting worse? | NK News - North Korea News




Five years of Kim Jong Un: Are human rights getting worse?
In the fifth part of a six-part series, experts assess North Korea's continued human rights issues


NK News
December 23rd, 2016
----

This is part of NK News’ series of opinion and analysis of the first five years of Kim Jong Un’s rule.

North Korea has a justifiable reputation as being one of the world’s worst human rights violators. In pretty much every ranking, whether it be for freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, Pyongyang’s government is named as a serial offender.

In many ways, North Korea was designed this way, and under the rule of Kim Il Sung it was known as one of the most repressive of the USSR-inspired Communist states. And as old comrades fell one by one to the democratic demands of their people, the DPRK remained steadfast. Now, the country notorious for its political prison camps, a pervasive cult of personality and “monolithic leadership structure” stands almost undisputed as the most restrictive on earth.

But is there any chance of Kim Jong Un’s government loosening restrictions? How has the situation changed in the last five years? And with international pressure mounting, could the situation improve anytime soon?

In the fifth part of a six-part series examining how Kim Jong Un has spent his first half-decade in power, NK News reached out to experts from across the world with three key questions on human rights under the new leader.

The following North Korea specialists responded in time for our deadline:
Greg Scarlatoiu, ‎Executive Director at Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK)
Sokeel Park, Director of Research & Strategy at ‎Liberty in North Korea (LiNK)
Jiyeon Ihn, President of NANK (Now! Act for North Koreans!)
Joanna Hosaniak, ‎Deputy Director General at the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights


North Korea remains one of the most repressive states on earth |Photo by jamgly

1. In your opinion, has the human rights situation in North Korea improved or worsened since Kim Jong Un took power? Why?

Greg Scarlatoiu: On Kim Jong Un’s watch, there has been no fundamental change in the regime’s policy of human rights denial, which it regrettably regards as instrumental in maintaining its grip on power. The human rights situation has not improved. Political prison camps in the border areas have been closed, due to the proximity to China and the possible bad PR. In the process of transferring prisoners to inland facilities, thousands disappeared. Other political prison camps, including Camp No. 25 in Chongjin, North Hamgyong Province, and Camp No. 14 in Kaechon, South Pyongan Province, have expanded.

We have detected disproportionate repression of women, based on satellite imagery analysis and witness testimony. Out of 1,000 women prisoners at Kyo-hwa-so (a re-education forced labor camp) No. 12 in Chongori, North Hamgyong Province, 800 were forcibly repatriated from China. Since women have taken primary charge of the survival of their families, they are the ones who face disproportionate repression.

They are the ones who get arrested at the open markets for alleged wrongdoing. They are the ones who cross the border into China, are arrested and subsequently forcibly repatriated. The ongoing purges have also added to an already egregious human rights situation.

Sokeel Park: It’s definitely a mixed bag. On the one hand, one of the Kim Jong Un regime’s main priorities has been to seriously crack down on border security and the inflow of foreign information, media and illegal communications, that, of course, undermine Pyongyang’s government-mandated culture and narratives.

The partial success of these crackdowns is a serious concern for human rights and strategies to empower the North Korean people and accelerate change inside the country.

At the same time, the trend of increasing access to economic rights seems to have continued with the regime’s gradual accommodation of entrenched marketization and decentralization of the economy. Overall, though, on any kind of international comparison, the human rights situation and government suppression of human potential in North Korea remains absolutely terrible.

Jiyeon Ihn: In my opinion, the human rights situation in North Korea has not improved under Kim Jong Un regime. Do you remember that Jang Song Thaek, a powerful man and Kim’s relative, was brutally killed by the regime due to the lack of loyalty without a fair trial or proper legal process in 2013? That was the clear evidence of the regime’s nature and the realities of the human rights situation.

Some human rights groups or activists have tried to find evidence of an improved human rights situation. I am skeptical of that view.

Joanna Hosaniak: Any transition in totalitarian states that do not include the democratic transition of power represents further oppression of the people, evidenced by increases in surveillance to instill fear and obedience in society, and the requirement of ‘respect’ for the new ruler.

North Korea has not been any exception to this scenario since Kim Jong Un came to power: the countermeasures against North Korean refugees, fortification systems with fences and traps on the border, and harsher penalties have translated into greater hardships for the already suffering population.

The sealing off of the border also affects common people involved in trade. Not only does the absence of any economic reforms in the country continue, but so does the diversion of resources for nuclear and military purposes. These resources are more than substantial enough to provide food security or make investments in this greatly impoverished country. Considering these factors, no positive outcomes can be expected.


Shin Dong-hyuk, who was interned at the notorious Camp 14, testifies to the United Nations Commission of Inquiry | Photo by US Mission Geneva

2. What’s your assessment of the international community’s response to the human rights situation since the death of Kim Jong Il? What more can be done?

Greg Scarlatoiu: Since the February 2014 UN COI report, we have seen strong resolutions issued by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN General Assembly in New York City.

Just a few days ago, the UN Security Council held its third meeting on the North Korean human rights situation. There is no turning back, and the international community will continue to push for a resolution of the North Korean human rights conundrum.

What is needed, though, is the real, massive, fully committed involvement of large grassroots human rights organizations. They have taken up other causes, but not North Korea. Not quite yet, despite some relatively small, but commendable initiatives.

There is no turning back, and the international community will continue to push for a resolution of the North Korean human rights conundrum.

What is needed, though, is the real, massive, fully committed involvement of large grassroots human rights organizations. They have taken up other causes, but not North Korea. Not quite yet, despite some relatively small, but commendable initiatives.

Sokeel Park: North Korean human rights is a much bigger agenda item for the international community now, but that is more coincidental with the dynastic transition rather than being caused by it.

The 2014 release of the UN Commission of Inquiry report helped set a baseline of the international community’s understanding of the seriousness of this issue and led to North Korea’s human rights situation being kicked up all the way to the UN Security Council, which previously limited its attention to North Korea’s nukes and missiles (although traditional security is still the main concern).

However, China continues to side with Pyongyang on North Korean human rights at the UN and more importantly by cooperating with the North Korean authorities to arrest and forcibly repatriate North Korean refugees.

This momentum and attention now needs to be carried through to efforts that will improve the lives of the North Korean people on the ground and accelerate the forces of change. This could include ramping up and diversifying information access programs, protecting and empowering North Korean refugees as agents of change, and pursuing other means to increase exposure to the outside world and new ideas including through people-to-people interaction and exchange.

We also need to foster the emergence of a new generation of activists for this issue from both sides of the DMZ and around the world, to bring new creativity and competencies to this cause.

Ihn Jiyeon: The efforts of the international community have resulted in phenomenal outcomes in raising public awareness of the North Korean human rights situation, putting it into written evidence (in the case of the COI report), and putting the North Korean human rights situation on the agenda of the UN Security Council.

However, these efforts have not achieved a substantial and feasible improvement of the North Korean human rights situation.

Consistent and continuous efforts are still needed in holding North Korea to account. More sanctions and pressures on the regime should be implemented.

Joanna Hosaniak: Following the release of the UN Commission of Inquiry’s report in 2014, the international community has been robustly calling for the accountability of the North Korean leadership for crimes against humanity.

The North Korean human rights issue became a regular briefing agenda at the UN Security Council.

After the Independent Group of Experts on Accountability’s report to the UN Human Rights Council, to be released in March 2017, we can expect further measures in the future that will go far beyond the call for the referral of the North Korean leadership to the International Criminal Court.

The Experts’ recommendations may translate into strong justice measures undertaken in conjunction with a call for an ICC referral that will affect the leadership and other perpetrators in North Korea.


The DPRK has a well-deserved reputation as among the most authoritarian states on earth | Photo by Christian Petersen-Clausen

3. How much, as far as you know, have attitudes towards the leadership shifted inside the country since he took power? Do you think there is a higher chance of popular dissent as there was five years ago?

Greg Scarlatoiu: The marketization of North Korea and the increased inflow of information from the outside world have continued to erode the regime’s grip on power. The overwhelming coercion, control, surveillance, and punishment exercised by the regime, combined with strict information control, have continued to enable the regime to maintain its grip on power.

The Kim Jong Un regime will continue to play a game of cat and mouse, allowing some technologies to be used (cell phones, PC tablets, etc.) while trying its best to limit or entirely eliminate the social side effects of the advent of new technologies.

North Koreans are more likely to see alternatives today than they were five years ago. But transformation will be difficult for as long as the degree of social cohesion is so low, due to the regime’s surveillance, repression, and control.

Sokeel Park: 2016’s political events in the UK and the U.S. (and in a different way, South Korea) should imbue us with a serious amount of intellectual humility when it comes to making such predictions, or indeed any predictions in political “science.”

Those countries have high levels of free expression, a lot of data on public attitudes, relatively well-refined polling models, well-understood political systems, and highly incentivised predictors. And yet we were blindsided by simple things like Brexit and the rise of Trump.

North Korea is at the opposite end of the scale, right next to zero, on all those things. So it is simply very hard to say anything precise about public sentiment or to map out timelines for political change in North Korea.

Perhaps the best we can do is look to imperfect indicators and identify relevant phenomena and trends. For instance, reports of isolated examples of resistance against officials encroaching in the economic sphere.

Also, the demographics and motivations of North Korean defectors seems to be changing, with a general trend towards people of relatively higher socioeconomic status taking the huge risk to defect, motivated by reasons that are broadly more political. These include greater awareness of different societies and frustration with the restrictions of the Nork Korea system (in contrast with escaping for reasons of sheer survival).

The barriers to organized political resistance and collective expression of political opposition are probably still too high to expect anything mass scale or sustained under current conditions, but if I were Kim Jong Un I would not be comfortable with these trends.

Ihn Jiyeon: No. There is a slim chance of popular dissent, because the completely totalitarian regime remains unchanged and harsh control is stronger than ever.







Joanna Hosaniak: There has never been a high chance of popular dissent in the country and there probably never will be. People’s dissent is channeled into negotiating greater space with some type of economic freedom for themselves, but not into political motivations. We cannot exclude, however, dissidence at the top echelons of the regime.





Additional reporting: Chad O’Carroll, Oliver Hotham, Hamish Macdonald, JH Ahn, Dagyum Ji


Featured Image: Barbed wire in the sky by Valerie Everett on 2006-12-02 17:17:57

Five years of Kim Jong Un: Is North Korea’s nuke program now unstoppable? | NK News - North Korea News

Five years of Kim Jong Un: Is North Korea’s nuke program now unstoppable? | NK News - North Korea News

Five years of Kim Jong Un: Is North Korea’s nuke program now unstoppable?
In the fourth part of a six-part series, experts assess the DPRK's nuclear proliferation

NK News
December 22nd, 2016

This is part of NK News’ series of opinion and analysis of the first five years of Kim Jong Un’s rule.

When it comes to North Korea, nothing has quite dominated headlines like the nuclear issue. For all of the country’s eccentricities and troubling human rights record, it’s Pyongyang’s nuke tests, and the triumphant rhetoric that follows them, which most alarms the world about North Korea. Could this small nation on the northern half of the Korean Peninsula really have the power to unleash an apocalyptic war on its enemies?

Five years since the death of Kim Jong Il and the rise of his son, Kim Jong Un, the answer is now a very concrete yes. Since Kim the younger took over, there have been three nuclear tests of increasing magnitude, and in September the country claimed they had successfully tested a warhead which could be mounted on a rocket.

Can Pyongyang be stopped? And how does the world deal with a nuclear North Korea? In the fourth part of a six-part series examining how Kim Jong Un has spent his first half-decade in power, NK News reached out to experts from across the world with three key questions on how North Korea’s nuclear program has developed.

The following North Korea specialists responded in time for our deadline:
Daniel Pinkston, lecturer at Troy University
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director at the Arms Control Association
Andrea Berger, Deputy Director, Proliferation and Nuclear Policy at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)
Cha du-hyeogn, Former intelligence secretary to President Lee Myung-bak
Joshua Pollack, Editor of the Nonproliferation Review


North Korea’s first nuclear reactor at Yongbyon | Photo by born1945
ーー
1. How would you assess North Korea’s nuclear weapons development over the past five years?

Daniel Pinkston: I would say that the regime puts a very high priority on nuclear weapons and they continue to make progress on their nuclear capabilities. They have conducted five nuclear tests, and I think we have to assume that the KPA Strategic Force could deliver a nuclear device with a Nodong missile.
ーー
Daryl Kimball: North Korea has increased the reliability and range of its ballistic missiles, pursued new missile systems, and produced more fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapons — all while the international community has missed efforts to negotiate constraints on Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

Although North Korea has had genuine technological accomplishments in its development of nuclear weapons, it has also greatly exaggerated its own military capabilities to intimidate its potential enemies and for internal propaganda purposes.

It is not clear how successful North Korea has been in designing nuclear warheads for delivery on ballistic missiles or how reliable those capabilities are today. Although North Korea deploys short- and medium-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, it does not yet have the ability to field a reliable longer-range missile.

It is unlikely that North Korea has been able to develop a larger-yield hydrogen bomb, as claimed by Kim Jong Un. The conventional strength of the North Korean army continues to decline relative to the forces arrayed against it.

While expert assessments may differ on how many weapons may be deployed and how reliable the North’s missiles may be, it is clear that with additional nuclear and missile tests, Pyongyang could have an operational arsenal of several dozen nuclear-armed, medium-range ballistic missiles by the end of Donald Trump’s first term.

Such a capability would be qualitatively more dangerous for the region. This means that what is or is not done to cap and freeze the program in the next five years is critical.

--

Andrea Berger: Judging by the pace and type of testing, North Korea has hit the gas pedal on its nuclear and missile programs. It seems likely that Kim Jong Un has now set a time-bound technical objective for the North Korean defense complex – possibly the ability to strike the continental United States with a nuclear device.
---
Cha du-hyeogn: During Kim Jong Il’s era, Pyongyang’s goal was to successfully “develop” nuclear weapons. However, Kim Jong Un has succeeded in weaponizing and acquiring various kinds of delivery systems for its nuclear arms. For Kim Jong Il, the North Korean nuclear weapons program was a matter for “negotiation,” depending on the environment. But for Kim Jong Un, it seems that he is trying to show his firm will to first turn North Korea into a nuclear state, even if he might have to engage in the negotiation in the future.

---

Joshua Pollock: Over the last few years, North Korea has had a free hand to advance its nuclear, missile, and space programs. Since Kim Jong Un came to power in December 2011, North Korea has conducted three of its five nuclear tests to date.

It has also successfully launched its first two satellites into low-earth orbit and displayed progress toward a declared goal of reaching high-earth orbit. These efforts have clear implications for the country’s ability to deliver military payloads at long distances.

In 2016 alone, North Korea conducted two nuclear tests and showed off a nuclear warhead designed to fit into the nosecones of its missiles. It also performed operationally realistic theater missile tests, its first successful flight-test of a road-mobile intermediate-range ballistic missile, and its first successful flight-test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile.

North Korea has not yet flight-tested a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), but it has displayed ground tests of a heat shield and a first-stage rocket engine that appear to be important components of this weapon system.
--

How policymakers respond over the next five years will be critical |

2. Assuming denuclearization is now impossible, what’s the next-best goal that policy-makers should pursue, in your opinion?

Daniel Pinkston: The next best goal is to maintain robust deterrence and containment. As for arms control, I think the international community should push for North Korea to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention.

There might be a shot at convincing Pyongyang to sign the treaty and abandon any chemical weapons stocks after signing a confidentiality agreement with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons like South Korea did.
--
Daryl Kimball: Denuclearization is not impossible, but it’s clearly a long way off. Demanding a formal recommitment to denuclearization as a precondition for talks is not going to make it any more likely and will only provide Pyongyang with more time to increase its capabilities.

With the transition to a new presidential administration in Washington and, later next year in Seoul, there is a window of opportunity to shift tactics and forge a more effective and better coordinated regional approach, led by Washington and Beijing, with advice from Seoul and Tokyo.

The U.S. is, of course, the key player. Unfortunately, it is yet clear whether or what the Trump team’s approach will be or whether it will be coherent. During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump said he would be willing to talk with North Korea’s leader, but he also suggested the problem could be outsourced to China.

In reality, Beijing will not exert what influence it has without clear U.S. support for a renewed and wide-ranging dialogue with Pyongyang.

Shortly after Inauguration Day, Trump should direct a personal representative to communicate the United States’ interest in a deal leading to denuclearization and a formal end to the Korean conflict. As a first step, the parties should agree to a verifiable halt of further North Korean longer-range missile and nuclear tests and fissile material production and a temporary cessation of major U.S. military exercises in the region.

Such a freeze-for-freeze approach involving security matters could provide the time and the basis for ongoing talks on a more robust, comprehensive arrangement to verifiably roll back the North’s program and seek a formal end to hostilities. This approach does not guarantee success, but maintaining the current and divergent U.S.-ROK-Japan-China policies assures failure.

---

Andrea Berger: Crisis management with North Korea should be an interim priority. Whatever size or shape the North Korean nuclear program takes in the next few years, mitigating the prospect of rapid crisis escalation or miscalculation is in everyone’s interest.
---

Cha du-hyeogn: Until now, pressuring the North with a series of sanctions, thus hoping to see it denuclearize, was the basic strategy. However, I think we now have to be realistic.

Our goal should be focused on freezing and disabling its future development. The North already has many nuclear arms; we will have to give some time to resolve them step by step in the future. Yes, we should keep on pressuring the North with sanctions, but it has to be combined with the negotiation as well.

Would military intervention be a solution? Maybe, but conducting surgical strikes just for having a nuclear weapon would not be possible unless they show signs of aiming the systems at us.

----
Joshua Pollock: Policymakers should not assume that denuclearization is impossible, and need not give up on this goal. Neither should they assume it is imminent or readily achievable.

They could give fresh thought to how best to advance national interests in the meantime. North Korea’s leaders want certain things from Washington and Seoul, have shown a willingness to freeze their strategic programs in the past, are likely to try their hand at talking with future administrations if they see any genuine opportunities.

Careful thought is needed about what sort of interim agreement or agreements could be negotiated and – crucially – made to stick. The chance to freeze North Korea’s missile programs before it starts flight-testing mobile ICBMs would be especially valuable.
---

International condemnation seems to have had little effect | Photo by WordRidden

3. What impact have sanctions had on the country’s pursuit of nukes?

Daniel Pinkston: It has raised the costs for North Korea, and it has sent a signal to third-party observers that nuclear breakout comes with a high economic cost and it does not necessarily enhance national security.


Daryl Kimball: Let’s face the facts. Tough international sanctions and condemnation have failed to prevent North Korea from conducting nuclear tests and producing more fissile material, and it has failed to adequately constrain its ballistic missile program. The sanctions regime against North Korea has evolved slowly and has made China the primary trade and finance pathway for North Korea.

Over time, North Korea’s ability to evade sanctions has become very sophisticated, and China’s ability and willingness to enforce existing sanctions has remained wanting. While the new UNSC-imposed sanctions on coal imports from the DPRK may have a more significant impact, it will not likely be a decisive factor.

Some sanctions focused on punishing individuals in the DPRK leadership may have the effect of emboldening noncompliant behavior by the regime. A sanctions-only approach is inadequate to the tremendous challenge of capping North Korea’s increasing nuclear and missile capabilities.
---
Andrea Berger: While sanctions may not have coerced North Korea back to the negotiating table to discuss denuclearization, they have had some practical effect. Sanctions have been essential in getting countries to help prevent proliferation-sensitive shipments.

Many would otherwise lack the legal grounds to act on their own information, or on intelligence shared by others. Without sanctions, North Korea would be able to get some of the goods it needs for prohibited programs even more easily, and could arm other foreign partners relatively unhindered.

---

Cha du-hyeogn: I do believe the sanctions have been considerably effective in slowing the North’s development process. Some people might say that the sanctions were affectless, but the North would have reached today’s status far faster without any sanctions. However, we have to remember, while it might have slowed down Pyongyang, it still has not resolved the fundamental problem yet.

---

Joshua Pollock: The short-term effects of sanctions on North Korea’s strategic weapons programs are much harder to assess than the long-term effects, which are nil. North Korea has put great effort into beating sanctions, in many cases simply bypassing them by developing indigenous production lines for key components and materials.

Sanctions have imposed costs and have probably introduced delays, but this is only a guess. What is clear is that North Korea has attained a great number of milestones in developing nuclear weapons and missiles. There is no reason to believe it will not achieve all of its goals if given enough time.

Additional reporting: Chad O’Carroll, Oliver Hotham, Hamish Macdonald, JH Ahn, Dagyum Ji

2016/12/26

정경모 81. 일본인들 ‘우상’에 미국 대통령도 열광

정경모 81. 일본인들 ‘우상’에 미국 대통령도 열광



정경모 '길을 찾아서' 2009/08/25 10:30 leerberg

일본인들 ‘우상’에 미국 대통령도 열광 
정경모-한강도 흐르고 다마가와도 흐르고 81 

 
» 오늘날 일본 사람들이 메이지시대의 선각자로 숭배하는 인물인 오카쿠라 덴신(왼쪽)과 옛 5000엔짜리 지폐에 들어 있던 니토베 이나조의 초상(오른쪽). 두 사람의 영문 책은 서양인들에게 일본 민족의 우수성과 한국인에 대한 편견을 심어주는 데 커다란 영향을 끼쳤다.

일본 사람들이 숭앙의 대상으로 하고 있는 메이지(명치)시대의 ‘선각자’ 중에서도 빼놓을 수 없는 인물이 오카쿠라 덴신(1862~1913)인데, 이 사람은 일본의 전통적 미술뿐 아니라 서양과는 다른 일본적인 동양사상을 유려한 영문으로 널리 외국인들에게 소개했다는 점에서 특히 존경과 숭모를 받고 있소이다. 오카쿠라가 남긴 영문으로 된 저서 중에서도 <차(茶)에 대한 책>, <동양의 이상>, <일본의 각성>은 말하자면 고전으로서 고교생들에게까지 거의 필독서로 추천되고 있는 책들인데, 이 중에서 내가 문제로 삼고자 하는 것은 1904년 러일전쟁 전야에 미국에서 출판된 <일본의 각성>이외다. 이 책에서 저자는 일본과 조선의 관계를 다음과 같이 설명하고 있는 것이외다.
“조선의 시조 단군은 일본의 시조 아마테라스의 아우 스사노오의 아들일 뿐만 아니라, 조선은 일본의 제14대 천황 주아이의 황후, 신공이 정벌군을 파견하여 삼한 땅을 정복했던 3세기 이후 8세기에 이르는 500년 동안 일본의 지배하에 있던 고유의 속주(original province)였다. 따라서 일본이 러일전쟁에서 승리를 거두고 조선을 식민지로 재지배한다 하여도 그것은 침략이 아니라 역사적 원상복귀일 뿐이다.” 
역사에 대한 이런 ‘해박한’ 지식에 덧붙여 미술의 대가인 오카쿠라는 다음과 같은 말도 하고 있소이다. 
조선의 고분에서 나오는 출토품들이 일본 고분의 출토품과 쌍둥이처럼 닮아 있는 것만 보아도, 일본이 태곳적부터 이미 조선을 지배하고 있었다는 것은 명백한 사실이 아닌가.” 
이건 위사(僞史)조차도 아닌 터무니없는 말장난에 불과한 것이었으나, 일본이 조선을 지배하는 것은 역사의 필연이라는 사고를 대통령 이하 미국 정부의 수뇌부 머릿속에 심어주기에는 부족함이 없는 논리였던 것이외다. 
또 하나, 메이지시대의 선각자로서 오늘날까지 숭앙받는 우상이 니토베 이나조인데, 이 사람도 역시 유창한 영문으로 씌어진 <무사도>(Bushido)라는 책을 1905년 미국에서 출판함으로써, 낙양(洛陽)이 아닌 화성(華城·워싱턴)의 지가(紙價)를 올렸던 일본의 지식인이었소이다. 니토베의 책은 일본인이 얼마나 고매하고 용감한 무사도(사무라이) 정신을 이어받은 우수한 민족인가를 설득력 있는 문장으로 서술한 책으로서, 그때 막 러일전쟁에 돌입한 일본에 대해 호의적인 여론을 환기하는 데 결정적인 기여를 했다는 점에서, 오늘을 사는 우리 역사가들에게도 일독을 권하고 싶은 문건이외다. 이 책에는 조선 민족에 대해서 모멸적으로 언급된 부분은 없었소이다. 그러나 니토베는 그 배후인물의 하나가 이토 히로부미였으며 통감부의 촉탁으로서 조선 각지를 답사한 뒤 다음과 같은 보고서를 제출하였소이다. 
“조선인은 그 풍모로 보나 생활상태로 보나 도저히 20세기의 인종으로는 볼 수 없을 만큼 원시적이며, 민족으로서 생존의 기한은 끝나고 있는 듯하다. 지금 조선반도에 드리우고 있는 것은 죽음의 그늘이다.”(잡지 <삼천리> 34호) 
당시의 미국 대통령 시어도어 루스벨트는 니토베의 저서에 매혹된 나머지 수십권이나 그 책을 구입해 각료는 물론 정부 각 부처의 관료들에게 읽으라고 배부했다는 사실도 기록에는 남아 있는데, 아무튼 대통령 루스벨트 머릿속에 “놀라울 만한 마셜 스피릿(무사도 정신)으로 무장된 우수한 일본 민족”이라는 개념과, “자기 자신의 방위를 위하여 손가락 하나 움직이지 못하는 머저리 같은 조선 민족”이라는 개념이 동시진행적으로 침투해 가는 데 오카쿠라와 니토베의 입김이 얼마나 컸는지, 이 두 사람의 영향이 일본의 국가이익에 얼마나 지대한 공헌을 했는지는 상상하고도 남음이 있으며, 무엇 때문에 오늘날까지 일본 사람들이 이 둘을 우상과 같이 숭배하고 있는지도 이해할 만한 노릇이 아니오이까.

미국의 적극적인 지원 아래 일본이 러시아를 무찌르고 승리를 거두는 와중에, 1905년 9월 포츠머스 조약의 체결을 며칠 앞둔 어느날 루스벨트 대통령은 일본 대표단의 일원인 가네코 겐타로를 백악관으로 불러 점심을 같이 하는 자리에서 다음과 같은 언질을 준 것이었소이다.

“카리브해 연안지역인 쿠바를 미국이 지배하듯이, 황해 연안 지역인 조선을 일본이 지배하는 것은 당연하다고 미국은 인정한다.” 
정경모 재일 통일운동가

기사등록 : 2009-08-24 오후 09:10:08 , 한겨레

겨울 하늘, 빈 산.. :: 뒤틀린 현대사 바로잡는 ‘40년 망명객’의 증언 [한겨레 기획연재]

겨울 하늘, 빈 산.. :: 뒤틀린 현대사 바로잡는 ‘40년 망명객’의 증언 [한겨레 기획연재]






정경모 '길을 찾아서' 2009/07/09 11:13 leerberg


길을 찾아서 새 연재 시작하는 정경모 재일 통일운동가

“자서전 같은 것 쓸 생각이 없었다. 그런데 ‘길을 찾아서’를 위해 회고록을 쓰다 보니 이젠 그냥 (저 세상으로) 갔으면 어찌될 뻔 했나 하는 생각이 든다. 써 달라고 해서 참 고맙다.”

“한국 못간다…안간다” 민족주의 외길
해방공간 내부서 순도높은 체험담 전개
망명·방북…‘시대지성’의 인생역정 펼쳐


전화선을 통해 들려오는 40년 ‘망명객’ 정경모(85·사진·일본 요코하마 거주)씨의 목소리는 여전히 쟁쟁했고, “이제 언제 어떻게 될지 알 수 없는 나이”라곤 했지만 기억 또한 펄펄 살아 있었다.


2002년에 첫 한글판이 나온 그의 저서 <찢겨진 산하>(한겨레출판부)의 발문에서 원로 언론인 임재경씨는 그 책을 읽고 받은 충격을 이렇게 묘사했다. “어렸을 적 전등 소켓에 손가락을 넣었다가 갑자기 온몸에 전류가 관통할 때의 느낌이었다. 인간이 가장 큰 감명을 받는 순간은 지나쳐버린 진실과 다시 마주칠 때라는 것을 나는 비로소 깨달았다.”그 글을 쓸 때 임씨는 1945년 광복부터 한국전쟁까지, 한국현대사의 흐름을 결정한 5년동안의 이른바 ‘해방공간’의 좌우대립을 이데올로기 대결로만 파악하는 우리의 ‘상식’이 근본적으로 잘못돼 있다는 것을 그 책을 통해 깨달았다면서, 싸움의 핵심은 친일행위와 농지 소유관계 모순 즉 친일파와 토지개혁 문제 처리를 둘러싼 현실적 갈등이었다고 명쾌하게 정리했다.


<찢겨진 산하>와 <일본의 본질을 묻는다>, <이제 미국이 대답할 차례다> 등 한국에서 출간된 정씨의 책 3권은 우리가 우리 현대사에 대해 얼마나 무지한지, 알고 있다고 생각한 사실들이 실은 얼마나 뒤틀려 있는지, 그리고 그 잘못된 인식이 지금 우리 현실을 얼마나 고통스럽게 비틀어놓고 있는지를 그야말로 ‘충격적으로’ 보여준다. 81년께부터 일본어 잡지 <씨알(아래 아)의 힘>과 강연들을 통해 한국현대사에 대한 연구와 발언을 계속해온 그는 오랜 지기인 브루스 커밍스의 <한국전쟁의 기원> 제1권을 일본어로 번역했고 황석영의 <장길산> 전 10권 역시 일본어로 번역(오는 9월 후지와라출판사 출간 예정)했다.


간간이 외부활동도 하지만 “요즘엔 주로 ‘길을 찾아서’ 집필에만 몰두하고 있다”는 그의 글에 대해 기대를 걸지 않을 수 없다.

그의 운명은 경기중학 졸업 뒤 일본 게이오대 의학부에 들어갔을 때 일본 하숙집 주인 모녀(그 집 딸이 지금 그의 아내다)와의 조우를 통해 한 번 물줄기를 틀었고, 광복 뒤 귀국해 서울대 의대를 다니다가 47년 미국 에모리대학으로 유학가 화학공부를 하고 있던 그를 맥아더의 일본점령군(미군) 사령부(GHQ)에 밀어넣은 당시 주미 한국대사 장면(제2공화국 국무총리)씨의 긴급전화 한 통화로 다시한번 방향을 틀게 된다. 그 뒤 한국전쟁 휴전회담 통역자로 판문점에서 목격한, 어떤 역사책도 알려준 바 없는 놀라운 사실들에 대한 생생한 체험담은 소름마저 돋게 한다.


한때 그의 후원자이기도 했던 이승만 대통령이 골수 친일파들을 기용해 단독정부 수립을 꾀하며 백범 김구와 몽양 여운형, 조봉암 등 정적들을 배제해간 사실들에 대한 기억은 지금의 ‘뉴라이트’적 민족사 인식의 허구성을 깨뜨리는 역사적 증언일 수 있다. 이승만의 정치적 후계자라할 박정희 군사정부를 겪으면서 느낀 환멸과 자각은 결국 70년 망명으로 이어졌다. 그길로 40여년, 어떤 면에선 가장 순수하고 철저한 민족주의자이기를 그만둔 적 없는 정씨는 여지껏 조국에 돌아오지 못하고 있다.


민주화 이후 박형규 민주화운동기념사업회 이사장이 여러 차례 전화해 귀국을 종용했으나 89년 문익환 목사 평
양방문에 동행한 그의 전력을 문제삼은 ‘공안의 벽’ 앞에 좌절해야 했던 그의 얘기는 서글프고 아프다. 6살 위인 문 목사와는 방북 당시 이미 40년 지기였던 그의 평양행에 얽힌 얘기들, 일본우익들에 관한 섬뜩한 진실들, 그를 망명으로 내몬 부패한 한국 지배세력의 생얼굴들, 그리고 김대중씨 개인과 민주화 이후 정권에 대한 복잡한 심경 등 오직 그만이 알고 있는 수많은 사실들이 <한겨레> 연재를 통해 한국현대사를 엮는 또 다른 씨줄과 날줄로 당당하게 자리잡게 될 것이다.


“단재 신채호와 백범, 몽양의 시대가 끝났다고 생각하느냐?”고 물은 그는 장준하, 문익환도 그 계열선상에 올렸다. 그리고 “나는 거기(한국)에 못 가는 게 아니라 안 가는 거야. 여기서 이대로 꺼지는거야”라며 “상징적 의미가 있지 않느냐?”고 되물었다. 선각들이 그 제단에 몸을 바쳐야 했던 불운한 민족사의 과제는 아직 완수되지 못했으며, 이미 자신도 동참해온 그 대열에 여생까지 바치겠다는 얘기다.





한승동 선임기자 sdhan@hani.co.kr


요코하마/사진 김경애 기자 ccandori@hani.co.kr

기사등록 : 2009-05-03 오후 06:28:45 기사수정 : 2009-05-03 오후 06:34:42

日本のシオニストと東アジア共同体|Super Games Work Shop Entertainment

日本のシオニストと東アジア共同体|



日本のシオニストと東アジア共同体

明治時代の美術評論家・岡倉天心を「日本のシオニスト」と称したのは鄭敬謨氏ですが、なぜ鄭氏は岡倉の事をそのように言ったのでしょうか。
「シオニズム」とはユダヤ国家イスラエルの建国運動ですが、その論拠を簡単に言うと古代パレスチナはユダヤ人の土地だった、だからその「約束の地」にユダヤ人国家を作るのだ、というものです。そしてこのシオニズムを主張・推進する者がシオニストと呼ばれます。
ですが、ちょっと考えれば分かる通り、そんな3500年も前の話を持ち出して「そこは自分の土地だ」などというのは荒唐無稽なトンデモ以外の何者でもありません。そんなカビが生えるどころか化石と化したようなおとぎ話を根拠にして他人の土地を奪い、抵抗する者を虐殺しているのがイスラエルという国であり、それを支持しているのがシオニストな訳です(さらに言うならそれを熱心に支持・正当化している日本人が鈴木宗男と佐藤優の親分子分コンビに他なりません)。
では岡倉天心はどうだったのでしょう。この男は1904年(明治37)11月に「日本の覚醒 The Awakening of Japan」という、今ではタイトルを見ただけでいかにも石原慎太郎か平沼赳夫的悪臭が漂ってきそうな題名の本をアメリカで出しているのですが、その中でこんな事を言っています。
「朝鮮半島は、有史以前を通じ日本の元来の植民地になっていたことが恐らく考えられる。朝鮮における考古学的遺跡は、わが国の原始的古墳類と正確に同じものである。朝鮮の言語は今日でもあらゆるアジア言語のうち、我々の言語にもっとも近い。わが国の最古の伝説は、わが天照大神の弟は朝鮮に定住したと伝えている。そして彼の国の初代国王檀君は、ある歴史家の考えによればその子息であったという」
さらに「東洋の理想」という本ではイスラム、儒教、インド哲学、日本的思考が同じ民族圏に該当し、「しかしながら、この複雑の中なる統一を特に明白に実現することは日本の偉大なる特権であった」としてその根拠は万世一系の皇室がおわすからだと言うのです。
これらを要約すると「古代朝鮮は日本の植民地だった」「朝鮮の文化は日本から伝わった」「朝鮮の建国者は日本の神の息子だった」「アジアを統一するのは万世一系の皇室がおわす日本の特権」…。どこに出しても恥ずかしくない立派な大東亜共栄圏・八紘一宇・皇国史観とはまさにこの事でしょう。
鄭敬謨氏が岡倉天心の事を「日本のシオニスト」と呼んだ訳がこれでお分かりでしょう。シオニストは「3500年前にパレスチナはユダヤ人の土地だった」と言い、岡倉天心は「古代朝鮮は日本の領土・植民地だった」と言ってどちらも残虐な侵略を正当化・推進しました。両者はまるっきり言ってる事が違いません。
岡倉天心のこれら著作は英語で書かれましたが、それは日本のアジア侵略正当化を欧米に広く認知させる為であったのです。
こうした嘘デタラメや根拠薄弱な戯言で他国・他民族への侵略を正当化するという点で、大日本帝国のアジア侵略思想とシオニズムの論拠は何とそっくりなのでしょうか。やはり歴史のトンデモ説の一つとして「日本・ユダヤ同祖論」というのがありますが、シオニズムと大日本帝国の類似性を見るとそれも案外正しいのではないかとさえ思えてきます。
 
何で急に岡倉天心の事を持ち出すかというと、例の「東アジア共同体」を推し進める人間達の中で岡倉を賞賛する動きがあるという事を最近知ったからでした。
m_debugger氏が新しい記事で「自衛隊を丸腰で紛争地域に派遣すれば世界平和になる」という珍妙な教義を布教して回っている伊勢崎教授(教祖?)の事を俎上に乗せていますが、そこにあった雑誌「環」のバックナンバーでは「東アジア共同体と岡倉天心」という特集が組まれています。これは2年前の記事ですが、調べてみると今でも岡倉天心を持ち上げて東アジア共同体推進の論拠にしようとしている者が散見されました。で、その手の天心賞賛論で決まって語られる(騙られる?)のが「岡倉天心の意思は歪めて伝えられた」「岡倉天心は利用されただけだ」「岡倉天心はアジアに共感を持ち続けた」「虐げられている一点において「アジアは一つ」であると言ったのであって、大東亜共栄圏思想とイコールではない」という擁護・賛美論です。さもなければ歯の浮くような根拠ゼロの賛辞でひたすらべた褒めする。例えばこことかこことかこことかこことか…。これらの中で岡倉の朝鮮に対する侮蔑や歴史の捏造・歪曲・皇国史観について触れているものはどれ一つとしてありません。まあ当然でしょう。そのような岡倉の本性を書いてしまったらさすがに擁護しようがなくなるのですから。岡倉天心賞賛論というのはこの男の朝鮮・アジア侵略思想を完全に無視する事でのみ成り立っています。ひょっとしたら岡倉天心賛美・擁護論者達が言っているのは現実の岡倉天心に非ず、彼らの妄想世界の中にのみ生息する「脳内岡倉天心」なのかもしれません。そんな得体の知れない代物が東アジア共同体の論拠の一つなのです。

東アジア共同体の何が問題なのかというと、これが一見すると平和的な友好近隣関係に見えて、実はアジア版NATOとも言うべき軍事同盟関係にあるという事です。これが成立すれば日本は今以上にアメリカの対テロ戦争への協力を強め、共同体に組み込まれるであろう他のアジア諸国もその泥沼に道連れにされる事だけは間違いないでしょう。

岡倉天心というどこに出しても恥ずかしくない立派なアジア侵略主義者を、アジア平和・友好論者であるかのように捏造・歪曲し、それを以って軍事同盟たる東アジア共同体を平和的な関係であるかのように歪曲する…。何もかも一から十まで全て嘘とデタラメで塗り固められているのが、岡倉天心を利用した東アジア共同体推進論に他ならないのです。
しかし彼らがいかにイカサマじみた事を言おうと、そんなものは内輪の日本人かそれに媚びて協力する「親日派」朝鮮人にしか通用しないでしょう。朝鮮半島本国の民衆の間では、今でも岡倉天心は新渡戸稲造、福沢諭吉、伊藤博文、西郷隆盛、原敬らと同様の侵略論者・侵略主義者として認知されているからです。
参考までに以下に二つの朝鮮語記事を紹介しておきましょう。鄭敬謨氏が岡倉天心&新渡戸稲造の朝鮮侵略思想について述べたもの
と、東アジア共同体をどう思うか述べた文章です。
記事のアドレスは上記の通りですが、元は以前にハンギョレ新聞へ掲載された記事のようです。以下に筆者が訳した日本語訳文を掲載しますが、朝鮮語の読める方はぜひリンク先の原文でも読んで欲しいと思います。無断での翻訳掲載となりますが、鄭敬謨氏は御自身のブログ更新が遅いので韓国で発表された文を勝手に訳して掲載させてもらう事にしました。まあ笑って許してくれるでしょう(笑)。
なお鄭敬謨氏の一連の連載記事を原文でお読みになりたい方は以下のリンク先を御参照下さい。
 
 
日本人達の「偶像」に米国大統領も熱狂
鄭敬謨―漢江も流れ、多摩川も流れて81
 
125110632735_20090825.jpg



 
「今日の日本人達が明治時代の先覚者として崇拝する人物である岡倉天心(左)と旧5000円札紙幣に描かれていた新渡戸稲造(右)の肖像。二人の英文書籍は西洋人達に日本民族の優秀性と韓国人に対する偏見を植え付けるのに巨大な影響を与えた」
 
日本人達が崇仰の対象としている明治時代の「先覚者」の中でも外せない人物が岡倉天心(1862~1913)だが、この人物は日本の伝統的美術のみならず、西洋とは違う日本的な東洋思想を流麗な英文で広く外国人達に紹介したという点で、特に尊敬と崇慕を受けている。岡倉が残した英文の著書の中でも「茶の本」「東洋の理想」「日本の覚醒」は言うなれば古典として、高校生にまでほぼ必読書として推薦されている本だが、この中で私が問題にしようとしているのは1904年露日戦争前夜に米国で出版された「日本の覚醒」だ。この本で著者は日本と朝鮮の関係を次のように説明している。
 
「朝鮮の始祖・壇君は、日本の始祖・天照の弟スサノオの息子であるばかりか、朝鮮は日本の第14代天皇仲哀の皇后・神功が征伐軍を派遣して三韓の地を征服した3世紀以後8世紀に至る500年間、日本の支配下にある固有の属州(original province)であった。従って日本が露日戦争で勝利して朝鮮を植民地に再支配したとしても、それは侵略ではなく歴史的現状復帰に過ぎない」
 
歴史に対するこのような「該博」な知識に基づいて、美術の大家でもある岡倉は次のような事も言っている。
 
「朝鮮の古墳から出る出土品達が日本古墳の出土品と双子のように似ている事だけを見ても、日本が太古からすでに朝鮮を支配していたという事は明白な事実ではないか」
 
これは偽史にすら非ざる、根拠のない言葉遊びに過ぎないようだが、日本が朝鮮を支配するのが歴史の必然という思考を大統領以下米国政府の首脳部の頭の中へ植え付けるのには、十分な論理であったのだ
 
もう一人、明治時代の先覚者として今日まで崇仰を受ける偶像が新渡戸稲造だが、この人物もやはり流暢な英文で書かれた「武士道」(Bushido)という本を1905年に米国で出版し、洛陽ならぬ華城(ワシントン)の紙価を高めた日本の知識人である。新渡戸の本は、日本人がどれだけ高邁で勇敢な武士道(侍)精神を受け継いだ優秀な民族かを説得力ある文章で叙述した本であり、その時まさに露日戦争に突入した日本に対して好意的な世論を喚起するのに決定的な寄与をしたという点において、今日を生きる我ら歴史家達にも一読を勧めたい文献である。この本には朝鮮民族に対して侮蔑的に言及した部分はない。だが新渡戸は、その後ろ盾の一人が伊藤博文であり、統監府の嘱託として朝鮮各地を踏査した後に次のような報告書を提出した。
 
「朝鮮人はその風貌から見ても生活状態から見ても到底20世紀の人種とは見えぬ程原始的であり、民族としての生存期限は終わったようだ。今朝鮮半島に垂れ下がるのは死の影である」(雑誌「三千里」334号)
 
当時の米国大統領セオドア・ルーズベルトは新渡戸の著書に魅惑された余り数十冊もその本を購入して閣僚はもちろん政府各部署の官僚達に読むよう配布したという事実も記録に残っているが、いかに大統領ルーズベルトの頭の中に「驚くべきマーシャルスピリッツ(武士道精神)で武装した優秀な日本民族」という概念と、「己の防衛の為に指一つ動かせぬアホウドリのような朝鮮民族」という概念が同時進行的に浸透していくのに岡倉と新渡戸の影響力がどれだけ大きかったか、この二人の影響が国家利益にどれだけ至大なる貢献を果たしたかは想像に余りあり、何故今日まで日本人がこの二人を偶像のように崇拝しているかも理解出来る事ではあるまいか。
 
米国の積極的な支援の下に日本がロシアを破って勝利を得た渦中で、1905年9月ポーツマス条約締結を数日後に控えたある日、ルーズベルト大統領は日本代表団の一員である金子賢太郎を白亜館(ホワイトハウス)に招いて昼食を共にする場で次のような言質を与えたのだった。
 
「カリブ海沿岸地域であるキューバを米国が支配するように、黄海沿岸地域である朝鮮を日本が支配するのは当然であると米国は認定する」
 
 
 
西洋国家の振りをしてきた日本の「政体混乱」
鄭敬謨―漢江も流れ、多摩川も流れて138
 
126095582611_20091217.jpg
 


「日本の代表的批判思想家・子安宣邦大阪大名誉教授(右)は2006年5月、韓国学中央研究員招請「碩学招請講座」で福沢諭吉(左)を筆頭とする日本ナショナリズムの帝国主義的属性を批判した。明治時代の啓蒙思想家である福沢は「脱亜入欧論」を主張して帝国主義化を扇動した「論乱の人物」である」
 
私が思索し、行動してきた場が日本であったからこそ、絶対に一言だけ日本に対して言っておかねばならない事を言ってこの長々とした連載を終えようと思うが、それは最近日本で飽きもせず話題となっている「東アジア共同体」に関する私の見解である。
 
この連載の一番最初の部分で、1951年の米日講和条約を推進した米国大統領特使ダレスが言ったという言葉を引用した事があったではないか。「米国は、日本人が中国人や朝鮮人に対して抱いている民族的優越感を十分利用する必要がある」
 
この言葉は決してダレス個人の妄言ではなく、米国が行って来た極東政策の根幹を成す基本的発想であったのだ。私の旧友であるガボン・マコーマック教授の言葉を借りれば「戦後から米国は日本の特異性と、他アジア諸国とは根本的に違うという点を強調し、日本をしてその他アジア国家との関係を疎遠にさせる事で、米国により依存させるようにするという事を基本目標にしてきた」という事である(「従属国家日本」)
 
これに呼応するごとく「日本はその他アジア国家とは格が違い、東洋というよりはむしろ西洋に近い国だという事」を主張する論文も出て、日本人の優越感を正当化しようとした例もあるのだ。
 
「日本はヨーロッパと歴史発展の様相が共通的であり、フランク王国カロリング朝廷にあった武士道の正統を発展させたという点で、日本は西洋文化圏に属する国だ。近代化だけをとって見ても日本だからこそ可能であり、日本以外のアジアの国では不可能な事ではあるまいか」
 
これは京都学派の梅棹忠夫教授の主張だが(「文明の生態史観」)、日本はこのような「名誉白人国家」になりすます事で矜持と国家政体を維持してきたのだ。もちろんこのような風潮は明治時代に遡るものであり、これを強調するのに先陣を切ったのは慶応大学創設者たる福沢諭吉であり、彼の「脱亜入欧論」は日本がアジアから抜け出してヨーロッパに入り、彼らと肩を並べねばならないという主張である。清日・露日戦争で勝利を得たという点で、この主張は当時としては有効なものであった。だが最近、急速度で米国の力が衰退する過程において、経済的・軍事的に米国一辺倒の依存に疑懼(ぎく)の念を抱くようになった日本人達が、如才なく逆に「脱欧入亜」へと方向転換せねばならぬという悩みを抱きつつ「東アジア共同体論」が再三浮かび上がったのだ。
 
だが万一、日本が真にアジア復帰を試図するのならば最も大きな障害は、我が朝鮮民族に対する彼らの歪んだ歴史認識であると私は確信している。日本の歴史学者・子安宣邦教授(大阪大)の持論通りであるならば「日本は朝鮮半島と関連する歴史を隠蔽する事で、独自の起源を持った国という歴史認識を形成してきており、その結果朝鮮に対する支配権を手にする目的で日清・日露戦争を行った」という事だ。(「日本ナショナリズムの解読」)
 
子安教授の見解は私が前文で紹介した皇国史観、即ち日本は歴史的縁故権がある為に朝鮮半島に対する支配権を行使せねばならないという主張(117号)を別の言葉で表現したものだが、子安教授といえども「日本が隠蔽している朝鮮半島との歴史」が具体的に何かは指摘していない。それは言うまでもなく沸流百済の子孫が西暦396年に朝鮮の地から日本に渡って応神天皇になった事で、日本の皇室と国家自体の起源を成したという簡単な歴史なのだが(116号)、これを指摘する日本の学者はまだ現れてはいないのだ。
 
現在日本人達は自分達が西洋人なのかといえばそれは違い、まただからといって完全な東洋人でもなく日和見しながらも、潜在意識というか自国皇室が朝鮮の地を捨てて海を渡った百済人であったという古代史のおぼろげな記憶の為に、縁故権意識に対する執着を捨てられずにいる「政体危機」の中で苦悶している国民と言えるが、これは「精神分裂症(スキゾフレニック)」と言っても過言ではない一種の疾患であり、むしろ日本人達の為にも我が韓国人達が出でて精神科医の役をせねばならないのではと思わない事もない。日本がこの精神的疾患から抜け出せない限り、アジア復帰も難しいばかりか、「東アジア共同体」のようなものも容易ではないというのが私の判断である。
 
鄭敬謨 在日統一運動家

訳 ZED

矢内原忠雄氏  新渡戸との運命的な出会い

東大OBの偉人伝



第16代総長 矢内原忠雄氏

愛の理念携え学問に貢献

新渡戸との運命的な出会い

矢内原忠雄は、戦後に南原繁第15代総長に続いて、1951年から57年までの6年間、本学の総長を務めた。
 矢内原は、1893年1月27日愛媛県に生まれた。11歳の時から中学教員の従兄弟の家にあずけられ、神戸で教育を受けた。矢内原は新渡戸稲造、内村鑑三から思想的に深い影響を受けてきた。矢内原のキリスト教を土台とした思想基盤、学問に対する見つめ方を決定的にしたのは、彼が17歳で第一高等学校に入学したときの校長であった新渡戸稲造に出会ったことである。
 一高では1年生に対して毎週倫理講話というのがあり、矢内原はそこで俗に修身といわれるものとは違う、潤いある人生観や世界観の話を聞き、大きな啓発を受けた。矢内原の新渡戸との出会いは、新渡戸が学生のために面会日を作り、学生の質問に何でも答えていたのだが、その場に臨んだのがきっかけである。新渡戸は、わざわざ学校の近くに家を一軒借り、木曜日の午後、塩せんべいや最中を出して、師と学生の全人格的交わりの持てる場を自ら設定していたのである。矢内原はその時のことを振り返りながら、「先生は自ら、人間とか、人生とか、そういうことについて、パーソナリティ人格、それから、社会的意識とでも今ならいうんですか、ソーシャルな意識について話しをされた」と語っている。矢内原はそこで、個人を単位とした社会的連帯の重要性をはじめとして多くのことを学んでいる。

信仰を持ちつつ学問の道へ

一方、内村との直接の出会いは、一高2年の10月1日である。それまで矢内原は、内村が出版していた月刊誌『聖書の研究』を購読していたが、内村が日曜日に行っていた聖書講義にはその門を堅く閉ざされ、入門を許されていなかった。ところが、一高2年のときに『聖書の研究』を1年以上読んだ者を特別に面会の上、入門を許すということになり、さっそく飛びついたという訳である。
 矢内原は内村を通しては、宗教と科学が矛盾せず共存し得る理念であることを学ばされ、信仰を持ちながらも学者として社会科学の道を進むことを決心した。
 矢内原は一高以来、内村が70歳でこの世を去る日まで約20年間、内村の話を日曜日の聖書講義で聴いていたが、個人的に接触したのは五本の指で数えられるほどに少なかった。矢内原は、内村をなぜかはわからないが大変畏れていた。内村の方も時々雑誌に「俺の家に来ると邪魔になるから、なるべく来ないように」と書いていたので、なおさら足を運ぶことをしなかった。
 初めての訪問については『内村鑑三とともに 上』(東京大学出版会)に述べてあるが、最初に思い立ってから一週間もかかったという。祈りに祈りを重ね、どうしても尋ねざるを得なくなって行った。矢内原は母を18のときに、父を20で失っており、このことに関して両親は死んだ後救われるかどうかという問題にぶつかったのである。
 内村は天上の一角を見ながら「僕にもわからんよ」と一言つぶやいただけだった。何かの返事を期待していた矢内原がその場を去ろうとしたとき、内村は「そういう問題は君自身が長く信仰生活を続けていけば、いつかわかるともなく、そのうちに自然にわかるものだ。君自身が信仰を続けなければならないよ」と優しく語り掛けた。矢内原の父が死んだのが1913年10月、内村が愛娘ルツ子の死を契機に復活信仰に至ったのが1912年1月12日であったから、内村はその時、既にこの時の矢内原の質問に対する解答を持っていたはずである。
 しかし内村は容易には答えてくれなかった。なぜであろうか。理由の一つには、内村が学閥と争っていたからということが挙げられるだろう。帝国大学初代総理の加藤弘之は、スペンサー的唯物論をもって宗教を迷信であるとし、神を存在しないお化けのようなもの、国体に有害なものであると強く非難した。加藤は、教育勅語の奉読式で内村が最敬礼しなかったことを理由に激しい攻撃を行ったのである。
 加えて、いったんは神の前に献身を決意した弟子たちが、ことごとく背教していったことに対する不信があったのかもしれない。内村が矢内原に語る「君自身が信仰を続けなければならない」という言葉の背後に、世の中の表の街道を悠々と歩き国の指導者になっていく一高生への、最後まで神への献身を忘れないでほしいという深遠なる期待があったのではないか。
 矢内原は内村を畏れていたが、「もしも内村鑑三記念講演会を1年365日、毎日やるから何か話をしろと言われても、私はおことわりする理由がないくらいに先生の恩を感じております」と述べているように、内村に対する尊敬心と感謝の念があったことに変わりはない。

帝国主義下の植民地を研究

矢内原の研究内容は「植民政策」であった。普通、この学問は植民地を統治するすべとして考えられ、植民地の統治機構、行政機構、統治政策といったものであった。ところが矢内原はこれを科学的に分析研究し、植民地を帝国主義の理論的研究、実証的研究の中心として見た。
 支那事変による傷跡を日本は経済的、文化的に癒すことができるか。事変の進行とともに建設どころか収拾すらも困難な様相を呈してきていた。矢内原はこうした日本の帝国主義政策の中で学生時代を過ごし、その時神によって一つの志を立てたのである。「私は朝鮮に行って民間にあって、朝鮮の人のために働きたい」と。日清・日露戦争の足場となった朝鮮半島では、朝鮮人は日本兵によって有無を言わせず強制的重労働に駆り立てられ、許可もしないのに満州までの鉄道を敷かされた。1910年当時の日韓併合以後はこの人権無視の弾圧は一層強まり、韓国伝統の宗教である儒教・仏教を棄てさせ、日本の神道に強制的に改宗させたり、日本語以外の言語を使うことを許さなかったり、創氏改名といって韓国式の姓名を日本式に変えさせたりしたのである。日本のこの文化政策は人権破壊政策であった。
 韓国が日本の属国として、韓国・朝鮮に対する蔑視感情が急速に高まるなかで、韓国に同情の意向を示し、かつ公の場で発言したことは極めて先見の明があったといわざるを得ない。
 支那の問題を収拾する責任がある。内村の精神を相続し、この仕事はキリスト者でなければできないと考えていた矢内原にとって、この問題を解決することは学生時代に立てた悲願中の悲願であった。己の国を愛するごとく隣の国を愛し、神の御国が成るために自分の生涯を用いることがキリスト者に課せられた課題であると真剣に考えていたからである。

朝鮮半島の植民地化に抵抗

しかし、矢内原は、家庭の事情があって結局朝鮮に行くことができなかった。そこで卒業後、愛媛県にある住友別子鉱業所に就職したわけであるが、3年後、新渡戸稲造が国際連盟へ移るというのでその後任として東大に呼ばれ、植民政策の講座を担当することになった。
 これを契機として矢内原は朝鮮ばかりでなく、樺太、南洋群島、満州にも直接入って内外から観察しながら植民地問題をとらえ、帝国主義の世界を見つめる研究を始めた。1926年頃から「植民及植民政策」「帝国主義下の台湾」「満州問題」「南洋群島の研究」「帝国主義下の印度」などの文献が出版されている。
 矢内原は、朝鮮半島を植民地化することに最後まで抵抗の意思を表明し続けた。結局、それにより大学を追われることになった。

志の成就を天に委ねる

しかし矢内原は大学を辞めても、また何かの形で初志が成し遂げられていくことを信じていた。その祈りにも似た思いが天に通じたのだろうか。神が矢内原の懐にいて働いて立たしめ給うた志は、大学の研究領域の問題として、矢内原自身、当初の考えよりはさらに大きく、さらに深く成就させることができたのである。
 私達の志は神が立てる。それを成し遂げる方法もまた神が定め給うところである。我々が考えたとおりの形では実現しないが、神に導かれて忠実に人生の場を走り、後になってみるならば、自分の予想しなかった形で、しかも予想以上に志の成就せしめられたことを知るであろう。
 矢内原は言う、「このように考えれば、初めて人生が明るくなる。この事実がない以上、人生は希望のない砂漠であって、結局人生を否定し、社会を否定するより他ない。神を信じ、神により志を立て、その志の遂行を神によって導かれていくところにのみ、人生を肯定する生活態度が生まれる」。

信念に従い公職追放となる

ところで矢内原が植民政策を始め、そこから得た結論は何か。それは彼の講演、「悲哀の人」で明らかである。「悲哀の人」とは矢内原自身であった。1929年という帝国主義の最中、国家の進みゆく道を憂え、国家から大学から攻撃を受けながら、悲哀の人となり、地の塩、世の光となって神の正義を訴え続けた。
 矢内原は内村を通してイエスを知り、内村を敬慕した矢内原は、内村と同様の試練を目の前にして、その試練に屈することなく神の名において国家的悔い改めを唱えたのである。それが矢内原の公職追放の引き金となり、今日でも語り継がれる最終講義における歴史的な国家的悔い改めの辞へと進むのである。

「第一に学問を大切に」と望む

最後に、矢内原の著書『大学について』の一節に、「学生に望むところ」というものがある。矢内原が、学生に対し大学生活で得てほしいと願うことが書かれている。それを紹介しよう。
 「第一に学問を学び、勉学に励むこと。大学時代に学ぶ者は社会に出てから生涯を通じて社会人としての実行力を養うことになる。
 そのために、信頼する教師の門をたたき、謙虚な心で哲学や宗教の道を求めることが有意義である。
 第二に、安易な現状肯定主義者となることなく、よりよき明日を望むところの進歩的思想と理想主義的熱情を持つことが望ましい。
 第三には、暴力、非合法主義を否定し、秩序を重んずる遵法精神をもつことが望ましい。
 第四に科学的精神と確固たる人生観を持つこと。
 最後に、大学の自由と学生の自治を守るため、すなわち学内秩序の維持のために、一般学生は公共的精神と道徳的勇気を持って欲しい」。  矢内原が約50年前に学生に語ったメッセージであるが、我々がこのメッセージから学ぶことは決して少なくないだろう。

新渡戸稲造が伝える、伊藤博文の朝鮮人観 - 布屋忠次郎日記

新渡戸稲造が伝える、伊藤博文の朝鮮人観 - 布屋忠次郎日記





新渡戸稲造が伝える、伊藤博文の朝鮮人観

2008-05-18 02:10:27 | 日本
伊藤博文公爵といえば、日帝による韓国蹂躙の一番の悪玉というイメージ(があるらしい)。
一方、新渡戸稲造博士といえば、日米間で「太平洋の架け橋」ならんと奔走した人格者というイメージ(があるらしい)。

ところが、新渡戸博士が伊藤公に「朝鮮の植民地化」を提案して却下された、という噂があります。

たとえば、渡部昇一が八木秀次との対談で次のように発言しています。
韓国統監府の初代統監に就いた伊藤博文は、朝鮮の植民地化を意図していなかった事実をどれほどの日本人、コリア人が知っているか。台湾経営に当たった植民地政策の専門家、新渡戸稲造が伊藤博文に植民地政策案を出したところ、「これは要らない。日本は朝鮮植民地経営のようなことをやる気はない」と突き返されたと新渡戸自身が書き残しています。
(渡部昇一、新田均、八木秀次共著「日本を貶める人々」p87より引用)

この渡部の発言は、前野徹も「亡国日本への怒りの直言」のP94でも引用しています。
ネット上でこの件について書いている人も、だいたいこの両書をもとにしているんじゃないかと思います。

となると次は、渡部はどこで「新渡戸自身が書き残している」のを読んだのかということですが、残念ながら前掲書には出典の記載がありません。
で、新渡戸稲造全集を調べることにしました。ボリュームがあるのと、市内の図書館には蔵書がないので県立図書館から取り寄せてもらわなきゃららない手間がかかるのとで、手を出したくないなとも(ちょっとだけ)思っていたのだけど、ネットではこれ以上調べるのが難しくて。

それらしき記述を見つけたのは、新渡戸稲造全集第5巻に所収の「偉人群像」という論文というかエッセイ。1931年に実業之日本社から出したもので、その中の「第廿七章 伊藤公」から引用します。
 当時伊藤公は朝鮮の統監であり、木内君は農相工の事務担当をしてをつた。伊藤公は世間でも知る通り「朝鮮は朝鮮人のため」といふ主義で、内地人の朝鮮に入り込むことを喜ばれなかつた。その反対に木内君は日本人をもつと移したい考へであつた。ゆゑにしばしば公に日本人移住の策を献策しても採用にならなかつた
 ところが内地においては桂さんが、しきりに内地人移住を企て、東拓会社を設計されてをり、かつこの議には、我輩も少しく参加したした関係もあるため、木内君がしきりに渡鮮を促したので、我輩は出かけて行つた。
 木内君の注意に「伊藤さんといふ人は、なかなか人のいふことを聞かぬ人で、僕が幾度この問題について献策したか知れんが、いつも頭を振らるゝので、少し君の力を借りたい、明日にも統監を訪問してくれ玉へ、その時は君一人で行く方がよかろう」

引用の補足をいくつか。
「木内君」というのは、農商務省商工局長の木内重四郎のことでしょう。のちに、朝鮮統監府で農商工部長官をつとめた人です。(さらにその後、勅撰の貴族院議員、官選の京都府知事。)
「桂さん」は、首相を3度つとめた桂太郎公爵のことだと思います。で、「東拓」というのは東洋拓殖株式会社ですね。東洋拓殖は、第二次桂内閣の1908年に東洋拓殖株式会社法を根拠として、大韓帝国政府と日韓民間資本の共同出資などにより設立されています。朝鮮半島に土地を買って日本人農民を移住させる、という目的だったようですが、移住が進まず、朝鮮人を小作人として雇用したらしいです。
上記引用で「東拓会社を設計」というから、新渡戸博士が統監府に伊藤公を訪ねたのは、東洋拓殖設立の1908年前後から、伊藤公がハルピンで暗殺される1909年までの間ということになりますね。などと推理遊びをしてないでそろそろ本題に戻ります。

上記の「偉人群像」からの引用に、「ゆゑにしばしば公に日本人移住の策を献策し」とありますが、主語はあいまいで、新渡戸博士自身と読めないこともありません。渡部はそう読んだのでしょうか。(ちなみに引用中「公に」は「おおやけに」ではなくて、「公爵に」のつまり伊藤博文公を指します。この時代の文書や記事では爵位を省略して書く場合があるのがややこしくて、「○○伯爵」を略して「伯」というのはまだいいのだけど、「○○子爵」を略して「○○子」とか、「○○男爵」を略して「○○男」というのは、最初は何かと思いました。おっと、また脱線。)
でも、そのあと木内の発言として「僕が幾度この問題について献策したか知れん」とありますし、となると「献策したが却下された」のは新渡戸博士ではなくて木内重四郎ですよね。東洋拓殖の計画に参加していた新渡戸博士は、木内の朝鮮植民地化策に賛成はしていても、みずから伊藤公に献策したと読むことはできないと思います。

渡部が読み間違えたのでしょうか。
それとも、渡部も「新渡戸自身がこう書いている」と誰かから聞いた伝聞情報だったのか、あるいは何かの孫引きだったのか。
それとも、まだ私が見つけていないだけで、新渡戸自身がそう書いているものがまだどこかにあるのでしょうか。でもこれ以上調べるのはしんどいなぁ。何しろ新渡戸稲造全集は、会社員がヒマを見つけて調べるには量がアレだし。まして新渡戸博士が英文で書いたものの中にあるとしたら、英語アレルギーの私には探せないし。

ということで、私の調査不足の可能性もあるというのに勝手ですが、ここでは『新渡戸稲造が伊藤博文に植民地政策案を出したところ、「これは要らない。日本は朝鮮植民地経営のようなことをやる気はない」と突き返されたと新渡戸自身が書き残してい』るという事実はない(少なくとも確認できない)と結論させてください。(って、誰に許可を求めてるのだろう)

それはそれとして、「偉人群像」を読んだこと自体が私にとって収穫でした。
たとえば、伊藤公が植民地化に反対だったという話は聞いていたけれど、実際に当時を知る新渡戸博士の証言でそれを確認できたこと
つまり、冒頭に引用した渡部の発言中で「伊藤博文は、朝鮮の植民地化を意図していなかった事実」というところについて、当時の日本を代表する国際人であり、日本国の紙幣(5千円札)の肖像にも選ばれ、現代でも教育者としての評価が高く、ついでにキリスト教徒である新渡戸稲造が、『伊藤公は「朝鮮は朝鮮人のため」という主義であった』ということ、しかもそれが当時の日本(内地)では周知のことだったということを、証言しているということです。

さらに、上記引用の続きを紹介しましょう。新渡戸博士の「朝鮮人だけでこの国を開くことが、果して出来ませうか」との問いに対して、伊藤公は次のように答えているのです。
「君朝鮮人はえらいよ、この国の歴史を見ても、その進歩したことは日本より遥以上であつた時代もある。この民族にしてこれしきの国を自ら経営出来ない理由はない。才能においては決してお互に劣ることはないのだ。然るに今日の有様になつたのは、人民が悪いのぢやなくて、政治が悪かつたのだ。国さへ治まれば、人民は量に於ても質に於ても不足はない」

なんか、伊藤博文が「日本の韓国植民地化の親玉」だなんて言ってるのは誰ですか、と小一時間問い詰めたくなります。

ここでちょっと歴史を整理しておきます。
1905年11月、「第二次日韓協約」によって韓国が日本の保護国となる。
1906年2月、韓国統監府が設置され、伊藤公が初代統監として赴任する。
1908年12月、前述の東洋拓殖会社が設立される。
1909年10月、ハルピン駅頭で伊藤公が暗殺される。(ちなみに品川区にある墓所を私が訪ねたときの写真をこちらで公開しています)。
1910年8月、「韓国併合に関する条約」により日韓併合が成立する。同月、朝鮮総督府が設置される。


新渡戸の証言によれば、伊藤公は朝鮮人に対してこの上ない敬意を持っていて、しかも「植民地化すべし」との動きからの防波堤となっていたわけです。
それを安重根が暗殺した結果、その翌年に日韓併合となったわけです。日韓併合を仮に植民地化と呼ぶなら、「安重根が伊藤博文を暗殺したことにより、韓国の植民地化が実現した。安重根は『植民地化に邪魔な伊藤公』を取り除いた、植民地化の功労者だ」ということになるわけですね。
修学旅行などで韓国に行く日本の生徒は、以上の歴史をふまえた上で、事前学習でこの『新渡戸稲造著「偉人群像」第廿七章「伊藤公」』を必読としてほしいです。正直に言うと私自身、このBLOGを書くのにいろいろ調べていて「俺、けっこう勘違いしてたな」ということが少なくありませんでした。
(ちなみに「仮に植民地化と呼ぶなら」というのは、私は日韓併合を「日本による韓国の植民地化」とは考えていないからです。もう少し正確に言うと、キリスト教徒が植民地でやったことに比べたら、日本が韓国や台湾でやったことは恥ずかしくて植民地だなどと自慢できるものではありません。
他の日本人はともかく、日本人キリスト教徒が「日本が韓国を植民地化した」というのは、「歴史上、キリスト教徒が植民地でどんな残虐非道なことをしたか」を「日本がやった程度のこと」にまで印象薄くしようとしているようにしか思えません。)

私は、安重根だけでなくすべての「テロにより自分の信条を表現する者」の手法に反対しますが、安重根の愛国心を否定することはできません。民族のために行動し、母からの「控訴すれば命乞いになる」という手紙によって粛々と死刑判決に服した彼は、少なくとも「この世で大切なのは自分の命だけ」としか言わないし教えない連中よりはるかに、人間として上等だったと思います。
結果的に安重根は、祖国を日本の植民地にしてしまった(少なくともその最後の引き金を引いた)わけですが、それは結果論でしょう。ただ、安重根が生まれてくるのが遅すぎたことを惜しみます。せめて日露戦争前、あるいは日清戦争前に、彼の祖国を保護国にした者に向かってではなく、他国に保護されなければならないような祖国にした者に向かって行動していれば。それが成功していれば

ジャンル:
ウェブログ