2007年07月26日00時06分掲載  無料記事



 首相に就任直後にテロ事件に見舞われた英国のブラウン首相は閣僚に対して、”war on terror”(対テロ戦争)という言葉を使わないように指示した。またテロ事件に関連して”Muslim”(イスラム教徒)という言葉の使用禁止も申し渡した。これに対して保守派のコラムニストのメラニー・フィリップスは、“Britain is now fighting a war it dares not name.”(英国は名前をつける気のない戦争を戦っている)と評した。(鳥居英晴) 
 The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair. 
 “There is clearly a need to strike a consensual tone in relation to all communities across the UK,” the spokesman said. “It is important that the country remains united.” 
 英オブザーバー紙(2006年12月10日)によると、ブラウンの指示以前に英外務省は既に閣僚、外交官に対して”war on terror”という言葉を使わないように要請していた。 
 Cabinet ministers have been told by the Foreign Office to drop the phrase 'war on terror' and other terms seen as liable to anger British Muslims and increase tensions more broadly in the Islamic world. 
 (閣僚は、”war on terror”や英国のイスラム教徒を怒らせたり、イスラム世界でより広く緊張を増すような言葉を使わないように外務省から要請されている) 
 The shift marks a turning point in British political thinking about the strategy against extremism and underlines the growing gulf between the British and American approaches to the continuing problem of radical Islamic militancy. 
 Many senior British politicians and counter-terrorism specialists have always been uneasy with the term 'the war on terror', coined by the White House in the week following the 9/11 attacks, arguing that the term risked inflaming opinions worldwide. Other critics said that it was too 'military' and did not adequately describe the nature of the diverse efforts made to counter the new threat. 
 (英国の多くの有力政治家や対テロ専門家は、9・11テロ後の週にホワイトハウスが造語した”war on terror”という言葉に落ち着かない思いをしてきた。その言葉は世界の世論を扇動する危険があるのだと。その他の批判者は、それが余りに「軍事的」であり、新しい脅威に対抗するためのさまざまな努力を適切に表現していないと主張した) 
 さらに、今年4月にはヒラリー・ベン国際開発相がニューヨークで講演し、英国は“war on terror”という言葉は武装勢力を勇気づけるので使わないと言明した。ガーディアン紙(4月16日)は次のように述べている。 
 In December, the Foreign Office instructed cabinet ministers to stop using the phrase, and sent out advice to UK diplomats around the world that it should be avoided. Despite the advice there are still 154 mentions of the "war on terror" on the Downing Street website. 
 (12月に外務省は閣僚に対し、その言葉を使わないように指示し、世界中の英国の外交官に対して、その言葉を避けるよう勧告した。それにもかかわらず、首相官邸のサイトでは”war on terror”という言葉が154個所も残っている) 
 He said: "In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives. 
 (「英国では、“war on terror”という言葉は使わない。なぜなら、軍事的手段だけでは勝つことができないからであり、はっきりした同一性と一貫した目的を持った、組織化された敵と戦っているわけではないからである」とベンは述べた) 
 He went on: "What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others, without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength. 
 治安担当閣外相に就任したアラン・ウェスト提督は、サンデー・テレグラフ紙(7月9日)とのインタビューで、”war on terror”という言葉を非難するとともに、テロの脅威を終わらせる戦いは15年続くと述べた。 
 He said: "I hate that expression. When I first heard it - I think it came over from the States - I though it was totally the wrong thing. It's not like a war in that sense at all. It demeans the value of a war and it demeans the value of a lot of things. 
 「わたしは”war on terror“という表現が嫌いだ。それを最初に聞いた時―それは米国からきたと思うがーそれはまったく間違っていると思った。その意味において、それは戦争のようなものではない。戦争の価値をおとしめ、多くのものの価値をおとしめる」 
 "I don't like the fact that we talk about 'the Muslim community' and this sort of thing. I have a lot of Muslim friends and they see themselves as British. We've got to be very careful. The threat is to our British way of life and all of our British people." 
 ニューヨーク・タイムズ紙(7月4日)のAlan Cowellは解説記事で次のように述べている。 
 Mr. Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with Mr. Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism. 
 ブラウンは3日、議会で演説し、テロの脅威に対応するためnational security council(国家安全保障会議)の設置を提案した。 
 The creation of a national security council seemed intended to counter a threat from terrorism that he has sought to portray less as a result of perverted Islam -- Mr. Blair's view -- than as a crime that should be addressed holistically. 
 ''I have said for some time that the long and continuing security obligation upon us requires us to coordinate military, policing, intelligence and diplomatic action -- and also to win hearts and minds in this country and around the world,'' Mr. Brown told Parliament. 
 “Let us be clear -- terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religious backgrounds. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected.” 
 デーリー・メール紙のコラムニスト、フィリップスの見方は異なる。USA TODAY紙(7月10日)で、ブラウンの判断は敵を勇気づけるだけであり、間違いであると断じた。フィリップスは『ロンドニスタン』の著者。「ロンドニスタン」とはロンドンをイスラム・テロ組織の温床と見なす見方である。 
 Britain is now fighting a war it dares not name. The recent failed car bomb attacks on a London nightclub and Glasgow airport demonstrated once again that Britain is a principal target for al-Qaeda. But even now, the British response is dangerously confused. 
 Accordingly, in her statement to Parliament about the attacks, the new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, referred to them as "criminal" acts rather than Islamic terrorism and talked about "communities" that are involved rather than Muslims. 
 How can Brown talk about winning a battle of ideas ― when he is not even prepared to name the central idea that is driving the terrorism? 
 This is a disastrous misjudgment, and not merely because a society cannot possibly defend itself against a threat it is not even willing to identify. More seriously still, it means the British government is pandering to the refusal by most British Muslims to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is rooted in their religion and that this is a problem with which they must themselves deal. 
 The Brown government's censorship of language lets them off that crucial hook and, by signaling its own moral and intellectual weakness, emboldens the radicals. 
 Undoubtedly, the latest attacks upon Britain were designed to test the will of the new British prime minister. His censorship of the language, however, was far from the only indication of a disturbing weakening of that will. For he has brought into his government a string of people who were opposed to the Iraq war, thus signaling a distancing from the United States ― and opening up an exceptionally dangerous crack in what should be a staunchly united alliance in time of war. 
 David Rieffはニューヨーク・タイムズ紙(7月22日)で、フィリップスの言説を紹介しながらも、ブラウンを評価する。 
 Brown, it seems, has concluded that the war rhetoric employed by Blair was divisive, threatening social peace between communities in Britain, and counterproductive, making it harder to turn the British Muslim community into the security services' eyes and ears. In other words, the Brown approach would be the approach of serious crime fighters around the world these days - community policing in which mutual trust is the cornerstone of crime prevention. In general, advocates of this approach avoid the rhetoric of war on the presumption that it only alienates the communities out of which criminals spring. 
 By emphasizing the criminality of terrorism, Brown effectively changed the terms (and the temperature) of the British debate: he redefined a world historical threat as a manageable danger. 
 But Brown and other advocates of the terror-as-crime view are not necessarily under any delusions about jihadist thinking. Rather, they maintain that preventing terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of actual human beings - and that declarations of war, including declarations of wars of ideas, are unlikely to be helpful in this regard. 
 Of course, George Bush and Tony Blair thought they were winning hearts and minds by overthrowing Saddam Hussein and at least rhetorically committing themselves to democracy building in the Middle East. Implicitly at least, Brown seems to be saying that this tactic has failed, that the war model has only fueled rage and resentment within precisely those communities whose support is most essential - the Muslim diasporas outside the Islamic world. 
 With Washington practicing one theory of terrorism and London the other, we may find out which one is the more realistic. So far, it seems, Brown has had more success in getting influential Muslim groups to denounce terrorism than Blair did. 

Copyright (C) Berita unless otherwise noted.
  • 日刊ベリタに掲載された記事を転載される場合は、有料・無料を問わず、編集部にご連絡ください。ただし、見出しとリード文につきましてはその限りでありません。
  • 印刷媒体向けの記事配信も行っておりますので、記事を利用したい場合は事務局までご連絡下さい。