SA9 Campaign

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ 0:00 それでは始めましょうか。 いいですよ。準備はできています。 0:08 今日はちょっと寒くて風が強いですが、ご覧のように、桜が満開です。日本では、学校や会社や役所の新年度が4月1日に始まります。その少し前に列島中で卒業式や送別会などがあります。それらとほぼ同じ時期に桜が一斉に開花するので、ご存知と思いますが、桜は、私たち日本人の間では、新しい門出の象徴です。この季節に満開の桜を見ると、私たちは真新しいページがめくられたと感じます。あなたのお国ではどうですか。何かこの季節に特有な、自然の、あるいは社会の風景はありますか。 1:45 そうですね、似たような野外のイベントとして「復活祭」があります。その日の朝は、子どもたちが庭に出て、卵を探します。「イースターバニー」というウサギが生むと伝えられている卵です。今年の復活祭は4月9日で、今日は3月30日ですから、日にちも接近していますし、野外のイベントだということも共通です。日本の人びとが桜の木の下で生活の新しい始まりを楽しんでいる様子は、復活祭に似た感じですね。 2:49 過ぎ去った一年を振り返ると、私はやや暗くならざるをえません。主な理由は、ウクライナの戦争を止めることができなかったということです。誰が犯罪者で誰が犠牲者なのか誰もが知っていたのに、誰ひとり何もできませんでした。毎日、ただ、新しい惨状を見て、死者が着実に増えていくのを聞くしかありませんでした。この状況は今も続き、今後も長く続く見通しです。 3:32 ですから、今年は満開の桜を見ても、例年ほど幸せな気分にはなれません。期待を込めてめくった新しいページが最初から汚れているような気がして・・・今年は戦争がどうなるとお考えですか。もし、戦火が止むとしたら、どのようにしてでしょうか。 4:11 あなたのおっしゃることはその通りです。ウクライナでのロシアの行動は、糾弾されなければなりません。私はプーチン愛好家ではないし、戦争に正当化などあるはずはないと考えています。 4:24 そのうえで言えば、西側の政治家やメディアや平和運動が見過ごしていることがあります。ウクライナの大統領もロシアの大統領も平和のための同じ条件を語っていた、ということです。去年の三月にゼレンスキー大統領はウェブサイトに「ウクライナはすべての近隣諸国および世界の大国とのあいだで集団安全保障協定を結ばなければならない」というタイトルの記事を掲載しています。 5:11 このページは今でも閲覧が可能で、そのなかで、ウクライナは、将来、アメリカ合衆国・フランス・ドイツ・トルコなどの国々およびすべての近隣諸国と集団安全保障協定を結ばなければならず、それはウクライナにとってだけでなく、ロシアにとっても平和の保証になると述べています。 5:31 これはロシアのプーチン大統領の発言と、とても、よく似ています。プーチン大統領も、再三にわたって、新時代的で非ブロック的な集団安全保障機構の設立を求め、ロシアはそれに参加する意思があるという声明を発しています。しかし、私が見るところ、西側のメディアも政治家も平和運動ですら、この事実を承認していませんし、これらの要求に積極的に反応してもいません。 6:15 私は、この案件に正面から向き合えば停戦は可能なのではないかと思います。そうでなければ、ほかに見込みはなく、むしろ戦争は長引き、今よりもっと危険なものになりかねません。それらはとても重要な条件です。ぜひとも討議されなければなりません。 6:46 今のあなたのコメントで、今日の次の話題に移りやすくなりました。次の話題というのは、ウクライナ戦争の後の世界秩序についてです。私たちは国連にちゃんと仕事してほしいと願っています。それが（平和の）必要条件であろうと、強く信じています。 7:13 基本に戻らせてください。国連憲章の24条は次のようになっています。 「国際連合の迅速かつ有効な行動を確保するために、国際連合加盟国は、国際の平和および安全の維持に関する主要な責任を安全保障理事会に負わせるものとし、かつ、安全保障理事会がこの責任に基づく義務を果たすにあたって加盟国に代わって行動することに同意する」 8:00 この文章を素直に読むなら、各国は、かりに「自国の」平和と安全であっても、それを維持する責任を安全保障理事会に負わせなければならない、と読めます。つまり、すべての加盟国は、安全保障理事会の意思決定と国連警察の活動に余地を与えるために自国の主権を制限しなければならず、国家安全保障にかかわる主権の一部を議会での立法行動を通じて安全保障理事会に移譲しなければならない、ということです。 9:27 ところが、最近、あなたの研究論文を読んでみて、国連憲章24条についてのこうした解釈は、私が長いあいだ思っていたほど自明でも自然でもないことを知らされました。24条には異なる二つの解釈があるということですね？ 詳しく説明していただけますか。 10:13 私も、あなたと同じように、何年も、何十年も、この条文は誰が読んでもそうとしか思えないような意味に読まれるべきだと考えてきました。法的な文章を解釈するにはいくつか規則があります。法令解釈法というもので、語句の選び方や、書かれた目的や歴史的文脈に注意を払わなければなりません。三つか四つかそれ以上の基準を国連憲章のこの条文の当てはめたところ、やはり、とても理解しやすいことが書かれていると考えざるを得ませんでした。基本的に、国連加盟国は、自国の安全保障主権を安保理事会に移譲しなければならないのです。 11:09 おしゃるように、私は、最近、研究の幅を広げました。憲章24条についての私たちの理解は、或る種の「常識的」理解と言ってよいものですが、そうした理解が本当に真実であるのかどうか、その理解は検証されうるのか、という問いが頭をもたげたからです。そこで、1985年にフランスで出版された国連憲章注釈集の24条の注釈を調べてみました。 11:37 私たちが考えていたことと完全に合致していました。フランス解釈は、国連加盟国の安保理事会への文字通りの権限移譲が必要であると考えています。こうした解釈は1946年に制定された、この国の第4共和政憲法とも整合的です。この憲法は、国連を強化するという目的で、フランスが、相互性の条件のもとで、国際機関と平和の防衛のために必要な国家主権の制限に同意すべきことを定めています。ここで言われている国際機関とはあきらかに国連を指しているわけです。 12:28 フランス解釈は、日本国憲法の9条とも整合的です。9条も、「正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和」を達成する目的で国家主権を制限しているからです。とてもよく似ています。実際、思うに、これらふたつの憲法は国家主権の制限に、すでに、原則的に同意している憲法です。素晴らしいことです。ところが、その5年後の1990年にドイツで出版された国連憲章注釈集の24条についての注釈はフランス式の読解とは正反対の見解を示しています。 13:10 当時は、新しい世界秩序を引き寄せる可能性と大きな希望がありました。ジョージ・W・ブッシュが、従来と違う世界の可能性を示唆し「1945年以後、国連を国際的な集団安全保障の中核として活用する現実的な可能性が今ほど近づいたことはない」と言っていたほどです。ちょうど冷戦が終結し、ドイツが再統一され、世界平和のための主導的役割を果たす絶好の機会が訪れていました。実行していれば成功したでしょう。 13:58 当時の私は世界連邦会議の西ドイツ支部の議長で、ドイツの政党や政治家とやり取りがありましたが、真の集団安全保障と軍縮に向かう過渡期を開始するため、国家の諸権限を国連に移譲することに原則的に同意するという声が社会民主党やリベラル陣営やキリスト教民主同盟の一部からもありました。 14:41 しかし、ドイツの国連憲章注釈集は、1985年のフランス注釈集を実際に参照しながら、もし、法令分析の手法を厳密に当てはめるなら、フランス人が提出しているような解釈は支持されない、したがって、憲章の24条のもとで各国が立法行動をとる必要はない、と述べているのです。 ※この翻訳の続きはSA9Campaign HPでお読みいただけます。 SA9Campaigun HP　「桜の樹の下で戦争と平和を語る」 https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3/複製-ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻 ＃戦争　＃平和　＃市民活動　＃ウクライナ　＃ロシア　＃SA9 #桜　#United Nations Charter ＃Article 9 of the Constitution　＃Russia　＃Ukraine　＃collective security agreement 35:20 雷くん 15:10 15:43 16:03 16:48 18:01 18:29 18:49 19:42 20:33 21:19 22:23 22:44 23:16 23:35 24:03 24:48 25:37 26:11 26:36 27:16 27:25 28:58 30:08 30:41 31:19 32:18 33:05 34:02 34:28 35:06 35:59 36:15

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ 2023/3/30

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 It is February 28 today; 5 days have passed since the Russian Army crossed the border and invaded Ukraine. The situation changes rapidly every day and almost unforseeable but I would like to hear your observation on this war as of today. Q1 (0:38)How did you feel when you first heard of the invasion on February 24? A1 (0:50)Yes, of course, I was very shocked and I thought the war unleashed by Russia is no way justifiable. Of course also the wars which the US Administraions fought in Irak, Libya and Afganistan are not justifiable but we don’t want to compare and no war today, I believe, is justifiable. But what have our politicians done to outlaw and abolish war? That is my question. Q2 (1:30)Putin alleges that NATO’s eastward expansion obliged Russia to begin this war. What do you think of this allegation? A2 (1:47)Yes, there has been a promise after the end of Cold War by German Foreign Minister Genscher and by American Secretary of State Baker and so on that NATO’s expansion was not intended but this has been always said to be a verbal thing which we should not give toomuch importance to but actually recently the German magazine Der Spiegel came out with some evidence, a lot of written evidence that these promises have been made actually. Q3 (2:30)Russia is one of the 5 Permenent Members of the Security Council of the United Nations. And the Security Council is primarily responsible for peace and security of the world. Do you think that Russia will be able to assume that responsibility as ever? A3 (3:02)I think so. And the reason why I think so is that Putin has, on several occasions, urged Western nations to take a look at the aim of the United Nations Charter, that is, to establish a genuine system of collective security that would be bloc-free but, to this request by Putin and by the Russians, there has been no response actually, which makes me wonder why but that would been a different matter and we will have to go into it. But because of this I think Russia has a serious and sincere interest in global security structure. Q4 (3:52)What lessons do you think Japanese people and government should learn from this event? A4 (4:12)Well, I think the lesson for Japan to be learned is that it is important not to forget the original purpose not only of the UN Charter but of the Japanese Constitution, that is, to try and achieve an international peace based on justice and order and Japan should stress this point that this should be the goal and not forget about the purpose of Article 9 and pressurethe Europeans, perhaps. Japan could pressure the Europeans to take legislative action to achieve this end. Q5 (4:55)We are not sure how long it will take for this war to come to end. But once it ends, what kind of  global framework of peace and security we should lay out so that such war will never happen again? A5(5:26)This is something we have to seriouly think about. And a question I ask myself is: do we now have to abandon our basic assumption of our SA9 Camapaign which states without a genuine UN system of collective security there will be no disarmament and without disarmament there will be no peace. Do we have to accept that the future world order will be one of military forces competing with each other and the military order, not a genuine peace prder which the United Nations Charter originally was aiming at. 今日は2月28日で、ロシアによるウクライナ侵攻から5日が経過します。状況は目まぐるしく変わって予断を許しませんが、これまでのところでこの戦争についてどのようにお考えかをお聞きします。 Q1 2月24日に侵攻の第一報をお聞きになったときは何を感じましたか? A1  大変ショックでした。ロシアが引き起こしたこの戦争にまったく正当化の余地はないと思いました。もちろん、アメリカの政権がイラクやリビアやアフガニスタンで仕掛けた戦争も正当化できませんが、比較はしたくありません。今日において正当化できる戦争などひとつもないと思いますから。しかし、戦争を違法化し廃絶するために私たちの政治家たちは何をしてきたでしょうか。それが疑問です。 Q2  プーチンはNATOの東方拡大によってロシアは今回の戦争を余儀なくされたと主張していますが、その点についてどのようにお考えですか? A2  たしかに、冷戦終結後に、NATOは東方に拡大させないという約束がドイツの外相ゲンシャーやアメリカの国務大臣ベイカーなどのあいだでありました。しかし、ただの口約束だからあまり重要視すべきでないと、つねづね、言われてきたのです。ところが、最近、ドイツの雑誌「シュピーゲル」は、こうした約束が実際に結ばれたという、文書ベースの証拠がたくさんあることを伝えています。 Q3  ロシアは世界の平和と安全に主要な責任を有する国連安全保障理事会の常任理事国のひとつです。ロシアはこれからもその責任を果たせると思いますか? A3  果たせると思います。なぜなら、プーチンは、今までも、機会あるごとに、西側諸国に対して国連憲章のねらいを確認するように促しているからです。そのねらいとは非ブロック的な真の集団安全保障体制の確立です。しかし、そうしたプーチンとロシア国民の要求は西側諸国から無視されています。私はなぜなのだろうと思います。これは別の問題でしょうから、いまのところは論じませんが、とにかく、そうした理由から、私はロシアが全世界的な安全保障構造について真剣かつ真摯な関心をいだいていると思うのです。 Q4 日本国民と日本国政府は今回の出来事からどのような教訓を引き出すべきだと考えますか? A4 教訓ですか。私が思うに、国連憲章だけでなく日本国憲法の成立時の目的を忘れないことが重要です。「正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和」の実現につとめるというのがその目的で、その点を日本は強調すべきです。また、9条の目的を思い起こして、それを欧州人に強く訴えることが重要です。日本は、この目的を実現するための立法行動をとるように欧州人に圧力をかけてもよいくらいです。 Q5  今回の戦争が終わるのにどのくらいの時間がかかるか、今のところ見通せませんが、その時が来たら、二度とこうした戦争が起きないように、どのような平和と安全の仕組みを設けるべきでしょうか？ A5  それを私たちは真剣に考えなければならない。真の集団安全保障体制がなければ軍縮はなく、軍縮がなければ平和はありません。そうした私たちSA9キャンペーンの基本仮説を、いま、見捨てなければならないのでしょうか。未来の世界秩序は、国連憲章が成立時に目指していた真の平和的秩序ではなく、たがいに競争し合う軍事力の秩序であり軍事的秩序であることを受け容れなければならないのでしょうか。それを私は自分に問いかけています。 #SA9Campaign #日本国憲法第9条＃Klaus Schlichtmann #ウクライナ#国連憲章 #Peace

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ 0:38 Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.　Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. The key words used here are all in the negative. Non-reliance on war, non-possession of armed forces, non-recognition of the state’s right of belligerency... we witness the misery, brutalities and absurdity of wars, civil war and terrorism that are still ongoing in many parts of the world. To be able to confront those evils, we must adopt a very decisive denial of war and the army. Nothing Is more suitable for that role than Article 9. That is why we ask the international community to adopt a resolution in support of (seconding) Article 9 in the UN General Assembly. The ultimate goal of our campaign is to realize and establish a genuine System of Collective Security as stipulated in the UN Charter. 2:22 For our project to be successful, we want to apply a new, in-depth interpretation of Article 9 to facilitate its dissemination and worldwide acceptance. Here is a summary of our reinterpretation. Article 9 starts with:“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order”.This justice corresponds no doubt to the international law of the UN Charter,and this order is the order secured by an international organization which makes the justice truly effective.These words can be said to constitute a huge affirmative balanced with the following three negatives. As to so-called non-possession of armed forces: these armed forces include the ones by which individual nations protect their own nations.Therefore this provision is meant to level the ground toward the establishment of a genuine International Police which "protect all nations by all nations." As to non-recognition of the state’s right of belligerency: this right is interpreted as having as its destination the Security Council of the UN, which can engage in peace-keeping operations.In other words, this provision aims at the limitation of national sovereignty in order for the UNSC to become the ultimate responsible for maintaining international peace and security. We want to stimulate discussions about the validity and effectiveness of this interpretation of ours among citizens and experts.We want to use YouTube videos like this one as a tool to promote the purpose of our Campaign from now on.Our idea may sound arbitrary and capricious.The historical evidence suggests that this was precisely what Kijuro Shidehara had in mind 75 years ago. #国連憲章 ＃United Nations Charter　＃SA9Campaign ＃Article 9 ＃ the Japanese Constitution　＃Kijuro Shidehara　#Peace

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.　Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. Astonishing, isn’t it? This is the only provision of the Japanese Constitution that states the basics of national security! The key words used here are all in the negative. Non-reliance on war, non-possession of armed forces, non-recognition of the state’s right of belligerency... Article 9 orders Japanese political leaders not to do something instead of ordering them what to do. So it is quite natural that MacArthur was surprised when Kijuro Shidehara first proposed to him to put those provisions in the new Constitution on January 24, 1946. And, more importantly, the next moment MacArthur embraced his proposition enthusiastically. The Japanese people also approved the new Constitution and its Article 9 by an overwhelming majority. 　 Probably because in this article, in the year of 1945, the sincerest wish of not only the Japanese people but the whole of humankind burst forth in the purest form: the wish to never repeat war. Common sense suggests: the more idealistic a political idea is, the more difficult it becomes to realize it. But such is not the case with Article 9. Article 9 was adopted because it was the most idealistic. It was so idealistic that no one could object to. It is because Article 9 is an ideal coming into existence that we routinely repeat Article 9, article 9... like a mantra. Of course we think so. As is often said, no Japanese has been killed and no Japanese has killed any foreigner in battlefield since the end of WWII. This period is the period that started when Article 9 came to exist in our Constitution. But, on the other hand, it is also the periode that coincides with the period when the Self-Defense Forces and US Military authorized by the Japan-US Security Treaty exist in our country. It is a question which of the two has more substantially contributed to maintaining peace.Still we think it is undeniable fact that Article 9 has always directed political leaders to make restrictive uses of those war potentials. The Self-Defense Forces have not been allowed to hold aircraft carriers, bombers, long/medium -range missiles and prohibited from deployment overseas or acting on the right of collective self defense. Those policies have enabled the state to reduce the military expenditure so as to boost economic growth and free individuals from the draft to leave them larger chances of self-fulfillment And they have also brought about friendly relations, particularly with Asian countries. #国連憲章 ＃SA9Campaign ＃Article 9 ＃ the Japanese Constitution　＃Kijuro Shidehara　#Peace

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ What is Article 9 ? (2) 0:39 At the end of the Part I, you talked about benefits given by Article 9 to postwar Japan: There is another important benefit that A9 has provided postwar Japan. Japan was a perpetrator and a defeated country in the last World War. This is the worst pattern of experiencing war. All the virtues barely recognized in the war and the army -brotherhood and self-sacrifice- were shattered, leaving only memories of misery, barbarism and absurdity. 2:52 Article 9 has unified the postwar Japanese through embracing their injured hearts softly... The way we look at war and the military is completely different from that of Americans’ who finished the WWII as a winner and liberator. Article 9, especially by its intransigency, has been close to the national sentiment which hates war and detests the military. In a sense, Article 9 has fulfilled the function of uniting the hearts of the people and uniting the people for 75 years, taking a position against war. 3:29 As it is 75 years after the end of the war, those who directly remember the war are almost over 80 years old... However, it may be that A9 plays that role only as long as the generations who have known the war directly or indirectly is still alive. What will A9 mean when that generation is completely gone from this country in the near future? 4:07 What do you think we should do when the erosion of Article 9 is aggravated further? Even now, what we called the intransigency of A9 is becoming difficult for the younger generation to understand. I think that "the erosion of Article 9", as it is sometimes called, will continue to be aggravated further 4:43 It sounds very interesting to globalize or internationalize Article 9. It means to make the world acknowledge the value of Article 9, doesn’t it? until in the end we will have only one chance left: either we will revise A9 to replace it with so-called realistic and effective principles of national security which are more suitable to today's international environment, or conversely, we globalize A9 and get it recognized as a principle to achieve perpetual peace and comprehensive world disarmament. As for now, politicians leave the people no choice but to either accept or block revising A9. Since the Government and the Parliament themselves are not willing to propose the option of globalising A9, civil society has to assume that role. Even though the memories of the wartime experience that supported Article 9 has faded among Japanese, we witness the misery, brutalities and absurdity of wars, civil war and terrorism that are still ongoing in many parts of the world. To be able to confront those evils, we must adopt a very decisive denial of war and the army. Nothing is more suitable for that role than Article 9. That is why we ask the international community to adopt a resolution in support of (seconding) Article 9 in the UN General Assembly. Of course, that's just the beginning. The ultimate goal of our campaign is to realize and establish a genuine System of Collective Security as stipulated in the UN Charter. ＃国連憲章　＃日本国憲法　＃９条　＃世界平和 #Peace

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ Now I will ask you, Chief Secretary Mr. Abe, two questions. What is the ultimate goal to be achieved by SA9 Campaign? And, I hear that you were so deeply impressed with the thoughts of Mr. Schlichtmann that you decided to set up this campaign to support him. What in his thoughts impressed you most?   As for your first question, our ultimate goal is to make realize the system of the Collective Security provided in the UN Charter. By the system of the Collective Security, I mean the one in which all the nations defend all the nations, instead of defending their own nations by their own might.   And as for Mr. Schlichtmann, it is not me who, in fact, discovered Klaus Schlichtmann. 大森美紀彦さんという方です。 It is another person whose name is Mr. Mikihiko Omori. He had discovered Mr. Schlichtmann and set up SA9 Campaign. The first Chief Secretary is, therefore, Mr. Omori   And I succeeded to it. To tell the truth, he passed away last year at the age of 67. The widow, taking over the will of the deceased, continues to do public relations for us on Facebook and so on, but has not been in good shape and stayed away from the steering meetings. Back to your question, the best thing I have learned from Mr. Schlichtmann is the link between the  UN Charter and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Until I met him, I had never thought of that and nobody else had taught me that. In particular, Clause 2 of Article 9, non-maintenance of armed forces and non-recognition of the state’s right of belligerency, is the only gateway to the system of Collective Security. Japan passed through that gateway over 70 years ago. We, therefore, want other countries to do the same thing as well. That is what SA9Campaign is about.   Next, I will ask Klaus. 私たちの国にはどのような目的でおいでになったのですか。 what purpose did you come to Japan for?   Yes, I was born in Hamburg toward the end of the war.   おっしゃる通り、わたしは第2次大戦末期にハンブルクで生まれました。 And I studied at Kiel University. そしてキール大学で学び and I came to Japan on the scholarship 奨学金を得て（1992年に）来日しました。 to do research on the Japanese politician, parliamentarian, diplomat and post World War II prime minister Shidehara Kijuro and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. 政治家・議会人・外交官であり第2次大戦後の首相だった 幣原喜重郎と日本国憲法第9条を研究するためです。 And I finished my phD, doctorate here in Tokyo. 博士論文は東京で書き上げました。 My university, however, is Kiel University in Germany. 論文審査はドイツのキール大学から受けましたが。 And for a long time I have been thinking that Article 9 should be followed up by other nations. わたしは、これまで長いあいだ第9条がほかの国々によって追随されるべきだと考えてきました。 Ideally this other nation would be Germany, but any other nation could follow up ほかの国とは、理想的には、ドイツでしょうが、しかしドイツ以外のどこの国でも追随することはできますし、 and make a case in the United Nations General Assembly どこの国でも国連総会で同条への支持を訴えることもできます。 to raise the issue of abolishing war which is the aim of Article 9. そうすれば、第9条の狙いである戦争の廃棄を議案として提出することになります。 If you remember or some people know ご存知の方もおられるでしょうが、 that the original MacArthur note which is the first draft of Article 9 states that war as a sovereign right of the nation is abolished. 9条の原案であったマッカーサー・ノートの自筆原稿には「国家主権としての戦争は廃棄される」という文言があります。 This was the MacArthur note of February 3 これが記されたのは1946年2月3日のことです。 and Shidehara Kijuro had suggested this renunciation of war on 24 January 1946 when he visited MacArthur and had 2 and half hours session, conference. この戦争放棄という条文は1月24日に幣原喜重郎がマッカーサーを訪ね、二時間半ほど話し合ったときに、幣原からマッカーサーへ提案されたものです。 And MacArthur enthusiastically took up the issue and out of it came MacArthur note and Article 9, which aimed at the abolishing of war. マッカーサーはこの案件を熱狂して取り上げ、そこからマッカーサー・ノートが生まれ、戦争の廃棄を狙いとする第9条が生まれました。 Our Campaign, we want to make this issue to be addressed in the United Nations General Assembly. わたしたちのキャンペーンは、今度は、国連総会でこの案件を取り上げてほしいと思っているのです。

SA9Campaign HP https://sa9campaignhidaka.wixsite.com/website-3 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBdJGfzL-FQdarktPY8CA7Q 制作　NPO法人奥武蔵ピースラボHP https://peacefestival123.wixsite.com/-site-1 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3sU8JCCajxQfZM-vfppMQ Q. Mr.Biden won at last. How dou you feel about this result? A. Much relieved. When, at the first phase, the media transmitted Mr.Trump’s advantage in some states, I was feared to death as if something horrible were going to happen. Q. Could you specify that feeling of yours a little more? A. Before the election started, Mr.Trump said: if I should lose, that will be brought about by a fraudulent vote. He denied the possibility of his losing based on a fair vote. What he said is virtually equivalent to saying: I will not step down even if defeated. And true to his words, he has not conceded defeat yet. As long as the majority principle favors him, he takes advantage of it but if not, he thinks little of it. That has been a basic stance of Mr. Trump’s both before and after the election. Q. But, in reality, more than 70 million people voted for him, didn’t they? A. Exactly. And that is why, during this period, I didn’t feel so much anger or complaint as anxiety or fear. I have been thinking of my inner common sense as being exposed to a serious challenge. Q. Inner common sense? What is it? Majority principle? A. Yes, in a sense. But there should be another principle working among members of the political community, which assures the majority principle from the depth: to obey to the decisions made by the majority vote. That contract, which J.-J. Rousseau called “volonté générale (general will)”, ought to have been made not by the majority but by the unanimity. The democratic society is ultimately supported by that will. Such has been my inner common sense. Q. And it narrowly escaped the challenge... A. Yes, narrowly. Q. What would you like to say to the people who voted for Mr.Trump? A. I can’t say in a word, because there must have been a large variety of motives by which they voted for him. But, at least I would like to say: the game called democracy can only be played based on its rules. When the rules were ignored, the game itself would be destroyed. Q. I hear that you wrote to Mr.Biden. A. We did. To tell the truth, we were so delighted with his victory that we could not help writing it on the instance. In particular, we commended him to have long addressed the climate change and, as well, to have set up the team to tackle the Covid-19 immediately after he won the election. Both of the two issues, climate change and pandemic, are the threats to humanity overpassing the borders of individual countries and their individual citizens. His early remarks on them permits us to predict the universalistic approach of the upcoming administration. We, in the letter, remarked that the war and armes race is another threat to humanity, which is ancient as well as very actual. And we introduced ourselves as a Japanese civic movement which aims at realising genuine Collective Security system by using Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution as a spearhead. Q. Have you received any reply? A. Not as for now. We sent it to his home in Willmington because we heard that, even if sent to the White House, every message to the president elect will be blocked by the present staff. It is quite probable that it has been lost in the mound of the cards ane letters from individuals and organizations worldwide similar to ours. We have usually sent a tremendous amount of letters to ambassadors, foreign ministers and UN missions but received scarecely any answers. That is the way it is. So we we are not so disappointed with not receiving the answer but very eager to hear it by chance.