クリントン大統領が来日してTBS主催？のアメリカ流に言えばTown Hall
meeting、要するに質問会が開かれました。
　ここではそのやり取りの記録の英語版、ホワイトハウス提供のものの中から、
安全保障問題に関するやり取りだけを抜粋します。もちろん経済の問題（質問
の多くはこれでした）も重要なのですが、あまりに長く、散漫になるのでここ
では省略。
　私は放映のほんの一部を見ただけなのですが、この英語の記録は、質問者
（日本人、日本語と英語による質問）の言葉もクリちゃんの答えも、かなり整
理して、ということは省略（言い淀みなどを）して、読むに耐えるようにして
書いてあります。英訳部分は、TBSの通訳とは独立にホワイトハウスの広報が
訳したものです。
　この原文の全文を見たい方は、
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/
1998/11/19/4.text.1
で手に入れてください。
 

　以下は引用部分の大意。
Q（筑紫キャスター）：ここで話題をかえて日米関係の話をしましょう。私た
ちは日本中から４０００の質問を受け取っています。一番多かったのは沖縄問
題、沖縄の米軍基地問題です。日米ともに独立国なんですが、一方の国だけが
他方の国に軍隊を置いている。これは両国にとっていいことだと思われます
か？
A（大統領）：まず第一に言いたいのは、沖縄への米軍駐留で両国関係にもあ
る種の困難があった。いくつかのものは避け難いもので、我々の駐留が沖縄の
行政と民衆に引き起こした困難に私は留意しています。
　一方で、日米両政府の関係は良好で、また在日米軍が日本や米国の同盟国を
守るために出動する事態がないとは言えない。だから我々がグアムやハワイま
で戦力を後退させてしまうと、北東アジア事態に駆けつけるのにもっと時間が
かかってしまう。
　だから問題は、まだしばらく我々が駐留を続ける必要があるとすると、どう
やって沖縄の人の負担を少なくできるかということで、この点が私の関心事で
す。日本政府とともに、私は沖縄の人の負担を軽くし続けることができると思
っています。
Q（一般参加者）：そのこととも関連するんですけど、新しい日米ガイドライ
ンは日本がアメリカの戦争に巻き込まれる危険があると思うんですけど。
A:私たちの駐留の目的は戦争を起こさないことです。これまで今世紀にアジア
では多くの戦争がありましたが、最近ではアジアの国は経済や教育に力を注ぐ
ようになっています。
　私の願いは、アメリカ軍の駐留が戦争を抑止し、戦争が考えられないものに
なることです。それが我が国の軍事戦略全体の目的なのです。[イラクへの１
万人死亡予測の大規模爆撃はどうなのさ−引用者の余計な突っ込みでした]

Q：私は主婦でNGOのメンバーです。対人地雷廃止キャンペーンに携わってきま
した。アメリカは対人地雷禁止条約に署名していませんね。アメリカのこの問
題での政策をお聞かせください。
A：最初に言っておきたいのは私は対人地雷廃止に賛成です。署名していない
のには訳があります。その条約の表現が、対戦車地雷は禁止せずに対人地雷だ
けを禁止しているのはおかしいということです。
　第２に、ご存じのように米軍は朝鮮半島で韓国を防衛する国連の義務を負っ
ています。ここの軍事境界線には世界で唯一多くの地雷を敷設しています。そ
れがソウルを北朝鮮から守る唯一の手段だからです。その代替策が見つかれば、
私たちは対人地雷禁止条約に署名するでしょうけど。
　地雷禁止を世界の指導者として最初に訴えたのは私ですよ。これまで２００
万個の地雷を破壊しました。この条約の目標は支持しています。あなたが地雷
禁止に努力しておられることには感謝します。

Q（筑紫）：一般の参加者の方には聞きにくい質問を私からしましょう。あな
たは世界を５回以上破壊できるボタンをお持ちだ。あなたは広島と長崎で何が
起こったかご存じですか？あなたは被爆者と個人的に接触されたことはありま
すか？
A：いいえ。でも私はそれについてたくさん読んできました。大統領選に出馬
しようと決心したとき、以前にも増して考えるようになりました。
　大統領就任以来、私はロシアとともに核弾頭の削減(START II)に努力してき
ました。我が国はCTBTに署名した最初の国です。私はインドとパキスタンに核
軍拡競争をやらないように訴えてきました。それは新たな核兵器が投下される
のを見たくないからです。
　一方で、この５０年を見ると一度も更なる核兵器は使用されませんでした。
それは抑止論のおかげだと思います。だから私は核兵器の削減を望んでいるの
ですが、それは必ず他の誰かが核兵器を使うような気持ちを起こさせない方法
でやらないといけません。

Q（一般参加者）：イラクを攻撃しないことに決められたようですが、１万人
以上の死者が出ると見積もりが・・・（聞き取れない）
A：まず最初に、ペンタゴンの見積もりはそんなに多くない[ん？？この「見積
もり」を伝えるワシントンポストの記事があります。希望の方にはメールで送
ります-青木]。しかしとにかく大量破壊兵器に向けられた広範な攻撃を行って
いたとしたら、多くの人が死んだであろうことは明らかです。私はアメリカが
軍事力の点で、歴史のこの段階では非常に注意深くないといけない義務を負っ
ていると思います。
　それが私がサダムが国連決議を守なら攻撃しないと言ってきた理由なのです。
攻撃直前にイラクの書簡を目にして、１日中検討して、平和的に解決しようと
決意しました。今はその決定に満足しています。
　第２に、日本の皆さんが忘れてならないのは、皆さんはサリン攻撃を実際に
経験した。しかもイラクは実際に自国民、イランに対して化学兵器を使った国
なのです。生物兵器や核兵器も開発しようとしている。
　これは世界にとって重要な問題なのです。だから世界が私たちが取っている
攻撃的なスタンスを支持するよう望みます。
　日本はこれまで原爆の恐るべき影の中で暮らしてきた。しかしあなたの生き
ている時代、子供たちの時代には、化学生物兵器が、ならず者国家だけでなく
テロリストの手に渡ることはあり得ることなのです。それを食い止めるために
は、軍事行動も必要なのです。
 

−−−−−以下抜粋−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
　
                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                     Office of the Press Secretary
                             (Tokyo, Japan)
______________________________________________________________________
__
For Immediate Release                                  November 19,
1998
 
 

                        REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                IN "A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON"
 
                       Tokyo Broadcasting Systems
                              Tokyo, Japan
 

 5:37 P.M. (L)
 

   MR. CHIKUSHI:   Thank you very much.  We'll go back to you, our
viewers in Osaka.  Let's change the topic now.  Now our bilateral
relationship is the most important of all.  Bilateral relationships --
let's talk about U.S.-Japan relationship.  We collected about 4,000
questions from all over Japan and the most popular questions were
regarding Okinawa, American base issue of Okinawa.

   There are two independent countries, allies, but one country has
   the
military presence in another country for a long time in such a large
scale.  Is it good for our relationship -- isn't it going to be a
thorn
of one side, so to speak?  How do you feel about that, Mr. President?

   THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I think there have been,
obviously, some difficulties in the relationship in our military
presence in Okinawa.  Some of them I think are inevitable and I'm very
respectful of the challenges that our presence has caused the
government
and the people on Okinawa.

   On the other hand, both the government of Japan and the government
   of
the United States agree that our security partnership is a good one
and
that we cannot say with confidence that there are no circumstances
under
which American forces would ever be called upon to defend Japan or our
common allies.  And if we were to move our forces back to Guam or to
Hawaii, it would take them much, much longer to come anywhere in the
northeast Asia area if there were difficulties.

   So the question is, if we do need to be here for some period of
years, how can we do it in the way that is least burdensome to the
people of Okinawa.  That has been my concern.  I have worked now with
Prime Minister Obuchi's government and with predecessor governments to
try to be responsive to that.  And I hope we can do that.  I hope we
can
continue to ease the burden on the people of Okinawa, but stay as long
as both Japan and the United States agree that is wise for us to stay.

   Q Related to the previous question, the new guidelines have been
developed, and Japan, of course, is not supposed to go into war.  But
once the United States gets into the war situation, I'm afraid that
Japan might be sort of pulled into that also, and I've been concerned.
Can you comment on that?

   THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Of course, our strategy is to maintain a
presence in the world so that there will be no war, so that there is a
strong disincentive for anyone to drag anyone back into a war.  There
have been so many wars in Asia in this century, but in the last two to
three decades, there has been an increased emphasis in the Asian
countries on working on the economy, working on the society, working
on
the education of children, working on trade and other relations with
people instead of military relations.

   And my hope is that America's military strength will be used to
   deter
any further military action so that we will have more peace, and in
the
decades ahead, war will become more and more unthinkable for everyone.
That is what the whole defensive military strategy of our country is
designed to do.
 

   Q I work for a nongovernment organization.  I'm a housewife.  Mr.
President, there is a book, "Give Us Not Land Mines, But Flowers."
You
autographed this.  Do you remember it?  Thank you.  We have been
engaged
in the campaign to get rid of land mines, and we have signed the
treaty
to completely get rid of land mines.  You have not signed that.  Why
is
that?  What is your policy on land mines?

   THE PRESIDENT:  First of all, my policy is to support getting rid
   of
them, and there is a reason that we have not signed the treaty.  I
would
like to explain why.  Number one, the way the treaty is written, the
mines that countries use to protect their soldiers against tanks --
so-called anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines -- are protected,
except ours, because of the way the wording of the treaty is.  And we
pleaded with the people in Oslo not to do this, but they did.  They
basically wrote out -- and they knew exactly what they were doing.
Why
they did it, I don't know.  But they basically said that other
countries, the way they designed their anti-tank mines was protected;
the way we do isn't.

   The second issue is, the United States has, as all of you know very
well, a United Nations responsibility in Korea.  The border, the DMZ,
is
18 miles from Seoul.  So there is one place in the world where we have
lots of land mines, because it's the only way to protect Seoul from
all
the North Korean army should they mass along the border.  It is
heavily
marked.  As far as we know, no civilian has ever been hurt there.  All
we asked for was the opportunity to find a substitute for the
protection
the land mines give the people of South Korea, and we would sign it.

   Let me assure you all, I was the first world leader to call for a
   ban
on land mines.  We have destroyed almost 2 million land mines.  We
spend
over half of the money the world spends helping other countries dig up
their mines.  So I strongly support the goals of the treaty and I will
continue to do so.  I hope if we can resolve these two problems we can
sign the treaty, because I have spent a lot of my personal time on
this
land mine issue and it's very important.  And I thank you for what
you're doing.  Thank you.

   MR. CHIKUSHI:  Time is running short, so we turn our attention to
   the
future.  Something that is difficult for the people in the audience to
ask, so I will do it.  You have the button to destroy mankind five
times
over with your nuclear weapons.  How much do you know about what
really
happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?  Have you had any personal
experience of getting in touch with the victims?  And on that basis,
you
still continue to own, possess nuclear weapons.

   THE PRESIDENT:  No, I have never had any personal contact with
victims, but I have read a great deal about it.  After I decided to
run
for President I began to think about it much more than I ever had
before.

   Since I have been President I have worked hard to reduce the number
of weapons in our nuclear arsenal, along with the Russians; to extend
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  We were the first country to
sign
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  We are hoping that our
friends in Russia will ratify the START II Convention so we can
immediately start on the next round of nuclear weapons reductions.

   So I have done everything I could do to reduce the number of
   nuclear
weapons and the threat of nuclear war.  I have implored the people of
India and Pakistan not to start a nuclear buildup with each other,
because I never want to see another weapon dropped.

   On the other hand, if you look at the last 50 years, nuclear
   weapons
have not been used a second time I think because of the deterrent
theory.  And what I want to do is to reduce our weapons, but always do
it in a way that at least provides some disincentive from someone else
using nuclear weapons, as well.
 

   Q I have a question about -- you decided not to attack Iraq --
estimate by the Pentagon that more than 10,000 people would die --
(inaudible.)

   THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, the Pentagon estimate was not
that high, but it's obvious that if we had conducted a comprehensive
attack directed at their weapons of mass destruction program, the
production capacity, the laboratories, all the supporting sites and
the
military infrastructure that supports it, that unless everyone knew in
advance and left the premises, large numbers of people would be
killed.
And I believe the United States has a special responsibility, because
of
the unique position of our military might, at this moment in history
to
be very careful in that.
 
    Now, that's why I always said if Saddam Hussein would comply with
the United Nations resolutions, we would not attack.  Shortly before
the
attack was about to begin, we received word that they were going to
send
a letter committing to compliance.  Then we worked all day to try to
clarify it, and I think it was a good thing to try to solve this
peacefully.  Peace is always better than war, if you can do it
consistent with the long-term security and freedom of the people.  So
I
feel good about that.

   Secondly, I think that the inspection system offers us the best
protection over the long run.  But don't forget, you have suffered in
Japan from the sarin gas attack.  This is not an academic issue to you
;
this is a real issue to you.  And Iraq is a nation that has actually
used chemical weapons on its own people, on the Iranians, on others;
had
a biological weapons program of some significance; was attempting to
develop a nuclear weapons program.

   So this is a very important issue for the world, and I would hope
that all the countries of the world would continue to support an
aggressive stance.  I hope it will not lead to military action, but we
have to be prepared, I believe, to take military action because the
issue is so great.

   I think that young people like you -- Japan lived in the shadow of
the awful legacy of the atomic weapons, but the likelihood is that in
your lifetime, your adult lifetime, and your children's lifetime, you
will have to worry more about chemical and biological weapons put in
the
hands of terrorists as well as rogue states.  You have seen this in
Japan, you know this.  But I think that if we can do something to stop
it now, we should do it even if it requires military action.
 

             END                      6:20 P.M. (L)
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

**************************
       Masahiko Aoki
          青木雅彦
     btree@pop11.odn.ne.jp
**************************

3月、4月、5月、6月、7月、8月、9月、10月、11月、12月

---

［キーストーンメーリングリスト　目次］

---