How Long Should a Nation Endure Its Defeat in War
KAWATO Akio / Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and a Newsweek Japan columnist
March 7, 2023
On January 25, Germany decided to provide Ukraine with its "Leopard 2" tank, which represents the height of its industrial prowess. This means that Germany, along with the United States, which promised to provide the M1 Abrams tank, is now to be treated by Russia as a "major enemy" and disqualified from mediating the war in Ukraine.
The tanks would not bring a fundamental change in the war, and this time there were even reports that the Russian military had acquired the U.S.-made "Javelin" anti-tank missiles illegally diverted from Ukraine. Under these circumstances, Germany was initially reluctant to provide the tanks, but was forced to make the decision after being isolated within NATO. Last September, a submarine pipeline in the Baltic Sea, which transported Russian natural gas to Germany, was blown up, resulting in the loss of more than 40% of the country's natural gas supply. Chancellor Scholz was forced to run around the world in search of alternative suppliers.
As I see this, I cannot help but bemoan the plight of a nation defeated in war. Their power to speak out is limited because their military power is kept at a low level by the victorious nations, and even if they say the right thing, if it does not suit the interests of the victorious nations, their voice is ultimately crushed down by force.
In the Falklands War of 1982, in which Argentina went to war with the U.K. after occupying the British Falkland Islands off Argentina's coast, the U.S. declared its support for its ally, the U.K. The U.K. and the U.S. then blatantly exerted pressure on West Germany to follow suit, saying "Who's keeping West Berlin safe?". During the Cold War, West Berlin was like an isolated island in East German territory, so it was protected by the "Allied Forces" of Britain, the U.S., and France. I was posted to West Germany as a diplomat at the time, and the German Foreign Ministry officials I spoke to at the time betrayed in his expression his seething anger at the pressure from the U.K. and the U.S.
Japan is also a "defeated country
In 1992, President Yeltsin, hoping to improve relations with Japan and to get some money out of it, said, "Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is ready to move away from its victor’s position, and to promote relations with Japan, an erstwhile vanquished nation”. I, for one, was born after WWII, and do not regard the Soviet Union as a victor over Japan. I was surprised by Yeltsin’s words, thinking "What? Did they look at Japan in such a way, even though Japan’s economy is more than ten times larger (at that time) than Russia’s?”
But unfortunately, it is not only the Russians who still treat Japan as a country defeated in war. Even the U.S. takes that view (it is because Japan keeps depending on the U.S. too much for its security). Some macho Arabs, too, do not hide their contempt for the Japanese, criticizing Japan for following the lead of the U.S., who dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Working as a diplomat, there have been instances when I felt irrepressible indignation well up in me.
However, to put it straight, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was concluded, when Japan demanded an end to the postwar Allied occupation regime, on the understanding that Japan would be granted independence provided that the U.S. military bases would remain in Japan. Article 9 of the Constitution, regarded by the Japanese now as a golden rule for peace, is in fact the disarmament measures that a defeated nation is normally subjected to. Although the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was revised in 1960 to look less humiliating for Japan, postwar Japan has immersed itself in the "defeated nation" system of its own volition, aided in part by manoeuvers by the Soviet Union and others.
In 1922, after its defeat in World War I, Germany, in the face of excessive pressure from France and other countries, shocked the world by signing the Rapallo Treaty with the newly emerging Soviet Union. The treaty provided for the return of territories Germany had acquired from the Soviet Union during the war and for economic and military cooperation, thereby bringing the two countries out of their previous international isolation. This is what happens when you drive a defeated nation into a corner.
Today Japan, too, would face tremendous pressure from the U.S. for approval to use the military bases in Japan in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, for example. Japan's Rapallo option in that case would be a collaboration with China.
I earnestly hope that this would not happen, because China’s autocratic regime does not agree with me. Fortunately, the prevailing view in Japan is that the "Japan-U.S. alliance should be maintained, but Japan should strengthen its self-defense capabilities."
In the current defense budget debate in the Diet, we are hearing not only about the pros and cons of raising taxes to cover increased defense spending, but also about the fundamentals of national security policy. Prime Minister Kishida takes the questions head-on, explaining them in terms that are easy for the public to understand, while at the same time not giving any unnecessary commitments. Very good. I will pay more attention to the debate in the Diet.
Kawato Akio is a Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and a Newsweek Japan columnist. This article appeared in the Newsweek Japan of 14 February 2023.
The tanks would not bring a fundamental change in the war, and this time there were even reports that the Russian military had acquired the U.S.-made "Javelin" anti-tank missiles illegally diverted from Ukraine. Under these circumstances, Germany was initially reluctant to provide the tanks, but was forced to make the decision after being isolated within NATO. Last September, a submarine pipeline in the Baltic Sea, which transported Russian natural gas to Germany, was blown up, resulting in the loss of more than 40% of the country's natural gas supply. Chancellor Scholz was forced to run around the world in search of alternative suppliers.
As I see this, I cannot help but bemoan the plight of a nation defeated in war. Their power to speak out is limited because their military power is kept at a low level by the victorious nations, and even if they say the right thing, if it does not suit the interests of the victorious nations, their voice is ultimately crushed down by force.
In the Falklands War of 1982, in which Argentina went to war with the U.K. after occupying the British Falkland Islands off Argentina's coast, the U.S. declared its support for its ally, the U.K. The U.K. and the U.S. then blatantly exerted pressure on West Germany to follow suit, saying "Who's keeping West Berlin safe?". During the Cold War, West Berlin was like an isolated island in East German territory, so it was protected by the "Allied Forces" of Britain, the U.S., and France. I was posted to West Germany as a diplomat at the time, and the German Foreign Ministry officials I spoke to at the time betrayed in his expression his seething anger at the pressure from the U.K. and the U.S.
Japan is also a "defeated country
In 1992, President Yeltsin, hoping to improve relations with Japan and to get some money out of it, said, "Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is ready to move away from its victor’s position, and to promote relations with Japan, an erstwhile vanquished nation”. I, for one, was born after WWII, and do not regard the Soviet Union as a victor over Japan. I was surprised by Yeltsin’s words, thinking "What? Did they look at Japan in such a way, even though Japan’s economy is more than ten times larger (at that time) than Russia’s?”
But unfortunately, it is not only the Russians who still treat Japan as a country defeated in war. Even the U.S. takes that view (it is because Japan keeps depending on the U.S. too much for its security). Some macho Arabs, too, do not hide their contempt for the Japanese, criticizing Japan for following the lead of the U.S., who dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Working as a diplomat, there have been instances when I felt irrepressible indignation well up in me.
However, to put it straight, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was concluded, when Japan demanded an end to the postwar Allied occupation regime, on the understanding that Japan would be granted independence provided that the U.S. military bases would remain in Japan. Article 9 of the Constitution, regarded by the Japanese now as a golden rule for peace, is in fact the disarmament measures that a defeated nation is normally subjected to. Although the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was revised in 1960 to look less humiliating for Japan, postwar Japan has immersed itself in the "defeated nation" system of its own volition, aided in part by manoeuvers by the Soviet Union and others.
In 1922, after its defeat in World War I, Germany, in the face of excessive pressure from France and other countries, shocked the world by signing the Rapallo Treaty with the newly emerging Soviet Union. The treaty provided for the return of territories Germany had acquired from the Soviet Union during the war and for economic and military cooperation, thereby bringing the two countries out of their previous international isolation. This is what happens when you drive a defeated nation into a corner.
Today Japan, too, would face tremendous pressure from the U.S. for approval to use the military bases in Japan in the event of an emergency in Taiwan, for example. Japan's Rapallo option in that case would be a collaboration with China.
I earnestly hope that this would not happen, because China’s autocratic regime does not agree with me. Fortunately, the prevailing view in Japan is that the "Japan-U.S. alliance should be maintained, but Japan should strengthen its self-defense capabilities."
In the current defense budget debate in the Diet, we are hearing not only about the pros and cons of raising taxes to cover increased defense spending, but also about the fundamentals of national security policy. Prime Minister Kishida takes the questions head-on, explaining them in terms that are easy for the public to understand, while at the same time not giving any unnecessary commitments. Very good. I will pay more attention to the debate in the Diet.
Kawato Akio is a Former Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and a Newsweek Japan columnist. This article appeared in the Newsweek Japan of 14 February 2023.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
敗戦国は辛いよ
河東 哲夫 / 元駐ウズベキスタン・タジキスタン大使、ニューズウィーク日本版コラムニスト
2023年 3月 7日
1月25日、ドイツはその工業力の華、「レオパルト2」戦車をウクライナに供与することを決めた。「米国も戦車M1エイブラムスを供与する」という約束を取り付けはしたが、これでロシアから「主要敵」扱いされて、ウクライナ戦争調停の権利を失うこととなった。
戦車があれば戦局が変わるものでもなく、今回ロシア軍はウクライナから横流しされた対戦車ミサイル「Javelin」を持っているという報道さえあった のだが、供与を渋るドイツはNATO内部で孤立。ロシアの天然ガスをドイツに輸送していたバルト海底パイプラインも爆破され、国内需要の実に40％強分もの天然ガスを求めて世界中を走り回される羽目となった。
これを見て、「敗戦国はつらいよ」とつくづく思う。軍事力を低い水準に抑え込まれているから発言力は限られるし、道理を言っても、最後は戦勝国たちからの圧力でつぶされてしまう。1982年のフォークランド紛争（アルゼンチンが自国沖の英国領フォークランド諸島を占領して英国と戦争になった件）では、英米から「西ベルリンの安全は誰が守ってやっているんだ？」という露骨な圧力を受け――冷戦中、東ドイツ領内の陸の孤島西ベルリンは英米仏の「連合軍」に守られていた――、英国支持を表明せざるを得ない羽目になっている。筆者はこの時外交官として西独に勤務していたのだが、ドイツの外務省員は腹が煮えくり返るといった形相だった。
日本も「敗戦国」
1992年、日本との関係を改善して資金をせしめようと考えたエリツィン大統領は言った。「ロシアは（ソ連と違って）、戦勝国・戦敗国の立場を離れて、日本との関係を推進する用意がある」と。戦後世代の筆者などは、「え！ 自国の経済規模１０倍の日本をそんな風に見ていたのか」と思って驚愕したものだが、残念ながら、こうした見方はロシア人だけではない。肝心の米国がそうだし―日本が過度な依存を続けるからだが――、マッチョのアラブ人も「原爆を投下されながら米国につき従っている」日本と日本人をなめている。外交官をやっていると、時々この野郎という気持ちにさせられたものだ。
しかし日米安保は端的に言えば、戦後占領体制の終了を求めた日本に、「米軍基地つきなら独立を認める」ということで、結ばれたものだ。そして日本人が今、平和のための金科玉条とする憲法第9条は、敗戦国の武装解除を憲法条文にしたものとも言える。日米安保は1960年の改定で、少しはましになったが、戦後の日本は「敗戦国」体制に自らの意思、そしてソ連などによる工作で、どっぷりと浸かってきたのだ。
1922年、第一次世界大戦での敗戦で、フランス等から過大の圧力を受けていたドイツは、新興のソ連とラパッロ条約を結んで、世界に衝撃を与えた。これはソ連に、戦時中獲得した領土を返還するとともに、経済・軍事面での協力を進めることとし、両国をそれまでの国際的孤立から救い出したからである。敗戦国を追いつめるとこうなる。
今の日本も、台湾有事などをめぐっては、米国から大変な圧力を食らうだろう。その時の日本のラパッロは、中国との提携ということになる。筆者は中国の集権体質が嫌いだから、そうならないで欲しいし、幸いなことに日本での大勢は、「日米同盟保持。しかし日本は自主防衛力を強化」の方向に傾いている。
今、国会での防衛予算審議では、増税の是非についてだけでなく、このような安全保障政策の根幹についての議論も聞かれる。岸田総理も質問を正面から受け止め、世間にわかりやすい言葉で説明、かつ余計な言質を与えない。面白い。時々、国会の論戦を見ることにする。
筆者は元駐ウズベキスタン・タジキスタン大使、ニューズウィーク日本版コラムニスト。
本稿は２０２３年2月14日付ニューズウィーク日本版に掲載された。
戦車があれば戦局が変わるものでもなく、今回ロシア軍はウクライナから横流しされた対戦車ミサイル「Javelin」を持っているという報道さえあった のだが、供与を渋るドイツはNATO内部で孤立。ロシアの天然ガスをドイツに輸送していたバルト海底パイプラインも爆破され、国内需要の実に40％強分もの天然ガスを求めて世界中を走り回される羽目となった。
これを見て、「敗戦国はつらいよ」とつくづく思う。軍事力を低い水準に抑え込まれているから発言力は限られるし、道理を言っても、最後は戦勝国たちからの圧力でつぶされてしまう。1982年のフォークランド紛争（アルゼンチンが自国沖の英国領フォークランド諸島を占領して英国と戦争になった件）では、英米から「西ベルリンの安全は誰が守ってやっているんだ？」という露骨な圧力を受け――冷戦中、東ドイツ領内の陸の孤島西ベルリンは英米仏の「連合軍」に守られていた――、英国支持を表明せざるを得ない羽目になっている。筆者はこの時外交官として西独に勤務していたのだが、ドイツの外務省員は腹が煮えくり返るといった形相だった。
日本も「敗戦国」
1992年、日本との関係を改善して資金をせしめようと考えたエリツィン大統領は言った。「ロシアは（ソ連と違って）、戦勝国・戦敗国の立場を離れて、日本との関係を推進する用意がある」と。戦後世代の筆者などは、「え！ 自国の経済規模１０倍の日本をそんな風に見ていたのか」と思って驚愕したものだが、残念ながら、こうした見方はロシア人だけではない。肝心の米国がそうだし―日本が過度な依存を続けるからだが――、マッチョのアラブ人も「原爆を投下されながら米国につき従っている」日本と日本人をなめている。外交官をやっていると、時々この野郎という気持ちにさせられたものだ。
しかし日米安保は端的に言えば、戦後占領体制の終了を求めた日本に、「米軍基地つきなら独立を認める」ということで、結ばれたものだ。そして日本人が今、平和のための金科玉条とする憲法第9条は、敗戦国の武装解除を憲法条文にしたものとも言える。日米安保は1960年の改定で、少しはましになったが、戦後の日本は「敗戦国」体制に自らの意思、そしてソ連などによる工作で、どっぷりと浸かってきたのだ。
1922年、第一次世界大戦での敗戦で、フランス等から過大の圧力を受けていたドイツは、新興のソ連とラパッロ条約を結んで、世界に衝撃を与えた。これはソ連に、戦時中獲得した領土を返還するとともに、経済・軍事面での協力を進めることとし、両国をそれまでの国際的孤立から救い出したからである。敗戦国を追いつめるとこうなる。
今の日本も、台湾有事などをめぐっては、米国から大変な圧力を食らうだろう。その時の日本のラパッロは、中国との提携ということになる。筆者は中国の集権体質が嫌いだから、そうならないで欲しいし、幸いなことに日本での大勢は、「日米同盟保持。しかし日本は自主防衛力を強化」の方向に傾いている。
今、国会での防衛予算審議では、増税の是非についてだけでなく、このような安全保障政策の根幹についての議論も聞かれる。岸田総理も質問を正面から受け止め、世間にわかりやすい言葉で説明、かつ余計な言質を与えない。面白い。時々、国会の論戦を見ることにする。
筆者は元駐ウズベキスタン・タジキスタン大使、ニューズウィーク日本版コラムニスト。
本稿は２０２３年2月14日付ニューズウィーク日本版に掲載された。
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟