国際武器移転史 第 17 号 2024 年 1 月＜目 次＞
論説
ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（1969-1970 年）―国防生産法に基づく融資保証に注目して― ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 須藤 功（1）イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 佐原 徹哉（25）The Israeli War on Gaza from a Perspective of Comparative Genocide Studies‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ TETSUYA SAHARA（51）

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan and the Function of Industry Associations in
Rebuilding the Military Industry: The Trend of “Domestic Production” of Defense Equipmentfrom the 1950s to the 1970s ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO（81）Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War: Between Independence andAlliance ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ ATSUSHI KOKETSU（109）

書評
エリン・ブロコビッチ著（旦祐介訳）『スーパーマンは来ない－米国の水汚染と私たちにできること－』（緑風出版、2023 年、417 頁） ‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 藤巻 裕之（131）西尾隆志著『日独航空技術移転史 1919 〜 45 年』（日本経済評論社、2023 年、x +324 頁）‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥‥ 永岑 三千輝（135）

編集後記

明治大学国際武器移転史研究所編

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）
，1-23 頁

論説

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（1969-1970 年）― 国防生産法に基づく融資保証に注目して ―須藤 功＊

The Penn Central Railroad Bailout Plan and Federal Reserve System,
1969-1970: Focusing on Loan Guarantees under the Defense
Production Act
By ISAO SUTO

The Penn Central Railroad was established in 1968 after the merger of the Pennsylvania
Railroad and the New York Central Railroad. In June 1970, however, the company filed
for re-organisation, which at that time was the largest corporate failure in U.S. history.
The mainline railroads were subject to enduring regulation and protection by theInterstate Commerce Commission. Considering a request for aid from Penn Central, theNixon administration launched a bailout programme under the Defense Production Act,
which was passed during the Korean War. Nonetheless, it faced opposition from
Congress and was unsuccessful in securing a loan guarantee from the Federal ReserveBank. Some have argued that Penn Central’s rescue was a precursor to ‘too big to fail’ or‘systemic risk’ policies. This paper verifies these assertions by re-evaluating the events
that led to the Penn Central Railroad bailout programme. First, the railroad’s‘bankruptcy’ was made possible by a unique historical context. Second, the Federal
Reserve not only indirectly rescued operating companies by providing commercial bankloans to avoid a commercial paper market collapse but also considered the use of directloans as fail-safe. Thus, the Penn Central Railroad bailout was a failure. Nevertheless, it
was the catalyst for subsequent discussions of the bailouts of Lockheed (1971), Chrysler(1979), and even Continental Illinois Bank (1984).

1 はじめに
ペ ン・ セ ン ト ラ ル 鉄 道（ 正 式 名 称 は ペ ン・ セ ン ト ラ ル 輸 送 会 社 Penn Central
Transportation Co.）は、1968 年 2 月、ペンシルベニア鉄道とニューヨーク・セントラル鉄道が経営統合して誕生した。1957 年に統合計画が公表されてからほぼ 10 年が経過していた。ペン・セントラル鉄道は資産 65 億ドル、従業員約 10 万人、路線 2 万マイル強、全米第11位の企業規模を有する公益事業会社であった 1）。しかし、経営統合後わずか2年4か月＊明治大学政治経済学部教授（Professor, School of Political Science and Economics, Meiji University）
1）Beshers [1989], p. 1. 全米第 6 位の企業とも言われる。例えば、BIS, 41st Annual Report, Basle, 1971, p. 19.

1

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

あまりの 1970 年 6 月 21 日、同鉄道は連邦破産法第 77 条に基づき更生を申請し、当時としてはアメリカ史上最大規模の企業破綻であった。期待とは裏腹に、経営統合の効果が実現する前に同鉄道は財務危機に直面してニクソン政権に支援を求め、運輸省が主導し、国防総省の協力と財務省の支援のもと、国防生産法（Defense Production Act of 1950）に基づく救済計画に着手した。ところが、連邦政府の救済計画は撤回を余儀なくされた。民主党
が多数派を占める連邦議会の批判を突破できず、また連邦準備銀行の融資保証も得られなかったからである。
財務危機に直面したペン・セントラル鉄道が拠り所とした資金調達手段は、巨額のコマーシャル・ペーパー（無担保単名手形）の発行とユーロダラーの借り入れであった。同
鉄道の経営破綻は、コマーシャル・ペーパーの償還不能を契機として金融市場の流動性
危機を誘発した。連邦準備制度はコマーシャル・ペーパー市場の崩壊を阻止するため、加盟銀行に対する緊急融資など「最後の貸手（LLR）」機能を発動した。ペン・セントラル鉄
道は、銀行融資やコマーシャル・ペーパーの発行が困難になるなか、ユーロダラーの借り入れに向かった［須藤 2024］。米銀ロンドン支店や外国銀行から環流したユーロダラーはこうして活用され、国際収支赤字を抑制する一助となる一方で、ペン・セントラル鉄道破産によるユーロダラーの債務不履行は、海外投資家の米国証券への魅力を脅かす事態となった 2）。
ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画は破綻したが、ほぼ同時期に経営危機に直面していた軍
事企業ロッキード社は、1971 年 8 月、連邦政府の支援を受けて救済された 3）。さらに 1979
年には三大自動車会社の一角を占めたクライスラー社が、そして 1984 年には大手コンチ
ネンタル・イリノイ銀行が連邦政府の支援によって救済され、「大きすぎて潰せない（TBTF）」政策がクローズアップされることになる 4）。倒産後もペン・セントラル鉄道は破産管財人のもとで営業を継続し、1973 年地域鉄道再編法により他の鉄道会社 6 社と統合され、翌年コンレールとして事実上の国有化が行われた。
ペン・セントラル鉄道の救済計画は、1970 年の段階で実現しなかったこともあり、実際に救済された上記事例と比較して注目されることは少ない。しかし、ペン・セントラル
鉄道救済計画には、長年にわたる州際通商委員会（ICC）の規制と手厚い保護のもとで“Too big to fail”「TBTF の幻想」[Holzweiss 2003] が生まれていたとの指摘がある 5）。また「

2）こうした懸念は証券取引委員会も共有していた。
U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p. V.
3）詳しくは、以下を参照されたい。西川［2008］および坂出［2010］。
4）差し当たり、須藤［2020］を参照。
5）ICC の鉄道規制は 1920 年代には独占規制から鉄道保護に転換している。詳しくは須藤［2022］を参照。

2

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

ドクトリンの原点」[Schwartz 1992]、「システミック・リスク」対策の最初の事例 [Brimmer2007] との指摘さえある。
そこで本稿は、ペン・セントラル鉄道を中心とする「ペン・セントラル複合体」6）の資金調達や国防生産法に基づく融資保証に焦点を当て、ニクソン政権による救済計画を
TBTF 政策や LLR の側面から再検討する。以下、第 2 節では国防生産法に着目しつつ、ペン・セントラル鉄道の支援要請から連邦政府の救済計画の立案とその撤回に至るプロセスを検証する。とりわけ、救済計画が事実上破綻した後の、ニクソン政権による連邦準備銀行に対する直接的な働きかけと、連邦準備制度の姿勢に注目する。第 3 節では、ペン・セ
ントラル鉄道破綻に起因するコマーシャル・ペーパー市場危機による金融不安の払拭に乗り出した連邦準備制度に焦点を当てる。最後に、本稿の考察をまとめた上で、ペン・セン
トラル鉄道のユーロダラー借り入れとその債務不履行を国際金融市場との関係から展望する。

2 ニクソン政権のペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画（1）
ペン・セントラル鉄道の救済要請
ペン・セントラル鉄道の母体、とりわけペンシルベニア鉄道は ICC のガイダンスのもと
水平的統合を繰り返し、1960 年代前半からは多角化戦略を積極的に展開した。その結果、
図 1 に示すように 7）、持株会社（Penn Central Co.）の下にペン・セントラル鉄道を置き、投資会社（Pennsylvania Co.: 略称 Pennco）、鉄道会社、各種の事業会社を重層的に配置した――石油パイプライン（Buckeye Pipe Line）、不動産開発（Great Southwest Corp.; Macco
Realty Corp.; Arvida Corp.）、国際航空輸送（Executive Jet Aviation, Inc.）、トレーラー・バン（Strick Corp.）、アパレル（Kayser-Roth Corp.）。統合後も、レジャー施設（Madison Square
Garden）や石油会社（Southwestern Oil & Refining Co.; Royal Petroleum Corp.）へと事業を拡大した 8）。こうした事業の多角化は、鉄道と競合する関連事業の拡大を軸に進められたが、石油精製やアパレル、レジャー施設などへの事業拡大は公益事業の枠組みを逸脱する方向でもあった。

6）『証券取引委員会スタッフ報告書』（U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p. 2）
が用いた用語で 、本稿は誤解のない範囲内で「ペン・セントラル」も同様の意味で用いる。
7）以下には何層にもわたる詳細な組織図が示されている。U. S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1973],
p. 394.
8）U. S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1973], p. 394.

3

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

図 1 ペン・セントラル社の組織図（1970 年）（注）（ ）内の％は出資割合を示す。
（出所）U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p. 2 をもとに筆者作成。

鉄道事業における水平的統合は、ICC の運輸政策の規制のもとに行われた。ペン・セン
トラル鉄道も例外ではなかった。鉄道会社が旅客輸送サービスを経営悪化の要因とみなして廃止を申請しても、多様な利害関係者の影響を受けた ICC は受理しない路線も多かった 9）。経営統合の条件としてペン・セントラル鉄道は、旅客輸送収入の割合が高く、しかもトラック輸送と激しい競争にさらされて経営難にあったニューヨーク・ニューヘブン・
ハートフォード鉄道の編入を、政治的な妥協で受け入れた 10）。ICC は旅客輸送事業が抱える問題点を認識して、1969年には詳細な調査を実施した。その上でICCは、同年「7月17日、鉄道会社と政府の双方が全面的な改革を行わない限り、都市間鉄道旅客サービスは今後数年間も存続できないだろうと議会に警告した。ICC は、旅客列車を走らせ続けるためには、政府からの補助金、その他の形態の連邦政府の援助が必要かもしれないと示唆し
9）Hilton（1975, p. 14）は、ICC は政治的圧力を受け、弱体化した鉄道の撤退を回避するため鉄道統合を選択したが、ペン・セントラルはその典型事例であったと指摘し、Perritt（1983, p. 278）は、「労働者の反対を防ぐため、鉄道会社は合併後の路線で働くすべての労働者を保護すべく、23 の組合と協定を結んだ」と強調する。
10）合併当時、このニューヘブン鉄道は年間 200 万ドルの赤字を出していた（Beshers [1989], p. 1.）。 ペンシ
ルベニア鉄道会長兼 CEO のサンダース（Stuart T. Saunders）は、「1964 年 8 月のロバート・ケネディ司法長官との会談で、ペン・セントラルの統合に対する反対を司法省が取り下げれば、ニューヘブンを受け入れることに同意するとした」（Holzweiss [2003], pp. 15-16）。

4

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

11）た」。これを受けて、連邦議会には旅客輸送事業の赤字を連邦政府が補填するなどの法案がいくつか提出された 12）。
1967 年に新設されたばかりの運輸省では 13）、長官ヴォルペ（John A. Volpe）が“Railpax”
構想を立ち上げ、1969 年末までに東部地区の鉄道会社の旅客輸送を新設する半官半民法
人の大都市間旅客鉄道会社に統合しようとしていた 14）。しかし、利益を目的とする会社の設立構想であるとして、1971 年 3 月初旬まで、ホワイトハウスの承認を得るに至らなかった。一方で、上院商務委員会ハートキー（R. Vance Hartke、民主党）小委員長が旅客輸送サービスに無期限の運営補助金を約束する法案を承認したことから、1970 年 4 月末までにホワイトハウスは“Railpax”への反対を撤回し、商務委員会も妥協案を打ち出した 15）。下院州際外国通商委員会が公聴会を開催するなかの 6 月 21 日、ペン・セントラル鉄道の破産
申請は、結果的に鉄道旅客サービス法の成立（1970 年 10 月 30 日）に決定的影響を与えることになった 16）。
経営統合した 1968 年後半から年末にかけて、早くもペン・セントラルは財務問題に直面した。経営陣は財務危機を回避するための重要な手段として長期と短期の両面で資金調達を企てたが、いずれも困難に直面することになった。表 1 に示すように、1968 年末のペン・セントラル輸送会社（鉄道）は、コマーシャル・ペーパー 5000 万ドルや回転信用（revolving credit）1 億ドル、ユーロダラー 5000 万ドルなど多額の短期負債に依存した 17）。
表 1 では、これらは長期負債（1 年超）であるかのように区分されているが、短期負債（1年以内）に区分すべき項目であった。
スタッガース（Harley O. Staggers、民主党）率いる下院州際外国通商委員会は、ユーロ
11）“Passenger Trains,”in CQ Almanac 1969, 25th ed., pp. 383-84, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1970
(CQAL69-1248264).
12）以下を参照。CQAL69-1248264; Davis [2020].
13）運輸省設置法（1966 年）は、運輸省の管轄を「最低コストで、迅速、安全、効率的かつ便利な輸送の提供に資する国家運輸政策およびプログラムを開発すること」に限定し、ICC の管轄は、運輸省に移管したハイジャックや環境汚染など「安全」に関する事項を除き、運輸に関する経済規制の権限を保持した。
さしあたり、須藤［2022］を参照。
14）この構想は、1965 年高速地上輸送法（High Speed Ground Transportation Act）によるニューヨーク / ワシントン間を結ぶ高速旅客輸送列車（1969 年末から「メトロライナー」として運行を開始）の開発にペン
シルベニア鉄道、そしてペン・セントラル鉄道が組み込まれ、運輸省がこれを推進していた。Churella［2022］, pp. 11-32.
15）“U.S. Rail Aid is Set for Intercity Lines,”New York Times, April 29, 1970, p. 1.
16）最終的に“Railpax”に対する連邦政府支出 4,000 万ドルと融資保証 7,500 万ドル、その他鉄道に対する融資保証が 2 億ドルとなった（Public Law 91-518）。
17）条件付売買契約（conditional sales agreement）は、買手（ペン・セントラル）が資産を所有するが、その所有権と抵当権は購入代金が全額支払われるまで売り手（銀行）に留保される融資の取り決めであり、ローンの担保としては利用できなかった。U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1972], p. 356.

5

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

ダラーの安易な取り入れを問題にした。すなわち、「米国の大手企業へのユーロダラーの提供は、米国からの投資の流出を抑制する上で重要な役割を果たしている。また、ヨー
ロッパの個人投資家をアメリカの資本市場に紹介する役割も果たしている。ペン・セント
ラル社は、米国内の合理的な資金源をすべて使い果たした後、他の米国企業が築いた信用により、海外での借り入れが可能となった。海外の投資家が、米国人投資家に保証された保護に頼ることができなければ、米国投資に対する信頼は維持されないだろう」と指摘した 18）。実際、表2に示すように、1970年6月にはユーロダラー市場の規模はドル建が494億ドル（欧州通貨建 127 億ドル）に上り、アメリカの大手銀行はロンドン支店から 122 億ドル（24.6%）の預金を受け入れていた。

表 1 ペン・セントラル鉄道の債務残高 *（1,000 ドル）

１年以内

1968 年末

1969 年末

社債

6,486

6,470

-16

施設信託証書15,78014,474-1.306

施設：条件付売買 / 繰延支払契約

49,31851,355

2,037

融資

2,400

30,40028,000

その他

2,732

3.359

627

76,716

106,058

29,342

社債

684,819682,576-2,241

施設信託証書100,133

85,497-14,636

施設：条件付売買 / 繰延支払契約

386,197408,365

22,168

融資契約

30,4000-30,400

ユーロダラー50,00050,0000

回転信用100,000

250,000

150,000

コマーシャル・ペーパー

50,000100,000

50,000

計

１年超

6,061

9,145

3,084

1,407,610

1,585,585

177,975

その他
計増減（注）* ペン・セントラル輸送会社単体の負債で、（1969 年末）株主資本 1,805,371(000) ドル、経常負債
498,455(000) ドル、災害等控除 192,603(000) ドル、その他の負債 408,568(000) ドルを除く。
（出所）Penn Central Company, Annual Report for 1969, Supplement: Statistical and Financial Data SelectedCompanies, p. 3, in: U.S. House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970], p. 625.

18）U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p. V.

6ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

表 2 ユーロダラーの市場規模と米国親銀行による取入高（100 万ドル）

ユーロダラー市場の規模
合計 (C)

米国親銀行
取入高 (D)(D)/(A)(%)

3,570

18,340

4,036

27.3%

18,1204,150

22,270

4,241

23.4%

1968 年 12 月

26,8706,660

33,530

6,039

22.5%

1969 年 3 月

29,8807,420

37,300

9,621

32.2%

1969 年 6 月

37,9609,110

47,07013,26935.0%

1969 年 9 月

41,5409,940

51,48014,34934.5%

1969 年 12 月

46,20010,17056,37012,80527.7%

1970 年 3 月

46,05011,03057,08011,88525.8%

1970 年 6 月

49,44012,70062,14012,17224.6%

1970 年 9 月

50,23014,62064,850

9,663

19.2%

1970 年 12 月

58,70015,87074,570

7,676

13.1%

1971 年 12 月

70,82016,59087,410

909

1.3%

年月日

ドル通貨
(A)

欧州通貨 *(B)

1966 年 12 月

14,7701967 年 12 月

（注）* BIS 報告の欧州 8 か国（ベルギー / ルクセンブルク、フランス、西ドイツ、イタリア、オランダ、
スウェーデン、スイス、イギリス）銀行の外貨建て債務をドル換算。
（出所）(A): BIS, Annual Report, 1969-74, passim; (C): FRB, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Jan. 1971, Table 21, p.
A86, Jan. 1974, Table 22, p. A88 より筆者作成。

インフレ抑制を目的に金融引き締め政策が取られるなかで、大手銀行はロンドン支店に高金利の――1969 年 6 月には 3 か月物金利が 12% に達した
（図 2 参照）――ドル建て預金（譲渡性預金 negotiable CD）を形成する一方で、ロンドン支店は預金金利規制（レギュレーショ
ン Q）や預金準備率規制を免れたドル（ユーロダラー）を積極的に買い集めて本国の本店に預け直した。管理不能のユーロダラー市場の拡大を嫌って、連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）
は 1969 年 10 月にユーロダラー再預金の増加額に対して必要準備金（当初 10%）を課し、
1970 年 1 月には国内預金（90 〜 179 日の定期預金）に対するレギュレーション Q 上限規制
を 6％から 7％に引き上げた。その結果、ユーロダラー取入高（米国銀行海外支店に対する親銀行の債務）は 1969 年末から急減した（表 2）19）。さらに、ペン・セントラル鉄道が破
19）アメリカやヨーロッパの銀行によるユーロ・カレンシーの供給に加えて、この時期から開発途上国の金融当局にとって、外貨準備の有利な運用利回りが期待できるユーロ・カレンシーは恒常的な関心事となっ7

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

産申請した翌日（1970 年 6 月 22 日）には 10 万ドル以上の預金の上限金利規制が停止され、金利規制の終焉（1986 年）に向けた一歩を踏みだすことになった 20）。
ペン・セントラル鉄道の経営陣は資金調達に奔走する一方、他方で 1970 年 2 月末から 3
月初旬には連邦政府による財政支援の道を探り始めていた。親会社のペン・セントラル社（持株会社）の取締役会で、取締役の一人（E. Clayton Gengras, Security Insurance Corp. 会
長兼社長）がヴォルペ運輸長官を訪ねて、政府の支援を要請するよう進言した。この提案
は 3 月 12 日にヴォルペ長官の執務室での第 1 回会合として実現し、ペン・セントラル側は運輸省に対して、（1）旅客サービス、（2）廃線、（3）州税、（4）他輸送手段への多角化、（5）運賃値上げについて支援を求めた。4 月 30 日の第 2 回会合では、1970 年の見通しと借入能力が限界に達していることを説明し、サンダース会長は設備に対する融資援助に関する法案を要望した。しかし、運輸省は懸案の旅客支援法案（Railpax 法案）に悪影響を与えかねないとして難色を示すとともに、現金不足に関する情報提供を求めた 21）。
図 2 ロンドンおよびニューヨークにおけるドル預金金利（年利 %）（出所）BIS, 4th Annual Report, Basle, 1970, p. 161.
た。BIS, 41st Annual Report, Basle, 1971, p. 166.
20）Slivinski [2009], p. 8.
21）連邦政府への支援要請の経過については、以下を参照。U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission[1972], pp. 170-172. ペン・セントラル鉄道とその持株会社（ペン・セントラル社）の取締役は基本的に同じ人物で構成された。

8

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

その後、5 月 8 日、財務担当幹部オヘロンがヴォルペ長官を訪ね、最高財務責任者ベヴァン（David C. Bevan）とサンダースによる「真の危機を説明する覚書」を手に経営危
機の深刻さを訴えた。ヴォルペ長官の仲介で、5 月 19 日と 25 日、サンダース、ベヴァン、
オヘロンらは緊急融資についてケネディ財務長官に訴える機会を持った。銀行家や政府との広範な交渉も続いた。主要融資銀行のファースト・ナショナル・シティ銀行（FirstNational City Bank of New York: FNCB）とケミカル銀行が、ペン・セントラル鉄道による連邦政府への融資保証の要請を知らされたのは、最後の回転信用 5000 万ドルを引き出すと告げられた 5 月 25 日のことであった。ペン・セントラルの定例取締役会で連邦政府の融資保証の交渉についての了承を得たのち、6 月 8 日、
「銀行と政府からの圧力を受け、取締役会はサンダースとベヴァンを解任した」22）。
1970 年 5 月 25 日、ペン・セントラル経営陣とケネディ財務長官、ニクソン大統領の補佐官フラニガン（Peter Flanigan）、FRB 議長バーンズ（Arthur F. Burns）らとの会談を経て、
5 月 28 日に全債権者銀行会議が FNCB で開催された。この会議でベヴァンは、1 億ドルの社債募集の停止と政府保証付き融資への参加を要請し、FNCB が幹事行として政府高官との交渉にあたることになった。6月5日、新聞は「ペン・セントラル社の役員は、先週スコッ
ト上院議員に、鉄道が 1 億ドルの 25 年無担保社債を公売できないことへの懸念を伝え、何らかの連邦政府援助を得るための協力を要請したはずである」23）、と伝えた。また別の新聞によれば、「ニクソン政権がペン・セントラル社の救済に乗り出したのは、このような大企業の破綻が経済全体に有害な衝撃を与えかねないという懸念があった」こと、さらに「景気後退が半ば公然と認められ、一般に企業の流動性…が極端に低下しているこの時期に、政府が何もしなければ「ドミノ」現象が起こるのではないかという懸念が内々にささやかれて」いたからであった 24）。

（2）
国防生産法による救済案
ペン・セントラル鉄道の中心母体となったペンシルベニア鉄道の国防生産法によせる期
待は当初からあった。同鉄道の運行担当副頭取サイムズ（James M. Symes）は 1951 年 11 月、
銀行関係団体の年次大会で国防生産法をテーマに講演している 25）。その中でサイムズは、
22） U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p. 103.
23）“Federal Backing for Penn Central on Loans Pledged,”New York Times, June 10, 1970, p.1.
24）“Nixon Plans $200 Million Penn Central Loan Guarantee,”Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1970, p. 3.
25） James M. Symes,“Defense and the Railroad Problem,”An Address before the Fifth Annual Conference of Bank
Correspondents at St. Louis, Mo., November 6, 1951, pp.14-18. サイムズは、1930 年代後半にペンシルベニア鉄道勤務を中断してアメリカ鉄道協会副会長に就き、戦後はペンシルベニア鉄道取締役会長としてニュー9

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

ICC が国防輸送の拡大に不可欠な鉄道事業収益を抑制していると批判し、同時に鉄道産業の「政府所有」や「社会主義的官僚主義（socialistic bureaucracy）」に向かうことへの脅威を表明していた。大手の幹線鉄道会社の主な収益源は貨物輸送で、ペン・セントラル鉄道
も例外ではなかった。同鉄道は、東海岸から中西部一帯に広大な路線網を展開し、表 3 に示されるように、鉄鋼や自動車、石油や化学などアメリカを代表する大企業を主な顧客としていた。

表 3 ペン・セントラル鉄道の主要顧客と収益 *（1969 年）

企 業

業 種

収益（ドル）

割合（%）

General Motors Co.

自動車

84,574,000

17.7%

Bethlehem Steel Corp.

鉄 鋼

77,607,000

16.3%

U. S. Steel Corp.

鉄 鋼

67,581,000

14.2%

Ford Motor Co.

自動車

46,671,000

9.8%

National Steel Corp.

鉄 鋼

32,506,000

6.8%

Chrysler Corp.

自動車

31,267,000

6.5%

Jones and Laughlin Steel Co.

鉄 鋼

23,575,000

4.9%Continental Oil Co.

石 油

22,000,000

4.6%

Armco Inc.

鉄 鋼

14,582,000

3.1%

Allied Chemical Corp.

化 学

14,376,000

3.0%

Union Carbide Corp.

化 学

14,206,000

3.0%

Republic Steel Corp.

鉄 鋼

13,080,000

2.7%

Peabody Coal Co.

石 炭

12,989,000

2.7%

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.

鉄 鋼

12,745,000

2.7%

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

電 力

9,808,000

2.1%

477,567,000

100%

合 計

（注）* 上位 15 社（アメリカ政府を除く）を示す。
（出所）U.S. House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970], p. 756 より筆者作成。

朝鮮戦争の勃発を契機に成立した 1950 年国防生産法（Public Law 81-774）は、特定の物
資および施設を民生用から軍事用および関連目的に転用すること、民間の需要を満たすた
めに必要なレベルを超えて生産設備を拡張することを目的に（第 2 条）
、陸軍省、海軍省、空軍省、商務省などの機関を「保証機関」と定め、連邦準備銀行を含む公的または民間の金融機関による融資の元本や利息を保証することができると規定した（第 301 条 a 項）
。さヨーク・セントラル鉄道との統合を取りまとめ、その後、同鉄道会長職をサンダースに譲った。
“James M.
Symes,79, Dies; Chairman of the Pennsy,”New York Times, Aug. 5, 1976, p. 34, by Robert Mcg. Thomas Jr.

10ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

らに同法第 302 条で、民間企業に対して、能力の拡大、技術プロセスの開発、または戦略
物資および重要金属の探査・開発・採掘を含む必須物質の生産に向けた融資を可能とした 26）。
連邦政府の支援が ICC でも運輸省でもなく 27）、国防総省が担うことになった理由は、
ヴォルペ運輸長官から国防副長官に宛てた書簡に、次のように記載されている。
「議会指導部に対して、当該企業の財務状況は、そうした新しい法律の制定前に追加融資が必要であることを指摘した。かかる資金調達は、政府の保証なしでは不可能であること、そして現在国防生産法 301 条に含まれている V- ローンの権限は、司法省の書面による意見に基づき、国防総省がローンの暫定保証をするために利用可能である…。当面の間、国防総省
がこのような保証を行うのに十分な資産を持つ唯一の機関であることは明らかであり、議会指導者らは、国防総省が想定される短期間の間、かかる融資の保証人となることを受け入れる意向を示していることに留意すべきである」。
「ペン・セントラルはわが国の鉄道網に不可欠であり、主要な軍事施設や防衛産業に貢献していることは事実だが、ペン・セン
トラル鉄道の存続に対する政府の関心は、国防総省にとどまらないという私の認識を、指導者は共有してくれた。わが省は、国防に影響を及ぼすものを含め、輸送に関する問題で指導力を発揮することを法的に命じられている」28）。ヴォルペ長官は、このように述べて、協力を依頼した。
6 月 10 日に公表された連邦政府のペン・セントラル救済計画は、1950 年国防生産法に基づき、ペン・セントラル鉄道に対する 9 銀行の 5000 万ドルの（繋ぎの）短期銀行融資を国防総省（海軍省）が保証し、その後さらに暫定融資 2 億ドルの即時保証を実施し、最終的に 7 億 5000 万ドルの（ペン・セントラル鉄道に限定されない）融資保証を行う法案を準備するというものであった。5000 万ドルの繋ぎ融資保証は、FNCB を代理人とし、海軍省が銀行コンソーシアムによる上限 2 億ドルの繋ぎ融資を最大 100％保証する「V- ローン」契約とされた（償還期限は 1970 年 10 月末）29）。また、この 2 億ドルつなぎ融資契約（V- ロー
26）なお 1951 年 7 月、国防生産法を延長する改正案が成立し（Public Law 96-131）、中小企業の国防生産への貢献を促すため、復興金融公社（RFC）の中小企業向け融資制度を継承する中小国防工場庁（SDPA）が設置された［浅野 2021］。
27）ICC の役割が限定的であった点については、須藤［2022］を参照されたい。
28）John A. Volpe to David Packard, Deputy Secretary of DoD, June 9, 1970, in U.S. House, Committee on Interstateand Foreign Commerce [1970], pp. 767-768.
29）“Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy,”dated June 17, 1970, from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in U.S.
House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970], p. 648. 1951 年 5 月10 日の下院銀行通貨委員会における FRB 議長マーチンの証言によれば、これは第 2 次世界大戦中に戦時生産資金の調達に使われた、いわゆる V- ローン・プログラムの復活であった。
「V- ローン保証は、防衛契約に必要な資金を調達できないような小規模の請負業者にとって特に有用で」あった。しかし、当時のマーチン議長の懸念は、むしろ「国11『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

ン契約）書案には、このユーロダラー融資の返済も盛り込まれていた 30）。
ニューヨーク連邦準備銀行で開催された参加銀行会議（6 月 10 日）には、ペン・セント
ラルからはサンダースの後任会長ゴーマン（Paul Gorman）が出席した。V- ローン銀行コンソーシアムは、FNCB など 10 銀行が運営委員会（steering committee）を構成し、32 銀行が参加することになっていた。会議では 2 億 2500 万ドルの融資を各行が比例配分すること（FNCB が 20%、その他 8 銀行がそれぞれ 10%）31）、現行の債務のモラトリアムについても大筋で合意に達した。会議の最後に財務次官ポール・ボルカーが登壇し、国防生産法を利用し、1971 年 10 月 31 日までの償還期限で融資を保証するという政権の意向を説明した 32）。2 億ドルに変更された V- ローン銀行コンソーシアムの参加銀行は拡大され、74 銀行になっていた 33）。
しかし、V- ローンによる暫定融資保証案は国防生産法の更新（改正）を前提とし、同法はパットマン（Wright Patman、民主党）委員長率いる下院銀行通貨委員会の管轄であった。パットマンは国防生産法に基づく融資保証に強く反発した。
下院銀行通貨委員会スタッ
フ報告書には、その理由が端的に示されている。第 1 に、国防生産法は防衛契約にわずかに関与しているだけの大企業の倒産を防ぐためのものではなく、むしろ中小の請負業者が生産能力を拡大することで、重要な防衛生産ニーズに応えることを立法趣旨としていること。第 2 に、融資保証の是非を判断する上で重要だったのは、債務不履行の際に政府は他の一般担保付債権者と同等の担保権を持つだけであること。第 3 に、ペン・セントラル鉄道が破産しても「更生期間中も鉄道は運行を続け、従業員には給料が支払われること」。

防以外の公的・私的支出が制限されない限り、…物価のさらなる上昇」が予想されることで、それゆえ「現在実施されているインフレ防止プログラムを継続し、強化すること」にあった。Martin [1951], pp. 490,
494.
30）銀行コンソーシアムの参加銀行は 12 行とされるが、確認は以下の 10 銀行だけである。First National City
Bank of New York, First National Bank of Chicago, Irving Trust Co., Chemical Bank, Continental Illinois National
Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee,
National Bank of Detroit, United California Bank, Bank of America. U.S. House, Committee on Interstate andForeign Commerce [1970], pp. 11, 673, 826, 840. 以下も参照。Congressional Record, 91st Cong. 2nd Sess., Vol.
116, Part 19, July 22, 1970, p. 25371.
31）8 銀行は下記であった。Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank of New
York Trust Co., Chemical Bank of New York Trust Co., Irving Trust Co., First National Bank of Chicago, Morgan
Guaranty Trust Co., Mellon Bank, Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. U.S. House, Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970], p. 648.
32）6 月 10 の会議では、コンソーシアムの融資額は 2 億ドルではなく、2 億 2500 万ドルであった。U.S.
House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972], p .227. なお、6 月 17 日付の V- ローン繋ぎ融資 5000 万ドル
契約書案および 2 億ドルの融資契約書案からは Bankers Trust Co. が抜けて 9 銀行となった。U.S. House,
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970], Appendix B, p. 677.
33）U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972], pp.13-14.

12

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

詰まるところ、救済案は「ペン・セントラル社の経営陣とその金融関係者を救済しようとするものであり、過去何年にもわたってペン・セントラル社で行われてきた不始末と事態の悪化を隠蔽する」ものであると痛烈に批判したのであった 34）。
議会民主党関係者の批判 35）や行政府内での不安 36）があるなかで、6 月 17 日付でニューヨーク連邦準備銀行によるペン・セントラル鉄道に対する V- ローン保証申請に関する報告書が示された 37）。V- ローン保証の内容と条件は、融資額：2 億ドルの回転信用、満期：
1970 年 10 月 31 日（1972 年 6 末まで延長の可能性あり）、保証割合：100％、金利：代理銀
行のプライムレート（現在 8％）、保証料：ペン・セントラル鉄道支払い（現在 3％）、約
定手数料：0.5％、担保：①借手の資産のうち重要な担保価値があると判断されるもの、②借手の売掛金、③ペンシルベニア社（子会社の「ペンコ」）の資本株式に対する第二抵
当権、親会社ペン・セントラル社の保証：5,920 万スイス・フラン・ローンの返済後の担保、以上であった38）。ニューヨーク連邦準備銀行の詳細な報告書の結論は、「…このような法律
が議会で制定され、政府による会社への資金援助が 5 億ドルという提案された金額で長期間利用できるようになれば、経営陣は当社の状況を大幅に改善するのに十分な時間と資金を確保できるように思われる」39）というものであった。表 4 は、ニューヨーク連銀がフィ
ラデルフィア連銀と共同で調査した報告書において、主要金融機関等がペン・セントラル
34）U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972], pp. 12-14. 1970 年 8 月 15 日成立の国防生産法改正法(Public Law 91-379) は、1 回の融資保証を 2,000 万ドルに制限し、「主に企業の財務的破綻や倒産を防ぐため」に使用することを禁止する（ただし、そのような企業の破綻が国防生産に直接かつ実質的に不利な影響を与えることを大統領が証明し、その証明を 10 日前に議会に通知する場合を除く）ものとなった (p. III)。
35）下院州際外国通商委員会スタッガース委員長（Harley O. Staggers、民主党）も、6 月 10 日の段階で同「委員会が特に迅速に動くことはないだろう」と述べていた（“Nixon Plans $200 Million Penn Central Loan
Guarantee,”Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1970, p. 3.）。また新聞記事によれば、ペンシルベニア州の民主党の間には「ペン・セントラルは共和党の鉄道だ」との批判が起こり、長年にわたる州政治に巻き込まれてしまった（Fred L. Zimmerman and Richard F. Janssen,“Penn Central Rescue Plan is Arousing Ire in House,”WallStreet Journal, June 12, 1970, p. 2）。
36）「国防次官のパッカード（David M. Packard）は、パットマンの反対を抑えようと努力していたが、このような約束をすると、他の企業、特に経営不振に陥っている巨大企業ロッキード社が政府の援助を求めてくるのではないかと心配していた。
」“A Penn Central Director’s View,”Washington Post, June 26, 1970, by
Frank C. Porter, in U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1970], p. 616.
37）以下は、U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972], pp. 16-22.
38）U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972], p. 20. ペン・セントラル鉄道によって、同鉄道の持株会社（親会社）ペン・セントラル社の子会社 Penn Central International, N.V. が、1970 年にスイス・フラン建 5900 万ドル、金利 10.1％で振り出した約束手形が債務不履行状態に陥り、ペン・セントラル社はその元本 2800 万ドルを保証していた。この約束手形のうち 700 万ドルを保有していたアメリカの金融機関
2 社（American Express International Banking Corp. と Union Bank of Los Angeles）が、翌年、詐欺罪で R. W.
Pressprich & Co., UFITEC, Algemene Bank N.V. などを告訴した。“Pennsy Sees Debt Pact,”New York Times,
Feb. 25, 1971, p. 53.
39）U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972], p. 21.

13

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）に持つ債権をリストアップしたものである。

表 4 主要金融機関等のペン・セントラルに対する債権 *（1970 年 6 月 17 日、100 万ドル）
融資銀行等

ペン・セントラル鉄道

債権の種類

融資日

満期日

債務金額

FNCB 他 51 銀行

回転信用・ターム
ローン

1969.4.1

1971.1.1

300.0

FNCB 他 11 銀行

ユーロダラー無担保回転信用1968.11.14

1973.10.31

50.0

FNCB その他銀行

無担融資残高1965.5.6

1971.1.31

30.0

Manufacturers Hanover &Cleveland Trust

無担融資残高12.5

個別 26 銀行

コマーシャル・ペーパーのバック
アップ信用

46.5

多数の債権者

コマーシャル・ペーパー*1970.6.2

1970.12.16

108.3
547.3

計
ペンコ社

Chemical Bank 他 9 銀行

1 億ドル社債発行用
1970.5.28の回転信用

1972.6.11

50.0

Chemical Bank & Morgan
Guaranty Trust

タームローン

1971.2.1

2.5

PCI 欧州・米国銀行など

スイス・フラン建
約束手形

合計

59.2
659.0

（注）* ニューヨーク連邦準備銀行報告書の調査による。ペンコ社（ペンシルベニア社）はペン・セント
ラル鉄道の完全保有子会社、PCI(Penn Central International, N.V.) はペン・セントラル社の海外子会社（図1 参照）。
（出所）Federal Reserve Bank of New York,“Summary Report on Application for V-Loan Guarantee on
Connection with Loan to Penn Central Transportation Company,”June 17, 1970, in U.S. House, Committee on
Banking and Currency [1972], pp. 17-18.

3 コマーシャル・ペーパー市場の危機と連邦準備制度
FRB は 6 月 18 日、結局、ペン・セントラル鉄道に対する直接融資の返済は不可能と判断して拒絶した。ニューヨーク連銀の報告書は、ニクソン政権が FRB にペン・セントラル
4

4

4

4

鉄道への直接融資を要請したことへの回答であった 40）。その翌日、ニクソン政権はペン・セントラル鉄道救済のための融資保証と繋ぎ融資保証の計画を撤回し、21 日に同鉄道は40） Mishkin & White [2016], pp. 243-244.

14

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

破産を申請した。鉄道会社は破産管財人のもとで営業運転を継続し、ICC が推進してきた
地域鉄道システムへの統合（国有化）の道を歩むこととなった 41）。一方、親会社のペン・
セントラル社（持株会社）は保険業を核とする小規模コングロマリットとして存続した。
ところで、1970 年 7 月 23 日開催の上下両院合同経済委員会公聴会のために用意した陳述書でFRB議長バーンズは、連邦準備銀行の直接融資に含みを持たせていた。すなわち「連
邦準備制度は、異常かつ緊急の状況下において、連邦準備法が付与した限定的な権限を活用し、借り手は信用に足るが他からの信用を確保できない場合に限り、政府債務証書またはその他の適格書類を担保として事業会社に直接融資を行うことができる」と述べている。さらに質疑の中で、現在破産状態にあるペン・セントラルや、現在政府に多額の融資を求めているロッキード社に直接融資をするつもりかと問われ、バーンズは、「私がこのステートメントを書いた目的は、このような権限が存在することに注意を喚起するため」であると返答している 42）。
その後バーンズは、11 月 14 日の上院商務委員会公聴会で、ペン・セントラル鉄道に対する直接融資を拒否した理由について、次のように発言した。
「連邦準備銀行がペン・セントラルに融資を行う可能性のある現行法の唯一の条項は、連邦準備法第 13 条
（3）項である。この条項は、理事会が『異常かつ緊急の状況』において、少なくとも 5 人の理事会メンバーの賛成票によって、連邦準備銀行が個人、パートナーシップ、企業に対してある種の直接融資を行う権限を与えるものである」。しかし、バーンズは「…法律上の制限や法律の意図に関する背景を考慮し、ペン・セントラルの現在の財務状況、ニーズ、見通しに関する入手可能な情報を慎重に検討した結果、理事会は、連邦準備法第 13 条
（3）項を行使して連邦準備銀行がペン・セントラル鉄道への信用供与を許可することは適切ではないと
43）
結論した」
。バーンズは続けて、それは「経営不振を救済するため、あるいは債権者や株主の利益を守るために提供されるべきではない」。しかし、連邦準備銀行による直接融資ではなく、他の連邦政府の支援で「民間ローンを連邦政府が保証する」ことは支持するし、「ペン・セントラルのケースでは国益が最優先される」と述べている 44）。
41）差し当たり、須藤［2022］を参照されたい。
42）Arthur F. Burns, Statement to Congress, July 23, 1970, in U.S. Joint Economic Committee [1970], p. 586. この点は財務次官ヴォルカーも認め、次のように回顧している。
「ロッキードについては、連邦準備制度は何もしなかった。すべて議論されていたが、連邦準備制度の資金を使うという現実的な問題はなかったと記憶している。検討はされたはずだが、却下されたと思う。ペン・セントラルの場合、アメリカ政府は 1950
年国防生産法を論拠に、ペン・セントラルが軍需物資を輸送しているという理由で、最後まで融資するつもりだった。国防総省はこの理屈をあまり喜ばなかった」。Volcker [2008], p. 158.
43）U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1970], p. 773.
44）U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1970], p. 773. 連邦政府による 2 億 5000 万ドルの融資保証を受けた
ロッキード社の場合、安全保障を担う「公共の利益」が名目とされた（西川 2008, 197 頁）。

15

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済案の撤回は、連邦準備制度自らが金融システムの動揺に対処せざるを得ない事態を引き起こした。コマーシャル・ペーパー市場の危機である。図 3 は、
大恐慌前の 1927 年からフロート制移行後の 1975 年までのコマーシャル・ペーパーと銀行引受手形の発行残高の推移を示している。連邦準備制度の創設にあたって、高リスクの無担保単名約束手形ではなく、イギリス型の商業手形の割引市場を軸とする信用システムを構築するべく、連邦準備銀行は銀行引受手形の割引・購入を促進した。しかし 1930 年代
半ば、特に第 2 次世界大戦以降、アメリカ固有のコマーシャル・ペーパー市場が銀行引受
手形を大きく上回る規模に成長し、1970 年末の発行残高は 331 億ドルに達した。その背景には、GE やフォードなど巨大企業の金融子会社などが銀行融資より安価な資金調達手段として活用したこと（表 5）、また金融機関を含む巨大企業が有休資金の運用先としたこ

図 3 コマーシャル・ペーパーおよび銀行引受ドル手形の発行残高（単位：100 万ドル）
100,000

10,0001,000

100۞ߨӀणχϩघ‫ܙ‬αϜʖεϡϩʀϘʖϏʖ

10

1975

1973

1971

1969

1967

1965

1963

1961

1959

1957

1955

1953

1951

1949

1947

1945

1943

1941

1939

1937

1935

1933

1931

1929

1927

1

（注）1975 年は 10 月末、その他は 12 月末のデータ。
（出所）U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bulletin, passim より筆者作成。

16

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）とにあった 45）。

表 5 コマーシャル・ペーパーを発行する主要金融子会社（1961 年 9 月）

単位：1,000 ドル
資本金 *

順位 **

Allis Chalmers Credit Corporation（産業機械）

122,844

24

Appliance Buyers Credit Corporation（家電製造販売）

31,26563

B-W Acceptance Corporation（自動車部品）

104,88930−−

73,45840

金融子会社（親会社の業種）

Caterpillar Credit Corporation（建設・鉱山機械）
Clark Equipment Credit Company（産業・建設機械）
John Deere Credit Company（農業・建設機械）

102,35832

1,051,200

2

465,48010

1,763,003

1International Harvester Credit Corporation（農業機械）

239,216

13

Montgomery Ward Credit Corporation（総合小売）

216,624

15

Motorola Finance Corporation（通信機器）−−

Philco Finance Corporation（総合家電）−−

RCA Credit Corporation（電気機器）−−

Redisco, Incorporated（?）−−

Ford Motor Credit Company（自動車）
General Electric Credit Corporation（電力・電気機器）
General Motors Acceptance Corporation（自動車）

Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corporation（総合小売）

494,6738

Westinghouse Credit Corporation（電力）163,477

19−−

Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp.（自動車）***（注）* 1972 年末のデータ。 ** 1972 年末の金融会社の資本金額による順位。*** 親会社の Yellow Truck &Coach Manufacturing Co. は 1926 年に GM トラック・コーチ部門に吸収。
（出所）金融子会社は、Selden ed. [1963], Table 11, p. 37；資本金とその順位は、U.S. House, Banking andCurrency Committee [1973], Table 32, pp. 126-127 より筆者作成。

ペン・セントラル鉄道もまた、規制監督機関（ICC）の承認を得て、ゴールドマン・サッ
クスをディーラーにして、巨額のコマーシャル・ペーパーを発行した。そして破産直前に
は、1 億 830 万ドルのコマーシャル・ペーパー負債を抱えていた（前掲表 4 参照）。その結果、破産申請した 6 月 21 日以降に満期を迎える同鉄道発行のコマーシャル・ペーパーは、7 月
1日まで数日間隔で7回分、合計9,795,000ドルに達した 46）。6月23日開催の連邦公開市場委
45）1969 年末のコマーシャル・ペーパー発行者は、金融会社 65.2%、非金融企業 21.5%、銀行関連会社
13.3%、コマーシャル・ペーパー保有者は、非金融企業 73.4%、商業銀行 15.5%、生命保険・投資会社
11.1% であった。Schadrack & Breimyer [1970], Table I & II, pp. 282-283. また本稿注 46 も参照されたい。
46）U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1970], p. 96.

17

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

員会
（FOMC）では、ペン・セントラル鉄道が 6 月 22 日に満期のコマーシャル・ペーパー
170 万ドルを償還できなかったことに関連して、次のような報告がなされた。
「満期を更新することも難しくなる発行体が増えることは明らかである。当然のことながら、銀行シス
テムに対する与信需要も増加し、財務状況が芳しくない企業の中には、信用需要を満たすことが不可能になるところも出てくる」として、「流動性問題への懸念は依然として広がって」いる 47）。こうした認識から、6 月 24 日付で「満期が 30 日から 89 日の 10 万ドル以上の譲
渡性預金…について、加盟銀行が支払う金利の上限規制を一時停止」することを発表した。そして翌 7 月 21 日の FOMC では、この危機を乗り切ったことが報告された。すなわち、「ペン・セントラルの破産に伴うコマーシャル・ペーパー市場からの大規模な信用シフトは、
水面下では多くの必死の交渉が必要とされ、深刻な問題がまだ残っているものの」、連邦準備制度は次の3つの方法でこれに対処した。第1は、短期の譲渡性CDに対するレギュレー
ション Q の上限規制を迅速に撤廃したこと、第 2 に、必要な場合には割引窓口が利用できるという安心感を加盟銀行に与えたこと、そして最後に、公開市場操作により快適な金融
市場の状態を維持したことである 48）。
マニュファクチャラーズ・ハノーヴァー・トラストの上級副頭取ハンナ（Paul J. Hanna）によれば、以上の連邦準備制度の政策方針に基づき、「銀行は迅速に対応し、20 億ドル以上の新たな信用供与を約束する救済プログラムを立ち上げた」。これらの資金は、以下の方法で利用された。①追加の銀行融資枠（一部はカナダとヨーロッパの銀行からのもので、銀行が借り入れた資金の現在のコストに基づいた変動金利）、②顧客の未払い割賦契約の売却、③保険会社がコマーシャル・ペーパーを購入し、特定の企業の市場をサポートする
特別な取り組みであった 49）。FRB理事ブリマーは、「これが、システミック・リスクを食い止めるという理事会の方針の最初の適用であった。銀行のためにリスクを引き受けるのではなく、市場のためにリスクを相殺し、市場を安定させ」た、と回顧している 50）。この緊急融資を特に必要とした企業は、クライスラー社の金融子会社（Chrysler Financial Corp.）とコマーシャル・クレジット・カンパニーの 2 社であった 51）。
47）Federal Open Market Committee, Memorandum of Discussion, June 23, 1970, p. 50 and Attachment A.
48）Federal Open Market Committee, Memorandum of Discussion, July 21, 1970, pp. 17-18.
49）Charles N. Stabler,“Banks Mounted $2 Billion Rescue Mission Aid Firms in Penn Central Crisis,”Wall Street
Journal, October 14, 1970, p. 29;“City Bank to Cut Eurodollar Debt,”New York Times, Oct. 14, 1970, p. 65, by H.
Erich Heinemann.
50）Brimmer [2007], p. 200.「バーンズ議長は，割引窓口を、流動性危機を防止する鍵と考えており、必要であれば『パススルー』融資を明示的に直接行うという FRB のコミットメントを、適切なフェイルセーフ措置と見なした」（Calomiris [1993], p. 19）。
51）ウォルト・ディズニー・プロダクションは、ペン・セントラル鉄道発行のコマーシャル・ペーパー 145
万ドルを保有しているが、これを償却して税引後で約 75 万ドルの損失となる可能性があると伝えられた。

18

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

連邦準備制度の救済プログラムを受けて、商業銀行側で主導的役割を果たしたのはモ
ルガン・ギャランティ・トラスト銀行であった。当時 FRB 理事であったマイセル（ShermanJ. Maisel）
は次のように回顧している。
「商業信用の主な貸し手であるモルガンは、貸し手会議を招集したが、そこには 40 人か 50 人、あるいはそれ以上の貸し手がいた。当時、コマーシャル・ペーパーを発行するには、通常、銀行のバックアップが必要であった」。この会議で、「何人かの小銀行家が立ち上がり、それは株主に対して不公平だ。リスクが大きすぎる。バックアップ契約から資金を引き出すことは認められない」と言った。その時モルガンの頭取が立ち上がって、「わかった、それでいい。君たちの分け前は除くが、二度とモルガンには近づくな。それがビジネスのやり方なら、二度と取引しない」と言った。
すると、2 人の小銀行家は、「ああ、いや、いや。融資しますよ。コミットメントは撤回しない」と言った 52）。
バーンズは、連邦準備銀行が事業会社に対する直接融資を覚悟していたにしても、ペン・セントラル鉄道への直接融資を拒否した。その影響でコマーシャル・ペーパーの更新に困難を来した企業に、連邦準備銀行は取引銀行を誘導して市場金利以下で融資をする
ことにより、間接的に救済した。連邦準備銀行が監視することのない非金融企業に対する融資のリスクを取引銀行に転嫁することで、「過度なリスクテイクに繋がりかねない潜在的なモラルハザードを回避する」ことができたのであった 53）。

4 おわりに―TBTF or LLR ? ―国防生産法に依拠した連邦政府のペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画は失敗した。ペン・セ
ントラル鉄道の事例は、ロッキード社やクライスラー社の救済事例と果たして比較できるのか、あるいはコンチネンタル・イリノイ銀行のような金融機関の救済とどこが異なるのであろうか。最後に、ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画とその破綻を、そしてその後のコマーシャル・ペーパー市場危機に対する連邦準備政策を、「大きすぎて潰せない（TBTF）」
政策および「最後の貸手（LLR）」機能の側面からまとめてみたい。
アメリカ最大の鉄道会社で、全米第 11 位の企業規模を有するペン・セントラル鉄道の破綻は、利害関係者の多くに衝撃を与えた。ほぼ同時期に経営難を抱えたロッキード社に対する連邦政府の支援も予想され、ペン・セントラル鉄道の救済計画は不況が深化する懸“Walt Disney Confirms It May Write Off $1,450,000 Penn Central Commercial Paper,”Wall Street Journal, July 28,
1970, p. 32.
52）Maisel [2009], pp. 30-31.
53）Mishkin & White [2016] は、こうした中央銀行による最後の貸手機能を「非バジョット流動性ファシリ
ティ」としている（pp. 244-245）。

19『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

念のなかで、軍事物資を輸送する「国益」から進められた。しかし、自動車や航空機などの輸送手段との競争で衰退の一途を辿っていた鉄道会社を広域鉄道への統合構想を進めていた規制機関（ICC）
にとって、ペン・セントラル鉄道の破産申請はそれを推し進める機会を提供した。また、「ペン・セントラルが倒産しても、列車は走り続けるだろう」との新聞記事のように 54）、なお重要な産業基盤であり続ける鉄道への手厚い保護と規制により営業運行を半ば強制されていたことも、救済計画を断念させる要因となった。とはいえ、
ペン・セントラル鉄道のケースは、その後の巨大製造企業や巨大銀行の救済問題を議論する端緒となった。
議会会計監査院（GAO）は、1970 年代に連邦政府が巨大企業の救済プログラムを実施したにもかかわらず確固たるガイドラインがないとして、「これらのプログラムに関わった100 名以上の人々の回顧と経験から、この種のプログラムの構成、実施、管理、監督に関するガイドラインを作成した」。GAO は民間企業の救済において、連邦政府が介入する国
益上の関心事項として 9 項目を設定した。表 6 は、各企業の救済がどの項目に該当するかを示している。詳細は省くが、GAO は、ペン・セントラル鉄道は「破産が許された」唯一の事例であり、ロッキード社への資金援助プログラムはその後の企業救済のための根本的な障害を取り除くことで、重要な前例となったと見る 55）。GAOのガイドラインは、コン
チネンタル・イリノイ銀行の救済が世論を賑わす直前に公表されたことでも注目に値する。
連邦準備制度は連邦政府の国防生産法に依拠したペン・セントラル鉄道への直接融資を拒否する一方、他方で、巨額のコマーシャル・ペーパー発行残高を有する同鉄道の破産に起因する流動性危機に直面して、迅速かつ積極的な金融政策に着手した。連邦準備銀行は伝統的な「最後の貸手」として割引窓口を用意することに加え、コマーシャル・ペー
パーの更新危機に直面した企業には、商業銀行を経由して間接的に融資する手法でモラ
ル・ハザードも回避した。これまで実施されなかったことで軽視されてきた、連邦準備銀行による事業会社に対する直接融資もまた、フェイルセーフとして準備されていたのであった 56）。

54）Frank C. Porter,“A Penn Central Director’s View,”Washington Post, June 26, 1970, in U.S. Senate, Committee
on Commerce [1970], p. 616.
55）U.S. General Accounting Office [1984], pp. 10, 17, 28.
56）アメリカ金融史の第一人者メルツアー [Meltzer 2008] は次のように理解している。
「Fed はその 95 年の歴史の中で，破綻に対する対処方針を明確に打ち出したことはない。FRB は銀行や投資銀行を存続させるために支援を提供することもあれば，金融機関を閉鎖することもあった。問題を抱えた金融機関は、救済されるのか、それとも首を絞められるのか、事前に知る術はない」。

20

ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

表 6 民間企業の救済で連邦議会が考慮すべき国益上の理由

国益とする理由

ペン・セントラル *サービス / 製品の継続性の維持

◯

雇用の維持

◯

ロッキード クライスラー（1971 年） （1980 年 **）◯◯◯防衛関連企業の維持◯◯

技術力の維持◯◯産業集中の拡大阻止◯◯

同盟国との良好な関係の維持◯

外国企業の市場参入阻止◯

金融市場 / 金融機関への悪影響の軽減◯

地域 / 社会 / 経済的コストの低減

◯

◯
◯

◯

* コンレール（1974-81 年）を救済とみなす。** Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 の成立が1980 年 1 月 7 日であるため。
出所：U.S. General Accounting Office [1984] , p. 28 より筆者作成。

経営危機に直面したペン・セントラル鉄道とその関連会社は、最後の頼みの綱として高金利のユーロダラー（ユーロカレンシー）の取り入れに向かった。ペン・セントラル鉄道の破綻は、連邦預金保険の適用外であるユーロダラーの預金者（貸手）に、したがってまた、500 億ドル規模に成長したユーロダラー市場に衝撃を与えた。ペン・セントラル鉄道
が経営破綻に向かう過程で、FRB は譲渡性 CD の上限金利を引き上げ、ユーロダラー預金に対する必要準備規制を導入して、ユーロダラー金利の急落、米銀行のユーロダラー取入れの急減をもたらした。他方で、金融引き締め政策をとる西ドイツへの過度のユーロダ
ラー流入は、ドイツ連邦銀行のドル買打ち切りに帰結する。国内規制から逃れた自由な金融市場と見なされるユーロダラー市場もまた、国内金融規制の影響から逃れることはできなかった 57）。そして、ペン・セントラル鉄道破綻の 14 か月先にはニクソン・ショック（金・ドル交換停止）が待ち受けていたのであった。

57）矢後［2006］は、ユーロカレンシー市場の位置づけをめぐり、無規制の自由な「ジャングル」かあるい
は規制に囲まれた「牢獄」か、という新自由主義者の問題提起を、1960 年代後半の BIS に焦点を当て多面的に考察している。

21

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

文献リスト
浅野敬一［2021］「1960 年代アメリカの中小企業金融―ジョン・スパークスマンの『中小企業資本銀行』構
想を中心に」、『大阪経済大論集』第 72 巻 3 号 .
坂出健（2010）『イギリス航空機産業と「帝国の終焉」―軍事産業基盤と英米生産提携」有斐閣 .
須藤功［2024］「ペン・セントラル鉄道の経営危機と短期資金調達（1969-1970 年）―コマーシャル・ペーパー/ ユーロダラー市場に着目して」『明治大学社会科学研究所紀要』第 63 巻、掲載予定 .
須藤功［2022］「州際通商委員会の鉄道規制とその変遷（1887-1970 年）―ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画の破綻によせて」、『アメリカ経済史研究』第 21 号 .
須藤功［2020］「大きすぎて潰せない (TBTF)―コンチネンタル・イリノイ銀行の救済を事例にして」、大橋陽・
中本悟編『ウォール・ストリート支配の政治経済学』文眞堂、第 3 章所収 .
西川純子［2008］『アメリカ航空宇宙産業―歴史と現在』日本経済評論社 .
矢後和彦［2006］「ユーロ・カレンシー市場と国際決済銀行―1950-60 年代の新自由主義と国際金融市場」、
権上康男編著『新自由主義と戦後資本主義―欧米における歴史的経験』日本経済評論社、第 10 章所収 .
Beshers, Eric W. [1989] “Conrail: Government Creation & Privatization of an American Railroad,” World Bank Report,
INU 38.
Brimmer, Andrew F. [2007] “Interview with Andrew F. Brimmer,” Federal Reserve Board Oral History Interviews,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System website.
Churella, Albert J. [2022] “Private Agendas and the Public Good: The Contested Development of High-speed
Passenger Rail Transport in the United States,” Journal of Transport History, Vol. 43, No. 1.
Calomiris, Charles W. [1993] “Is the Discount Window Necessary? A Penn-Central Perspective,” National Bureau of
Economic Research Working Paper No. 45.
Davis, Jeff [2020] “Amtrak at 50: The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970,” Eno Transportation Weekly. https://www.
enotrans.org/article/
Hilton, George [1975] The Northeast Railroad Problem, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
Domestic Affairs Studies.
Holzweiss, Robert F. [2003] “Too Big to Fail?,” Railroad History, Spring-Summer, No. 188.
Maisel, Sherman J. [2009] “Interview with Andrew F. Brimmer,” Federal Reserve Board Oral History Interviews,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System website.
Martin, W. McChesney, Jr., [1951] “Federal Reserve Responsibilities under Defense Production Act,” Federal
Reserve Bulletin, May.
Meltzer, Allan H. [2008] “Keep the Fed Away from Investment Banks,” Wall Street Journal, July 16, p. A17.
Mishkin, Frederic S. and Eugene N. White [2016] “Unprecedented Actions: The Federal Reserve’s Response to the
Global Financial Crisis in Historical Perspective,” in M. D. Bordo and M. A. Wynne eds., The Federal Reserve’s
Role in the Global Economy, Cambridge University Press.
Perritt, Henry H. Jr. [1983] “Ask and Ye Shall Receive: The Legislative Response to the Northeast Rail Crisis,”
Villanova Law Review, Vol. 28, No.2.
Schadrack, Frederick C. and Frederick S. Breimyer [1970] “Recent Developments in the Commercial Paper Market,”Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Monthly Review, December.

22ペン・セントラル鉄道救済計画と連邦準備制度（須藤功）

Schwartz, Anna J. [1992] “The Misuse of the Fed’s Discount Window,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Review,Vol. 74, No. 5.
Selden, Richard T. ed. [1963] Trends and Cycles in the Commercial Paper Market, UMI.
Slivinski, Stephen [2009] “Federal Reserve: Last Stop Lending: How a Railroad Bankruptcy Helped form Modern Fed
Policy,” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Research Gate.
U.S. General Accounting Office [1984] “Guidelines for Rescuing Large Failing Firms and Municipalities,”
Washington, D.C., GAO/GGD-84-34.
U.S. House, Committee on Banking and Currency [1972] The Penn Central Failure and the Role of Financial
Institutions: Staff Report of the Committee on Banking and Currency, 92nd Congress, 1st Session, Washington:
GPO.
U.S. House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce [1970] Emergency Rail Services Legislation: Hearings
Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Aeronautics, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: GPO.
U.S. House, Securities and Exchange Commission [1972] The Financial Collapse of the Penn Central Company: Staff
Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Washington:
GPO.
U.S. Joint Economic Committee [1970] The 1970 Midyear Review of the State of the Economy, Hearings, 91st
Congress., 2nd Session., Washington: GPO.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1970] Failing Railroads: Hearings, On S. 4011, S. 4014, and S. 4016,, 91st
Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: GPO.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce [1973] The Penn Central and Other Railroads: A Report to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, Washington: GPO.
Volcker, Paul A. [2008] “Interview with Paul A. Volcker,” Federal Reserve Board Oral History Interviews, Board ofGovernors of the Federal Reserve System website.

［付記］本稿は、JSPS 科学研究費 20K01798（基盤研究Ｃ）及び 21H00736（基盤研究Ｂ、研究代表者・矢後和彦）による成果の一部である。貴重なコメントをいただいた匿名査読者に感謝申し上げる。

23

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）
，25-49 頁

論説イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム
佐原 徹哉＊The Western Liberalism and the Israeli War in Gaza
By TETSUYA SAHARA

The Western support of the Israeli war in Gaza has brought about dispute over thepolitical hypocrisy of the leaders. The marked difference between their attitude to theRussian atrocities in Ukraine and those to the Israeli in Gaza may undermine the rule oflaw in the international affairs. Moreover, the antiwar activities of the Jewish citizen
have raised question over the validity of the equation of the Antizionism with theAntisemitism. The Western approval of the Israeli massacre of the Palestine citizen as“collateral damage” even hint their racist preoccupations. To sum up, the Israeli war has
jeopardized the liberal principles of democracy and human rights as a whole.

1 はじめにイスラエルによるガザ侵攻によって、多数のパレスチナ人が亡くなっているが、アメリカをはじめとする西側諸国はイスラエルの軍事行動を支持し続けている。この事態を、国連事務総長のアントニオ・グテレスは「人道主義自体の危機」と呼んだ。本論は、この発言に鑑みて、ガザ侵攻に対する西側諸国の対応が民主主義と普遍的人権概念に与える影響について考察する。

2 未完のジェノサイド
イスラエルのガザ侵攻は過去のジェノサイド事件と酷似している。イスラエル政府は、
ガザのパレスチナ人全体に 10 月 7 日の事件に対する集団的責任を負わせ、無差別な空爆と地上戦によって民間人を大量に殺害し、ガザ地区を封鎖して食糧・水・燃料の供給を制限することで生存困難な条件を強要し、衰弱死させている。これは植民地時代のナミビアで、
ドイツ当局がヘレロ人の反乱の責任を民族全体に負わせ、「抹殺指令」に基づいて無差別処刑を行い、生存に必要な飲料水の供給を遮断し、「野蛮人」とみなして生存不可能な砂漠に追放して消耗死させたヘレロ・ナマクワ虐殺事件（1904 〜 5 年）と酷似している。ドイツはこの事件を2021年にジェノサイドであったと公式に認めている。イスラエルはまた、＊明治大学政治経済学部教授（Professor, School of Political Science and Economics, Meiji University）

25

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

パレスチナ人を最初はガザ北部から強制的に南部に移動させ、更に南部の避難場所にも無差別の空爆を行い、生存に必要な衣料・食糧・飲料水・燃料・医療サービス等を遮断することで、多数のパレスチナ人が病死・餓死しつつある。これは、第一次世界大戦でオスマン帝国が戦闘地域からの「避難」を口実にアルメニア人をアナトリア東部からの強制的に移動させ、シリア南部の砂漠地帯に追放して大量死させたアルメニア大虐殺（1914〜 5 年）に酷似している。アルメニア人大虐殺は欧州議会と米国議会がジェノサイド事件であると断定している。イスラエルは戦争以前からパレスチナ人の土地と財産を奪い、ガザ地区に閉じ込め、国連等の支援物資に頼って暮らさざるを得なくしてきた。これはボスニア内戦でセルビア人勢力によって国連の安全地帯に追い込まれたスレブレニツァと周辺地域の住民の状況に酷似している。セルビア人勢力は更に「住民がそこで暮らし続ける希望を失わせる」ためにスレブレニツァ地区の包囲を段階的に縮小して住民を狭隘な地域に追い込み、水も食料も与えずに女性と子供に「自発的避難」を受け入れさせ、成人男性を処刑した。この行為は旧ユーゴ国際刑事裁判所によってジェノサイドと認定されているが、パレスチナ人をガザ南部の狭隘な地域に追い込んだ上で、他国への追放を構想している
イスラエル政府の態度と比較可能である。暴力を用いて特定の地域から「望ましくない」
住民を強制的に追放する行為はボスニア内戦では民族浄化と呼ばれたが、現在のイスラエルの政策は遥かに大規模なものである。
以上のことから、イスラエルによるガザ攻撃は、極めて大規模な民族浄化であると断定することができる。現在の死者数はガザ地区の住民の 1 〜 2％ほどであることを考えると、ジェノサイドが行われたと断定することはできないが、強制移住を余儀なくされた人々の数はボスニアのケースを遥かに凌ぎアルメニア人大虐殺に匹敵するものであり、ナミビア事件とも共通する要素が多いことを考えると、ジェノサイに発展する可能性が高い。現在の状況は未完のジェノサイドと呼ぶべきである。

3 西側諸国と「国際社会」の責任
ジェノサイド条約第一条は「締約国は、集団殺害が平時に行われるか戦時に行われるかを問わず、国際法上の犯罪であることを確認し、これを、防止し処罰することを約束する」と規定している。イスラエルのガザ攻撃がジェノサイドに発展する可能性が高いことに鑑みて、締約国はイスラエルの未完のジェノサイドを防止する義務がある。特に、米国の場合、「エリ・ヴィーゼル・ジェノサイドと残虐行為の防止法」（2018）によって残虐行為の防止が米国の国益であると定めているので、単独でもイスラエルの攻撃を阻止する義務がある。次の前例を想起すれば尚更であろう。

26

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

2014 年夏に IS（「イスラム国」を名乗るジハード主義組織、ISIL はその前身）はイラク
北部のクルド人地帯を制圧し、ヤズィディ教徒を悪魔崇拝者として迫害した。男性は処刑され、女性と子供は奴隷にされたため、迫害を逃れてスィンジャル地方の数千人のヤズィ
ディ教徒が水も食料もない山岳地帯に避難し、大量に消耗死する危機に陥った。これを受けて米国大統領バラク・オバマは 8 月 7 日に次のような演説を行った。
ここ数日、（イラクの）スィンジャル地方のヤズィディ教徒の女性、男性、子供たちが命からがら避難している。数万人が僅かな衣服を身につけただけで山に隠れている。彼らは食糧も水もなく、飢えている。一方、ISIL はヤズィディの人々の根絶を唱えている。これはジェノサイドになりうる。我が国はこうした状況を目の当たりにしており、我が国だけが虐殺を回避する力を持っている。私は米国には見て見ぬ振りはできないと信じる。我々は潜在的なジェノサイドを防止するために慎重かつ責任感を持って行動できるのだ。
（WH 2014）
オバマはこれを根拠に IS に対する空爆を実施した。アメリカの軍事行動はイラク領内
ではイラク政府が米国に軍事支援を求めていたので、合法的な軍事力の行使と見なすことができるが、シリア領内での軍事作戦はシリア政府の承認を受けずに行われているため、国際法に違反する行為であるが、オバマ政権の行動がジェノサイド条約第一条の義務履行であると解釈すれば、シリアもこの条約を批准しているので許容しうる行為ということができるかもしれない。アメリカは現在でもシリア国内に軍事基地を建設し、不法な占領を続けているが、ジェノサイドの防止義務がそれを担保していると考えると、他の未完のジェノサイドを防止する義務はより一層重くなる。バイデン政権はイスラエル近海に空母を含む艦隊を派遣しているので、イスラエルの軍事拠点を破壊し、ガザ攻撃を中止させる
十分な能力を有しており、これを行使せずにジェノサイドの可能性を放置しているとすれ
ば、ジェノサイド条約とエリ・ヴィーゼル法の双方に違反していることになる。

（1）ガザ攻撃を巡る西側諸国の態度
このことを踏まえて西側諸国のイスラエルに対する態度を確認しておこう。バイデン大
統領は 10 月 7 日の事件を受けてホワイトハウスでテレビ演説を行い、ハマスの攻撃を強く批判し「イスラエルには、自国と国民を守る権利がある。イスラエルの安全保障に対する我が政権の支持は揺るぎない」と発言すると共に、ネタニヤフ首相と電話で会談し「イスラエル政府と国民へ、あらゆる適切な支援を提供する用意がある」と伝えた（WH 2023a）。
ブリンケン国務長官、オースティン国防長官、サリバン大統領補佐官もそれぞれ別々の回路でイスラエル側に全面的に支援を約束した（USDS 2023）。バイデンは 10 月 18 日にイス

27

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

ラエルを訪問してネタニヤフと会談し、「私はシオニストだ」と宣言して閣議に参加し（Reuters 2023a）、25 日には、パレスチナ人の犠牲者数を信用できないと語って被害を矮小化し、パレスチナ人の犠牲がイスラエルによる軍事作戦の結果ではなく、付随的な被害にすぎないと発言した（Telhami 2023）。バイデンは 10 月 9 日、フランス、ドイツ、イタリア、英国の首脳とともに「われわれの国々はこのような残虐行為から自国と自民を守ろうとするイスラエルの努力を支援する」との声明を出し（WH 2023b）、22 日にも同じ顔ぶれにカナダを加えて同様の立場を確認した（WH 2023c）。バイデンはこれらの発言だけでなく、
イスラエルによるパレスチナ人の大量虐殺が明らかになっても、殺害に使われるミサイルと爆弾を含む大量の軍事物資をイスラエルに提供し、140 億ドルのイスラエル支援を議会に要請するなどイスラエル軍のガザ攻撃に実質的に関与している。更に、ガザの休戦を求める 10 月 18 日と 12 月 8 日の安保理決議案に拒否権を行使し、同様の内容の国連総会決議でも反対票を投じるなど、その影響力を使って国連がイスラエルのジェノサイドを予防す
る努力を妨害してきた。12 月 12 日にも「我が国のイスラエル支援は揺るがない。我々はイスラエルへの軍事支援を続ける。我々は全力をもってハマスに責任を取らせる。奴らは動物だ」とも発言している（2023d）。12 月 22 日に安保理は「即時に自由で安全で大規模な人道支援を行える措置を講じ、持続的な戦闘休止の条件を整える」という決議を採択したが、バイデンはその二日後に行ったネタニヤフとの電話会談で停戦を求めず、ネタニヤ
フの「全ての目的が達成されるまで戦争を続ける」意思を容認した（TI 2023d）。以上のような対応に鑑みて、アメリカ政府はジェノサイドの防止義務を怠るだけでなく、イスラエル政府のガザに対する民族浄化を支援し、ジェノサイドの可能性を助長していると言える。将来的にイスラエルのガザ侵攻がジェノサイドの段階に至った場合、アメリカ政府はジェノサイドの共謀の責任を負うことになる。
他の西欧諸国の指導者の主な対応も見てみよう。欧州委員長フォン・デア・レーエンは
10 月 14 日にイスラエルを訪問し、ハマスの行為は「ホロコースト以来ユダヤ人が被った
最も凶悪な攻撃」でありヨーロッパはイスラエルの側に立ち、イスラエルには自衛する権利があると発言した（European Commission 2023）。10 月 17 日、ドイツのオラフ・ショル
ツ首相は「我が国は、ドイツの歴史とホロコーストへの責任を踏まえてイスラエルの安全保障と生存権を守る義務がある」「罪のない市民への残虐な攻撃と処刑、幼児の殺害、女性、男性、子供の誘拐は血も凍るような悪事である」と発言した（TI 17.10.2023）。イギ
リスのルシ・スナク首相も 10 月 19 日にイスラエルを訪問し、「このイスラエルにとって最も困難な時期に我が国は友人としてそれを支えることを誇りに思う。我が国はイスラエル
国家と国民と連帯し、あなた方の勝利を望んでいる」と発言した（TI 19.10.2023）。フラ

28

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

ンス大統領エマニュエル・マクロンは 10 月 23 日、ネタニヤフと会談し「イスラエルには合法的な自衛権がある。これは正義であり、決定的なものだ」と発言した（Nabli 2023）。
こうした発言に鑑みると、西側諸国もイスラエルの残虐行為を容認していると判断できる。これはジェノサイドの防止義務に違反し、ジェノサイドを助長する態度と言える。特にドイツは 2024 年 1 月にイスラエルへの砲弾の供給を計画しており、実施された場合はジェノサイドへの共謀行為を犯すことになる（Reuters 2024b）。

（2）西側諸国のモラルハザード
イスラエルのガザ攻撃がジェノサイドに発展する可能性が高く、アメリカ政府にはそれを阻止する義務があるという結論は本論だけの見解ではない。南アフリカ政府は、2023
年 12 月 28 日に国際司法裁判所に対してイスラエル国家をジェノサイド罪で告発した（ICJ2023）
。これを受けて国際司法裁判所は 2024 年 1 月 26 日にイスラエルにガザへの人道支援を許可し、ジェノサイドの防止に努めるよう暫定的命令を下したが、その根拠としてガザのパレスチナ人がジェノサイドから守られるべき権利を有することに蓋然性があると述べている（ICJ 2024:19）。アメリカの人権団体「憲法的権利センター」も 10 月 18 日にカリフォ
ルニア連邦地裁に対して米国政府とバイデン大統領がジェノサイド条約に基づく、ジェノサイドの予防義務を怠っていると告発した。それによると、イスラエルの政府と軍の高官たちはガザのパレスチナ人を破壊する意図があることをはっきりと露呈する発言を繰り返し、集団罰として空爆によって人道危機を作り出しているのでジェノサイドであり米国政府にはそれを防止する義務があるという（CCR 2023）。
フランスの国際法学者ベリグ・ナブリも 11 月 14 日『オプセルヴァトゥール』に「ガザ、国際法の墓場」と題する寄稿文を掲載し、その中で、イスラエルのガザ攻撃は「合法的な自衛」権の枠を超えており、国際人道法に逸脱した戦争犯罪であるとした上で、西側諸国
がロシアのウクライナ攻撃とは対照的な態度をイスラエルのガザ攻撃にとることで国際法と普遍的人権の双方の信用を失墜させていると批判した（Nabli 2023）。この指摘に鑑み、ロシアのウクライナ戦争に対する西側指導者たちの言説を確認してみよう。2022 年 2 月 24日にロシア政府はウクライナ領に対する「特別軍事作戦」を開始した。西側諸国はロシアの行為を侵略と非難し、ウクライナ市民に対する攻撃に次のような発言を行ってきた。3
月 24 日にブリンケン国務長官はロシア軍がマリウポリの住民を水も食料もない状態に放置し「意図的に市民を標的にした無差別攻撃を行っていることを示す多数の信頼すべき証拠がある」と発言し、バイデン大統領も「プーチンの侵略戦争の被害を受ける、特に女性、子供などの弱い立場にある人々に食糧と水と避難場所と医療サービスを確保するために全29

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

力を傾ける」と述べた（WH 2022）。バイデンは更に 4 月 13 日に「ロシアの行為はジェノサイドだ。プーチンはウクライナ民族が存在するという考えを払拭しようとしている。その証拠は無数にある」とも発言している（BBC 2022）。12 月 2 日にはフランスのマクロン
大統領と共同でロシアがウクライナで行っていることは戦争犯罪であると非難する声明も出している（Reuters 2022b）。副大統領のカマラ・ハリスも 2023 年 2 月 19 日のミュンヘン
安全保障会議でロシアの行動は「我々の共通の価値観に対する攻撃である…我々はウクラ
イナでのロシアの行動をよく知っており、法的基準も弁えている。それらが人道に対する罪であるのは明白だ」と発言した（BBC 2023）。欧州委員会議長のフォン・デア・レーエ
ンも 10 月 19 日に欧州議会で「ロシアはウクライナで民間のインフラを攻撃している。これは明らかに戦争犯罪である」「男子、女性、子供たちを水や電気や暖房から切り離す目的で民間のインフラを標的とした攻撃を行うことは純粋なテロである」と発言した（Reuters
2022a）。ドイツのショルツ首相も、10 月 20 日に、ロシアの無人機によるウクライナの都市への攻撃と民間人の殺害は戦争犯罪であり「民間人への無差別の攻撃は戦争犯罪である」と断言した（DW 2022）。英国のスナク首相も 2023 年 5 月 17 日に「我々はロシアにこの恐るべき戦争犯罪の責任を取らせねばならない」と発言した（DM 2023）。このように、西側指導者たちは、ロシアによるウクライナ市民の迫害は戦争犯罪であるとはっきりと断言し、ナブリの言うようにガザに対する態度とは明らかに異なる発言を続けてきた。
日本政府の対応も確認しておこう。岸田文雄首相は、ハマスの攻撃を受けて 10 月 8 日に「罪のない一般市民に多大な被害が出ており、強く非難する」と SNS に投稿した。外相の上川陽子も攻撃を非難する談話を発するとともに「これ以上の被害が生じないよう、全ての当事者に最大限の自制」を求め、イスラエルとパレスチナの双方に働きかけを強め「事態の早期沈静化に向けて尽力する」ことを強調した ( 日経 08.10.2023)。岸田は 11 月 1 日にイスラエルのイサアク・ヘルツォグ大統領と会談した際に、ガザ地区の情勢をめぐり「人道状況を改善するための物資の搬入の必要性を指摘し、国際人道法を含めた国際法を順守すべきだ」とする日本の立場を伝え (NHK 01.12.2023)、11 月 6 日にネタニヤフと電話で会談した際にも「国際法を順守し、民間人の被害の最小化や事態の沈静化などの重要性を伝えた」と報じられている（NHK 06.12.2023）。これらの発言から見て、日本政府は今回のパレスチナ・イスラエル戦争に対して西側諸国ほどはっきりとイスラエルの軍事行動を支持する姿勢を示してはいないが、その一方で、11 月 1 日の参院予算委員会で「イスラエルによるパレスチナ自治区ガザへの空爆、地上作戦は国際法違反か」との質問に対し、岸田は「現実の状況をしっかり確認できない立場にあるわが国として、法的な判断をする立場にない」と述べ、11 月 3 日にイスラエルを訪問した上川もイスラエルの戦争犯罪に対し30イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）て「わが国として確定的な法的評価を行うことは控えたい」（東京新聞 09.11.2023）と話したように、日本政府はこの問題に無関心を装うことでジェノサイドの防止義務を逃れようとしている。日本はジェノサイド条約を批准していないが、この条約は国際的規範となっているのでそれに従う道義的責任は負っている。これとは対照的に、ロシアのウクライナ
侵攻を巡っては、岸田は「明白な国際法違反で、断じて許容できない」( 首相官邸、
20.02.2022)、「市民を殺害することは戦争犯罪だ」（NHK 07.04.2022）といった発言を繰り返しており、西側諸国と同様の二重基準を採用していると言える。
国連ウクライナ人権監視使節によると戦争開始から 2023 年 11 月 21 日までのウクライナの民間人の死者は 1 万人以上で（560 人の子供を含む）であるが（UN 2023b）、ガザのパ
レスチナ人の犠牲者は現時点で 2 万 6 千人以上（その内、女性と子供が七割以上）なので、その二・五倍を超えている。それにもかかわらずロシアは非難するがイスラエルを非難しない西側諸国のリーダーたちの態度は国際的なモラルハザード（倫理崩壊）を引き起こす
可能性がある。パレスチナ国連大使のリヤド・マンスールはアメリカの拒否権発動で不採択となったガザに対する停戦決議の安保理審議で次のように発言しているが、この問題を的確に指摘していると言える。
「ガザで行われていることの目的が民族浄化であるのを知らないふりをしようとでもいうのか。イスラエルは残虐行為を繰り広げ、人々に安全のために南に移動するよう命じたがそこでも空爆を行っている。これはイスラエルの極右勢力の連合体であるネ
タニヤフ政権の（侵略）戦争だ。犠牲者の七割が女性と子供であるのにハマスとの（自衛）戦争だと嘯くことはできない。イスラエルはハマスがとった人質をパレスチナ人へのテロを正当化する根拠にしているが、イスラエルは 2 百万人のガザの人々を人質にしているではないか。人種や宗教や民族に優劣は存在しないし、第二次世界大戦の惨事をガザの惨事を正当化する根拠にすることは許されない。イスラエルは特権的振る舞いを即座にやめねばならない。国際社会はイスラエルの犯罪を免罪するために国際法を書き換えるような行為はやめねばならない」（UN 2023c）。
つまり、重要なのは、西側諸国がイスラエルによるガザ市民の大量虐殺を容認する態度
が、1）イスラエルだけ特別待遇を与えられているのではないか、2）犠牲者のパレスチナ
人は劣等人種と見られているのではないか、3）二重基準が広がれば国際法の規範が変わってしまうのではないか、ということである。次にこの問題を検討してみよう。

4 なぜイスラエルは特権視されるのか？
アメリカを始めとした西側諸国がウクライナとガザで対照的な態度をとる理由を説明す31

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

る一つの仮説は、安全保障上の立場に由来するというものである。ロシアは西側の仮想敵国であるがイスラエルは事実上の同盟国であるから、敵であるロシアが加害者の場合はジェノサイドであり、味方であるイスラエルの場合はジェノサイドとはみなされないということになる。しかし、アメリカは過去のジェノサイド事件で、敵・味方の論理とは無関係にジェノサイドに相当する行為を非難してきた。例えば、アメリカ政府は 1958 年にア
ルメニア人大虐殺をジェノサイドと認定したが、被害者であるアルメニアはアメリカに敵対するソ連の構成国であり、加害者として非難されたのは同盟国のトルコであった。この例は加害主体が敵であるか味方であるかとは無関係にジェノサイドを非難する態度として評価できるし、ジェノサイド概念が陳腐化することを防ぐことにもつながる。しかし、そのためにはイスラエルに対してもトルコと同様の態度を取ることが不可欠であるが、米国も西側諸国もそれを拒否している。
イスラエルが特別視される理由は何なのだろう。この問題を考える上で 2023 年 10 月に起こった一つの「事件」
がヒントとなる。10月23日の国連安保理でグテレス事務総長は「我々はガザで明らかな国際人権法違反を目撃している」とイスラエルを批判し、「ハマスの攻撃が何もないところから起こったのではない。パレスチナ人は 56 年間も息の詰まるような占領を受けてきた。彼らは自分たちの土地が移住者によってどんどん奪われてゆき、暴力に晒されてきた。経済は困窮し、人々は強制追放され、家が破壊されてきた。政治的解決への彼らの希望は消えつつある」と発言した（UN 2023a）。これに対して、イスラエルの駐米大使のエルデンは「事務総長は事実を歪めている」としてその解任を要求し、イスラエル政府は翌日から国連職員へのビザ発給を停止した。イスラエル外相のエリ・コーエ
ンはグテレスとの面会をキャンセルし、「グテレスは自身と国連の名誉を傷つけた」とのコメントを SNS に発信した。イスラエル国会の外交委員会委員長ユリ・エデルステインはグテレスの「イスラエルに対する偏見に満ちた歪んだ態度」は「完全に狂って」おり、世界中で反ユダヤ主義者の憎悪を煽ることになると主張した。ホロコースト記念館長のダ
ニ・ダヤンも、ハマスによる 10 月 7 日のユダヤ人虐殺はジェノサイドを意図しており「ホロコーストと異なるのは現代のユダヤ人が国家と軍隊を持っており、他人によって運命を弄ばれる無力な存在ではない点だ」と述べ、グテレスは最近イスラエルを訪問して「二度と起こしてはならない」と誓ったはずなのに、ホロコーストの歴史を理解していないと批判した（TI 25.10.2023）。これらの発言に共通するのは、イスラエルを批判する行為は反ユダヤ主義であり、ホロコーストの擁護だという主張である。ユダヤ人がホロコーストの犠牲者であったことを根拠に、イスラエル批判はユダヤ人一般に対する偏見に基づいた誹謗中傷であるという論法は歴代のイスラエル政府が好んで用いてきたものであるが、今32

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

回もガザ攻撃批判を封じるために同じ論法が採用されている。
この論法はホロコーストの歴史的意味と東京・ニュルンベルク裁判以降に形成されてきた国際人道法の基盤の双方を掘り崩す危険なレトリックである。ダヤンの「二度と起こしてはならない」という誓いの意味をグテレスが理解していないという発言は、イスラエル
当局がこの言葉をどのように理解しているかを明らかにするからだ。
「二度と起こしてはならない」という有名な一節は、その対象が明示されないので二通りの解釈が可能である。
一つは、ホロコーストのような惨劇はどのような人々に対しても起こってはならないという解釈で、ジェノサイドの防止という精神に通じる。これが一般的な理解であるが、ホロコーストのような迫害がユダヤ人に二度と起こってはならないという別の解釈も可能である。この解釈には、ジェノサイドとはホロコーストだけであり、他の大量虐殺事件と比較することはホロコーストの歴史的意義を歪曲するという主張も含まれている。イスラエルの歴史家イラン・パペはイスラエルの建国によってパレスチナ人が追放された事件（ナクバ）を「民族浄化」と呼んだ著作を発表したために（Pappe 2006）、「売国奴」と非難されイスラエルの大学を追われイギリスに移らざるを得なくなった（Guardian 2008）。イスラエル政府はアルメニア人大虐殺もジェノサイドとは認めておらず、米国下院のアルメニ
ア・ジェノサイド決議の後でもイスラエル外相は「アルメニア民族の恐ろしい被害と悲劇」と表現したがジェノサイドとは呼ばなかった（Haaretz 2022）。更に、イスラエルではホロ
コーストの被害者はユダヤ人だけであるという解釈も一般的で、例えばロマの大量殺害をホロコーストの一部と見做さない人が多い。ホロコーストだけがジェノサイドでジェノサ
イドの被害者はユダヤ人だけであるということになれば、他の民族はジェノサイドの被害者となることはあり得ず、加害者となる可能性しかないことになる。ダヤンがハマスの行
為はジェノサイドであるが、イスラエルの行為はジェノサイドではないことをグテレスに「正しく教えよう」としたのは、彼の思考がこうした構造だからである。ネタニヤフも 10月17日に同様の論理を展開した。この時、ネタニヤフはハマスによる10月7日の攻撃は「二度と起こしてはならない」ことが起こってしまったのであり、ハマスはナチス以上の絶対悪であるから、人類共通の敵であり、国際社会は「文明世界」を防衛するためにイスラエルを支援しなければならないと述べた（GI 2023）。つまり、イスラエルを批判するものは全てがナチであり「反ユダヤ主義者」であり「文明の敵」であると言う論法である。
この論法はアメリカ政府の判断にも影響を与えているようだ。例えば、アメリカ国家安全保障会議戦略広報調整官ジョン・カービーは 11 月 20 日の記者会見で次のような発言を行った。この会見でカービーはバイデンが「ジェノサイド・ジョー」と呼ばれていることに対する見解を求められたが、それに対して「ジェノサイドを望んでいるのはハマスだ。

33

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

奴らはイスラエルを地図から消そうとしている…10 月 7 日に起こったことは自宅や音楽祭での無辜の人々の殺害、殺戮だ。これはジェノサイドの意図がある」と答えた。これに対して記者から、既にイスラエル人の犠牲者を大幅に上回るパレスチナ人の犠牲者が出ているではないかとの反論を受けると「確かに、ガザでは過剰な市民の犠牲者が出ている。確かに、その数は多すぎる。確かにあまりに多くの家族が苦しんでいる…しかし、イスラエ
ルはパレスチナ人を地図から消そうとはしていないし、ガザを地図上から消そうともしていない。イスラエルはジェノサイド的なテロリストの攻撃から自衛しているだけだ…あな
たたちはジェノサイドという言葉の使い方を間違っている」と答えた（JP 2023）。ここでカービーがネタニヤフと同じ詭弁を弄しているのは明らかだ。ネタニヤフを含むイスラエ
ルの高官たちはガザのパレスチナ人を一掃すべきだとの発言を繰り返しており、パレスチ
ナ人へのジェノサイドの意思を明らかにしている。カービーのいう「ジェノサイドという言葉の正しい使い方」とはジェノサイドとはイスラエルに対する攻撃だけだという意味である。この解釈を受け入れてしまうと、ジェノサイドとはイスラエルの敵を非難する便利なレッテルに過ぎなくなり、人類全体に対する敵対行為という本来の意味が変わってしまう。こうした解釈は、イスラエルがジェノサイドの被害者という「特権」を行使してパレスチナ人を迫害しているという批判の根拠になるからだ。
「平和のためのフランスのユダヤ人ユニオン UJFP」は、イスラエル国家は反ユダヤ主
義を制度的に利用することによってパレスチナ占領政策とアパルトヘイト政策を西側諸国に無条件で支持させていると批判し、この政策はイスラエルへの批判を強め、世界中のユ
ダヤ人の存在を危うくすると警告している（UJFP）。この指摘の通り、ムスリム諸国では、
イスラエルがパレスチナ人に対して何をしても被害者「特権」によって西側諸国から免責されていることへの報復として、ユダヤ系市民が迫害されてきた。今回のガザ攻撃でも、
アルカイダ系のメディア「叙事詩的戦いのための電脳軍」が 10 月 18 日に「ガザの人々に連帯する戦い方」なるパンフレットをネット上に掲載し、「世界中のどこでもユダヤ人を攻撃せよ［…］近所に住んでいるユダヤ人家庭を見つけ出し、あらゆる手段で殺害せよ」と呼びかけたし、IS のニュース機関「アル・ナバア」も翌日に「ユダヤ人と戦うための実
践的方法」と題するパンフレットを公開して世界中でユダヤ人を攻撃するよう呼びかけた（MEMRI 2023）。より「穏健」なイスラム主義者たちも今回の事態を宣伝材料に利用している。トルコの新聞『イェニ・シャファク』の論説委員のセルチュク・トュルクユルマズ
は、ガザ侵攻によって「陰謀論を根拠に構築された＜二度と起こしてはならない＞というスローガンには根本的な弱点がある」ことが明らかになり、西側とイスラエルの免責特権は崩壊したと論じているし（Türkyılmaz 2023）、大統領のエルドアンは、イスラエルのガ

34

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

ザ攻撃が人道に対する罪であることを西側諸国は「イスラエルに借りがある」ので批判できないが、トルコはそうではないので「イスラエルはテロ国家だ」とはっきり言えるのだと豪語している（TCC 2923）。彼らの目的は、人権と民主主義は西側帝国主義のイデオロギーでありイスラム的正義こそが普遍的価値であると言う持論を普及させ、「ハマスはテロ組織ではなく、土地と祖国を守るために戦う民族解放グループである」という主張を正当化することにある（Yeni Şafak 2023）。

（1）イスラエルを批判するユダヤ人は反ユダヤ主義者なのか？
ガザ侵攻を受けて、2023 年 12 月 5 日に米国下院が採択した「反シオニズムが反ユダヤ主義であると明確かつ断固として宣言する」（USHR 2023）決議は、エルドアンのような主張をするものたちにとって一層の追い風になると考えられる。イスラエル批判を反ユダ
ヤ主義として封じ込めることで、反ユダヤ主義の意味自体が陳腐化するからである。アメリカで展開されているガザ反戦運動とシオニスト保守派の言説を検討することによって、その理由を説明しよう。
昨年の 10 月中旬以降、アメリカのユダヤ系団体「平和を求めるユダヤの声 JVP」はイス
ラエルのガザ攻撃に反対する抗議活動を活発に展開している。10 月 16 日にはワシントンの議事堂前でガザ停戦を求める集会を開き、「イスラエル軍はガザの 200 万人のパレスチ
ナ人を包囲し＜地獄の門を開く＞という宣言通りに全面的な攻撃を行っている。イスラエ
ル政府は完全なジェノサイドを推進しようとしている。我々は即座の停戦を要求しなければならない」と訴えた（JVP 2023a）。10 月 27 日にはニューヨークの中央駅を占拠し（JVP
2023b）、11 月 6 日には自由の女神像の下で座り込みを敢行し（JVP 2023c）、12 月 14 日には
全米 8 都市で 8 つの橋を封鎖する抗議行動を行なっている（JVP 2023d）。
これに対して保守派のユダヤ系組織「反誹謗中傷同盟 ADL」会長のジョナサン・グリー
ンブラットは、JVP を「ヘイト集団」と呼び、彼らの抗議活動を「反ユダヤ主義事件」に分類した。ADL は「イスラエル批判それ自体は反ユダヤ主義ではない」としつつも「現代の反シオニズムはしばしばイスラエルの生存を支持する人々を中傷し排除する特徴を持
つので反ユダヤ主義である」（ADL 2022）と言う立場をとっており、この論理を敷衍すると、イスラエルを批判するユダヤ人は反ユダヤ主義者であるから、ユダヤ人ではないという奇妙な論理に帰着する。実際、ADL の広報官は「JVP はユダヤ人の過激派で、ユダヤ人であるからと言って反ユダヤ主義が免罪されるわけではない」（Intercept 2023）と発言したし、トランプ政権のイスラエル大使だったデイヴィド・フリードマンは「この集会に参加した
アメリカのユダヤ人はユダヤ人ではない」と言っている（Guardian 2023）。

35

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

こうなってくると反ユダヤ主義とは何なのかという疑問が湧いてくる。これに対して、欧米諸国を中心とする 43 カ国が加盟する国際ホロコースト記念同盟（IHRA）が 2016 年に制定した「反ユダヤ主義」の定義は次のように答える。反ユダヤ主義とは、1）ユダヤ人の殺害や迫害を主張する思想、2）ユダヤ人に対する偏見、3）一部のユダヤ人の犯罪を民族としてのユダヤ人に責任に転嫁する行為、4）ホロコーストの否定、5）ホロコーストを捏造したとユダヤ人を非難すること、6）ユダヤ人が売国奴であるとすること、7）ユダヤ民族の自決権の否定、8）イスラエルへの二重基準の適用、9）イスラエルの中傷、10）イ
スラエルの政策をナチスと比較すること、11）イスラエル国家の行動に対してユダヤ人に集団的責任を負わせること、である（小森 2023）。これを見ると、IHRA の考える反ユダ
ヤ主義の大半がイスラエルを批判する行為であることが分かる。更に注意してみると、この定義では「人種」や「人種主義」という表現は使われておらず、反ユダヤ主義を人種主
義の一種であるとは必ずしも考えていないことが分かる。ADL も IHRA の反ユダヤ主義の定義が「人種主義とは少しずれている」（ADL 2004）ことを認めているが、それを批判す
ることはなく、反ユダヤ主義は人種主義と共通性を持つが他の差別とは異なる固有の特徴を持つという奇妙な論理を展開している。ユダヤ人とユダヤ教徒に対する差別・偏見・迫害はある意味で「超歴史的」とも言え、人種主義が出現する以前から存在しているので、そう言いたい気持ちも理解できるが、人種主義との関係を曖昧にすることは人種主義への批判を鈍らせることに繋がりかねない。なぜなら、反ユダヤ主義は間違っているという言説は、この思想が人種主義だから間違っているという解釈だけでなく、間違った人種主義だと解釈する余地があるからだ。
アメリカのユダヤ系団体「人種的及び経済的正義を求めるユダヤ人たち JFREJ」は、この問題を的確に指摘している。それによると、欧州起源の米国のユダヤ系移民とその子孫たちは、20 世紀後半から「白人」として遇されるようになったので、自分たちは「白人」であるという意識を持ち、米国のユダヤ人口の 11 〜 20％を占める有色のユダヤ人に人種的差別を行なっているという（Ferguson 2017）。
アメリカの多数派ユダヤ系市民の人種差別に対する無自覚さは、人種主義の定義をめぐる ADL の最近の迷走にも見ることができる。ADL は元来、人種主義を「人間集団の社会的道徳的特質は生まれつきの生物学的性質によってあらかじめ決まっており、特定の人種
が他より優れている、あるいは、劣っていると信じること」と定義していた。しかし、BLM 運動を受けて、2020 年 7 月に「白人を特権視する社会的に構築された人種の階層秩序に基づいて有色人種を疎外したり抑圧したりすること」という表現に改めた（Young
2022）。この方が以前のものよりアメリカの実情には合っているのだろうが、これではア36

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

メリカのユダヤ人の大半は白人なので人種主義の被害者ではないということになってしまう。しかし、ADL は 2022 年 1 月に女優のウーピー・ゴールドバーグのスキャンダルが起こるまでそのことに気づかなかった。ゴールドバーグは ABC 放送のトーク番組で、ホロコーストは「人種差別とは無関係で、白人同士の問題だった」と発言した（People 2022）。
後に、ゴールドバーグはこの発言がユダヤ人の歴史に対する無知に基づく軽率なものだったと謝罪したが、ADL 会長のグリーンブラットは 2020 年の定義に則ればゴールドバーグの発言が間違いではないことに気づいた。そこで彼は定義を変更し「人種主義は個人や組織が人種やエスニシティに基づいて個人や集団を、より好意的な評価したり、そのように扱ったりすることによって起こる」というものに変えた（Greenblatt 2022）。しかし、これではあらゆるエスニック集団が人種主義者だということになってしまう。自らの「生得文化」に愛着を抱かない人間はあまり存在しないからだ。人種主義の本質は他の集団を劣等視することで支配を正当化することであって、単なるエスノセントリズムではない。
これと比べて、左派のユダヤ系団体の反ユダヤ主義と人種主義に対する考え方は簡潔で誤解の余地がない。JVP は反ユダヤ主義とは人種主義の一種であると言い切っているし（JVP）、UJFP も反ユダヤ主義との戦いは人種主義と戦いであると述べている（UJFP）。彼
らは、シオニスト保守派が「白人」であるユダヤ人への人種差別は間違っているが、劣等人種のアラブ人・パレスチナ人への人権侵害は許されると信じ、イスラエル政府のパレス
チナ政策批判を封じ込めるために反ユダヤ主義の意味を変えようとしていると批判する。
JVP は「パレスチナの正義を求める運動は、反人種主義の運動であり、反ユダヤ主義に対する戦いでもある。反シオニズムとは、パレスチナ人を追い出してユダヤ人だけが権利を持つ排他的な国民国家を建設する思想に反対することであり、パレスチナ人の権利と帰還権を擁護しパレスチナの土地に全ての民族が自由で安全で平等に暮らせる社会を作る運動である」（JVP）と主張している。
保守派のシオニストたちは、こうした「思想」を「反ユダヤ主義の台頭を助長する」（ADL
2022）と非難して封じ込めようとしているが、こうした態度は短期的にはイスラエルの極
右政権の延命に寄与するかもしれないが、長期的に見ると自殺行為である。JFREJ が指摘するように、アメリカの白人至上主義者は決してユダヤ人を「白人」とは認めていないし、近代の反ユダヤ主義はユダヤ人を「劣等人種」とみなしてきたからだ。

（2）「ユダヤ陰謀論」の助長
2023 年 11 月 19 日に発覚したバーヴァード大ロースクールのオンライン・ジャーナルを巡るスキャンダルも同様の問題を炙り出した。この事件は、ジャーナルの編集部がパレス

37

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

チナ人の弁護士ラベア・エグバリアに依頼した査読済み論文「現在進行中のナクバ、パレ
スチナ問題の法的枠組みのために」が拡大編集委員会の決定によって不掲載となったものである。論文は、まず「ジェノサイドが最悪の犯罪であるという概念は、西洋の同盟国が非西洋人にそれを行った場合にも適用されるのだろうか。これこそパレスチナが国際的な法秩序に突きつけてきた最も重要な問題である」との提起を行った後、「ガザは包囲され、住民が強制移住させられ、飢餓に苦しみ、水すらない 230 万人の人々が大量爆撃を受ける
大虐殺が行われているが、アメリカの代表的なロースクールや法学者たちが沈黙を続け、
曖昧な言葉で虐殺を否定している」のは「西洋の学術研究を貫く道徳的偽善」の一種であり「西洋の司法制度が未だに植民地主義的条件のもとで機能しているという事実を露呈」
するものだとの主張を展開してゆく。著者によれば、従来のヨーロッパのジェノサイド概
念では「ユダヤ人・イスラエル人の命は究極の犠牲者」として扱われているのに「パレスチナ人が人間として扱われるチャンス」はなく、ガザの事態でも国際的な法秩序の中でユダヤ系イスラエル人が「哀れな市民」として保護される一方でパレスチナ人は保護の対象として扱われないと言う。著者はその理由が西側の司法界にパレスチナ人を「野蛮な人獣」とみなす人種的偏見が蔓延っており、そのために「文明世界」であるイスラエルは「文明の敵」であるパレスチナ人に対してジェノサイドを行うことが許されているのだと論ずる。
著者はこれを踏まえて、ガザの事態をジェノサイドやアパルトヘイトと認めたくないならば、ナクバという新しい犯罪概念を創設すべきだと提案して論を締め括っているが、著者の批判は法学者だけにとどまらず、アムネスティ・インターナショナルやヒューマンライ
ツウォッチなどの人権団体を含む「西洋のリベラルな言説」総体の欺瞞にも向けられており、それらの言説には 21 世紀になっても「植民地主義的条件」が生き続けており、パレ
スチナはそれが最も明確に現れる場なのだとも主張していた（The Nation 2023）。
編集部は、この論文が掲載見送りとなった理由を、その内容ではなく「編集者たちの個
人的な事情」であったと釈明したが、著者は「個人的な事情」とは論文が掲載されることによって編集委員会とロースクールに対してハラスメントや身元の公開その他の脅迫が起こることを危惧したからであろうと推測している。当時のバーヴァードではこれを裏付けるような事件が起こっていた。発端となったのは「ハーヴァード・パレスチナ連帯グループ」を名乗る学生有志が 10 月 7 日の事件を受けて以下の公開書簡を発表したことである。
「我々はイスラエルの体制が現在展開中の全ての暴力に責任があると考える。今日の事件は何もないところから起こったのではない。過去 20 年間、200 万人以上のガザのパレスチナ人が屋根のない刑務所に無理やり閉じ込められている。イスラエル当局は「地獄の門を開く」と約束し、その言葉通り、ガザでは虐殺が行われてきた。ガザの38

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

パレスチナ人は避難する場所も逃げる場所もない。今後、パレスチナ人はイスラエルの全面的な暴力の矢面に立たされるだろうが、アパルトヘイト体制こそが問題の本質なのだ。過去75年間、パレスチナ人の生活のあらゆる側面がイスラエルの暴力によって構造化されてきた。それは徹底的な土地の掠取に始まり、日常的な空爆、軍事検問所での好き放題の身柄拘束、強制的な家族の離散、そして意図的な殺害にまで及んでいる。パレスチナ人は緩慢かつ急速な死の状態に無理やり放置されてきた。今日、
パレスチナ人の惨状は未曾有の領域に突入した。今後は植民地主義的な報復に確固たる反対を唱えねばならない。我々はバーヴァード大の構成員に現在進行中のパレス
チナ人の抹殺を止めるために行動するよう呼びかける」（HPSG）
これに対して、バーヴァード大の卒業生でヘッジファンド・マネージャのビル・アクマ
ンが公開書簡に署名した学生を雇用しないのでの身元を公開せよと SNS で発言し、これにスイート・ガーデンの最高経営責任者のジョナサン・ネマンとイージーヘルスの最高経営責任者のデヴィド・ドゥエルが同調し（Forbes 2023）、元学長で財務長官を務めたこともあるローレンス・サマーズも書簡に対して大学当局が糾弾声明を出すよう求める（NewYorker 2023）などユダヤ系の財界人から非難の声が相次いだ。ロースクール事件がこうした事態を懸念したものだったとする推測には妥当性がある。大学に対する圧力はその後も続き、12 月 5 日行われた議会の公聴会で「反ユダヤ主義」に対して曖昧な態度を取ったとして、ハーヴァード大とペンシルベニア大の学長が辞任に追い込まれる事件も起こった（Reuters 2023b, 2024a）。
ガザ攻撃に反対する人々を「反ユダヤ主義者」とみなし言論の自由を封殺しようとする
動きは、ヨーロッパでも広がっている。フランス政府は親パレスチナのデモを「公共の秩序を乱す恐れがある」として全面的に禁止し参加者に罰金を課すと発表し（France 24
2023a）、ドイツ連邦政府もパレスチナ連帯のデモや集会を弾圧し、ベルリン州などの幾つかの地方政府がデモを禁止した（WSWS 2023）。
フランスのユダヤ系団体「ツェデック」が指摘しているように、現在の反ユダヤ主義の最大の原因は、イスラエルの植民地主義と占領政策であり、それによってユダヤ人一般に対する反感が助長されていることに鑑みると（Tsedek 2023）、ユダヤ系経済人たちと西側政府が歩調を合わせて「反ユダヤ主義」の特殊な解釈を用いてイスラエル批判を封じ込めようとするのは非常に危険な行為と言えるだろう。こうした発言は世界経済をユダヤ人が支配しており、それに操られた西側政府はイスラエルのジェノサイドを容認しているという「ユダヤ陰謀説」に説得力を与えることになりかねないからだ。事実、10 月 18 日のワ
シントンの反戦集会には白人至上主義者の国民正義党も加わっていた。このグループの39

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

リーダーのマイク・ペイノヴィチは悪名高い 2017 年のシャルロットヴィルの反ユダヤ集会の主催者の一人であるが、18 日の集会でも「イスラエルは純粋なジェノサイド国家であり、アメリカ人はユダヤ人が支配する銀行とメディアと政治家たちに操られているのでイスラエルを支持させられている」と発言している（Vice 2023）。

5 リベラルな価値観の危機（1）「新たな反ユダヤ主義に抗うマニフェスト」
保守派のシオニストと西側の指導者たちがハマスとパレスチナ人を「ジェノサイド主義者」だとするキャンペーンも極右人種主義者にとって追い風となる。
「ツェデック」はこの仕組みを次のように説明している。
「アラブ・ムスリム大衆の反ユダヤ感情がイスラエ
ルの占領政策と破壊によって生まれたものであることを無視して、これをナチに代表されるヨーロッパ流の人種主義的反ユダヤ主義と同じだと決めつけてしまうと、この概念の濫
用を制度化してしまう。ハマスのイデオロギーだけが反ユダヤ主義だとすれば、欧州で台頭するネオナチ思想を是認することになるし、10 月 7 日の事件をホロコーストと同等だと主張するような思想は、イスラムがナチと同一だとする偏見を助長する」（Tsedek 2023）。
つまり、反ハマス・キャンペーンは、ムスリムのユダヤ人に対する反感だけを「反ユダヤ主義」とみなすことで（イスラムとは宗教を装った全体主義だとする）「イスラモファシズム」論を掲げる極右と、その人種主義思想を受け入れ可能なものにしてしまう可能性があるのだ。
2023 年 11 月 12 日にフランス各地で実施された「反ユダヤ主義に反対する国民行進」は、
この懸念を裏付ける出来事であった。このデモはガザ侵攻以来急増したユダヤ系市民の襲撃事件やユダヤ系施設の破壊に抗議するという両院議長の呼びかけで実現した超党派の行動で、パリのデモには首相のエリザベス・ボルヌを始めとした現職閣僚たちと前大統領のオランドとサルコジに加えて数人の元首相が参加するなど錚々たるメンバーが顔をそろえた。その中には、反ユダヤ主義者として知られる国民連合のマリーヌ・ルペン、人種主
義者のエリック・ゼムールとマリオン・マレチャルも含まれていたのに対し、「不屈のフランス」のジャン＝リュック・メランションを始め、幾人かの著名な左派グループの代表は含まれていなかった。右派のメディアは、これによって「左翼イスラム主義者」が反ユ
ダヤ主義者であることが露呈したと評したが、左派は次のように反論した。
「反ユダヤ主義に反対する国民行進は道徳的衛生という問題がある。人種主義に反対するために明らかな人種主義者と共に行進することはできない。
［…］ゼムールやルペンが信奉する大代替理論はムスリムを主な標的にしているが、これは人種主義

40

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

そのものだ。
［…］反ユダヤ主義を非難しながら、アラブ人差別やイスラム差別を糾弾しないのは、人種主義には深刻なものと程度の軽いものがあるという考え方を助長する。それは結局［人種主義としての］反ユダヤ主義を助長することになる」（Grams2023）。
左翼がこのように警戒するのは、フランスの極右がユダヤ人擁護を装って世論をムスリ
ム移民排斥の方向に誘導する手口を熟知しているからだ。事の発端は2018年に起こった「新
たな反ユダヤ主義に抗うマニフェスト」を巡る論争である。この文章は 2018 年 4 月 21 日に『ル・パリジアン』に掲載されたもので、『シャルリ・エブド』前編集長のフィリップ・
ヴァルが起草し、サルコジや首相経験者を含む三百名近くが署名した。その内容は、イスラム主義者の反ユダヤ主義事件が頻発し、フランス各地でユダヤ系市民に対する「静かな民族浄化」が起こっているにもかかわらずリベラル派のメディアと政府はそれを黙認している。その原因はムスリムを犠牲者として擁護する左翼の反シオニズムとムスリムの有権者に迎合する政治家にある。ヨーロッパの歴史と文化に決定的な役割を果たしてきたユダ
ヤ思想が一掃されれば「フランスはフランスでなくなる」ので反ユダヤ主義との戦いは「全国民の大義」である。
「こうしたことに鑑みて、我々は、ユダヤ人やキリスト教徒や無宗教者を殺し迫害するよう唱えているコーランの章句は時代遅れなものだとの刻印がイスラムの神学の権威によって押されることを要求する」というものであった（Le Parisien
2018）。このマニュフェストは「反ユダヤ主義」と戦うという触れ込みだが、本当の目的は信仰としてのイスラム全般を「テロの動機となる宗教」として禁止することであり、この思想信条の自由の否定に繋がる要求も「反ユダヤ主義」との戦いを掲げれば受け入れ可能になると目論まれていた（Le Monde 2018）。UJFP が指摘するように、「反ユダヤ主義」の特殊な解釈はムスリム差別を正当化するためのものであり、人種主義を助長することに繋がるのだ。

（2）「カーゴパンツをはいたナチ」
イスラエルのガザ攻撃を容認する態度は、人種主義の台頭を助長するだけでなく、リベ
ラルな価値観そのものを空洞化させる危険性も孕んでいる。ウクライナ戦争との対比によって普遍的人権と民主主義の擁護というリベラルな言説総体の欺瞞性が露呈してしまうからだ。
先に確認したようにイスラエルの侵攻以後、西側諸国の指導者たちのウクライナとガザに対する対照的な態度が倫理崩壊を引き起こしつつあるが、それに加えて、西側メディアの関心がウクライナから中東に移ったことで、ウクライナ支援に対する関心も低下してい41

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

る。イタリア首相のジョルジャ・メローニの最近の発言は、この状況の下で西側政府がゼ
レンスキー政権に対する態度を変化させる兆候と見ることができる。メローニは、首相就任後に持論である親ロシア路線を封印して EU の親ウクライナ路線に歩調を合わせてきたが、ロシアのコメディアンのイタズラ電話に引っかかって「ウクライナ戦争の長期に誰もが疲れ果てていると思う。正直に言って、終わりにすべきだと皆が気づく時が近づいている」と本音を漏らしてしまった（RIA 2023a）。
米大統領選の共和党候補者討論会でのヴィヴェック・ラマスワミの発言もこうした潮目の変化を示すものと解釈できる。2023 年 11 月 8 日に行われた討論会でラマスワミは「ウクライナ戦争を善と悪の戦いと考えるべきではない。プーチンが悪党だからといってウクラ
イナが善玉とは限らない。ウクライナは民主主義の模範ではないからだ。この国は 11 の野党を活動禁止にし、全てのメディアを国営放送に一本化した。これは民主主義ではない。
更に、ウクライナはアメリカ国民がもっと金を出さないなら今年の選挙を行わないとも脅している。この国はカーゴパンツをはいたコメディアンのナチを高い地位につけて賛美している。そいつの名前はゼレンスキーだ」と発言した（Business Today 2023）。ゼレンスキー
政権が腐敗したオリガルヒと極右勢力の影響力下にあって権威主義化しつつあるのは周知の事実であるが、西側メディアはこれに触れずにきた。ウクライナがロシアの権威主義体制の脅威から民主主義世界全体を防衛しているという価値観が力を持ってきたからだが、候補者討論会という衆目の集まる場でそれの欺瞞を公然と口にできるようになったという事実は、ラマスワミが泡沫候補に過ぎないということを差し引いても、世論の変化を示す
兆候と言える。また、この発言が左派やリベラル派からではなく、保守派の共和党から出ていることも重要である。リベラル的言説の欺瞞性を「ポリティカル・コレクト」と批判するのは保守主義者の常套手段であり、ラマスワミ発言の真意は、民主的でないウクライ
ナを支援するバイデン政権の欺瞞を批判することにあるからだ。これはリベラル民主主義
自体を解体する試みと捉えることができる。
こうした西側の言説の綻びはウクライナ戦争でのロシアの立場を強化することに繋がる。
ガザでの事態を容認している西側にはウクライナ戦争でロシアを批判する資格はないと反論する余地が生まれるからだ。既にプーチンは 2023 年 12 月 14 日の公開討論会で、世界中がガザの残虐行為を目にしているが「ロシアの特別軍事作戦とガザで起こっていることが全く違うのは［誰が見ても］分かるはずだ。あんなことはウクライナでは起こっていない」と語っている（President 2023）。セルゲイ・ラヴロフ外相も 12 月 28 日のインタヴューで、イスラエルはガザ侵攻でロシアの「特別軍事作戦」と同じことをしているのに批判を受けていないが、ロシアもイスラエルを手本にして、反ナチを口実にすれば国際的に非難され

42

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）ない手口を学ぶべきだと発言した 1）。こうした論法が他の国々にも採用されてゆけば、非人道的行為が容認される状況が一般化することになりかねない。

6 むすびにかえてイスラエルのガザ攻撃は極めて規模の大きな民族浄化であり、ジェノサイドに発展する可能性が高い。それにもかかわらず西側諸国のリーダーたちは攻撃を容認し、ジェノサイ
ドを防止する義務を怠っている。このことがもたらすモラルハザードの影響は深刻となるだろう。イスラエルを批判するのは「反ユダヤ主義」であるという論理でガザでの民族浄化を容認すれば、人種主義を助長するからだ。ハマス等の攻撃を「ジェノサイド」と表現
し、イスラム主義を反ユダヤ主義と同義とみなすキャンペーンは、既に極右の人種主義の台頭を促進している。ユダヤ人とムスリムへの人種差別は人種主義以前から存在するヨー
ロッパのキリスト教文化を背景とした異教徒への差別を基盤にしており、反ユダヤ主義と反イスラム主義は同根である。そもそも反ユダヤ主義とは反セム主義であり、人種主義者
はユダヤ人とアラブ人を共にセム人種に分類してきたのだから、反イスラム主義が拡大すれば必然的に反ユダヤ主義も拡大する。左派のユダヤ系団体が主張するように、人種主義との戦いに優先順位はなく、反イスラム主義との戦いは反ユダヤ主義との戦いでもある。
人種主義は北米・欧州・オセアニア全体に拡大しており、ムスリムだけでなく、アジア人
一般に対する差別も高まっていることを考えると、この問題は日本にも無関係ではない。
ガザ攻撃によってリベラルな言説の信用が失墜しつつある状況もこうした懸念を深めている。極右勢力はリベラルな規範を陳腐化させることで人種主義的で排外主義的な制度を根付かせようと画策しているからだ。それを防ぐためにもガザ戦争を早期に終結させ、ネ
タニヤフ政権の幹部たちをジェノサイド罪で裁くことが必要だ 2）。もちろん、それだけで
1）ラヴロフの発言の詳細は以下の通り：「ネタニヤフはハマスを軍事的に根絶せねばならないと宣言したが、これはウクライナの非武装化と似ている。ガザから過激派を一掃しなければならないとも宣言したが、これは脱ナチ化と似ている。それなのに、ライル・ラピド前首相が外相時代に我が国の特別軍事作戦に示した反応には驚いた。
「ロシアは厚顔無恥にも併合したウクライナの領土で市民に武力を行使している」と言ったのだ。これは不実な発言だと私は彼に言った。ネタニヤフは世界中で批判されているが、ロシアに対して言われているようなことを言わせない。だから我が国はイスラエルと共通する歴史に対して、特にナチズムとの戦いに対して慎重に対応しなければならない。両国が歴史的な背景で結びついているのは重要なことだ」(RIA 2023b)
2）国際刑事裁判所 ICC は 2021 年にイスラエルとパレスチナ武装勢力の戦争犯罪の調査を開始したが、10 月
7 日以降の攻撃を捜査対象に加えた。ICC の主席検事カリム・ハンは 11 月 17 日に広く情報提供を呼びかけ、
12 月 3 日に捜査を強化すると発表した。ICC prosecutor vows to‘further intensify’Gaza probe, France 24,
03/12/2023：ICC の情報提供要請に応えて、デモクラシー・アラブワールド・ナウ DAWN は 12 月 20 日に人道に対する罪の容疑者としてイスラエル軍の 40 人の司令官の名簿を提出した。その中には防衛相ガラ
ント、軍政責任者アリアン、406 機械化旅団司令官ドヴィル・エドリが含まれている。International43

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

はパレスチナ問題の根本的な解決にはならない。その答えはイスラエルとパレスチナの人々が出すべきものであるが、JVP の主張を紹介しておきたい。二国解決が現実的と見られているが、選択肢はそれだけではないからだ。
我々はアメリカとパレスチナを含む世界の全ての人々が自由で公正で平等で尊厳を持って生きられることを目指している。我々は全ての人々の解放のために戦っている…我々はユダヤ系イスラエル人がパレスチナ人を抑圧するために徴兵されたり、他者を脱人間化して自分自身の人間性を劣化させたりしないで良いよう解放されることを願っている。我々は、ユダヤ系イスラエル人が優位性ではなく平等に基づき、支配に代わって尊厳を重んじ、略奪ではなく民主主義に根差した公正な社会を、全ての命が尊重される社会を、パレスチナ人と共に建設することを思い描いている（JVP）。

Criminal Court: Investigate These Israeli Suspects in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity Probe, Democracy for
the Arab World Now, December 20, 2023

44

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

文献リスト(ADL) Anti-Defamation League (2004): (2004): Antisemitism Uncovered: A Guide to Old Myths in a New Era, https://antisemitism.adl.org(ADL) Anti-Defamation League (2022): What Is… Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, Anti-Israel Bias? [10.12.2022] https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-antisemitism-anti-zionism-anti-israel-bias
BBC (2022): Ukraine War: Biden accuses Russian troops of committing genocide in Ukraine, [13.04.2022] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61093300
BBC (2023): “Ukraine war: Russia has committed crimes against humanity, US says,” [19.02.2023] https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-europe-64691001
Business Today (2023): ‘Comedian in cargo pants’: Vivek Ramaswamy calls Volodymyr Zelenskyy a ‘Nazi’[09.112023] https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/comedian-in-cargo-pants-vivek-ramaswamy-callsvolodymyr-zelenskyy-a-nazi-405225-2023-11-09(CCR) The Center for Constitutional Rights (2023): Israel’s Unfolding Crime of Genocide of the Palestinian People &U.S. Failure to Prevent and Complicity in Genocide, [18.10.2023] https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/
attach/2023/10/Israels-Unfolding-Crime_ww.pdf(DAWN) Democracy for the Arab World Now (2023): International Criminal Court: Investigate These Israeli Suspects
in War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity Probe, [20.12.2023] https://dawnmena.org/international-criminal-courtinvestigate-these-israeli-suspects-in-war-crimes-crimes-against-humanity-probe/(DM) Daily Mail (2023): “Rishi Sunak calls on Europe to stand by Ukraine,” [17.03.2023] https://www.dailymail.
co.uk/news/article-12091809/PM-urges-Europe-stand-Ukraine-long-takes-make-Russia-pay-war-crimes.html
DW (2022): “Scholz: Russian air attacks on Kyiv are ‘war crimes’.” [20.10.2022] https://www.dw.com/en/germanysscholz-says-russian-air-attacks-on-ukraine-constitute-war-crimes/a-63501314
Euronews (2023): “Compassion fatigue: Is the West tired of war?” [23.10.2023] https://www.euronews.
com/2023/10/23/compassion-fatigue-is-the-west-tired-of-war
European Commission (2023): Statement by President von der Leyen with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu,[14.10.2023] https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/statement-president-von-der-leyen-israeliprime-minister-netanyahu-2023-10-14_en
Ferguson, Leo & Dove Kent & Keren Soffer Sharon (2017): Understanding Antisemitism: an Offering to Our
Movement, Jews For Racial & Economic Justice, https://www.jfrej.org/assets/uploads/JFREJ-UnderstandingAntisemitism-November-2017-v1-3-2.pdf
Forbes (2023): “Billionaire Ackman, Others Pledge They Won’t Hire Harvard Students Who Signed Letter Blaming
Israel For Hamas Attack,” [11.10.2023] https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/11/02/billionaireackman-calls-on-harvard-to-suspend-students-who-allegedly-removed-jewish-student-fromprotest/?sh=583a11cb2ea2
France 24 (2023a) : «Gaza : l’interdiction de la manifestation pro-palestinienne à Paris validée par la justice,»[28.10.2023] https://www.france24.com/fr/france/20231028-gaza-l-interdiction-de-la-manifestation-propalestinienne-à-paris-validée-par-la-justiceFrance 24 (2023b): “ICC prosecutor vows to ‘further intensify’ Gaza probe,” [03.12.2023] https://www.france24.com/

45

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

en/live-news/20231203-icc-prosecutor-vows-to-further-intensify-gaza-probe(GI) Government of Israel (2023a): (2023c): PM Netanyahu Meets with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz [17.10.2023]
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/event-scholz171023
Grams, Rob (2023): «Pour des rassemblements populaires contre l’antisémitisme et l’islamophobie,» Frustration,[10.11.2023] https://www.frustrationmagazine.fr/antisemitisme/
Greenblatt, Jonathan (2022): Getting it Right in Defining Racism, [03.02.2022] https://j0nathan-g.medium.com
Haaretz (2022): “Why Won’t Israel Recognize the Armenian Genocide? It’s Not Just About Turkey,” [22.04.2021
https://www.academia.edu/47544564/_Why_Wont_Israel_Recognize_the_Armenian_Genocide_Its_Not_Just_
About_Turkey_Haaretz_21_April_2021(HPSG) Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups (2023): Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the
Situation in Palestine, [10.10.2023] https://www.thecrimson.com/widget/2023/10/10/psc-statement/(ICJ) International Court of Justice (2023): Proceedings instituted by South Africa against the State of Israel on 29
December 2023, Document Number 192-20231228-APP-01-00-EN. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/
proceedings-instituted-by-south-africa-against-israel-on-29-december-2023-public-hearing-icj-press-releasejan3-2024/(2024): Order [to the] Request For The Indication Of Provisional Measures, [26.10.2024] https://www.icj-cij.org/
sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf(JP) The Jerusalem Post (2023): “Kirby: Word ‘genocide’ thrown around inappropriately against Israel,” [21.11. 2023]
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-774296(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace: Our Vision, https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace (2022): Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP): What You Need to Know, [17.11.2022] https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/jewish-voice-peace-jvp-what-you-need-know(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace (2023a): The largest ever Jewish protest in solidarity with Palestinians. [19.10.2023]
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/19/thousands-of-jews-and-allies-shut-down-capitol-hill/(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace (2023b) We shut down Grand Central station to demand a ceasefire.[30.10.2023] https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/10/30/wire-grand-central-action/(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace (2023c): JVP took over the Statue of Liberty to demand a ceasefire. [07.11.2023] https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/11/07/wire-statue-of-liberty/(JVP) Jewish Voice for Peace (2023d): We shut down 8 bridges in 8 cities on the 8th night of Hanukkah. [18.12.2023]
https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2023/12/18/wire-8-bridges/
Komori 小森謙一郎 (2023) 「2023:年パレスチナ / イスラエルのカタストロフ〈ナクバ〉の地球的意味を考える：
ガザ、ホロコースト、アパルトヘイト」、イスラーム信頼学緊急セミナー、［29.11.2023］
Le Monde (2018): «Manifeste contre le « nouvel antisémitisme » : la colère des représentants musulmans,»[26.04.2018] https://www.lemonde.fr/religions/article/2018/04/26/manifeste-contre-le-nouvel-antisemitisme-lacolere-des-representants-musulmans_5290949_1653130.html
Le Parisien (2018): Manifeste «contre le nouvel antisémitisme» [02.05.2018] https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/
manifeste-contre-le-nouvel-antisemitisme-21-04-2018-7676787.php(MEMRI) The Middle East Media Research Institute (2023): Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor, “Pro-Al-Qaeda

46イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）

Media Outlet Publishes Booklet Calling To Attack Jews Around The World,” [19.10.2023] https://www.memri.
org/jttm/pro-al-qaeda-media-outlet-publishes-booklet-calling-attack-jews-around-world-burn-their-houses
Nabli, Béligh (2023): «Gaza, cimetière du droit international,» L’OBS, [14.11.2023] https://www.nouvelobs.com/
opinions/20231114.OBS80826/gaza-cimetiere-du-droit-international.html(President) Президент России (2023): Итоги года с Владимиром Путиным, [14.12.2023] http://www.kremlin.ru/
events/president/news/72994/videos(RIA) РИА Новости (2023a): Мелони в разговоре с Вованом и Лексусом сделала шокирующее признание оВСУ, [01.11.2023] https://ria.ru/20231101/meloni-1906615372.html(RIA) РИА Новости (2023b): Лавров прокомментировал заявленные цели операции в Газе, [28.12.2023] https://ria.ru/20231228/lavrov-1918732609.html
Pappe, Ilan, (2006): The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (London and New York: Oneworld, 2006)、邦訳：田浪亜央
江・早尾貴紀訳『パレスチナの民族浄化 : イスラエル建国の暴力』法政大学出版局、2017
People (2022): “Whoopi Goldberg Claims the ‘Holocaust Isn’t About Race’ During Discussion About ‘Maus,’”People,[31.01.2022] https://people.com/tv/the-view-whoopi-goldberg-claims-holocaust-isnt-about-race-mausdiscussion/
Reuters (2022a): “Russian attacks on Ukraine infrastructure are war crimes - EU’s von der Leyen,” [19.10.2022]
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-attacks-ukraine-infrastructure-are-war-crimes-eus-von-derleyen-2022-10-19/
Reuters (2022b): “Biden, Macron resolve to hold Russia accountable for atrocities, war crimes in Ukraine,”[02.12.2022] https://jp.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2SL4BD/
Reuters (2023a): ‘I am a Zionist’: How Joe Biden’s lifelong bond with Israel shapes war policy, [22.10.2023] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/
Reuters (2023b):「米ペンシルベニア大学長が辞任、反ユダヤ主義への対応で批判」[11.12.2023] https://jp.reuters.com/world/us/NA36MGPI6ZLLFDYNGOMGHZ6RLA-2023-12-10/
Reuters (2024a):「ハーバード大学長が辞任、反ユダヤ主義巡る対応や盗用疑惑受け」[03.01.2023] https://jp.reuters.com/world/us/C2POWDSL3JKE5GLXJ2S2S7HHHM-2024-01-03
Reuters (2024): “German government considers delivery of tank ammunition to Israel - Spiegel,” [16.01.2024] https://www.reuters.com/world/german-government-considers-delivery-tank-ammunition-israel-spiegel-2024-01-16/(TCC) T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı (2023): “İsrail’in işlediği insanlık suçlarına ses çıkarmayanlar, en az failler kadar bu
suçlara ortaktır” [15.11.2023] https://www.tccb.gov.tr/haberler/410/150192/-israil-in-isledigi-insanlik-suclarinases-cikarmayanlar-en-az-failler-kadar-bu-suclara-ortaktirTelhami, Shibley (2023): “Biden’s dangerous stance on the war in Israel and Gaza,” The Brookings Institution[27.10.2023] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/bidens-dangerous-stance-on-the-war-in-israel-and-gaza/(TI) The Times of Israel (2023a): “Visiting Chancellor Scholz says Germany’s place in hard times is ‘alongside
Israel’”[17.10.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/visiting-german-leader-says-nations-only-place-in-hard-timesis-alongside-israel/(TI) The Times of Israel (2023b): “In Israel, UK leader Sunak backs Gaza offensive ‘in line with international law’,”[19.10.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israel-uk-leader-sunak-backs-gaza-offensive-in-line-with-47

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

international-law/(TI) The Times of Israel (2023c): UN chief doubles down on Hamas remarks, decries ‘misrepresentations’,[25.10.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-chief-doubles-down-on-hamas-remarks-decriesmisrepresentations/(TI) The Times of Israel (2023d): “Biden presses Netanyahu on protecting Gaza civilians, discusses ‘phasing’ of war,”[24.12.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-presses-netanyahu-on-protecting-gaza-civilians-discussesphasing-of-war/
The Guardian (2008): “US academic deported and banned for criticising Israel,” [20.05.2008] https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa
The Guardian (2023): Hundreds arrested as US Jews protest against Israel’s Gaza assault, Robert Tait, [19.10.2023]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/jewish-protest-israel-gaza-washington-dc
The Intercept (2023): Anti-Defamation League Maps Jewish Peace Rallies With Antisemitic Attacks, By Micah Lee,
[11.112023] https://theintercept.com/2023/11/11/palestine-israel-protests-ceasefire-antisemitic/
The Nation (2023): The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza, [21.11.2023]
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/
The New Yorker (2023): “The Anguished Fallout from a Pro-Palestinian Letter at Harvard,” [20.10.2023] https://www.
newyorker.com/news/dispatch/the-anguished-fallout-from-a-pro-palestinian-letter-at-harvard
Tsedek (2023): L’antisémitisme doit être combattu, son instrumentalisation aussi, Communiqué du [03.11.2023] https://
blogs.mediapart.fr/tsedek/blog/041123/l-antisemitisme-doit-etre-combattu-son-instrumentalisation-aussi
Türkyılmaz, Selçuk (2023): «Batı’nın ve İsrail’in dokunulmazlık kubbesi Gazze’de çöktü,» Yeni Şafak,[09.11.2023]
https://www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/selcuk-turkyilmaz/batinin-ve-israilin-dokunulmazlik-kubbesi-gazzedecoktu-4573379(UJFP) Union juive française pour la paix: La lutte résolue de l’UJFP contre l’antisémitisme, https://ujfp.org/la-lutteresolue-de-lujfp-contre-lantisemitisme/
United Nations (2023a): Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council, [24.10.2023] https://www.un.org/sg/en/
content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middle-east%C2%A0
United Nations (2023b)”Civilian Deaths in Ukraine War Top 10,000, UN Says,” [21.11.2023] https://ukraine.un.org/
en/253322-civilian-deaths-ukraine-war-top-10000-un-saysUnited Nations (2023c): “Secretary-General Urges Security Council to Call for Ceasefire in Gaza, Declaring That
Humanitarian Situation Is Now at ‘Breaking Point’” [08.12.2023] https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15518.doc.htm(USDS) U.S. Department of State (2023): Secretary Blinken’s Calls with Israeli President Herzog and Foreign Minister
Cohen, [07.10.2023] https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinkens-calls-with-israeli-president-herzog-and-foreignminister-cohen/(USHR) U.S. House of Representative (2023): Strongly condemning and denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism in
the United States and around the world. H.Res.894 [05.12.2023] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/
house-resolution/894/text
Vice (2023): “Neo-Nazis and the Far-Right Are Trying to Hijack Pro-Palestine Protests,” [01.11.2023] https://www.
vice.com/en/article/k7zx5a/neo-nazis-hijack-pro-palestine-protest-mike-enoch48

イスラエルのガザ侵攻とリベラリズム（佐原徹哉）(WH) The White House (2014): Statement by the President, The White House, [07.08.2014] https://obamawhitehouse.
archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/07/statement-president(WH) The White House (2022): FACT SHEET: The Biden Administration Announces New Humanitarian,Development, and Democracy Assistance to Ukraine and the Surrounding Region, [24.03.2022] https://www.
whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/24/fact-sheet-the-biden-administration-announcesnew-humanitarian-development-and-democracy-assistance-to-ukraine-and-the-surrounding-region/(2023a):Statement from President Joe Biden Condemning Terrorist Attacks in Israel, [07.10.2023] https://il.usembassy.
gov/statement-from-president-joe-biden-condemning-terrorist-attacks-in-israel/(WH) The White House (2023b): Joint Statement on Israel [09.10.2023] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/10/09/joint-statement-on-israel/(WH) The White House (2023c): Joint Statement on Israel, [22.10.2023] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
statements-releases/2023/10/22/joint-statement-on-israel-2/(WH) The White House (2023d): Remarks by President Biden at a Campaign Reception, [12.12.2023] https://www.
whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/12/12/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaignreception-5/(WSWS) World Socialist Web Site (2023): Le Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei, «Défendez le droit de manifester en
Allemagne!» [04.11.2023] https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2023/11/04/pvyt-n04.html
Yeni Şafak (2023): «Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan dünyaya seslendi: Hamas bir terör örgütü değil topraklarını koruyan bir
mücahit grubudur,»[25.10.2023] https://www.yenisafak.com/gundem/cumhurbaskani-erdogan-dunyaya-seslendihamas-bir-teror-orgutu-degil-topraklarini-koruyan-bir-mucahit-grubudur-4570166
Young, Cathy (2022): Whoopi Goldberg’s Remarks Force ADL to Redefine Racism, CATO Institute, [09.02.2022]
https://www.cato.org/commentary/whoopi-goldbergs-remarks-force-adl-redefine-racism

49History of Global Arms Transfer, 17 (2024), pp. 51-79

The Israeli War on Gaza from a
Comparative Genocide Studies
Perspective
By TETSUYA SAHARA*
The Israeli war on Gaza has resulted in very heavy civilian casualties. Somepeople have called the war “horrific,” the “deadliest,” or a “humanitariancatastrophe-tsunami.” Others claim that it is a genocide. In order to grasp theextent of the war’s brutality, this article compared it with three cases that arerecognized as genocides either by international institutions or Western authorities:
the Herero and Nama massacre (1904–5), the Armenian deportation (1915–6),
and the fall of Srebrenica (1995). The analysis found many common aspects
among the four cases. The scale of violence of the recent Israeli war has alreadyexceeded the initial stages of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and is becoming animmense ethnic cleansing comparable with the Armenian case. In light of thebellicose discriminatory discourses of the Israeli leaders, systematic destructionof civilian targets, forced starvation, and rapidly deteriorating hygiene conditions
in Gaza, there are ample grounds to believe that the war on Gaza will develop
into a full-fledged genocide if unchecked.
The Israeli military campaign against the Gaza Strip, following the October 7 attacks, hasclaimed (at the time of writing of this article) more than 26,000 Palestinian lives, mostly
women and children. Experts have described the campaign in the following terms:“horrific” (AA 2023b), “outpacing any other conflicts” (Axios 2023), “unparalleled andunprecedented” (UN 2023d), “the most destructive” (CBC 2023), the “deadliest in the 21st
century” (WP 2023), and “a perfect kind of humanitarian catastrophe-tsunami” (FT 2023).
Some Muslim and Latin American leaders have even called it a “genocide.”1 Probably oneof the harshest denouncers is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has not only
repeatedly used the G-word but even described Israeli Premier Benyamin Netanyahu as noless evil than Adolf Hitler (AA 2023d). The frequent use of the G-word, however, does notseem effective to deter the Israelis from acting more brutally against the Gazans.
There is another concern: The political instrumentalization of the word “genocide” risks* Professor, School of Political Science and Economics, Meiji University
1 Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi accused the campaign as being “genocide” against Palestinians (Reuters

2023). Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, posted on X on December 5, 2023: “What we areseeing is an attempt by the Israelis to commit genocide on the Palestinians.” Ramzan Kadyrov, President of
Chechnya, commented that “What is happening in the Gaza Strip is clear evidence of the genocide of Palestinian
Muslims” (Caucasus Watch 2023). Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro called on the world to “react and say
no to the genocide against the people of Gaza.” Cuban President Miguel Diaz Canel accused the “Zionist
barbarism” for “the genocide that is being perpetrated against the Palestinians.” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva referred to “a genocide that led to the killing of [thousands of] children who had nothing to do withthis war.” The Minister of the Presidency, Maria Nela Prada of Bolivia, condemned the Israeli campaign of“genocide unfolding inside the Gaza Strip” (Cradle 2023).

51

TETSUYA SAHARA
the banalization of the term and makes obsolete the notion as the crime of crimes. In
exchange for Erdoğan’s slander, for example, Netanyahu replied that “Erdogan, who iscommitting genocide against the Kurds, is the last person who can preach morality to us”(GI 2023k). For Netanyahu, it is Hamas who are committing a genocide, and “Hamas are
the new Nazis” (TI 2023a). Therefore, Netanyahu asserted that the Israeli military is “themost moral army in the world,” fighting to eliminate “the most abhorrent and brutal
terrorist organization in the world” (GI 2023k). Some Western leaders echoed his views.
For instance, Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Committee, described theOctober 7 attacks as “the most heinous assault against Jews since the Holocaust” (European
Commission 2023). John Kirby, US National Security Council spokesperson, when asked
by a journalist about his response to those who called the US President “Genocide Joe,”remarked that “What Hamas wants is genocide ... Israel is trying to defend itself against a
genocidal terrorist threat … If we are going to start using that word [genocide], fine, let’s
use it appropriately” (JP 2023). The proposal for an appropriate use of the term sounds
nice, but one may wonder if Kirby’s and Netanyahu’s use of the word is appropriate?

I. What is a genocide?
According to the International Criminal Court (ICC), a genocide is a crime committed withthe specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a “national, ethnic, racial or religious
group” by killing its members or by “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (ICC).
The definition is rather vague; therefore, it is necessary to establish eligible criteria basedon concrete examples. Since it started in 2002, however, ICC has filed only one person for
genocide, Omar Bashir, former Sudanese President, and the case remains in the pre-trial
stage. The other cases judged as genocides by international judicial organizations are thoseconcerning the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 and the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1992–5. Thus, to date, we have very few examples of genocide confirmed as such byinternational law courts. Looking back in history, however, there are many cases that are
believed to be applicable to the ICC rulings. The widest accepted case is the Holocaust—
the Nazi persecution of European Jews before and during WWII. The 1930s–40s saw
several other atrocities on a genocidal scale, such as “Holodomor” (1932–3), the Rape of
Nanking (1937), the Serb massacre by the Independent State of Croatia (1941–5), the“Devil’s satiety” of the Japanese 731 unit (1940–5), and the mass deportation of the
Crimean Tatars, the Chechens, and the Ingush by the Stalin regime (1944–8). Later, theKhmer Rouge atrocities in Cambodia (1975–9), the elimination of the East Timorese(1974–99) and the Guatemalan Mayans (1962–96), and the Sabra and Shatila massacre of
the Palestinian refugees (1982) are often classified as genocides.
Just mentioning a handful of cases, we can notice that these incidents are grossly
dissimilar, taking place in different socio-political contexts, with a variety of scale andquite diverse methods of atrocities. This testifies that every genocide is unique in essence.
Yet those diversities may perplex the people who are looking for a simple answer or acertain reference point. However, of what use is a reference point for genocide and for
gauging the degree of genocidalness of respective cases? Does it make sense to say that
one case is more genocidal than the other? Or is it morally acceptable to say that “It’s

52

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
acceptable, because this case is less genocidal than that”? Of course not. Instead, it is ourmoral duty to condemn and prevent any atrocity against anyone. Having said that, however,the discussion does not exclude any attempts for comparison. Quite the contrary. Indeed,
one cannot grasp the nature of what is taking place in front of his/her eyes, without taking
into consideration similar incidents from the past. The importance of comparative genocide
studies lies in this context. The comparison of past genocidal incidents enriches ourknowledge of human atrocities and helps us find the way to prevent them from recurring.
What will be the starting point? Before starting our discussion, it is prudent to define thenotion of comparison. A comparison is an act of taking up different things to findsimilarities and dissimilarities among them. This is quite different thing from an equation
which considers one thing to be the same as another. To compare a past genocide withanother does not mean equating them. Unfortunately, there is a dominant trend for this typeof confusion in a wide circle of intellectual societies. The ungrounded reproach against
Masha Gessen for her essay on the Holocaust is one of the latest examples of the confusion.
Gessen, a well-known Russian-American journalist of Jewish origin, who had been
awarded the German Hannah Arendt Award for Political Thought, was treated withdispleasure by the two sponsors of the prize, the Heinrich Boll Foundation and the City ofBremen, because she compared the Warsaw Ghetto with the Israeli policy concerning the
Gaza Strip (Gessen 2023). Tarik Cyril Amar criticizes the “extremely aggressive lobbies in
the West” who set the rules that “comparing the Holocaust with anything is absolutely
verboten” (RT 2023). His alarm is especially pertinent, as we are witnessing such people asErdoğan preaching about what democracy is, based on the assumption that the West hasgiven Netanyahu a free hand in Gaza, because “The slightest criticism [of Israel] issuppressed by attaching [to it] the label of antisemitism, and is considered a crime” (AA2023d).
Apart from such emotional reactions, there are at least two reasons that make it better toavoid a comparison with the Holocaust. First, the Nazi policy of exterminating European
Jews was a very complex phenomenon that had several different phases and dimensions. In
a way, one can say it was a set of genocidal incidents, albeit committed by a single bodypolitic. Second, the Holocaust was exceptionally immense and dwarfs all the otheratrocities ever committed in human history. It was the genocide of genocides. This very
fact, however, makes it unsuitable to be a “model case,” with the attendant risk of sayingthat no other incidents are genocide because they are less atrocious than the Holocaust. To
properly access the Israeli campaign in Gaza, it is necessary to find other reference points.
To this end, the author takes up the following three cases: the German colonial massacre of
the Herero and Namaqua people in Namibia (1904–5), the Armenian deportation by the
Ottoman government during WWI, and the Serb atrocities against Bosnian Muslims in the
1990s. There are many other (possibly more suitable) cases for comparison, but the author
picks up the three on the basis that they are relatively well-documented studies and widely,
if not unanimously, accepted as cases of genocide.
Before entering into a close comparison among the four cases, it may be useful to survey
the general course of events of the respective cases and to highlight the essence of theirbrutalities.

53

TETSUYA SAHARA

II. Israeli military operations in Gaza
The Gaza Strip was a part of the Ottoman administrative unit, the Kudüs Sancağı
(Jerusalem district) or Filistin (Palestine). During the Ottoman rule, Muslim Arabs andChristian Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority (more than 90% at the beginning of
the 20th century). After WWI, Palestine became a British mandate of the League of Nations,and many European Jews immigrated to Palestine. Their share increased from 12% in 1922
to 31% in 1947 (Hagopian & Zahlan 1974). In the wake of WWII, the United Nations
proposed the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. As Arab countries rejected
the plan, the first Arab–Israeli war broke out in 1948. The victorious Israel annexed 77% of
the territory, and more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes. Many ofthem took shelter in Gaza. After the 1967 war, Israel took possession of the Strip and put
the Palestinians under its occupational regime. As a result, the Gazans were to endure
constant oppression, economic exploitation, and confinement. In 1987, Gaza Palestinians
started the First Intifada. The protest continued until the early 1990s and eventually gave
rise to the Oslo Accords, which were signed in 1993 (King 2007). However, as Israel did
not fulfill its promise of the two-state solution, the Second Intifada broke out in 2000.
Weary of the strenuous mass resistance, Israel unilaterally announced the withdrawal of its
military and settlers, leaving Gaza for the Palestine Authorities in 2005. The next year,
Hamas won the elections and subsequently took control of Gaza. In response, Israel
introduced a heavy blockade. During the long siege, restrictions were tightened on the
movement of people and goods, making life unbearable—families were separated, medical
and educational services were degraded, the economy slumped, and poverty andunemployment were perpetuated (Vox 2023). The UN chief, Antonio Guterres, pointed outthat “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.
They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; theireconomy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished” (UN 2023g).
Additionally, Israeli troops killed more than 3,000 Palestinian civilians in the four
consecutive invasions (2008–09, 2012, 2014, and 2021). According to Human Rights
Watch, the Israeli occupation of Gaza was characterized by unlawful killings, forced
displacement, abusive detention, unjustified confinement, and other discriminatory
policies—major violations of international human rights and humanitarian law (IHRW
2016). Amnesty International has described these situations as “apartheid” (AI 2022). It isprudent to say that the Israeli policies mentioned are the background to the October 7
incidents.
Let us take a brief look at the Israeli military operations in Gaza that have started since
October 7, 2023. At 6:30 a.m. local time, Palestinian militants launched massive attacks
against the border posts manned by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). After neutralizing
military bases, the Palestinian militants infiltrated Israel, killing 375 IDF soldiers and 764
civilians, and took some 248 persons hostage. Although the main force was the al-Qassam
Brigades, a military wing of Hamas, the raid was in fact a joint operation of six different
groups, including Communist DFLP (Flashpoint 2023). Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
tweeted a state of war, and his government formally declared war against Hamas the nextday, mobilizing 300,000 reservists with the aim to “eliminate Hamas.” As part of theirtactics, Israel started a siege against Gaza. On October 9, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav
Gallant announced a total blockade of the Strip, and Israeli authorities began cutting
electricity and stopping the entry of food and fuel. As a result, the sole power plant in Gaza
stopped its operations on October 11. The Israeli government reiterated that Gaza would

54

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
not receive water, fuel, or electricity so long as the hostages were not freed. On October 15,
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) announced that drinking water
was running out in Gaza. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who visited the Rafah
Crossing on October 20, stated that “Two million people are suffering enormously, have nowater, no food, no medicine, no fuel, under fire, that needs everything to survive” (UN2023b). Subsequently, human aid was allowed to enter Gaza, but the amount was far from
adequate. On December 7, a UN representative declared its aid program no longer
functioning (UN OCHA 2023c), and civic order began to “break down” (Guardian 2023).
As a result, many Gazans began to starve. According to a UN report on December 21, over
570,000 people were starving (France 24 2023). The UN aid chief warned of a serious riskof starvation and famine, saying that “Half the people in northern Gaza and more than one
third of displaced people in the south are simply starving” (UN 2023f). Furthermore, theabrupt breakout of a large number of refugees seriously deteriorated the sanitary conditionsin the Strip. The UN rights chief Volker Türk remarked on December 28 that “The lack offood and basic essentials as well as poor hygiene are making the already dire living
conditions of displaced people even worse and fueling disease.” Indeed, as the Israelis had
inflicted serious damage on hospitals, medical service was unavailable for most Gazans.
The UN emergency relief coordinator Martin Griffiths warned that “Gaza is a public healthdisaster in the making” (UN 2023h).
In the meantime, the Israelis intesified military operation. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has
been conducting massive air strikes over Gaza since October 7, destroying a large numberof residential buildings, including schools, universities, and refugee camps. More than 70%
of Gazan homes had been destroyed by the end of 2023 (Aljazeera 2023d). The oldest
church (the Greek Orthodox St. Prophyrius Church) and mosque (the Great Omari Mosque)in Gaza were reduced to rubble. The bombing resulted in a massive amount of civilian
victims. In early December, the UN aid chief described the civilian casualties of IDF
operations thus: “More than 17,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed since the startof Israel’s military operations, including over 4,000 women and 7,000 children. Tens of
thousands are reported to have been injured, and many are missing, presumably under the
rubble” (UN 2023f). To make things worse, the IDF targeted many shelters for the
displaced people. By December 5, 2023, at least 222 IDPs sheltering in UNRWA camps
had been killed (UN OCHA 2023b). These acts have been condemned as intentional killingof civilians. For instance, Human Rights Watch denounced IAF for having used white
phosphorus against civilian targets (HRW 2023). Amnesty International claimed to haveenough documentation attesting to the IDF’s intentional massacre of civilians (AI 2023).
Even US President Joe Biden conceded that Israel had been carrying out “indiscriminate
bombing” (AP 2023). Also, an IDF official, after killing 68 people in the Maghazi camp,
admitted that the type of munition did not match the nature of the attack, causing extensive
collateral damage that could have been avoided (TI 2023g).
The IDF started a large-scale ground operation on October 28. As the troops advanced
into dense, urban neighborhoods, the civilian casualties rose rapidly. The IDF had divided
the Strip into two by November 5 and encircled its northern half with a total
communications outage (Aljazeera 2023b). Pressured by the US and international appeals
for a brief pause to get aid to desperate civilians, Israel accepted a temporary ceasefire. The
IDF withdrew from Gaza City without achieving any of its initial objectives on November
24. During this short interlude, the humanitarian situation in Gaza did not improve at all.
The second ground operation started on December 1. The IDF announced that it would

55

TETSUYA SAHARA
expand ground operations into all of Gaza, including the southern enclaves that had
previously been designated as “safe zones.” During the land operation, Israeli soldierscommitted a variety of atrocities, including storming several hospitals, arresting many
medical staff, and randomly shooting at and killing many civilians, who were apparently
noncombatants. For example, a sniper massacred a Christian mother and daughter
sheltering at the Holy Family Catholic Church (TI 2023h). The IDF even executed three of
their own soldiers who had taken hostages. The hostages somehow escaped and wereapproaching for help, half naked and with a white flag, on December 15. Two were killedon the spot, and the third took shelter in a nearby building. A soldier chased this third man
and shot him dead (TI 2023i). The IDF said that this was a mistake, but the suspicion of
willful killing increased when the IDF disclosed that 18 troops were dead due to “mistaken
identification” (TI 2024b). There are also suspicions of random roundups of civilians andhostage-taking. For instance, the IDF announced that they had taken captive more than
1,000 “Hamas members” on December 17. Their allegation was rebutted by Euro-Med
Monitor, who accused the Israeli army of severe human rights abuse against the detained
Palestinian civilians (EMHRM 2023). Despite these accusations, the IDF expanded its
scope of operation, making the daily death toll well exceed the level of 250 deaths toward
the end of 2023.
The Israeli operation has also brought about large-scale displacement. On October 13, theIDF warned Palestinians to leave northern Gaza within 24 hours on the pretext that the area
would be a battlefield. By October 20, about 1.4 million people had been internallydisplaced, and more than 544,000 had taken shelter in a total of 147 UNRWA improvised
facilities (UN OCHA 2023a). As the second land operation started, the number of IDPs
grew. On December 3, the UN human rights chief said the following: “As a result ofIsrael’s conduct of hostilities and its orders for people to leave the north and parts of thesouth, hundreds of thousands are being confined into ever smaller areas in southern Gaza
without proper sanitation, access to sufficient food, water and health supplies, even as
bombs rain down around them. There is no safe place in Gaza” (UN 2023e). UNRWA
confirmed that 85% of the population had been displaced by December 8.
Many experts have expressed their deep concern that these atrocities by the Israeli army
amount to war crimes. As for the siege and blockade of the Strip, the UN human rights
chief expressed “grave concerns around willful killing of civilians, firing of indiscriminate
rockets, indiscriminate attacks using explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populatedareas, forms of collective punishment, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and – all forbidden
under international law” (UN 2023e). Oxfam’s Regional Middle East Director accused
Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war (Oxfam 2023). As for the massive
displacement, Antonio Guterres mentioned that people in Gaza were “being told to movelike human pinballs – ricocheting between ever-smaller slivers of the south, without any ofthe basics for survival” and denounced the increasing pressure for mass displacement
across the border into Egypt (UN 2023f ). Egyptian authorities shared the same concern andwarned Israel not to push Palestinians into its territory. The Palestine Permanent Observer
described these pressures as ethnic cleansing. He even claimed that “wholesale slaughter of
innocent civilians, destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure, intentional starvation, anddisplacement of Palestinians from their land with no prospect of returning” attested to“Israel’s overt intention to destroy the Palestinian people” (UN 2023c ). South Africa, for
its part, filed a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on December 29, 2023,
accusing Israel of committing an act of genocide (ICJ 2023). Subsequently, the ICJ’s

56

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
preliminary ruling confirmed that “the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protectedfrom acts of genocide [of Israel]” is “plausible” (ICJ 2024:19).
Discourses of Israeli Leadership
Since the hostilities broke out, the Israeli leadership has made clear their war aims: “Thefirst goal is the elimination of Hamas. The second goal is returning all of our hostages. The
third goal is to ensure that after Hamas is eliminated, the Gaza Strip does not go back tobeing a threat to the State of Israel, to any part of the State of Israel” (GI 2023i). However,they insist that these aims are necessary for national security and are therefore defensive
measures. They repeatedly underscored the defensive nature of their military operations.
Netanyahu took the October 7 attacks not only as a provocation but also as an undeclared
war by Hamas, saying that “Hamas invaded Israeli territory and murdered innocent
citizens, including children and the elderly. Hamas has started a brutal and evil war.” For
him, the military actions of the IDF were not reprisals but self-defense: “We defend theright of Israel existing, of defending itself [and its] security for its people” (GI 2023e). For
Netanyahu, the grand operation was a part of the defensive measures, “our second war of
independence” (GI 2023f ), and “They [the IDF soldiers] are defending our home” (GI2023h).
The Israeli leadership, however, has articulated that their “defensive” measures have nolimit. On October 7, Netanyahu made it clear that he would destroy the Gaza Strip andordered its entire population to “evacuate.” He also said that “All of the places which
Hamas is deployed, hiding and operating in, that wicked city, we will turn them into rubble.
I say to the residents of Gaza: Leave now because we will operate forcefully everywhere”(GI 2023a). Two days later, Yoav Gallant announced, “We are fighting human animals and
we are acting accordingly” (TI 2023d ), and the next day, he reiterated that “Gaza will
never return to what it was” (TI 2023b). The same day, Ghassan Alian, the head of
Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), uploaded a video
statement in which he said as follows: “The residents of Gaza are celebrating [Hamas].
Human animals must be treated as such [...] You wanted hell, you will get hell” (TI 2023c).
Those remarks suggest that the Israeli leadership had conceived the idea to impose
inhumane conditions for the entire population in Gaza. If so, this can amount to a collective
punishment, prohibited by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 4 of theAdditional Protocol II. This suspicion grew when Israeli President Isaac Herzog made it
clear that Israel was not distinguishing between militants and civilians in Gaza by saying,“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true: this rhetoric about civilians
not aware not involved. It’s absolutely not true.” (ITV 2023). Israeli Heritage Minister
Amichai Eliyahu echoed Herzog by saying, “There is no such thing as uninvolved civilians
in Gaza” (TI 2023e ).
Subsequently, Netanyahu changed his tone slightly and called civilians “to go south tosafe zones” (GI 2023c). However, when the IDF started bombing southern Gaza inDecember, the “safe zone” effectively disappeared. This action suggests that the Israeli
leadership intends to eliminate all of the Palestinians from Gaza. There are many remarksthat support this assumption. For instance, on November 5, Eliyahu was reported as sayingthat “They [the Palestinians] can go to Ireland or deserts, [but] the monsters in Gaza shouldfind a solution by themselves” (TI 2023e). Two Knesset members, Danny Danon, former
Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, and Ram Ben-Barak, former deputy director of
the intelligence agency Mossad, published an article in The Wall Street Journal on

57

TETSUYA SAHARA
November 13, 2023 in which they called for “countries around the world to accept limited
numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate” (WSJ 2023). The nextday, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich posted on Facebook, “I welcome theinitiative of members of Knesset Ram Ben-Barak and Danny Danon on the voluntary
immigration of Gaza Arabs to the countries of the world. This is the right humanitariansolution for the residents of Gaza and the entire region” (Aljazeera 2023c). LikudIntelligence Minister Gila Gamliel supported the plan by saying that “The international
community should promote the voluntary resettlement of Palestinians in Gaza, forhumanitarian reasons” (TI 2023f ). Subsequently, the “voluntary resettlement” of thePalestinians has become a key agenda of the Netanyahu government. The Israeli prime
minister discussed the “voluntary migration” during a Likud party meeting on December
25, 2023 and was reported as saying, “Our problem is the countries that are willing toabsorb [the Palestinians], and we are working on it” (Aljazeera 2023a). The National
Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich proposed the deportationof Palestinians as a prerequisite for securing stability during the respective party faction
meetings on January 1, 2024. Gvir told members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party thatthe war had presented an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of theresidents of Gaza” and called such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”
Smotrich, on his part, told members of his Religious Zionism party that the “correct
solution” to the conflict was “to encourage the voluntary migration of Gaza’s residents tocountries that will agree to take in the refugees” (TI 2024a). On January 3, 2024, The Times
of Israel reported that the government had secretly contacted Congolese authorities to thisend (TI 2024c). In light of the ongoing Israeli wanton destruction of civilian targets, there
are ample grounds to believe that the Israeli authorities are mulling over ethnic cleansingof Gazans.
No matter whether the IDF operations are a part of an Israeli plan for ethnic cleansing or
not, it is undeniable that there has been an immense number of Palestine civilian casualties.
However, Netanyahu rebuffs Israeli responsibility and puts the blame on Hamas by saying,“This will be a different kind of war ... Every day, they [Hamas] perpetrate a double war
crime: targeting our civilians while hiding behind their civilians, embedding themselves in
the civilian population and using them as human shields ... As Israel legitimately targets
terrorists, civilians are unfortunately harmed. Hamas is responsible and should be held
accountable for all civilian casualties” (GI 2023d). Netanyahu attempts to justify such asophism by employing moral infusing discourses. From time to time, he describes Hamas
as an “absolute evil.” When he met the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, he said that“Hamas is the savagery that we only remember from the Nazi crimes from the Holocaust.
Hamas are the new Nazis. Hamas is ISIS, and in some instances, worse than ISIS ... This isa part of an axis of evil: of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas ... We must take action to defeat
Hamas to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. But this is ... the battle of civilization
against barbarism. And if it’s not stopped here, this savagery will reach you very soon andreach the entire world” (GI 2023c). Yet even after international society fully realized theimmense civilian casualties in Gaza and the pressure for a ceasefire rose high, Netanyahu
stated that “Calls for a ceasefire are calls for Israel to surrender to Hamas, to surrender toterrorism, to surrender to barbarism. That will not happen” (GI 2023g). By the same token,
he vindicated the IDF war crime charges by saying that “They [the IDF soldiers] arecommitted to eradicating this evil from the world … Whoever dares to accuse our soldiersof war crimes are hypocritical liars ... Israel is fighting … the war of humanity against

58

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
barbarism” (GI 2023f ).
These moralistic remarks can entail serious consequences, with Netanyahu choosing torecite sinister phrases from the Tanakh. On October 12, 2023, in a speech at the Knesset, hementioned that “The ancient command ‘Remember what Amalek did to you’ [is] ringing in
our ears” (GI 2023b). On October 28, when Israeli forces were preparing for their landinvasion of Gaza, Netanyahu told the soldiers, “You must remember what Amalek has done
to you” (AA 2023a). He repeated the same phrase in a letter addressed to the Israeli soldiersand officers on November 3 (AA 2023c). The legend of the Amalekites in Tanakh can beconsidered an ancient case of genocide. The English translation of the phrase goes asfollows: “So said the Lord of Hosts, ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel ... you
shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity
on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel
and ass ... Saul completely destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (Tanakh).
As sociologist Michael Freeman put it, the moral theories of just war that are deeply rooted
in Judeo-Christian values can also justify genocide (Freeman 1994: 280). In this regard,
Netanyahu’s insistence on the “just war against evil,” coupled with the ominous Biblicallegend, can incite some extreme forms of brutality.

III. Three Cases of “Genocide”
Now we compare these Israeli actions with past incidents that are recognized as genocides.
We will take three cases as examples: the German colonial massacre of the Herero andNama people (1904–05), the Armenian deportation (1915–16), and the Bosnian civil war(1992–95). The three incidents took place in different times and contexts, with different
methods, and on varying scales. The target populations differed as well: an indigenous
population in a European colony, a religious minority in a Muslim state, and fellow citizens
in a former socialist country. For all these differences, they are all recognized as cases of
genocide by international institutions in general and the Western nations in particular. The
Namibian case is classified by the UN Report on Genocide (1985) as one of the earliest
cases of genocide in the 20th century (UN 1985). In March, 2021, Germany acknowledgedthat their colonial army had committed an act of genocide “from today’s perspective” (Joint
Declaration 2021). The same UN report also classified the Armenian case as genocide. The
US officially recognized the “Armenian Genocide” on May 28, 1951. The Reagan
administration proclaimed the Armenian Genocide as such on April 22, 1981, and the US
Parliament adopted the resolution of official recognition for three times (1975, 1984, and2019) (USHR 2019). The European Parliament declared in 1987 that “the tragic events in
1915–1917 involving the Armenians living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire
constitute genocide” (European Parliament 1987). The Bosnian case was officially judged
as a crime of genocide by the ICTY and its successor organ, the International Residual
Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). Now, let us take a brief look at each case tofind general common features.
The massacre of the Herero and the Nama
The massacre of the Herero and the Nama peoples took place in the context of colonialism.
Germany formally colonized the territory of today’s Republic of Namibia in 1884, began to
deprive the native people of their land and properties, and subsequently used the people asslave labor. This was a part of the well-defined policy to turn Namibia into German land,

59

TETSUYA SAHARA
and several thousands of German settlers were brought in to do so. The Germans seized thehuge swaths of land and a large number of cattle possessed by the Herero, the largest ethnic
group in the colony. The dispossession led to pauperization, and many Hereros were forced
to work either in German farms or in construction plants as cheap laborers under systematicsurveillance and discrimination. As a result, more than 8,000 Hereros stood in arms against
German colonial rule in January 1904 (Drechsler 1980: 181–3). Unprepared for such a
massive attack, the German colonial force could not fight off the Herero, and more than
100 German settlers and soldiers were killed (Bridgman 1981: 74) The reinforcements, led
by Lieutenant General Lothar von Trotha, arrived in June and started a counteroffensive,
destroying the Herero settlements to stamp out the resistance. Faced with the brutal tacticsof the Germans, many Herero fighters, together with their wives and children, escaped into
the desert area. Von Trotha escalated the violence and ordered the extermination of all
Herero people on October 2, 1904. His soldiers ruthlessly pursued the Herero by shooting
and killing thousands of men, women, and children. The Germans blocked the rest of theHerero into the desert, expecting them to perish from thirst and starvation (Sarkin 2011:
114–6). The next year, the Nama, the second largest ethnic group, stood up to fight against
the Germans. Von Trotha issued the second order on April 22, 1905, threatening the Nama
with a similar fate to that of the Herero unless they surrendered. His soldiers then executed
the order in cold blood. Thousands of Nama, regardless of age and gender, were brutally
massacred, and their properties were destroyed (Zimmerer 2008: 52–3). The Herero–Namauprising ended in 1907, but the German policy of extermination did not end then. The
remaining Herero and Nama were incarcerated in concentration camps and subjected toharsh treatment—poor hygiene, little food, forced labor, and medical experiments. The
camps were closed in 1908. By this time, however, roughly half of the incarcerated
population had perished. It is generally accepted that, in the course of the genocide,
50,000–65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama were murdered. The number corresponded to 80%of the Herero and 50% of the Nama population, respectively, before the war. The surviving
Herero and Nama faced radical changes in their living conditions. Their properties,
including land, cattle, and other assets, were expropriated under imperial regulations in1905 and 1906, and possession of land and cattle was prohibited in 1907. The policy
resulted in the deprivation of the peoples’ means of economic reproduction, and many of
their descendants have been condemned to perpetual and institutionalized poverty (UN2023a).
Armenian Deportation
The Armenian case is even more controversial and not easy to summarize. First of all, there
are different views on how to define the incident. The Armenian government calls it theatrocities committed against the Ottoman Armenians by the government of the Committeeof Union and Progress (CUP) during WWI (Armenia). The Armenian Genocide Museum–
Institute (AGM), on its part, defines the incident as the extermination of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915–1923 (AGM 2007). The US
Parliament adopted this view. But such broad definitions make it difficult to grasp thenature of the incident, as there were several different phases, especially the reprisal killingof Muslims by the Armenian paramilitaries in Cilicia and the subsequent eviction of thelatter. Therefore, it is better and more suitable for the purpose of this article to adopt theview of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), which is that “the Armenian
genocide refers to the physical annihilation of Armenian Christian people living in the60

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
Ottoman Empire from spring 1915 through autumn 1916” (USHMM 2019).
The number of casualties is another focal point. The UN Report on Genocide of 1985
estimated the casualties as being “at least 1 million,” but other institutions assert larger
numbers. Both the European Parliament and the US Parliament assert the number ofcasualties as being 1.5 million. The Armenian government and AGM adopted the following
view: “There were an estimated two million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire on
the eve of WWI. Approximately one and a half million Armenians perished between 1915
and 1923. Another million found shelter abroad or Islamized.” This means that the
Armenians produced half a million children in the middle of persecution, which sounds
implausible. Instead, USHMM adopts the following view: “There were approximately 1.5
million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. At least 664,000 and possibly as
many as 1.2 million died during the genocide.” On the other hand, the Turkish government,
who denies genocide, claims that “Prior to World War I, fewer than 1.5 million Armenians
lived in the entire Ottoman Empire [of which] slightly less than 600,000 Anatolian
Armenians died during the war period of 1912–22” (Türkiye 2022). The fact that theminimum number put forward by the US semi-official guardian of the records of humanatrocities coincides with that of Turkey merits attention, as it shows that, albeit a gap in theestimated victims, Turkey recognizes that a mass killing did indeed take place.
The disputing parties, moreover, share very similar views on the causes of the massive
fatalities. USHMM describes the course of events as follows:
In spring 1915 the Ottoman government began the deportation of the Armenian
population from its northeastern border regions. In the months that followed, theOttomans expanded deportations from almost all provinces regardless of distance fromcombat zones. The victims of the Armenian genocide include people killed in local
massacres that began in spring 1915; others who died during deportations, underconditions of starvation, dehydration, exposure, and disease; and Armenians who diedin or en route to the desert regions of the southern Empire. (USHMM)
The Armenian government and AGM posit a similar picture. According to them, thegenocide started on April 24, 1915, when several hundred Armenian elites were arrested in
Istanbul, only to be subsequently eliminated. Shortly thereafter, some 60,000 conscripted
Armenian military personnel were disarmed and killed. The third phase was thedeportations of women, children, and elderly people into the Syrian deserts. Hundreds ofthousands of people were killed during the deportation. Others died of famine, epidemic
diseases, and exposure to the elements. The Turkish version of events is not so different. It
admits that the mass deportation of Armenians in eastern Anatolia took place by the orderof the Ottoman government. It also agrees that a large number of people were dead in thecourse of and after the deportation. The people were killed by attacks, robberies, disease,famine, and many other of war’s privations.
So far, it can be said that the Turkish and the Armenian views are not very different fromeach other, except for the estimated number of victims. This means that what matters mostis not the cognizance of the crime constituting facts but their interpretation. For example,
the Turkish and Armenian views on the murderers of the deported people differ in thefollowing way. The AGM relates that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by“Turkish soldiers, police officers, [and] Kurdish bandits” (AGM 2007). In contrast, theTurkish government asserts that they were murdered “mainly by local Muslims” (Türkiye2022). According to the former’s view, the mass murder was a military operation, but thelatter denies this on the grounds that none of the instructions commanding the relocation

61

TETSUYA SAHARA
ordered killings. There were many incidents, however, in which the Armenian deportees
were killed by the bandits in full view of the soldiers or by the soldiers themselves. The
Armenian side interprets this as proof of the well-organized killing operation. In contrast,
the Turkish side asserts these acts as derelictions or were due to out of capacity. The mostcontested focus of the dispute, however, is whether the CUP had a specific intent of
genocide. The Armenian side claims that the CUP, who had long dreamed of a GreatTurkish state, saw the Armenians as the main obstacle to their plan. Thus, the CUP had
secretly developed a well-coordinated plan to eliminate Armenians by the eve of WWI, andthe war came as a suitable opportunity for its implementation (Akçam 2006; Hovvanisian2007). On the other hand, the Turkish government, while admitting that the CUP had
caused a mass murder by ordering “relocation,” denies it was an act of genocide, as they
did not have such a will, and put forward that the “relocation” was a preventive measure toward off the general uprising of Armenians in cooperation with the Entente powers. In
other words, the Armenians assert an unprovoked, one-sided massacre, while the Turks
argue due response to nationalist intrigues. Avoiding being trapped by the partisan disputes,
Donald Bloxham, a historian, proposes a synthesist approach and puts forward a theory of
cumulative radicalization. He admits that the feared prospect of Armenians joining with
Entente forces was not ungrounded and that the fear led the CUP to the partial deportation.
Those local measures gradually enlarged the CUP’s sphere, leading to the decision toremove the entire Armenian population from eastern Anatolia once and for all. At the sametime, Bloxham refutes the Turkish assertions by saying, “Any claim that the murder of the
Armenians when it unfolded was not a genocide, simply because there might not be
unequivocal evidence of genocidal intent prior to May 1915, is as absurd as the suggestionthat the Nazi ‘final solution’ was not a genocide because it was not inscribed before theinvasion of Poland or the USSR that every Jew was to be murdered.” The idea ofdestruction of the Armenian community, he argues, “developed and was augmented overtime around broad principles of discrimination and xenophobia, progressing from notionsof removal by dilution and/or forced assimilation to physical removal by deportation and/or
murder.” Borrowing a term from the Austro-Hungarian ambassador during WWI, Bloxham
concludes that the Armenian deportation was “a means of creating a national state throughthe annihilation of foreign elements” (Bloxham 2005: 94). Namely, the Armenian
deportation was an example of extraordinary large-scale ethnic cleansing that eventually
took the form of genocide.
The Bosnian Civil War
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnia) was one of the six republics of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. According to the census of 1991, its population was 44% Bosniak(Bosnian Muslim), 31% Serb, 17% Croat, and 8% others. They were defined as equalshareholders of the sovereignty of the republic. In March 1992, the Bosnian government
declared its independence from Yugoslavia. Bosnian Serbs opposed this, and created theirown state, later called Republika Srpska (RS). As Bosnian Croats followed suit, a triangularcivil war broke out. During the war that lasted until 1995, an estimated 102,622 people
were killed, and 2.2 million were displaced. In the early phase of the war, Serbs seized twothirds of Bosnia and committed atrocities against Bosniaks and Croats in the areas under
their control. Bosnian Croats had their own strongholds in the western part of the country
and committed similar atrocities. In 1993, for example, the Croat forces destroyed Bosniak
homes, mosques, and cultural monuments and raped and murdered civilians in Ahmici and

62

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
Stupni Do. As a result, the Bosniaks suffered the most. It is often claimed that 80% of thecivilians killed or displaced during the war were Bosniaks. However, this sounds a little
exaggerated. According to the estimate of the ICTY, 16,700 (30%) of Serb civilians were
killed out of a total 55,261.2 Out of the total of 47,360 soldiers killed, an estimated 28,000(59%) were Bosniaks, 6,000 (13%) were Croats, and 14,000 (29%) were Serbs (Bartrop
2016 xxxviii ). Thus, the Bosniaks were not one-sided victims of the atrocities. Rather, theirforces, albeit on a smaller scale, committed similar crimes against Serb and Croat civilians
in the territory under their control (USHMM 2013).
When the three parties systematically expelled the civilians based on their ethnicity, they
employed identical methods. They were “carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitraryarrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement ofcivilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation ofcivilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian
areas, and wanton destruction of property” (UN 1992). Such practices, locally called“etničko čišćenje,” led to the term “ethnic cleansing” getting international circulation andsubsequently being recognized as a particular form of crime against humanity. The notion
is defined as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove byviolent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious
group from certain geographic areas. To a large extent, it is carried out in the name of
misguided nationalism, historic grievances and a powerful driving sense of revenge” (UN1992).
During the war, and its aftermath, there was a broad public debate about whether ethnic
cleansing was a euphemism for genocide, as there were several suspected cases of ethnic
cleansing on a genocidal scale. The Siege of Sarajevo is one of these cases. From April
1992 to February 1996, the city was encircled by the RS army (VRS). The civilians
endured incessant shelling for nearly four years, with their living quarters being burnt
down, and many cultural monuments, public spaces, and religious institutions weredestroyed. As a result, more than 10,000 people were killed (HMDT). Another, but not thelast, contested case was the north-western Bosnian municipality of Prijedor. In 1992, thePrijedor town and surrounding villages were occupied by Serb forces. After neutralizing
the Bosniak resistance, the Serbs started sending non-Serbs into concentration camps,
where the inmates endured various forms of maltreatment—torture, malnutrition, random
killings, and explosions. Their properties were confiscated or subjected to wanton
destruction. The international courts, however, classified the two cases as ethnic cleansing,not genocide. This is clear in the judgement against Ratko Mladić, the supreme commander
of VRS during the war. Mladić was indicted for the following counts: “The killing of
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats” in Biljani, Foč a, Prijedor, and Vlasenica, “thedetention of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in detention facilities inliving conditions calculated to bring about their physical destruction” in the camps in Banja
Luka, Prijedor, Foča and Bijeljina, and “the killing of over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men andboys of Srebrenica” (ICTY Mladić). Mladić was acquitted of the charge of genocide in theabovementioned municipalities except for Srebrenica on the grounds that although thephysical perpetrators in several municipalities intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims,“the people targeted in each municipality formed a relatively small part and were not inother ways a substantial part of the protected group.” The same logic was applied to the
2 The rest were Bosniaks and Croats. The ICTY does not separate the number of Bosniak noncombatantvictims from those of Croats.

63

TETSUYA SAHARA
case of Radovan Karadž ić , the president of RS during the war. On March 24, 2016,
Karadžić was found guilty of genocide in the area of Srebrenica in 1995 but was acquitted
in other municipalities on the grounds that they were classified as crimes against humanity(ICTY Karadžić). Those judgements have clarified that ethnic cleansing and genocide aredifferent categories of crime. The view is supported by many researchers. One of them,Marie-Janine Calic, succinctly summarized the point: “Whereas in some cases, ‘ethnic
cleansing’ was aimed at the physical destruction of an ethnic community, there are othercases [in which] the objective was limited to the conquest of a strategically or economicallyimportant region through expulsion of the unwanted population, but without a clear intent
to exterminate that community in whole or in part. In conclusion, ‘ethnic cleansing’ should
not per se be identified with genocide” (Calic 2007: 106).
There still remains, however, the question of how one can distinguish genocide fromlarge-scale ethnic cleansing. The ICTY has already given us the answer when the court, forthe first time, found Radislav Krstić guilty of genocide on August 2, 2001, for the case of
Srebrenica. Krstić was a former Commander of the Drina Corps that took part in thecapture of Srebrenica in July 1995. Srebrenica was a small Muslim stronghold located ineastern Bosnia. When hostilities broke out, many Bosniaks were expelled in the region andtook shelter in Srebrenica. Cut off from the other Muslim-controlled areas, Srebrenica
became an enclave in the middle of the Serb-dominated territory. From the spring of 1992
to the early summer of 1995, VRS besieged the town and strictly controlled the movementof people and goods in and out of the enclave. As a result, the prevailing conditions for the
inhabitants became dire (ICTY Krstić). In March 1995, Karadžić issued a directive to VRS:
“By planned and well-thought-out combat operations,” VRS was directed to “create an
unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the
inhabitants of Srebrenica.” VRS started restricting the logistics support of UNPROFOR to
the enclave, making the humanitarian situation deteriorate to a catastrophic level. On
March 31, General Mladić ordered the Drina Corps to conduct active combat operations
around the enclave, and they captured UNPROFOR observation posts. Subsequently, thecommander of the Drina Corps initiated the plan to reduce the enclave to its urban core,with the aim to plunge the Bosnian Muslim population into a humanitarian crisis and,ultimately, eliminate them. VRS began its final attacks against Srebrenica on July 6. At themeeting with UNPROFOR, Mladić made it clear that the Bosnian Muslims could survive
only by leaving Srebrenica and that their survival was conditional upon a military surrenderof the town’s men (ICTY 2017). By July 11, VRS had entered the town. As a result,approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Bosnian Muslims— mostly women, children, and theelderly—fled to seek shelter in Potočari, a compound used by the UN Protection Force.
Conditions were dire: food and water were scarce, and there was a shortage of medical
supplies. In the meantime, on the eve of the fall of Srebrenica, the vast majority of the ablebodied men, between 10,000 and 15,000, fled the enclave on foot in an attempt to reach the
Muslim-controlled area. A large number of them were subsequently captured by VRS. On
July 12, VRS soldiers systematically separated Muslim men of military age who had taken
shelter in Potočari from the rest of the population. Together with others captured from thecolumn fleeing on foot, the men were bussed to various execution sites and systematicallymurdered. The vast majority of them were executed over just a few days from 12 July until
17 July. The court estimated that the total number of executed men was within the range of
7,000 and 8,000 (ICTY Krstić).
The ICTY found Krstić guilty on the grounds that by killing all the men of fighting age,

64

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
VRS made it impossible for the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica to survive forthe next generation. The court also made an important decision: that it is not necessary fora plan of genocide to exist prior to perpetrators committing concrete genocidal actions. In
the case of Srebrenica, the court confirmed that the initial plan had been an ethnic
cleansing. No plan to commit genocide existed before or even right after the city fell.
However, for unknown reasons, the decision was then taken to kill all the men of fighting
age. The result would inevitably bring about the destruction of the Bosnian Muslim
population in Srebrenica. The murderers did it with full awareness of the consequences.
Thus, they had the clear intention of genocide while conducting the mass murder (ICTY2001). This ruling defined two important criteria. First, it is not necessary for clear
evidence that attests to the will of genocide prior to committing the crime. Second, ethnic
cleansing changes into genocide at a certain point.

IV. Comparison of the four cases
Having viewed the general characteristics of the four cases in question, now we canjuxtapose each phase of these incidents with others in accordance with the following five
key aspects: background, provocation, civilian targeting, displacement, and forced
starvation. These aspects are the most pertinent to apprehend the nature of ongoingviolence.
Background
As UN Secretary general Antonio Guterres put it, “the attacks by Hamas did not happen ina vacuum.” Before October 7, 2023, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had to endure aseries of dispossessions, eviction from their ancestral homes, and enclosure in a small,
overpopulated area with incessant threats of bombardment by the IDF forces. They also
suffered from systematic human rights abuses under the Israeli occupation regime. The
situation is comparable to that of the Herero and the Nama before the uprising. Due to the
steppe climate, the central plateau of Namibia was an area of extensive animal husbandry,and both the Herero and Nama subsisted as nomadic pastoralists. The systematiccolonization of white settlers that began in 1894 brought about rapid dispossession of theland and livestock of the native population. As the best grazing land had belonged to the
Herero, they saw much of their land and a good portion of their cattle pass into the handsof the white man. By 1903, the white population of the colony had risen to 4,640, and morethan 25% of all Herero land had already passed out of native hands (Bridgman 1981: 50).
As a result, many Hereros were forced to sell their labor to the colonists at an extremely
low price (Kuss 2017: 38) The German setters not only exploited the Herero; they alsosystematically mistreated them. They displayed a blatant racist attitude, describing theAfricans as baboons, and treated them as such. The German judges either dismissed thecharges against the settlers by the Africans or imposed very light sentences. Moreover, theGermans ignored their promise they had made in Article 3 of the treaty of protection with
the Herero that they would respect the latter’s habits and customs. Deprived of all theirrights, the Herero felt like slaves in their own country (Drechsler 1980: 133). The sense of
injustice and well-grounded fear of loss of tribal identities were the principal motives thatmade them take up arms in January 1904. The same was true for the Nama uprising. It wasalso motivated by the perception of a threat to their own existance (Kuss 2017: 42).

65

TETSUYA SAHARA
Provocation
The Israeli government has justified their military operations in Gaza as an act of selfdefense, claiming that the October 7 attacks were the worst atrocities against the Jewish
people since the Nazis; therefore, the elimination of Hamas is necessary for national
security. The Western countries are upholding the claim and support the IDF’s operations
both militarily and financially. But is it permissive to carry out such a disproportional
reprisal against the Palestinians on the grounds that they had provoked first?
In the case of the Namibian genocide, the German operation started as a reaction to thearmed rebellion of the Herero and the Nama. On January 12, 1904, the Herero launchedtheir first attacks. “During the next ten days, almost every farm, village, and fort in
Hereroland was attacked or at least threatened by the marauding hands of natives. The
majority of the German farms were destroyed during those hectic days. […] All farmers
who fled lost everything: their livestock had been stolen; their possessions looted; and theirbuildings burned” (Bridgman 1981: 73) In all, more than 100 German settlers and soldiers
were killed. The Germans were overpowered at first, as a total of some 2,000 men had toface more than 8,000 Herero warriors. Though not more than half of them were armed withrifles, they were militarily sophisticated. Due to their tribal discipline and warlike
traditions, the Herero fighters proved to be “man for man equivalent to the Germansoldiers” (Bridgman 1981: 68). Initially, both sides suffered an even rate of casualties:
German losses amounted to 210, while that of the Herero was 250. The Germans saw thedeaths of a large number of officers in a series of battles. In the same vein, the Namastarted their rebellion as random destructions of German farms in September 1904.
Employing clever hit-and-run tactics, carefully avoiding open battles, they successfully
waged an attritional guerilla warfare. Organized into smaller units, the Nama bands
targeted smaller German formations such as patrols and transport columns. A testimony
revealed that “Marching and resting troops, columns, stations and posts were exposed toconstant danger from small groups of the enemy that would suddenly appear [fromnowhere]. The situation was best described by the phrase ‘enemy present everywhere’”(Kuss 2017: 43). As a result, the Germans suffered substantial losses. Moreover, theultimate objective of the revolt was not restricted to the protest against the colonial systembut to drive the Germans out of South West Africa, as both the Herero and Nama had felt
the existential threat (Bridgman 1981: 66).
The Bosniaks of Srebrenica were not always subjected to the one-sided violence of the
Serbs. They had their own forces. In early 1992, the Srebrenica Bosniaks began acounteroffensive against the Serbs, forcing thousands of Serb peasants to flee from thearea. Since then, the Bosniaks regularly attacked the Serb villages near the enclave,committing wanton destruction, pillage, torture, imprisonment, and murder of civilian
targets (Bartrop 2016: 169). The raids did not stop even after the UN designated the town
as a “safe area.” Heavy weapons were handed over, but Srebrenica was never disarmed.
Using the UNPROFOR as a shield, the Muslim forces continued to intrude into the Serbcontrolled area, searching for food to steal and killing civilians as a reprisal for the siege(Rohde 2017). In the meantime, Bosniak military police persecuted Serb citizens inside
Srebrenica. They were detained in several facilities and subjected to physical abuse, serious
suffering, and injuries to their bodies and health. In some cases, prisoners were beaten to
death (ICTY 2008).
To sum up, not all the past genocides were unprovoked, and both Namibians andBosniaks had committed atrocities against civilians, including willful targeting of non-66

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
combatants and wanton destruction of their properties, some of which may have amounted
to crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, the Germans and the Serbs were not acquitted
from their crimes of genocide. Thus, provocations cannot justify disproportionate reprisals.
Civilian massacre
The Israelis have so far killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, more than 70% of whichwere women and children, but the Netanyahu government vindicates this as collateral
damage, claiming that Hamas are using the civilian population as human shields. When hemet the ICRC chief on December 14, 2023, for example, Netanyahu was reported as sayingthat “There’s a difference between the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming andmenacing of civilians, which is what terrorism is, and the unintended consequences,
unintended casualties that accompany any warfare” (GI 2023j). It is highly doubtful that
Netanyahu’s soldiers are doing their best to avoid civilian casualties. An independent media
study has confirmed that the AI-based systems used by the IDF to automatically generatetargets were inflicting civilian casualties at an astonishing rate and that the fact was wellknown among the Israeli leaders. An anonymous source was cited as saying, “Everything is
intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.” It has
also been confirmed that Israeli officials approved an attack they knew would kill up to
hundreds of civilians in a bid to assassinate a single Hamas military commander. The reportconcludes that the ongoing Israeli military operations “more resembled the indiscriminate
bombing of World War II than the modern era of codified civilian protection underinternational humanitarian law” (Wilkins 2023).
The German colonial troops employed a similar method when they pursued the counterinsurgency operations against the Herero and the Nama. Having destroyed the major
Herero forces at the Battle of Waterberg in August 1904, the Germans continued the war of
extermination of all Herero fighters, pursuing them into the Omaheke desert andindiscriminately killing every man, woman, and child whom they spotted (Kuss 2017: 42).
When the Germans broke into the Herero camps in search of the guerrillas, they showed nomercy for women and children. A testimony reported that “The Germans spared no one.
They killed thousands and thousands. I saw this slaughter for day after day” (Bridgman
1981: 126). The Germans adopted the same tactics against the Nama. One of the former’s
military commanders wrote that “We must not allow the Hottentotts to escape, rather wemust encircle and destroy them before they do so” (Kuss 2017: 45).
In the case of the Ottomans, it is highly dubious if they paid the slightest attention toprotecting Armenian non-combatants when fighting against the rebels in such places as
Van, Bitlis, Erzurum, and Zeytun in the spring 1915. Moreover, there are ample records of
the Ottoman agents who committed random killings of civilians during the deportation(Lewy 2005: 224–6). It is also well-known that the Bosnian Serbs subjected the Srebrenica
town and its surrounding villages to daily shelling from all directions and sporadic
incursions of paramilitaries between April 1992 and March 1993, inflicting a great numberof civilian casualties (Bartrop 2016: 169).
Those examples clearly show that the military operations that entailed immense loss ofcivilian life constituted a part of actions that would eventually amount to genocide.
Contemporary American and European leaders seem to understand this well. For instance,
EC President Ursula von der Leyen said that “Targeted attacks on civilian infrastructurewith the clear aim to cut off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating withthe winter coming, these are acts of pure terror” (Reuters 2022). The German Chancellor

67

TETSUYA SAHARA
Olaf Scholz asserted that drone attacks on civilians in the cities constituted “war crimes”(DW 2022). In addition, US Vice-President Kamala Harris denounced the wanton
destruction of cities where enemy units were entrenched as “barbaric and inhumane”
atrocities against civilians and classified them as “crimes against humanity” (BBC 2023).
US President Joe Biden was more eloquent in saying that such actions would amount to a
genocide (BBC 2022). These leaders have applied these criteria against the Russian actions
in Ukraine, but, for unknown reasons, they still hesitate to apply the same judgment to thecase of Israel.
Displacement
The Israeli military ordered the Gazans who lived in the northern part of the Strip toimmediately “evacuate” from their homes on October 13, 2023. The measures wereannounced as though for their safety, and Netanyahu designated the southern Gaza areas as“safe zones.” However, the IDF subsequently enlarged their sphere of operation into thewide swaths of southern Gaza in December, and the “safe zones” effectively disappeared.
To make things worse, the IDF demolished most of the residential buildings and destroyedsocial infrastructures, making it impossible for those who were “evacuated” to return totheir homes and to resume their previous way of life. This fact leads us to the suspicion thatthe “evacuation order” was designed to serve the Israeli military aims and not the good of
the Palestinians. If so, it was not a temporary safe measure but forced displacement.
Forced displacement itself does not always constitute an act of genocide. The Tsarist
deportations of Germans, Jews, Poles, and Latvians during WWI were no doubt atrocities
but a bit short of genocide. This was also the case for the Austro-Hungarian eviction of theBosnian Serbs. The Stalinist deportation of the Chechens, the Ingush, and the Crimean
Tatars can be considered examples of ethnic cleansing but are not unanimously accepted as
genocide. Furthermore, the Greco-Turkish population exchange in 1924, though it caused
enduring suffering to 1.5 million Orthodox Anatolian Greeks and half a million Hellenic
Muslims, was internationally recognized as legitimate policies of nation states. On theother end of the spectrum, however, there are many examples of deportation with genocidal
dimensions. The Ottoman Armenian case is the best known. In this case, the deportation
was the central piece of genocide. Donald Bloxham explains the reason as follows:
The very nature of the deportations is sufficient evidence of genocide[e] […]. Where
the first anti-Armenian measures did not distinguish innocent individuals from ‘guilty,’
the new ones did not differentiate between communities with revolutionary traditions or
the great majority without, nor between border regions and the interior. Unlike the first
Zeytun deportees, the Armenians were not to be sent to places where settlement waspossible, if difficult; they were sent, defenseless and without provision or the means ofsubsistence, to desert regions where natural attrition could take its deadly toll.
(Bloxham 2005: 86)
In a similar vein, the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica saw the following two stages offorced displacement prior to the genocide. Although bordering with the Serbian proper,
eastern Bosnia used to be a Muslim majority region. With the objective to ethnically purify
the territory, the Serb nationalist forces launched well-organized eradicating operations
against the Bosniak population in early 1992. They engaged in looting homes, burning
villages, and slaughtering the civilian population in the neighboring municipalities of
Srebrenica. Even after the completion of military conquest, the Serbs systematically evicted
the Bosniak citizens who were found in their territory to Srebrenica, which had remained

68

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
under Muslim control. According to a 1991 census, the Srebrenica municipality had apopulation of 36,000 (25,000 Bosniaks and 8,500 Serbs). Due to the influx of refugees
from the surrounding municipalities, the population of the enclave swelled to over 50,000
people by mid-May, creating a humanitarian crisis, with a serious shortage of shelters,
food, and medical services (Srebrenica Memorial). The plight lasted for more than three
years. The Serbs then embarked on the second stage of displacement in May 1995. VRS
began attacking the outposts of the enclave, gradually tightened a ring, and finally entered
the town on July 11. During the attacks, the Serbs systematically burned Muslim houses
and evicted the inhabitants with the aim to force them to concentrate in the Srebrenica town
and then to escape to Potočari. By July 12, most of the noncombatant civilians of
Srebrenica had gathered in and around the compound. Conditions there were dire, withalmost no food, water, or shelter. VRS frightened the people, either by shelling near thecompound or by abducting some of them. General Mladić insisted on the total “evacuation”
of the civilians, and subsequently, women, children, and the elderly were transported to the
Muslim-controlled areas. In the meantime, the military-aged men, together with those who
had previously been captured by the Serbs, were all executed (ICTY 2017). In this regard,
the “evacuation” of the Srebrenica population was a part and parcel of ethnic cleansing anda prelude to genocide.
The Israeli policy of forced “evacuation” of the Palestinians in Gaza shares many
common features with the two cases. Just like the Armenians, the Gazans areindiscriminately displaced, based on Israeli President Herzog’s axiom that “an entire nationout there […] is responsible.” As the Ottomans forced the Armenians to move from one
place to another in accordance with the notorious 10% limit, the Gazans were being told tomove like “human pinballs.” The Srebrenica Muslims, on their part, were first driven into
the enclave, then concentrated into a much smaller space, and finally evicted once and forall. Just like the Ottoman Armenians who were randomly killed during the “relocation,” thenorthern Gazan refugees were bombed while moving to the southern “safe zones.” The
Armenians were executed while staying in their encampments in Syria, and the Gazans areleft defenseless against the air strikes, random shelling, and sniping of the IDF in the
middle of the “safe zones.” The Serbs did the same to the Bosniaks hiding in the “safearea.” Although Israel has not yet destroyed a large portion of the population, nor rounded
up and executed the majority of the male population, the deportation of the Gazans has
already gone well beyond the scale of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and reached the level ofthe Armenian case.
Siege and Forced Starvation
Since October 7, 2023, the Israeli forces have put Gaza under a complete siege, prohibiting
free movement in and out of the Strip and strictly restricting the import of any kind ofgoods, including humanitarian aid. Moreover, the Israelis are not providing the refugees
with any kind of shelter and have systematically destroyed residences, schools, warehouses,
and religious institutions. This policy has brought about a general malnutrition in the
population, who suffer from starvation and exhaustion by exposure. There conditions are
extremely unhygienic, and many people are dying of diseases accordingly. In light of
Netanyahu’s remark on December 5, 2023, that “We know that if there would be a collapse— diseases, pandemics, and groundwater infections — it will stop the fighting [of Hamas]”(CNN 2023), it is plausible that the creation of these insanitary conditions for the refugees
is a part and parcel of the Israeli strategy.

69

TETSUYA SAHARAThe Serbs adopted similar measures during the siege of Srebrenica. At that time, theenclave was totally besieged by VRS and cut off from the rest of the Bosniak-controlled
territories. The situation worsened progressively, with the refugees and townsfolk runningout of food and water. As pre-war food supplies were rapidly depleted, people began to eat
anything they could find. From the spring of 1993 onward, Srebrenica was completelydependent on the humanitarian aid provided by the UNPROFOR. The aid, however, wasoften blocked by VRS (Bartrop 2016: 214). As a result, the Srebrenica enclave became theworst-affected case from food shortages in the Bosnian civil war. Contrary to the pretext
that the blockage was a measure to prevent the Bosniak fighters from attacking the Serb
territories, those who suffered most were those vulnerable elements such as pregnant andlactating women, as well as small children (Conley & de Waal 2019: 722; Slavková 2020:78–9). The forced starvation was a well-planned policy aimed at a voluntary evacuation of
the Bosniaks. In July 1994, for example, the commander of the Bratunac Brigade instructed
his soldiers as follows: “The enemy’s life has to be made unbearable and their temporary
stay in the enclave impossible so that they leave the enclave en masse as soon as possible”(ICTY 2003).
Forced starvation was also an integral part of the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians.
Most of the deaths were due to hunger and thirst (Suny 2015). Considering the cumulative
radicalization of the deportation, the CUP did not have a wholesale plan of massive
starvation laid out, but the ad hoc nature of the policy resulted in many more victims. As
the local governments had to comply with the hectic “relocation” orders, they gave theArmenians only a few days to prepare for the journey. As a result, most of them could notcarry enough food. To make things worse, it was almost impossible to find something to
eat on the way, because the government had no plan (or will) for logistical support for
those who were deported. It is estimated that of the first deportees from the eastern
provinces who were ordered to move in May and June 1915, only 10 to 20% percent
reached Syria alive. Later, the situation improved a little. Namely, of those from western
Anatolia who were expelled in August and September 1915, some 80 to 90% could reach
Syria. George Shirinian postulates that this was because a structure for the deportations had
been established by the summer of 1915 (Shirinian 2017: 13). This fact by no means serves
as a sign that the CUP cared for the adequate provision of the deported Armenians. It wastrue that the government provided food and water. However, these things were rather
exceptional and far from adequate. A German consular official who traveled from Baghdad
to Aleppo recalled that “The way stations with water were about forty miles apart, andmany of the deportees did not have enough food or water to last even the three days ofwalking that it took to get from one station to the next. At some stations no food wasavailable at all” (cited by Lewy 2005: 222). In contrast, the Syrian Armenians and foreign
missionaries organized relief committees and actively supported the displaced people. They
sent aid and dispatched missions even to the remotest provinces. They were the primary,and often the only, means of subsistence for the deportees. For some time, those foreignand domestic philanthropists received tacit approval and even support from the local
authorities. But this was only because the CUP paid little attention to the deportees who
managed to arrive in Syria. Their attitude changed in the autumn of 1915. Thereafter, thecentral government exerted strong pressure on the humanitarian response to the survivorsof deportation. Namely, local Muslims who tried to give the Armenians food and water
were strictly reproached by the gendarmes (Shirinian 2017: 22). Furthermore, the Armenian
activists who supported the refugees were either arrested or persecuted. The CUP even

70

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
thwarted the international aid programs. The US ambassador who attempted to distributethe relief funds that had been collected by the US Armenian Relief Committee wasprevented from doing so by the Ottoman government (Mouradian 2019: 252–5).
Even those who could reach Syria alive had to endure the daily threat of death byattrition. A large number of deportees who were destined for resettlement in Der-el Zor—
one of the major “relocation” sites—were detained in encampments along the Euphrates.
Many of them were put in an impossible position to acquire food and gradually died ofhunger. The camp at Meskene was one of these detention centers. In early February 1916,
the place hosted more than 2,000 tents and about 10,000 persons. Since the government did
not distribute any food, most of the detainees had to live by begging. Those who did not
manage to obtain any bread cooked and ate grass. Moreover, there was no latrine, and all
around the camp was covered with a wide belt of excrements and garbage (Lewy 2005:
223). The deterioration of hygiene conditions inevitably resulted in epidemics of diseases,
which took their heavy toll on the Armenian population.
The German colonial army adopted a similar tactic. On August 11, 1904, when theGermans gained the decisive victory over the Herero at the Waterberg, a large number ofmen, women, and children escaped from the encircling forces and fled into the Omaheke
desert. As the Germans knew what kind of human catastrophe would be played out there,
they expected the desert would complete “the task begun by German weapons.” Von Trotha
ordered his soldiers to occupy all the known water holes around the edge of the desert andto block all Herero returning from the Omaheke. That was the moment when “the actual
genocidal phase began” (Zimmerer 2008: 47). Trapped in the desert, the Herero franticallysearched for water, only to hasten their death by exhaustion. An eyewitness said that thetrails through the desert were littered with hundreds of carcasses. It is estimated that out of
50,000 and 60,000 Herero who had escaped into the desert, barely 3,000 could survive thedeath trap. (Bridgman 1981: 131). The Germans responded to the Nama uprising with thesame strategy of extermination. Their troops systematically occupied watering places,
destroying roughly half of the Nama population by starvation (Zimmerer 2008: 51).
According to Conley and de Waal (2019), who have studied historical cases of artificial
famine, examples of the deployment of mass starvation on the scale of mass extermination
are rare. The Namibian massacre and the Armenian deportation were among those few
unambiguous cases (Conley & de Waal 2019: 705–6). Other examples are the ghettos
during the Holocaust, the Ukrainian Holomodor (1932–1933), and the Nazi Hungerplan(1941–1945). The ongoing Israeli policy of forced starvation of the Palestinians has
seemingly not yet reached the same level as these cases. The policy shares morecommonalities with the Bosnian case. If one takes into consideration the remarks of Israeli
policymakers on “voluntary” ethnic cleansing, it sounds appropriate to say that, at thisstage, the Israeli siege of Gaza has fallen into the category of the use of starvation for
gaining territorial control. But in light of the fact that in contrast to Srebrenica, where mostof the besieged people could still stay under a roof, a large number of Palestinians have tobivouac under rubble or flimsy tents, so the situation in Gaza has already gone beyond thefirst stage of the siege of Srebrenica and is rapidly approaching the plight of the Armenians
in the concentration camps. The Gazan hygienic crisis also bears resemblance to the
Armenian case.

71

TETSUYA SAHARA

V. Conclusions
The comparison of the ongoing Israeli war with the Namibian, Ottoman, and Bosnian cases
leads us to the following findings. First, the prewar conditions of the Palestinians in Gaza
shared many of the colonialist characteristics with the German rule in Namibia. Second, theprovocation of Hamas does not vindicate the scale of Israeli military actions in Gaza. The
Namibian and the Bosnian cases show that not all the victims of genocide were unprovoked
and that the disproportionate reprisals were the basic features of those two genocide cases.
Third, the Israeli allegation of “collateral damage” does not make sense. It is not only
because the wanton destruction of civilian objects is, as the Western leaders admit, a war
crime, but also because they are carried out with the explicit aim of collective punishment.
In this regard, the Israeli action shows a marked resemblance with those of the colonialist
Germans, the CUP, and the Bosnian Serb leadership. Fourth, the massive displacement of
the Gazans displays the same indiscriminate nature as the Armenian deportation and theBosnian ethnic cleansing. In both cases, the “evacuations” were carried out with the clear
aim of eliminating the unwanted elements from certain territories. The Israeli pretext of“safety measures” is almost identical with that of the Ottomans, who took no substantial
measure to protect the deportees and carried out the “evacuations” for purely strategic
purposes. The Bosnian Serbs employed the same hypocrisy. For them, the term“evacuation” is nothing but a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Fifth, the Israeli siege,
blockades of humanitarian aid, and exposure of the Gazans to helpless situations areintentionally creating the conditions of forced starvation, characteristics in common withthe past three cases. The Germans imposed impossible living conditions on the Africans
either by expelling them into deserts or by blocking their access to food and water. The
Ottomans put the Armenians into starving conditions by sabotaging their logistic support,
detaining them in places with no or insufficient access to nutrition, and preventing
international aid. By doing so, they created extremely unhygienic conditions that resulted
in immense human loss. This has a strong resemblance to the contemporary situation in
Gaza. The Bosnian Serbs imposed a similar type of forced starvation on the people in
Srebrenica. They shut the Bosniaks into a small and overpopulated area with an inadequate
food supply and restricted the international aid to the minimal level before finallyeliminating them.
These findings constitute reasonable grounds for the conclusion that the ongoing war has
already shown several key symptoms of genocide. The Israeli military operations havegone well beyond the initial stages of the Namibian case (confinement in an unsustainable
environment), the Armenian case (mass displacement, mass killings, forced starvation, andunhygienic conditions), and the Bosnian case (enclosure and siege in a small place,incessant bombing, and the cutting off of outside aid). If the Israeli campaign goes onunchecked, it is plausible to believe that it will develop into a full-fledged genocide.
However, as to the question of whether the contemporary stage has already reached suchlevels, the answer is skeptical. The proportion of death is, so far, much lower than theprevious cases. Moreover, whether the Netanyahu government is pursuing the policy withgenocidal intention or not is not crystal clear. In light of the consistent remarks of theIsraeli leadership on the mass migration of the Gazans, their intentions seem to remain at
the level of ethnic cleansing. At the same time, however, compared with the ethnic
cleansing during the Bosnian war, the ongoing Israeli war is much larger in scale and akinto the Armenian case. It is true that the scale of mass starvation in Gaza is gradually
approaching those of the previous three cases. Regarding these developments, it seems

72

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
prudent to call the Israeli war on Gaza an extraordinary immense ethnic cleansing that is on
the threshold of genocide.

73

TETSUYA SAHARA
References
Akçam, Taner (2006): A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish
Responsibilities, New York: Metropolitan Books. (2012): The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity:
The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Bartrop, Paul R. ed. (2016): Bosnian Genocide: The Essential Reference Guide, Santa Barbara: ABCCLIO.
Bloxham, Donald (2005): The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of
the Ottoman Armenians, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bridgman, Jon M. (1981): The Revolt of the Hereros, Berkely, Ca.: University of California Press.
Calic, Marie-Janine (2007): “Ethnic Cleansing and War Crimes, 1991–1995,” Südosteuropa, 55/1, 70-106.
Čekić, Smail & Muharem Kreso & Bećir Macić (2000): Genocid u Srebrenici, “sigurnoj zoni” Ujedinjenih
nacija, jula 1995, Sarajevo: Institut za istraživanje zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava.
Çiçek, Kemal (2020): Studies on the Armenian Question, Ankara: Astana Yayınları.
Conley, Bridget & Alex de Waal (2019): “The Purposes of Starvation: Historical and Contemporary Uses,”
Journal of International Criminal Justice 17, 699-722.
Drechsler, Horst (1980): Let Us Die Fighting: The Struggle of the Herero and Nama against German
Imperialism (1884-1915), Trans. Bernd Zöllner, London: Zed Press.
Freeman, Michael (1994): “Religion, Nationalism and Genocide: Ancient Judaism Revisited,” European
Journal of Sociology, 35/2, 259-282.
Gessen, Masha (2023): “In the Shadow of the Holocaust,” The New Yorker, [09.12.2023] https://www.
newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust
Hagopian, Edward & A. B. Zahlan (1974): “Palestine’s Arab Population: The Demography of thePalestinians,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 3/4, 32-73.
Hovvanisian, Richard (2007): “The Armenian Genocide: Wartime Radicalization or PremediatedContinuum,” In, Hovannisian R. ed., The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, New
Brunswick & London: Transaction Publisher, 3-18.
Kévorkian, Raymond (2011): The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History, London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
King, Mary Elizabeth (2007): A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent
Resistance, New York: Nation Books.
Kuss, Susanne (2017): German Colonial Wars and The Context of Military Violence; translated by Andrew
Smith, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lewy, Guenter (2005): The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
McCarthy, Justin & Esat Arslan & Cemalettin Taskiran (2006): The Armenian Rebellion at Van, Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
Mouradian, Khatching (2019): “‘The Very Limit of Our Endurance’: Unarmed Resistance in Ottoman Syria
during the First World War, Humanitarian Relief,” In: Kieser H-L et al eds., The End of the Ottomans:
The Genocide of 1915 and the Politics of Turkish Nationalism, London & New York: I.B. Tauris, 247262.
Nuhanović, Hasan (2005): Pod zastavom UN-a: Međunarodna Zajednica i Zločin u Srebrenici, Sarajevo:
Preporod.
Rohde, David (2017): “Why Did Ratko Mladic Commit Genocide Against Bosnia’s Muslims?” The New
Yorker, [26/11/2017] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-did-ratko-mladic-commitgenocide-against-bosnias-muslims
Sarkin, Jeremy (2011): Germany’s Genocide of the Herero: Keiser Wilhelm II, His Generals, His Settlers,
His Soldiers, Woodbridge, UK: James Curry.
Shirinian, George N. (2017): “Starvation and Its Political Use in the Armenian Genocide,” Genocide
Studies International, 11/1, 8-37
Slavková, Markéta (2020): “Salt over Gold’: Food as a Tool of Power and a Weapon of War during theSiege of Srebrenica (1992–1995),” Národopisný Věstník, 79/2, 71-86.
Suny, Ronald Grigor (1993): Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. (2015): “They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else”: A History of the Armenian
Genocide, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Wilkins, Brett (2023): “Israel’s AI-Aided Bomb Targeting Creates Massacre ‘Factory’ in Gaza,” Common
Dreams, [01.12.2023] https://www.commondreams.org/news/gaza-civilian-casualties-2666414736

74

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
Zimmerer, Jürgen (2008): “War, Concentration Camps and Genocide in South-West Africa: The First
German genocide,” in: Zimmerer, Jürgen, & Joachim Zeller eds., Trans. Edward Neather, Genocide inGerman South-West Africa: The Colonial War (1904-1908) in Namibia and its Aftermath, Monmouth:
Merlin Press, 41-63.
Internet Resources(AA) Anadol Ajansı (2023a): “Israeli officials accused of inciting war crimes in Gaza with violent
rhetoric,” [18.10.2023] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-officials-accused-of-inciting-warcrimes-in-gaza-with-violent-rhetoric/3057940(2023b): “UN calls for immediate cease-fire amid ‘horrific’ situation in Gaza,” [28.10.2023] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/un-calls-for-immediate-cease-fire-amid-horrific-situation-in-gaza/3036326(2023c): “Premier Netanyahu continues to use scriptures to defend Israeli war on Gaza,” [03.11.2023]
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/premier-netanyahu-continues-to-use-scriptures-to-defend-israeliwar-on-gaza/3042801(2023d): “No difference between actions of Hitler, Israeli Premier Netanyahu: Turkish President
Erdogan,” [27.12.2023] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/no-difference-between-actions-of-hitlerisraeli-premier-netanyahu-turkish-president-erdogan/3093860(AGM) Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (2007): Armenian genocide, http://www.genocide-museum.
am/eng/armenian_genocide.php(AI) Amnesty International (2022): Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians, [01.02.2022] https://www.
amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/(2023): Damning evidence of war crimes as Israeli attacks wipe out entire families in Gaza, [20.10.2023]
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attackswipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
Aljazeera (2023a): “Israel-Hamas war updates: ‘We are not stopping,’ vows PM Netanyahu,” [25 Dec
2023] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/12/25/israel-hamas-war-live-intense-israelistrikes-hit-al-bureij-and-al-maghazi(2023b): “Israel’s military claims it has cut Gaza in half, surrounded Gaza City,” [05 Nov 2023] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/5/israels-military-claims-it-has-cut-gaza-in-half-surrounded-gaza-city(2023c): “Israeli minister supports ‘voluntary migration’ of Palestinians in Gaza,” [14 Nov 2023] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/14/israeli-minister-supports-voluntary-migration-of-palestinians-ingaza(2023d): “Israeli bombardment destroyed over 70% of Gaza homes: Report,” [31 Dec. 2023] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/31/israeli-bombardment-destroyed-over-70-of-gaza-homes-mediaoffice
AP (2023): “Biden takes a tougher stance on Israel’s ‘indiscriminate bombing’ of Gaza,” [13.12.2023]
https://apnews.com/article/biden-israel-hamas-oct-7-44c4229d4c1270d9cfa484b664a22071(Armenia) Republic of Armenia: Armenian Genocide, https://www.mfa.am/en/genocide
Axios (2023): “Gaza civilian deaths outpacing those of other conflict zones,” [23.12.2023] https://www.
axios.com/2023/11/27/gaza-civilian-deaths-israel-conflict-zones#
BBC (2022): “Ukraine War: Biden accuses Russian troops of committing genocide in Ukraine,”[13.04.2022] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61093300(2023): “Ukraine war: Russia has committed crimes against humanity, US says,” [19.02.2023] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64691001
Caucasus Watch (2023): “Kadyrov accuses Israel of committing genocide in Palestine,” [22.10.2023]
https://caucasuswatch.de/en/news/kadyrov-accuses-israel-of-committing-genocide-in-palestine.html)
CBC (2023): “Israel’s Gaza bombing campaign is the most destructive of this century, analysts say,”[30.12.2023] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-gaza-bombing-hamas-civilian-casualties-1.7068647
CNN (2023): “December 5, 2023 Israel-Hamas war,” [07.12.2023] https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/livenews/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-12-05-23/h_0aa15fb04f5492f5b393125b91363fb6
Cradle (2023): “Latin American nations start cutting ties with Israel over Gaza genocide,” [01.11.2023]
https://new.thecradle.co/articles-id/11564)
DW (2022): “Scholz: Russian air attacks on Kyiv are ‘war crimes’,” [20.10.2022] https://www.dw.com/en/
germanys-scholz-says-russian-air-attacks-on-ukraine-constitute-war-crimes/a-63501314(EC) European Commission (2023): Statement by President von der Leyen with Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu, [14.10.2023] https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/statement-presidentvon-der-leyen-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-2023-10-14_en

75

TETSUYA SAHARA(EMHRM) Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (2023): Israel arrests, abuses dozens of Palestinian civilians
at UNRWA-run schools in northern Gaza, [07.12.2023] https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6012/
Israel-arrests,-abuses-dozens-of-Palestinian-civilians-at-UNRWA-run-schools-in-northern-GazaEuropean Parliament (1987): European Parliament resolution on a political solution to the Armenian
question (18 June 1987) https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2005/10/26/91fbffca-0721-49d5-9e53f95393d470b2/publishable_en.pdf
Flashpoint (2023): “Beyond Hamas: Militant and terrorist groups involved in the October 7 attack on
Israel,” [18.10.2023] https://flashpoint.io/blog/israel-hamas-war-military-and-terrorist-groups/(FT) Financial Times (2023): “UN warns of humanitarian ‘tsunami’ as Israel-Hamas hostilities resume,”[01.12.2023] https://www.ft.com/content/3dd01cc5-b0da-4dce-848e-9e9ab0c92d22
France 24 (2023): “More than 570,000 ‘starving’ as Gaza Strip faces risk of famine, UN report says,”[21.12.2023] https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231221(GI) Government of Israel (2023a): Correction: Statement by PM Netanyahu 08.10.2023 https://www.gov.
il/en/departments/news/event-statement071023(2023b): Excerpt from PM Netanyahu’s Knesset Speech on the occasion of the swearing-in of the
National Emergency Government 12.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/eventspeech121023(2023c): PM Netanyahu Meets with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz 17.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/
departments/news/event-scholz171023(2023d): PM Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden issue additional joint statements at the start of their
expanded meeting, Government: The 37th Government Publish Date: 18.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/
departments/news/event-startmeeting181023(2023e): PM Netanyahu to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni: “This is a test, a test of civilization
and we will win.” Government: The 37th Government Publish Date: 21.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/
departments/news/event-meet211023(2023f): Statement by PM Netanyahu 28.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/statement-bypm-netanyahu-28-oct-2023(2023g): Statement by PM Netanyahu to the foreign media, 30.10.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/
departments/news/statement-by-pm-netanyahu-to-the-foreign-media-30-oct-2023(2023h): Statement by PM Netanyahu, Government: The 37th Government Publish Date: 07.11.2023
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/event-statement071123(2023i): PM Netanyahu to Council Heads from the area adjacent to the Gaza Strip: “Our goal is toensure that after Hamas is eliminated, the Gaza Strip does not go back to being a threat to the State ofIsrael.” gov.il 30.11.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/event-gaza301123(2023j): PM Netanyahu Meets with ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric, Government: 14.12.2023 https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/pm-netanyahu-meets-with-icrc-president-14-dec-2023(2023k): PM Netanyahu on Turkish President Erdogan’s remarks, gov.il, 27.12.2023 https://www.gov.il/
en/departments/news/spoke-turkey271223
The Guardian (2023): “Civil order ‘starting to break down’ in Gaza as people raid UN warehouses,” [29Oct 2023] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/29/civil-order-starting-break-down-gazapeople-raid-un-warehouses(HMDT) Holocaust Memorial Day Trust: The Bosnian War https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-theholocaust-and-genocides/bosnia/the-bosnian-war/(HRW) Human Rights Watch (2016): Israel: 50 years of occupation abuses, [14.08.2016] https://www.hrw.
org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses(2023): Israel: White phosphorus used in Gaza, Lebanon, [12.10.2023] https://www.hrw.org/
news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon(ICC) International Criminal Court: How the court works, https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-courtworks/Accessed on 19 Jan 2023.
(ICTY) International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (2001): Radislav Krstic becomes thefirst person to be convicted of genocide at the ICTY and is sentenced to 46 years imprisonment, Press
Release [2 August 2001] https://www.icty.org/en/sid/7964(2003): Sentencing judgement of trial chamber, Momir Nikolić, 2 December 2003 https://www.icty.org/
x/cases/nikolic/tjug/en/mnik-sj031202-e.pdf(2017): Trial judgement summary for Ratko Mladić, 22 November 2017 https://www.icty.org/x/cases/
mladic/tjug/en/171122-summary-en.pdf
Karadžić: Case information sheet: Radovan Karadžić https://www.irmct.org/sites/default/files/cases/

76

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
public-information/cis_karadzic_en.pdf
Krstić: Case information sheet: Radislav Krstić https://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/cis/en/cis_krstic.pdf
Mladić: Case information sheet: Ratko Mladić: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/cis/en/cis_mladic_
en.pdfOrić: Case information sheet: Naser Orić, https://www.icty.org/x/cases/oric/cis/en/cis_oric_en.pdf(ICJ) International Court of Justice (2023): Proceedings instituted by South Africa against the State ofIsrael on 29 December 2023, Document Number 192-20231228-APP-01-00-EN. https://www.un.org/
unispal/document/proceedings-instituted-by-south-africa-against-israel-on-29-december-2023-publichearing-icj-press-release-jan3-2024/(2024): Order [to the] request for the indication of provisional measures, [26.10.2024] https://www.icjcij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
ITV (2023): “Israeli president Isaac Herzog says Gazans could have risen up to fight ‘evil’ Hamas,’[13.10.2023] https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-13/israeli-president-says-gazans-could-have-risen-upto-fight-hamas
Joint Declaration (2021): Joint declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic ofNamibia, https://www.dngev.de/images/stories/Startseite/joint-declaration_2021-05.pdf(JP) The Jerusalem Post (2023): “Kirby: Word ‘genocide’ thrown around inappropriately against Israel,”[21.11. 2023] https://www.jpost.com/international/article-774296
Oxfam (2023): Starvation as weapon of war being used against Gaza civilians, [25.10.2023] https://www.
oxfam.org/en/press-releases/starvation-weapon-war-being-used-against-gaza-civilians-oxfam
Reuters (2022): “Russian attacks on Ukraine infrastructure are war crimes - EU’s von der Leyen,”[19.10.2022] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-attacks-ukraine-infrastructure-are-warcrimes-eus-von-der-leyen-2022-10-19/(2023): “Iran’s Raisi tells Putin in Moscow that West backs Gaza “genocide,” [08.12.2023] https://www.
reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-raisi-condemns-gaza-genocide-moscow-talks-withputin-2023-12-07/).
RT (2023): Tarik Cyril Amar, “How a Jewish Kremlin critic was almost canceled in Germany for speaking
out against Israel,” [27.12.2023] https://www.rt.com/russia/589399-masha-gessen-award-israel/
Srebrenica Memorial: The siege of the Srebrenica enclave https://srebrenicamemorial.org/en/page/thesiege-of-the-srebrenica-enclave/24
Tanakh: Shmuel I, Chapter 15 https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15844/jewish/Chapter-15.htm(TI) The Times of Israel (2023a): “Visiting Chancellor Scholz says Germany’s place in hard times is‘alongside Israel’ [17.10.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/visiting-german-leader-says-nations-onlyplace-in-hard-times-is-alongside-israel/(2023b): “Gallant: Israel moving to full offense, Gaza will never return to what it was,” [10.10.2023]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-israel-moving-to-full-offense-gaza-will-never-go-back-to-what-itonce-was/(2023c): “COGAT chief addresses Gazans: ‘You wanted hell, you will get hell’” [10.10.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/cogat-chief-addresses-gazans-you-wanted-hell-you-will-get-hell/(2023d): “Defense minister announces ‘complete siege’ of Gaza: No power, food or fuel,” [9.10.2023]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defense-minister-announces-complete-siege-of-gaza-nopower-food-or-fuel/(2023e): “Far-right minister says nuking Gaza an option, PM suspends him from cabinet meetings,”[05.11.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-minister-says-nuking-gaza-an-option-pmsuspends-him-from-cabinet-meetings/(2023f): “Likud minister suggests world should promote ‘voluntary resettlement’ of Gazans,”[19.11.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/likud-minister-suggests-world-shouldpromote-voluntary-resettlement-of-gazans/(2023g): “Improper munition said cause of high death toll in strike on Gaza’s Maghazi,” [28.12.2023]
https://www.timesofisrael.com/improper-munition-said-cause-of-high-death-toll-in-strike-on-gazasmaghazi/(2023h): “Christian mother, daughter killed while sheltering in Gaza church, patriarch says.”[17.12.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/christian-mother-daughter-killed-while-sheltering-in-gazachurch-patriarch-says/(2023i): “Halevi to troops, after 3 hostages killed: IDF doesn’t shoot people waving white flag,”[17.12.2023] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-reiterates-rules-of-engagement-to-troops-after-3hostages-killed-in-error/

77

TETSUYA SAHARA(2024a): “Far-right ministers call to ‘resettle’ Gaza’s Palestinians, build settlements in Strip,”[01.01.2024] https://www.timesofisrael.com/ministers-call-for-resettling-gazas-palestinians-buildingsettlements-in-strip/(2024b): “IDF: Deaths of 29 of 170 soldiers in Gaza op were so-called friendly fire, accidents,”[01.01.2024] https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-deaths-of-29-of-170-soldiers-in-gaza-op-were-so-calledfriendly-fire-accidents/(2024c): “Israel in talks with Congo and other countries on Gaza ‘voluntary migration’ plan,”[03.01.2024] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-in-talks-with-congo-and-other-countries-on-gazavoluntary-migration-plan/
Türkiye: Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2022): The Armenian allegation of genocide:
The issue and the facts, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-thefacts.en.mfa
United Nations (1985): Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of
the crime of genocide prepared by Mr. B. Whitaker, UN, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6 ]02.071985] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/547800?ln=fr(1994): United Nations Security Council (1994): Final report of the United Nations Commission ofExperts established pursuant to SCR 780 (1992): S/1994/674, [27 May 1994] https://www.icty.org/x/file/
About/OTP/un_commission_of_experts_report1994_en.pdf(2023a): UN Special Rapporteur, Ref.: AL DEU [1/2023 23] https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/
TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27875(2023b): Gaza: UN chief at Rafah crossing says aid convoy ‘the difference between life and death,’[20.10.2023] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142592(2023c): Identical letters dated 19 November 2023 from the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine
to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, the President of the General Assembly and thePresident of the Security Council A/ES-10/970-S/2023/889, [2011.2023] https://www.un.org/unispal/wpcontent/uploads/2023/12/A_ES-10_970-S_2023_889-EN.pdf(2023d): Gaza: ‘Unprecedented and unparalleled’ civilian death toll, [21.11.2023] https://dppa.un.org/en/
gaza-unprecedented-and-unparalleled-civilian-death-toll-guterres(2023e): Gaza: Unbearable suffering of civilians demands end to violence – Türk, [03.12.2023] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/12/gaza-unbearable-suffering-civilians-demands-end-violenceturk(2023f): US vetoes resolution on Gaza which called for ‘immediate humanitarian ceasefire,’ [08.12.2023]
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144562(2023g): Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council, [24.10.2023] https://www.un.org/sg/en/
content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secretary-generals-remarks-the-security-council-the-middleeast%C2%A0(2023h): UN rights chief warns of ‘dehumanization’ of Palestinians amid West Bank violence as Gaza
crisis deepens, [28.12.2023] https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1145132
UN OCHA (2023a): Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel: Flash update #14, [28.10.2023] https://www.
unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flashupdate-14(2023b): Hostilities in the Gaza Strip and Israel: Flash update #60, [05.12. 2023] https://reliefweb.int/
report/occupied-palestinian-territory/hostilities-gaza-strip-and-israel-flash-update-60-enarhe(2023c) UN relief chief: ‘No place safe’ for civilians in southern Gaza, [07.12. 2023] https://www.
unocha.org/news/un-relief-chief-no-place-safe-civilians-southern-gaza(USHMM) US Holocaust Memorial Museum: The Armenian Genocide (1915-16): Overview, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-armenian-genocide-1915-16-overvie(2013): Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1992–1995 https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/
bosnia-herzegovina/(2019): Bosnia, https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bosnia
US House of Representatives (USHR) (2019): Affirming the United States record on the Armenian
Genocide, [29.10.2019] H. Res. 296 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/296
Vox (2023): Nicole Narea, “A timeline of Israel and Palestine’s complicated history,” [19.10. 2023] https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23921529/israel-palestine-timeline-gaza-hamas-war-conflict(WP) The Washington Post (2023): “More than 20,000 dead in Gaza, as U.N. calls for fighting pause andaid,” [22.12.2023] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/gaza-israel-war-20000-dead/(WSJ) The Wall Street Journal (2023): Danny Danon and Ram Ben-Barak, “The West should welcome

78

The Israeli War on Gaza from a Comparative Genocide Studies Perspective
Gaza refugees,” [13.11.2023] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-west-should-welcome-gaza-refugeesasylum-seekers-hamas-terrorism-displacement-5d2b5890

79

History of Global Arms Transfer, 17 (2024), pp. 81-108

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup
Plan and the Function of Industry Associations
in Rebuilding the Military Industry : The Trendof “Domestic Production” of Defense
Equipment from the 1950s to the 1970s
By SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO*
We will examine not only what kind of Japan–U.S. relationship was built throughthe strengthening of the defense capabilities of the Japanese Self-Defense Forcesfrom the end of World War II to the 1970s but also how Japanese industry groups
responded to it during that period. The rearmament of Japan by the Self-Defense
Forces was carried out under the strong control of the United States, based on theJapan–U.S. Security Treaty. In addition, the beginning of the Cold War and the
Korean War caused a major shift in the U.S. occupation policy. The United States
initially provided many arms for free for the creation of the Self-Defense Forces
and for the enhancement of defense equipment, but to restrain the outflow ofmoney, it switched from a policy of free to paid armament. In response to thispolicy shift towards strengthening self-defense capabilities, Keizaidantai
Rengokai(Keidanren) and Nihon Heiki Kogyokai tried to achieve economic
growth and acquire more advanced technology by taking advantage of the special
demand and the business opportunity of building up the defense capabilities of
the Self-Defense Forces. The “Domestic Production” of arms was important forthese groups. However, even though it is called “domestic production”, advanced
technologies used in fighter planes and other equipment were mainly licensed,
including important parts like black boxes. Therefore, Japan was a long way off
from technological independence.
Introduction
Under the Abe cabinet, which has been in power since 2012, Japan’s security posture has
undergone a series of rapid changes, including the establishment of the National Security
Bureau in 2014, the Cabinet Decision on the “Three Principles on Defense Equipment
Transfer,” which significantly changed the “Three Principles on Arms Exports”, theCabinet Decision to change the existing interpretation of the Constitution to allow theexercise of the right to collective defense, the revision of the Japan-U.S. Guidelines for
Defense Cooperation in 2015, and the passage of the several Security Laws (Security
regime). In 2015, Japan’s security posture began to undergo a major transformation. In
particular, the changes regarding the right to collective self-defense marked a milestone in* Researcher, Emeritus Professor, Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer, Meiji University

81

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
that they explicitly advanced the so-called alliance between Japan and the United States. In
this paper, I would like to clarify how the shift in the 2010s can be positioned by examining
how the Japan–U.S. relationship was constructed from the post-World War II period to the1970s and how Japanese industry responded to this relationship with regard to the increasein the defense capability of the Self-Defense Forces.
Japan’s postwar reconstruction can be divided into two main processes: one is the processof reconstruction by the U.S. occupation policy, and following the conclusion of the 1951
Peace Treaty and its entry into force the following year, the other is the process ofreconstruction by the Japanese government after the restoration of independence. The
Japan–U.S. Security Treaty, which was concluded and came into effect at the same time as
the peace treaty, allowed reconstruction to proceed consistently under the strong control of
the United States. To elucidate this point, we will first review the process of change in U.S.
occupation policy towards Japan and the development of Japan’s rearmament from 1945
until the revision of the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty in 1960. The dismantling andrebuilding of Japan’s military power and the establishment of the Japan–U.S. Security
Treaty are important milestones in this process. Next, we will examine what kind of vision
the industrial world had for the process of dismantling and rebuilding Japan’s military
power, how it lobbied the Japanese and U.S. governments, and how the defense industry(mainly the arms industry in this paper) actually developed its business, based on thebusiness development of some companies.

1. Rearmament and defense force development, as evidenced by the shift in
occupation policy towards Japan and the birth of the Self-Defense Forces.
In September 1945, General Order No. 1 of the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers(hereinafter referred to as GHQ) ordered the suspension of munitions production. The“Initial Policy toward Japan” also stipulated the demilitarization of Japan and theelimination of militarism. Furthermore, the E. W. Pauley Reparations Committee delegationthat visited Japan in November of the same year proposed a reparations plan that would
hand over a substantial portion of munitions factories and basic heavy industrial facilities
to neighboring Asian countries and keep Japan’s productive capacity at a level that would
not exceed the standard of living of Asian countries. However, the Truman Doctrine ofJanuary 1947 called for the prevention (i.e., containment) of the expansion of Sovietcontrolled territory, and Secretary of War K.C. Royall’s speech of January 1948 set forth
the direction of promoting Japan’s economic recovery and making it “a deterrent against
the threat of totalitarian war”.1 At this point, the U.S. incorporated Japan into its campaign
against socialism and communism centered on the Soviet Union and changed its course
from a policy of holding economic reconstruction to that of neighboring Asian countries tothat of promoting higher productivity and rearmament. In October 1948, the U.S. National
Security Council reflected this change in its “Recommendations for U.S. Policy toward
Japan”, which were sent to the Japanese government as the “Nine Principles of Economic
Stability” and shifted the focus from demilitarization to economic reconstruction. The
reparations were to be lifted in full by the statement from F.R.McCoy, the U.S.
representative to the Far Eastern Commission.2
1 See https://worldjpn.grips.ac.jp/documents/texts/JPUS/19480106.S1E.html.
2 Kihara [1994], p. 55.

82

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
After 1948, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army began a counteroffensive against
Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Army, leading to the founding of the People’s Republic ofChina in October 1949. In June 1950, North Korean forces moved the south, triggering the
Korean War, which directly led to the rearmament of Japan by the United States. In
November of the same year and in August of the following year, MacArthur authorized thelifting of the expulsion of former regular officers of the Army and Navy, allowing them tobe promoted to senior positions in these organizations. In September 1951, the Japan–U.S.
Security Treaty was concluded simultaneously with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, andwhile the U.S. expected Japan to gradually increase its own defense capabilities, theJapanese government allowed U.S. forces to continue to be stationed in Japan to maintainpeace and security in the Far East and to quell civil unrest in Japan. GHQ authorized theJapanese government to manufacture weapons and announced to lift the designation ofcivilian factories designated for compensation, and in April, it announced the return of 850
factories, including aircraft manufacturing facilities.3
To ensure that Japan strengthened its own defense capabilities, emphasis was placed on
the 1954 Japan–U.S. Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (MSA). 4 In March of theprevious year, Secretary of State J.F. Dulles was dispatched to Japan to press for the
expansion of defense capabilities, and in October, a joint statement was issued in
Washington by Liberal Party policy chief Ikeda and Assistant Secretary of State W.S.
Robertson. The statement stated that in relation to the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (MSA
Act), there were constitutional and economic restrictions on Japan’s ability to increase its
self-defense capabilities but that the United States would make every effort to promote
such an increase, that the United States would provide key items of equipment for Japaneseland, sea, and air forces to assist in their formation, and that under the MSA Act the U.S.
would supply $50 million worth of agricultural products (the “wheat fund”), the proceedsof which would be used to increase Japan’s defense production and industrial capacity inthe form of overseas purchases (extraterritorial procurement) and investments.5 Before suchan agreement was reached, however, there was considerable in-depth debate over theseriousness of Japan’s self-defense buildup.
Before the meeting, the U.S. Embassy asked the Japan Federation of Economic
Organizations (Keidanren) what it thought of the MSA. Keidanren replied that it understood that the MSA included military assistance and defense assistance (economic
assistance), and that for the latter, it would accumulate “wheat funds” ($10 million worth)in Japan in accordance with Section 550 of the MSA Act, which would be used tomodernize industrial technology and equipment. The U.S. side responded that since the
MSA is a bilateral agreement, Japanese side should specify reasonable measures that could
confirm the increase in self-defense capability that the U.S. was seeking. In the IkedaRobertson meeting, “only the basic policy of economic assistance was agreed to” as a result
3 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 292.
4 In 1951, the U.S. enacted the Mutual Security Act, which obligated countries receiving U.S. assistance tomake efforts to defend themselves and the free world, and this act also required Japan to increase its defense
capabilities in concluding the MSA between Japan and the U.S. (https://www.digital. archives.go.jp/das/image-j/
F000000000000000108228, Defense Production Board [1964], pp. 64-75, Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 221).
5 Prior to this, an exchange document between the U.S. and Japanese governments published in June 1953
clarified the relationship between the degree of Japan’s self-defense capability and the aid sought by the U.S. The
Defense Production Board, in its “General Request Opinion on Acceptance of MSA,” in July, requested theconclusion of an MSA aid agreement while mentioning the positive significance of extraterritorial procurement.
Ten million dollars out of the agricultural products to be supplied in the Ikeda-Robertson talks was to be available
to finance the modernization of weapons production facilities (Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], p. 67; Kondo and Osanai[1978], p. 221).

83

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATOof the Japanese side presenting its First Defense Force Buildup Plan under considerationand explaining its goals of 180,000 troops on land, 124,000 tons at sea, and 1,300 aircraft.6
Thus, Japan's rearmament efforts rapidly progressed in response to U.S. demands andassistance in the wake of the Korean War. In 1952, the year the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty
came into effect, the Police Reserve Corps was renamed the National Guard Corps, and its
ground forces were increased to a capacity of 110,000 and equipped with tanks andhowitzers. In maritime defense, frigates and landing support boats were borrowed from the
U.S. military and used to form a defense force for guards. It was not until the establishmentof the Self-Defense Forces under the Defense Agency in July 1954 that the SDF became athree-military organization consisting of land, sea, and air forces. At the time of its
establishment, the SDF seemed to have 139,000 personnel on land, 16,000 personnel and
58,000 tons of naval vessels at sea, and 6,738 personnel and 148 aircraft in the air. It can besaid that the SDF strengthened its self-defense capabilities in line with the Japan-U.S.
MSA.7
The government will consider a draft five-year defense force Buildup plan for the SelfDefense Forces, but in 1956, the National Defense Council was established as an advisory
body for the prime Minister, and the following year, the “Basic Policy for National
Defense” was decided there. The National Defense Council formulated the basic policy fornational defense and the National Defense Program Outline. This council committee
consisted of the prime minister, the deputy prime minister, the ministers of foreign affairs
and finance, and the directors-general of the Defense Agency and the Economic Planning
Agency, among others.8
It states that “the defense force shall be developed gradually and efficiently to the extent
necessary for self-defense, in accordance with national strength and conditions”. Based on
this, in 1957, the Council of National Defense and the cabinet meeting determined the“Defense Force Buildup Plan” (primary Defense Buildup Plan) for the 1958-19609. Table 1
shows the objectives set in the Defense Buildup Plan (hereinafter abbreviated as DBP)
implemented over the four plans periods. It shows the target figures and their actual results.
In the Ground Self-Defense Force (hereinafter abbreviated as GSDF), the target of 180,000
active Self-Defense Force personnel has been consistently and the goal of the Tertiary DBP
was almost achieved. The Guided Missile Unit has been newly established since theSecondary DBP. Guided Missile Unit (GMU) has remained on target, although it has been
added as a new piece of equipment. The Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) was ontarget in the initial and fourth rounds of DBP. In particular, the target for the fourth DBP
had to be changed midway due to major economic fluctuations10. In the Air SDF (ASDF),
the focus is still on aircraft buildup. In the case of primary DBP, although the number of

6 Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 238.
7 The size of the SDF at the time of opening is according to the official website of the Air Self-Defense Force(https://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/about/organization/).
8 In 1972, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, the Director General of the Science and Technology
Agency, and the Chief Cabinet Secretary were added to the council.
9 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 165.
10 At the National Defense Council and Cabinet meetings in December 1975, it became clear that it would be
difficult to achieve the targets for major equipment, and it was decided to postpone the following reductions: 31
Type 74 tanks from the originally planned 280 to 249; 60 Type 73 armored vehicles from 136 to 76; 17 naval
ships from 54 to 37; and 42 support fighter aircraft from 211 to 169. The Defense Agency [1976], p. 159).

84

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
Table1 Objectives and Achievements of the 1-4th Defense Buildup Plans
Ground Self-Defense Force
Self-defense
Reserve
Guided missile
personnel
Officers
unit
(mn)
(mn)
(squad)
track
track
track
targettargettargetrecordrecordrecordprimary DBP
1958-60
secondary DBP
1962-66
tertiary DBP
1967-71
quaternary DBP
1972-76

Maritime Self-Defense Forcetrack
recordtargettrack
recordAir Self-Defense Force
Guided missile
Aircraftunit(squad)track
track
targettargetrecordrecordNaval vessels(ten thousand tons)
targetAircraft

180,000

170,000

15,00015,000

12.4

11.2

222

218

1,342

1,133

180,000

171,500

30,00024,000

2

2

14.4

14.0

235

239

1,036

1,095

2

2

180,000

179,000

39,00036,000

4

4

14.2

14.4

220

250

880

940

4

4

180,000*154,805

8

8

21.4

19.8

210

200

770

840

6

5

＊The number of Ground Self-Defense Force officers in the Quaternary Defense Plan is the figure from the
Defense Agency[1977],p.177.
・In March 1977, the Air Self-Defense Force had 881 Aircrafts(see Defense Agency[1977],p.184.
・Source: Figures from Asagumo Shimbun [2022] (viewed ) were used for the primary through quaternaryplans. However, the target for the quaternary plan was lowered in December 1975 dut to rapid changes inthe economic environment.

aircraft scheduled to enter service did not reach the target number due to the short threeyear period, it is clear that the target number of aircraft is rapidly being met, supported by
the U.S.government’s cost sharing and other factors.
Table 2 Total Procurement Results by Defense Agency Item(Central Procurement)
DefenseBuildupPlanperiod(fy)total amount(100 million yen)primary DBP

1958-60

2,301.7

secondary DBP

1962-66

4,757.7

tertiary DBP

1967-71

10,864.1

quaternary DBP

1972-76

17,557.0

main product lineup
aircrafts54% telecommunications12%
vessels12% wapons10%
aircrafts24% telecommunications14%
vessels11% weapons12%
prototype2.3%=10.9billion yen
aircrafts35% telecommunications14%
vessels8% weapons8% guided weapons7%
prototype1.7%=25.5billion yen
aircrafts39% telecommunications13%
vessels10% weapons5% guided weapons 6%
prototype2.4%=41.3billion yen

・Guided weapons prior to 1967 are included in weapons.
・Prototypes prior to 1962 are included in each of the applicable items.
・Source: Figures for total value and major commodities are from Kihara [1994], pp.92-93.

Table 2 shows the budget amount and main item composition for the procurement ofdefense equipment for central procurement in each DBP. Let us examine what kind of
equipment was strengthened at each stage, referring to this table. The period of the primary
DBP coincided with the revision of the security treaty by the Kishi cabinet, which was aperiod of “political season”. The contents of the primary DBP, which called for the buildup
of a minimum necessary self-defense force (“core defense force”), included 180,000 GSDF
personnel, 124,000 tons of MSDF vessels, and 1,300 ASDF aircraft at a total cost of 404.1
billion yen, with “a significant portion of the equipment” to be provided by the United85SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
States.11 Prime Minister Kishi travelled to the U.S. with this DBP to gain the approval of
the U.S. side and reached an agreement to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Japan and to
make adjustments towards the revision of the security treaty. In August 1957, the Pentagon
announced the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Japan, and the withdrawal wascompleted in February of the following year. Although aircraft were prominent in the item
mix, the U.S. grant of aircraft was significant.
The new Japan–U.S. Security Treaty concluded in January 1960 stipulated in Article II
the promotion of economic cooperation, Article III the strengthening of Japan’s defense
capability, and Article V the obligation of the United States to defend Japan, as well as theobligation of Japan to defend itself and U.S. forces within Japan in the event of an armed
attack. It also stipulated that the treaty could be terminated by either party upon notice oftermination 10 years after its entry into force.12
In July 1961, the Secondary DBP, which had been postponed due to growing opposition
to the revision of the Security Treaty, was decided at the National Defense Council andcabinet meetings. The Secondary DBP was to cover the five-year period from 1962 to
1966, coinciding with the start of the Ikeda cabinet’s income-doubling policy, the start of
the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam, and the Vietnam War in full swing. The basic policy
was to “focus primarily on qualitative enhancement of defense capabilities,” including themodernization of equipment, enhancement of mobility, improvement and enhancement oflogistical support systems, stockpiling of ammunition and ammunition for combat,
introduction of anti-aircraft equipment, and promotion of technological research anddevelopment. The goals for Secondary DBP included 180,000 GSDF (13 divisions) and
30,000 reserve SDF officers, 143,000 tons of MSDF vessels, approximately 1,000 ASDF
aircraft, four surface-to-air guided missile battalions (two each of Nike and Hawk), an
average annual increase in Defense Agency expenses of 20.5 billion yen, and theachievement of the Secondary DBP. The total maintenance cost required was 313.5 billion
yen, the total defense budget was 1.16 trillion yen, and research and development anddomestic production of new equipment was considered important for achieving this DBP.13
During this period, the U.S. switched from grant aid for equipment to paid aid under the
Kennedy administration, due to the worsening balance of payments that became a reality
from 1962 onward.14
The U.S. intervention in Vietnam escalated with the start of the bombing of North
Vietnam, and U.S. military bases in Japan and Okinawa became more important as sortie
bases. In November 1966, the National Defense Council and the cabinet decided on theoutline of the Tertiary DBP (1967-71), and in March of the following year, the main items
and budget scale for the Tertiary DBP were decided. This was the latter half of the periodof rapid economic growth and the period when Prime Minister Sato’s negotiations for thereversion of Okinawa to Japan, which was to be “nuclear-free and comparable to that ofmainland Japan,” were in full swing. As in the case of the Secondary DBP phase, thegeneral policy called for the enhancement and reinforcement of the SDF’s ability torespond to invasions of local or sub-local scale with conventional weapons and the
11 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964] pp. 165,166, Japan Association of Arms Industry[1983] p. 8.
12 See https://www.archives.go.jp/ayumi/kobetsu/s35_1960_01.html.
13 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964] pp. 160, 257, 267-270; Japan Association of Arms
Industry [1983] p. 11.
14 About 45% of the equipment procurement value in FY1950-61 was provided by U.S. grant aid, but the grant
aid ended in FY1969. Domestic procurement has accounted for more than 80% since the mid-1960s, and almost
90% in the 1970s (Tomiyama [1979], p. 39).

86

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
construction of elite units. It also called for the promotion of technological research anddevelopment, equipment modernization, the improvement of domestic technologicalstandards, and the appropriate domestic production of equipment. In the maritime sector, tostrengthen defense capabilities in the surrounding seas, the MSDF was to build 14
destroyers, including those carrying ship-to-air guided missiles and helicopters, and 56
naval vessels, including five submarines, totalling 48,000 tons, as well as 60 fixed-wing
anti-submarine aircraft, 33 anti-submarine helicopters, etc. In the airspace, two squadrons
each of surface-to-air guided missile, Hawk, and Nike Hercules equipped units were to beformed, and preparations were also made to form one squadron each. In addition, toimprove the air defense strike capability, the selection of new fighter aircraft models andtheir maintenance were initiated. The plan also called for the development of 55 aircraft, 4naval vessels, and supersonic advanced training aircraft in Japan to improve the educationand training system and rescue system. Total defense-related expenditures were projected
at about 2.34 trillion yen.15 Overall, the plan emphasized anti-submarine and air defense
capabilities and was in line with the intentions of the United States.
In April 1971, the Defense Agency, under the leadership of Defense Minister Nakasone,announced the Quaternary DBP(1972-7 6). This was a period of dramatic changes,
including the 1970 Security Treaty, the shift to a floating exchange rate system, therestoration of diplomatic relations with China, the return of Okinawa to Japan, the oilcrisis, the end of Japan’s rapid economic growth, and the end of the Vietnam War. Again,
the goal was to establish a defense system capable of dealing with an invasion by
conventional weapons in a localized warfare situation, and the budget was expected to be
more than twice the amount of the 3rd DBP, 5.2 trillion yen, with an emphasis on themodernization of ground equipment, domestic production of equipment, and research anddevelopment. However, due to the collision between an SDF aircraft and an All Nippon
Airways plane in July of the same year and the impact of the dollar crisis, the total cost was
lowered to 4.63 trillion yen in the Fourth DBP outline decided the following year. The mainequipment items were as follows: (1) GSDF: 280 tanks, 170 armoured vehicles, 90 selfpropelled guns, 159 operational aircraft including 154 helicopters, and 3 surface-to-air
guided missile hawks; (2) MSDF: 13 escort ships including 2 helicopter-carrying destroyers
and 1 ship-to-air missile escort ship, In addition, 5 submarines, 1 supply ship, and various
other vessels for a total of 54 ships; approx. 69,000 tons; (3) ASDF: 3 units equipped with
Nike J surface-to-air guided missiles, 46 fighter aircraft with improved warning capability
and modernization, 68 support fighters, and 24 transport aircraft. 16 In the same year,
Okinawa returned to the mainland, Japan-China diplomatic relations were restored, andMinister of International Trade and Industry Tanaka announced his “Theory of Remodeling
the Japanese Islands.” In 1973, the oil crisis occurred, and the defense industry was hit by
the frenzy of prices17. The result of the emphasis on R&D can be seen in the increase in
expenditures on prototypes in Table 2. At any rate, the quaternary DBP, which faced major
economic changes, differed from the conventional maintenance plan, as described above,
and was forced to be drastically scaled back at a defense conference and cabinet meeting
held at the end of 1975.
With Japan’s rapid economic growth, defense equipment was steadily upgraded from theprimary DBP through the tertiary DBP, even though “exclusive defense” was the basic
policy. In fact, the actual total amount of procurement by item for the Defense Agency was
15 See https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/gaiyou/jimu/taikou/4_3jibou.pdf.
16 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], pp. 18,19
17 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 19.

87

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
230.17 billion yen for the primary DBP (FY 1958-60), 475.77 billion yen for the secondary
DBP (FY 1962-66), and 1.09 trillion yen for the tertiary DBP (FY 1967-71), The quaternary
DBP (FY1972-76) was 1.75 trillion yen. The total amount raised in each period was morethan twice that of the immediately preceding DBP up to the tertiary DBP, but in the case of
the quaternary DBP, it was only 1.6 times that of the tertiary DBP. Nevertheless, Japan’s
SDF had reached a level of strength that was quite impressive in the world18.
In April 1967, at a meeting of the House of Representatives Accounts Committee, Prime
Minister Sato, in his answer to a question regarding the export of the Pencil Rocket
developed at the University of Tokyo, stated that exports of weapons and other items were
not allowed to the Communist bloc, countries prohibited by UN resolutions, parties tointernational conflicts, and other countries under the Operational Guidelines for Export
Trade Control Orders and other regulations. This later came to be known as “the Three
Principles on Arms Exports”, which reminded the arms industry that overseas markets wereseverely restricted.

2. Keidanren19 and Japan Association of Arms Industry’s efforts to rebuild thedefense industry
In this section, we will elucidate the role of the Japanese industry in the reconstruction of
the defense industry. Although the defense industry encompasses industries involved in the
production and distribution of a wide range of goods and services supplied for military use,
this section will limit its examination to industries involved in weapons production. In addition, we will focus on the roles of the Keidanren Committee on Defense Production(hereinafter abbreviated as CODP) and the Japan Association of Arms Industry (hereinafter
abbreviated as JAAI) as the industry’s response.
After the defeat of the war, the U.S. forces moved into Japan, and the occupation policy
developed under the indirect rule of GHQ. In December, the interim report of the E. W.
Pauley reparations mission stated that the Japanese economy should be maintained at aminimum level. Japan will be liable for compensation for the removal of machinery andequipment unique to the munitions industry. The policy for handling compensation was totransfer the assets to the country that Japan was responsible for the compensation and to
make effective use of the assets. The Far Eastern Commission’s statement in May was thestarting point, and the properties subject to compensation in each industrial sector wereplaced under the control of GHQ by order of the Far Eastern Commission. The results ofthis process were a series of decisions on the facilities to be compensated for in 11 sectors.
As a result, military arsenals and aircraft factories, civilian arms factories and basic heavy
industrial facilities were planned to be removed one after another as designated reparations
factories. In January 1947, the Far Eastern Commission set the standard of living of theJapanese people at the level of 1930-34, and therefore, the economic revival of Japan after
the removal of the designated factories for reparations was expected to have a very difficult
time recovering. Not only the Japanese government but also the U.S. viewed such removal
18 Kihara [1994] pp. 92, 93.
19 Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) was formed in August 1946 as an organization representing thebusiness community, with national and industry-specific economic organizations as regular members andindividual companies as supporting members. The Japan Federation of Economic Organizations, which wasformed in 1922, was dissolved and joined Keidanren in order to unify economic organizations and negotiate with
GHQ.

88

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
as undesirable. In the end, with the Truman Doctrine and the Royall Secretary of War’s
speech, as already mentioned, the U.S. occupation policy shifted. Shifting its focus fromthe designation and removal of factories for compensation to Japan’s economic recovery, in
May 1949, F.R. McCoy, the representative to the Far East Commission U.S. announced thesuspension of collections under the interim compensation plan.20
On the other hand, Japanese companies that had focused on munitions production during
the war were unable to continue their operations due to the order to cease munitions
production and were forced to rebuild their businesses through civilian production.
However, the loss of overseas assets and the GHQ’s policy of terminating wartime
compensation (imposition of a special wartime compensation tax) caused many relatedcompanies to face business crises, and the Japanese government was forced to take relief
measures through the Corporate Accounting Emergency Measures Act and the Corporate
Restructuring and Improvement Act.21 In this process, the change in U.S. occupation policy
and the outbreak of the Korean War brought about a turning point, which triggered thepeace issue and the movement of Japanese economic organizations in response to thespecial procurement boom. Although munitions production had been halted following thedefeat in the war and was subject to demolition and dismantling, the Cold War and the outbreak of the Korean War brought about a major change in occupation policy, and munitions
production and even weapons production were suddenly resumed. Table 3 shows that
CODP, JAAI, and other organizations lobbied GHQ and the government. The following
section examines the relationship between the requests submitted by these organizations to
GHQ and the Japanese government and the subsequent defense industry.
Table 3 List of Requests and Recommendations of KEIDANREN CODP and JAAI
year
1951

1952

month
matters
1 Keidanren announced "Basic Requests Regarding the Peace Treaty"
1 (Japan-U.S. Economic Alliance Roundtable established as a special Keidanren
organization → reorganized as the Economic Cooperation Roundtable in 52.8;
Defense Production Committee and other committees established)
3 Keidanren's Opinion on Japan-U.S. Economic Cooperation Readiness3 Keidanren's 8th General Meeting resolution, "Our resolve on the occasion of our
return to the international community"
10 (Japan Technology Production Cooperation Association established → 52.7
Weapons Production Cooperation Association → 53.10 JWIA → 88.9 Japan Defense
Equipment Industries Association)
2 Keidanren requests opinions on administrative agreements
3 Keidanren announced "Opinion on Measures to be Taken by the Government
for Japan-U.S. Economic Cooperation"
6 Keidanren announced "Opinion on various issues related to U.S. militaryprocurement"
10 CODPannounced Opinion on Urgent Requests Concerning the Utilization ofState-Owned Military Industrial and Other Facilities

20 Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2017] pp. 1432-1439.
21 In November 1945, GHQ ordered the termination of wartime compensation to companies on the grounds

that “it should be known that war is not profitable from an economic standpoint” and the Japanese government
was eventually forced to accept the order in July of the following year (SCAPIN337ESS/FI, “Removal of War
Profits and Fiscal Reconstruction” (Financial History Office, Ministry of Finance [ 1981] pp. 517-519)). The
number of special accounting companies that were required to submit development plans under the Corporate
Reconstruction and Development Law for approval was 5114 as of November 1948 (Fiscal History Office,Ministry of Finance [1983] pp. 753,814).

89SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
1953

1954

1955

1956

90

2 CODP announced Opinion on Requests Concerning Domestic Production of
Aircraft Ordered by the National Security Agency, Opinion on Requests Concerning theService Life of Aircraft, Weapons, and Other Manufacturing EquipmentCODP
2 CODPannounced "A Proposal on Defense Force Buildup" and "ResearchMaterial on Defense Production"
2 JAAI submitted "Requests to U.S. government agencies in Japan regarding
special procurement"
4 CODP announced "Requests to the government regarding requests to the U.S.
Air Force, etc."
5 CODP announced "Requests and Opinions regarding special procurement
contract conditions, etc."
7 CODP announced "General Requests Regarding the Acceptance of MSACODP"
10 CODP announced "Memorandum of Understanding on Securing Working Capitalfor Special Demands Weapons"
12 CODP announced "Requests Concerning the Establishment of Machine Tool
Foundations" and "Securing Funds for Equipment Related to Defense Production"
1 CODP announced "Opinion on the Development of the Aircraft Industry"
3 CODP announced "Opinions on the development of the defense production
system" →55.1 CODP published "Analysis of the Current Status of Japan's Defense
Production Sector"
3 JAAI submitted "Opinions on fostering the arms industry" to MITI and theEconomic Deliberation Agency"
4 (JAAI and MITI jointly organized a two-month tour and survey of U.S. firearms
and ammunition production facilities by engineers from member companies)
7 (An arrangement between U.S. and Japanese contractors for the domestic
production of jet aircraft was established. CODP worked hard to achieve this based on an
informal proposal from the U.S. Far East Air Forces Command.)
8 CODP distributed "The Necessity of Self-Defense Forces and the Role of Defense
Production". JAAI submitted its opinion on the establishment of a defense production
system to the U.S. and Japanese governments
9 GM (Guided Missile) Roundtable Meeting by CODP, JWIA, Japan Aviation
Industry Association, etc. submitted opinions on GM research policy
10 JAAI submitted "Opinion on Current Issues in the Arms Industry" to the Minister ofInternational Trade and Industry
2 KEIDANREN Vice President Kogoro Uemura submitted "Problems in the Industrial
Structure of Japan and the Defense Industry" (KEIDANREN Monthly Report)
3 JAAI submitted "Urgent Request for Continued Production of Ammunition"
4 JAAI submitted "Request for the Establishment of Defense Industry" to the
Minister of International Trade and Industry, the Economic Deliberation Agency, andthe ruling party.
8 CODP submitted the "Draft Guideline for Maintenance of Ammunition
Manufacturing Facilities" to the government and announced the necessity of maintaining
self-defense forces and the role of defense production.
9 JAAI submitted "Opinion on the Handling of Industrial Property Rights for Weapons
Research and Prototype Commissioning Ordered by the Defense Agency" to the Defense
Agency.
2 "JAAI established a new Technical Advisory Board and a Radar Research Group(research on domestic production of equipment)."
3 JAAI petitioned the U.S. Far East Command and the U.S. Embassy to continueordering additional arms and ammunition, and petitioned the Defense Agency in June toincrease ammunition procurement
3 (KEIDANREN dispatched an economic cooperation goodwill civilian mission to
Southeast Asia. It was also intended to study the export market for equipment.)Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
1957

1958

1959

1960

1961
1962

1963
1964

1965

1967

1969

8 CODP submitted a "Request for the Establishment of Basic Policies for theDevelopment of the Aircraft Industry".
11 JAAI was commissioned by the National Defense Council to conduct "researchand study of various problems related to the procurement of equipment" (reportsubmitted in 1958.5).
12 CODP issued an opinion paper on the early determination of the next fighter aircraftmodel.
1 CODP requested that a bill for the promotion of the aircraft industry be submitted
to the current Diet session→Aircraft Industry Promotion Law was promulgated in
1958.5.
6 CODP proposed the establishment of a Defense Industry Study Group. This study
group was formed by CODP, JWIA, Aircraft Industries Association, and GM Council.
8 CODP submitted ""Request for Continuation of Measures to Maintain Firearms andAmmunition Manufacturing Facilities".
6 (The Economic Cooperation Roundtable was dissolved.) (Japan Aircraft
Manufacturing Co. was established.)
7 (A Market Measures Committee consisting of 10 leading trading companies andthe Japan Machinery Export Association was established within the CODP.)
3 (A survey team of the rocket industry under the jurisdiction of MITI was
dispatched to Europe and the U.S., which included members of the CODP Council
Office.)11 CODP and JWIA jointly proposed a "Request for a long-term lump-sum contractsystem for arms".
5 (The Advisory Council for the Domestic Production of Defense Equipment wasestablished, and this advisory council submitted eight opinions in September.)
2 The Advisory Council on Domestic Production of Defense Equipment, consisting of
the Keidanren, the Liberal Democratic Party, and related government agencies, issued"Opinions on the Basic Policy for Domestic Production of Defense Equipment."
7 CODP submitted "Opinion on Arms Export".
10 (In order to transform JAAI from a defense business guidance and development
organization to a business-centered economic organization, a representative of a main
member company was appointed chairman.)
5 CODP issued "Opinion on Continued Production of F-104 Fighter Aircraft". (TheGM Council was reorganized as the Rocket Development Council.)
2 JAAI submitted "Opinion on the Suspension of Grant Aid to Japan" to the Director
General of the Defense Agency.
7 JAAI Operations Committee released "Opinion on Domestic Production of
Equipment and Development of Defense Industry".
8 JAAI submitted "Request for the Connection Production between Secondary DBP and
Tertiary DBP and the Contents of the Next DBP" to the Director-General of the Defense
Agency.
12 JAAI submitted "Request for Tertiary DBP" to the Director General of the Defense
Agency.
6 JAAI submitted "Request for Long-Term Lump-Sum Contracts for Equipment" to
the Defense Agency
12 JAAI submitted "Request for Dollar Defense" to the Defense Agency.
5 JAAI submitted "Request for Cost Accounting of Equipment Procurement" to the
Defense Agency
9 JAAI cooperated with CODP and organizations related to defense production to
conduct a survey after the start of TertiaryDBP.

91

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
1970

6 JAAI submitted "Request for Quatery DBP" to the Director General of the Defense
Agency.
8 CODP released "Opinion on the Next DBP".
10 JAAI submitted "Opinion on the Revision of Laws and Regulations Related to theArms Manufacturing Law".
11 JAAI submitted "Opinion on the Defense Agency's Three Policies on the
Production and Development of Equipment".

・KEIDANREN (Japanese Business Federation) Committee on Defense Production is abbreviated as CODP
and Japan Association of Arms Industry is abbreviated as JAAI.
・Defense Buildup Plan is abbreviated as DBP.
・The items are mainly based on CODP [1964] and JAAI [1983], but not all requests, etc. are filled in.

(1) Establishment of the Keidanren’s Committee of Defense Production (CODP)
In August 1950, the U.S. Far East Command established a Logistics Command in Japanand began placing orders for fuel tanks, napalm tanks, and other equipment. In January
1951, when Special Envoy Dulles came to Japan to conclude a peace treaty, Keidanren
requested not only emergency procurement for the Korean War but also economic
assistance and development of economic cooperation after peace.22 To this end, in February,
Keidanren, in consultation with GHQ, established the Japan–U.S. Economic Alliance
Roundtable to “formulate a private-sector approach to the basic principles of Japan–U.S.
economic cooperation. In March 1952, GHQ lifted the ban on the manufacture of weaponsin Japan, allowed the repair and manufacture of aircraft and weapons, and lifted thecompensation designation of former military arsenals and civilian weapons factories,
among others, so that the U.S. military could procure finished weapons (from May 1952).
The organization was expanded and strengthened from a forum for general economic
cooperation to one that dealt with comprehensive and realistic issues, such as armaments,
defense policy, and Asian reconstruction and development, and its name was changed to
the Council for Economic Cooperation.23 According to the organization’s establishment
outline, the purpose is “to cooperate in strengthening defense production in the Far East
region in partnership with the United States and other countries, and to cooperate in thereconstruction and development of Southeast Asia with Japan’s industrial capabilities andtechnology, etc.” The organization will work in constant collaboration with Japanese andU.S. government agencies and related private organizations to discuss private sector
opinions and basic policies for cooperation and to formulate and implement the researchand implementation of specific measures. The organization was to cooperate in theformulation of basic policies for private sector input and cooperation and in the study andimplementation of specific measures. 24 The council had three subcommittees: generalpolicy, Asian reconstruction and development, and defense production, whose members
consisted of more than 30 executives from leading Japanese companies at the time. When
22 March 1951, Japan–U.S. Economic Partnership Roundtable, “Opinions on the Cooperative Posture of theJapanese and U.S. Economies” (Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 7).
23 Although this was before the establishment of Keidanren Committee on Defense Production, the RoundTable presented the “Requested Opinions on Administrative Agreements” to the U.S. side in February 1952 andobtained an understanding that the U.S.-Japan Joint Committee, which serves as an operational coordinating
body for the administrative agreements associated with the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty, would discuss
coordination, dispute settlement, contract methods and compensation for losses in the extraterritorial procurementof U.S. forces (Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 225).
24 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], pp. 44-47.

92

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Planthe U.S. began calling for the conclusion of an MSA between Japan and the U.S. to build amutually defensive Japan–U.S. relationship based on the Mutual Security Act and tostrengthen Japan’s self-defense capabilities, this organization actively advocated for theconclusion of such an agreement.
CODP formed within Keidanren’s Council for Economic Cooperation, is a central
organization in the development of Keidanren’s line. As mentioned above, it wasestablished in August 1952 when the council was reorganized, and it became an importantbody for disseminating Keidanren’s proposals on the defense industry and defense issues.
Initially, CODP was chaired by Kiyoshi Goko (former president of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and advisor to the Japan Industrial Council), and permanent members included representatives of leading companies, such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Komatsu,
Nippon Kayaku, and Hitachi, Ltd. The committee then established specialized committees
on weapons, ships, aircraft, explosives, electricity, fuel, machinery, funds, and service life,
each chaired by a representative of a leading company in the industry, such as Taizo
Ishizaka, president of Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co. In addition, a deliberation room was set
up in CODP, with Kogoro Uemura, advisor to Keidanren, as head of the office, and former
military officers familiar with equipment, including Zenshiro Hoshina, former lieutenant
general of the navy and director general of the Ordnance Bureau of the Ministry of theNavy, Sadanori Harada, former lieutenant general of the army and director general of the
Air Weapons Directorate I, Ministry of Munitions, and Masao Yoshizumi, former lieutenant
general of the army and director general of the Military Affairs Bureau of the Army
Ministry, as members, as well as assistants including a former military officer of the rankof colonel and a former military officer of the rank of engineer. In addition, a general-level
former military officer was selected as a technical advisor, and Haruji Kan, a former
lieutenant general and director of the Army Ordnance Administration Headquarters andvice president of the Weapons Production Cooperation Association (see below), was added
as a technical advisor.25 Such a lineup would appear to indicate that CODP was attempting
to create a full-fledged roadmap for getting weapons production off the ground in Japanand developing the defense industry.
After the Peace Treaty came into effect, the U.S. began to strongly urge Japan tostrengthen its self-defense capabilities and switch from grant aid to paid aid, with a view toconcluding an MSA as a way of providing assistance to Japan. Korean special procurement
had restarted Japan’s military production, but the extent of its potential and the extent towhich the Japanese government and industry were willing to enhance Japan’s self-defense
capabilities had not yet been confirmed. The Yoshida cabinet of the time expected as much
U.S. assistance as possible for economic reconstruction while allowing U.S. forces toremain in Japan, and when the armistice talks began in July 1951, industry also expected
new assistance (new special procurement) to replace the Korean special procurement.26
CODP decided to compile the gradual increase in defense force required in line with thesecurity treaty into a proposal with detailed specific numerical targets and present it to thegovernment and U.S. branch office as reference material to help plan the ordering ofspecial procurement. The “Draft Proposal on Defense Force Development” and the
25 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], pp. 42-48; Kondo and Osanai [1978], pp. 216, 218-220.
26 Regarding the special demand for Korea, Nakamura Takafusa and Yoshio Asai indicate $592 million and$740 million, respectively, for the period from the start of fighting in June 1950 to the end of large-scale fightingwith the start of armistice talks in July of the following year. In any case, the impact of the special demand paidin dollar amounts must have been large when exports in 1950 and 1951 were $800 million and $1.4 billion peryear, respectively (see Nakamura [2012], p. 569 and Yoshio Asai [2003]).

93

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
underlying “Survey Data on Defense Force Production” submitted in February 1953 .27
According to the “Draft” and the “Survey Data,” the scale of the defense force targeted tobe achieved five years later, in FY1958, would be 300,000 troops in 15 divisions, withequipment equivalent to 30 divisions for the ground forces, 70,000 troops in 290,000 tonsof naval vessels for the sea forces, 130,000 troops in 3,750 aircraft for the air forces, and anannual average cost of 480 billion yen. The total cost would be 2.9 trillion yen. However,such defense expenditures “cannot be borne in their entirety by our national economy”(annual defense expenditures/projected national income = 7.3–10.2%), and thecorresponding “production capacity of Japan’s defense industry cannot be developed in agiven period. The report concluded that Japan’s defense expenditure, which it could financially bear, would be about 56% of the target, or 1.6 trillion yen (3.8 to 4.9% of projectednational income), and that the remaining 44%, or 1.3 trillion yen ($3.5 billion), would haveto be provided by the United States. The $3.5 billion in U.S. dependence consists of 559
billion yen ($1.5 billion: naval vessels, aircraft, and other specific weapons = tanks, antiaircraft guns, some underwater weapons, etc.) in kind and 710 billion yen ($2 billion) in
financial assistance. For all equipment (tanks and firearms) for the ground forces, Japandepended on the U.S. It also did for more than 80% of the construction cost of naval
vessels for the maritime forces, including in-kind donations, and for half of the aircraft in
the air forces, including in-kind donations. So the initial stage was envisioned to be
overwhelmingly dependent on the U.S.28
This “tentative plan” was prepared by the above-mentioned deliberation room, and since
experts from the army and navy who were in charge of logistics during the war joined thecommittee, it was a very elaborate draft plan and was also large enough to aim at thecreation of a self-defense force that could stand on its own.29 However, it was unrealistic at
the time to assume such an injection of funds and grant aid on the part of the United States.
Even within CODP, which prepared the “draft”, there were some who questioned the plan,but it was nevertheless published without any reduction. It can be said that the planreflected the unity of interest between the ex-servicemen and industry, despite thedifferences in perception between the two. In other words, ex-servicemen who had
experienced wartime control and mobilization envisioned a military force capable ofdefending itself, while the industrial world aspired to economic development and a stable
expansion of the defense industry through the continuation of special procurement demand
and were eager for new business opportunities through U.S. grant aid for Japan’s selfdefense buildup and increased aid to the Southeast Asian region. It is believed that bothsides had a common interest in drawing more U.S. assistance.
In preparation for the conclusion of the four MSA-related agreements, the Japanese andU.S. governments also worked out a plan to enhance Japan's defense capabilities and thenature of U.S. assistance. Prior to the Ikeda-Robertson talks mentioned above, CODP
proposed the “General Opinion on Acceptance of MSA” in July 1953, emphasizing thatJapan had a natural responsibility to improve its self-defense capability on its own initiative
and that MSA assistance should be used to systematically introduce special demand as atransitional measure until Japan achieved economic independence. The committee also
expressed its support for the conclusion of the MSA by the industry, arguing that not only
27 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], pp. 93-105. As for the position of this “TentativePlan,” Ishii [2003] also sees it as a “rearmament plan” for the acceptance of MSA assistance.
28 Defense Production Board [1964], pp. 91-105.
29 Senga Tetsuya, then secretary general of the Defense Production Board, later recalled that the “TentativePlan” was “a very brave idea to cooperate with the U.S. on an equal footing” (Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 229).

94

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
U.S. arms assistance but also extraterritorial procurement would promote the developmentof the defense industry and be useful not only for national defense but also for supplyingarms to the Southeast Asian region.
After the four MSA-related agreements were signed in March 1954, CODP proposed“Requests and Opinions Concerning the Development of the Defense Production System,”
which requested that defense production should be planned, that the goals of defense
industry development should take into consideration not only the SDF but also the renewalof equipment and the replenishment of supplies for free nations in the Far East region, andthat subsidies for research and development costs should be provided. The committee also
requested subsidies for research and development expenses, special tax measures, financial
facilities, and subsidies for long-term contracts, etc.30 As already mentioned, when the
Defense Agency was established in the same year and became the controlling organization
for the Ground, Maritime, and Air Self-Defense Forces as a self-defense force, it further
continued its building activities, calling for a longer-term and systematic “defense buildupplan” emphasizing “defense production as the base of self-defense” and support measures
for such a defense industry.
With the conclusion of the MSA and the establishment of the Self-Defense Forces, thedomestic defense industry intensified its activities towards the domestic production of
defense equipment. The resumption of equipment production was facilitated by the Korean
Special Demands, and the April 1952 revision of the Joint Ministerial Ordinance of the four
ministries regarding restrictions on the production of weapons, aircraft, and other items
made it possible to produce and repair weapons, aircraft, and other items subject to GHQ
approval. In May, the first complete weapon (4.2-inch mortar) was ordered from the U.S.
Military Procurement Department in Japan in an extraterritorial procurement. In June 1954,
the Aircraft Manufacturing Business Act was enacted, replacing the Aircraft Manufacturing
Act, whose main purpose was to deal with the actual situation in response to special
procurement demands, and which had little regulatory power and did not consider measures
to foster the development of the industry. The Act functioned as a “coordination” law thatprevented the proliferation of weakly based companies and enabled the selection offactories with a strong financial basis and technical capabilities. CODP received an
informal proposal from the Far Eastern Air Force Headquarters to produce jet fighters andtrainers for the Air Self-Defense Force in Japan on a Japan–U.S. joint sharing basis. The
government hesitated, fearing an increase in defense costs due to the shift from grant aid topayment, but CODP persuaded the government by insisting on “defense production as thebase of self-defense”, as emphasized in the “Request for the Improvement of Defense
Production Systems” submitted in March 1954. In June 1955, the government agreed to thejoint domestic production of jet aircraft (F-86-F fighters and T-33-A trainers) in Japan.31
The main contractor for the production of 300 fighter jets was Shin Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, while Kawasaki Aircraft Industries was the main contractor for 210 trainer jets,
which were to be manufactured during the 1956-1958 fiscal years.
In August 1955, the Council Office of CODP issued an interesting opinion. It examined“Theoretical Issues Concerning Defense Production” and published a document entitled“The Necessity of Maintaining Self-Defense Forces and the Role of Defense Production,”in which it listed five points as the contribution of defense production to the national
economy. In the document, defense production is considered to contribute to the national
30 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 72.
31 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964] 14, pp. 125-127.

95

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
economy in five ways: (1) some defense production can become an export industry, (2) it
can increase employment and national income, (3) it can promote the sophistication of theindustrial structure, (4) it can contribute to the advancement of industrial technology, and(5) it can promote the export of general commodities. In this connection, Keidanren Vice
President Kogoro Uemura discussed the “Problems of Japan’s Industrial Structure and the
Defense Industry” in the “Keidanren Monthly Report” of February 1955. Criticizing theargument that the defense industry is unnecessary, Uemura emphasizes that “theestablishment of the defense industry is closely related to the improvement of thetechnological level of general industry because the recent defense requires the highest levelof technology in aircraft, electronic weapons, etc.” and that “from the viewpoint of generalindustrial technology, the defense industry is in a very important position”.32 Since thedefense industry requires the highest level of technology, the argument goes, this will leadto advances in industrial technology. However, in the case of the application of militarytechnology to civilian products, this view would be accompanied by a number of importantreservations, since in practice there are various barriers such as secrecy, mass production
techniques, and production cost reductions.33(2) Establishment of the Japan Association of Arms Industry (JAAI)
According to “The Thirty-Year History of the Japan Association of Arms Industry,” thepredecessor of this organization, the Japan Technical Production Cooperation Association,
was established in 1951. The GHQ, which was in dire straits for weapons and othersupplies during the Korean War, requested the cooperation of Lieutenant General HarujiKan, former Director General of the Army Ordnance Administration Headquarters, with aview to procuring such items in Japan. The company’s advisors included Kiyoshi Goko,
former president of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Keizo Shibusawa, former minister offinance, and Ryozo Asano, former president of NKK. However, because it was a group ofpeople who had been expelled from public office, it could only be organized as a jointstock company.34 The company was capitalized at 3 million yen, and its purpose was to“gather together dilapidated weapons manufacturing facilities and dispersed engineers tostand between the U.S. military, the Japanese government authorities, and privatecompanies to cooperate in the manufacture, repair, and supply of U.S. military weapons. In
1952, this organization was reorganized into the Weapons Production Cooperative
Association, a voluntary association of member organizations, and the following year into
JAAI. It had Goko as chairman, companies related to weapons production as regularmembers, civilian and former military engineers as technical members, and a mandate todeal with Korean special demand and weapons orders from the National Security Agency
and Defense Agency and to maintain relations between the Japanese defense industry. The
organization maintains relations with the Japanese government and the U.S. military byhandling Korean special procurement and weapons orders from the National Safety Agency
and the Defense Agency. At the time of its establishment, the organization was not engaged
in profit-making activities but was engaged in the investigation and collection of
information on dilapidated weapons production facilities and scattered military technology,
32 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], pp. 112-117.
33 Fujita [2018] takes a negative view of the Keidanren’s perspective, which encourages the development of“dual-use technologies” today, citing transistors, electronics technology, and NC machine tools as examples ofsuccessful “civilianization of military technology”.
34 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 2. In 1988, the association was transformed into the Japan
Defense Equipment Industry, and in 2012, it was transformed into the Japan Association of Defense Industry(JADI), a general incorporated association, to continue its operations.

96

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Planliaison, and coordination among dispersed engineers and in “consulting work” in response
to inquiries from the U.S. military and foreign countries concerning weapons technology.
In 1952, when the organization was reorganized as the Weapons Production Cooperative
Association, a constitution was established, and the organization’s activities included
introducing the status of weapons orders, providing guidance and assistance regardingordered items and their production methods, researching and introducing professional
engineers, planning weapons production facilities, submitting research materials,
cooperating with receipt inspections, responding to inquiries from military and government
officials who placed orders, and introducing the industry’s actual situation and offering
opinions. The objectives of the Society, which was renamed the Japan Association of Arms
Industry in October 1953, were to contribute to the promotion and development of the arms
industry and the improvement of related technologies, as well as to promote friendshipamong members. The association initially supported the supply of U.S. forces during the
Korean War, but with the establishment of the National Safety Forces and the Japan SelfDefense Forces, interest in equipment research and supply increased. Around 1954, a Tank
Committee, Underwater Weapons Subcommittee, Fire Control System (FCS) committee,
Rights of Industrial Property Committee, Radar Study Group, Pistol Study Group, Rocket
Study Group, Electronics Committee, and Ammunition Domestic Production Study Group,etc. were established. These were also in preparation for the domestic production of
defense equipment in response to the request of the Defense Agency.35
In 1953, the Arms Production Council was established with respect to the Law on the
Production of Arms, etc. In February 1954, when the Minister of International Trade andIndustry asked for advice on subsidies for the arms industry, Mr. Goko, president of JAAI,
was appointed chairman of this council, and many of the association’s technical experts
became members of the technical subcommittee established within the council. They wereinvolved in the drafting of the report, which included the early establishment of a defense
plan, ensuring economical production, maintaining production on an appropriate scale,giving consideration to the export industry, and maintaining the firearms and ammunitionindustry.36
In 1955 and 1956, JAAI was involved in the protection of corporate interests in industrial
property rights and ammunition procurement, as shown in Table 3. In response to a decline
in the number of orders, JAAI submitted a letter of opinion requesting the maintenance ofrelated companies by placing additional orders, thereby encouraging the development of
the defense industry. In the 1957-1959 fiscal year, about 140 million yen was granted as a
subsidy for the maintenance of defense industrial facilities. This was probably the result of
these opinion letters.
In addition, from 1956 to 1961, JAAI was commissioned by the Defense Agency andother government agencies to prepare drafts of standards for equipment and other products.
In this respect, it can be seen that JAAI was building a close relationship with government
agencies and was taking on the task of responding to technological advances in weaponry
and other products.
(3) Domestic defense production after primary DBP and the functions of CODP andJAAI
It will be only after the Japanese government begins to decide on the DBP that the National
35 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 6.
36 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 7.

97

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
Defense Council and the Cabinet meeting will be able to consider and decide on defense
force development in a somewhat systematic manner. In order to stably provide defense
equipment indispensable for self-defense reinforcement on its own, the Japanese
government was required to spend a large amount of money from the national budget. 4
DBPs were formulated from 1958 to the 1970s. Defense equipment procurement trends
were as shown in Table 4. The equipment in the founding period of the SDF was heavily
dependent on U.S. grant aid.37
Table 4 Procurement Trends by Fiscal Year, Long-Term Plan, and Procurement Methodclassification

Domestic Procurements(A)amountof moneyfiscalyear

propotion
(%)
A/D

A/F

General Import(B)amountof money

FMS(C)

propotion
(%)
B/D

B/F

amountof money

propotion
(%)
C/D

C/F

subtotal

Grants-in-Aid(E)amount(D=A+B+C) of money

propotion
(%)
E/F

total
(F=D+E)

1950-57

241,519

95.3

39.6

9,477

3.7

1.6

2,499

1.0

0.4

253,495

356,863

58.5

1st DBP(1958-60)

278,913

91.0

62.4

10,8603.5

2.4

16,8485.5

3.8

306,621

140,49431.4

610,358
447,115

1961

70,249

85.1

64.7

6,311

7.6

5.8

5,972

7.2

5.5

82,532

26,08024.0

108,612

2nd DBP(1962-66)

578,135

87.8

81.6

42,397

6.4

6.0

38,2035.8

5.4

658,735

49,7107.0

708,445

3rd DBP(1967-71) 1,282,897

91.8

91.6

66,202

4.7

4.7

47,833

3.4

3.4

1,396,932

3,275

0.2

1,400,207

4th DBP(1972-76) 2,158,818

93.0

93.0

100,123

4.3

4.3

61,6562.7

2.7

2,320,59700.02,320,597

91.9

82.4

235,370

4.7

4.2

173,011

3.4

3.1

5,018,912

576,42210.3

5,595,334

Total

4,610,531

・The amount of the grant aid was recorded based on the amount received.
・FMS：Foreign Military Sales. The grant aid includes the loan of vessels. Receipt of the grant ended in
FY1969.
・Source: FY1975 financial results (House of Councillors Accounts Committee Research Office).
・Source: Reproduced from figures in Nagamatsu [1979], pp. 62, 63.

U.S. aid is shifting from grant aid to paid aid, but in terms of amount, it does not accountfor a large proportion of the total. The percentage of domestic procurement has expanded
dramatically. In primary DBP, U.S. grant aid has been greatly reduced, and as a result,domestic procurement now accounts for more than 60% of the procurement value, with
U.S. grant aid ratio accounting for only 31% of the total. In the case of secondary DBP,
domestic procurement now accounts for more than 80% of total procurement, indicatingthat domestic defense production has begun to take off in earnest. However, the scale ofdomestic procurement does not imply independence in terms of weapons and militarytechnology, as Japan is heavily dependent on the U.S. for advanced technology and fighter
aircraft..38 In addition, even if there is a price increase, taking into account the fact thatdomestic procurement amounts for primary to quaternary DBP have each more thandoubled or increased significantly over the previous period, it is thought that there has beena remarkable development of the domestic defense industry in the background. We will
discuss this point later and examine the role of CODP and JAAI in each period.

37According to Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 169, the U.S. arms aid (grant aid) toJapan amounted to 345.5 billion yen during the period 1951-1957, of which 108.7 billion yen was for equipment,
95.2 billion yen for the Ground Self-Defense Force, of which 62.7 billion yen was for 170 ships and 13.4 billion
yen for 163 aircraft, and 54.3 billion yen for the Air Self-Defense Force. This indicates that equipment during
this period was heavily dependent on this grant aid. Note that the amounts differ slightly from the grant aid
amounts in Table 3.
38 In the case of domestic procurement and production, since it includes licensed domestic production of
products developed in foreign countries in addition to products based on proprietary technologies, thetechnological dependence cannot be determined by the amount of procurement alone.

98

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
①Primary DBP period: 1958-60
Primary DBP began in 1958 after the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces in Japan wascompleted. As shown in Table 2, the first emphasis during this period was on air defense interms of equipment, and CODP also submitted a draft proposal, “Request for the
Establishment of Basic Policies for the Development of the Aircraft Industry” in 1957, andin 1958, CODP also submitted a proposal to the Diet, “Requesting the Submission of an
Aircraft Industry Promotion Bill to the Diet” (Table3). The former called for theestablishment of a long-term plan, the establishment of measures for the export of aircraft,and special measures for their development in the areas of finance, taxation, subsidies fortesting and research, proper cost accounting, and the introduction of technology, while thelatter also called for the development of a law to promote the aviation industry for thedomestic production of aircraft, which led to the promulgation of the law in May of thesame year. CODP actually promoted domestic production of medium-sized aircraft, and theresults became evident during the 2DBP period.
Next, in 1958, CODP called for the Defense Industry Study Group to be formed bydefense industry-related organizations to promote the domestic production of defense
equipment in general in response to U.S. aid to Japan being paid for. This study group
aimed to analyze the current status and future prospects for domestic production in eachsector of the defense industry, and to contribute to the formulation of the government’s
annual plan. In addition to CODP, JAAI, the Japan Aviation Industry Association, and the
Guided Missile (GM) Research Association participated in this study group, and within thisstudy group, the General Coordination Committee, the Policy Committee, and theTechnical Committee were established. The following subcommittees were establishedunder these committees: Aviation(studies on domestic production of P2V anti-submarine
patrol aircraft, intermediate jet training aircraft, large helicopters, FX fighters, etc.);
Weapons (armouring of the 7th Mixed Group, development of land-based equipment andmass production system, continued development of weapons for maritime forces and studyof production system); Missiles (study on research and basic trial production of 28 relatedcompanies, which had been almost undeveloped); Electronics (study on research anddevelopment system of code analyser, secret communication device and its analyser, radar,navigation aid device, etc.); Naval vessels (study of building submarines, missile-carrying
patrol vessels, and helicopter carriers) and Fuel. 39 The contents of these studies were
submitted as an interim report in 1959, and it is believed that they were referred to in theannual plan of the Defense Agency.
In 1959,the Market Measures Committee was established within CODP, consisting of thepresidents of 10 trading companies, including Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsui & Co.,Marubeni Corporation, Itochu Corporation, and the Machinery Center for Trade andInvestment. This Committee considered the development of overseas markets and special
export measures to overcome bottlenecks in the weapons and defense equipment industry,
such as high-mix low-volume production and rapid obsolescence. Part of the results of thestudy was submitted as the “Opinion on Weapons Exports” in 1962, and after discussion at
the Defense Equipment Domestic Production Roundtable, it was proposed as a reference
opinion to the prime minister, relevant ministers, and the LDP’s Political Affairs ResearchCommittee.40
In addition, members of CODP and the GM Council (see below) accompanied the
39 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], pp. 148, 172-181; Japan Arms Industry Association[1983], p. 8.
40 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], pp. 198-206.

99

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) survey team and travelled overseas under the jurisdictionof MITI to investigate the international military situation in 1959 and the rocket industry in
1960. They reported on the current status of international joint R&D and joint production,
as well as problems in importing finished products and licenced production.41
By the way, as already mentioned, JAAI, circa 1956-61, was commissioned by the
National Defense Council to survey the procurement of equipment. At the same time, JAAI
has been commissioned by the Japan Defense Agency and other government agencies todraft standards for defense equipment and devices. Although JAAI describes itself as “theonly industrial organization in charge of domestic arms production in both name andreality,” it can be seen that as the domestic production of defense equipment expands, JAAIis taking on the task of keeping up with technological advances in weapons and otherequipment. While it played an important role in following up on the technical aspects ofdefense equipment, it was also a member of the above-mentioned Defense Industry Study
Group, and in 1960, jointly with the CODP, it was involved in demand activities related tothe profitability of defense industry management, such as the “Request for a Long-term
Lump-sum Contract System for Weapons” (Table 3).42②Secondary DBP period: 1962-1966
The Kishi cabinet resigned in July 1960 due to the Security Riots. The drafting of DBP
came to a standstill due to political instability, but DBP was officially decided in July 1961.
We will review four characteristic matters in which the industry was involved in defense
industrial policy during this period.
First, as Table 4 shows, the ratio of U.S. grant aid to Japan has declined sharply, theamount of U.S. paid aid has increased sharply, and the ratio and amount of domestic
procurement have increased sharply. In response, the industrial sector has been lobbying
the U.S. to avoid reductions in extraterritorial procurement and U.S. aid to Japan and has
demanded that the government substitute domestic production for foreign procurement. In
addition to the opinion submitted by JAAI in 1964, as shown in Table 3, the industry has
also lobbied the U.S. government and business community for good measures against theprohibition of the exchange of military vehicles in FY1963 and thereafter, which had been
continued since FY1957 in the U.S. fiscal year.43 The exchange of military vehicles is
structured as follows: procurement of new Japanese vehicles by the U.S. military → freetransfer to the Self-Defense Forces → return of used vehicles by the Self-Defense Forces→ refurbishment by the U.S. military and provision to Southeast Asian countries.
Next was the promotion of domestic aircraft production. In 1957, due in part to the highcompatibility between military and civilian aircraft, the Japan Transport Aircraft Design
and Research Association began research on the design of a medium-size transport aircraft.
In 1959, the Japan Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation was established with a capital of
500 million yen as a joint public-private investment. The capital was increased to 4.9
billion yen. Kawasaki Aircraft, Shin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Shin Maywa, and Fuji
Heavy Industries completed the major parts of the aircraft, except for the engine, propeller,
and other parts, which had to be imported. This was the first domestically produced
41 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964] pp. 222, 226, 227, 230-235. Already at this stage, theadvantages of international joint development and production and the problems of importing finished products or
producing under licence are pointed out, but no mention is made of constitutional restrictions.
42 Long-term contracts are realized in the 1962 budget process. Keidanren Committee on Defense
Production[1964], pp. 157, 160 and Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], pp. 3, 11.
43 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], pp. 191-196.

100

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
aircraft, the YS-11, which was purchased and put into practical use by All Nippon Airways
and the Defense Agency Secondary DBP.44
Furthermore, the introduction of anti-aircraft equipment was considered a new plan forthe secondary DBP period, and surface-to-air guided missile (Nike and Hawk) units were
deployed at the end of the secondary DBP period. The Guided Missile Committee wasestablished in 1953 within CODP as a specialized committee for weapons, aviation, andelectricity, and was followed by research and study by the GM (guided missile) Advisory
Council, which included government agencies, JAAI, and the Japan Aerospace Industries
Association. After research and study by the GM (guided missile) Advisory Council,
formed in 1957 by 41 member companies from the weapons, electronics, and aviationindustries under the guidance of the Defense Agency’s Equipment Bureau, the equipment
was provided by the United States under a grant and cost-sharing licensed production
system.45 Then, domestic production of Nike and Hawk began in FY1966 through licensed
production. The GM Council also took charge of space development, and in 1964, it was
renamed the Japan Rocket Development Council. It was dissolved in 1974 on the grounds
that it had accomplished its mission. The Japan Aerospace Industries Association tookcharge of space development, and JAAI took over military missile development.46
Finally, it should be noted that JAAI underwent a certain change in its activities during
this period, abolishing technical membership and replacing it with associate membershipand individual membership in a 1959 revision of the Articles of Incorporation, as thenumber of weapons-related engineers increased within corporate member companies and
JAAI no longer needed to provide technical guidance. In October 1962, the association
invited Mr. Kono, president of Mitsubishi Nippon Heavy Industries, Ltd., as its chairman,
and in 1964, it established the Operations Committee as an advisory body to the chairman
to strengthen cooperation with the Defense Agency, the Ministry of International Trade andIndustry, and other government agencies closely related to the defense industry. In 1964,
the company established the Operations Committee as an advisory body for the chairman
to strengthen cooperation with the Defense Agency, MITI, and other government agencies
closely related to the defense industry. As seen in Table 3, the number of opinion letterssubmitted to government agencies has increased since then. They have demanded “bridging
production” to fill the gap that may occur between secondary and tertiary DBP and to
improve subsidy amounts that are less than the actual R&D costs of companies from thesurvey on the actual status of secondary DBP. 47③ Tertiary DBP period:1967-71
The tertiary DBP pointed to the improvement in the domestic technology level, appropriate
domestic production of equipment, and emphasis on anti-submarine and air defense
capabilities. As shown in Table 4, domestic procurement of equipment has exceeded 90%,and some assess that “we have entered the full-scale phase of ‘independent’ equipment”.48
Three points regarding the involvement of industry in defense policy should be reviewed
here.
The first point is the policy of increasing anti-submarine and air defense capabilities. As
seen in Table 2, the actual amount for procurement from the secondary DBP to the tertiary
44 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964] pp. 207-215.
45 Keidanren Committee on Defense Production[1964], pp. 136-146; Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 264.
46 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 86.
47 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], pp. 11-13.
48 Kihara [1994], p. 104.

101SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
DBP (central procurement) exceeded 1 trillion yen, an increase of approximately 2.3 times,
with an extremely large increase of 3.6 times in aircraft purchase expenditures. Although
not shown in the table, the aircraft purchase cost for tertiary DBP was 384.3 billion yen,accounting for 35% of the central procurement cost and far exceeding other items. In theaviation sector, the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s PS-1 anti-submarine amphibian(formally introduced in 1970) C-1 jet transport aircraft (under research and development),
T-2 advanced jet trainer aircraft (research and development started in 1967), P-2J antisubmarine patrol aircraft (deployed in 1969), and F-4EJ fighter aircraft (next main fighter
aircraft; licensed production started in 1969) were all introduced during this period.
Research and studies were also being conducted on the PXL anti-submarine patrol aircraft(the next anti-submarine patrol aircraft, yet to be decided).49 And in terms of increasing air
defense capabilities, the domestic production and deployment of Nike and Hawk missiles,
introduced in the final phase of the secondary DBP, became a key issue. As shown in Table
3, JAAI continued to actively request the Defense Agency to secure a budget, place orders
based on a long-term plan and long-term lump-sum contracts, develop future-oriented
technologies, and secure a budget for such development, while at the same time demanding
the promotion of domestic production of Nike and Hawk.50 In 1968, partly as a result of
these efforts, the Japanese government approved the “Technical Collaboration Agreement
for the Design and Manufacture of Nike Hercules Missiles” between Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries and McDonnell Douglas, and the “Technical Collaboration Agreement for the
Manufacture of Hawk Systems” between Mitsubishi Electric and Raytheon Technologies of
the U.S., and licensed production was started in Japan. As a result, procurement of guided
weapons now accounts for 7% (about 75.5 billion yen) of the major items in thecomposition of tertiary DBP in Table 2, approaching the composition of ships and weapons.
Second is the issue of R&D and prototype support, as well as the costing of defense
equipment. Since the conclusion of the MSA, the industry has advocated “defense
production as the bace of self-defense capabilities” and has demanded that the government
provide adequate support for R&D. However, tertiary DBP required equipment that
required advanced technological capabilities, such as aircraft and guided weapons
production, and the defense industry was also required to increase its R&D capabilities. In
response, in 1969, JAAI and CODP, in cooperation with other defense production-relatedorganizations, conducted a survey of the actual situation after the inauguration of the
Tertiary DBP, focusing on the Defense Agency’s technological R&D in fiscal 1967 and1968. As a result, it became clear that the private sector’s share of R&D expenditures was
extremely high, particularly for weapons, missiles, and vehicles. Considering the fact thatthe ratio of actual procurement to prototypes in Table 2 has decreased for the Tertiary DBP,
and that the increase in the amount is not significantly different from the increase in the
total amount, the reality emerges that despite the publicity about the importance of R&D,
prototypes and R&D expenditures have not increased. In this regard, JAAI calls forsecuring a budget that can be allocated to R&D expenses51 and, as shown in Table 3, for“appropriate contract prices” based on “budgets set in line with actual conditions and costaccounting commensurate with reality” in accounting for defense equipment procurement.52
As a reason for this, they pointed out that while rising prices and labour costs are affecting
production costs due to inflation during a period of rapidly rising GNP, weapons are special
49 Kondo and Osanai [1978] pp. 276, 288, 289.
50 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], pp. 13, 14.
51 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 17.
52 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 15.

102

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Planproducts for which companies themselves cannot develop their own markets, and cost
reductions through increased production are not expected.
The third is about “the Three Principles on Arms Exports”, as stated by Prime Minister
Sato in his 1967 Diet speech. Even after the Korean special procurement, overseas arms
transfers peaked at 15 billion yen in the mid-1950s, and exports continued to some extent
since 1963, due to extraterritorial procurement and new special procurements. However,
the Three Principles on Arms Exports, which may have reflected anti-Vietnam war
sentiments, led to the implementation of restrictions on exports. In 1968, since there wereno restrictions on plants, the company exported ammunition manufacturing equipment to
the Philippines as postwar compensation. On the other hand, a significant portion of
weapons manufacturers switched to civilian demand during the process of rapid economic
growth, and companies that continued to produce weapons also shifted their focus to
producing weapons for the Self-Defense Forces. As a result, they appear to have remained
static with regard to these three principles.53 JAAI, which had stipulated in its articles ofincorporation “matters related to the promotion of arms exports” as its business, “decided
that its basic policy was to follow government policy, effectively abandoning any
expectation of arms exports.”54 Later, in 1976, the Miki cabinet expanded the scope of thethree principles and the areas to which they applied, but at the same time, it graduallyhollowed out the arms export regulations by narrowing the category of “arms” and creating
exceptions that exempted them from application.
④ Quaternary DBP period: 1972-76
Defense Minister Nakasone, who had been advocating self-defense partly because of the
Nixon doctrine and the revision of the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty in 1970, emphasized“exclusive defense” as a basic policy while modernizing land-based equipment, domestic
production of equipment, and emphasizing R&D, with the view that equipment
development and production should be “in principle limited to the home industry”. He wasperhaps a politician who was favourably disposed to the defense equipment industry.
However, in the development of the defense industry, he mentioned the “introduction of
appropriate competition principles,” and JAAI immediately issued an order that “theintroduction of competition principles should be handled with caution.55 In this section, we
will examine the trends in the domestic industry and production of equipment, which wereemphasized in the defense policy.
In 1970, when the fourth DBP period was under consideration, JAAI submitted a request,
as shown in Table 3. In it, they requested the consideration of an appropriate budget and reasonable contract prices, with emphasis on R&D to promote domestic production, theformulation of a long-term plan to stabilize defense production, and the improvement of anadvance payment system to deal with the increasing size and length of procurement.56
Although these were matters of concern to the defense industry, it can be said that theserequests were made out of consideration for the economic situation at the time, when
labour costs and prices were rising, and because of the increase in large-scale projects foraircraft and other equipment. The requests were also because of the increasing number of
53 Tetsuya Senga, who was secretary general of the Defense Production Committee, looks back on those days
and states that the focus was on aircraft and weapons production for the SDF and that “enthusiasm for developing
export markets had waned” (Kondo and Osanai [1978], p. 256).
54 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 32.
55 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 15.
56 Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 18.

103

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
cases in which production continued for several rounds, and the companies that received
orders therefore asked to take good measures to continue production. In the fourth DBP
period of the war against the dollar, oil shocks, and other challenges, there was a reductionin the amount of equipment ordered, and on behalf of the companies that received orders,the Procurement Implementation Headquarters was often asked to take measures to prevent
such reductions.57 As shown in Table 2, R&D was emphasized during the fourth DBP
period, as indicated by the increase in expenditures for prototypes, but according to asurvey conducted during the fourth DBP period by five industry organizations, including
CODP and JAAI, the number of direct man-hours for weapons-related manufacturing andrepair decreased to 75 in FY1976 on an index of 100 for FY1972, and the number of direct
man-hours for missile and rocket fields in particular decreased to 55, and in the
pyrotechnics field, 49, a significant decrease. JAAI was aware that the fourth DBP period“clearly fell behind in the second year due to the unforeseen circumstances of the oil crisis”
and strongly urged that the Defense Agency’s Basic Defense Capability Concept reflect
measures to formulate defense production and R&D capabilities. 58
Domestic production of aircraft was also underway during this period. The F-4EJ fighter
aircraft was produced as planned, but the PXL, the next-generation anti-submarine patrolaircraft, was “returned blank” at the National Defense Conference in October 1972, despite
the fact that both industry and the Defense Agency had a policy of domestic production
until 1971, and five years later it was officially decided to adopt Lockheed’s P-3C. The
P-3C was adopted by the Defense Production Board in 1974. Although the Defense
Production Board had requested domestic production in 1974 in such opinion pieces as“Proposal for PXL Development and Production (Memorandum)” and “Security andEquipment Acquisition Methods,” the P-3C ended up being imported. This process haspointed to technical problems and uncertainties that cannot be explained simply as ameasure to reduce Japanese dollars in consideration of Japan–U.S. relations.59

Summary and Future Issues
The beginning of the Cold War and the outbreak of the Korean War led to a major shift in
U.S. occupation policy, moving Japan from demilitarization and restraining economic
recovery to promotion of reconstruction and rebuilding of military power. Symbolically,
the U.S. withdrew from the policy of designating munitions factories and industrial
facilities for compensation and removal, and began to actively utilize the former militaryarsenals and other facilities by selling them to weapons producers. Then, the U.S.
57 At the National Defense Council and Cabinet meetings at the end of 1970, 31 tanks, 60 armored vehicles,
and 70 self-propelled guns for the Ground Self-Defense Force, 17 naval vessels for the Maritime Self-Defense
Force, and 42 fighter aircraft for the Air Self-Defense Force were excluded from the initial targets (“The Fourth
Defense Force Development Plan” (4th Defense), https://www.asagumo-news.com/hbdl/bouei/1 -4jibou/4ji-bou.
pdf).
58 In 1977, CODP published “Analysis of the Current Status of Japan’s Defense Industry and Future
Responses”, a survey of 67 companies in the industry conducted by Japan Association of Arms Industry , CODP,
Japan Aerospace Industries Association, Japan Shipbuilding Industry Association, and Japan Electronic
Machinery Manufacturers Association during the fourth defense period, which served as one of the bases for therequest (Japan Association of Arms Industry [1983], p. 23).
59 Senga questioned the “blank slate” return at the National Defense Council, saying, “It seems as if it was
decided by the voice of heaven. Tomiyama [1979] also questioned the selection process. Furthermore, NHK’s“Unsolved Cases” Reporting Team (2018) has approached the core of the matter through interviews with those
involved at the time. Similar opaqueness is also pointed out in the selection of the F-104 (Kondo and Osanai[1978], pp. 261, 309).

104

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
recognized the restoration of Japanese sovereignty by concluding the Peace Treaty. The
Japan–U.S. Security Treaty and the MSA Agreement allowed U.S. forces to be stationed inJapan and the U.S. has mandated an increase in self-defense capabilities in line with U.S.
desires. The U.S. initially provided many weapons for the creation of the Japan SelfDefense Forces and the defense equipment buildup.
The U.S. government provided the loans free of charge, but to curb the outflow of dollars,
it switched to paying for the loans, Foreign Military Sales and then to exporting them. The
Japanese government, on the other hand, steadily enhanced its defense capability from the
1950s to the 1970s, the Primary DBP through the Quaternary DBP.
In response to this policy shift towards increased self-defense capabilities, Keidanren, thecenter of Japanese industry, responded to this policy shift by taking advantage of thespecial demand and the business opportunity of upgrading the SDF’s defense capabilities toachieve economic recovery and growth through a tie-up with the United States.
Keidanren organized the CODP, which was led by the heavy industry sector closely
related to weapons production. CODP actively lobbied GHQ, the U.S. military in Japan,
and the Japanese government to provide the JSDF with free provision of arms, to utilize“wheat funds” in accordance with Section 550 of the U.S. MSA Agreement, and to pursue
possible arms exports to Southeast Asia. CODP often emphasized “self-defense” anddeveloped a request for the maintenance and expansion of “defense production as the baseof self-defense”. Looking at the activities of CODP, as an industry group, it lobbied more
actively directly to the U.S. military in Japan and GHQ until the Defense Agency as anadministrative structure was better organized in terms of organization and personnel.
JAAI, which was organized by the United States Armed Forces, also provided militarytechnical assistance to supply the U.S. military and served as a research and study
organization that provided administrative support to the government. JAAI was alsochanging its character from a military industry development organization to an organizationthat represented the military industry’s interests, while enhancing defense equipment andstabilizing the defense industry.
By the way, as already pointed out, Keidanren insists on the importance of the defense
industry’s technological leadership in the civilian demand production sector. As mentionedin Minoru Fujita’s criticism of this argument, more careful empirical analysis will benecessary since the technological interdependence between military and civilian demandseems to have deepened since the 1990s, when development in the ICT aspect has become
more prominent.
I also mentioned that with regard to arms exports, the Sato cabinet advocated the threeexport principles in 1967, and export controls were tightened under the Miki cabinet. Whenthese issues were raised in the Diet, Keidanren and JAAI did not express a clear stanceagainst them. This was due to the strength of the anti-Vietnam War movement and to public
opinion for peace. This is probably reflected in the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s, theperiod covered in my paper, public support for the Japanese Constitution, which stipulated
the non-preservation of war potential, greatly outweighed opinions calling for its revision.60
For the defense industry, the fact that demand is limited to the domestic market means thatsales channels are limited, which should be a major constraint on corporate management
unless there is a very large domestic demand. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper,
the subsequent process has moved in the direction of lifting the restrictions, and this point
must be examined again.
60 See Miwa and Sakaiya [2020].

105SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
How was the Japan–U.S. relationship regarding the Japan Self-Defense Forces? They
were established and DBPs were promoted from the 1950s to the 1970s. As Japan’s militaryforce was rebuilt under the leadership of the U.S., much of the equipment was initiallyprovided free of charge by the U.S., but as Japan’s military buildup plans progressed in linewith the MSA agreement, the equipment was switched from grant aid to export, and“domestic production” was promoted, reflecting the interests of domestic industrial groups.
However, even with the production of parts and equipment at domestic factories and theincreasing rate of domestic production in the price structure, “domesticization” was far
from being technologically independent, as fighter aircraft and other equipments withadvanced technology were mainly produced under license and important parts were black
boxed. In addition, the U.S. government’s consent is basically required for the selection of
aircraft models, and Japan’s passive position in defense equipment is clear. The cabinet’s
decision in the 2010s to allow the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, mentioned
at the beginning of this paper, appears to be an extension of this policy, but further study isneeded to verify this.
Furthermore, how did the domestic arms industry develop? During this period, leading
companies, such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (three heavy industries merged in 1964),
Kawasaki Aircraft (Kawasaki Heavy Industries after 1969), Fuji Heavy Industries(Subaru
Corporation after 2017), ShinMaywa Industries, Mitsubishi Electric, Toshiba Corporation,
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, and Komatsu Manufacturing, grew as leaders in
the military industry, producing aircraft, naval vessels, special vehicles, and missiles. It isalso clear that these companies have steadily improved their aircraft manufacturing
technologies, as seen in the completion of the YS-11, a medium-sized transport planejointly produced by domestic companies, and the XT-2, a supersonic advanced training
plane by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Many companies switched from military
production to civilian production after the Korean War and subsequent sharp decline in
special procurement demand, but these leading companies have continued to produce
weapons while expanding civilian production within their companies.61 The study of therelationship between civilian and military production within their companies is a futureissue.

61 Sawai [2018] mentions examples of continued weapons production at Osaka Metal Industries (renamed
Daikin Industries in 1963) and Komatsu Ltd.

106

Post-World War II Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan
References
Keidanren Committee on Defense Production [1964], Bouei Seisan Iinkai Juhnenshi (Keidanren Committee
on Defense Production Ten-Year History), Keidanren Defense Production Committee.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ed. [1967], ShinmitsubishiJukougyou Kabushikigaisya Shi (History ofShin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ed. [1967], Mitsubishi Nihon Jukougyou Kabushikigaisya Shi (History of
Mitsubishi Japan Heavy Industries, Ltd.)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ed. [1967], Mitsubishi Zousen Kabushikigaisya Shi (History of
Mitsubishi Shipbuilding Corporation)
Defense Agency [1976], Nihon no Bouei (The Defense of Japan).
Japan Defense Agency [1977], Nihon no Bouei (The Defense of Japan).
Kondo Kanichi and Osanai Hiroshi, eds. [1978], Sengo Sangyou Shi heno Shougen 3 Enerugi Kakumei
Bouei Seisan no Kiseki (Testimony to Postwar Industrial History (3): The Energy Revolution andDefense Production), Mainichi Newspapers Co.
Tomiyama Kazuo [1979], Nihon no Bouei Sangyou (Japan’s Defense Industry), Toyo Keizai Inc.
Nagamatsu Keiichi [1979], Nihon no Bouei Sangyou (Japan’s Defense Industry), Kyoikusha.
Financial History Office, Ministry of Finance [1981], Showa Zaisei Shi (Showa Financial History: From
the End of the War to Peace, Vol. 17, Material (1)), Toyo Keizai Shinposha.
Financial History Office, Ministry of Finance [1983], Showa Zaisei Shi (Showa Financial History: From
the End of the War to Peace, Vol. 13), Toyo Keizai Shinposha, Inc.
Japan Association of Arms Industry, ed. [1983], Nihon Heiki Kougyoukai 30 Nenshi (The Thirty-Year
History of the Japan Association of Arms Industry), Dai-Ichi Hoki Shuppan Co.
Company History Compilation Committee of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. ed. [1984], Fuji Jukougyou 30
Nenshi (Fuji Heavy Industries Thirty-Year History, Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.
Kihara Masao [1994], Nihon no Gunji Kougyou (Japan’s Military Industry), Shin Nihon Publishing Co.
Nakajima Shingo [2006], Sengo Nihon no Bouei Seisaku: ‘Yoshida Line’ wo meguru Seiji, Gaiko,
Mukuritsu (Defense Policy in Postwar Japan: Politics, Diplomacy and Military Affairs on the ‘YoshidaLine’), Keio University Press, Inc.
Nakamura Takafusa [2012], Showa Shi (Ge) (The History of the Showa Period (Part 2)), Toyo Keizai Inc.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Company History Compilation Committee [2014], Umi ni Riku ni soshite
Uchu he 2 [Enkaku-Showa kara Heisei he] Mitsubishi Jukougyou Syashi ([History: From Showa to
Heisei] Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Company History), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Company History Compilation Committee [2014], Umi ni Riku ni soshite
Uchu he [gijutsu Seihin Jigyou hen/Shiryou hen] Mitsubishi Jukougyou Syashi ([Technology andProduct Businesses] Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Company History), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Ikeuchi Ryo, Aoi Miho, and Sugihara Koji[2017],Boukoku no Buki Yusyutsu- Bouei Soubi Iten 3 Gensoku
ha Nani wo motarasuka (Arms Exports in Exile: What Will the Three Principles on Defense Equipment
Transfer Bring), Godo Publishing Co.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2017], Nihon Gaikou Bunsyo Senryouki dai2kan (Japanese DiplomaticDocuments: The Occupation Period, Vol. 2, Rokuichi Shobo.
Yoshitsugu Kosuke [2018], Nichibei Anpotaisei Shi (History of the Japan–U.S. Security Treaty System),
Iwanami Shoten.
NHK “Unsolved Cases” Reporting Team [2018] Kieta21okuen wo oe- rokkido Jiken 40nenme no Sukuhpu(“Chasing the Missing 2.1 Billion Yen - The Lockheed Case: The 40th Scoop,” Asahi Shimbun
Publications.
Takeda Haruhito [2019], Nihon Keizai Shi (Economic History of Japan), Yuhikaku.
Koketsu Atsushi [2020], Omoi Tobira no Muko ni- Rekishi Wakai to Senzenkaiki no Soukoku- (Beyond the
Heavy Door: The Conflict between Historical Reconciliation and Prewar Regression), Midorikaze
Shuppan.
Yokoi Katsuhiko (ed.) [2021], Reisenki Ajia no Gunji to Enjo (Military and Aid in Cold War Asia), Nihon
Keizai Hyoronsha.
Asagumo Shimbun [2022] (viewed) Bouei Handobukku Daunrodo (Nihon no Boueikeikaku) (“Defense
Handbook Download (Japan’s Defense Planning)”). https://www.asagumo-news.com/hbdl/bouei/boueimenu.html

107

SHIN-ICHI SHIRATO
List of Papers
Adachi Hiroshi [1981], “Trends in the Japanese Military Supply Industry,” Nagasaki Sogo Daigaku Kiyou(General University Bulletin), Vol. 22, No. 1.
Asai Yoshio [2003], “Special Demand in the 1950s (1),” Seijo Daigaku Keizaikenkyu (University Journalof Economics), vol. 158.
Ishii Susumu [2003], “MSA Agreement and Japan: Formation of Postwar Economic System (1),”Gakushuin Daigaku Keizaironsyu (Gakushuin University Keizai Ronshu), Vol. 40, No. 3.
Ishii Susumu [2004], “MSA Agreement and Japan: Formation of Postwar Economic System (2),”Gakushuin DaigakuKeizaironsyu (Gakushuin University Keizai Ronbunshu), Vol. 40, No. 4.
Nakajima Shingo [2004] “IV The History of the National Defense Agency and Self-Defense Forces andOral History: Ka3ihara Osamu Oral History.
Focusing on -, Nenpo Seijigaku (Annual Report of the Japanese Political Science Association), Vol. 55,
Chikuma Shobo.
Yo Inman [2006], “The Historical Significance of ‘Enterprise Development’ in Japan during theReconstruction Period: A Case Analysis of the Automobile Industry,Tokyo Daigaku Keieikyouiku Center
Discussion Paper “ Tokyo COE Monozukuri Management Research Center, Discussion Paper, No. 77,
Center for Management Education, University of Tokyo.
Study Group on Defense Production and Technology Infrastructure [2012] “Final Report of the Study
Group on Defense Production and Technology Infrastructure - Toward the Construction of a ‘Living
Strategy’”. Available at: https://www.mod.go.jp/atla/soubiseisaku/soubiseisakuseisan/2406houkoku.pdf
Sawai Minoru [2018] From Special Demand Production to Defense Production: The Case of Osaka
Prefecture, Bulletin of Nanzan University, Academia, Social Sciences Ed. no. 14.
Fujita Minoru [2018], The Civilianization of Military Demand and the Militaryization of Civilian Demandin Postwar Japanese Capitalism, Kikan Keizairiron (Quarterly Journal of Economic Theory), Vol. 55,
No. 3.
Aoi Yoshie [2020] “Japan’s Support to Other Countries for Building Maritime Law Enforcement Capacity:
Focusing on the Provision of Patrol Vessels and Self-Defense Force Equipment,” National Diet Library,
Research and Legislative Review Bureau, The Reference, National Diet Library. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/
view/download/digidepo_11486061_po_083104.pdf?contentNo=1&alternativeNo=
Nakajima Shingo and Hiroshi Nishida [2020], “The Role of Former Military Aviation Officials and the
Involvement of the U.S. Air Force during the Founding of the Air Self-Defense Force,” Boei Kenkyujo(NIDS Security Studies) Volume 22, Number 2, Ministry of Defense.
Miwa Hirofumi and Shiro Sakaiya [2020], “Constitutional Attitudes of Postwar Japanese: An Analysis
Using the Public Opinion Survey Accumulation Method,” Nenpou Seijigaku (Annual Review of Political
Science) 2020-I. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ nenpouseijigaku/71/1/71_1_34/_pdf/-char/en＊This paper is an English translation of a previously published paper in Japanese (Shinichi Shirato,"Japan’s Defense Buildup Plan after World War II and the Functions of Industry Groups for
Reconstruction of Military Industries: Focusing on Trends in the 1950s-1970s Regarding the ‘Domestic
Production’ of Defense Equipment”, The Journal of Research Institute for the History of Global Arms
Transfer, No. 15, 2023).

108

History of Global Arms Transfer, 17 (2024), pp. 109-130

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms
Transfers During the Cold War: Between
Independence and Alliance
By ATSUSHI KOKETSU*
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the development process of the Japanese
defense industry during the Cold War in relation to the issue of arms transfers.
After World War II, the U.S. promoted the lending of surplus weapons to Japan,
and at the same time, it hoped for the revival of Japan’s independent defense
industry, albeit with restrictions. In Japanese domestic politics, a conflict emerged
between the Shigeru Yoshida Cabinet’s vision of light armaments and therearmament plans of those in the defense industry. Thus, the issue of rearmament
became an important political issue in Cold War Japan, and at the same time, also
conflict over restrictions on the defense industry and its independence influenced
the political situation. The conflicts and confrontations over the revival of the
defense industry and demands for arms transfers that occurred during the Cold
War have continued to have a strong influence on Japan-U.S. relations and thenature of Japan’s national security policy to the present day. This paper analyzes
the above issues in light of the controversy over the theory of self-defense and
the Japan-U.S. alliance.

1. Introduction: Problem-Setting and Previous Studies(1) Assignment of tasks
The Korean War, which began on June 25, 1950, forced the United States to change its
military strategy during the Cold War. The new strategy was to move away from the‘forward base strategy’, which was based on deploying forces in areas close to the Soviet
Union, to a new strategy of dispersing forces to surrounding areas at a certain distancefrom the point of force projection. It would reduce the deployment of forces in areas whereconflicts were expected to erupt and, as an alternative, encourage the establishment of adefence community between Japan and South Korea in the Asian region. As a result, theU.S. would counter the Soviet threat, especially to Japan. Moreover, it would force Japanto rearm in accordance with the Mutual Security Act (MSA).
The U.S. lent Japan its surplus weapons after World War II in the hopes that Japan would
become self-reliant in its defence, as well as continue and develop defence production
through the MSA. It also made Japan’s rearmament inevitable. At first, both the Supreme
Commander Douglas MacArthur of the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers (GHQ)and the Cabinet of Shigeru Yoshida were reluctant to rearm Japan. However, proposals* Researcher, Emeritus Professor, Institute for the History of Global Arms Transfer, Meiji University

109

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
from the private sector led by businessmen with high hopes for the defence industry were
pioneering; public organisations, such as the National Security Agency, the Economic
Council and the Ministry of Finance, also submitted proposals for rearmament. In the midstof these developments, there was a heated debate among political parties in Japan over the
scale of rearmament and the nature of defence production.
The gap between Japan’s intention to extract special economic demands through the MSA
agreement and the U.S.’ desire to strengthen Japan’s self-defence capabilities became
apparent. In other words, the Yoshida cabinet’s attitude of struggling to respond to themutually contradictory demands for self-reliance and alliance came to the fore.
This paper will first examine how Japan’s defence production during the Cold War
responded to the conflicts and contradictions over independence and alliances. Second, it
will point out that the supposedly contradictory interrelationship between independence
and alliances has been deeply inherent in the foundation of the Japanese defence industry
and policy from the end of the Cold War to the present. Third, the reality of such conflicts
and contradictions has not been fully recognised or overcome even today. Fourth, theseconflicts and contradictions remain unrecognised and unresolved to this day, which is why
the defence industry and policy have fallen into a semi-independent state, far from being
self-reliant.
(2) Previous studies
Due to paper length limitations, I would like to highlight only two papers. The first is
Minoru Sawai’s ‘From Special Demand Production to Defense Production: The Case of
Osaka Prefecture’.1 In the postwar period, Japan’s economy was more inclined towards
special demand production (initially called ‘separate demand’) during the Korean War.
However, after determining that it could not expect to expand military production due tothe extraterritorial procurement of the U.S. forces under the MSA agreement, the economy
did not overly lean towards the defence industry; instead, it focused its efforts on enhancing
civilian production. Based on the common theory that the result was high economic growth,
Sawai states that ‘taking on weapons production in the late 1950s caused great social
friction’.2 He also underscores that while weapons production was considered taboo insociety, the entrepreneurs who sought to produce weapons had a deep interest in and acertain ideology of national defence. The words and actions of these entrepreneurs suggest
the existence of a certain ideology and a deep interest in national defence among thoseentrepreneurs who sought to produce weapons. Although it is undeniable that militarydemand, i.e. the defence industry, was declining in proportion to the development ofcivilian demand, we point out that there was strong support from MITI), the Defence
Agency and the Keidanren Committee on Defence Production.3
Thus, Sawai does not give credence to the common belief that the Japanese economy as awhole will re-transform from military to civilian production and enter an era of full-fledged
1 Sawai [2018].
2 Sawai [2018], p. 58.
3 In this connection, Sawai states, ‘Behind the decision not to let go of defense production was not only the

judgment of management, which considers defense production as the basis of the nation, but also the Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry, which has jurisdiction over defense production companies and calls forcooperation in strengthening defense capabilities while preventing bleeding orders, the Defense Agency, which is
the user of defense equipment, and the Keidanren Defense Production Committee, which has strong It is
imagined that there was strong lobbying by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, which has
jurisdiction over defense production companies, the Defense Agency, which is the user of defense equipment,
and the Keidanren Defense Production Committee’ (Sawai [2018] p. 59).

110

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
rapid economic growth.4 He emphasises that attention should be given to the fact that thedefence industry will surely take root in the Japanese economy even in the midst of rapid
economic growth. Several things cannot be seen from an understanding of the actual stateof the economy on a quantitative level, and we agree with this point. The defence industry
should be viewed not from a quantitative perspective but from a qualitative one, focusing
on its potential and possibilities.
Next, Yoshio Asai’s ‘Special Demand in the 1950s s’5 in the ‘Ⅳ Japan-U.S. Economic
Cooperation Concept’ traces in detail the fact that under the name of ‘Japan-U.S. Economic
Cooperation’, strategies were skilfully devised and implemented from around the outbreakof the Korean War to extract Japanese munitions production capacity for the benefit of the
U.S. It also argues that there was a clear difference among the various forces in Japan interms of their response to these strategies. Asai also postulates that there was a clear
difference between the various forces in Japan over how to respond to this situation. Asai
details the process by which the revival and utilisation of Japan’s munitions industry led toprospects for the development of Japan’s civilian munitions industry and Japan’s role as abulwark nation for the U.S. in both economic and military terms.
The above paper is in the category of economic history. Thus, it is essential to analyse the‘Japan-U.S. Economic Cooperation’ and Japan’s ‘industrial mobilisation’ at the economic
level, as presented in the Asai paper, as well as at the military level, that is, to mention theextent to which the security environment surrounding Japan during the Cold War wasaffected by the U.S. military’s actions. It has already become a clear historical fact thatJapan’s rearmament was forced in response to the U.S.’ intentions. In the context of thishistorical fact, it is necessary to discuss the issue from political and military perspectives
because it is no exaggeration to say that in Cold War-era Japan, the military determined theeconomy.
(3) Definitions of terms: ‘self-defence’ and ‘independent defence’If self-defence is conditioned on the compatibility of unilateral defence intentions andcapabilities, then it seriously lacks validity as a practical matter. This is because, from thestandpoint of economic and military rationality, it does not seem to make much sense tofortify the nation with equipment of its own manufacture. Citing Kwon Tae-young’s article‘Our Country’s Self-Reliance Defence Efforts and the Direction of Advanced National
Defence in the 21st Century’, 6 Chung Kyung-aw distinguishes between ‘self-reliance’
defence, which excludes outside interference, and ‘independence’ defence, in which thenation does not depend on outside forces but rather on its own capabilities.7 7However, as
military technology continues to evolve, it is now largely impossible for a single country to
carry out either self-reliance or independent defence on its own. Therefore, it is highly
doubtful how much meaning there is in this distinction.
In South Korea under the Park Chung-hee administration and Taiwan under the ChiangKai-shek and Ching-kuo administrations, ‘self-defence’ was repeatedly emphasised in theirpolicies, but only to the extent that they mentioned the rate of domestic production offrontline equipment. It is often possible to emphasise the independence and autonomy of anation or administration by estimating its dependence on the U.S. at a low level. The terms‘independence’ and ‘originality’ are nothing more than a kind of propaganda. From there,
4 Sawai [2018], p.41.
5 Asai[2003a]
6 Korean Association for International Politics [1997].
7 See Zheng[2015],p.70.

111

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
the only forceful terminology is eclectic coinage, such as ‘semi-autonomy’, ‘semiindependence’ and ‘semi-dependence’, but even this terminology remains ambiguous.
Japan’s security policy has been consistently dependent on the U.S. since the end of WorldWar II, and this excessive dependence is now merely replaced by the terms ‘joint’ and‘alliance’. I dare say it is dependence and subordination in the name of alliance.
Another distinction between the military and defence industries is the use of the term
‘munitions industry’ in this report, which refers to the prewar and postwar periods as thedefence industry.

2. Dismantling the Munitions Industry and Military Spending(1) Dismantling process of the military industrial industry
After the defeat of Japan, GHQ issued a series of orders to dismantle and convert stateowned and private munitions factories. On 22 September 1945, an order was implemented
banning the production of weapons and aircraft (GHQ Directive No. 1), as well as an orderfor former munitions companies to submit civilian munitions development plans (GHQDirective No. 2). Furthermore, on 15 October of the same year, military institutions wereabolished (General Staff Headquarters, the Army and Navy academies, and others). The
dismantling of the military arsenals consisted mainly of a total of 100 plants (50 Army, 46
Navy and the Army and Navy Research Institute) and a total of 46 plants in the eight Armyarsenals (Tokyo No. 1, Tokyo No. 2, Sagami, Nagoya, Osaka, Kokura, Incheon and South
Manchuria), along with the fuel headquarters, transportation department, clothing depot,
medical material depot, veterinary material depot, military stores and various researchlaboratories. Meanwhile, the Navy dismantled four arsenals. The Navy had four arsenals(Yokosuka, Kure, Sasebo, Maizuru), a machine shop, a gunpowder plant, ten air arsenals,
six fuel plants (Yokkaichi, Tokuyama, Iwakuni, Yokohama and others), three technicalministries, two medical supply plants and a technical research institute.
The Yokosuka Arsenal was converted into a base facility for the U.S. Navy, and otherfacilities were developed as private shipyards. For example, Kure Arsenal became Harima
Shipbuilding Kure Dockyard, Sasebo Arsenal became the Sasebo Shipbuilding Industry,
Maizuru Arsenal became Iino Sangyo Maizuru Plant, and so on. In addition, aircraft
manufacturing companies were banned from production and research altogether, andairframe factories were converted from military to civilian production plants for producing
passenger cars, freight cars and train bodies. More than 600,000 units of machine tools
were used for compensation, reducing the total number owned to 175,000 units;
approximately 5 million tons of blast furnaces 3 million tons of electric furnaces, 6 million
tons of flat furnaces and 6 million tons of rolling mills were removed.8
By August 1948, 16,736 pieces of machine tools from the Army and Navy arsenals in 17
locations throughout Japan had been transferred as compensation in kind. In parallel, allweapons and production materials under the control of the Army were transferred to the
Allied Forces. The buildings and various production facilities of the Army arsenal, valued
at 1.3 billion yen as fixed assets, were turned over to the Allied Forces. Navy vessels,
weapons and production facilities were likewise destroyed. A portion of these will be used
for compensation, and a portion will be converted for the peace industry.
The above are examples of the dismantling and destruction of state-run military arsenals,
8 Koyama [1972], pp. 334–335. See also, e.g., Toyo Keizai Shinposha [1950] Cohen [1950].

112

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
but the civilian munitions facilities that had greatly supported the munitions industry were
uprooted in November 1946 with the Final Report on Compensation (commonly known as
the Pauley Plan). However, in March 1947, the year after the Pauley Proposal waspresented, the Truman Doctrine was announced in the midst of the emerging Cold War
between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. This led to a revision of Japan’s prewar policy ofdismantling its munitions industry.
During this period, the Tetsu Katayama Cabinet enacted the ‘Law for Eliminating
Excessive Concentration of Economic Power’ (Law No. 207) on 18 December 1947, which
resulted in the June 1949 reorganisation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the top company
in the prewar Japanese munitions industry, into East Japan Heavy Industries (later
Mitsubishi Nippon Heavy Industries), Central Japan Heavy Industries (later New
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), West Japan Heavy Industries (later Mitsubishi Shipbuilding
and then New Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) and West Japan Heavy Industries (later
Mitsubishi Shipbuilding). The dismantling of the munitions industry was part of the GHQled policy of ‘democratisation’ of Japan. However, the brakes were applied to this moveafter the Truman Doctrine.
When the Korean War begins, Japan will assume the role of a U.S. military supply base.
This was the start of the postwar defence industry. The postwar defence industry was to bebooming, covering a broad range of industries, ranging from those that could be producedwith relatively low-cost technology, such as jute bags for sandbags, military uniforms,
cement, barbed wire and fuel tanks, to aircraft repair, bomb manufacture and tank andarmoured vehicle repair. The U.S. government’s extraterritorial procurement, or the socalled ‘special procurement’, amounted to $10 billion (360 billion yen) over a three-year
period when the government budget was around 1 trillion yen. If domestic consumption by
U.S. soldiers in Japan (so-called ‘indirect special procurement’) is added, the amount isestimated to have reached $30 billion (about 1 trillion yen).
(2) Commencement of arms lending and MSA agreements
Japan, which was prohibited from manufacturing, importing or exporting weapons, began
de facto arms imports in the form of U.S. military assistance in the form of weapons to be
deployed in the Police Reserve Corps that was established. On 8 July 1950, GHQ Supreme
Commander Douglas MacArthur issued a letter ordering the creation of a 75,000-member
National Police Reserve Corps and the increase of the Japan Coast Guard from 8,000
personnel.
Following the Police Reserve Corps, Patrol Frigates (PFs) and Landing Support Ships(LSSLs) were provided free of charge to the Coast Guard, which was established in 1952,
followed by the signing of the ‘Japan-U.S. Vessel Lending Agreement’ in November 1952
and the ‘Japan-U.S. Naval Vessel Lending Agreement’ in May 1954, respectively, in which
the former provided 18 PFs and 50 LSSLs and the latter provided 14 destroyers and otherlarge vessels. On 28 April 1952, the former Japan-U.S. Security Treaty came into effect,
creating the so-called ‘path of arms’ between the two countries.
Specifically, the MSA law was applied to Japan (and North Atlantic Treaty Organization
countries). According to the ‘Vandenberg Resolution’ (U.S. Senate, June 1948), ‘The
United States will participate in regional and collective defence agreements affecting its
national security’. Such agreements shall be based on the principle of ‘continuous andeffective self-help and mutual assistance’. The purpose of the MSA Act was to ‘strengthen
the mutual security and individual and collective self-defence of the free world’ and113

ATSUSHI KOKETSU‘develop the resources of friendly nations for the national interests of the United States, forthe security and independence of its friends’. It confirmed Japan’s determination to fulfil
its military obligations under the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, while the U.S. side confirmedin the text that Japan would ‘contribute to the development of its own defence capabilities
and the development and maintenance of the defence capabilities of the free world’ (Article
8 of the MSA Act).9 Furthermore, following the start of the grant aid, the Defence Secrets
Protection Law was enacted (1954), which established penalties of up to 10 years in prison
for those who detected, collected or leaked secrets.
Thus, ‘financial support for Japan’s defence industry was entrusted to the U.S. under the
MSA agreement concluded in 1954. Between 1954 and 1967, Japan received military
assistance amounting to 576 billion yen. This amount accounted for 27% of total equipment
purchases during the same period, and this value reached 58% by 1957 alone’.10 As pointed
out, the MSA agreement at least allowed the Japanese defence industry during the Cold
War to develop based on the will and requests of the U.S.
(3) The inside story of the U.S.’ economic and military assistance to JapanThe U.S. envisioned an increase in economic and military aid to prevent the Korean War
and the subsequent penetration of communism into Southeast Asia. According to Yoshio
Asai, the gist of the ‘Japan-U.S. Economic Cooperation’ was, first, to mobilise Japan’s
industrial production capacity to supplement the U.S. military mobilisation system; second,
to help Japan gain access to the Southeast Asian market; and third, to support Japan’s
economic independence by indirectly procuring reconstruction aid supplies for Korea fromJapan. The three points are summarised in the following article.11In other words, the U.S.
was using the special procurement from Korea as leverage to encourage Japan’s economic
recovery and self-reliance while simultaneously planning industrial mobilisation and therevitalisation of the defence industry.
This U.S. plan diverged from the stance of Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who was also
a light-armaments activist. However, Yoshida, who was also a realist, judged that, apartfrom the ostensible theory of light armaments, accommodating the U.S. intentions would
strengthen Japan-U.S. relations, counter communism and ensure economic expansion into
Southeast Asia.
The ‘Data on U.S.-Japan Economic Cooperation’ dated 3 April 1951 and prepared by the
Economic Stability Headquarters, which was the general manager of economic policy in
the Japanese Government, stated, ‘In order to maintain a rational and smooth circulation of
the national economy, it is necessary to coordinate domestic and foreign demand, and thefollowing measures should be taken. (1) The Government of Japan should be fully informedof the details of the items, quantity, duration, etc., of the goods expected from Japan. (2)Establish a reasonable mechanism and method of ordering and receiving orders for
expected goods from Japan’.12
In short, the Japanese government was strongly aware that the Korean War had createdspecial procurement demand for Japan, and that actively responding to the U.S.’ requests
would be an effective means of economic recovery. In the end, the U.S. agreed to Dulles’
9 Appendix A of the MSA Act states, ‘The development of the defense capabilities of Japan should besignificantly facilitated if the United States Government would consider assisting in financing the various
industries of defense production in Japan’.
10 Parler[2010]p.118.
11 Asai[2003b],p.123.
12 Material on U.S.-Japan Economic Cooperation (Economic Stability Division)” prepared by General Affairs
Division, Ministry of Finance (Center for Asian Historical Records, Rec. A19110145600)

114

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
demands on Japan.
As Dulles stated on 18 January of the same year, the purpose of his visit to Japan was toincorporate Japan into the U.S. wartime mobilisation system and expect Japan’s defence
production capabilities to play a complementary role. He said, ‘In order to have Japan
actively cooperate with the free world, the United States must commit itself militarily andeconomically to Japan’.13 In particular, after the Korean War, Japan’s defence production
capacity and munitions were given increasingly greater weight in military assistance toSoutheast Asia. However, unlike the Yoshida administration and the Japanese business
community, which were active in strengthening Japan-U.S. relations, the Ministry of
Finance was not necessarily positive about the unconditional Japan-U.S. Economic
Cooperation at a stage when sufficient prospects for economic recovery were not yet
available.14(4) Emergence and consequences of the rearmament proposal
Even before the outbreak of the Korean War, rearmament proposals were initially presented
on a civilian basis. In March 1953, in addition to the ‘Tentative Proposal on Defence ForceDevelopment’ by the Keidanren and the Defence Production Committee of the Economic
Cooperation Roundtable and the ‘Economic Study of Japanese Rearmament’ by the
National Economic Research Association, three concrete rearmament proposals were
proposed: the Security Agency proposal, the Economic Council proposal and the Finance
Ministry proposal. The three proposals were suggested as concrete rearmament
proposals.15The reason for this was the need to set a more reasonable and realistic figurethat took into account the size of Japan’s economic power and military aid provided by the
MSA.
The problem was the economic strength to support the set figures. In other words, nomatter which rearmament plan was adopted, the question was how to secure financial
resources and how much of a burden it would be on the Japanese economy, which was stillin the process of reconstruction. It has been pointed out that the above three proposals ‘aresaid to have been prepared with the aim of covering the annual defence expenditures within
the framework of the natural increase in national income each year, with the shortfall
expected to be covered by U.S. assistance, so as not to devalue the national lifestyle’.16
In particular, in all three proposals, the amount of Japanese defence spending and MSA
military assistance funds were roughly equal, and Japan’s rearmament expenditures wereroughly split 50-50 between Japan and the U.S. At the same time, the total amount ofmilitary spending as a percentage of national income was kept in the range of 2% to a
maximum of 5.5% over the five-year period from 1954 to 1958.17
Even if U.S. military assistance is provided for the time being under the MAS agreement,
13 Igarashi[1995],p.229.
14 See, for example, ‘Documents on Japan’s Economic Cooperation’, prepared by the General Affairs Division,

Minister’s Secretariat of Finance (Economic Stability Headquarters). The same document is in the collection of
the Center for Contemporary Asian History (Ref. A1911014550).
15 There are numerous previous studies on the rearmament issue, but I will cite Masuda [1999] here.
16 Economic Affairs Department, Financial Division, ‘The Economic Burden of Japan’s Rearmament’, in
Reference No. 36, February 1954, p. 34, edited by the Research and Legislative Examination Bureau, National
Diet Library.
17 The three proposed military budgets in 1954 were as follows: the NISA proposal for 118 billion yen forJapanese military spending and 108 billion yen for U.S. MSA aid, for a total of 226 billion yen; the Economic
Council proposal for the same, 1038 yen and 80.1 billion yen, for a total of 183.7 billion yen; and the Daisho
proposal, 76.4 billion yen and 54 billion yen, for a total of 130.4 billion yen (see ibid., Reference No. 36, Table 2
ロ, p. 32).

115

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
once Japan decides to rearm, capital investment in response to the development of militarytechnology will become indispensable, and growth in defence expenditures will be
inevitable. This would inevitably place a burden on the Japanese economy, which was in
the process of reconstruction soon after the war. Therefore, it was predicted that Japan
would become increasingly dependent on the U.S. to equip its police reserve forces,
security forces and even the Self-Defence Forces. Indeed, ‘Japan’s defence forces would
become the “metabolism” of U.S. weapons, and in that sense, a loss of autonomy’ (bypass
marks are in quotations). The judgment of the Finance Division of the Ministry of
Economy18was right on the mark.
(5) Conflict over the MSA agreement
The MSA is shifting from support for Europe to support for Asian countries from theviewpoint of military strategy to check and deter the Soviet Union and China. In Japan,
there will be a fierce debate between those who want to take advantage of the U.S. strategy
of focusing on Asia and find ways to increase defence production and defence capabilities
and those who believe that Japan should choose the path of economic development byenhancing trade relations, especially with China, while improving relations with the Soviet
Union and China.19
The fierce debate between Shigeru Yoshida’s Cabinet and the Socialist Party over theinterpretation of the MSA was a complex issue of security in Japan during the Cold War.
As already noted, Prime Minister Yoshida, while accepting the intentions and requests of
the U.S., tried to keep the strengthening of defence forces to a minimum and prioritise
economic development as much as possible. However, the policy debate was muddled by
the expectations of the defence industry, which was eager to use the MSA agreement asleverage to get Japan’s defence industry off the ground.
Regarding the MSA agreement, Government Commissioner Ueki Koukoro (Parliamentary
Vice Minister of Finance) had a positive outlook: ‘I think the first point that MSA
assistance will have a positive impact on the Japanese economy is that it will reduce theburden of national expenditures required for the implementation of Japan’s defence
programmes. Secondly, the cooperation in economic measures will provide us with a gift of$10 million, which is necessary to contribute to the enhancement of our country’s industrial
and other economic strengths’.20
Ueki’s remarks summed up the Yoshida Cabinet’s view of the government’s insistencethat the MSA was a highly beneficial agreement for Japan, including the reduction ofJapan’s defence burden through the assistance of the U.S. and other countries, theenhancement to the Japanese economy, the yen purchase of wheat imports and theconvenience in the introduction of foreign capital.
However, the aid by the MSA consisted of military assistance and economic and technicalassistance (mutual defence financing, defence support assistance, economic and technicalassistance, technical assistance and others). ‘The U.S. fiscal year 1954 budget was roughly
70% military assistance, defence support assistance (economic assistance to the military
18 Economic Affairs Department, Financial Division, ‘The Economic Burden of Japan’s Rearmament’, in
Reference No. 36, February 1954, p. 34, edited by the Research and Legislative Examination Bureau, National
Diet Library.
19 For more information on the actual state of arms expansion plans in Europe and the issue of MSA aid, see
Masao Fujii’s ‘Western European Military Expansion Plans and U.S. MSA Aid’ (Reference No. 31, 1953) andMichizo Yamakoshi’s ‘West German Rearmament and Financial, Economic, and Human Resources’ (Reference
No. 53, June 1955)
20 Official Gazette Extra No. 19, Proceedings of the House of Councillors, No. 21, March 19, 1954, p. 299.

116

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
industry), technical assistance and others at 10%’.21 As noted, it is fair to say that it was a
military aid itself. 22
Opposition parties led by the Socialist Party of Japan increasingly criticised the Yoshidacabinet on the grounds that the MSA agreement would lock in a subordinate relationshipwith the U.S. and make rearmament inevitable and that the defence industry could growalongside it. In particular, the General Council of Trade Unions of Japan (formed in 1950),
a labour union supporting the Socialist Party, launched a campaign in various regions
against the MSA agreement, claiming that it would spur the militarisation of Japan. Prime
Minister Shigeru Yoshida responded to these movements by stating, ‘Regarding the MSA
issue, we did not agree to the MSA because of pressure from the United States but as aresult of discussions between the United States, which requested and hoped for the MSA,
and Japan, which also requested and hoped for the MSA. It was concluded, and it was notconcluded under the command and order of the United States government. I believe that
the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already explained this to you’. 23
The gap in perception between the U.S. and Japan over the MSA agreement wasimmense. The U.S. expected Japan to take the initiative in this agreement to expand its
defence capabilities and play a pivotal role in the U.S. military strategy against China andthe Soviet Union in East Asia. Therefore, in August 1953, when it became evident that the
Yoshida Cabinet was not serious about expanding its defence capabilities, U.S. Secretary
Dulles and other high-ranking officials were dispatched to Japan to press for the expansionof Japan’s defence capabilities. In fact, Secretary Dulles and others ‘expressed
dissatisfaction with Japan’s defence efforts, and as the MSA negotiations progressed, it
became increasingly clear that the real heart of the negotiations lay in Japan’s defencebuildup plan, which should be commensurate with the U.S. military assistance’.24
In light of this situation, it was Japanese Socialist Party member Yoshihachiro Kimura
who most sharply attacked the explanations of Prime Minister Yoshida and Yoshida’s
cabinet ministers. Mr. Kimura argued, ‘As for the self-reliance of the Japanese economy, itcannot become truly self-reliant if it continues to depend on special procurement’. 25
Kimura insisted that ‘Japan’s economy cannot truly become self-reliant if it continues todepend on special procurement’. In particular, Kimura recognised that the MSA agreement
would lead to an acceptance of Japan’s dependency on the U.S. and that the ongoing
rearmament would lead to excessive government investment in the defence industry, which
would put a brake on Japan’s economic independence.
Similarly, in connection with the MSA agreement, Sukeharu Soma of the Japan Socialist
Party asked, ‘What kind of future subsidies are intended for heavy weapons, aircraft, naval
vessels and other such items, not just orders as in the past, to promote these industries? The
government itself intends to promote these industries by subsidising heavy weapons,aircraft, naval vessels and others in the future. 26 In response to this question, Minister ofFinance Ogasawara Sankuro responded, ‘The government itself intends to promote theseindustries. For example, even if we were to direct the defence industry, since we have theso-called Security Forces in Japan, of course, we would not be able to receive or borrow all
21 Ishii [2003], p. 179.
22 In fact, in terms of the economic history of Japan during the period in question, Nakamura [1982] states that

‘this was the period in Japan’s postwar history of more than 30 years in which the country was most inclined
towards rearmament and military production’.
23 The 19th Budget Committee Minutes of the House of Councillors, No. 26, April 22, 1954, p. 4.
24 Nihon no Bouei [Defense of Japan], Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1958, p. 39.
25 The 19th Budget Committee Minutes of the House of Councillors, No. 26, April 22, 1954, p. 11.
26 Ibid, No. 27, April 23, 1954, p. 9.

117

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
of these weapons and other items that we use from them. Even if we were to build what wehave now, it is likely that there would be a considerable amount of money needed for
security forces’ other items’. 27
While pointing out the possibility that the economic independence stipulated in the MSA
agreement will eventually result in overinvestment in the defence industry, he says that thisis to be limited to the enhancement of the defence industry, which secures equipment forthe security forces, to avoid pressure on other civilian demand industries. This is where thecontradiction between the two policies of economic independence and enhancement of the
defence industry becomes a point of contention between Yoshida’s cabinet and the
opposition parties in relation to the MSA agreement. Even though the government steered
the economy away from dependence on special procurement for the purpose of economic
independence, as long as the MSA agreement existed, the quality of the independent
economy and the direction of the defence industry would ultimately have to proceed under
the will of the U.S. In short, the opposition parties are unanimous in their view that there islittle possibility of resulting in an independent economy. From this, it is clear that both the
Yoshida cabinet and the opposition parties were fundamentally aware of the structuraldifficulty of reconciling the U.S.’ military assistance with Japan’s self-reliant economy.
The issue of weapon exportation was proposed as a way to resolve this contradiction.
From the opposition side, Kimura Yoshihachiro makes the following noteworthy statementon this point: ‘In relation to Japan’s defence production in the future, you said that you
would foster the production of weapons to be supplied to Japan’s security forces, but in thecurrent situation in Japan, when fostering weapons production, it is not possible for abusiness unit to meet the demand of the Japanese security forces alone. The company as aunit cannot be established unless it is based on the premise of the so-called extraterritorialloans and exports of weapons. In this way, an economy dependent on special procurement
cannot be allowed to continue. Therefore, the production of weapons is immediately
dependent on special procurement demand. This is inconsistent with the independence of
the Japanese economy’ (quoted in parentheses). 28
For economic independence and the expansion of the defence industry to proceed without
contradiction, he was proposing an arms export method that would seek orders for weapons
production from overseas, outside of the MSA), as a precondition for the defence industry
to develop on its own. Councillor Kimura pointed out that the domestic market is not
sufficient for the defence industry to be established as a sustainable industry, and the only
way is to seek sales channels overseas. This is not an active endorsement of arms exports
by Mr. Kimura but rather a judgment that the only way to achieve both economic
independence and a defence industry is through arms exports.
The reality of the orientation towards arms exports to ensure the sustainability of the
defence industry can be seen in similar examples in the prewar Japanese munitionsindustry. 29 It is inevitable for the expansion of any industry, not only the munitionsindustry, to seek markets and sales channels not only domestically but also abroad. Similar
issues were actively discussed in the Diet during the postwar reconstruction of the Japanese
defence industry.
Furthermore, Mr. Kimura disagreed with the government’s response to Prime Minister
Yoshida and Mr. Kiichi Aichi and went on to make the following statement: ‘If we were tofinance the arms industry, as the Keidanren has clearly stated, it would be difficult to27 Ibid.
28 The 19th Budget Committee Minutes of the House of Councillors, No. 28, April 24, 1954, p. 7.
29 See KOKETSU [2018] and KOKETSU [2019] for such prewar examples.

118

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
develop such an arms industry in Japan because the demand from the Japanese SelfDefence Forces alone is too large for an industrial unit. In the end, the larger the economic
unit, the more unprofitable it will be, and so the export of weapons to Taiwan, Korea andother areas in Southeast Asia will be a prerequisite’.30 In the end, it will be based on theexport of weapons to Taiwan, Korea and other Southeast Asian countries.
One of the reasons given by the opposition party members, including Mr. Kimura, fortheir criticism of the government was that the defence industry is positioned as an obstacle
to economic independence and that the only way to ensure the sustainability of the defence
industry is to seek overseas sales channels for the defence industry. This would lead toJapan’s participation in the Pacific Alliance Organization (PACO), as Senator Kimurastated, which would undermine the pacifist goals of postwar Japan and force Japan toparticipate in the U.S.-centred collective self-defence system.
Around the time of the creation of the Self-Defence Forces across the Security Forces,
there was suddenly a lively debate, mainly in the Diet, over the state of Japan’s defence
industry. This debate highlighted that Japan’s policy of rearmament through the creation of
the Self-Defence Forces was determined through its approach to the MSA agreement,
which guarantees U.S. military support. At the same time, the expansion of Japan’s defence
industry was discussed over the equipment of the Self-Defence Forces.
To ensure the sustainability of the defence industry, there is a prevailing view that entry
into the U.S.-centred collective self-defence system is inevitable while also making the
expansion of the defence industry conditional on arms exports, in addition to dependenceon military assistance from the U.S. The Yoshida cabinet, which seeks the independent
development of Japan’s economy through the concept of light armaments, scrambles topromote a policy that avoids domestic and international criticism of Japan’s military
superpower status by placing a certain degree of restraint on the defence industry.

3. Conflicts Between the Theory of Self-Defence and the Theory of theJapan-U.S. Alliance: The Ambiguous Choice Between Independence andSubordination(1) Inauguration and activities of the Defence Production Committee
In addition to the Diet debates, we would like to review the stance of the defence industry,
led by the Defence Production Board, towards new policy developments, such as
rearmament, the defence industry and arms exports. This review will confirm the reality of
the Japanese government’s ambiguous choice between the theory of independent defence,
which emerged in the process of Japan’s rearmament, and the theory of alliance, which isessentially dependent and subordinate to the U.S. 31
The Japan-U.S. Economic Partnership Roundtable, which had been established on 13
August 1952 to facilitate U.S.-Japan economic relations, was divided into threecommittees: the General Policy Committee, the Asian Reconstruction and Development
Committee and the Defence Production Committee, which, for the time being, would focus
30 30) The 19th Budget Committee Meeting of the House of Councillors, No. 26, April 22, 1934, p. 11.
31 John Palmer, in his article ‘The Future of Japan’s Defense Industry’ points out four unique characteristics of

the Japanese defense industry: ‘First, the ambiguity of the public’s attitude toward defense; second, the attitudeof maximising domestic production (inclination toward domestic production); third, the ban on exports; andfinally, the principle of limiting defense spending to 1% of GDP. The third is a ban on exports, and the last is theprinciple of limiting defense spending to 1% of GDP, a principle with unclear grounds’ (Palmer [2020], p. 116).

119

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
on the activities of the Defence Production Committee while receiving economic andmilitary support from the U.S. 32
The Defence Production Committee began its activities in the order of preparation forarms production activities centring on special procurement from the U.S. military, theJapanese business community’s response to the issue of concluding the MSA agreement
and the establishment of a defence production stance in connection with the policy ofequipment expansion for the Self-Defence Forces. At the time of its establishment, the‘Urgent Request Opinions on the Utilisation of National Munitions Industry and Other
Facilities’ (28 October 1952), the ‘Request Opinions on the Service Life of Aircraft andWeapons Manufacturing Equipment’ (27 February; 5 March; 27 March 1952) and the‘Request Opinions on Securing Working Capital for Special Weapons’ (6 October 1953)
were successively published.
Earlier, Keidanren had prepared a resolution for its 8th General Meeting entitled ‘Our
Preparedness for Rejoining the International Community’. The resolution called forJapan-U.S. economic partnership and integration, the U.S.’ utilisation of Japan’s industrial
strength for the security of Far East Asia and U.S.’ understanding of Japan’s efforts toachieve early economic independence.33
How did the U.S. position the MSA agreement in the first place? The following is a quotefrom U.S. Secretary of State Dulles, who played an important role in the agreement madeon 6 May 1953 before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs.
‘Japan’s future is closely tied to the future of the United States. Japan is a reliable ally,
but its economic situation is extremely unstable. Japan wants to develop trade with
Southeast Asia, the breadbasket of Asia, and needs Southeast Asian oil, iron ore and otherraw materials. Therefore, if Southeast Asia were to fall under communist rule, Japan’s
future would be extremely precarious’34.
In short, the MSA was positioned as part of the U.S. anti-communist bulwark-building
effort by providing economic and military support to Japan to stop the spread ofcommunism into Southeast Asia. This is nothing new; however, the Yoshida administration
was eager to interpret the MSA as a means of extracting economic aid from Japan.
Therefore, it did not show any sympathy for the U.S.’ military strategy.
Due in part to this attitude of Yoshida's cabinet, the Defence Production Committee
positively evaluated the MSA. The committee also developed a variety of activities toextract funds for defence production from the MSA. As a typical example, the Defence
Production Committee drafted a ‘Statement of Opinion on the Acceptance of MSA
Assistance’ (5th Defence Production Committee Meeting). Thereafter, the ‘General Request
Opinion on Acceptance of MSA (Draft) 28, 7, 6 Keidanren Economic Cooperation
Roundtable Meeting’, dated 6 July 1953, was prepared under the name of the Keidanren
Cooperation Roundtable Meeting. A portion of the text there is quoted below.
‘We believe that for Japan, as a member of the free world, to truly prepare itself for the
future, it is necessary to take measures to increase its self-defence capabilities on its own
initiative, within the limits of political and economic conditions, and consider contributing
fully to the strengthening of the defence capabilities of the free world through its industrial
power. If the application of MSA assistance is based on Japan’s current situation and can
32 Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 7.
33 Ibid, p. 19.
34 Planning Division 2, Planning Department, Economic Affairs Council, ‘General conomy, General Economy,

1953–1954 (7)’ (in the collection of the Center for Contemporary Asian Materials, Ref. A18110493200 ‘1. U.S.
Views on MSA Aid to Japan’, Image p. 286).

120

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
contribute to the realisation and promotion of the right basic issues through such assistance,
we believe that Japan should not hesitate to accept it. If the application of MSA assistanceis based on Japan’s current situation, and if such assistance can contribute to the realisationand promotion of the basic issues mentioned above, we believe that we should not hesitate
to accept it at the earliest opportunity’.35 While the gap between the government andopposition over the interpretation of the MSA remained unresolved, the Defence Production
Board’s position would eventually lead to an eclectic discussion of independence anddependence on the U.S. Independence and dependence were to be marked by the terms‘coexistence’ and ‘alliance’ as Japan-U.S. relations deepened.
(2) Keidanren Defence Production Committee’s arms export theory and defence force
development proposal
The Defence Production Board is strongly oriented towards arms exports, with a view
towards Southeast Asia. During this period, a draft plan for defence force development was
submitted in a manner that embodied the intentions of the business community. In
particular, the ‘One Proposal on Defence Force Improvement’ (hereinafter referred to as the
Keidanren Proposal) submitted by the Defence Production Board was numerical proof thatthe business community of the time viewed rearmament and the defence industry as two
sides of the same coin.
The Keidanren’s proposal for the defence force after the maintenance plan from 1953 to1958 included 15 divisions on land (300,000 personnel), 292,000 tons at sea (70,000
personnel) and 3,750 aircraft (130,000 personnel).36 Of the total defence expenditure of
2.8943 trillion yen over the six-year period, 1.6252 trillion yen was paid by Japan and1.2691 trillion yen by the US. On the other hand, the ‘Economic Study of Japanese
Rearmament’, prepared by the National Economic Research Institute, set the defence force
after the same six-year plan at seven land divisions (175,000 personnel), 220,000 tons atsea (35,000,000 personnel) and 1,200 aircraft (28,000 personnel), with total defence
expenditures of 2.2653 trillion yen (2.5223 trillion yen required, defence contributions of
213 billion yen), defence spending limit of 1.4059 trillion yen and a shortfall equal to the
expected U.S. aid of 858.4 billion yen.37
Other rearmament plans, such as the NISA, the Keihin and the Daizo plans, have been
submitted at this point; however, Japan’s rearmament and defence force development plans
will be built based on the above two plans. While it is true that there are differences in thesize of the Army and Navy between the two plans, there is no significant difference in the
total cost over the six years. The problem is that the two plans relied on military assistancefrom the U.S. for about half of the total cost. This was because the U.S. expectations forJapan’s defence capability and the existence of the MSA agreement were decisive reasons.
At the same time, the expectations for the expansion of the defence industry, led by theJapanese Defence Production Board, was positioned as an extremely important industry in
the process of Japan’s economic recovery.
In this sense, the country’s orientation towards economic self-sufficiency led to increased
expectations for U.S. military spending support. In other words, economic independence
and military support emerged as two sides of the same coin. Self-reliance and subordination
35 Ibid, image pp. 299–300.
36 Economic Affairs Department, Financial Division, ‘The Economic Burden of Rearmament in Our Country’,

Reference No. 36, February 1954, p. 29, edited by the Research and Legislative Review Bureau of the Library ofCongress.
37 Ibid.

121

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
became one set of factors, and rearmament was initiated, followed by the development of
the defence force improvement plan. Although the discomfort between independence andsubordination manifested itself in the form of various protests, the military support by the
U.S. must have been linked to the development of the U.S. military strategy for East Asia.
At the same time, the Japanese business community actively tried to promote the path toeconomic independence by inviting military support.38(3) Defence industry putting pressure on the national economy
While expectations for the defence industry were rising, there were also concerns about the
opposing pressures on national life. Among them, the National Security Agency’s proposal
estimated that the ratio of national income to GDP would rise to 3.9% in 1954, 4.2% in
1955, 4.8% in 1956, 5.1% in 1957 and 5.5% in 1958. This was higher than the Keikin
proposal, which had corresponding figures of 3.1%, 3.7%, 4.1%, 4.1%, 4.1% and 4.1%,
and the Daisho proposal, which had 2.2%, 2.4%, 2.8%, 2.1% and 3.6%.39
As it became clear that the proposed NISA, which would put pressure on the national
economy, could undermine Japan’s greatest postwar challenge of economic independence,
the NISA proposal of 283,000 personnel in total for land, sea and air security forces was
not acceptable to the Yoshida Cabinet, which had a vision of light armaments. In thisrespect, the Defence Production Board’s desire to expand the defence industry and the
independence of the Japanese economy through the realisation of the light armaments
concept became the basic stance of the Yoshida cabinet. However, the Yoshida Cabinet did
not hold a stable seat in the Diet. Therefore, it was faced with the difficult task of accepting
the views of the Defence Production Board while striving for economic independence atthe same time. From this point on, Yoshida’s cabinet emphasised the MSA agreement as
economic assistance from the U.S. more than it actually was, thus avoiding criticism fromthe public and opposition forces.
This policy of contradicting the two principles of economic self-reliance and acceptanceof military assistance became the basic principle of Japanese conservative politics and theconservative system after the Yoshida administration. This became the reason for theambiguity of Japan’s defence policy.
Criticisms of the limits of economic self-reliance and the expansion of the defence
industry resulting from the MSA agreement have been active in the discourse. For example,
in an article titled ‘MSA Aid Demands a Life of Impoverishment’, Seijiro Usami, aprofessor at Hosei University, wrote, ‘The MSA is a military aid, unlike the Keidanren andthe government, which emphasised the economic aspect of the MSA and propagandised
and frightened the public by saying that the MSA was dollar income to replace special
demand and that rejecting it would destroy the Japanese economy. Unlike the Keidanren
and the government, which have been promoting and trying to scare the public into
believing that the MSA is a single-minded military aid package, it has become clear in thecourse of the negotiations that the MSA is a single-minded military aid package. In other
38 Incidentally, other than the above two proposals, the total defense cost of the NISA proposal (1954–1953)
was 1.496 trillion yen (956 billion yen for Japanese military spending and 540 billion yen for U.S. MSA
assistance). The total defense cost of the Keishin proposal was 1.2162 trillion yen (809 billion yen for theJapanese portion and 407.2 billion yen for the projected U.S. MSA assistance). The total defense cost of theDaisho proposal was 897 billion yen (627 billion yen for Japanese military spending and 270 billion yen for U.S.
MSA assistance). (Economic Affairs Department, Finance Division, ‘The Economic Burden of Wagakuni
Rearmament’, National Diet Library, Research and Legislative Review Bureau, Reference, No. 36, February
1954, p. 32).
39 Ibid.

122

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
words, the MSA is an assistance that the U.S. will send weapons and military advisors toJapan if it strengthens its defence capability (military equipment)’.40
Similar to Usami’s view, Inihachiro Kimura, who criticised the MSA agreement as amilitary aid in the Diet, wrote an article entitled, ‘The Transformation of Japan through theProgress of Defence Production’ in the ‘Defence Production’ Special Issue of the magazine
Chuokoron. He pointed out that Japan’s ‘defence production’ is a part of the U.S.’ strategy
against the Soviet Union, based on the name of collective security through cooperation
with the United Nations and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, and includes (a) the provisionof military supplies to the U.S. Far Eastern Command and the regular repair of its weapons,(b) Japan’s own rearmament and (c) the return of Asian countries to the U.S. Japan was
assigned the role of the so-called ‘arsenal of Asia’, supplying the weapons necessary tomobilise the Asian nations for the U.S. policy of turning the tide against the Soviet Union;
this role was necessarily subordinate to the U.S. operations against the Soviet Union.41
The MSA agreement spurred rearmament and the munitions industry and, at the sametime, clearly pointed out the possibility of Japan being incorporated into the U.S. military
strategy towards the Soviet Union. The Korean War had already demonstrated that Japan
had become the ‘arsenal of the U.S.’, and after the Korean War, Japan was a shoo-in as anarsenal to support the U.S.’ strategy against the Soviet Union.
The Japanese industry, which had quickly sensed the intentions of the U.S., took an evenstronger interest in munitions production. In particular, Kiyoshi Goko of Mitsubishi and
Ichiro Ishikawa of Showa Denko took the lead in deciding that the munitions industry
would act in unison. The Special Supplies Trading Companies Advisory Board of the
trading companies and the Weapons Production Advisory Board of the manufacturers
established close working relationships with the government’s Economic Deliberation
Agency (formerly the Economic Stability Headquarters, later the Economic Planning
Agency) and the U.S. Army Procurement Agency in Japan (JPA). The JPA established aclose working relationship with the government’s Economic Advisory Agency (formerly
the Economic Stability Board, later the Economic Planning Agency) and the JPA. The roleof these two groups, among others, was to ‘ensure that the most important concern at the
moment is to make the government determined to make progress on rearmament and gain
visibility into its own weapons production’.42 example, in October 1947, after Yoshinari
Kawai, who had been active in munitions production and arms exports, was appointed
president, Komatsu responded to the JPA’s first special arms procurement in June 1952 bybidding for a large quantity of shells (totalling 16 billion yen over the next several rounds).
In October 1952, the company made an unofficial offer to sell the Hirakata Works, an Army
Arsenal, to Komatsu. In October 1952, the company was offered the disposal of the
Hirakata Works of the Army Arsenal. In September 1953, Komatsu received a series oforders for the Kaita area of the former Hirakata Arsenal, and in October 1953, it received
orders for the Nakamiya and Nakamiya areas of the (former Army) Arsenal. In October
1953, Komatsu Manufacturing became a typical example of a company that was steadily
becoming a munitions company.43
40 Usami[1953],p.104.
41 Kimura[1953],p.91.
42 Hirai[1953],p.110.
43 43) From the chronology in Komatsu Seisakusho [1971]. Yoshinari Kawai, president of Komatsu Ltd., wasalso keenly interested in arms exports: ‘As far as ammunition is concerned, we are able to meet the demands ofSoutheast Asian countries in addition to satisfying our own defense needs in peacetime. ... We have no regrets
about engaging in this business, and we have created a huge export industry for Japan’ (Defense Production
Committee [1964], p. 83).

123

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
These moves were similar to those of other companies involved in heavy industries,
literally speaking of Japan’s pride as the ‘arsenal of Asia’ and the leading sector of theJapanese industry as a whole.44 However, the percentage of that defence industry to thetotal Japanese industry in terms of numbers was never significant. For example, ‘Japan’s
defence industry was of low relative importance from an economic standpoint. After theend of the Korean War, the production of defence equipment as a percentage of industrial
output declined from 1.2% in 1954 to 1.0% in 1955 to 0.5% in 1965. It has generally
remained at that level since then’.45 The report also pointed out that ‘the rate of return on
investment has been declining since then’. Critical discussions of the Keidanren’s proposal
were not infrequent. For example, economist Ryozo Takahashi, known as the author of‘Introduction to the Theory of Controlled Economy’ (Gakurinsha, 1950), criticised the‘Keidanren Draft’ in an essay entitled, ‘The Whole Picture of the “Defence Production”
Plan’ by highlighting four points.
The first was to strike a balance among the three forces. Second, it involves enormous
capital investment, which puts pressure on the peace industry. Third, only a small fractionof the equipment that has been built with such an unreasonable investment will operate atall. Fourth, subordination to the U.S. and British military capital will become inevitable’.46
While implicitly criticising the idea of creating the Self-Defence Forces as a receptacle
for the defence industry without a strategic theory by equipping the three Self-Defence
Forces, the author expresses his concern that excessive investment in the defence industry
will put pressure on civilian demand. He also cites that even excessive capital investment
will not be returned as corporate profits and, under the expectation that capital
accumulation will not progress, the defence industry will eventually become subordinatedto the Anglo-American military capital. In the end, it will continue the defence industry
through inflated capital investment.
Takahashi’s concerns have since become a real issue, spreading to many economists,
politicians and even entrepreneurs. It became not only an issue of Japan’s economic
independence but also a heated debate over how to build Japan’s defence system. 47

4. The Rise of Self-Defence and the Parallels Between Self-Defence and Light
Armaments: Japan’s Defence Policy During the Cold War(1) Conflict over the defence policy
The Yoshida Cabinet’s policy was basically to restrict capital investment in the defence
industry to prioritise the independence of the Japanese economy and equip the forthcoming
Self Defence Forces with as light equipment as possible. 48 It was also clear to all that
44 Indeed, one aspect of Japanese arms exports during the period in question is that ‘Japan exported 37mm
shells to Thailand in 1953, and other weapons were also exported to Burma, Taiwan, Brazil, South Vietnam,
Indonesia, and the United States, but not in large quantities. It has been noted that “the Japanese defense industry
concentrated on meeting the demands of the Self-Defense Forces and its growing defense industrial base”’(Palmer [2010], p. 119).
45 Sakuragawa[1995],p.125.
46 Kimura[1953],p.90.
47 Terasawa [1952] introduced Nabayama [1950a]; Nabayama [1950b]; Ashida [1950a]; Ashida [1950b];
Ashida [1951a] Ashida [1951b]; Ito [1951]; Akiyama [1951], etc.
48 There are a number of studies that have put forward the viewpoint that the rearmament theory of Shigeru
Yoshida, who consistently advocated the concept of light military forces from the rearmament process to thecreation of the Self-Defense Forces, is the ‘Yoshida Line’ and that this is a characteristic of Japan’s postwar
defense policy.

124

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
Japan’s defence policy during that period was dictated by the U.S. military strategy.
This issue was also discussed in the Diet debate. For example, Fukuzo Nakayama of the
Liberal Party said, ‘Assuming that a Pacific defence alliance of liberal nations is formed asa result of the MSA, there was considerable discussion in the House of Representatives
recently, and Director General Kimura of the National Security Agency said that he might
mobilise some of the troops to take a joint stand, but he would not deploy them to the front
lines. However, we will not deploy troops to the front lines but may cooperate internally’.
In response to this statement, Prime Minister Yoshida said, ‘We have not promised to
deploy troops overseas. We have no intention of participating in the Pacific Alliance, nor
do we have any such plans at this time’.49
What this meant was that he denied that Japan’s defence during the Cold War was definedby the U.S. and emphasised Japan’s self-defence policy. In Yoshida’s judgment, following
U.S. regulations would force the Self-Defence Forces to become heavily armed instead oflightly armed, and he developed the theory that excessive capital investment in the defence
industry was inevitable.
Prime Minister Yoshida also stated, ‘Regarding the MSA issue, we did not agree to the
MSA because of pressure from the U.S. but because the U.S. requested and hoped for it,
and Japan also requested and hoped for it. As a result of discussions, the MSA wasestablished. I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has explained this fully’. Indeed,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs had already explained this to the Socialist Party and others
who criticised his policy of subservience to the U.S.50
One serious point of contention that cannot be avoided when discussing defence policy is
its relationship with Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution. The government side has been atpains to explain this point. Although Ogata Taketora, Deputy Prime Minister of the Yoshida
Cabinet, argued that ‘the MSA arrangement does not add any military obligation and, inthat sense, I believe it is not a violation of the Constitution’, he was criticised by Soma
Sukenji of the Japan Socialist Party for saying that Article 8 clearly ‘reaffirms the decision
to fulfil military obligations under the Security Treaty. Article 8 clearly states, ‘We reaffirm
our determination to fulfil our military obligations under the Security Treaty. And bydetermination, I think this is generally intended to involve action’.51 This was rejected
outright.
From these exchanges, the question of how to explain the consistency between the
military and the Constitution, including Prime Minister Yoshida’s concept of lightarmaments, has been a consistent issue in Japan’s defence policy since the end of WorldWar II. It is for this reason that Japan’s defence policy has lacked consistency and has
repeatedly become an ambiguous policy issue for the ruling and opposition parties. This is
why Japan’s defence policy lacks coherence and has become a recurring point of contention
between the ruling and opposition parties as an ambiguous policy issue.
(2) Arms export markets and export performance
Until then, the defence industry had been a wartime depletion compensation for the Korean
War. After the armistice of the Korean War in 1955, when the suspension of orders forammunition, a consumable item, became a reality, the Defence Production Board began the3.

49 The above is the ‘19th House of Councilors Budget Committee Meeting Minutes’, No. 26, April 22, 1954, p.
50 The 19th Budget Committee Meeting of the House of Councillors, No. 26, April 22, 1954, p. 4.
51 The 19th Budget Committee Minutes of the House of Councillors, No. 27, April 23, 1954, p. 11.

125

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
process of identifying ammunition and other arms export destinations.52 With the rapid
increase in U.S. military assistance to Southeast Asian countries, which emerged as a pointof contention in international conflicts during the relevant period, the Defence Production
Board also embarked on a detailed investigation to explore the possibility of arms exports
to the region. It was reported that a total of 219 items were surveyed, including 54 items offacility equipment, military vehicles, tanks and others, 54 weapons and important items, 63
items of communication equipment, 41 items of ammunition, 2 aircraft models and 5 otheritems.53
The following year, in March 1956, the Japan Federation of Economic Organisations also
dispatched an economic goodwill civilian mission to Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burmaand Pakistan, with economic development cooperation as the main issue. Military assistan
ce, in a broad sense, was also planned, including technical assistance to the Vietnamese nav
al arsenal. However, it took some time before the dispatch of engineers was realised in thespring of 1958. Thereafter, arms exports did not achieve the initially expected export perfor
mance due to political problems and the underdevelopment of the defence production syst
em. Specifically, as of June 1959, the total amount of actual weapons exports was $16.74
million, of which $4.91 million was compensation payments. 54
Despite the enthusiasm of the Defence Production Board, the results were disappointing,and an ‘Opinion on Arms Exports’ was prepared on 12 July 1962. The report pointed out
the reasons for the sluggish exports and concluded that arms exports should be further
increased to overcome such problems. The Defence Production Board was trying hard tofind ways to increase arms exports as much as possible.
In tracking the actual situation, although about 46% of the weapons procured in 1958,
when the First National Defence Force Development Plan was announced, came from grant
aid from the U.S. military, the shift to domestic production of equipment steadily
progressed. In this sense, the trend towards self-reliance became apparent. In thisconnection, Masao Kihara stated, ‘In 1955, when the Basic Policy for the Defence Program
was decided, there was a development from military production based on special
procurement to “self-reliant” defence production based on the defence program. In 1958,
when the First Defence Force Development Plan was openly launched, more procurement
was made by the SDF compared with special procurement, and defence production also
became “stable”. With a “market”, the items of military goods changed and diversified, andthe foundation for domestic production of military supplies was established’,55 noted thereport. Furthermore, ‘In 1962, the mass production system of military production thatenabled the domestic procurement of the SDF became established and autonomous, withmonopoly capital at the centre of the system’56.
However, it should be noted that Kimura’s point about independence in terms ofmunitions is not necessarily true at the quantitative level. It goes without saying that Japan
had no choice but to depend on the U.S. for many of the high-value weapons that required
52 In this connection, the Federation of Economic Organizations of Japan (Keidanren) stated, ‘At present,
Japanese arms production has resumed on the basis of special demand from the United States. Therefore, for thisto proceed systematically, it is an indispensable requirement that orders be placed systematically andcontinuously with a certain outlook, along with the development of Japan’s own readiness to receive such orders’(Resumption of Weapons Industry and Future Problems: A Summary Report on the Work of the Defense
Production Committee, Keidanren Monthly Report, Vol. 1, No. 3, March 1953, p. 34).
53 Committee on Defense Production [1964], p. 183.
54 Defense Production Board [1964], p. 202. By item, $744,000 for ammunition and explosives, $4,140,000 for
aircraft, $584,000 for ships, $1,574,000 for vehicle parts, etc.
55 Kihara [1972], p. 7.
56 Kihara [1972], p. 8.

126

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
advanced technology.

5. Conclusion: Summarising the Three Issues
Finally, we conclude with a summary of the three issues raised in this paper. For the firstissue, Japan’s defence production and policy during the Cold War period were enacted in
the midst of rapid changes in the security environment in the Asian region after the Korean
War. In addition, the U.S. continued to request Japan to enhance its defence capabilities
from its democratisation policy. Moreover, Japan’s independence and alliance framework
were certainly defined by trends in the U.S. strategy towards Asia. In other words, the U.S.
defence buildup against Japan was a key factor in the U.S. strategy towards the region. The
U.S.’ request to strengthen Japan’s defence against the Soviet Union and China came froma part of the U.S. military strategy against the Soviet Union and China. Japan’s economic
development was positioned as a means to achieve this goal.
Within this framework, the pace of development of the defence industry during the Cold
War period of the 1950s, which began around the time of the Korean War, was regulated.
The process of such regulation resulted in economic independence. In this sense, thestrengthening and development of the military (defence) and the economy in Japan were
inextricably linked. From there, the inherently conflicting and contradictory relationship ofindependence and alliance became diluted, making the development process of Japan’s
defence policy very difficult to watch.
It should be a given that a country’s defence should be self-sustaining. However, during
the Cold War, Japan was forced to identify itself with the superpower, the U.S. Therefore,
to sum up this reality in terms of subordination or dependence is an extremely cynicalunderstanding of the situation. The uncertainty in the defence policy of the postwar
Japanese nation that has persisted to the present actually stems from this uncertainty during
the Cold War period.
The second issue concerns the controversy over the evaluation of the defence policy
under the Yoshida administration, which is the subject of this paper. In other words, there isa limit to understanding Prime Minister Yoshida’s stance, which responded to the U.S.’
demand for increased defence capabilities with a light arms concept to maintain a course of
economic priority in terms of independence and self-reliance. Although Yoshida was very
careful to ensure that quantitative expansion did not become the sole focus of his policy, he
was by no means opposed to the strengthening of defence forces, nor was Hitoshi Ashidanegligent in his relations with the U.S.
Therefore, it is said that the expectations and evaluations of Yoshida were higher thanthose of Hitoshi Ashida, who had aggressively advocated the strengthening of defence
capabilities. Even for Ashida, the defence buildup was certainly a defence buildup in thesense of preparing the appearance of Japan as an independent country, and he always hadin mind the strengthening of the alliance with the U.S. for this purpose. In this sense, there
is a contrast between Yoshida’s theory of light armaments and Ashida’s theory of heavyarmaments; however, in reality, while emphasising Japan’s independence in the rearmament
process, Ashida, who placed this issue within the context of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty,
considered ‘independence’ and ‘alliance’ to be two sides of the same coin and not concepts
that were oriented in different directions. As Ashida pointed out in his essay ‘The United

127

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
States and Japan’,57 ‘Independence’ or ‘self-reliance’ and ‘alliance’ were not conceived ofas opposing concepts or as opposing policies. From this point of view, the difference
between Yoshida’s and Ashida’s defence policies was not fundamental.
The coexistence of ‘self-reliance’ and ‘alliance’ within the same vector was the same in
Korea and became a characteristic of Japan’s postwar defence policy to a greater degree
than in Korea as a homogeneous issue, whether conservative or innovative. As discussed inthis paper, the defence industry forced Japan to restart its postwar industry and to revive
civilian demand. It was essential to leverage the defence industry, even though the prewar
military industry was partially dismantled. This was spurred on by the special procurement
demand resulting from the Korean War. The fact that civilian demand was revitalised withthe military as the leading sector may be accepted today as an undeniable economic andpolitical reality. The business executives represented by the Defence Production Committee
were keenly aware of this fact and insisted on its implementation.
Regarding the third issue, we can learn from the heated debate in the Diet between theruling and opposition parties over the status of the MSA agreement that it was a dispute
over self-defence and the Japan-U.S. alliance rather than a dispute that resulted fromdifferences in interpretation. Certainly, the MSA agreement was an agreement between the
U.S. and Japan that should be viewed under the category of military assistance. It is also
true that the MSA agreement was filled with intense feelings of rejection. Moreover, thememories of the war had a strong influence on the debate. More than that, it was the factthat Japan had made a fresh start as a peaceful nation under the new Constitution, and theprinciples of defence policy optimal for a peaceful nation, the enhancement of the defence
industry to support it and its support for economic independence while suppressing the riseof new militarism were the main points of the debate.
Among these, the role of the Defence Production Board was particularly noteworthy inthis paper. It is known that it was not only oriented towards the expansion of defence
production for the purpose of increasing defence capability in a linear fashion but also
called for complementary development and enhancement within a certain balance between
the so-called civilian and military demands. This was a rational choice that would curb
Japan’s militaristic political climate and enable the gradual development of an optimal
minimum defence force. However, it was also true that amid the fierce disputes between
the ruling and opposition parties, the formulation of a stable and definitive defence policy
did not proceed smoothly.
Therefore, the U.S. did not necessarily have absolute confidence in the Japanese
government, including the administration of Shigeru Yoshida, which is said to have been
relatively more credible from the U.S. perspective. It was always aware of the possibility
that the Japanese government and people might turn anti-American, and for this reason, it
never nakedly called for a coercive buildup of defence capabilities. For the U.S., Japan was
an important nation in its strategy towards the Soviet Union and China. At the same time,
the U.S. was consistently wary of Japan moving towards a trend of de-U.S. neutrality.
In the context of the overall intent of this paper, defence production in the broad sense,
including the issue of defence policy, has been extremely autonomous and has the potential
to change in any way depending on international factors. The future of Japan’s
independence and alliances as an independent nation would ultimately be defined by thepressure of the U.S., and the ambiguity would deepen without end.
As a result, in the absence of a firm and steadfast Japanese defence policy, the57 Nakano [2006], p. 115.

128

Japan’s Defence Industry and Arms Transfers During the Cold War
development of the defence industry has also been influenced by extreme political factors.
While defence policy and the defence industry have changed substantially since the end of
the Cold War and through Japan’s rapid economic growth to the present, the structure of
the defence industry, which continues to be tied to the external factor of the U.S., hasremained unchanged.
The MSA agreement is divided into two categories: end-item aid and defence support aid.
The former is further divided into U.S.-made weapons loans and offshore procurement of
weapons. This makes us keenly aware of the need to explain the actual status of the U.S.
military and aid from the perspective of the U.S. military strategy through a detailed
analysis of the actual status of military aid applied to Japan based on the diversity of U.S.
military aid. I would like to leave this as an issue for the future.
References
Akiyama, Misao [1951], “Sekai no Kyoiku Kaikan ni okeru Nihon Re-Gunbi wo Meguru Sekai no
Koshoku-teki [World opinion on Japan’s rearmament],” Jiji Shuho.
Yoshio Asai [2003a], “Special Demand in the 1950s (2),” Seijo University Economic Research Journal,159.
Asai, Yoshio [2003b], “On Special Demand in the 1950s,” Seijo University, Journal of Economics ,160.
Ashida, Hitoshi [1950a], “Eternal Neutrality Impossible,” Bungeishunju, Autumn, emergency supplement.
Ashida, Hitoshi [1950b], “What Comes After the Korean Incident,” Diamond.
Ashida, Hitoshi [1951a], “Self-Defense for Peace,” Mainichi Shimbun.
Ashida, Hitoshi [1951b], “Liberty and Peace Mamoru Re-Armament,” Sekai Shukuho.
Igarashi, Takeshi [1995], Sengo Nichibei Keizai Kankei no Seiyo [The Formation of Postwar US-Japan
Economic Relations], Kodansha Gakujutsu Bunko.
Ishii, Susumu [2003], “The MSA Agreement and Japan: The Formation of a Postwar Economic System(1),” Gakushuin University, Economic Review, 40-3.
Ito, Masanori [1951], “Nihon kokubou no hottestu katai [The Best Method of Japanese National Defense],”Bungeishunju.
Usami, Seijiro [1953], “MSA Aid Demands a Life of Tolerance,” Chuokoron, 781.
The Korean Association for International Politics [1997], Kokusai Seiji Ronbun: 21-seiki Kankoku no
Chosai to Shakai [International Politics: Military and Society in Korea in the 21st Century], 37-2.
Kihara, Masao [1972], “On the Role of Military Production in Economic Development,” in The Economic
Review, Kyoto University, 109-4, 5, 6.
Kimura, Yoshihachiro [1953], “The Transformation of Japan through the Progress of Defense Production,”
Chuo Koron, 773, Special Issue on “Defense Production.”
KOKETSU, Atsushi [2019], “Arms Production Issues and Arms Export Trading Companies in Prewar
Japan: Focusing on the Roles of Taihei Kumiai and Showa Tsusho,” Kokusai Bunken Tanshin Shi[History of International Arms Transfer], 8.
KOKETSU, Atsushi [2018], “Arms Exports in Prewar Japan: The Military’s Intentions and Specialized
Trading Companies,” Sekai, Iwanami Shoten, 912.
Cohen, J. B. (translated by Hei Ouchi) [1950], The Japanese Economy in the Postwar Period, Vol. 2,
Iwanami Shoten.
Komatsu Ltd. ed. [1971], Komatsu Seisakusho 50-nen no ayumi Brief History.
Koyama, Hirotakeru [1972], Nihon Military Kogyo no Rekishi to Kaihatsu (The Historical Development of
the Japanese Military Industry), Ochanomizu Shobo.
Sawai, Minoru [2018], “From Special Demand Production to Defense Production: The Case of Osaka
Prefecture,” Nanzan University Bulletin of Academia, Social Sciences, 14.
Takahashi, Ryozo [1953], “Boei Seisan” Keikaku no Zenkai (The Complete Picture of the “Defense
Production” Plan),” Chuou Koron (Central Public Opinion) 773.
Sakuragawa, Akitaka [1995], “Japan’s Arms Embargo Policy,” International Politics, 108.
Terasawa, Hajime [1952], “Re-Gunbi Yoron Yoron no Tenbou [Prospects for Re-Gunbi-Yoron],” Chuou
Koron (Central Public Opinion), 767.
Chung, Kyung-wha [2015], “A Study on Korea’s Independent National Defense during the Cold War:
Focusing on the Park Chung-hee Administration from the Late 1960s to the Early 1970s,” Research
Bulletin, Faculty of Education and Welfare Science, Oita University, 37-1.

129

ATSUSHI KOKETSU
Toyo Keizai Shinposha [1950], History of Showa Industry, Vol. 1.
Nakano, Shingo [2006], Sengo Nihon no Bouei Seisaku (Defense Policy in Postwar Japan: Politics,
Diplomacy, and Military Affairs over the “Yoshida Line”), Keio University Press.
Nakamura, Takahide [1982], “The Formation of the Japan-U.S. ‘Economic Cooperation’ Relationship,” inAnnual Report of the Society for the Study of Modern Japan 4: Pacific War, ed.
Sadachika Nabayama [1950a], “Armed Self-Defense Organization,” Nihon Shuho, 154.
Sadachika Nabayama [1950b], “The Rearmament Issue We Must Consider,” Mainichi Shimbun editorial.
Palmer, John [2010], “How Should Japan’s Defense Industry Be in the Future?”, The National Institute for
Defense Studies (NIDS), NIDS Security Studies Bulletin, 12-2 and 3.
Ringo Hirai [1953], “Dobou Seizou Keikaku wo Sokushin wo Mochiita” (What Promotes Defense
Production Planning), Chuo Koron, 773, special issue on the issue of “Defense Production”.
Defense Production Board [1964], Ten-Year History of the Defense Production Board.
Masuda, Hiroshi [1999], “America’s Rearmament Idea of Japan before the Korean War (1)(2),” Keio Law
Review, (1) 72-4, (2) 72-5.
＊This paper is an English translation of a previously published article in Japanese （Atsushi Kouketsu,"Defense Industry and Arms Transfer in Cold War Japan: Between Independence and Alliance," inKatsuhiko Yokoi (ed.), Military and Aid in Cold War Asia, Nihon Keizai Hyoronsha, 2021）.

130

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）
，131-134 頁

書評

エリン・ブロコビッチ著（旦祐介訳）『エリン・ブロコビッチ スーパーマンは来ない
米国の水汚染と私たちにできること』（緑風出版、2023 年、417 頁）
藤巻 裕之

はじめに
同 書 は Erin Brockovich,“Superman’s not coming - Our National Water Crisis and What WE
THE PEOPLE Can Do About It” の旦祐介による訳書である。エリン・ブロコビッチ氏はアメリカのみならず、世界的に著名な環境活動家である。2000 年にハリウッドで同氏と同名の映画が制作され、監督スティーヴン・ソダーバーグ、主演ジュリア・ロバーツで 2001
年度アカデミー賞を受賞した。同映画をきっかけとして水質問題がアメリカで注目され始めた。その約 10 年後、米国のシェールガスの掘削による土壌と水質の汚染に関する報道が世界を駆けめぐった。2018 年には米国環境保護庁（EPA）長官が PFAS（有機フッ素化合物）汚染は「国家的な危機」だと宣言する 1）。2019 年にはロバート・ビロット弁護士の活躍を描いた映画『ダーク・ウォーターズ』が米国で公開され、日本でも 2021 年 12 月に上映された。映画の原作本である『毒の水』（旦祐介訳）は 2023 年 4 月に翻訳出版されている 2）。しかし、2000 年頃から米国で始まった PFAS をめぐる論争を尻目に、日本ではPFAS が社会問題として認知されたのはこの数年のことである。
本書は 3 部 12 章構成から成る。第 1 部「恐ろしい真実」（第 1 章から第 5 章）では、1980年代以降、4 万を超える化学物質を含む産業汚染水が土壌に垂れ流されてきた米国の現実が明らかにされ、その現実に対応できていなかった行政の実態が明らかにされる。第 2 部「希望に満ちた未来のために」（第 6 章から第 10 章）では、汚染が明らかになった地域で市
民社会の現状改善への取り組みが描かれている。第 3 部「最後の呼びかけ」（第 11 章と第12 章）は、気候変動が水に与える影響は単に水の枯渇だけではなく、社会全体の循環性の毀損に及ぶと警告を発する。そして、我々市民がどのように水の危機に対応することができるのかを経験を元に提案をしている。

1）ジョン・ミッチェル（小泉昭夫、島袋夏子、阿部小涼訳）『永遠の化学物質 水の PFAS 汚染』岩波ブックレット No. 1030、3 頁、https://www.iwanami.co.jp/moreinfo/tachiyomi/2710300.pdf（access：2023/10/1）。
2）
ロバート・ビロット（旦祐介訳）（2023）『毒の水』花伝社。

131

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

問題の所存
PFAS とは、ペルフルオロアルキル化合物、ポリフルオロアルキル化合物の略であり、
およそ 15000 種類を数える有機フッ素化合物、合成化学物質群の総称である。本書が対象とする米国の水源、水道水を汚染する有害化学物質には、防錆剤の六価クロム、テフロン製造に使う PFOA（ペルフルオロオクタン酸）やスコッチガードの原材料の PFOS（ペルフルオロオクタンスルホン酸）を含む PFAS、ドライクリーニングや冷蔵庫に使うトリク
ロロエチレン、鉛、フラッキングの化学物質、水道水消毒用のクロラミンなどが含まれる。
PFAS は、耐熱性、耐油性、耐水性に強い安定性を持つ合成化学物質である。そのため、
20 世紀に入ると様々な産業、工業製品になくてはならない化学物質として使用されてきた。例えば、テフロン加工が施されたフライパンや炊飯器、撥水加工の衣類は普段から我々の日常生活に密着している。一方、軍事基地や空港では航空機火災に使用する PFAS
含有の強力な泡消火剤が大量に配備されている。
しかし、このように科学的安定性ゆえに我々一般消費者の生活を便利に変えてきた
PFAS は、同時に我々の健康を害するという危険性を持つ。なぜならば、人体はおろか、自然界でさえも PFAS を分解することは「永久に」できないためである。専門家たちがPFAS を「永遠の化学物質（Forever Chemicals）」と呼んだことは象徴的である。PFAS が人
体に入ることで生じる健康被害は深刻でありかつ広範に及ぶ。PFOA 暴露に伴う疾病だけでも、腎臓がん、睾丸がん、潰瘍性大腸炎、甲状腺疾患、高コレステロール、プリエクラ
ンプシア（妊娠高血圧症）などが挙げられる 3）。

本書の内容
米国において水質汚染に対処する法律は 1948 年に「連邦水質汚染防止法」として制定された。1972 年には大幅な改訂がなされ「きれいな水法（Clean Water Act）
」として認知されている。また、1970 年に米国環境保護庁が設立され、「きれいな水法」を法的根拠に、
下水、生物・放射性廃棄物、産業・農業廃棄物などによる破壊から、小川、河川、湾などの大きな水域を守るために活動してきた。
しかし、現実には 1970 年代以降、汚染は増加の一途をたどり、法律違反も増加している。2004 年から 2009 年の間に水質浄化法に違反した件数は 50 万件を超え、企業などの汚染者はほとんど処罰を免れている。PFAS の中でも特に PFOA と PFOS は健康への被害が明らかになってきた。これらの化学物質の製造元であるアルケマ、デュポン、3M などの企

3）
ビロット・ビロット（旦祐介訳）（2023）『毒の水』花伝社、339 頁。

132

エリン・ブロコビッチ著（旦祐介訳）『エリン・ブロコビッチ スーパーマンは来ない 米国の水汚染と私たちにできること』

業は毒性を知りながら人々への警告を怠ってきたのである（本書、266 頁）。
農工業の有害廃棄物による汚染はいたるところにある。現在、出回っている化学物質 4万種類以上のうち、規制されているのは数百種類だけだ。何年も前から、産業廃棄物が地面や水源に捨てられている。有害物質を投棄する企業は、それが有害であることを昔から知っていた（本書、8 頁）。政府も知っているし、軍も知っていたはずである。
実際、PFAS の脅威に晒され、深刻な健康被害を被っているのは、我々一般市民だけではなく、米国内の軍事基地と海外基地で働く軍人、職員、その家族、そして、基地周辺に暮らす人々である。米国は世界一の軍事力と軍事費を誇る一方、ブロコビッチに言わせれば、「国防総省こそ世界で有数の汚染者」なのである。米環境保護庁は、少なくとも 149の現・旧軍事基地で地下水汚染を確認している。これらの基地の飲料水と土壌は、ジェッ
ト燃料、洗浄剤、脱脂溶剤、泡消火剤、爆発物などを使用する軍事活動の結果、廃棄されてきた危険な化学物質で汚染されている。特に、PFOS は 1970 年以降、世界的に展開する米軍基地において（もちろん日本も含む）航空機火災を消火するために使用された泡消火剤に含まれていた。その後、米環境保護庁と発泡剤を販売する企業との間で PFOS の製造中止が合意されたが、空軍などの多くの軍事施設ではこれらの製品を継続使用してきた（本書、267 頁）。
米軍は PFOA と PFOS の水質汚染について、約 400 ヶ所の調査を行った。その結果、本書によれば 2018 年 3 月の下院軍務委員会の報告書では、基地内外 126 ヶ所が、飲料水または地下水のPFOA/PFOS検査で環境保護庁の基準を上回ったのである。内訳は、陸軍25基地、空軍 50 基地、海軍・海兵隊 49 基地、国防物流局 2 基地である。更に、国防総省は、基地
内および基地周辺の地下水井戸 2688 本を検査し、約 61% の井戸で環境保護庁の推奨値を超えていることを明らかにした（本書、269 頁）。

国家安全保障と人間の安全保障の狭間でこれまでの国民国家の歴史において、人類は人間の安全保障よりも国家の生存を追求する国家安全保障を優先してきた。国民国家体系を維持するために、国家の安全保障を優先することを我々も無意識のうちに前提としてきたのかもしれない。冷戦構造においては、
国家安全保障が更に優先されたことで、イデオロギー対立の下に人権、貧困、環境問題が後回しにされてきたことは周知の通りである。冷戦後は、イデオロギーに代わり民族、文化、宗教上の対立から国内紛争や地域紛争が多発したことで、国家が国民の生命と財産を守るという使命を充分に果たせず、国民の安全が紛争や国内の混乱の犠牲となるケースが多発した。このような「非対称の戦争」を含めた諸問題を体系化させた概念が人間の安133

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

全保障である。更に、人間の安全保障の概念は、人間の保護と人間の能力強化という二つの側面からの政策によって理論に現実性を持たせてきた。本書では、水質汚染という「人間の保護」の深刻な問題に直面した人々が、自らのガバナンスを獲得し、「人間の能力強化」を実現しつつ、問題に立ち向かう姿が生き生きと描かれている。

今後の課題2018 年の 13 もの米国連邦機関から発出された報告書は、米国が気候変動に対処しなけ
れば経済の 10% を失うリスクを警告した（本書、332 頁）。しかし、トランプ前大統領は
気候変動を中国のデマと断じ、自動車の排気ガス基準を緩めた。更に、2017 年には経済成長の促進のため、環境保護庁に対して、「きれいな水法」規制の範囲を狭めてきた。ブロコビッチが指摘するように、ネガティブに働く政治の力は大きい。しかしながら、科学者や政策の専門家たちが舞台裏で働き続けることで我々は気候変動の現実を知り、手遅れになる前に行動することができるとも筆者は強調する。
「デイ・ゼロ（すべての始まり）」と題する第3部第11章で筆者は次のように提案する。
「投
票に意味がある」、「ビジネスリーダーを見る」、「直接行動を起こす」、「フットプリントを減らす」。米国は投票によってトランプ大統領を選び、パリ協定から脱退した。その際、イーロン・マスク氏はホワイトハウスの諮問委員会から退き「気候変動は現実だ」と訴えた。そして、我々には SNS などによって世界中の同じ信念を持つ人々と力を合わせて声を上げることができるのである。気候変動は、我々が毎日行っている何百万もの選択の結果であることから、早く行動すれば改善できることを本書は見事に実践し、実証している。
待っていても市民を救ってくれる「スーパーマンは来ない」。しかし、市民一人ひとりの行動によって世界を変えることができる。その術は、第 12 章で我々が行動すべき７つのステップとして具現化されており、大いに参考にすべき視点が明示されている。この数年の間に沖縄をはじめ日本各地で注目され始めた PFAS の問題に対する日本の、いやわれわ
れ一人ひとりの取り組みを、ブロコビッチはどう評価するだろうか。
（東海大学政治経済学部政治学科教授）

134

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）
，135-139 頁

書評

西尾隆志『日独航空技術移転史 1919-1945 年』（日本経済評論社、2023 年、x ＋ 324 頁）
永岑 三千輝本書の内容に立ち入る前に、本書の組み立てを概観しておきたい。目次は以下のようになっている。

序章 日独航空技術移転史の解明に向けて
1 課題設定の理由
2 先行研究の整理
3 各章の概要
第 1 章 1920 年代の航空技術移転――「軍縮下の軍拡」としての事例――
はじめに
1 第一次世界大戦後におけるドイツ航空機の獲得
2 日本海軍による金属機製造技術の導入
おわりに
第 2 章 1930 年代の航空技術移転――日本海軍とハインケル社の関係を中心に――
はじめに
1 日本海軍の航空機国産化政策とハインケル社
2 ドイツ再軍備の技術移転
3 技術移転の継続
4 1930 年代の航空機の技術革新と日本航空機産業の自立化
おわりに
第 3 章 第二次世界大戦期の航空技術移転――企図と実態の乖離――
はじめに
1 日独伊三国同盟と遣独軍事視察団
2 封鎖突破船の活動
3 技術移転の諸相
4 ジェットエンジンの技術移転

135

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

おわりに
第 4 章 アジア太平洋戦争での日本航空戦力の兵站
はじめに
1 アジア太平洋戦争での航空戦と兵站
2 航空機の配備・補給過程
おわりに終章 全体の総括
1 結論
2 残された課題
参考文献
あとがき

本書はタイトルおよび上記の 1 〜 3 章から具体的にわかるように、1919 〜 45 年の約 25年間に行われたドイツから日本への航空技術移転の実証研究である。博士課程において『国際武器移転史』や『駿台史学』、それに国際武器移転史の共同研究の成果・高田馨里編『航空の二〇世紀――航空熱・世界大戦・冷戦――』( 日本経済評論社、2020) などに発表した諸論文を基礎に、2021 年度明治大学大学院文学研究科に提出した博士論文に加筆修正を施したものである。
こうした蓄積とその間の研鑽を踏まえ、本書は問題意識・論理展開・実証度において極めて高い水準の研究書に仕上がっている。それは、奈倉文二・小野塚知二・横井勝彦が日英の技術移転史で開拓し、明治大学国際武器移転史研究所の共同研究で鍛え上げて来た方法を基礎にしている。その点、「序章 日独航空技術史の解明に向けて」で研究史の動向を紹介しつつ詳しく説明されている。中心的分析概念の「武器移転」は、純技術的要素だけではなく、送り手側と受け手側の軍事的・経済的・政治的文脈に留意する総合的見地であり、個々の技術移転をその意味での全体との関連のなかで追跡している。
検討の中心は航空機の機体・エンジン部門の技術移転である。それを通じて一連の技術移転が日本航空機産業の「自立化」に対して果たした意義と限界を明らかにしている。
そのために、わが国ではほとんど全く利用されてこなかった文書館（ミュンヘンのドイツ博物館アルヒーフやイギリス公文書館）の史料などをはじめとする内外の基本的一次史料を発掘し、研究史に批判的修正を加え、歴史像を豊かにしている。従来の学術的な日本航空史発達史が一国史的枠組みの中で叙述されてきたものを克服しようとする課題意識が明確であり、その課題をしかるべき実証度で達成しているといえよう。

136

西尾隆志『日独航空技術移転史 1919-1945 年』

本書が直接対象とする日独間の航空技術移転を扱った最近の先行研究もある。しかしそれらは、二次文献だけに依拠し、しかも時期的にもワイマール期に分析が及んでいないものや、通史的で技術移転の詳細に立ち入っていないものである。こうした現在の研究状況を打開するものとして、本書がある。
「第 1 章 1920 年代の航空技術移転――「軍縮下の軍拡としての事例――」は、日本航空機産業の「模倣時代」すなわち、1920 年代の技術移転を解明している。ドイツの新興航空機企業は、ヴェルサイユ体制下で敗戦国ドイツに課せられた空軍保有禁止、軍用機製造禁止などの厳しい諸制限のなかで、むしろそれに抗し、制限を逆手にとって――全金属製機による民間航空業・交通革命の推進など――新しい航空機産業を発展させるために奮闘した。日本の陸海軍は先進的技術を開発している主要企業ロールバッハ社、ドルニエ社、ハインケル社、ユンカース社に注目し、積極的にその技術を模倣・導入し、ライセンス生産などに向かった。諸主要企業との関係に即して、この過程を実証し、30年代「自立化時代」の一つの基底的要因を創り出したこと、それは、国際武器移転史研究が提起し実証してきた「軍縮下の軍拡」の典型事例ともいうべきものであったことを明らかにしている。
公然たる軍拡期がそれに続く。第 2 章 1930 年代の航空技術移転――日本海軍とハインケル社との関係を中心に――では、1930 年代の日本航空機産業の「自立化時代」について、
日本海軍とハインケル社との関係を中心に辿っている。日本海軍は、32 年から航空機設計・開発技術の自立化・国産化方針を明示した三ヵ年計画を実施し、「早くも 35 〜 36 年には性能面で世界水準に達した国産機を登場させた」と結論する。他方で、ドイツではナチスが権力掌握と同時に開始した航空機増産・空軍建設の秘密再軍備を 35 年春には国際的に公然化した。そして新型軍用機開発と航空機産業の大拡張に突進した。こうした新たな国際環境のなかで継続した技術移転を追跡する。
しかし、日本軍機の国産化・高性能化の進展とドイツ航空省による航空機輸出政策とは
必ずしも整合的に進まなかった。それぞれの思惑が齟齬することを明らかにし、「技術移転の全体的規模は 20 年代よりも限定的となった」点を摘出する。同時に、その中で存在感を増すのがドイツ航空機諸企業のなかでは特に「明確な軍需志向・高速機開発志向を有したハインケル社」であった。そこで、30 年代に新たに登場した海軍艦上爆撃機の開発において、「一貫した技術的影響」が浮かび上がる。
第 3 章では、第二次世界大戦期の航空技術移転が、ドイツと日本の軍事的膨張政策とそれに対する米英の対抗的行動のなかで考察される。ドイツの電撃戦勝利の熱狂に巻き込まれて、日本は 1940 年 9 月に日独伊三国同盟を締結し、日独は公式の軍事同盟関係に突進す137

『国際武器移転史』第 17 号（2024 年 1 月）

る。しかしそのことは、航空機技術の移転・導入の点でアメリカとの関係を悪化させる。
アメリカからの技術導入が極めて困難化する中で、日本は事実上唯一の軍事技術供給国となったナチス・ドイツへの依存を深めざるを得なくなった。陸海軍は、機体・エンジン・兵装・装備品・工作機械の輸入やライセンス生産、大量生産技術の導入、軍用機開発など、
極めて包括的で野心的な技術導入計画を立案するに至る。
しかし、それが実現するのは、ドイツのヨーロッパ全域における覇権が揺るがないかぎりにおいてである。まさにその基本的前提が、ソ連への奇襲攻撃と独ソ戦の泥沼化の中で崩壊していく。日独間の連絡輸送手段は、ソ連経由では途絶し、その他の経路も脆弱化してしまう。ドイツ戦争経済の逼迫、日独間の顕著な工業力・技術力格差などにより、戦略的・軍事的・経済的には緊密化よりもむしろ希薄が進む。したがって、「日本側が獲得した成果は、戦間期に比して極めて乏しかった」ことが明らかにされる。
以上の三つの章が、本書タイトルに即した日独航空技術移転史の内容である。本書が実証した技術移転史を規定する諸要因と時代状況によって転変する実相は、方法と実証において当時の国際的な経済的・軍事的全体状況への具体的な叙述を折り込んでいることから、狭い航空技術史だけではなく、広く日本経済史、ドイツ経済史、ひいては世界経済史への理解を豊かにし深化させているといえよう。しかも、いろいろの箇所で指摘されているように、欧米の研究が日本の史料にほとんどかまったくアクセスしていていない――語
学的文書館等の制約などから――状況を考えれば、本書の英語版を出すことが求められるのではないか。その点では、日独関係史を開拓してきた工藤章・田嶋信雄編著や柳和治の仕事の英文出版が参考になろう。
以上の技術移転史を踏まえながら、第 4 章「アジア太平洋戦争での日本航空戦力の兵站」
では、日独間の航空機技術移転の実証的解明とは次元を異にする問題群が対象となっている。豊富なデータでアジア・太平洋戦争期の航空戦力の実態に迫り、航空機の配備・補給過程の重要性や航空戦力の兵站網を広大なアジア太平洋で構築・維持することの著しい困難性を浮き彫りにし、それを克服できたアメリカと日本の決定的違いが明らかにされている。日独技術移転史という本書表題からは想定し得ない貴重な内容を持っていることを強調しておきたい。本書を手に取って初めて、アジア・太平洋戦争期の航空戦力の重要性、さらにとりわけ兵站の決定的重要性が重要な柱として緻密に検討されていることがわ
かるからである。日本の兵站網の脆弱性は、大量生産された航空機がそもそも航空戦に投入できないことを意味した。広大な戦域のためにいかに日本の航空力がみじめな状態に陥ったかを日米の航空戦略の違い、航空機損耗統計の日独比較、日本航空戦力の「墓場」と称される壊滅的実体、長期にわたるソロモン・ニューギニア戦線の絶望的状況などから、

138西尾隆志『日独航空技術移転史 1919-1945 年』

これでもかこれでもかと実に詳しく実証している。3章までと違い、この章の主たる史料は、
アメリカ戦略爆撃調査団の報告書である。アメリカがいかに綿密に戦略を練り、その戦略を実現するための航空機生産能力を開発していったか、手に取るようにわかる。技術移転
史から出発して兵站網の問題群の解明に発展した研究が、今後どのように展開するか期待したい。
（横浜市立大学名誉教授）

139

編 集 後 記
第 17 号では、論文 5 本（うち英語論文 3 本）と書評 2 本を掲載することができました。
巻頭論文は、巨大鉄道会社ペン・セントラル鉄道に対する連邦政府の救済計画（「大きすぎて潰せない」政策）が、国防生産法を以てしても破綻した事情を多角的に分析した本
格的な経済史研究の成果です。航空機産業や軍産複合体などが注目されがちの冷戦期アメリカの「もう一つの産業政策」を学ぶことができます。
第 2・第 3 論文は、反ユダヤ主義と比較ジェノサイド論に注目して（後者は英語で）、イスラエルのガザ侵攻について論じています。イスラエル軍によるガザでの地上侵攻や難民キャンプへの空爆によって、多数のパレスチナ人が死亡し、ガザ地区では人口の 40％が飢餓の危機に瀕しています。にもかかわらず、アメリカをはじめとする西側諸国はイス
ラエルの軍事行動を支持し続けています。こうした現実の問題が縦横に論じられています。
第 4・第 5 論文は、冷戦期日本の防衛産業と防衛政策の動向を英語で論じた成果です。
ロシアのウクライナ侵攻を契機として世界の軍事ブロック化と武器供与（武器移転）が拡
大し、軍事費も世界的に膨張を遂げつつあります。中国の軍事的台頭とアメリカの敵対的な中国政策を背景として、「専守防衛」を掲げてきた日本も「軍拡の負の連鎖」に巻き込
まれようとしています。2014 年、日本は防衛装備移転三原則によって武器輸出国に転じましたが、その後の軍需産業支援法の成立や三原則の見直しはどのように捉えるべきでしょうか。2 本の論考は、こうした直近の問題を歴史的に考察する上での豊富な素材を提供しています。
書評では 2 冊の近著を取り上げました。エリン・ブロコビッチ著（旦祐介訳）『スーパー
マンは来ない－米国の水汚染と私たちにできること－』は、われわれに「行動を起こすことの重要性」を訴える警告の書です。沖縄以外でも米軍基地周辺で PFAS 汚染は広がっていますが、評者が示唆しているように、わが国の調査と対策の遅れは深刻です。西尾隆志
著『日独航空技術移転史』は、気鋭の若手研究者による最新の研究成果です。各章の紹介のみならず、課題設定までの背景や全編を通じての資料紹介など、さらには研究の一層の進展への期待も込めて、行き届いた書評を寄せていただきました。

（横井 勝彦・よこい かつひこ）

141

編集委員横井勝彦（明治大学名誉教授 編集委員長）

須藤 功（明治大学 本研究所長）

榎本珠良（明治学院大学）

松永友有（横浜国立大学）

竹内真人（日本大学）

田嶋信雄（成城大学）

纐纈 厚（山口大学名誉教授）

鈴木 淳（東京大学）

赤津正彦（明治大学）

塙 武郎（専修大学）

渡辺昭一（東北学院大学）

福士 純（東京経済大学）

森元晶文（中央学院大学）

永岑三千輝（横浜市立大学名誉教授）『国際武器移転史』第 17 号
2024 年 1 月 26 日印刷

2024 年 1 月 31 日発行

編集・発行 明治大学国際武器移転史研究所
代表者 須藤 功
連絡先住所 〒 101-8301 東京都千代田区神田駿河台 1 − 1
明治大学グローバルフロント 16 階明治大学国際武器移転史研究所
Email: rihgat_journal@meiji.ac.jp
URL: http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~transfer/
印刷・製本 株式会社 サンヨー