エルドリッヂ研究所代表・政治学博士　ロバート・Ｄ・エルドリッヂ

学者というより活動家

罵声浴びせ飛行妨害も画策

　今回は沖縄の学者と親密な海外識者の公平な学識を犠牲にした行動主義、日本居住または訪問客としての地位の問題に触れたい。

　アインシュタインは「物事はできる限りシンプルにすべきだ。しかし、シンプルすぎてもいけない」との名言を残した。これは海外識者が広めている沖縄についての不正確な理解にも当てはまる。

　絵で例えれば、沖縄のメディアが「沖縄問題」の輪郭を描き、日本本土と外国の識者は、限られた論考で自身の論説、メディア記事の内容の転載、または、他の学者のものを借りて色を付ける。知的不誠実さと職業上の怠慢の結果、沖縄の状況は簡素化されている。実際にはもっと複雑多岐である。

　加えて、イデオロギーによる強い偏見から識者の一定の政治的な意図が強められている。同時に、通説への反論は難しく、相当な勇気を要する。前稿で触れたように出版業界は「沖縄問題」で成り立っており、センセーショナルな話題であるほど、本が売れる利害構造ができている。そういう意味では、左翼系の学者・知識人も立派な資本主義者だ。

　問題は非現実的なスタンスは役に立たず非生産的な点にある。さらに、机上で識者が一旦そういうスタンスを取ってしまうと、リスクを冒してまで見識を変えることはほぼあり得ない。むしろ、より的確で代表的な沖縄の姿や目下議論すべき問題を扱わず、沖縄の一部の意見を代表する原理主義者の見解にしがみつく傾向にある。

Lummis氏、野嵩ゲートの前で

　過去よりも増して、海外識者は現状を複雑にしている。彼らは沖縄を訪問すればメディアの注目を浴び、メディアが望む発言をし、それが引用される。しかし、目の前の現実や詳細に無知であるにもかかわらず、新聞報道で信頼される雰囲気をこれまで与えている。

　識者が客観性を求め、日本政府や米軍など他に意見を聞こうとしても、日米両政府の代表者は面会をあまり好んでいない。その結果、反基地活動家、メディア、地元政治家、同僚の学者らとしか会えず、その影響を受けてしまう不幸な傾向がある。その後、両政府を批判するとともに、反対運動の意見を世界各国語で発信し、混乱させ、誤解が誤解を生み、解決をより難しくしている。

　海兵隊に勤務していた頃、これを改めようと、学生や教授らと週末でも夜でも積極的に会ったが、ほとんどの場合、沖縄に来た教授は軍と接触しようとせず、両政府の主張や行動を意図的に曲げようとした。

　軍隊に強い悪意を持っている識者も多い。英国出身で活動家のピーター・シンプソン沖縄国際大学准教授は数年前、沖縄の文化観光をしていた米軍の関係者に激しい言葉の暴力をふるった。数年前この事件は動画配信サイトでも広く知られることになった。彼は普天間飛行場の運用に反対し、ゲートの封鎖だけでなく、凧揚げをして米軍用機による普天間飛行場の離着陸を妨げるよう呼びかけた。２０１２年１月に沖縄タイムスの一面でのインタビューで述べている。米軍飛行機またはヘリコプターの墜落を招く可能性がある危険な状況を意図的に作り出すことはこの上なく皮肉なことだ。

Mark Ealey氏、辺野古にて

　私は学者で実務家として、暴力と違法行為への呼びかけは攻撃的で無責任だと感じる。日本居住者である私からしたら信じられない。シンプソン氏は日本政府から滞在許可をもらっているが、日本国政府の国策への敵対を扇動し、普天間飛行場周辺の住民の安全をも脅かす。さらには、日米安全保障条約を支持する日本人有権者の民意にも反している。

　沖縄の反基地運動に加担しているのはシンプソン氏だけではない。東京の私立大学で平和学の教授だったダグラス・ラミス氏は地元の活動家と結婚し、定期的に米軍基地のフェンスにテープを貼り付けに出掛け、運転中の軍人軍属に罵声を浴びせている。

　ニュージーランド出身で沖縄の高校教師で従軍記翻訳家のマーク・イーリー氏は辺野古移設反対の活動家と密接につながっている。時に暴力的で非合法な抗議活動に外国人が参加することが許されることが驚きだが、彼らが接受国の方針や法律を軽んじることもとても驚くべきことだ。

　オーストラリア出身の学者で活動家のガヴァン・マコーマック氏と米国人のキャサリン・ミュジック女史は日本人の仲間に会いに定期的に辺野古を訪れていることが地元紙によって報じられている。彼らはラミス氏、アーリー氏とともに海兵隊の普天間飛行場の辺野古移設反対で署名した１０９人の「海外識者」に名を連ねている。非難声明ではまるで彼らが一般大衆を代表しているかのように「世界は見ている」とある。

　彼らがどのように名を連ねたのか定かではない。ある人の証言によれば、沖縄の活動家からの依頼であった。しかし、「機動隊や海上保安庁の人員は抗議運動をする人を襲い、深刻な負傷をもたらした」という文面に代表されるように、声明文の背後の事実を知らずに署名している。

　周知のように、私は普天間飛行場のキャンプ・シュワブへの移設には反対だ。だが、上述した活動家らとは別の理由である。私は日米同盟を支持し、辺野古案は海兵隊の能力を弱体化させ、軍事的、運用的、戦略的、財政的、政治的、環境的、工学的に非合理的な計画だから。私は辺野古案に反対するだけではなく、過激な思想や集団思考にも反対している。

Foreign Academic Okinawa Watchers: Activism over Scholarship

Robert D. Eldridge, Ph.D.

　In my previous commentary, I discussed the biases of Okinawan academics and their close, unhealthy relationship with the local media. In this installment, I would like to introduce the problem of foreign academics, including their close connections with the above Okinawan academics, and their activism which comes at the expense of their obligations to impartial scholarship and their status as residents or visitors to Japan.

　Albert Einstein once said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” The very thing Einstein cautioned about is what has happened to our often incorrect understanding of Okinawa as promoted by many foreign academics.

　While the Okinawa media draws the lines of its image of what the “Okinawa problem” is, Japanese and foreign scholars fill that picture in with their own commentary, limited observations, and regurgitation of media stories and each other’s works. The result of this intellectual dishonesty and professional laziness is an oversimplified view of the situation in Okinawa, when in fact it is infinitely more complicated.

　In addition, there is a strong ideological bias which motivates scholars to promote a certain agenda, as well as a political correctness which makes challenging the traditional narrative difficult for all but the truly brave. Related to this is the fact, as discussed in the previous installment, that a publishing industry has built up around “the Okinawa problem,” and the more sensational the topic and argument, the better it will sell. This commercial incentive suggests they are all good, albeit hidden, capitalists at heart.

The problem with this is not only are unrealistic positions unhelpful and counterproductive, but once an ivory tower scholar has taken such a stance, he or she is highly unlikely to change it because their reputations are on the line. They would rather stick to a fundamentalist view which represents only a part of Okinawan opinion than introduce a more accurate and representative portrait of the prefecture or the issue at hand.

　More than in the past, it has been the foreign academics that have especially complicated the situation. If they visit Okinawa, they get much attention in the media, which quotes them as the media wishes them to be quoted. Often ignorant about the situation at hand, or the details, nevertheless, because they are academics, their quotes get attention and lend an air of credibility to the newspapers’ reporting to date.

　If they seek to be objective and hear out other opinions, such as the Japanese government or U.S. military, there is an unfortunate tendency by representatives of the two governments not to meet with academics and thus the latter ends up only being exposed to anti-base activists, media, local governments, and fellow academics. They then use their writing skills and media and academic publishing networks to blast the two governments and get the activists’ opinions out to the world in a variety of foreign languages, further confusing the situation and promoting the worsening cycle of misunderstanding, thus making solutions harder to arrive at.

　During my time with the Marine Corps, I sought to correct this and went out of my way to meet with students and professors, even on weekends, holidays, and in the evenings, but quite often, professors that came to Okinawa would not try to meet with the military and/or intentionally misrepresent the positions or actions of the two governments.

　In some case, some academics are highly hostile to the military. Peter Simpson, an activist professor at Okinawa International University from England, verbally harassed U.S. personnel who were on a cultural tour of Okinawa one day several years ago, which was widely shared on YouTube. He also has been an advocate of impeding the operations of Futenma, and an interview along those lines, in which he called for not only blocking access to the gates but using kites and other aerial objects to interfere with U.S. military aircraft landing or taking off from Futenma, appeared in the Okinawa Times in January 2012. It was supremely ironic—intentionally creating a dangerous situation which could cause a U.S. military plane or helicopter to crash.

　As both a scholar and a policy maker, I found his calls for violence and unlawfulness offensive and irresponsible, and as a resident of Japan, I also found it unbelievable in that he, as a non-Japanese citizen living in Japan with the permission of the Japanese government, was calling for action against the policies of the very same government, against the safety of the citizens living near Futenma, and against the popular wishes of the Japanese electorate which supported the signing of the 1960 security treaty between Japan and the United States.

　He is not the only individual involved in anti-base activities in Okinawa. Douglas Lummis, a U.S. citizen and former professor of peace studies at a university in Tokyo, is married to a local activist and he himself regularly goes out to put tape and signs on U.S. bases and protest against U.S. personnel in their vehicles.

　Similarly, a translator of wartime accounts from the Battle of Okinawa and a teacher at a high school in Okinawa originally from New Zealand, Mark Ealey, is closely linked to the protests at Henoko, as the attached photo shows. Again, it is surprising that participation by foreigners in the protests, which regularly turn violent and are unlawful, is condoned, and as a fellow guest in Japan, I am surprised by the willingness of these individuals to disrespect their host nation’s policies and laws.

　Scholar-activists such as Gavan McCormack of Australia and Katherine Muzik of the United States, regularly travel to Okinawa visit Henoko, see their Japanese colleagues, and write for the local newspapers. They, as well as Lummis and Ealey, were among 109 “international intellectuals” who signed a statement against the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Henoko. The statement arrogantly says “the world is watching,” as if these men and women represent the public.

It is uncertain how and when these “intellectuals” came to represent the “world” (I do not remember voting for them), or how they were recruited as many of them have no connection to Okinawa and have never been to Camp Schwab before. (According to one person’s testimony, he was recruited by activists in Okinawa to sign it.) Yet, it is interesting that they would sign it without knowing the facts behind the assertions in the statement, such as “riot police and members of the Coast Guard have attacked demonstrators, causing serious injuries.” This same person admitted not having been to Okinawa since 2001.

　As readers know, I, too, am against the relocation of Futenma to Camp Schwab, but for reasons other than those of the above individuals. (I am a supporter of the alliance and believe the Henoko plan actually undermines our capabilities and is militarily, operationally, strategically, fiscally, politically, environmentally, and engineering-wise is non-sensical). However, in addition to being against the Henoko plan, I am also against extremist ideology and group think.
　Activism and lazy thinking are not attributes of quality academics, especially when the issue is so serious, affecting the security of hundreds of millions of people in the Western Pacific, including Japan and the United States.

　I recently read a scholarly discussion in which the writer argued that the failure of scholars to perform their role was akin to “malpractice” as commonly associated with the medical field. In Okinawa’s case, the good doctor is misdiagnosing the patient, causing its situation to deteriorate and those who care about it to lose hope. Outside intervention by activists, including scholars, is causing the clinic to become too crowded, too noisy, and too confused.

Eldridge was born in New Jersey, U.S.A., in 1968, and graduated from the Department of International Relations, Lynchburg College, Virginia. He earned his doctorate from Kobe University Graduate School of Law in 1999. From 2001-2009, he was a tenured associate professor at Osaka University’s Graduate School, and from 2009-2015, served as the deputy assistant chief of staff, G-7 (Government and External Relations), Marine Corps Installations Pacific in Okinawa. During this time, he was one of the proposers of Operation Tomodachi at the time of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. He is the author of numerous works including The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem (2003) and The Origins of U.S. Policy in the East China Sea Islands Dispute (2014).