グローバル化時代のアジア主義 : 中村哲の場合

Abstract

本論は、パキスタン北西辺境州とアフガニスタン北東山岳地帯における医師中村哲と、彼を支えるペシャワール会の活動と思想を検証するものである。彼らは、1984年から今日まで、当地においてアフガニスタン難民、アフガニスタン農民、およびパキスタン貧民に向けて、医療活動と農村復興支援活動を展開してきた。本論では、第一に、中村哲とペシャワール会の20年間（1894年～現在）にわたる現地活動を、3 期にわけて概観する。第二に、中村が、どのような言説をもって、自分たちの行動を説明し、またそれを意味づけるかを明らかにする。そこでは、中村の心情と信念、および世界認識を取り出し、彼が自己の歴史的存在を確認する認識の枠組みとして、アジア主義的な世界認識を用いていることを提示する。第三に、中村の思想をグローバル化時代におけるトランズナショナルなアジア主義として位置づける。このアジア主義は、国際的に米国中心のグローバル化に反発しながら、行動レベルで現地のトランズナショナルな活動を実践している。それは、古典的な意味でのアジア主義ではないが、「アジアで共に生きる」という信条に支えられている点では、アジア主義的である。最後に、全体の議論をまとめ、あわせて中村における平和憲法の積極的意味づけを明確にしておく。

Dr. T. Nakamura and an NGO entitled the Peshawar-kai in Fukuoka have been engaged in medical services and communal development in remote mountainous areas bordering on Pakistan and Afghanistan since 1984. This paper addresses their thought and behavior, focusing on Nakamura's. Firstly, their activities are divided into three periods : the first （1984－1990） when Nakamura worked in Pakistan within the medical framework, the second （1990－2000） when he expanded his enterprises to northeast mountainous areas of Afghanistan so as to render medical services to the rural poor in those areas, and the third （2000－the present） when he and the Peshawar-kai have started such community development projects as digging wells for drinking-water, revitalizing karez, constructing a large-scale irrigation canal and running a pilot farm in Afghanistan. Thus their activities have come to cover other fields than medicine. Secondly, both a traditional type of Japanese mentality and Pan-Asianistic emotions have promoted his activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is most concerned with the safety and security of local people, especially of the socially and economically disadvantaged in Asian remote towns and villages. He understands that both the air bombardment on Afghan people by the US forces and the American assistance for recovery to it are in essence based on the same idea that the Western modernity is only the model for all societies to follow throughout the world. He notes that after the disaster, the aggressors appear on the spot again in disguise of the benevolent. In addition, he points out that the US utilizes such a concept as "the international order," "humanitarian aid," or "freedom and democracy" only for its benefit, although it insists that they represent the universal norm that all nations should adopt throughout the world. Thus he has a strong sense of transnational Pan-Asianism. Thirdly, Pan-Asianism in Japan has three dimensions : national, international and transnational. It comprises Japanese nationalism as expansionism, reactions to the Western dominance, and / or identification with Asian people（s）and "values." Actually the balance among those three is determined by changes in international relations as well as a personal choice of each Pan-Asianist. Before World War Two, Pan-Asianists were mainly concerned with the liberation of Asia from Western colonialism. After the War, however, economic factors should have become significant in Pan-Asianism, because most Asian nations, having regained independence, sought economic development as their national goals. In the age of globalization, at present, "Pan-Asianism" in Japan has become more or less differentiated and uni-dimensional because Japan has lost a hegemonic position in Asian politics and economics : first, ultra-nationalism only for the domestic use, though being similar to Greater Pan-Asianism ; second, attempts at East Asian economic unification on the practical level among those nations, based on none of Pan-Asianistic emotions ; and third, NGO activities of transnational Pan-Asianism. It is obvious that Nakamura's case belongs to the third type in the age of globalization.