  No one can secure "freedom" by destroying peace -- Akahata editorial, January 24An overuse of the word "freedom" in U.S. President George W. Bush's inaugural speech for his second term drew a lot of media attention. While the president mentioned "freedom" five times in his inaugural speech four years ago, the word this time was used 10 times more in the 20-minute speech. Whose and what kind of "freedom" did he mean? This is a question that needs to be examined in the context of the realities of the world. His words go contrary to reality Bush stated, "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." He also said the United States "will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary" and that "rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty." For the United States and world peace, the most serious event in the present-day world is the Iraq war. The first Bush administration lied by repeatedly stating that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction in order to attack the country without a U.N. Security Council resolution. More than 100 thousand Iraqi people are estimated to have been killed, and more than 10 thousand U.S. military personnel have been killed or injured in Iraq. The war of aggression that takes many people's lives is the worst form of destruction of freedom. U.S. forces that tortured and abused Iraqi citizens in Abu Ghraib prison infringed on "freedom" and "human rights." There can be no justification in such violent acts. What Bush is saying is that the war of aggression against another country, in which its people's freedoms are completely taken away, was necessary for freedom for the United States. It is the oppressor's distorted logic for dominating the world. In the U.S. Congress, Condoleezza Rice, who has been nominated to be secretary of state, referred to North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Cuba as "outposts of tyranny." President Bush stopped short of mentioning them by name, but said, "America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling." Yet he did not forget to add that America will use "its influence" to serve "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny." If the second Bush administration is committed to spread to the world what it has done in Iraq in the name of "freedom" and "peace," it will pose a serious problem. In the present-day world, no one has a right to secure freedom of one country at the cost of freedom of another. As President Bush admits, Americans are not the chosen people. It is essential for every country to abide by the rules for peace based on the United Nations Charter in order to guarantee its people basic freedoms and a peaceful existence. In order to establish relations of peace and equality among countries, it is essential for governments to recognize the right to national self-determination and the freedom for self-reliant development. It is the task of the people of a country to change the despotic rule if they are suffering from tyranny. To advance real freedom for the people of a country, any foreign interference should be rejected. Political morals needed Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro has many times said that good relations with the United States is the crux of Japan's foreign policy. Only by abiding by Japan's constitutional principles of peace and democracy, in which the ideals of the U.N. Charter are mirrored, can Japan contribute to world peace. In its preamble, the Japanese Constitution states that the Japanese people "recognize that all people of the world have the right to live in peace; that no nation is responsible to itself alone; and that obedience to laws of morality is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations." The task now is for the world to reaffirm such laws of political ethics and to enforce them. (end) |