英文：
Q124 Claudia Webbe: It is a great pleasure to be able to put some questions to the ambassador. I will just move on to the issue of values and human rights versus trade. It could be argued that both our nations refused to implement the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission, which called for sanctions and the referral of Burma to the International Criminal Court for the crime of genocide, carried out by the country’s military and police against the Rohingya people.
For our part, Britain refused to use the word “genocide”, and the Japanese ambassador to Burma explicitly denied that genocide had taken place, despite recent reports of Burmese soldiers themselves describing orders to “Kill all you see”, and the widespread and systematic rape and murder of Rohingya civilians.
I just wonder, Mr Ambassador, in terms of our working together, how then can the millions of Rohingya living in refugee camps in Burma and Bangladesh expect human rights or justice for these crimes?
Mr Tsuruoka: Well, if I may give you a very simple answer, the ICC is not going to save them. People are suffering—it’s real. What Japan has been trying to do is, first of all, is no longer call the county Burma; we call it Myanmar, because this is the general name that they have accepted, and it is accepted in the UN as well. By continuing to call the country Burma, you give the Burmese ethnic group superiority, for example over the Rohingya. So, I don’t do that and neither do the Japanese Government. We have been doing this all along, since they adopted a new name, which is more representative of the whole region.
I did work with the UK Government 20 years ago, when we were drafting the Statute of Rome, which eventually established the ICC. And we were, the UK and Japan—by the way, you may be surprised that the US was also working with us. The three of us were working, and the UK and Japan were expecting—well, we did not expect, but we were hoping that the US could join. Unfortunately, of course, they didn’t. The UK and Japan had an identical objective of making the ICC a very strong institution that, in fact, will not be used; it will be a deterrent for the leaders to abide by international norms, including respect for human rights.
You can see that the ICC has mushroomed into a huge institution, and Japan is the largest contributor to ICC funds. But the ICC is not a panacea that is going to solve issues, unfortunately, and you can’t overload an institution beyond its ability. I did not take part in that decision, but that is why the Japanese Government did not favour overloading the ICC with the Myanmar issue. Whether you call it genocide or not as an institution is a different issue.
The work we need to do is with the Governments of both Bangladesh and Myanmar. Unfortunately, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is supposed to be the leading figure in human rights, is not effective. So where do we go? The people are suffering and cannot go back. At the same time, the Bangladeshi Government is suffering. So we are trying to have the refugees back, if they feel safe with that. But, more and more, they are trapped in the camps on the Bangladesh side. It is becoming a very difficult problem. It is not a new problem—it has been an ongoing process—and Bangladesh has to be on board in how we address it.
The sovereignty issue becomes one of national pride and the militia in Myanmar are not going to seek a pardon from the rest of the world, so we need to engage them and have a compromise. That may not be what we want, but, at the same time—this is not all public—we have been engaging both Bangladesh and Myanmar to look at the people who are suffering today and minimising that. The UK and Japan could do a lot on that issue as well. When I was ambassador, the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, had a very strong view on the issue and we had a number of bilateral discussions at ministerial level. Unfortunately, the difficulty and suffering of the people continues, so we need to continue to work on that.
Q125 Claudia Webbe: Just to be clear, from your perspective, what values should underpin the UK’s engagement in east Asia?
Mr Tsuruoka: I think, first of all, which country from Europe controlled Myanmar—Burma—in the past? Countries have an historical responsibility that needs to be undertaken. The UK can bring the important values that it practises—democracy, respect for human rights and free speech—that would benefit not just any particular country but all countries, and all the people in the world. The UK could make a great contribution by coming back east of Suez and being more forthright in promoting those values. But the UK—or even Japan, for that matter—cannot do it alone. We must join forces to do that. This is what I am trying to convey.
In a way, the middle powers were complacent in the past. There has been criticism from some quarters in the US about other countries free-riding on US sacrifices or US contributions, which may not be 100% right, but it may not be 100% wrong either. We, the middle powers, need to move up front and address that. That will be absolutely beneficial for the global order, which will be of benefit to both of us.
That is what I believe the UK can bring to Asia-Pacific—and you already have, by our working together with a permanent member. As I was saying, the deployment of UN organisations through the mandate of a permanent member is qualitatively different from that of a non-permanent member. That can be a great asset to do the work. So joining forces and working collaboratively, of course, with the values very much in front, including the rule of law, will make a difference in how the future develops in the Asia-Pacific region.
Chair: Forgive me, Claudia, but we are running out of time, and Ambassador Chan is waiting, so very quickly.
Q126 Claudia Webbe: Very quickly, to finish this last point. In a sense, the principles of whether one looks at democracy and human rights, or has an emphasis on trade and security, come into play. It is often said that Japan continues to trade with the military and police in Burma, despite all that I have just indicated.
Mr Tsuruoka: I am not aware of what you have just said Japan does. Japanese businesses are very cautious. On the humanitarian side, we are supportive, whether that be the military or not, because that goes directly to help the people. Beyond that, around huge infrastructure, perhaps we should have, but these are all pretty much done by Chinese investment. We maintain excellent relations with the Burmese, or the Myanmar people. The intellectual people in Myanmar oftentimes have been educated in Japan, and we continue to be in close contact with them, but that does not mean that we condone the human rights violations that we see. We try to address them and to put up front that Myanmar could right them.
Trade is important, and you could cut trade off when you have security concerns, like with North Korea. That is why the sanctions on the economic side have been put on. We are trying to enforce those to the letter of the resolution. In the case of Myanmar, the security threat to Japan or the region is not equal to that presented by North Korea. To put it this way, Myanmar violates human rights norms—I do not think there is disagreement on the problematic points—but the question is how to address that. How do we correct it? Cutting all ties, including trade, sometimes may work, but in this case it would not work well, because of China, which is more than willing to come and take care of that.
That is the balancing that we need to do, and that is why Bangladesh is an important player. The UK can also be very instrumental in working with the countries in the region, and with international organisations.
Claudia Webbe: Thank you.
機械訳
Q125 クラウディア・ウェブ： 念のために申し上げますが、鶴岡さんのお考えでは、英国の東アジアへの関与を支える価値観とはどのようなものでしょうか。
鶴岡氏：まず第一に、かつてミャンマー・ビルマを支配していたのはヨーロッパのどの国だったのか、ということです。各国には歴史的な責任があり、それを果たさなければなりません。英国は、民主主義、人権の尊重、言論の自由など、英国が実践している重要な価値観をもたらすことができます。これは、特定の国だけでなく、すべての国、そして世界のすべての人々にとって有益なことです。英国は、スエズ以東の地に戻り、こうした価値観をより積極的に推進することで、大きな貢献ができるはずです。しかし、英国はもちろん、日本でさえも、単独ではできません。そのためには、力を合わせなければなりません。これが私の伝えたいことです。
ある意味で、これまでの中堅国は自己満足に終始していました。アメリカの一部の方面からは、アメリカの犠牲や貢献に他国がただ乗りしているという批判がありましたが、これは100％正しいとは言えませんが、100％間違っているとも言えません。我々、ミドルパワーは、この問題に率先して取り組む必要があります。それは世界の秩序にとって絶対に有益であり、私たち双方にとって利益となるでしょう。
これこそが、英国がアジア太平洋地域にもたらすことのできるものであり、常任理事国との協力関係のもと、すでに実現しているのです。先ほど申し上げたように、常任理事国の権限による国連組織の展開は、非常任理事国のそれとは質的に異なります。このことは、仕事をする上で大きな財産となります。もちろん、法の支配をはじめとする価値観を前面に押し出した上で、力を合わせて協力していくことが、アジア太平洋地域の将来の発展を左右することになるでしょう。
議長。申し訳ありませんが、クローディアさん、もう時間がありません、チャン大使がお待ちですので、お急ぎください。
Q126 クローディア・ウェッブ： 非常に急いで、この最後のポイントを仕上げます。ある意味では、民主主義や人権を重視するか、貿易や安全保障を重視するかという原則が関わってきます。よく言われることですが、日本は今指摘したようなことにもかかわらず、ビルマの軍や警察と貿易を続けています。
鶴岡氏：今、日本がやっているとおっしゃったことについては、私は認識していません。日本の企業は非常に慎重です。人道的な面では、軍であろうとなかろうと、それが直接人々を助けることにつながるので、支援しています。その先の巨大なインフラについては、おそらくそうすべきだと思いますが、これらはすべて中国の投資によって行われています。私たちはビルマ人、つまりミャンマー人と良好な関係を保っています。ミャンマーのインテリ層は日本で教育を受けていることが多く、彼らとは今でも緊密に連絡を取り合っていますが、だからといって目にする人権侵害を容認するわけではありません。しかし、だからといって人権侵害を容認しているわけではありません。
貿易は重要ですが、北朝鮮のように安全保障上の懸念がある場合、貿易を遮断することができます。そのため、経済面での制裁を行っています。私たちは、決議に基づいて制裁を行っています。ミャンマーの場合、日本や地域に対する安全保障上の脅威は、北朝鮮のそれとは比べ物になりません。言ってみれば、ミャンマーは人権規範に違反しており、問題点には異論がないと思いますが、問題はそれをどう解決するかです。どうやって是正するのか。貿易を含めたすべての関係を断つことが有効な場合もありますが、今回の場合はうまくいきません。
そのためにはバランスをとる必要があり、バングラデシュが重要な役割を果たすのです。英国は、この地域の国々や国際機関との連携においても、非常に大きな力を発揮します。
クラウディア・ウェブ： ありがとうございます。
鶴岡さん。ところで、英国のNGOはとてもいい仕事をしています。私たちはそれを知っていますし、それは称賛されるべきことです。
