A liberal political regime is an important precondition for peace movements to flourish as in Britain of the 19^th century. Japan, as a latecomer in the modern world, adopted an aggressive militarist policy under the authoritarian regime in the late 19^th century. Thus, the earliest peace movements in Japan, which appeared around the turn of the century, took it upon the daring struggle against the towering militarism, and advocated absolute pacifism and a remarkably cosmopolitan outlook; but their social impact was negligible till the end of the Second World War.
The collapse of a militarist Japan in 1945 and the following enactment of the liberal peace constitution brought forth favorable conditions for peace movements. In fact, Ban-the-A-and-H-Bomb Campaign in the mid 1950’s rallied unprecedentedly wide and strong popular support and exerted a significant influence on Japan’s security policy.
However, such seemingly advantageous conditions to peace movements had their own hazards. The strong antiwar sentiment in postwar Japan largely came from the devastating national war experience. Therefore, peace groups very often shied away from immediate security issues in East Asia; and national stories of wartime hard suffering turned a blind eye to even harder indignation of neighboring nations against Japan’s militarist records. In addition, national peace organizations were torn apart in line with the cold war ideological split, and thus lacked the ability to mobilize the grassroots antiwar sentiment effectively.
From around the end of the cold war, some new trends turned up in Japanese peace movements. First, local groups virtually took over longstanding national groups in peace activities. It is largely because locality became the front line between the security of people’s daily life and the growing frequency of US military activities in and around Japan. The most important case was the concentration of US military bases in Okinawa. This problem came to attract national attention by virtue of an unbending Okinawan minority of antiwar landowners. Second, the problem of Japan’s war responsibility was at last widely acknowledged among the Japanese public. Reconciliation with neighboring nations was set as a distinct goal of peace activities. Third, peace activists began to propose an alternative security policy. They stress the importance of establishing the rule of law in the unstable security environment of East Asia.
In short, Japanese peace movements began to address the long-overdue problem of international solidarity in East Asia and to assume the role of a policy initiator.

抄録全体を表示

小論は，ネオコン第一世代とよばれる人々が醸成してきた一連の政策や思想体系について，以下の論点を基に考察することを目的とする。

はじめに，“ネオコンサーヴァティヴ”（neo-conservative）という言葉の由来をふり返り，彼らの思想がアメリカの思想的系譜のなかでどう位置づけられるのかという問題を確認するが，ここでは，とりわけ，アメリ力の伝統的保守派との思想的相違に着目しながら議論を進めたい。

次に，ネオコンの代表的論客であるアーヴィング・クリストルなどの整理に従いつつ，「信念」（persuasion）としてのネオコンの定義を再確認し，その歴史的歩みについてふれる。なお，彼らの歴史を追っていく上で重要な鍵となるのは，左派的なニューヨーク知識人の集団として歩み始めた彼らが，どのような時代背景や事件をきっかけに，保守的立場へと転向したかという点である。

続いて，彼らが展開した一連の国内政策の要点を確認し，その現代的意義について論じる。その過程で，彼らの政策を形づくる思想的背景にも踏み込んでいきたい。

最後に，ネオコン第一世代がアメリカの外交というものにたいし，どう向き合ってきたかという問題を考察する。その際，第二世代のネオコンが進める外交政策との共通点を探っていくことで，世代に関係なく，ネオコンを貫く思想や政策的指針の正体を最終的に明らかにしていきたい。

抄録全体を表示