The purpose of this article is to examine what actually happened in the Suita incident, a well-known political riot in postwar Japan, and how the incident was told and reconstructed after it took place. The Suita incident is famous in the history of Japanese social and political movements for its nonviolence, cooperation with Korean Japanese, and the victory in a trial which lasted for 20 years.　However, even though this incident is well known and often recounted, and although it critically influenced the Japanese Communist Party, which organized the incident, there are few studies which clarify “what happened”, and “how events are narrated” by whom, how and why.　Therefore, using documentary resources and interviews with the participants, this article first looks at “what happened” in the Suita and Hirakata incidents, and then examines how these two incidents have been recounted and their images have been molded by three component entities, namely the Japanese Communist Party, Korean Japanese, and the Japanese government. The “Suita incident” was, in a sense, very useful for all three, and all three profited from it by making partisan speeches on this political riot, slanted in a particularly favorable way for each.

抄録全体を表示

In East Asia, under dictatorial rule that was institutionalized through wartime laws, emergency laws and martial law, state-sponsored terrorism hit hard peoples.
In South Korea, there were many massacres perpetrated by the state from the "Cheju 4.3 Uprising" of 1948 to the "Kwangju Massacre" of 1980, claiming up to one million victims. Ten thousands were killed in Taiwan, under the massacres of the "2.28 Uprising" of 1946 and of the "white terrorism of the 1950s".
With the collapse of the Cold War, the crimes began to be brought to light and movements for reparation of the victims were emerged. In South Korea, the establishment of a law on compensation for victims related to "the Kwangju democratization movement" was a big breakthrough in the struggle against the Cold War/National Division-based ruling system.
Then in October 1999, AP released a massacre by U.S. troops during the Korean War of people of Nogeun-li. In December 1999, including a special law on the Cheju 4.3 Uprising, three laws to "bury the past" were concluded. In Taiwan, a "Compensation Act for Victims of 2.28" was established in 1995 and a law to compensate victims of the white terrorism of the 1950s was passed in 1998.
The reparation for victims of state sponsored terrorism in South Korea and Taiwan has been closely connected with demands for democratization and has been a driving force for its promotion. But the "red complex" still persists to this day. And there are a lot more cases of state-sponsored violence that have not been dealt with. Overcoming the legacy of the Cold War will be achieved through the movement for restoration of the victims' humanity, and pursuing the work of remedying the damage caused by state terrorism will lead to an age of peace and human rights in East Asia.

抄録全体を表示

冷戦初期日本において、再軍備と治安政策とは共通の脅威に対応する補完的な性格を持ったとされる。しかし、再軍備と治安政策を一体的に進めるには、理念的な問題や実際的な困難も伴ったのではないか。本稿は、この再軍備と治安政策との一体性の内実を照射する事例として、警察予備隊（予備隊）の出動をめぐる競合を検討する。
予備隊の創設直後の一九五〇年末～五一年三月頃、予備隊本部（内局）の官僚や一般警察は、予備隊の出動判断に一般警察を関与させることを構想する。これは政治的に中立な一般警察が治安政策を担うという警察「民主化」の理念と適合的だった。しかし五一年下半期にわたって予備隊の出動可能性は後景化し、治安情勢の悪化した五二年一～五月初旬にも幕僚の出動準備は緩慢だった。一般警察も五二年以降、自前の警備公安警察力を整備する方向へ向かう。以上の過程は、予備隊と一般警察との連携や当面のすみ分けが進められたものとまとめられる。
しかし、予備隊令は首相に予備隊の指揮監督権を認めていたため、内局、幕僚、一般警察が運用の水準だけで連携やすみ分けを貫徹することは不可能だった。五二年一～五月の保安庁法制定過程において内局官僚は、予備隊に代って新設される部隊の出動が政治勢力に「濫発」されることへの警戒、一般警察を出動判断へ関与させることの必要性を提起するも、実現しなかった。
公安事件の頻発も手伝い、講和条約発効後の内閣や自由党は予備隊に対する期待を高めた。幕僚はこれまでと異なり、当面の出動を想定した準備を進めたが、一般警察との関係も留意され、内局・幕僚は非制度的な方針、次いで訓令において、出動判断に一般警察が関与する余地を補完していった。
以上より本稿は、法令の水準における一体性、運用の水準における連携とすみ分けという構図が、五〇～五二年における再軍備と治安政策の関係の実態だったと結論した。

抄録全体を表示