<論説>外交の民主化と国際協調主義 : 「国民外交」論を中心に (特集 : 民族)

Abstract

大正デモクラシー運動の進展とあいまって、外交の民主化が論じられた。本稿は、『外交時報』に掲載された信夫淳平の「国民外交論」をてがかりに、外交の民主化の内実と限界を考察するものである。国民外交論は、国民の総力を結集する目的で唱えられた。しかし、議論の背景には、「愚民」に外交問題は論じられないとする発想があり、制度的な民主化を外交に反映させることには慎重であった。また、「ネイション」の両義性、つまり国民と民族の境界線が曖昧にされたため、国民外交が民族外交へ変質したとき、国民本位の外交を掲げる国民外交論では有効な反論を提示できなかった。吉野作造は、国民が国際民主主義の進展を望んでおり、国民の手に外交を委ねることを主張するにいたるが、国民が吉野の理想から離れたとき、その無謀さを諭すしかなかった。こうした外交の民主化論の限界は、エリートの主導する大国間協調を軸とする国際協調主義外交の限界と重なるものであった。

The social movement demanding the democratization of Japan intensified during the decade of the 1920s. Under the influence of this movement, an argument arose over whether foreign policy should proceed on a democratic basis. This article aims to consider the logic of the arguments for the democratization of foreign policy and the limits of that logic based on Shinobu Junpei's kokumin gaikoron (theory of national diplomacy) as it appeared in Gaiko jiho. Shinobu argued that the goal of national diplomacy was the support for foreign policy by the consolidated general power of the people. However, Shinobu opposed the direct reflection of the will of an ignorant public on the determination of foreign policy. His interest in the democratization of the political system was consequently weak. Moreover, intellectuals who prized democracy were unable to mount effective counterarguments when the populace demanded an ethnocentric foreign policy. The reason for this was the ambiguity of the distinction between the nation-state (kokumin) and the ethnic group (minzoku), and in creating a democratic nation state (kokumin kokka), the unity of the people (kokumin togo) based on the ethnic group (minzoku) was considered necessary. Yoshino Sakuzo, a leading advocate of "Taisho democracy, " promoted the movement for democracy in international relations (kokusai minshu shugi), advancing the theory of national diplomacy even further. He argued that the masses desired the development of international democracy and that diplomacy should thus be left to the people. However, Yoshino also lamented the naivety of the masses when they supported a foreign policy that differed from his own ideals, but he was unable to go beyond such regrets and propose a concrete policy in response. International democracy was understood as advancing hand-in-hand with the democratization of diplomacy. As a consequence, when the national diplomacy that had been advocated by the elites approached it own limits, internationalism, i.e. the principle of international cooperation (kokusai kyocho shugi) was also made to confront its own limitations.