27Muraoka: In the field of ODA evaluation, it is pointed out that we should evaluate not only from development viewpoints but also from diplomatic viewpoints. However, we have been assessing through trial and error since there is no established methodology. Please tell us what you think about national interests in terms of development cooperation, from your current position as the president of the Japan Society for International Development (JASID).Prof. Yamagata: We, evaluators, are strongly aware that we represent the people of Japan when evaluating since ODA evaluations are conducted by the Japanese government. I had been feeling that it stirred quite a lot of confusion how to define “Japan’s national interests” at ODA project sites since it was clearly stated in the Development Cooperation Charter in 2015. We felt the urge to help resolve that situation. So, we held a special session at the annual conference of JASID in 2018. Then, as a result, Mr.Kiya and I published a book called “Why should we act for international cooperation?” (Masahiko Kiya and Tatsufumi Yamagata, 2019). I explained in the book that “for” in the phrase “Japan’s ODA should be provided for the Japanese people” had two meanings. One is “on behalf of,” which implies that the Government of Japan will provide assistance on behalf of the people of Japan. The other is “for the sake of,” which means to show who the beneficiaries are, and in this case, it is the aid benefiting people in developing countries. We considered the impression of the Japanese in using ODA for people of developing countries as beneficiaries. According to the analysis by Professor Hulme of the University of Manchester, there are four possible feelings behind the reason why the Japanese use ODA for developing countries: (1) pure humanitarian purposes; (2) moral responsibility for what developed countries have done to developing countries as colonial suzerain states; (3) mutual interests, where benefits of a developing country received by Japan’s aid will eventually benefit Japan; (4) direct self-interest. In the 2000s, idealism with full of hope for the new millennium permeated throughout the world, and even talking about national interests of donor countries was considered unacceptable. For the following ten years, it seemed improper to not mention national interests. It makes me wonder if it’s a reaction to the prior decade. We brought up a question to readers in this book that it is a matter of personal choice, which of those four reasons is more important.Muraoka: I think the most difficult part for a third-party evaluation team is what they are supposed to assess is so ambiguous when evaluating from diplomatic viewpoints. We will keep discussing with them about this so that we can deal with them in MOFA side.Prof. Yamagata: Regarding evaluation as a PR tool, it is better to present positive aspects of the evaluation target; however, it is natural to have negative aspects pointed out in the evaluation. In my case, I always remind myself to point out shortcomings while listing all the positives.Muraoka: We respect objective assessment by chief evaluator and hope that development cooperation staff can utilize evaluation results. Evaluation from diplomatic viewpoints is a very difficult subject. Personnel of MOFA are stakeholders themselves, and they are professionals in diplomacy. Therefore, they may feel that they don't need to be told by others. However, a third-party evaluation doesn’t mean to assess their diplomatic practice itself. We are experimenting to see if we can create a compelling story by examining published facts in order to convince them that evaluation is conducted from the perspective of how ODA contributes to diplomatic goals.Prof. Yamagata: It is challenging to link each development project and its impact on the entire socio-economy of each recipient country. Also, I feel that the general public is seeking a clear and distinct impact of ODA. For example, when I give a lecture, I’m sometimes asked, “Are partner countries grateful for Japan’s ODA in the first place? If the recipient country is grateful, we should continue. Isn’t it worthless if they don’t even appreciate the aid?” Now, it’s easy for me to answer “They are grateful.” However, we need to explain that being grateful doesn’t make recipient countries vote for Japan in the UN, for example, since there are other donors who aid the same developing countries. I would also like to emphasize that Japan has been doing its best for a long time with pride in providing high quality professionalism and support as Japan’s feature. However, it can be easily forgotten unless continued, even if a partner country recognizes such perception of Japan. If the partner country thinks “Japan uses ODA for Japanese companies” and such a thought disseminates, we might lose the partner country’s trust we worked hard to win. I strongly feel that we must avoid such a situation.It is up to individual Japanese to decide on which of the four reasons to provide ODA is more important than the others: humanitarian purpose, moral responsibility, mutual interest, and self-interest.Tatsufumi Yamagata(Professor of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacic University, President of the Japan Society for International Development)
元のページ ../index.html#30