アルルさんの記事に続けて、ウェズリー・クラークの記事をひとつ。
クラークはクリントンに似ているが、クリントンが経済分野で名声（？）
を上げたなら、クラークは軍事・国家安全面でＮＡＴＯでの実績を
バックに行くとのことで、いかにも頼もしそうです。
この記事がすでに、今年の1月に書かれていることも面白い。
少し長くて済みませんが、そのまま貼り付けます。Slate Mgazin より
(転載始め）
Wesley Clark
Is there a general in the house?
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 4:35 PM PT
Tired of running as John McCain, the Democratic candidates and pre-candidates for president have settled on a new archetype to emulate: Bill Clinton. John Edwards—the young, glib, pretty, Southern moderate—is the front-runner for the "Most Likely To Be Like Clinton" award, but there's a dark horse in the running, too: Wesley Clark. The former NATO commander, who led the 78-day bombing campaign in Kosovo, bears a superficial resemblance to the 42nd president. He's a former Rhodes scholar from Arkansas who has long been tabbed as one of his generation's brightest stars (in the military, not in politics). But the substantive parallel is the more important one. Just as Clinton restored the Democratic Party's reputation on economic policy, there's hope that Clark can lead the party out of its national-security wilderness.
Before he could do that, of course, Clark would actually have to run for president (and win the nomination, which is a long shot). But there's mounting evidence that he is going to do just that. During the fall election cycle, he met with New Hampshire Democrats and spoke to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. In November, Time reported that Clark met with prominent Democrats in New York City to discuss his potential candidacy. Since then, he's been issuing carefully crafted non-denial denials about his White House ambitions, saying he has "no intention" to run, that he "hasn't raised any money," and that he doesn't "really have any plans." But according the Des Moines Register, he's enlisted a member of the Gore 2000 team as his top aide, he's sought advice from Donna Brazile (who's publicly urging him to run), and he's contacted top Iowa Democrats about a caucus campaign. He's now on the Associated Press's shortlist of possible candidates, and just this week he talked with Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe about his prospects.Despite all that, a Clark candidacy isn't necessarily going to happen. As a New Hampshire Democrat told PoliticsNH.com last year, "I'd say he is running, but I don't know if he is running in 2004 or 2008 or beyond. I first met Clinton in 1979." If it did happen, what would a Clark run look like? That's an open question. He's good-looking, but is he warm? Can he connect with a room? Can he raise money? He's a blank slate on Democratic litmus-test issues such as abortion, affirmative action, economic policy, and health care—without even getting into picayune but essential primary issues such as ethanol subsidies. He's on the record as opposing the trade embargo with Cuba, for example, but that's the sort of issue a presidential candidate can easily back off from if need be.
The centerpiece for the 58-year-old Clark's campaign would obviously be his biography, and it's an impressive one: first in his class at West Point, Rhodes scholar, wounded in Vietnam, recipient of both the Purple Heart and the Silver Star. In 1981, when Clark was a 36-year-old lieutenant colonel, the Washington Post magazine profiled him as "the ideal, the perfect modern officer." Since then, he continued his career as an Army "water walker," moving effortlessly up the ranks to four-star general. Just as Dr. Bill Frist gives the Republicans some moral authority on health care, a traditional GOP weakness, Gen. Clark could strengthen the Democrats' national-security hand.
One of the most compelling things about Clark is his ability to articulate—better than other Democrats, who sometimes resort to tiresome calls of "chickenhawk" or "quagmire"—the intellectual justification for what many Democrats feel in their gut: skepticism about the need for immediate war with Iraq; concern about the status of the war against al-Qaida; a preference for working with allies over going it alone; and a respect for the institutions that make up the international order that the United States built upon the ashes of World War II.
Clark is no dove. But he argues that the biggest mistake the Bush administration made in the aftermath of Sept. 11 was its refusal to conduct the war under the auspices of NATO, despite the alliance's declaration that an attack on the United States was an attack on all its member nations. As a result, Europe is not accountable for success in the war on terrorism, only the United States is. European leaders see it as George W. Bush's war, according to Clark, because Bush has made it his war. "Not a single European election hinges on the success of the war on terrorism," Clark wrote in the September Washington Monthly. Clark even went so far as to employ a classic Vietnam metaphor to describe Bush's policies: "Because the Bush administration has thus far refused to engage our allies through NATO, we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."
Clark calls this "the lesson of Kosovo": If you bring allies into a war, they will want to win it as badly as you do. That's counterintuitive: The lesson most Americans took from Kosovo was that war by committee was a disaster that allowed, for example, a British commander to refuse Clark's order to take an airfield. But, as David Halberstam showed in War in a Time of Peace, the fact that so many leaders had staked their reputations on the Kosovo war meant that they had to win it, despite strong opposition at home: "What [losing] would do to NATO—effectively signal the end of it—and to their countries (and it was known but never said, to their own careers and place in history) was also unacceptable."
This obsession with Kosovo and the lessons that the military could learn from it call to mind another characteristic Clark shares with Clinton: He's conducting a permanent campaign for his legacy. Practically the entire preface to the paperback edition of Clark's memoir Waging Modern War (which was panned in Slate by Christopher Caldwell and Debra Dickerson) advances the argument that the war in Afghanistan and the fight against al-Qaida more closely resemble Kosovo than they do the Gulf War. The first strikes against Afghanistan in October 2001 "seemed so familiar and predictable, it was as if we were refighting the Kosovo operation on different ground," Clark writes. (He concedes, "Maybe I was almost alone in this feeling …")
Like Clinton, Clark was the brightest boy in the class who finally got his shot at the biggest job of all, but it didn't represent the historic opportunity he imagined. Clark didn't return from Kosovo a war hero—instead he was dumped as supreme allied commander by the Pentagon (which never really liked him and suspected him of being too close to Clinton). As a candidate, he wouldn't be Dwight Eisenhower or Ulysses S. Grant or Andrew Jackson or George Washington. He wouldn't even be Zachary Taylor. As that 1981 Post profile of the young Clark concluded, "As any military man will tell you, it takes a great war to produce a great general." Clark never got that war. Now's his chance.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076528/
(転載終わり）
根尾 知史
ポストから貼り付けます。
噂にはなっていましたが、クラークＮＡＴＯ軍元総司令官の大統領選挙への参加が現実味を帯びています。ディーンのような極左じゃ困るという民主党中道派の狙いなのでしょうか。（貼り付け開始）
New TV Ad Campaign Seeks To Draft Gen. Clark
By Brian FalerMonday, August 18, 2003; Page A04
Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said yesterday that he had found an "enormous hunger for leadership" as he toured the country, contemplating whether he should run for the Democratic presidential nomination."Sometime in the next two or three weeks, I'll continue to move toward closure," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
But his supporters are not waiting that long. Clark is starring in -- and is the target of -- a new television ad campaign slated to begin running today in three states.
The ads, sponsored by the group DraftWesleyClark.com, one of several groups trying to lure him into next year's race, will run in Iowa and New Hampshire, along with Clark's home state of Arkansas.
"It's almost like three-level chess on 'Star Trek,' " said John Hlinko, co-founder of the Washington-based group. "On the one hand, he definitely is the key target constituent. On the other hand, we also fully recognize that if he is going to enter . . . we want to continue building a base of supporters."
It is a gauzy, patriotic advertising spot, describing Clark's career in the military -- his service in Vietnam, his term as NATO commander, when he "ended Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal dictatorship."
"General Clark has spent his life serving our nation -- a nation which needs him now more than ever," the announcer concludes, amid images of Osama bin Laden and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
The ad will run for at least two weeks. Hlinko declined to estimate how much the group is spending on the campaign, but he called it a "real buy" that will air "hundreds of times."
Clark yesterday called the draft campaign "an authentic expression of political feeling." He added, "Regardless of whatever decision I come to, I applaud their effort. I think they've really caught fire and really have done something very, very important."
（貼り付け終わり）
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6994-2003Aug17?language=printerhttp://www.draftclark2004.com/
http://www.draftclark2004.com/about.asp
パトリック・ブキャナンPatrick J. Buchanan ホームページ、The American Cause よりイラク戦争についてのコラム記事を転載します。
米西戦争（Spanish-American War，1898年4月25日〜8月12日）は、アメリカ建国の理念である国外問題非干渉主義に基づく外交政策や政治体制が初めて、帝国主義に転換した、歴史的転換点にあたる重要な戦争であると主張されています。しかしながら、ブキャナンがこの記事でも述べているように、これまでのアメリカの歴史教育では、この戦争の重要性は（故意に?）見過ごされて来ました。
この戦争の持つ歴史的意味と重要性は、非干渉主義（国内問題優先主義 non-interventionismまたは、isolationism）を唱えるブキャナンをはじめとする保守本流派や、リバータリアンたち、さらには、左翼にて反帝国主義を主張しつづけるリベラル言論人や、ウォルター･ラファバー Walter LaFebereなどの修正主義者（Revisionist）の歴史家たちに共有されているものです。
（転載始め）
Imperial Wars, Then & Now
Patrick J. Buchanan August 13, 2003
Having found neither weapons of mass destruction nor a link to 9-11, the White House has retreated into its fallback position. It now defends Operation Iraqi Freedom as a necessary war to rid the Middle East of a brutal dictatorship and replace it with a democracy.
ホワイトハウスは大量破壊兵器も9･11とのつながりも(イラクとの戦争から)見出せていない。そして、今やイラクの自由作戦Operation Iraqi Freedomを、中東から野蛮な独裁政治を取り除き民主主義と入れ替えるために必要な戦争だったと弁解している。That is, this was a war of democratic imperialism, as some of us said all along. The neocons exploited America's rage after 9-11 and steered the president into invading Iraq, in order to reshape its political system and redirect its foreign policy. Imperialism, pure and simple. Ahmed Chalabi was the puppet preselected to run the colony.
つまりこれは私たちが常に批判し続けて来たとおりの、いわゆる民主帝国主義の戦争であった。ネオ・コンたちが9･11後にアメリカ社会が騒然とするのに乗じて、大統領にイラクを占領することをけしかけ、アメリカの政治体制の再構築と外交方針の方向転換を図ったのだ。アーメッド・シャラビ Ahmed Chalabiなど、その植民地（イラク）を統治させるため予め選ばれていた傀儡だった。Now, we are mired in a guerrilla war, with daily dead and wounded, costing $1 billion a week, with no exit strategy and no end in sight.
今や我々は、日々死者やけが人が絶えないゲリラ戦に突入したのだ。その戦費は一週間で10億ドル（約1200億円）。撤退のための戦略も停戦にいたる展望もない。
Yet, it is not the first time a U.S. president, elected on an anti-interventionist platform, was steered into an imperial war, after absorbing a stunning, shocking blow to the nation.
しかしながら、始めは「反干渉主義annti-interventionist」を綱領に掲げ当選していた大統領が、衝撃的な攻撃を食らった後に、帝国主義的戦争に方向転換させられた事例はこれが初めてではない。
On Feb. 15, 1898, the battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor, killing 268 sailors. This perceived Spanish atrocity, almost surely an accident, was seized upon by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge and Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt to bully President McKinley into calling for a war with Spain for which they had long planned.
In "First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power," ex-ambassador Warren Zimmerman tells the compelling story of how America first became an empire.
1898年2月のスペインによる米戦艦メイン爆撃は、ヘンリー･ロッジHenry Cabot Lodge上院と当時海軍補助長官のセオドア・ルーズベルトTheodore Rooseveltによってスペイン帝国の残虐行為であるとして利用され、マッキンリー大統領(William McKinley，1843-1901)をスペインとの戦争遂行にまで追いやった。ウォレン・ジマーマン（？）Warren Zimmermanは、その著作“First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power”( http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374179395/ref=sr_aps_eb_/250-7235379-1352268 )にて、アメリカが（この米西戦争をきっかけとして）どのように帝国へと変遷して行ったのかについて説得力のある解説をしている。
Anticipating war, T.R., on the navy secretary's day off, wired Commodore Dewey, commander of the Pacific squadron, to prepare to attack the Spanish fleet. As soon as war was declared, Dewey sailed for Manila Bay, caught the Spanish ships in the harbor and sank or burned all seven, losing but a single man.
戦争を予期して、海軍補助長官の非番の日に、ルーズベルトは太平洋飛行大隊指揮官のデューイ司令官（George Dewey，1837-1917）に、スペイン艦隊攻撃の用意をするよう電信した。宣戦布告がなされるとすぐ、デューイはマニラ湾へ航行した。米兵一人を失ったが、その港にいたスペイン戦艦7隻全てを捕らえたり焼き払った。The U.S. North Atlantic Squadron did the same to the Spanish fleet sent to protect Cuba. The Spanish warships were bottled up in Santiago harbor by U.S. battleships with superior firepower. In a heroic but doomed breakout on July 3, 1898, every Spanish ship was scuttled or sunk. Madrid surrendered.
アメリカ北大西洋飛行隊も、(スペイン領)キューバを防御するために送られていたスペイン艦隊に同様の攻撃を仕掛けた。スペインの戦艦は、アメリカ軍戦艦のより強力な砲撃力によりサンティアゴ港で封じ込められた。１８９８年７月３日の英雄的でかつ破滅的な包囲陣突破において、スペインの戦艦は全て打ち抜かれるか沈められた。そしてマドリッドは降伏した。
After our "splendid little war," a ferocious debate erupted. It was between T.R.-Lodge imperialists – who believed that for America to be secure in a world of empires, she must become an empire and annex the Philippines – and anti-imperialists, or "goo-goos," who wanted to give the Filipinos their independence.
「輝かしき小戦 splendid little war」の後、帝国主義世界での安全保障のためにアメリカも一帝国となり、フィリピンも統合すべきだと信じるルーズベルト−ロッジ帝国主義同盟と、反帝国主義者たちやフィリピンに独立を与えることを主張する「政治改革屋 goo-goos」との間で激しい論争が始まった。Arguments for and against annexation were both strategic and racist. Said industrialist Andrew Carnegie, "As long as we remain free from distant possessions, we are impregnable against serious attack."
併合に対する議論は、賛否両派ともに戦略的かつ人種差別主義的であった。産業資本家のアンドリュー･カーネギーAndrew Carnegie (1835-1919)は、「われわれが広範に及ぶ(国外領土の)領有に手を出さない限り、致命的な攻撃に脅かされることはないのだ」と述べている。Added progressive Carl Schurz, "Show me a single instance of the successful establishment and peaceable maintenance for a respectable period of republican institutions, based upon popular self-government, under a tropical sun."
進歩党員のカール･シュルツCarl Schurz(1829-1906、ドイツ生まれの米政治家)は、「熱帯地域の太陽のもとで、人民大衆による自治政府により共和政制度が首尾よく設立され、相当期間に渡り平和に維持されたなどという事例が一つでもあるというなら、私に見せてくれ」と加えている。McKinley had promised Schurz, "You may be sure there will be no jingo nonsense in my administration." But he was won over by the imperialists. He ordered the Army to occupy Manila and crush Filipino rebels, who were stunned to discover their liberators had decided to replace their former colonial masters.
マッキンリーはシュルツに、「私の政権には主戦論・強行外交論といった戯言は存在しないということをご覧に入れましょう」と約束していた。しかしながら、彼は帝国主義者にやられてしまう。マッキンリーは、マニラ占領しフィリピン人反乱を押し潰すよう陸軍に指示した。フィリピンの反乱軍たちは、自分たち解放者が、彼等の前植民地宗主を取り替えることに決めたことに驚いたのだ。For three years, U.S. soldiers and Marines fought, with 4,000 dying in combat, several times as many as had been lost in Cuba. Filipino combat losses were 20,000 with 200,000 civilian dead, many of disease. Yet, a recent New York Times Almanac does not even list the Filipino insurrection as a major U.S. conflict.
三年間に渡り、アメリカ兵と海軍何度も戦い、キューバで亡くなったのと同じくらい多い4,000名もの戦闘員を失った。フィリピン人の戦闘員死亡数は20,000名、加えて200,000名の市民が多くは病気に犯され亡くなっている。しかしながら、最近のニューヨークタイムズの年鑑にもこのフィリピンでの反乱は掲載されていないのだ。Was it worth it – annexing the Philippines?
In the war to secure the islands, atrocities were committed on both sides, and as a result of that war, we became ensnared in the great power politics of Asia, out of which came Pearl Harbor, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. By annexing the islands, writes Zimmermann, America "took on a security commitment in Asia that it found difficult to defend. In the Philippine case, the founders of American imperialism may have made a costly mistake."
このフィリピン諸島の安全保障のための戦争で、残虐行為は双方におよび、結果としてアメリカはアジア地域におけるグレート・パワー・ポリティックスのわなに陥った。ここからパールハーバー、第二次世界大戦、朝鮮戦争、ベトナム戦争が起こった。フィリピン諸島を併合することで、アメリカは「防衛するのが難しいと後に気付かされる、アジアにおける防衛の責任を引き受けることになった。フィリピンでの件は、アメリカ帝国主義の創始者が高く付く間違いを犯してしまったと言えるだろう。One year after the war to avenge the sinking of the Maine in Havana, we were in an imperial war 10,000 miles away. Now, two years after Sept. 11, we are fighting a guerrilla war in a nation 6,000 miles away, that had nothing to do with 9-11.
ハバナで戦艦メインを沈められた報復のためだった米西戦争の１年後、私たちは10,000マイルも離れた地域での帝国戦争を戦っていた。そして9･11から2年後の今日、われわれは6,000マイル先にある国で9･11とは何の関係も無いゲリラ戦を戦っている。President Bush was misled about what to expect when Baghdad fell. And those who misled him now reassure him that our occupation is going well and we are mopping up the resistance.
ブッシュ大統領は、バグダッドが陥落することで期待されるものを間違って助言されたのだ。そしてかれを誤った方向に導いた者たちは現在、彼に、アメリカ軍の占領は上手く行っており、反乱を掃討できているのだと再度確証を与えている。Perhaps. But, like William McKinley, George Bush may prove to be a well-intentioned president who embroiled us in decades of wars in a part of the world that was never vital to America.
おそらくそのはずだ。しかし、ウィリアム･マッキンリー大統領のように、ジョージ･ブッシュは、数十年にわたる世界のとある地域での戦争にわれわれを巻き込んだ、お人よしで間抜けな大統領にということになるのかもしれない。http://www.theamericancause.org/
(転載終わり)
根尾 知史
有料メールマガジン「ガッキィファイター」からの転送記事の抜粋です。
（転載開始）★「西ナイル熱」感染拡大。23年前に米国は何をしたか★━━━━━━━━★
マラリアや日本脳炎と同様に、蚊を媒介にするウイルスが、米国で感染を広
げています。
《米疾病対策センター（ＣＤＣ）は〔今年８月〕７日、西ナイル熱を発病した
人が16州で164人に上っていることを明らかにした。 すでに４人が死亡したと
いう。４千人が感染するという史上最悪の夏となった昨年を上回る勢いで広が
っている》（「朝日新聞」2003年８月８日夕刊）西ナイル熱ウイルスが米国内で初めて公に確認されたのは、1999年のことで
す。次第に広がり、昨年は40州の4,156人が感染、284人が死亡しています。西ナイル熱ウイルスは、ボツリヌス菌や炭疽菌などとともに米軍が生物兵器
として"開発・培養"してきたもので、これらを米国は85年前後にイラクに売っ
た事実もあります。イラン・イラク戦争でイラクを支援していた米国は、そう
いうことも平気でやってきたわけです。この生物兵器の犠牲者は傷ましい限りですが、国家としては狂気の沙汰によ
る自業自得というほかありません。米国民も、政府と軍に対して抗議と納得の
ゆく説明を求めるべきです。
当時の、貴重な記事を紹介しておきます。=====〈引用はじめ〉===========「朝日新聞」2002年10月２日==========
【ニューヨーク＝福島申二】米国が80年代に、後にイラクが生物兵器の開発に
使うことになる炭疽（たんそ）菌などの病原菌を同国に提供していたことが、
米疾病対策センター（ＣＤＣ）や連邦議会、国連査察団の資料や記録から明ら
かになった。ＡＰ通信などが30日に伝えた。イラクの生物兵器開発は米国の
「援助」から始まったと指摘している。ＡＰ通信によれば、 提供されたのは炭疽菌のほかボツリヌス菌、 ガス壊疽
（えそ）菌など。ＣＤＣや生物関係の民間会社からバグダッド大学などの研究
施設へ、米商務省の輸出承認を得て10回前後送られた。
提供があったのはイラン・イラク戦争時。目的は明確ではなく、ボツリヌス
菌のワクチン製造に使われたともされる。
イラク政府は国連の過去の査察に対し、大量の炭疽菌やボツリヌス菌を生産
し、一部を兵器に用いたことを認めている。さらにＣＤＣの記録からは、 現在米国で大流行して100人以上の死者を出し
ている西ナイル熱のウイルスも、85年にイラク南部・バスラの大学の微生物学
者に送られていることが判明した。
◇
カリフォルニア大学名誉教授で『アメリカ帝国への報復』などの著書がある
チャルマーズ・ジョンソン氏は、この報道に関し、朝日新聞の取材に次のよう
に語った。
「まったくのスキャンダルだ。イラン・イラク戦争で米国は、イラン革命の
産油国への波及を恐れてイラクを支持した。今日のイラクの脅威は、テロ組織
アルカイダ同様、覇権主義的政策の下で米国がまいた種が、自らに吹き返して
いるものだ。米国は現在も、対テロ戦のためにウズベキスタンやカザフスタン
で同じような場当たり的な軍事的援助を繰り返している」====〈引用おわり〉=====================================================
これは、非常に良質な記事です。
私には、アメリカという国と、オウム真理教との本質的区別が、つきません。
（転載終了）
本当にニューヨーカーたちは、非常事態に対して冷静に振る舞える
大人の市民になったのでしょうか？何だが自画自賛過ぎる記事です。Newsday.com より
(転載始め）
"New Yorkers Again Rise to Occasion"
Joseph DolmanThroughout the afternoon and into the sweltering evening, there was one word people seemed hesitant to speak. Terrorism.
They talked about other blackouts in other times. They talked about Con Edison. They talked about bus routes and where to find water and whether they might get into their apartments when they reached home. But no one wanted to ponder the worst possibility that yesterday could bring.
Indeed, in times of emergency, it's as if New Yorkers have some great inner gyroscope to help them keep their balance. Suddenly, they take pains not to panic. They take pains not to push. They take pains to be polite.
As I made my way home up a crowded Seventh Avenue last evening, an older white woman slipped and fell from the curb into the street. A middle-aged black guy with a cane was next to her in a heartbeat - extending a helping hand and offering her water. Scenes like this unfolded again and again as the city did what it could to adjust to the crisis.
I don't know about you, but it tells me something very reassuring. It tells me that underneath the fierce Darwinian scramble for survival in a place like Manhattan there is a bedrock human civility. We saw plenty of it beginning on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. And we saw it again yesterday.
On a normal day, of course, a palpable hostility is thick in the air. As the evening rush begins, motorists honk and bully, and pedestrians respond as often as not with a hoisted middle digit. But yesterday New Yorkers went into survival mode. And they were generally sophisticated enough to understand that your well-being and my well-being are pretty much one and the same.
The streets were gridlocked, of course, but motorists seemed more concerned than frantic. The sidewalks were jam-packed - much more so than on 9/11 - but getting around on foot was almost comfortable.
At 33rd Street and Park Avenue, I looked into a darkened downtown IRT subway station. It was a sight I had never seen before. The token booth was shut down. The tunnels were eerily silent. And the only light in this dismal maw was a glow from four red and green MetroCard slot indicators - which for some reason still had electricity. Fascinated, I started down the stairs.
"Don't go down there!" shouted a woman who later identified herself as Kaya Gross of Brooklyn. "The trains aren't running!" As it turns out, she had seen a couple of guys emerge from the tunnel a few minutes earlier. She still seemed slightly unsettled by the experience.
The men had been trapped on a train, managed to get off and found their way through the darkness of the catacombs to the street. When they came out, their hands were covered with black subway grime. It occurred to me later that her warning to stay away was more than the Metropolitan Transportation Authority had thought to offer. The place was wide open with not an official in sight.
Which brings us to another point. While New Yorkers rose to the occasion yesterday, we'll have to wait and see how Mayor Michael Bloomberg's performance is judged. Like many New Yorkers, I didn't hear much from him yesterday because I wasn't around a television or radio. But I did duck into the actor's entrance of the Walter Kerr Theatre on West 48th when I heard the mayor's voice booming though a radio that one of the stagehands had. He sounded poised and in command. Like many other New Yorkers were yesterday.
(転載終わり）
根尾 知史
朝日新聞（電子版）から転載します。（転載開始）
米朝不可侵条約は日米安保に矛盾 防大校長、米紙に寄稿
防衛大学校の西原正校長は１４日付の米紙・ワシントン・ポストに寄稿し、米国が北朝鮮と不可侵条約を結べば、日米安保条約と矛盾すると指摘したうえで、「在韓米軍の撤退につながるだけでなく、日本の核武装を正当化することになるかもしれない」と述べた。２７日から北京で開かれる６者協議での米政府の対応に懸念を表明したものだ。
「北朝鮮のトロイの木馬」と題された寄稿で西原氏は、不可侵条約を結んだ場合の危険性について、北朝鮮が核兵器開発を放棄した場合でも、生物・化学兵器は保有しており、日本に対する攻撃に使用する可能性があると指摘。その場合、在日米軍は北朝鮮と不可侵条約を結んでいるために日本を防衛できない可能性があるとしたうえで、「日本は米国との同盟に依存できなくなり、報復のための核兵器開発を決定するかもしれない」と論じた。
西原氏は不可侵条約を結ぶ代わりに、日米韓３国が北朝鮮を国家承認して外交関係を結び、平壌に大使館を開設すべきだと主張した。また、条約に署名すれば、北朝鮮側は在韓米軍の撤退を要求し、韓国側の世論も北朝鮮の要求を支持するかもしれない▽北朝鮮側が「南北統一」を求め、日本国内にも沖縄を中心に、米軍基地の縮小または閉鎖を求める議論が出る――などの可能性も指摘した。 (08/15 01:26)
http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0815/002.html
（転載終了）
同記事を米ワシントン・ポスト紙（電子版）から転載します。
（転載開始）
North Korea's Trojan Horse
By Masashi Nishihara
Thursday, August 14, 2003; Page A19YOKOSUKA, Japan -- It is unfortunate that North Korea's proposal for a "nonaggression pact" with the United States appears to be gaining support among some prominent U.S. policymakers and other influential figures. Such a pact would in fact lead only to a withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea and perhaps even to Japan's justifying the development of its own nuclear weapons.
North Korea believes that its national security has been seriously threatened by a series of President Bush's remarks and acts, including his "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, which included North Korea as one of the evils, and his war against Saddam Hussein. North Korean leaders believe that President Bush is aiming for "regime change" in Pyongyang. Therefore, from the viewpoint of their leader, Kim Jong Il, North Korea needs nuclear weapons to dissuade Washington from attacking. As an alternative, Kim would accept a nonaggression pact with the United States to guarantee the security of his regime.
But by deliberately protracting negotiations concerning the format of multilateral talks, North Korea has actually been buying time to develop its nuclear weapons further. Indeed, Pyongyang's agreement to the multilateral talks involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia does not offer much reason for optimism. Pyongyang can find all kinds of excuses for stalling the talks and continuing to work on its nuclear weapons.
The principal condition for the negotiations that North Korea will try to impose on the United States is the proposed nonaggression pact with Washington. In the past North Korea has demanded such an agreement in return for its renouncing its nuclear weapons program and permitting full inspections of its nuclear facilities.
But this is a dangerous offer that could eventually backfire on the United States. Washington should not sign a pact stating that it has no intention of launching a nuclear attack on North Korea.
A nonaggression pact would be extremely risky. First, how would the signatories ensure that the on-site inspections of suspected facilities were complete and that North Korea had in fact abandoned its nuclear arms programs?
Second, once a nonaggression pact was signed, Pyongyang might demand the withdrawal of American troops from South Korea. It would argue that an American presence on the Korean peninsula was no longer needed now that both sides had promised not to wage war against each other. Moreover, the South Korean public would be likely to support North Korea's demand.
Third, if the American troops left South Korea, Pyongyang would appeal to its South Korean "brothers" to call for a united Korea without a U.S. role. In addition, some Japanese, particularly those in Okinawa, would probably argue that American bases in Okinawa ought to be downgraded or closed.
Finally, and most important, a nonaggression pact between North Korea and the United States would conflict with the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. A North Korea without nuclear weapons would still possess biological and chemical weapons and could use them to attack Japan. In such an event, the U.S. forces in Japan could not help defend Japan in accordance with their bilateral treaty, since the United States would already have promised not to attack North Korea. Facing that possibility, Tokyo could no longer rely on its alliance with Washington and thus might decide to develop its own retaliatory nuclear weapons.
Instead of a nonaggression pact, the United States, together with Japan and South Korea, should offer diplomatic recognition to Pyongyang. Bilateral and multilateral talks involving North Korea have already demonstrated the de facto recognition of that country by the three countries. If it were made official, the three countries could open embassies in Pyongyang, which would then be better able to observe the country and to continue communicating with the government.
In the meantime, the United States and Japan should target nonmilitary sanctions at the North Korean leaders to convince them that their tactics of buying time are not paying off. Such sanctions should include measures to detect and shelve the trade of technologies and weapons of mass destruction, as well as to retard the trade of illicit drugs and counterfeit currencies. This can be done through the close observation and possible interdiction of North Korean ships on the high seas.
Last month, using the excuse of stricter safety regulations, Japan succeeded in temporarily shutting down the visit to Japan of a North Korean ferry that allegedly was being used as a spy ship and for the illegal purchases of technologies. This was a good first step in the right direction.
The writer is president of Japan's National Defense Academy.© 2003 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55858-2003Aug13.html
（転載終了）
やはり、そうですか。お金ですか。米兵にもっと関心をもってあげたら、と他人事ながら言いたくなる。NIKKEI NETより
（転載はじめ）
米国民の43％、経済・失業が最大の関心事
【ワシントン＝吉田透】米調査会社ギャラップが14日発表した最新の世論調査によると、現在の最大の関心事として「経済全般」「失業問題」と回答した人が米国民の43％を占め、テロや戦争など安全保障への不安と答えた人の割合（21％）を大きく上回った。
また米ＣＢＳニューズが13日に発表した世論調査によると、米経済の現状を「悪い」と答えた人は60％に達し、「良い」と答えた人は38％にとどまった。
イラクでの大規模戦闘の終結から約４カ月が経過し、米国民の関心が景気の先行きや雇用情勢に向かいつつあるのを改めて示した。
ブッシュ大統領は13日「米経済は回復し始めた」と景気回復を宣言したが、世論調査の結果をみると、一般の米国民と大統領との間に景気認識の開きがあるようだ。大統領は来秋の再選に向けてキャンペーンを強化するが、経済に不安を抱く米有権者の声にどう応じていくかが焦点になる。 (01:14)
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20030814AT2M1402L14082003.html
（転載おわり）
The Gallup Organizationより
（転載はじめ）
Americans Say Economy Is Top Problem Facing Country
No sign of improvement in perceptions of economyby Frank Newport
GALLUP NEWS SERVICEhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030814.asp
（転載おわり）
奥田勝典拝
反戦運動抑圧の政治的意図としか思えない。アメリカは、益々、自由が国家権力によって制限される、恐ろしい国になっていると思う。ヤフー・ニューズより
(転載はじめ）
米財務省、「人間の盾」に罰金も
［ワシントン １２日 ロイター］ 米財務省は１２日、イラク戦争反対を訴える「人間の盾」となるため、イラク渡航を禁じる制裁法を無視して同国に渡った平和運動家らに対し、最高１万ドル（約１２０万円）の罰金を科す可能性があることを明らかにした。
財務省のグリフィン報道官は事例の特定を避けながらも、「国際社会と米国で制定された制裁法に違反した者は、法の厳正な執行を覚悟しなければならない」と述べた。
ＡＢＣテレビによると、財務省は、結果的には開戦を阻止できなかった「人間の盾」約３００人のうち米国人５人前後から事情聴取した。
財務省から通告を受けたことを認めたウィスコンシン、フロリダ両州在住の２人は、罰金の支払いを拒否している。
財務省は罰金が法の厳正な執行で、政治的な背景はないとしている。（ロイター）
[8月13日20時44分更新]http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20030813-00000386-reu-int
（転載おわり）
奥田勝典です。
“It's a matter of principle.”と言って、罰金の支払いを拒否しているようです。
ガーディアンより
（転載はじめ）
Human shields face 12 years' jail for visiting Iraq
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday August 13, 2003
The Guardianhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1017349,00.html
（転載おわり）
奥田勝典拝
毎日新聞（電子版）から転載します。（転載開始）
米大統領：支持率の下落続く 米紙世論調査
１３日付の米紙ワシントン・ポストの世論調査によると、ブッシュ米大統領のイラク政策への支持率は５６％と１カ月前の５８％からわずかに下落した。初夏以降の急落傾向には歯止めがかかった。
大統領支持率は５９％だった。４月にバグダッドが陥落した際には大統領支持率は７７％で、共和党支持者の９５％、民主党支持者も６２％が支持していた。しかし今回は、共和党の支持に大きな変化がないのに対し、民主党は６４％が不支持となり、党派色の強い結果となった。（ワシントン共同）
［毎日新聞８月１４日］ ( 2003-08-14-01:12 )
http://www.mainichi.co.jp/news/flash/kokusai/20030814k0000m030124000c.html
（転載終了）
『選択』２００３年８月号のＰ３１から転載します。（転載開始）
本から見る地球 連載２３１ Book Reviewing Globe
米国の朝鮮半島撤退論Korean Endgame
A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement
Selig S. Harrison ＝ 著
Princeton University Press ＝ 刊 2002 $45北朝鮮が再処理の燃料棒からプルトニウムを抽出し始めたことが米国情報機関の調査でわかった。北朝鮮核危機は、いよいよ瀬戸際へ向かっている。
なぜ、ここまでの事態に立ち至ったのか。なぜ、クリントン政権もブツシュ政権も朝鮮政策では失態を繰り返すのか。なぜ、日米韓の政策協調はうまくいかないのか。
中国も巻き込んで、次の手を打つ前に、一度、そのようなおさらいをしておかなくてはならない。
米国有数の北朝鮮ウオッチャーである著者のこの本は、その際のまたとない手引きとなるだろう。
北朝鮮は金正日の絶対独裁下にあり、派閥党争も権力闘争も無縁だ、との見方がある。米政府が主張し始めているＫＥＤＯ(朝鮮半島エネルギー開発機構)の中止についても、韓国などは、中止すれば北朝鮮のタカ派を喜ばせるだけだ、とこれに慎重姿勢を示すのに対して、米国内には「北朝鮮にはタカ派もハト派もない。それをあるように言うのは幻想に過ぎない」という見方が強い。
筆者は、ハト派とタカ派は存在する、とする。経済改革を推進しようとしてきたハト派(改革派)とそれに反対するタカ派(保守派)である。１９９１年の労働党中央委員会は改革派の勝利だった。その後、改革派は、国連開発計画の豆満江(とまんこう)開発への北朝鮮の参加や経済特区構想、さらには黄海の石油開発計画などを推進した。しかし、そのどれ１つ成功しなかった。１つにはその後の核危機によって保守派が巻き返したことがある。
金正日自身、北朝鮮の経済の現状に対して厳しい認識を持ってきたことは間違いない。「このままでは北朝鮮はアナーキーに突入してしまう」との危機感を内部の講話で表明したテープが外に持ち出されたことがある。日本の戦前の財閥、韓国の戦後の財閥の発展と同じような、上からの強引な資本集中を行い、経済に活を入れようとした。党官僚組織を迂回するため、自分自身の経済空間を新たにつくることで中央突破を図ろうとした。
かくして、金正日個人に連なる「宮廷経済」が生まれた。党経済、軍部経済、宮廷経済、北朝鮮の経済はこの３層となる。麻薬も偽金もミサイル輸出も、そして２０００年６月の南北首脳会談の際の５億ドルの“接待費”も、すべてこの宮廷経済に流れ込む。これがさらに改革を阻む結果となった。
筆者は、北朝鮮の改革の行く手に悲観的である。
どのような形にしろ、朝鮮半島はいずれ統一されるだろう。筆者は、米国は半島から撤退するべきだと主張している。だが、それが力の真空をもたらし、１９世紀、２０世紀と同じような朝鮮半島をめぐる大国の権力政治のるつぼにしてはならない。
筆者によれば、カギは中国よりむしろ日本である。日本が核開発に向かうかどうか、である。もし日本が密かに核オプションを志向しているのであれば、朝鮮半島の非核化はかなわないだろう。統一朝鮮が連邦制だろうが、吸収合併だろうが、その朝鮮は核オプションを否定しないだろう。
日本が核を絶対に持たないという姿勢をより明確にしなければならない。その上で、朝鮮半島は非核中立地域とするのが最善の策である、と筆者は熱を込めて説く。そうなれば、米国はここに駐留し続ける必要はない。いや、そのような中立化構想を推進することで撤退の筋道をつけるべきだ、と言うのである。(Ｊ・Ｔ・Ｙ)
（転載終了）
香港「アジアタイムズ」（電子版）から転載します。１２５９：結局、ネオコンとは、宗教右派とユダヤが結びついて、イスラエルを自分たちの“聖地”にするためならなんでもする集団で良いのか？
（転載開始）
What is a neo-conservative anyway?
いずれにしても新保守主義(ネオコン)とは何だろうか？
By Jim Lobe
ジム・ローベWASHINGTON - With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the international media nowadays, one would think that there would be a standard definition of the term. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of US foreign policy under President George W Bush, a common understanding of the term remains elusive.
ワシントン − 今日の国際報道に出てくる新保守主義(ネオコン)に関心がある全ての人たちは、この用語の基準となる定義があると考えているだろう。現在、ブッシュ大統領の外交政策が事実上支配しているにも係わらず、この用語に対する共通の理解は依然得られていない。
In this context, it may be useful to offer some description of their basic tenets and origin, if for no other reason than to distinguish them from other parts of the ideological coalition behind the administration's neo-imperialist trajectory; namely, the traditional Republican machtpolitikers (might makes right), such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and the Christian Rightists, such as Attorney-General John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson.
As neo-con godfather, Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a "liberal who was mugged by reality". True to that description, neo-conservatives generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many neo-cons, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organizational skills and ideological zeal.
ネオコンの名づけ親として知られる、アーヴィング・クリストルが次のように書いている。新保守主義(ネオコン)とは、「現実に襲われた自由である」と。この記述の通り、新保守主義者(ネオコン)たちは、政治的に左もしく極左だった者たちを始まりとしている。
Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, Commentary, is published by the American Jewish Committee. At the same time, however, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the US Jewish community as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign policy views.
Neo-conservative foreign policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the "new left" of the 1960s, fears over a return to US isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbors in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but their key principles have remained the same.
They begin with the basic foreign policy realism found in the pessimistic views of human nature and international diplomacy of the English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, that neo-cons share with most US practitioners: that "the condition of man [in a state of nature] ... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone." Or, as Machiavelli, another favorite thinker of the neo-cons, wrote, "Men are more ready for evil than for good."But neo-cons take "man's" capacity for evil particularly seriously, and for understandable reasons. For neo-conservatives, the Nazi Holocaust that killed some 6 million Jews during World War II is the seminal experience of the 20th century. Not only was it a genocide unparalleled in its thoroughness, the Holocaust also wiped out family members of hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens in the United States, including, for example, close relatives of the parents of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
For neo-conservatives, as for most Jews, the Holocaust represents absolute evil, and the factors which contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the subsequent extermination of Jews must be fought at all costs.
"The defining moment in our history was certainly the Holocaust," Richard Perle, a key neo-con and leading advocate of war with Iraq, recently told BBC's Panorama. "It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don't want that to happen again, and when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic," he said.
For neo-conservatives, the 1938 Munich agreement, under which Hitler was permitted by Britain and France to take over Czechoslovakia, is the epitome of appeasement that led directly to the Holocaust. As a result, Munich and appeasement are constantly invoked in their rhetoric as a way to summon up the will to resist and defeat the enemy of the day. Hence, almost every conflict in which the United States has been engaged since the late 1960s - from Vietnam to Central America to Yugoslavia to the "war on terror" in Iraq and against al-Qaeda - has been portrayed as a new Munich in which the enemy represents a threat virtually on a par with Hitler.
The resulting worldview tends to Manichaeism - the notion that the world consists of a permanent struggle between the forces of good and evil, light and dark (an idea which incidentally accords very well both with the thinking of the Christian Right, not to mention of Bush himself). As Michael Ledeen, a close collaborator of Perle's at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) told the same BBC program, "I know the struggle against evil is going to go on forever."
Three major factors are seen as having contributed to the Holocaust: the failure of the liberal Weimar Republic in Germany to prevent the Nazis' rise; "appeasement"; and US isolationism that kept Washington from intervening in World War II earlier.
Although neo-cons profess devotion to liberal democracy, they have never hesitated to assail "liberalism", or what they sometimes call with their Christian Right allies "secular humanism", whose relativism, in their view, can lead to "a culture of appeasement", nihilism or worse. Thus, even while supposedly defending "liberal" and democratic ideals, their attitude is at best ambivalent.
Appeasement is prevented, in their view, by a powerful military capable of defeating any foe, the constant anticipation of new threats, and the willingness to preempt them. Thus, neo-cons have consistently favored big defense budgets, a stance shared by the right-wing machtpolitikers with whom they formed an alliance in the 1970s to end detente with Moscow. In their view, peace is to be distrusted, and peace processes are inherently suspect. "Peace doesn't come from a 'process'," wrote Wall Street Journal editorial writer Robert Pollock last year in a column that denounced the 1990s as a "decade of appeasement".
In this view, war is a natural state, and peace is a Utopian dream which induces softness, decadence and pacifism embodied by Bill Clinton whose "corruption of the national mission, combined with the myth that peace is normal, produces a solvent strong enough to dissolve the strength of our armed forces and the integrity of our political and military leaders", Ledeen wrote in 2000.
Similarly, enemies cannot be negotiated with. "Before the US can worry about rebuilding Iraq, it has to win militarily, and decisively so," the Journal wrote just before the war. "... Arab cultures despise weakness in an adversary above all," a refrain familiar to past neo-con descriptions of the Soviet Union, China, and other geo-political foes.
Finally, US engagement in world affairs is absolutely indispensable in preventing catastrophe, according to neo-con ideology which, in the words of another Perle intimate, Ken Adelman, sees "isolationism [as] the default option" in US foreign policy. Indeed, many neo-cons, fearing that the Cold War's end would revive isolationism, spent most of the 1990s hawking policies designed to maintain Washington's international engagement, even if that meant supporting Clinton when he deployed troops abroad.
Why? If evil is embodied by Hitler and similar threats, the United States comes as close to moral goodness as can be found in the world today, according to the neo-cons. "Since America's emergence as a world power roughly a century ago," Elliott Abrams, another prominent neo-con who currently serves as the top Middle East policymaker on Bush's National Security Council, wrote in a Commentary colloquium in 2000, "we have made many errors, but we have been the greatest force for good among the nations of the Earth. A diminution of American power or influence bodes ill for our country, our friends, and our principles''.
Thus, US intervention abroad, as in Iraq, is seen in the best possible light. Michael Kelly, a Washington Post columnist who died in an accident during the Iraq campaign, assured his readers last October that, "what President Bush aspires to now, is not exactly imperialism. It is something more like armed evangelism".
The moral goodness of the US is beyond question and justifies - indeed requires - a unilateralist policy lest, by subjecting its will to the wishes or agreements of other countries or international institutions, the US would actually prevent itself from fulfilling its moral mission.
This notion - that Washington would taint itself morally by working through multilateral institutions or tying itself to alliances with lesser countries - is certainly not unique to neo-conservatives. It has been around since George Washington warned the country in his Farewell Address against "entangling alliances" with European powers.
But the neo-conservatives have tried hard to reinforce this idea. Thus, in an attack on the UN Security Council this year, Perle argued, "This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China, and France." It echoes a refrain delivered by Post columnist Charles Krauthammer 15 years ago about the UN, "Let it sink," he wrote. "It is corrupting."
This sense of US moral superiority applies especially to what is now called "Old Europe", much as it was in US foreign policy until Washington's entry into World War II. Thus, Kelly, again writing about US imperial altruism: "Unlike the European powers, the United States has never sought to own the world. In its peculiarly American fashion, it has sought to make the world behave better, indeed be better."
Similarly, during much of 2002, countless neo-con columns and editorials in the Post, the Wall Street Journal and the neo-con The Weekly Standard (edited by Irving Kristol's son, William) cited a wave of attacks against Jewish targets across Europe, almost all of them carried out by Muslim immigrants or their children, as evidence of a resurgent anti-Semitism distinctly reminiscent of the 1920s and 1930s. "The whole of Europe is sick," wrote Paul Johnson, an English neo-con, in the Journal, while, in one of his milder remarks, Perle accused Europe of losing its "moral compass" over Iraq. Robert Kagan's much-celebrated depiction of Europeans being from Venus and Americans from Mars is an even milder version of the same basic worldview: compared to forthright, masculine Americans, Europeans are passive, decadent and unwilling to stand up for what is right.
Washington's moral superiority, however, combined with the possibly "catastrophic" results of failing to confront Munich-type threats, also justifies a range of extraordinary responses which, under other circumstances, might be morally questionable, according to the neo-con view. In particular, temporary alliances with other countries or movements whose own ideologies or practices may be morally reprehensible can be defended if they are used to fight a greater evil.
"In World War II, we were allied for three years and eight months with history's greatest murderer - Joseph Stalin - because we had a more immediate problem, Adolf Hitler," said former Central Intelligence Agency head James Woolsey, at an AEI briefing, in defending tactical flexibility. Similarly, neo-cons were unabashed about their support for "authoritarian" governments during the Cold War in the face of the greater "totalitarian" threat of Soviet communism, described by long-time Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz in 1976 as nothing less than "the most determined, ferocious and barbarous [enemy] ever to have appeared on the Earth".
The readiness to make tactical alliances has extended even to anti-Semitic governments and movements, such as the neo-Nazi military junta in Argentina. The regime was strongly defended by the elder Kristol, while neo-cons in the Ronald Reagan administration, such as Abrams and then-UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, worked to reverse the regime's diplomatic isolation and restore US and multilateral aid that had been cut off by previous president Jimmy Carter. The embrace was motivated primarily by the desire for Argentine cooperation in Central America, as was the neo-cons' strong support for then-Nicaraguan Archbishop Miguel Obando y Bravo despite his public stated beliefs that the Jews were punished for killing Jesus Christ.
If anti-Semitism can be tolerated under some circumstances, however, the security of Israel remains a fundamental tenet of neo-conservatives who traditionally supported whatever Israeli government was in power but, since 1993 and the Oslo peace accords, became much more closely identified with the views of the right-wing Likud Party, which opposed the agreement. The neo-conservative identification with Israel can be explained in part by its predominantly Jewish membership, but Christian neo-conservatives very much share the sense that a strategic alliance with Israel constitutes a moral imperative in the post-Holocaust era. As Catholic neo-con William Bennett wrote in a recent book, "America's fate and Israel's fate are one and the same."
カトリックの新保守主義者(ネオコン)として知られるウイリアム・ベネットの最新作は、「アメリカとイスラエルは運命共同体である」である。
This commitment to Israel also explains the willingness of Jewish neo-cons to overlook the anti-Semitism of their Christian Right allies, whose own identification with Israel is based on a "Christian Zionist" reading of Biblical scripture that recognizes a God-given right of the Jews to what both religions consider the "Holy Land", at least until the Apocalypse and the Second Coming of Christ. Kristol and other leading neo-cons have long argued that other Jews should not be offended by this alliance. "Why would it be a problem for us?" he wrote some years ago. "It is their theology; but it is our Israel."
クリストルと仲間たちは、ユダヤ人たちがこの同盟によって攻撃されるべきないと長年論じてきた。クリストルは数年前に次のように書いている「なぜイスラエルは我々の問題なのか？」「それは神学である。つまり、我々のイスラエルである」
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EH13Aa01.html
（転載終了）
腹を抱えて笑いました。根尾さん、面白い記事をありがとうございます。でも、ホームレスの退役軍人の写真は悲しくなりました。ヴェトナム戦争の時のような思いはさせないと言ってましたが、また、そうなりそうですね。アメリカのことなのでいいのですが、正直者が馬鹿をみるような社会は、私には受け入れがたいし、許せないです。
また話が飛びました・・・。私は、根尾さんの学問に対する真摯な姿勢に常に敬意を持っています。これからも投稿を楽しみにしています。
奥田勝典拝
（貼り付け開始）世界キリスト教情報 2003/08/11号
＝ 目 次 ＝ ▼エキュメニカル集会めぐり独枢機卿が議論
▼米聖公会が保守派の反対押し切り、同性愛者の主教認める
▼各国聖公会指導者が同性愛者主教の登場に懸念示す
▼ボストン教区が性的虐待被害者に６５億円の和解金提示
▼『神殿の丘』への非イスラム教徒立ち入り禁止
▼福音宣教者のために新ウエブ・サイト
▼［メディア展望］◎エキュメニカル集会めぐり独枢機卿が議論
【ビーレフェルト（独）＝ＥＮＩ・ＣＪＣ】カトリック教会の枢機卿３人が、５月末にベルリンで開かれた『エキュメニカル・キルヘンターク』（教会大会）を巡ってメディア上で論議を交わしている。約２０万人が参加したこの大会、カトリックとプロテスタントが共催した正式集会としてはこれまで最大のものとなり、「キリスト教の一致の道に大きな前進」との評価もあったほど。
しかしバチカン（ローマ教皇庁）教理省長官のヨーゼフ・ラッツィンガー枢機卿が「浅薄」と決めつけるなど批判の声が上がり、ドイツ教会の指導者カール・レーマン枢機卿は弁護に乗り出した。キルヘンタークがカトリック教会内に混乱を生み出したと、ケルンのヨアキム・マイスナー枢機卿も指摘している。
レーマン枢機卿は「ここで私は正義と真実のために、（ラッツィンガー、マイスナー両枢機卿には）同意出来ないことを公表する、とカトリック系新聞に掲載された記事で、語った。
ベルリン集会で論じられた主な問題が聖体（聖餐）。プロテスタントとカトリックが共に分かち合うことについてであった。バチカンが禁止していることから、その緩和を求める意見は圧倒的な支持を得られた。
「私は教会大会が空騒ぎだったのが不安だ」とマイスナー枢機卿は、批判を重ねている。「エキュメニズム（世界教会主義）は現実主義と勇気から生まれるもので、あいまいな希望からではない」と言う。
これらの批判は、ドイツのカトリック教会が５、６年後に予定されている次回大会を支持するかの議論の中で出て来たもの。
レーマン枢機卿は、教皇ヨハネ・パウロ２世が大会にメッセージを送り、「信仰においてキリスト者を結び付けるものは、分裂させるものより強くかつ重要であることを大会は示した」と述べている、と指摘した。
ベルリン大会でカトリック側の共同議長を務めたハンス・ヨアキム・マイヤー氏も、ラッツィンガー、マイスナー両枢機卿の批判に反発している。有力政治家でもあるマイヤー氏は、２０万人の参加者の中でカトリックが７万人と推定されることだけでなく、枢機卿５人を含め司教４０人がベルリン大会に参加したことを、ラッツィンガー枢機卿の発言は侮辱するものだ、と言う。
ベルリン大会に出席し、講演した人の中には、教皇庁キリスト教一致評議会議長のワルター・カスパー枢機卿もいた、とマイヤー氏は指摘している。◎米聖公会が保守派の反対押し切り、同性愛者の主教認める
【ＣＪＣ＝東京】米聖公会はミネソタ州ミネアポリスで開いた総会で、同性愛者であることを公表していたジーン・ロビンソン司祭（５６）の主教任命を正式に承認した。
同氏はこの６月にニューハンプシャー教区主教に選出されていた。
総会は８月３日まず信徒部会で任命を承認したが、同氏から不適当な行為をされたとか、インターネットでポルノを見られるサイトを運用している青年団体と関係を持っているなどの非難が明らかになって議場が混乱、司教部会での表決が１日延期された。
司教部会では賛成６２、反対４５、保留２だった。結果が発表されると、反対した主教は各国聖公会の連合組織であるアングリカン・コミュニオン（世界聖公会共同体）の長であるカンタベリー大主教に介入を求める意向を明らかにした。
ロビンソン氏は、前妻との間に２人の子がいる。離婚後、１３年間、男性パートナーと生活している。◎各国聖公会指導者が同性愛者主教の登場に懸念示す
【ＣＪＣ＝東京】世界の教会を協議会系のＥＮＩ通信がまとめた所では、米聖公会総会で同性愛者のジーン・ロビンソン司祭の主教の選出が認められたことに、世界聖公会（英国国教会）共同体の分裂を招きかねないと懸念する声が、各国教会指導者から上がっている。
「文化的な帝国主義」ではないか、と言うのは、アルゼンチン、ボリビア、チリ、パラグアイ、ペルーとウルグアイなど南米スペイン語圏各国聖公会指導者、グレッグ・ベナブレス総裁主教。選挙は「キリストの教会を分裂させるだけでなく、神の言葉に反する」として、米国の教会が「共同体から踏み出した」ので、正統派の指導者と「悲しいが、必要な次の手段を取る」ため近く会談すると語った。
聖公会の霊的最高指導者カンタベリー大主教のローワン・ウイリアムズ氏は、世界各国の聖公会指導者に、この問題について早急な決定を行わないよう訴えている。「アメリカの教会と各国聖公会が、重要で、かつ取り消しの出来ない決定をする前に、この展開を検討する機会を持ってほしい」とウィリアムズ氏はロンドンから送った声明で述べた。
ケニアのベンジャミン・エンジンビ大主教は、今回の選出を「聖書の明白な教えに背くもの」と非難している。もしもロビンソン氏が主教として着座するなら、それは「米聖公会が共同体から離脱することを望まない人々にとって、アメリカだけでなく、全聖公会の人々を苦悩させることになる」と言う。◎ボストン教区が性的虐待被害者に６５億円の和解金提示
【ＣＪＣ＝東京】米カトリック教会を揺るがした聖職者による児童の性的虐待事件で、スキャンダルの震源地マサチューセッツ州ボストン大司教区は８月８日、被害申告者５００人以上に総額５５００万ドル（約６５億円）の和解金の支払いを提示した。
提案には被害者のカウンセリングの費用を支払うことなども含まれている。被害者の代理人弁護士らは、提案を前向きなもの
各申告者は３０日以内に受け入れるかどうかを回答しなければならず、和解金は９５％の申告者が受諾した場合にのみ支払われる。
マサチューセッツ州司法当局は、教会幹部の刑事訴追を断念するとの報告書を公表する一方で教会側の対応を厳しく批判している。◎『神殿の丘』への非イスラム教徒立ち入り禁止
【エルサレム＝ＥＰ・ＣＪＣ】イスラエル警察は７月３０日、ユダヤ教聖地として知られる『神殿の丘』へ非イスラム教徒の立ち入りを禁止する、と発表した。
現場は、イスラム教にとっても第３の聖地でハラム・アルシャリフ・モスクがある。「我々は実務上の理由で、当分の間、立ち入りを禁止した」と警察がＡＦＰ通信に語った。いつ解除されるかは未定という。イスラム教青年過激派の示威行為を制限するため特定の年齢のイスラム教徒の立ち入りも禁止された。
『神殿の丘』は、２０００年にアリエル・シャロン首相が現場を訪れて以来、パレスチナ市民による自爆テロとイスラエル側の報復的攻撃が繰り返されて来た。
８月７日がソロモン王とヘロデ王により建設された第一神殿と第二神殿を覚えてユダヤ人が祝う日であることから、混乱を避けるため立ち入りを禁止したものと見られる。
通常、当日はイスラエル市民のユダヤ教徒は西暦７０年に破壊された第二神殿の一部である嘆きの壁を訪れる。しかし中にはイスラム教徒に占拠された形の『神殿の丘』に侵入を試みる者もいる。そのようなグループの一つ、『神殿の丘信徒』はこれまで２０年にわたって新たな神殿建設を目指し、象徴的な礎石を置こうとして来た。
８月６日、イスラエルの裁判所は、合法的に現場に礎石を置くことを求めた同グループの請願を却下した。◎福音宣教者のために新ウエブ・サイト
【ＣＪＣ＝東京】人間を様々にグループ分けして見る。そしてどのグループに最も福音が到達し、また伝道が行き渡っていないか、そういうことを知りたいと思った時に役に立つ英語のインターネットのサイト（http://peoplegroups.org）が登場した。米バプテスト通信によると、地域、別、宗教、言語などに加えて福音の到達度合いでも検索可能な１万１０００以上のグループが登録されている。
このサイトでは世界の福音伝道の実態を図表で示すほか、グループのリストをダウンロード可能だ。さらに利用者は自身の都市で福音未到達グループを確認した際には、その情報を付け加えられる。
これらの情報は米南部バプテスト会議の国際宣教部の調査部門が編集、分析した。情報の多くがグループ自身が直接行った調査で得られたもの。
サイトは、ここにアクセスした人によってすでに掲出されている情報の更新も出来るようになっている。
試しに「日本人（Japanese）」で検索すると、国＝日本、言語＝日本語、主な宗教＝神道、人口＝１億２３３２万５７８６人、と出てくる。情報源は明らかにされてはいない。◎［メディア展望］
＝カトリック新聞（８月１０日）＝
★子どもと共に神を賛美＝大阪教区＝英語対訳付きミサ式次第作成
★部落問題委員会夏季合宿＝高知・赤岡で開催＝キリシタン受け入れた「部落」の人々の精神性学ぶ
★フィリピンのマグサイサイ賞＝「ペシャワール会」の中村哲医師が受賞
★「Ｔ・Ｋ生」が名乗り＝韓国民主化「教会の貢献」語る＝キリスト新聞（８月9日）＝
★世界ＹＷＣＡ総会＝常任委が若返り＝新会長にはモニカ・セッチェ氏
★ＮＣＣ常議員会＝宣教会議の開催へ＝「賛同会員」制度を新設
★エリヤ会がシンポジウム＝１％の壁は破れる！＝“相手に通じる言葉を”
★Ｇ・ゴルトマン氏が逝去＝グレゴリオ聖歌の継承に尽力＝クリスチャン新聞（８月１０日）＝
★長崎バプテスト教会＝原爆の痛み、守り抜いた聖書＝礼拝は投下時間から
★宮城北部地震＝高齢信徒のため祈りを
★聖書福音諸教会が同盟基督教団に加入へ＝同根の宣教理念生かしたい
★日本キリスト教団聖霊刷新協議会が全国大会＝竹前昇総幹事もエール＝リバイバル新聞（８月１０日）＝
★加古川バプテスト教会がリーダーズカンファレンス＝２４教会からチーム単位で参加
★「日本民族総福音化運動協議会」理事会がスタート＝民族規模のリバイバル目的に教会と神学 (Church & Theology)
http://kohara.doshisha.ac.jp/church/（貼り付け終了）
米ＮＹタイムズ紙（電子版）から転載します。（転載開始）
YOKOSUKA JOURNAL
横須賀ジャーナルRipples From Perry's Ships Are Still Felt in Japan
ペリーの黒船による波紋が日本で未だに影響があるBy NORIMITSU ONISHI
大西のりみつYOKOSUKA, Japan — Walking behind a mock "black ship," the American playing the part of Commodore Matthew C. Perry held up an ominous-looking document and brandished it at paradegoers here on a recent Sunday. Dressed in a black period uniform, a sword at his hip, he glared from below his big hat.
"Perry-san!" a woman chirped from the crowd. "Why do you look so serious?"
The reception was hardly lighthearted when the real Commodore Perry arrived off this port city on Tokyo Bay on July 8, 1853, and forced Japan to open up to international trade and relations. The shock quickly led to the collapse of a regime that had ruled feudal Japan in isolation and peace for more than two centuries, and then to modern Japan's scramble to catch up with the West and grab an Asian empire.
As events this summer commemorating the 150th anniversary of Perry's arrival have made clear, he and his black ships still have a profound resonance. Even more than Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who led the American occupation of Japan after World War II, Perry is perhaps the most widely known foreign historic figure in Japan — which might come as a surprise in the United States.
"Perry? He was an explorer, wasn't he? That's all I know," said Leslie Fields, 41, a software engineer from San Diego, who works at the American naval base, about 12 miles south of Yokohama. "I have no idea what this parade is about."
Americans might also be surprised by the lack of emphasis here on the Pearl Harbor attack. Recent editorials here hardly mentioned it in a review of the major events of the last 150 years. One of the most widely used government-endorsed junior high school textbooks devotes three pages to Perry, but only three lines to Pearl Harbor.
If relations with the United States began for the Japanese with Perry, they began for Americans with Pearl Harbor, said Kenichi Matsumoto, a professor of the history of Japanese thought at Reitaku University in nearby Tokyo.
「もし米国との関係が、日本人にとってペリーによって始まったのなら、アメリカ人にとっては真珠湾攻撃だ」と、麗澤大学の松本健一教授（日本思想史）と述べた。
"For the United States, Pearl Harbor was a traumatic experience, but the Japanese don't fully understand its significance," he said. "On the other hand, Americans don't want to dwell on Perry's visit to Japan because it doesn't fit well with America's version of history. This gap in perception is very large."
「米国にとって、真珠湾はトラウマとなったが、日本人はそのことを全く理解していないことは明らかだ」「一方、米国人はペリーの訪日を気にしていない。なぜならアメリカの歴史では採り上げられないからだ。この認識のギャップは大変大きい」と述べた。
Pearl Harbor does not dovetail with Japan's emphasis on its own suffering in World War II. That focus makes it easier to underplay its aggressions against the United States and other Asian nations.In the United States, historians say, Perry has sunk into obscurity partly because he conjures up an imperial image that makes Americans uncomfortable. When Perry came here, America was in an expansionist mood, moved by Manifest Destiny to export Christianity, civilization and commerce. Historians agree, though, that President Millard Fillmore sent Perry to Japan largely because America needed oil — though back then it was the oil from whales found off the Japanese coast. It was also competing against Britain for trade in China and needed Japan as a base. Perry arrived here with four ships mounting more than 60 guns and nearly 1,000 men, carrying a list of demands from Fillmore.
The Japanese were overwhelmed by Perry's firepower. When he returned the next year, the Japanese yielded and signed a so-called treaty of amity and commerce. The treaty thrust Japan — which until then had banned travel abroad on punishment of death — onto the world stage.
To this day, the difference in perspectives on the beginning of American and Japanese relations colors each society's understanding of the other, historians say. The perceptions remain in what Shu Kishida, a professor at Wako University in Tokyo who specializes in applying psychoanalysis to history, calls "a people's subconscious memory."
To Americans, Japan is the sneaky country behind Pearl Harbor, an image that re-emerged during trade friction in the 1980's. To Japan, the United States is an insensitive brute.
アメリカ人にとって、日本は真珠湾攻撃をするような“ずるい”国（旧約聖書：蛇がイブを騙してリンゴを食べさせて楽園から追放させたから）この印象は８０年代の貿易摩擦で再燃した。日本にとって米国は無神経な野蛮者だ。
"Japan was saying, `No,' " Mr. Kishida said of Perry's demands, "but was forced to open up its ports, like a woman who was raped." That impression has lingered, he added.
ペリーの要求に対して「日本はノーと言った」「だが、レイプされた女性のように強制的に開港させられた」と岸田氏は語った。その印象は消えていないと付け加えた。But most Japanese regard Perry's arrival as the basis of present friendly ties with the United States, said Hiroshi Sato, 45, who teaches history at Tsukuda Junior High School in Tokyo. In his class, he dedicates three to four hours to Perry's visit.
だが、ほとんどの日本人はペリーの来航を現在の友好関係の基礎とみなしていると述べた。
"When I read once that Perry wasn't well known in the United States, I was a little surprised," he said.
「私はかってペリーが米国では無名だという書物を読んで、すこし驚いた」、と語った。
So were his students. "If Japanese students know about Perry, I figured that American students would know about him, too," said Miki Nishida, 14. "There were many events before Pearl Harbor."
Tatsuru Takimoto, 14, said: "The United States needed Japan to gain markets in Asia, so I think they came only for their own interests. But it's good they came." If they had not, he added, "Japan would have taken longer to modernize."
Two young Americans from New York who are stationed at the naval base here but had never heard of Perry — Kelvin Garcia, 18, from the South Bronx, and D. J. Williams, 19, from Hillside, Queens — were watching the parade here.
"I don't know who he is," Seaman Garcia said. "It's a nice parade, though. Pearl Harbor? That was the first time the United States was attacked. A whole fleet was destroyed, and that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Bands marched by, one playing the theme song to "The Flintstones." The actor playing Perry — Rolan E. Logan, an operations specialist first class at the base here — held the "Amity Document."
"Americans sometimes tend to come in thinking we're the best thing on earth," he said, "but we need to understand Japanese culture, or other foreign cultures, better."
Mr. Logan, who said he had known very little about Perry when he was assigned here 10 years ago, added, "I tend to think a country teaches history to give people a certain attitude."
（転載終了）
このサイトThe Onion (www.theonion.com )は、どちらかというと
リベラルよりなのですが、いつも政治家や政府政策等の矛盾点を、
一般米国民の視点から捉えて、誰もがおかしいと思っているポイントを
上手にギャグ調の記事にまとめています。少し前の記事ですが、奥田さんの投稿を見てふと思い出したので、
載せてみます。週間で更新されるので、息抜きに読んでみると
なじみの政治問題ばかりなだけに、思わず笑えます。The Onion より 以下に抜粋を載せます。
全文はこちらで読めます。
http://www.theonion.com/onion3921/bush_visits_uss_truman.html(転載始め）
Bush Visits U.S.S. Truman For Dramatic Veterans'-Benefits-Cutting Ceremony
・・・・・・・・"Whether sacrificing their lives or their health coverage, these brave Americans are willing to do whatever it takes to help this nation, and for this I salute them."
・・・・・・・
"You have shown the world the skill and might of the American armed forces," Bush said. "You have exhibited a willingness to do what your country has asked of you. In return, I would like to personally show my gratitude by guaranteeing that your pension will not completely dry up until you turn 40."
・・・・・・
"If some of you are cut off from compensation payments for injuries, take comfort in the knowledge that your sacrifice was not in vain, for you have helped liberate billions of tax dollars for our country's taxpayers."
・・・・・・・・・・・
"Your brave and selfless service to your country will not soon be forgotten," Bush told the recently returned Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers. "At least, not for another five or ten years."
・・・・・・・
(転載終わり）
さて、これは本物のブッシュの演説だったのでしょうか。
ちなみに、"Screw You 〜"とは、"〜なんてくそ食らえ！"といった
意味です...根尾 知史
奥田勝典です。[6378]で「これを読んで、ブッシュは冷たい男だと思った」と書いたのは、以下の、
Schuman's views are part of a growing unease back home at the rising casualty rate in Iraq, a concern coupled with deep anger at President George W. Bush's plans to cut army benefits for many soldiers.
の部分読んで思ったからなのですが、私のわかっている範囲で補足しますと、戦争で死んだときや、危険な仕事、家族との別居などでの手当てや軍用住宅の手当てを政府は削減しようとしているみたいです。退役軍人の手当は既にここ十年間削減しています。
一方では、戦死者は英雄だといっているのに、実際はこのような仕打ちをしているので、兵士やその家族は激しく怒っているのだと思います。これでは戦意も失い、家に帰りたくなるのも当然かもしれませんね。
まあ、日本人も英霊と靖国神社をもっと大切にしなければならないですが。もうすぐ、８月１５日ですね。私は、この日がお盆と重なっているのは、決して偶然ではなく、意味があると思っています。このあたりになると、私は、厳粛な気持ちになります。
奥田勝典拝
英ガーディアン紙（電子版）から貼り付けＲＣ：政教分離の原則を教わった日本人にとって、理解しにくい話です。小室直樹先生の『アメリカの逆襲』にあるファンダメンダリストの話を読み直されることをお勧めします。他には、栗林輝夫さんの『ブッシュの「神」と「神の国」アメリカ』日本キリスト教団出版局（９５０円＋税）がお買い得です。
あと、ちょこちょこと訳をいれてみました。（貼り付け開始）
America is a religion
アメリカは宗教である。US leaders now see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons
今やアメリカの指導者たちは、悪魔が支配する世界を撲滅する使命を、神から与えられた伝道団の司祭だと考えている。George Monbiot
Tuesday July 29, 2003
The Guardian"The death of Uday and Qusay," the commander of the ground forces in Iraq told reporters on Wednesday, "is definitely going to be a turning point for the resistance." Well, it was a turning point, but unfortunately not of the kind he envisaged. On the day he made his announcement, Iraqi insurgents killed one US soldier and wounded six others. On the following day, they killed another three; over the weekend they assassinated five and injured seven. Yesterday they slaughtered one more and wounded three. This has been the worst week for US soldiers in Iraq since George Bush declared that the war there was over.
Few people believe that the resistance in that country is being coordinated by Saddam Hussein and his noxious family, or that it will come to an end when those people are killed. But the few appear to include the military and civilian command of the United States armed forces. For the hundredth time since the US invaded Iraq, the predictions made by those with access to intelligence have proved less reliable than the predictions made by those without. And, for the hundredth time, the inaccuracy of the official forecasts has been blamed on "intelligence failures".
The explanation is wearing a little thin. Are we really expected to believe that the members of the US security services are the only people who cannot see that many Iraqis wish to rid themselves of the US army as fervently as they wished to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein? What is lacking in the Pentagon and the White House is not intelligence (or not, at any rate, of the kind we are considering here), but receptivity. Theirs is not a failure of information, but a failure of ideology.
彼らは、情報戦で失敗したのではなく、イデオロギーで失敗したのである。
To understand why this failure persists, we must first grasp a reality which has seldom been discussed in print. The United States is no longer just a nation. It is now a religion. Its soldiers have entered Iraq to liberate its people not only from their dictator, their oil and their sovereignty, but also from their darkness. As George Bush told his troops on the day he announced victory: "Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free".'"
アメリカ合衆国は、もはや単なる国家でない。今や宗教なのだ。民衆を解放するためにイラク入りした兵士たちは、独裁者、石油、及び主権を回復するだけなく、闇からも解放するためである。ジョージ・ブッシュは戦勝を宣言した日に兵士たちに次のように演説した。「諸君らがどこにいても、希望のメッセージを送る。このメッセージは古くからあるが永遠のものである。預言者イザヤ曰く、『捕らわれ人には、出でよと、闇(やみ)にする者には身を現せ』」(ＲＣ：イザヤ書４９：９より)
So American soldiers are no longer merely terrestrial combatants; they have become missionaries. They are no longer simply killing enemies; they are casting out demons. The people who reconstructed the faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein carelessly forgot to restore the pair of little horns on each brow, but the understanding that these were opponents from a different realm was transmitted nonetheless. Like all those who send missionaries abroad, the high priests of America cannot conceive that the infidels might resist through their own free will; if they refuse to convert, it is the work of the devil, in his current guise as the former dictator of Iraq.
つまり、アメリカの兵士たちは、もはや単なる地上の戦闘員ではない。すなわち宣教師になったのだ。彼らはもはや単に敵を殺しているのではない。すなわち悪魔たちを捕まえているのだ。（中略）もしイラク人たちが改宗することを拒んだら、それは悪魔の所業なのだ。
As Clifford Longley shows in his fascinating book Chosen People, published last year, the founding fathers of the USA, though they sometimes professed otherwise, sensed that they were guided by a divine purpose. Thomas Jefferson argued that the Great Seal of the United States should depict the Israelites, "led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night". George Washington claimed, in his inaugural address, that every step towards independence was "distinguished by some token of providential agency". Longley argues that the formation of the American identity was part of a process of "supersession". The Roman Catholic church claimed that it had supplanted the Jews as the elect, as the Jews had been repudiated by God. The English Protestants accused the Catholics of breaking faith, and claimed that they had become the beloved of God. The American revolutionaries believed that the English, in turn, had broken their covenant: the Americans had now become the chosen people, with a divine duty to deliver the world to God's dominion. Six weeks ago, as if to show that this belief persists, George Bush recalled a remark of Woodrow Wilson's. "America," he quoted, "has a spiritual energy in her which no other nation can contribute to the liberation of mankind."Gradually this notion of election has been conflated with another, still more dangerous idea. It is not just that the Americans are God's chosen people; America itself is now perceived as a divine project. In his farewell presidential address, Ronald Reagan spoke of his country as a "shining city on a hill", a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. But what Jesus was describing was not a temporal Jerusalem, but the kingdom of heaven. Not only, in Reagan's account, was God's kingdom to be found in the United States of America, but the kingdom of hell could also now be located on earth: the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, against which His holy warriors were pitched.
単にアメリカ人が神の選民になっただけではない。今やアメリカ合衆国そのものが、神の計画として受け取るようになったのだ。
Since the attacks on New York, this notion of America the divine has been extended and refined. In December 2001, Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of that city, delivered his last mayoral speech in St Paul's Chapel, close to the site of the shattered twin towers. "All that matters," he claimed, "is that you embrace America and understand its ideals and what it's all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was ... how much you believed in America. Because we're like a religion really. A secular religion." The chapel in which he spoke had been consecrated not just by God, but by the fact that George Washington had once prayed there. It was, he said, now "sacred ground to people who feel what America is all about". The United States of America no longer needs to call upon God; it is God, and those who go abroad to spread the light do so in the name of a celestial domain. The flag has become as sacred as the Bible; the name of the nation as holy as the name of God. The presidency is turning into a priesthood.
So those who question George Bush's foreign policy are no longer merely critics; they are blasphemers, or "anti-Americans". Those foreign states which seek to change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you cannot negotiate with priests. The US has a divine mission, as Bush suggested in January: "to defend ... the hopes of all mankind", and woe betide those who hope for something other than the American way of life.
The dangers of national divinity scarcely require explanation. Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced, like George Bush, that it possessed a heaven-sent mission to "liberate" Asia and extend the realm of its divine imperium. It would, the fascist theoretician Kita Ikki predicted: "light the darkness of the entire world". Those who seek to drag heaven down to earth are destined only to engineer a hell.
神政国家の危なさについては言を要しない。まるでブッシュ大統領のように、１９３０年代の大日本帝国は戦争に突入した。アジアを“解放”し神の支配する国拡張するために天が派遣した伝道団のようであった。北一輝(国家社会主義者)は次のように予言した。『全世界の闇に光あれ』• George Monbiot's books Poisoned Arrows and No Man's Land are republished this week by Green Books.
今週、ジョージ・モンビオットの著書『毒矢と人間のいない土地』が、グリーン・ブックスから再出版された。http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1007741,00.html
（貼り付け終了）
根尾さんへ最初途中まで読んでみても、なぜ米のグローバリストを利するのか分からなかったんですが、（特に携帯電話の通信方式のあたり）、石油の話になって、よく分かりました。第２次湾岸戦争における、「連合」から外れた、仏独露の反米同盟の過去の契約を破棄するということですね。
行動に応じては良くても、出資比率の少ないパートナーにしてもいいよと。イラクの携帯電話はＣＤＭＡにはならないようですね。他の中東各国もすでに、ＧＳＭなので、投資効率が合わないと。
（引用開始）
Finally, it is unclear that there is sufficient interest from U.S. firms to install CDMA networks across Iraq's three regions. Nextel is one of the few companies to express interest publicly, while RCR Wireless News reported June 23 that wireless equipment companies such as Motorola, Qualcomm and Lucent Technologies all are taking a cautious approach to Iraqi opportunities. Also, U.S. firms are concerned that the two-year term of the contracts is too short to guarantee an adequate return on investment, especially considering initial operating costs, which will be heavy on security outlays.
The CPA has not ruled out having different network technologies in different regions, but it will be averse to sticking the future Iraqi government with incompatible technologies. Going with the GSM standard might be the best way to avoid the use of multiple technologies. In some respects, the CPA already has leaned toward GSM by stipulating that its temporary network was established under GSM, not CDMA, standards.（引用終り）
休刊日には投稿が増えるのは気のせいでしょうか？
Washington's Iraqi and regional strategies は、つねに、米国グローバリスト企業群のためにあります。ああ、こうやってグローバリストが
イラクを飲み込んでしまう...(転載開始）
Bid Restriction Could Affect Future Iraqi Projects
Aug 05, 2003Summary
The Coalition Provisional Authority has barred any company in which a government owns more than a 5 percent stake from bidding on Iraq's lucrative mobile phone licenses. Although this gives Anglo-American firms an advantage, they still likely will seek to partner with state-owned Middle Eastern firms using GSM-based technology. The state-ownership exclusion likely will be recreated for tenders in other important sectors, including petroleum.
(転載終わり）
AnalysisRepresentatives from about 300 companies attended a conference for the tender of Iraqi mobile phone licenses held July 31 by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Amman, Jordan. In a move that angered many participants, the CPA announced rules barring any company with more than 5 percent government ownership from bidding on the three lucrative regional mobile phone licenses -- one each in northern, central and southern Iraq. The stated reason was to keep foreign governments from controlling Iraq's telecoms sector; the unstated reason might be to keep unwanted companies from leading Iraq's telecoms revival.
That state-ownership restriction, if strictly followed, would exclude most Middle Eastern and many European companies from participating in Iraq's mobile sector, which is expected to be one of the country's most lucrative industries outside of petroleum. European companies such as Orange (France), T-Mobile (Germany), Telefonica Moviles (Spain) and KPN (Netherlands) are leading global providers with the ability to service one or more of the licenses, but all would be barred under the rules. The same goes for Japan's NTT DoCoMo and state-owned firms from places such as China.
Knowledge of markets in the region leaves Middle Eastern companies such as Batelco (Bahrain), MTC-Vodafone (Kuwait) and Etisalat (United Arab Emirates) well positioned to bid on the Iraq tenders, but these companies have even greater percentages of state ownership, which would exclude them from bidding.
However, the companies might not be left completely in the cold. Linton Wells, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, said Aug. 1 there still would be room for partially state-owned companies to participate in Iraq's mobile network through consortia with other companies -- presumably with the lead company being a wholly, private-owned enterprise.
Allowing for minor partner participation of some state-owned companies is a pragmatic decision for the CPA, which apparently recognizes that some participation might be necessary to meet the administration's ambitious timeline of having the three regional mobile networks up and running by November. Partners with real market experience in the region will be valuable to lead companies, especially if they have proven track records of operating in Iraq's risky security environment.
Even more than European companies, Middle Eastern firms are well positioned to serve as minority partners. This is particularly true for Batelco, which in July set up a short-lived system in Baghdad without CPA approval and established an Iraqi subsidiary, Batelco Iraq. Less than a week after it went live, Batelco bowed to CPA threats that it would quash the unlicensed network and shut the system down itself -- a smart move if the company hopes to join a consortium for the long haul. Nevertheless, the experience in setting up the network in volatile Baghdad, as well as operating in the region, would make it a valuable partner to a Western firm in the central region. Another advantage for Baletco: British Cable & Wireless owns 20 percent of the company.
Another company that is well positioned for a minority stake -- particularly for the southern region -- is Kuwait's MTC-Vodafone, which already provides limited cellular services to British forces around Basra. Having a relationship with British telecom giant Vodafone won't hurt, either. Other potential regional partners include Kuwait's National Mobile Telecommunications Co. (Wataniya Telecom) and Cairo-based Orascom Telecom, a regional telecom heavyweight.
Clearly, the state-ownership limitation gives yet another edge to private U.S. firms such as Nextel, as well as British companies such as Vodaphone. Anglo-American firms likely will be the lead partners in the three regional networks, and they might look to forge partnerships with state-owned companies from other Middle Eastern countries.
However, one U.S. firm, MCI, almost definitely is out of the running. The company was awarded a $45 million contract in May to set up a temporary mobile network to serve international and Iraqi officials; it now might be excluded following a July 31 ruling by the U.S. government that suspended MCI from competing for federal contracts. The ruling resulted from ongoing investigations into whether the bankrupt company lacks necessary internal controls and ethics. Although this does not explicitly restrict MCI from Iraqi contracts, the CPA would have a very difficult time justifying the selection of MCI and could run afoul of government watchdogs back in the states.
GSM or CDMA?
Another key issue in the bidding process will be whether to build Iraq's mobile phone network with the CDMA standards used in the United States or the GSM standards used throughout Europe, the Middle East -- save Israel -- and most of the rest of the world. U.S. companies and their congressional supporters have been lobbying the White House and Pentagon to opt for a CDMA system in Iraq, but the current tender is technology-neutral.
Despite the corporate advantage of having a CDMA-based system in Iraq, other considerations actually make a GSM model more likely. First of all, the U.S. Defense Department is said to prefer keeping the entire Middle East on the same GSM system, rather than making Iraq a technological outlier in the region, RCR Wireless News reported in June. Defense officials hold sway over the CPA and most big decisions in Iraq, and security and defense issues definitely have priority over economic considerations in the Pentagon.
Second, the parts of Iraq that do have cell phone service -- including parts of Kurdish northern Iraq, MCI's Baghdad service and MTC-Vodafone's services in Basra -- already are operating on GSM and could serve as the building blocks for the three regional networks.
Finally, it is unclear that there is sufficient interest from U.S. firms to install CDMA networks across Iraq's three regions. Nextel is one of the few companies to express interest publicly, while RCR Wireless News reported June 23 that wireless equipment companies such as Motorola, Qualcomm and Lucent Technologies all are taking a cautious approach to Iraqi opportunities. Also, U.S. firms are concerned that the two-year term of the contracts is too short to guarantee an adequate return on investment, especially considering initial operating costs, which will be heavy on security outlays.
The CPA has not ruled out having different network technologies in different regions, but it will be averse to sticking the future Iraqi government with incompatible technologies. Going with the GSM standard might be the best way to avoid the use of multiple technologies. In some respects, the CPA already has leaned toward GSM by stipulating that its temporary network was established under GSM, not CDMA, standards.A Vision of Tenders to Come
The mobile license tender might be a preview of bidding rules for contracts in other key industries. The CPA's rationale was philosophical: Wells said Aug. 1, "We feel that having a significant share of Iraq's telecommunication system owned by a company with major foreign government ownership is not necessarily in the best interest of the Iraqi people." That rules out any sole-source bid by a largely state-owned company, he said.
Washington might adopt the same strategy of excluding partially state-owned companies from bidding on projects in other sectors, including construction, utilities and -- most significantly -- petroleum. This would have the same effect of excluding many companies from the Middle East, Europe and Asia, including China.
The stated rationale for keeping Iraqi interests out of other government hands -- through state ownership -- will be particularly strong for the petroleum sector, where ownership and extraction of petroleum reserves traditionally is tied with issues of national sovereignty, as a quick look at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela and Mexico will attest. The U.S. administration of Iraq -- and Iraq's inability to rebuild its oil sector without help -- has ensured there will be vast foreign participation. However, the CPA easily could apply the same rationale of protecting Iraq's strategic economic interests to exclude partially state-owned firms from bidding to explore and develop Iraq's vast oil reserves.
Such exclusions would be advantageous for the coalition and Iraq's Oil Ministry, providing a powerful rationale for reviewing and negating so many of the prewar contracts signed by Saddam Hussein's government. Companies such as France's TotalFinaElf, China National Petroleum Co., Turkey's TPAO, Malaysia's Petronas, Algeria's Sonatrach, India's ONGC, Indonesia's Pertamina, Syria Petroleum, Petrovietnam, Russia's Zarubezhneft and Tunisia's ETAP not only could find themselves holding useless contracts, but also unable to bid on future Iraqi oil development contracts.
Washington might show similar flexibility in the oil sector as it is doing in mobile telecoms, but for different reasons. It might look to funnel some contacts to companies from countries that the United States still needs as allies in the region and would not want to loose, such as India and Russia. Excluding them completely might unnecessarily spoil relations. The alternative -- downgrading and lessening their participation in Iraq as minority partners in a consortium -- could be a nice middle-ground option that dovetails nicely Washington's Iraqi and regional strategies.
http://www.stratfor.biz/Story.neo?storyId=220787
(転載終わり）根尾 知史
奥田勝典です。これを読んで、ブッシュは冷たい男だと思った。それに、「かかって来い」というくせに彼はイラクにいない、という冷ややかな兵士の言葉には笑ってしまった。本当にその通りだ。
また、政治学者が、この程度の死傷者なら国民は受け入れる、と書いていたが、これは、最近の世論調査でブッシュの支持率があまり落ちていないことを裏付ける分析だ。やはり、彼らは、合理主義者でまだ経済のことしか考えていないようだ。
私は、世論調査が操作されているのではないかと少し疑っていたが、そうでないらしい。まあ、いつまで彼らの冷酷さが持つかはわからないが。
ガーディアンより
（転載開始）
'Bring us home': GIs flood US with war-weary emails
An unprecedented internet campaign waged on the frontline and in the US is exposing the real risks for troops in Iraq. Paul Harris and Jonathan Franklin report on rising fears that the conflict is now a desert Vietnam
Sunday August 10, 2003
The ObserverSusan Schuman is angry. Her GI son is serving in the Iraqi town of Samarra, at the heart of the 'Sunni triangle', where American troops are killed with grim regularity.
Breaking the traditional silence of military families during time of war, Schuman knows what she wants - and who she blames for the danger to her son, Justin. 'I want them to bring our troops home. I am appalled at Bush's policies. He has got us into a terrible mess,' she said.Schuman may just be the tip of an iceberg. She lives in Shelburne Falls, a small town in Massachusetts, and says all her neighbours support her view. 'I don't know anyone around here who disagrees with me,' she said.
Schuman's views are part of a growing unease back home at the rising casualty rate in Iraq, a concern coupled with deep anger at President George W. Bush's plans to cut army benefits for many soldiers. Criticism is also coming directly from soldiers risking their lives under the guns of Saddam Hussein's fighters, and they are using a weapon not available to troops in previous wars: the internet.
Through emails and chatrooms a picture is emerging of day-to-day gripes, coupled with ferocious criticism of the way the war has been handled. They paint a vivid picture of US army life that is a world away from the sanitised official version.
In a message posted on a website last week, one soldier was brutally frank. 'Somewhere down the line, we became an occupation force in [Iraqi] eyes. We don't feel like heroes any more,' said Private Isaac Kindblade of the 671st Engineer Company.
Kindblade said morale was poor, and he attacked the leadership back home. 'The rules of engagement are crippling. We are outnumbered. We are exhausted. We are in over our heads. The President says, "Bring 'em on." The generals say we don't need more troops. Well, they're not over here,' he wrote.
One of the main outlets for the soldiers' complaints has been a website run by outspoken former soldier David Hackworth, who was the army's youngest colonel in the Vietnam war and one of its most decorated warriors. He receives almost 500 emails a day, many of them from soldiers serving in Iraq. They have sounded off about everything from bad treatment at the hands of their officers to fears that their equipment is faulty.
The army-issue gas mask 'leaks under the chin. This same mask was used during Desert Storm, which accounts for part of the health problems of the vets who fought there. My unit has again deployed to the Gulf with this loser,' ranted one army doctor.
Some veterans have begun to form organisations to campaign to bring the soldiers home and highlight their difficult conditions. Erik Gustafson, a veteran of the 1991 Gulf war, has founded Veterans For Common Sense. 'There is an anger boiling under the surface now, and I, as a veteran, have a duty to speak because I am no longer subject to military discipline,' he said.
A recent email from Iraq passed to Gustafson, signed by 'the Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division', said simply: 'Our men and women deserve to see their loved ones again and deserve to come home. Thank you for your attention.'
Another source of anger is government plans to reverse recent increases in 'imminent danger' pay and a family separation allowance. These moves have provoked several furious editorials in the Army Times, the normally conservative military newspaper. The paper said the planned cuts made 'the Bush administration seem mean-spirited and hypocritical'.
Tobias Naegele, its editor-in-chief, said his senior staff agonised over the decision to attack the government, but the response to the editorials from ordinary soldiers was overwhelmingly positive.
A further critical editorial is planned for this week. 'We don't think lightly of criticising our Commander-in-Chief,' Naegele said 'The army has had a rough couple of years with this administration.'
Mainstream veterans' groups too are angry about cuts being proposed at a time when politicians have heaped praise on the army's performance in Afghanistan and Iraq and want to launch a recruitment drive.
Veterans plan protests to highlight the issue. 'We are going to show them that veterans are people who know how to vote,' said Steven Robinson, a veteran and executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Centre, one of the websites where veterans' issues are raised.
Susan Schuman too is planning a protest. This week she plans to join members of a new group, Military Families Speak Out, who will travel to Washington to make their case for their sons, daughters, husbands and wives, to be brought home from Iraq.
With soldiers dying there almost daily, comparisons have already been drawn with the Vietnam war and the birth of the protest movements there that divided America in the Sixties and Seventies.
Political scientists, however, think the war will have to get much worse before anything similar happens over Iraq. 'To put it crudely, I think the country can accept this current level of casualties,' said Professor Richard Stoll, of Rice University in Houston, Texas.
That is little comfort to Schuman, who says she just wants to see her son, Justin, return alive from a war she believes is unjust. 'It is a quagmire and it is not going to be easy to get out,' she said. 'That's where the parallel with Vietnam is.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1015711,00.html
(転載終了）
奥田勝典拝
'Terminator 4: The Rise of Colin Powell'
By ANDY BOROWITZ
初めてこちらの掲示板に投稿します。根尾と申します。
「リバータリアニズム掲示板」に、新しい記事を載せましたので、
ここにその一部を紹介させていただきます。翻訳全文は「リバ掲」に
載せてありますので是非見に来てください。では、これからもよろしく
お願い致します。(引用開始）
廣瀬さんによる[４６５-４６６号]の有料ぼやきに対応する形で、現世界帝国であるアメリカ自身の国益と自由貿易に関する興味深い記事を載せます。これは、ジェームズ･ブキャナンではなくもう一人の大事なブキャナン、パトリック･ブキャナン（Patrick J. Buchanan）の個人ウエブサイト、The American Cause (www.theamericancause.org )の右下、jobs, Trade, and the Economy の欄で紹介されていたワシントン・タイムズ（www.washtimes.com）の8月６日付けの論評記事です。
ここリバータリアン掲示板で取り上げたのは、リバータリアンと、反国家権力肥大化、反海外干渉（anti-interventionism）、反グローバリスト保守として共闘するパット・ブキャナンが、唯一、相容れないリバータリアン信条である「自由貿易主義（free market）」を攻撃する、ブキャナン側からの論調がこの記事から読み取れるからです。
副島先生が述べられるように、帝国には世界中から人間が流れ込んで来ます。なぜならそこには仕事の機会と、より豊かな生活（のチャンス）があるからです。しかし現代世界帝国のアメリカの場合、さらにその国内から世界へ向けて仕事そのものが流れ出て行きます。なぜなら、現代の｢仕事｣に必要な技術や設備は移動可能で流動的であり、アメリカ以外の国々でアメリカ国内市場のために、より安い賃金の外国人労働力を使って同じ品質の製品やサービスを生産できてしまうからです。ここにリバータリアンの「自由貿易主義」の主張に対する、最も強烈かつ現実的で即実的な攻撃を見ることができます。経済的に逼迫して来たアメリカの真の国益を考えるとき、本当に自由貿易が有効であるのか。単純に「自由貿易主義」を賛美して、日本の経済を規制緩和することがいかに日本の国益を損ねる危険性を孕むかを、『金融鎖国』などの中で副島先生が主張されていますが、たとえ世界経済覇権を謳歌するアメリカでも、真の国益は、単純なグローバリズムの賞賛による自由貿易主義の実現では守れないということを、ブキャナンやこの記事の著者であるポール･クレイグ･ロバーツ（Paul Craig Roberts）が唱えています。それでは、いかに記事の翻訳を載せます。
（翻訳引用開始）
「アメリカでの職探し」“Seeking jobs in the U.S.A.”
ポール・クレイグ・ロバーツ（Paul Craig Roberts）
2003年8月6日 ワシントン･タイムズ・ウエブサイト
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030805-084100-3722r.htm より歴史を通して、人々は捉えないようのない事象の流れ（トレンド）や運命の力に打ち負かされて来た。アメリカ合衆国も、経済学者たちが「善意的な(benevolent)」であると勘違いしている、自由貿易が持つ見えざる威力によってその経済を台無しにしてしまうのではないだろうか。
物やサービスが取引される国際市場において、自由貿易システムは常に、他国の労働力に対抗しうる労働力を要求して来た。（他国の）低賃金労働力によって生産された輸入品が、アメリカの賃金や生活水準そのものを低下させてしまうのではないかという、第二次大戦戦後期の懸念は、結局間違いであった。アメリカ人労働者はより良い教育を受けているうえに、より質の高い資本と技術力で働いており、生産率はより高かったからだ。高い生産性がアメリカ人の労働賃金と雇用を、他国の低賃金者(の進出)から守っていたのだ。
・・・・・・
(引用終わり）続きは｢リバータリアン掲示板」にあります。
是非見に来てください。
露モスクワ･タイムズ（電子版）から貼り付けＲＣ：要約をつけました。
今や米国が手に入れた領土は、エリザベス�祇そ�王時代の大英帝国とほぼ同じである。米国の場合は、単に経済だけではなく軍事的に優位に立っている。米国のアジア進出は、英国のアジア進出が上手くいかなくなったころに始まった。英国のアジア進出の失敗は、アフガニスタンとイラクである。米国も同様の問題に直面している。しかも米国の場合は別の問題も抱えている。それは米国が自らを帝国と求めていない事である。つまり、共和制のイデオロギー、文化および制度は、世界の新帝国の役割に一致しないと考えている事だ。更に、そして、米国帝国の存在が否定されるので、帝国の問題を公の場で討論することが不可能である。この点で、米国はソビエト連邦 (アフガニスタンのその職業を「兄弟の援助」と偽って通した) とよく似ている。特に自らをデモクラシーであると考える国において、偽善(米は帝国なのに民主政治を守るために進出したという理屈)は外交政策の基盤を不安定にする。さて、米帝国の方針は民主的制度を侵蝕するのだろうか、それとも米国の民主政治が蜂起し、帝国に終焉をもたらすのだろうか。（貼り付け開始）
Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003. Page 13
Imperial Rules Compared
米帝国と大英帝国を比較すると
By Boris KagarlitskyIt has become a commonplace of late to speak of the "American empire." The United States has occupied the same place in the contemporary world that the British empire occupied during the reign of Queen Victoria. The United States enjoys not just economic and military superiority, but like the former British empire it exercises political control over a growing number of countries.
Ironically, America's imperial incursion into Asia has begun in those very countries where British expansionism broke down: Afghanistan and Iraq. The British fought a number of wars in Afghanistan, suffering but a single serious military defeat. True, that defeat was devastating. During the war of 1839-42, the British garrison was obliterated by local tribes after abandoning Kabul and setting out for the safety of India. Only one British soldier reached his destination. British military superiority did not produce the desired results. Her Majesty's forces easily occupied major cities and routed the native armies only to discover that they controlled nothing but the ground they were standing on.
In India, the British had installed a system of "indirect rule," whereby most of the work of governing was handled by the local bureaucracy, police force and military. This system did not work in Afghanistan. Agreements reached with the British were immediately broken and local leaders continually switched sides. Promises were not kept. There was no one to trust and no one to rely on. Not only did local leaders have no desire to serve their conquerors, they couldn't even agree on anything amongst themselves. Having spent more than half a century in Afghanistan, Britain settled for the nominal recognition of its dominion. In 1919, the British left the country for good.
Iraq, which came under British control after World War I, also proved a tough nut to crack. Rebellions were forever breaking out, and local authorities used the powers they had been given against their imperial patrons. The country was declared independent in 1932, though it was occupied again in 1941 in order to prevent it from falling under the influence of Nazi Germany.
In Afghanistan and Iraq today, the Americans have run into exactly the same problems. They have no reliable allies, and they have been unable to convert military presence into effective political control. But the United States has another problem that Britain didn't face: its reluctance to admit it is an empire.
When the British colonized countries in Asia and Africa, they at least assumed formal obligations toward the local population. The legal status of the colonial administration and its powers were clearly defined. You can't say anything definite about the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long will it last? What is the legal basis for it? How are responsibilities divided between the occupying powers and the local authorities? The Bush administration can't even bring itself to utter the word "occupation," much less openly declare that it has conquered these countries. The status of an occupied territory is more or less regulated by international law, but the United States won't admit that it is an occupying power.
The ideology, culture and institutions of the American republic do not jibe with its new imperial role in the world. America must conceal its ambitions, not so much from the world community which understands very well what's going on, but from its own people who were raised on very different traditions. The "free Briton" of the imperial era understood and supported the country's colonial policy. Even the socialists at the time were prepared to adopt imperial slogans -- with certain reservations, of course. The average American, by contrast, is never more supportive of their country's foreign policy than when they have only the vaguest idea what it actually entails. And since the existence of a U.S. empire is denied, public discussion of the problems of empire is impossible. In this, the United States closely resembles the Soviet Union, which passed off its occupation of Afghanistan as "fraternal assistance."
Hypocrisy is a shaky foundation for foreign policy, particularly in a country that considers itself a democracy. When the British empire was putting down uprisings in India, it could still boast of upholding democracy for "its own." The situation in America is fundamentally different. U.S. imperial policy will either lead to the erosion of the country's democratic institutions, or American democracy will rise up and bring an end to the grand imperial design.
Boris Kagarlitsky is director of the Institute of Globalization Studies.
ボリス･カガリスキーはグローバリゼーシャン研究所の所長です。http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/08/05/009.html
（貼り付け終了）
公表による米軍の死傷者は事故死などが計上されていないので、実際の死傷者はもっと多いとのこと。まあ、誰も公表なんて、アメリカ人以外は信じてないでしょうが。ガーディアンより
（転載はじめ）
A Look at U.S. Daily Casualties in Iraq
Friday August 8, 2003 4:39 AM
By The Associated Press
As of Thursday, Aug. 7, 256 U.S. soldiers have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, according to the military.
The British government has reported 43 deaths.
On or since May 1, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 118 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq, according to the latest military figures.
The latest deaths reported by U.S. Central Command:
- A 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldier died Wednesday after developing a seizure while performing duties in Mosul, Iraq.
- Two 1st Armored Division soldiers were killed Wednesday evening in a small arms firefight in Baghdad. One soldier died at the scene; the other died later from wounds received.
The latest identifications from the military:
- Army Staff Sgt. Brian R. Hellerman, 35, Freeport, Minn.; killed Wednesday when an Iraqi vehicle opened fire on his unit in Baghdad; assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
- Army Staff Sgt. David L. Loyd, 44, Jackson, Tenn.; died Tuesday in Kuwait after experiencing severe chest pains when on a mission; assigned to the 1175th Transportation Company, Army National Guard, Brownsville, Tenn.
- Army Spc. Farao K. Letufuga, 20, Pago Pago, American Samoa; killed Tuesday when he fell from a roof while performing guard duty in Mosul, Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3002414,00.html
(転載おわり）
（転載はじめ）
The unreported cost of war: at least 827 American wounded
Julian Borger, Washington
Monday August 4, 2003
The GuardianUS military casualties from the occupation of Iraq have been more than twice the number most Americans have been led to believe because of an extraordinarily high number of accidents, suicides and other non-combat deaths in the ranks that have gone largely unreported in the media.
Since May 1, when President George Bush declared the end of major combat operations, 52 American soldiers have been killed by hostile fire, according to Pentagon figures quoted in almost all the war coverage. But the total number of US deaths from all causes is much higher: 112.The other unreported cost of the war for the US is the number of American wounded, 827 since Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
Unofficial figures are in the thousands. About half have been injured since the president's triumphant appearance on board the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln at the beginning of May. Many of the wounded have lost limbs.
The figures are politically sensitive. The number of American combat deaths since the start of the war is 166 - 19 more than the death toll in the first Gulf war.
The passing of that benchmark last month erased the perception, popular at the time Baghdad fell, that the US had scored an easy victory.
According to a Gallup poll, 63% of Americans still think Iraq was worth going to war over, but a quarter want the troops out now, and another third want a withdrawal if the casualty figures continue to mount.
In fact, the total death toll this time is 248 - including accidents and suicides - and as the number of non-combat deaths and serious injuries becomes more widely known, the erosion of public confidence is likely to continue, posing a threat to Mr Bush's prospects of re-election, which at the beginning of May had seemed a foregone conclusion.
Military observers say it is unusual, even in a "low-intensity" guerrilla war such as the situation seen in Iraq, for non-combat deaths to outnumber combat casualties.
The Pentagon does not tabulate the cause of those deaths, but according to an American website that has been tracking official reports, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, 23 American soldiers have died in car or helicopter accidents since May 1, while 12 have been killed in accidents with weapons or explosives.
Three deaths have been categorised as "possible suicides", three have died from illness, and three from drowning. The rest are unexplained.
Wounded American soldiers continue to be flown back to the US at a relentless rate, in twice-weekly transport flights to Andrews air force base near Washington.
Hospital staff are working 70- or 80-hour weeks, and the Walter Reed army hospital in Washington is so full that it has taken over beds normally reserved for cancer patients to handle the influx, according to a report on CBS television.
Meanwhile, at the nearby national naval medical centre in Bethesda, new marine injuries are delivered almost daily by a medical plane known as the Nightingale.
The Pentagon figure for "wounded in action" in Iraq is 827, but here again the total number of injuries appears to be much higher.
The estimate given by central command in Qatar is 926, but according to Lieutenant-Colonel Allen DeLane, who is in charge of the airlift of the wounded into Andrews air base, that too is understated.
"Since the war has started, I can't give you an exact number because that's classified information, but I can say to you over 4,000 have stayed here at Andrews, and that number doubles when you count the people that come here to Andrews and then we send them to other places like Walter Reed and Bethesda, which are in this area also," Col DeLane told National Public Radio.
He said 90% of injuries were directly war-related.
Some of that number may involve double-counting - if a soldier stays at the Andrews clinic on the way to Washington and then again on the way back to the war or back home, for example. But the actual number of wounded still appears to be much higher than the official figures.
"When the facility where I'm at started absorbing the people coming back from theatre [in April], those numbers went up significantly - I'd say over 1,200," Col DeLane said.
"That number even went up higher in the month of May, to about 1,500, and continues to increase."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1011692,00.html
(転載おわり）
奥田勝典拝
ＬｅｗＲｏｃｋｗｅｌｌ.ｃｏｍから転載します。１２５９：便宜的に訳をいれました。あなたは何派になりますか？
（転載開始）
Are You a Neocon?
Regular readers of LRC or other right-of-center sites are sure to have seen terms like "neoconservative" and "paleo-libertarian" from time to time. A quick Google search can explain what the words mean, but definitions don’t really answer the more interesting and important question – which one are you?
Naturally you might be neither "paleo" nor "neo." But for those who’d like to find out I devised a quick quiz during a spell of procrastination a few months back. Here it is. After answering twenty questions it’ll give you my impression of which of ten modern American ideologies is the best fit for you, along with links to sites representing the philosophy of each.
There’s no shortage of political quizzes on the ‘net, but how many others includes "paleoconservative" and "third way" as categories? Not many (or any) that I’ve seen. And to be thoroughly immodest, this quiz is less slanted than most too. I’m a pale-something myself though, so if you find bias that’s where I’m coming from. Other than that the major flaw is that I don’t know modern left-wing ideologies at all well, so the categories of "radical," "liberal" and "third-way" probably are not how leftists would classify themselves.
The quiz questions are mostly about public policy. An alternative method would have been to ask general philosophical questions, or even to ask for interpretations of historical events. I chose the policy-oriented approach because it seemed most straightforward and clear.
Here, in brief, are the ideologies that the quiz examines. You’ll probably want to take the quiz first though. The sketches below aren’t an answer key, but you can probably deduce from the definitions how someone of a given ideology would answer a particular question. That’s the entire principle of the quiz, after all.Centrist 中道 – Just what it sounds like. Someone who doesn’t have any particularly strong ideological leanings in any direction.
Conservative 保守 – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.
Left-libertarian リバータリアン左派 – The quiz uses a mild definition of a left-libertarian, an anti-statist who is somewhat fearful of corporate and religious influence on public life.
Liberal リベラル – Supports economic regulation to promote social justice and takes a progressive stance toward moral or cultural issues.
Libertarian リバータリアン – A libertarian opposes most or all government activites. Does not favor much or any government support for either moral or economic systems.
Neoconservative 新保守(ネオコン) – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.
Paleoconservative 古保守 – "Paleocons" want less US involvement in foeign affairs than other conservatives and oppose mass immigration. They are also more favorably disposed toward the South and the idea of secession, or at least decentralization, than neoconservatives.
Paleo-libertarian 古リバータリアン – Similar to other libertarians except for oppostion to mass immigration, and shares the paleocon appreciation of the South.
Radical ラディカル(左翼) – Critical of bouregois morality and strongly opposed to capitalism and willing to use state power to achieve desired ends.
Third-way 第三の道 – More supportive of foreign intervention than liberals and less supportive of economic regulation, coupled with more-or-less progressive social views. "Third-way" is to liberal what neoconservative is to conservative.
June 26, 2001
Daniel McCarthy [send him mail] is a graduate student in classics at Washington University in St. Louis.Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html
（転載終了）
これだけイラクで毎日死傷者が出ているのに・・・。自分が今まで書いてきたこととはいえ、この結果に少し驚きました。やはり経済なのだろうか。NIKKEI NETより
（転載はじめ）
ブッシュ氏支持率13ポイント下落、経済先行き不安反映
【ニューヨーク２日共同】米紙ニューヨーク・タイムズとＣＢＳテレビが2日発表した最新世論調査によると、ブッシュ大統領の支持率は54％と5月の前回調査に比べ13ポイントも下落した。米経済の先行き懸念やイラク戦争への疑念を反映し、2月以来の低水準にまで人気を落とした。
政府の最大の課題は「経済」と答えた人が26％と最も多く、12％の「雇用」や、８％以下の「国防」「外交」「テロ対策」を大きく上回った。ブッシュ政権の外交政策への支持率は52％と高水準を維持したが、経済政策は40％と３ポイント低下した。一方、米国は外国の独裁政権を変え民主化を進めるべきだと答えた人は５ポイント減の24％に低下。「関与すべきでない」が58％と10ポイント増えた。
7月13日から27日まで、全米の3092人の成人を対象に電話で調査した。
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/kaigai/us/20030803d3k0300i03.html
ブッシュ経済チーム、１３日にテキサスで会合
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/kaigai/us/20030805d2m0500d05.html
（転載おわり）
奥田勝典拝
Ｙａｈｏｏニュース」から転載します。（転載開始）
イラクテレビのトップ辞任、米国のプロパガンダ戦は失敗と指摘
［ロンドン ５日 ロイター］ イラク戦争後に米国の支援で再開したイラクテレビのトップが、米国はイランのような国々や、逃亡中のフセイン元イラク大統領とのプロパガンダ戦争に敗北しつつある、として辞任した。
３カ月前、イラクのテレビとラジオを復活させるため、イラクテレビのトップとしてバグダッド入りした元亡命者のアフマド・リカビ氏は、現状に幻滅してロンドンに戻り、当面は当地に滞在するという。
リカビ氏は、先に放送されたフセイン元大統領の肉声テープに触れ「サダム・フセインは、アルジャジーラやアルアラビーヤなど湾岸のテレビを通じ、より巧みに自己アピールしている」と語った。
同氏は、米国がイラクの放送局に投資せず、現地従業員を維持できていないため、イラクでは、アルアラム（イラン）やアルジャジーラのようなチャンネルの人気が高まっている、と指摘した。
リカビ氏は「イラク人は、イスラム教スンニ派を含め、解放者に反旗を翻す段階にはないが、そのように扇動されているのだ。これらのチャンネルは、イラク国内の緊張を増す一因となっている。これらに対抗するレベルのテレビ放送が必要だ」と述べた。
リカビ氏は、フセイン政権崩壊後初めての放送を行い、米兵がバグダッドの空港に設置した送信機から「新しいイラクへようこそ」という声が聞かれた。（ロイター） [8月6日15時0分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20030806-00000742-reu-int
（転載終了）
広島に原爆が投下されて今日で５８年目
対イラク戦争に賛成した政治宗教団体があるらしい