« August 2009 | Main | October 2009 »

September 30, 2009

オバマクラシック

"Yes We Can!-オバマ・クラシック" (オムニバス(クラシック), バラク・オバマ)

クラシックにのせたオバマ演説、だそうです。Will I amによるYes, We Canという歌もあったけど、オバマの演説は音楽にかぶせやすいらしい。このアルバムでは、Yes, we can(ニューハンプシャー敗戦演説)、2004年演説とか、勝利宣言(Change has come)などのバックにドボルザークなどがかかるらしいんだが、演説の中に大統領選前日のFired upが入っているのが秀逸。秀逸って何よ(苦笑)。

ZAKZAK
あなたもチェンジ! オバマ演説とクラシックがコラボ!?
http://www.zakzak.co.jp/entertainment/movie_music/news/20090929/mov0909291639003-n1.htm

CDは、オバマ大統領が全米各地の民主党大会や選挙演説で実際に話した、「Yes We Can!」「Hope!」「Change Has Come」などのフレーズで始まる名演説の要旨を生声で収録。その声にかぶせるように、エルガーの「威風堂々」やホルストの「組曲惑星〜木星」、ドボルザークの「新世界より」など10曲が流れる。

なんかポチっとしてしまいそうな…。がるる。

| | Comments (6)

September 29, 2009

イラン核開発に関する英米仏首脳会見



STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA,
FRENCH PRESIDENT SARKOZY,
AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BROWN
ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY

Pittsburgh Convention Center
September 25, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning.  We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements.  We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime.  These rules are clear:  All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them.  That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure.  And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities.  As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program.  Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people.  But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.  Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow -- endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.

It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations.  We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-1 negotiations.  Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.

And that's why there's a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany.  At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.

To put it simply:  Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations.  We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands.  But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

I should point out that although the United Kingdom, France, and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5-plus-1, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks.

I would now like to turn to President Sarkozy of France for a brief statement.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY:  (As translated.)  Ladies and gentlemen, we have met yesterday for a meeting -- a summit meeting of the Security Council on disarmament and nuclear disarmament.  I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path.  I have recalled all the attempts that we have made to offer a negotiated solution to the Iranian leaders without any success, which what has been revealed today is exceptional.  Following the enriching plant of Natanz in 2002, it is now the Qom one which is revealed.  It was designed and built over the past several years in direct violation of resolutions from the Security Council and from the IAEA.  I am expecting from the IAEA an exhaustive, strict, and rigorous investigation, as President Obama just said.

We were already in a very severe confidence crisis.  We are now faced with a challenge, a challenge made to the entire international communities.  The six will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva.  Everything -- everything must be put on the table now.

We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running.  If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.  This is for the peace and stability.  Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN:  America, the United Kingdom, and France are at one.  Iran's nuclear program is the most urgent proliferation challenge that the world faces today.

As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.

Confronted by the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.  On October the 1st, Iran must now engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner.  If it does not do so, it will be further isolated.

And I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest.  And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions.

Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear:  that Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program.  Thank you.

原文:ホワイトハウスホームページ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statements-By-President-Obama-French-President-Sarkozy-And-British-Prime-Minister-Brown-On-Iranian-Nuclear-Facility/




| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (3)

国連安全保障理事会におけるオバマ演説

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL SUMMIT
ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York
September 24, 2009

THE PRESIDENT:  The 6191st meeting of the Security Council is called to order.  The provisional agenda for this meeting is before the Council in document S/Agenda/6191, which reads, "Maintenance of international peace and security, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear disarmament."  Unless I hear any objection, I shall consider the agenda adopted.  Agenda is adopted.

I wish to warmly welcome the distinguished heads of state and government, the General -- the Secretary General, the Director General of the IAEA, ministers and other distinguished representatives present in the Security Council chamber.  Your presence is an affirmation of the importance of the subject matter to be discussed.

The Security Council summit will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda.  Members of the Council have before them document S/2009/473, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations.  I wish to draw Council members' attention to document S/2009/463 containing a letter dated 16 September 2009 from the United States of America, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration.  In accordance with the understanding reached earlier among members, the Security Council will take action on the draft resolution before it prior to hearing statements from the Secretary General and Council members.  Accordingly, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now.  Will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in document S/2009/473 please raise their hand?  The results of the voting is as follows:  The draft resolution is received unanimously, 15 votes in favor.  The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as Resolution 1887 of 2009.

I want to thank again everybody who is in attendance.  I wish you all good morning.  In the six-plus decades that this Security Council has been in existence, only four other meetings of this nature have been convened.  I called for this one so that we may address at the highest level a fundamental threat to the security of all peoples and all nations:  the spread and use of nuclear weapons.

As I said yesterday, this very institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man's capacity to kill had to be contained.  And although we averted a nuclear nightmare during the Cold War, we now face proliferation of a scope and complexity that demands new strategies and new approaches.  Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow; Tokyo or Beijing; London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people.  And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.

Once more, the United Nations has a pivotal role to play in preventing this crisis.  The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  And it brings Security Council agreement on a broad framework for action to reduce nuclear dangers as we work toward that goal.  It reflects the agenda I outlined in Prague, and builds on a consensus that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.

Today, the Security Council endorsed a global effort to lock down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years.  The United States will host a summit next April to advance this goal and help all nations achieve it.  This resolution will also help strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat the smuggling, financing, and theft of proliferation-related materials.  It calls on all states to freeze any financial assets that are being used for proliferation.  And it calls for stronger safeguards to reduce the likelihood that peaceful nuclear weapons programs can be diverted to a weapons program -- that peaceful nuclear programs can be diverted to a weapons program.

The resolution we passed today will also strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty.  We've made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security.

That includes full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea.  Let me be clear:  This is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations who do live up to their responsibilities.  The world must stand together.  And we must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.

The next 12 months will be absolutely critical in determining whether this resolution and our overall efforts to stop the spread and use of nuclear weapons are successful.  And all nations must do their part to make this work.  In America, I have promised that we will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers.  We will move forward with the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and open the door to deeper cuts in our own arsenal.  In January, we will call upon countries to begin negotiations on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.  And the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May will strengthen that agreement.

Now, we harbor no illusions about the difficulty of bringing about a world without nuclear weapons.  We know there are plenty of cynics, and that there will be setbacks to prove their point.  But there will also be days like today that push us forward -- days that tell a different story.  It is the story of a world that understands that no difference or division is worth destroying all that we have built and all that we love.  It is a recognition that can bring people of different nationalities and ethnicities and ideologies together.  In my own country, it has brought Democrats and Republican leaders together -- leaders like George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, who are with us here today.  And it was a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who once articulated the goal we now seek in the starkest of terms.  I quote:

"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war.  We must never stop until all -- we must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the Earth."

That is our task.  That can be our destiny.  And we will leave this meeting with a renewed determination to achieve this shared goal.  Thank you.

In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry on its work expeditiously.  Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate the text in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the chamber.

I shall now invite the distinguished Secretary General, His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, to take the floor.

原文:ホワイトハウスホームページ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-The-President-At-the-UN-Security-Council-Summit-On-Nuclear-Non-Proliferation-And-Nuclear-Disarmament/

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)

オバマの国連・気候変動首脳会議演説

国連総会の前に開催された気候変動会議。鳩山首相の演説は前のほうにありますが、オバマの演説もクリップしておきます。結論としては、余り何も語らなかったわけですが。

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT UNITED NATIONS
SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON'S
CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much.  Good morning.  I want to thank the Secretary General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating.  That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.  Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together -- we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.  More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.  The security and stability of each nation and all peoples -- our prosperity, our health, and our safety -- are in jeopardy.  And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it.  John F. Kennedy once observed that "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man."  It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country, as well.  We recognize that.  But this is a new day.  It is a new era.  And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We are making our government's largest ever investment in renewable energy -- an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years.  Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits -- projects that are creating new jobs and new industries.  We're investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, our buildings, and appliances  -- helping American families save money on energy bills in the process.

We've proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks -- a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil.  We're moving forward with our nation's first offshore wind energy projects.  We're investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.  And just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we'll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country.

Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.  And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.   

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before.  In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States.  In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas.  We've worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world.  And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries as varied as China and Brazil; India and Mexico; from the continent of Africa to the continent of Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent a historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government.  We understand the gravity of the climate threat.  We are determined to act.  And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold action and share in this determination, we did not come here to celebrate progress today.  We came because there's so much more progress to be made.  We came because there's so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy.  As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us.  We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation's most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work.  And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But I'm here today to say that difficulty is no excuse for complacency.  Unease is no excuse for inaction.  And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress.  Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet -- and we must all do it together.  We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress.  Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead -- and that includes the United States.  And we will continue to do so -- by investing in renewable energy and promoting greater efficiency and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part, as well.  Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy.  Still, they need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own.  We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.  There's no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations -- especially the poorest and most vulnerable -- on a path to sustained growth.  These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution.  For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet -- famine, drought, disappearing coastal villages, and the conflicts that arise from scarce resources.  Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both.  It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

And that is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet.  By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

Mr. Secretary, as we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there's finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done.  We know that our planet's future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to build a better world.  And so many nations have already taken the first step on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long and the journey is hard.  And we don't have much time left to make that journey.  It's a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setbacks, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts.  So let us begin.  For if we are flexible and pragmatic, if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose:  a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END                                          

原文 ホワイトハウスホームページ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-UN-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moons-Climate-Change-Summit/

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ピッツバーグのパンケーキ

朝日 バラクとユキオ、「パンケーキ」で会話弾む 親密さ強調
http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0926/TKY200909260062.html

くだらね〜と思いつつ探してしまいましたよ。
そう、オバマが好きという、ピッツバーグのパメラという店のパンケーキですよ。
Picture4955
確かにうまそうです。吉祥寺・伊勢丹のカフェコムサにかつてあったアップルパイに似てなくもないな。まあ中身はアップルなので、これとは違うけど。

ホームページはここらしい。

Pamera's
http://www.pamelasproducts.com/

場所はここらしい。ピッツバーグには3軒くらいあるようです。

大きな地図で見る

粉ならばアマゾン(米)でも売ってます。
Pamela's Ultimate Baking and Pancake Mix, 64-Ounce Bags
http://www.amazon.com/Pamelas-Ultimate-Baking-Pancake-64-Ounce/dp/B000NMJWZO

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 28, 2009

イランの件

オバマが東欧MD配備計画を取り下げたのも、日本が密約を見直すのも、「核なき世界」というオバマ外交を巡るものであろうと書いたわけだけど、イランが駄々っ子ぶりを見せたために、色が変わりつつある。

一体、イランはどうするつもりなのか?

私見だが、ブッシュが「悪の枢軸」として、一緒くたにしたイランと北朝鮮は大きく違うと思う。不正はあったかもしれないものの、ちゃんと選挙ができる国と、全くできない国では違いすぎるから。それはアメリカと中国は似ている部分はあるけれど、民主主義と共産主義(ではないような…)という体制の違いが大きく違うのと同じだ。つまり、アメリカ社会は日本にとっては中国とは比べ物にならないくらいマトモだし、イランも北朝鮮よりは百倍以上ましなわけ。だって日本に石油も輸出してくれているしね。

日本はイランともともと仲がいいわけだけど、最近はアメリカに遠慮していた。しかも今回ばかりは、イランに同情できないよなあ…。アフマディネジャドだからいけないのかもしれないんだが。イランは大統領選挙をめぐって内部分裂しそうな状況なだけに、外部に敵を作ったほうがいいのは当たり前だから。でも、これじゃあ、攻撃してくれと言っているようなもんだと思ってしまう。大丈夫なんかいね? 

というわけで、イランを巡る一連の動きを、米国の東欧におけるMD計画撤回から振り返ってみよう。

【17日】
AFP 米政府、東欧ミサイル防衛計画を棚上げへ WSJ紙
http://www.afpbb.com/article/politics/2642946/4609311

【23日】
産経 イラン問題で対米協調を演出 ロシア 
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/america/090926/amr0909262054009-n1.htm

【24日】
毎日 国連安保理 「核なき世界」決議
オバマ大統領発言(要旨)
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20090925ddm007030142000c.html
鳩山首相発言(要旨)
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20090925ddm007030148000c.html
「核なき世界」決議(要旨)
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20090925ddm007030139000c.html

▶しかしこの24日、大変な事態が明らかに。(アメリカは知っていたみたいだけど)

時事 イランに秘密核研究施設か=起爆装置など生産も-反体制組織
http://www.jiji.com/jc/zc?k=200909/2009092400998

【パリ時事】イラン反体制組織の国民抵抗評議会は24日、パリで記者会見を行い、テヘラン市内とその近郊に、これまで公表されていない核兵器開発研究所と起爆装置などの製造施設があると指摘した。イラン政府機関筋の数十人を通じ情報を入手、国際原子力機関(IAEA)に通知したという。


【25日】
★時事 施設建設は安保理決議違反=イランに追加制裁も-米英仏
http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=int_30&rel=j7&k=2009092501020

共同 2カ所目のウラン濃縮施設 イラン、IAEAに認める
http://www.47news.jp/CN/200909/CN2009092501000728.html

読売「軍事行動も排除せず」米大統領、イランに警告
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20090926-OYT1T00312.htm

毎日 イラン:ウラン製造で露大統領が「深刻な懸念」表明
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20090926k0000e030043000c.html

産経 「施設は合法的」イラン大統領、強気姿勢
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/america/090926/amr0909260847003-n1.htm

【26日】
CNN イラン新核施設は「重大な挑戦」 米大統領が演説で語る
http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/CNN200909270002.html

NYT U.S. to Demand Inspection of New Iran Plant ‘Within Weeks’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/world/middleeast/27nuke.html

ホワイトハウス WEEKLY ADDRESS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Weekly-Address-President-Affirms-Commitment-to-International-Cooperation-in-Strengthening-Economy-and-Stopping-Nuclear-Proliferation/

【27日】
読売 イランのウラン濃縮施設の早期査察、米要求へ
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20090927-OYT1T00668.htm

CNN イランが中距離ミサイル試射 長距離ミサイル試射も予定と
http://www.cnn.co.jp/world/CNN200909280017.html

朝日 米、イラン包囲着々 核断念へ対話の陰で主要国と連携(まとめ)
http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0927/TKY200909270003.html

【28日】
NYT U.S. Is Seeking a Range of Sanctions Against Iran(28日)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html

日経 イラン、中距離弾道ミサイルを試射
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20090928AT2M2802D28092009.html

★はオバマが英仏とした会見だが、これについては米流時評さんがその様子を記しているのでリンク。

米流時評
G20ショック!イランの秘密核施設暴露で開幕
http://beiryu2.exblog.jp/10269212/

中東TODAY 佐々木氏のレポートも外せない。

中東TODAY
仏の顔も三度イランの核施設攻撃の可能性高まる?
http://www.tkfd.or.jp/blog/sasaki/2009/09/no_668.html
NABUCCOパイプ・ラインとイラン制裁の関係
http://www.tkfd.or.jp/blog/sasaki/2009/09/nonabucco.html

ロシアのイラン制裁への協力も、資源の問題があるようだ。国際社会は一筋縄ではいかないものなんだが、鳩山民主党はわかっているんだろうかね?

Continue reading "イランの件"

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)

September 24, 2009

コンセプトカー「iMo」?

アップルがコンセプトカー「iMo」を打ち出した!?

Droppedimage_6

MSの古川さんがツイッターでピックアップしていた「iMo」。アップルがとうとう自動車業界に乗り込むのか!!!

Apple iMo by Anthony Jannarelly
http://www.imoconcept.com/

と、思ったんだが、どうもフェイクらしい。以下の通り但し書きがあった。

concept by Anthony Jannarelly ( Jannarelly Design coming soon)
MA Automotive Design
Coventry University

Please note this is only a student project. Not for commercial means.

コベントリー大学ってどうもイギリスの大学のようだ。

Coventry University
http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/Pages/index.aspx

iMoが秀逸なのは、そのデザインがアップルらしいというだけじゃなく、フェイクであろうTV-CMがまたアップルらしいってこと。ご丁寧に発売時期も書いてあるのだが2024年だって。遅すぎるだろ(苦笑)。

どうやってシートが形を変えるのかとか、二輪で安定的な高速走行ができるのかとか疑問もあるが、かわいいので許す。トヨタや日産のコンセプトカーに似ていることも許す(苦笑)。

既に海外メディアではニュースになっている模様です。

Wired
Apple Flavored Car Design From Britain
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/12/apple-flavored/

去年の12月か。古い話なのね…。


立ち上がる音がマック!(爆)


初代iMacみたいだね。ストーンズの「She's A rainbow」が流れてた、あの、キャンディーみたいなiMacのときの。

| | Comments (1) | TrackBack (1)

35分対90分

初の日米首脳会談だったわけだ。なんだかみんな嬉しそうなんだけど、米中首脳会談の半分にも満たない時間だった。

読売 日米同盟の強化確認、鳩山・オバマ初の首脳会談
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/news/20090923-OYT1T00811.htm

鳩山首相は23日午前(日本時間同日夜)、就任後初めてオバマ米大統領とニューヨーク市内のホテルで約35分間会談した。

毎日 米中首脳会談:「6カ国」再開へ協力 対北朝鮮で一致
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20090924ddm002030045000c.html

両首脳の会談は4月のロンドンに続き2回目。会談時間は予定の1時間を上回る1時間半だった。

いや、まあ、日米には案件がないんだろうけどね。いいすけど、別に。

| | Comments (6) | TrackBack (2)

オバマの国連演説

A New Era of Responsibility 
新たな責任の時代



REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

United Nations Headquarters
New York, New York

September 23, 2009

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time as the 44th President of the United States.  (Applause.)  I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me, mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history, and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad.

I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer.  I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.  These expectations are not about me.  Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems.  But they are also rooted in hope -- the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust.  Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country.  Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.  And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests.  But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared.  The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or they can tear us apart.  The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it.  The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it.  What happens to the hope of a single child -- anywhere -- can enrich our world, or impoverish it.

In this hall, we come from many places, but we share a common future.  No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together.  I have carried this message from London to Ankara; from Port of Spain to Moscow; from Accra to Cairo; and it is what I will speak about today -- because the time has come for the world to move in a new direction.  We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words.  Speeches alone will not solve our problems -- it will take persistent action.  For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America.  (Applause.)  I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law.  Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example.

We have set a clear and focused goal:  to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies -- a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we and many nations here are helping these governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.

In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war.  We have removed American combat brigades from Iraqi cities, and set a deadline of next August to remove all our combat brigades from Iraqi territory.  And I have made clear that we will help Iraqis transition to full responsibility for their future, and keep our commitment to remove all American troops by the end of 2011.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers.  At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.  And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Upon taking office, I appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, and America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states -- Israel and Palestine -- in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected.

To confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy.  We have substantially increased our fuel-efficiency standards.  We have provided new incentives for conservation, launched an energy partnership across the Americas, and moved from a bystander to a leader in international climate negotiations.

To overcome an economic crisis that touches every corner of the world, we worked with the G20 nations to forge a coordinated international response of over $2 trillion in stimulus to bring the global economy back from the brink.  We mobilized resources that helped prevent the crisis from spreading further to developing countries.  And we joined with others to launch a $20 billion global food security initiative that will lend a hand to those who need it most, and help them build their own capacity.

We've also re-engaged the United Nations.  We have paid our bills.  We have joined the Human Rights Council.  (Applause.)  We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.  And we address our priorities here, in this institution  -- for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

This is what we have already done.  But this is just a beginning.  Some of our actions have yielded progress.  Some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future.  But make no mistake:  This cannot solely be America's endeavor.  Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone.  We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world.  And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

Now, if we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility.  Consider the course that we're on if we fail to confront the status quo:  Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world; protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease.  I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact:  The magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions.

This body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world could solve their problems together.  Franklin Roosevelt, who died before he could see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way -- and I quote:  "The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation….  It cannot be a peace of large nations -- or of small nations.  It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world."

The cooperative effort of the whole world.  Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common.  Yet we also know that this body is made up of sovereign states.  And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point figures -- point fingers and stoke divisions.  Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions.  Anybody can do that.  Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game.  No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.  No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.  No balance of power among nations will hold.  The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. They lead nations to act in opposition to the very goals that they claim to pursue -- and to vote, often in this body, against the interests of their own people.  They build up walls between us and the future that our people seek, and the time has come for those walls to come down.  Together, we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides -- coalitions of different faiths and creeds; of north and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.

The choice is ours.  We can be remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st; that put off hard choices, refused to look ahead, failed to keep pace because we defined ourselves by what we were against instead of what we were for.  Or we can be a generation that chooses to see the shoreline beyond the rough waters ahead; that comes together to serve the common interests of human beings, and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to this institution:  the United Nations.

That is the future America wants -- a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well.  That is the bargain that makes this work.  That must be the guiding principle of international cooperation.

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children:  non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.

This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man's capacity to kill had to be contained.  For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off.  But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity.  If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.

A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them.  The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.

America intends to keep our end of the bargain.  We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers.  We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited.  We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons.  And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.

I will also host a summit next April that reaffirms each nation's responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and to help those who can't -- because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of a violent extremist.  And we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives that combat nuclear smuggling and theft.

All of this must support efforts to strengthen the NPT.  Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences.  Let me be clear, this is not about singling out individual nations -- it is about standing up for the rights of all nations that do live up to their responsibilities.  Because a world in which IAEA inspections are avoided and the United Nation's demands are ignored will leave all people less safe, and all nations less secure.

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.  We respect their rights as members of the community of nations.  I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable.  The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.  We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.

That brings me to the second pillar for our future:  the pursuit of peace.

The United Nations was born of the belief that the people of the world can live their lives, raise their families, and resolve their differences peacefully.  And yet we know that in too many parts of the world, this ideal remains an abstraction -- a distant dream.  We can either accept that outcome as inevitable, and tolerate constant and crippling conflict, or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal, and reassert our resolve to end conflicts around the world.

That effort must begin with an unshakeable determination that the murder of innocent men, women and children will never be tolerated.  On this, no one can be -- there can be no dispute.  The violent extremists who promote conflict by distorting faith have discredited and isolated themselves.  They offer nothing but hatred and destruction.  In confronting them, America will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists, share intelligence, and coordinate law enforcement and protect our people.  We will permit no safe haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation.  We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow.  And we will pursue positive engagement that builds bridges among faiths, and new partnerships for opportunity.

Our efforts to promote peace, however, cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists.  For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

And that is why we will support -- we will strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold.  We will pursue a lasting peace in Sudan through support for the people of Darfur and the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, so that we secure the peace that the Sudanese people deserve.  (Applause.)  And in countries ravaged by violence -- from Haiti to Congo to East Timor -- we will work with the U.N. and other partners to support an enduring peace.

I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world.  (Applause.)  We will continue to work on that issue.  Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas.  We have made some progress.  Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security.  Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians.  As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow.  But more progress is needed.  We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  (Applause.)

The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues:  security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem.  And the goal is clear:  Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.  (Applause.)

As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors.  In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.
         
Now, I am not naïve.  I know this will be difficult.  But all of us -- not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service.  To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private.  The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.  (Applause.)  And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.)

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us.  It's not paid by politicians.  It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night.  It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own.  These are all God's children.  And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security.  That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land.  And that is why, even though there will be setbacks and false starts and tough days, I will not waver in my pursuit of peace.  (Applause.)

Third, we must recognize that in the 21st century, there will be no peace unless we take responsibility for the preservation of our planet.  And I thank the Secretary General for hosting the subject of climate change yesterday.

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied.  Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred.  If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders.  Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources.  Development will be devastated by drought and famine.  Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear.  Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on -- why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

And that is why the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over.  We will move forward with investments to transform our energy economy, while providing incentives to make clean energy the profitable kind of energy.  We will press ahead with deep cuts in emissions to reach the goals that we set for 2020, and eventually 2050.  We will continue to promote renewable energy and efficiency, and share new technologies with countries around the world.  And we will seize every opportunity for progress to address this threat in a cooperative effort with the entire world.

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead.  But responsibility does not end there.  While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth.  And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.

It's hard to change something as fundamental as how we use energy.  I know that.  It's even harder to do so in the midst of a global recession.  Certainly, it will be tempting to sit back and wait for others to move first.  But we cannot make this journey unless we all move forward together.  As we head into Copenhagen, let us resolve to focus on what each of us can do for the sake of our common future.

And this leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future:  a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, and yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills.  Across the globe, we find promising signs, but little certainty about what lies ahead.  And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our humanity -- the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water supplies; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease; or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.

In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world's largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained.  That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work.  That means taking steps to rekindle demand so that global recovery can be sustained.  And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed and the excess and the abuse that led us into this disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.

At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest, however, in broader questions of development -- the questions of development that existed even before this crisis happened.  And so America will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves.  We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS, to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria, to eradicate polio, and to strengthen public health systems.  We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization.  We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade.  We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality.  And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.

Now is the time for all of us to do our part.  Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibilities.  And that means that wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice.  And developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress -- for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes.  That is why we support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector.  Our goal is simple:  a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.

Now, the changes that I've spoken about today will not be easy to make.  And they will not be realized simply by leaders like us coming together in forums like this, as useful as that may be.  For as in any assembly of members, real change can only come through the people we represent.  That is why we must do the hard work to lay the groundwork for progress in our own capitals. That's where we will build the consensus to end conflicts and to harness technology for peaceful purposes, to change the way we use energy, and to promote growth that can be sustained and shared.

I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children.  And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people.  These principles cannot be afterthoughts -- democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I've discussed today, because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than narrow interests of those in power.

The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people.  True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home.  The people of the world want change.  They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.

This Assembly's Charter commits each of us -- and I quote -- "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women."  Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice.  For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people.  (Applause.)

As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country.  And that guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice.  And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect.  Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions.  And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy.  But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it.  There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.  (Applause.)

Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering, the enormous sacrifice that had taken place.  "We have learned," he said, "to be citizens of the world, members of the human community."

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world -- from Africa and Asia, from Europe to the Americas.  These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve -- it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war; rooted in the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

Now it falls to us -- for this institution will be what we make of it.  The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world -- feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, mending  places that have been broken.  But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution -- they are a calling to redouble our efforts.  The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority.  In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We have reached a pivotal moment.  The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.  And so, with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)


原文 ホワイトハウスホームページ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly/

共同 オバマ氏、地球規模の結束要請 国連総会、核廃絶や温暖化で
http://www.47news.jp/CN/200909/CN2009092301000588.html

| | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2)

September 23, 2009

中東、北朝鮮、密約とオバマ外交

中東とMD計画と北朝鮮と密約問題について考えてみた。

AFP オバマ大統領、イスラエルとパレスチナに交渉再開求める 3首脳会談
http://www.afpbb.com/article/politics/2644813/4650259

オバマ大統領は「数世代にわたりイスラエルとパレスチナの人々に止むことのない紛争と苦しみを与えてきた行き詰まりを打開しようという意思を奮い起こすことが必要だ」と述べ、イスラエルにはパレスチナ側が和平交渉再開の条件としている入植活動の凍結を、パレスチナ側にはイスラエルを交渉の席に引き戻すため融和的な姿勢を示すことを求めた。

国連総会を前に一気に動き出したオバマ外交。オバマの政策って、例えばグリーンニューディールのように、経済危機、雇用対策と環境問題とエネルギーセキュリティーを一気に解決しようというように、いくつもの案件を一つの方向でまとめあげるという特徴がある。外交面においても、そこを狙っていると思われる。

このイスラエルとパレスチナの交渉再開なんだけど、振り返ってみると、イスラエルは、オバマ就任前にめちゃくちゃにパレスチナとの関係を悪化させたあげく、政権は右派ネタニヤフになってしまったわけだ。ただ、右派だからダメということではなく、左派だけに攻撃しないと「弱腰」といわれる場合もあるので、ここは要注意。で、今回、オバマのもと、強行派のネタニヤフ首相とアッバス議長が握手をしたのだが…。

この前に、一つ、大きな事件があった。オバマは東欧への弾道ミサイル設置計画を中止したのだ。ロシアののど元にミサイルを設置するわけだから、ロシアは猛反発していたし、ポーランドなどはぜひ置いてほしいと言っていたわけだが、これを撤回した。もちろん、ロシア側の強い要望もあったのだが、狙いはイランだと言われている。

イランの核開発はロシアが支援しているといわれている。表向きは原子力発電所の建設だったりするわけだが。今回、ロシアは米国のMD計画撤回の見返りに、核弾頭の縮小計画を拡大するに違いないが、その裏ではイランへの支援をやめるという事態が密かに行われるはずだ。

しかしイランの核開発は、アメリカを狙うというよりもイスラエルへの対抗措置といわれている。イスラエルが核兵器を保有していることは公然の秘密であって、カーター元大統領も証言しているのだが、公式にはアメリカもイスラエルもしらを切ることで、イスラエルもNPT条約にふれずに今まで保有してきた。まあつまりダブルスタンダードだということ。

だけど、もしイランに核開発を断念させるとなれば、イスラエルをなんとかしなければならない。イスラエルもロビー活動を行っており、民主党にも相当な影響を与えているのだが、しかしながらオバマはロビー活動を批判していることもあり、イスラエルとは若干距離を置いているように思える。まあ、首席補佐官のラーム・エマニュエルはユダヤ系だけどね。

だから今回のパレスチナ・イスラエル交渉再開の動きは、イスラエル封じ込めという狙いもあるのだろうと思う。オバマの訴える「核なき世界(でもアメリカは別)」実現に向けては、イスラエルが重要なファクターになるのだ。イスラエルはイラン単独攻撃も辞さない構えでもあるが、そうなると、中東はどんどん不安定になってしまう。だからパレスチナ問題をはじめ、今後、イスラエルがどう出て来るのかは、注目すべきところだろう。

核なき世界、という点においては、北朝鮮問題も同じだ。ここへきて、北朝鮮との交渉再開がささやかれている。

日経 北朝鮮の核問題で「近く前進」 オバマ米大統領
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/kaigai/us/20090920D2M2000W20.html

金正日の健康が回復したそうなので、話が進むかもしれない。後継者がだれかわからないようでは交渉もしようがないから。

で、有名ブロガー、ネットゲリラさんの見方では、アメリカは極東の非核化をネタに北朝鮮と交渉しようとしているそうで。朝鮮半島だけじゃなくて、極東ってどういうこと?? 極東って一応中国も入ると思うんだけど、そりゃ無理だろ。なんかアバウトだなあ。朝鮮半島と日本が非核化したって中国やロシアが持っていれば意味ないじゃん?

ネットゲリラ うそつき自民党
http://shadow-city.blogzine.jp/net/2009/09/post_00bd.html

でも、持っていないと言いつつ領内に核兵器が存在する日本は、立ち位置としてはイスラエルと同じで、ダブルスタンダードなわけだ。この解消には、米軍がミサイルを搭載しないか、「米軍が日本に持ち込んでいますが、同盟国なので日本のためにアメリカは使う覚悟です」とでも断言してもらわないといけない。その際は当然ながら、日本も「日本は持っていないけど、米軍が持っていて、同盟国なのでアメリカの核の傘に守られています」と言わないといけない。

これならば、日本は持っていないと一応言える。しかも持っているのはアメリカなので、アメリカが非核化したければいつでもできる。零戦を作ったりする恐い恐い日本軍をなまくらにさせるにはいい制度なわけで、アメリカにもその他国際的にもメリットがある状態なわけだ。

社民党と組んでいる民主党が密約を判明してどう解決するのかはわからないが、判明したら、非核3原則の法制化に行くんじゃなくて、現状を認めるって方向に行くんじゃないだろうか。村山首相のときに自衛隊を認めたように。そうすると社民はどうするのかね? 

もしくは本当にオバマが、日本を含む、かつ中国・ロシアを除く極東の非核化を進めるとしたならば、隣に中国という核大国がいる日本は困るんじゃないのだろうか。困らないという人は、まあ、そう思ってて幸せですね。いや、絶対困るだろ。そうなったとしたら、日本自身が核兵器を持たざるをえないという議論が強くなり、でももし保有することになればアメリカの仮想敵国に追い込まれる可能性もある。これでは中国がウハウハですね。

そんなわけで、オバマの外交は「核なき世界」を中心に「例外なし」(国連総会演説でそう発言している)で動き始めたようなんだが、これは手放しで喜べる事態でもない。微妙な例外だった日本はうまく立ち回らないとね。中国にお金あげることが前提の25%削減を褒められて喜んでいる場合じゃないぜ。まあ、これがシナリオの一シーンであるとすれば褒めてあげるんだが。

Continue reading "中東、北朝鮮、密約とオバマ外交"

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

鳩山首相、国連で25%削減演説

国連総会を前に、国連が温暖化ミニサミットを開催した。首相となったばかりの鳩山も、25%削減を掲げたので、国連の潘基文事務総長に発言の場を与えられたそうだ。

朝日 鳩山首相の演説全文 国連気候変動ハイレベル会合
http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0922/TKY200909220137.html

原文はこちら
外務省 Statement by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama at the United Nations Summit on Climate Change
http://www.mofa.go.jp/u_news/2/20090923_003732.html

他国と比べても突出した目標だけに、お褒めに預かっているわけだが、どうでしょうね? 別に約束は途上国やアメリカが入ってという条件付きだし、まじめに25%積み上げるというよりは、「言ってみる」ということにつきる数字だとは思う。日本は他国に比べて手が少なすぎるんだが、日本ができれば他国もできるわけでそれはまあいいんだけど。

産経 国連事務総長「鳩山演説は新たな息吹」
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/europe/090923/erp0909231006002-n1.htm

潘事務総長は、日本が示した25%削減の目標を「めざましい飛躍」と表現した上で、「日本政府の野心的な目標は、(気候変動対策に消極的な)途上国の動向にも影響を与えるだろう」と最大限の賛辞を贈った。
(中略)
 日本の演説をめぐっては、鳩山首相に引き続き開会式で演説に望んだフランスのサルコジ大統領が「力強い制約を行った新たな日本の指導者に敬意を表したい」と述べたほか、会合に出席したゴア元米副大統領も「極めて強い印象を受けた」と述べるなど、高い評価が相次いだ。

問題は途上国支援。多分、日本が排出権を買って、途上国が技術を導入することになると思うけど、途上国は減らしてやるから無料で技術寄越せと言い始めているので、これが頭が痛い。エイズの治療薬で実績がある制度を温暖化に適用しろっていっているらしい。しかし技術は膨大なお金と時間をかけて開発したものだから、回収する前に盗まれたら大変なことになる。エイズほどの緊急性はないわけだしなあ。とはいえ、途上国で適用しなければ、というか中国やインドで技術が普及しなければ、とてもじゃないが意味ないわけで、悩ましいところである。

途上国支援について、鳩山イニシアチブなるものを提唱しているようなんだがまとめるとこうだそうである。

(1)日本を含む先進国の官民資金による貢献
(2)途上国の排出削減の検証可能なルール策定
(3)資金の透明性、実効性確保のための国際システム構築
(4)技術移転に伴う知的所有権保護

そんでもって、日本としてこれまでと同等以上の資金的、技術的な支援を行う用意があるっていうんだが、そううまくいくのかね?

まあ、こうして日本からお金がもらえそうなんで中国も大きな目標を掲げるようなんだが、数字はなし(苦笑)。

東京 温室ガス 中国『顕著な幅で削減』 国連サミット胡主席が表明
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/world/news/CK2009092302000077.html

世界一の排出国(今は中国かも)のアメリカはどうよというと、オバマも歯切れが悪い。

毎日 国連気候変動サミット:オバマ米大統領演説要旨
http://mainichi.jp/select/science/news/20090923ddm002030028000c.html

ホワイトハウスホームページ
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT UNITED NATIONS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-UN-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moons-Climate-Change-Summit/

分裂はやめようって言われてもな…。医療保険改革もうまくいっていない中、アメリカが12月のCOP15で有意義な発言ができる見込みは超薄くなっているわけで、いまいち歯切れが悪くなってしまうわけだ。とりあえず発見した映像張り付けておくけども、23日には国際協調外交演説をし、24日には核軍縮をテーマとする安保理で議長を務めるそうなんで、しばらくウォッチ必要かと。イスラエルの首相とパレスチナの議長と会っていたしね。

日本はここからどう立ち回るのかが課題ですな。途上国が口ばっかり出してくるんだから、面倒なんでインドや中国やブラジルなんかのG20に参加する国は「先進国」って認めちゃったらどう?費用も応分の負担でお願いしますよ。へっ。

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

September 18, 2009

MD計画廃棄

オバマがチェコとポーランドへのMDミサイル配備計画を廃棄したようだ。

NYT White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html

WAPO President Overhauls Bush-Era Missile Shield Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091700639.html

読売 MD東欧配備、米が中止…露との軍縮交渉に弾み
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/world/news/20090918-OYT1T00117.htm

ロシアとの緊張関係はいっそう緩和されるわけだ。まあ、お金も節約しなきゃならないしね。オバマはこの件について、短い会見も行ったらしい。

それにしてもこれでまたチェイニーが発狂しそうだな。なんとなくだけど。

| | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)

September 17, 2009

閣僚会見の感想など

鳩山会見は見逃してしまったのだが、閣僚会見は見た。みんなよくしゃべって、異常に長かった訳だけど、まあこれも政権交代の妙だろう。だって自民のときは「今拝命したばかりなので〜」って話せない人もいたしね。その意味では自分の言葉で話していたと思う。

詳細は明日の新聞にまかせるとして、強い印象が残った人々はこんな感じ。

官房長官→事務次官会見廃止などの質問ばっか。
菅副総理→役人がけしかけて地方から陳情に来させるなんざ、今後一切やらせねえ(思いっきり脅してる)
岡田外務大臣→密約調べるぞ(え?まじ? まじめが取り柄だけに掘り下げ始めるとパンドラの箱が…)
藤井財務大臣→16年は長かった。政治主導でいきます。
みずほたん→脱原発は置いとくらしい
亀ちゃん→西川はクビ決定
原口総務大臣→同上
長妻厚生労働大臣→いろいろあって大変そう。がんばって。
千葉法務大臣→死刑は慎重に(それにしても法律用語が難しすぎ)
赤松農水大臣→減反政策見直しもFTAは結局…?(日本農業新聞が光ってるね) 

そんなわけで面白かった。聞いた範囲では、ちょっと外交が気になる。大丈夫かなあ。密約にも4つあるわけだが、たとえば今時、非核三原則っつってもなあ。アフガン問題もどうするのかねえ。う〜ん。まあでも、新しい感じはするし、やる気は感じられるし、いいんじゃないですかね。

みずほたんがらみは、こんなところもあってということか?

産経 連合が「原発新設」容認へ 民主シフト鮮明に
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/life/environment/090916/env0909160134000-n1.htm

ところでツイッターで切り込み隊長が拾ってたこのニュースが気になるなあ。関係ないけど。

ブルームバーグ 米投資会社ロックフェラーのマクドナルドCEOが死去-拳銃自殺か
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=infoseek_jp&sid=a10TxwzDh07M

| | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

September 16, 2009

上杉さん、官邸突撃の模様

民主党は記者クラブ以外のジャーナリストも会見に入れていたし、政権奪取の暁には、会見にはすべて入れると明言していたんだが、今日の就任会見に上杉さんたちは入れないらしい。ということで怒ってます。「上杉さん、どうぞ来てください」って鳩山党首に言われてたんだしねえ。

入れないことになっているけど、ご招待を受けているということで、突撃するらしいです。神保さんと。頑張れ。

追記:結局上杉さんたちは出られなかったみたいですね。官邸には入れた(門番は突破できた)けど、報道室ではねられたらしい。なんだかな〜。

会見を見ていたんだけど、それにしても記者クラブのみなさんは、事務次官会見廃止がものすごく気になっているみたいですね。大臣会見に置き換えてもらえばいいじゃん? それで足りなきゃ副大臣とか政務官会見をさせりゃいいじゃん?? そのバックに官僚が控えていれば問題なかろうと思うんだが。

ただ、確かにいろんな案件がある中で、いちいち政治家に聞いていられないわけで、ある程度責任もって話してくれる人が必要なんだが、取材して話が出たら、犯人探しが始まりそうだしなあ。アメリカみたいに政治任官を増やすとかって日本じゃ無理だろうし、不安になるのもわからんではない。

| | Comments (1) | TrackBack (2)

今度はオハイオで労働者に説明

つい昨日はニューヨークにいたと思ったオバマだが、オハイオに移って、労働者に経済は修復中と話したそうだ。

ロイター Obama tells workers U.S. economy is on the mend
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58E63Z20090915

いやいや、大変ですね。頭が下がります。

ところでオハイオといえばジョー・ザ・プラマー。どうしてるんだろう?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

September 15, 2009

嵐はおさまりつつあるかもしれないけどね

リーマンショックから9月15日で1年がたったので、オバマがウォールストリートで演説をしたようだ。「嵐はやみはじめた」と言ったあとで、まだ分かってない奴がいるとにらみを効かせたそうである。

CNN 「リーマン破綻から教訓を」オバマ大統領がウォール街で演説
http://www.cnn.co.jp/business/CNN200909150005.html

ロイター 米大統領が金融規制強化を訴え、年内の承認要請
http://jp.reuters.com/article/domesticEquities4/idJPnJT846763420090915

朝日 オバマ大統領「嵐やみ始めた」 リーマン破綻1年で演説http://www.asahi.com/international/update/0915/TKY200909140434.html

共同 オバマ米大統領の演説要旨
http://www.47news.jp/CN/200909/CN2009091501000141.html

リーマンのおかげで(マケインが失点し)大統領になれたとも言われるオバマだが、それなりに大変な1年を過ごしてきたわけだ。オバマの20倍以上の報酬をもらう役員も健在らしいし、ウォールストリートがそう簡単に変わるわけじゃないと思う。

嵐はやんだって、嵐の通りすぎたあとは大変なことになっているわけだ。回復までには時間がかかる。借金も大きくなっちゃったし、どうすんだよ一体って感じ。

ロイターがオバマが直面する課題という記事を掲載していたので抜粋してみると…。

ロイター オバマ米政権が直面する主要課題
http://jp.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idJPJAPAN-11488020090914
1.金融規制改革
2.医療保険改革
3.国内経済
4.気候変動
5.アフガニスタン
6.イラク
7.イラン
8.イスラエル・パレスチナ紛争

えっと多分これだけじゃないな。北朝鮮問題、対中国問題、対ロシア問題等まだまだあると思うけどね。もしかしたら日本も…になるかもしれないから、大変です。

それより亀ちゃんが郵政担当大臣! これは…復讐劇が始まるな。ワクワク。

| | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

September 14, 2009

医療保険制度導入反対の大規模デモ

オバマの演説の2日後、9.11の翌日、ワシントンでは大規模な医療保険制度導入反対デモが行われた。ペンシルベニア通りの自由広場から議会西まで歩き、最後にナショナルモールに集まったそうなんだが、グーグルでみると自由広場から議会までおよそ1.5kmくらいですね。ナショナルモールっていうのは、スミソニアンなんかがあるところでもあります。まあ多いっていえば多いけど、これがアメリカ人を代表する人たちというわけじゃないとは思う。私が去年参加したチベット反対デモもこれくらい来てたよなあ…というわけで、デモをしたからってそれだけで力になるわけじゃないと思うし。声を上げることは大事ですけど、共感を得るには、声の内容が大事じゃね?

WAPO Lashing Out at the Capitol
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091200971.html

英語じゃわかりにくいので日本語で。

CNNワシントンで保守派デモ 医療保険改革などに反対
http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/CNN200909130004.html

この日はティー・パーティー・エキスプレスが先月28日から全国で展開してきた抗議活動の最終日。同組織はカリフォルニア州サクラメントを皮切りに全国30カ所で集会を開催し、財政赤字拡大につながる政策を容認した米議員らの責任を指摘した。

ティー・パーティー・エキスプレスってのは保守派の団体で、あちこちで反対運動をしているらしい。ティーパーティーというのは米国独立のきっかけになったボストン茶会事件。詳しくはWikiにまかせるが、これが独立のきっかけであり、税金嫌いのおおもとであり、アメリカでコーヒーが飲まれるようになったきっかけでもある。

Wiki ボストン茶会事件
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%82%B9%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E8%8C%B6%E4%BC%9A%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

1773年12月16日に、アメリカ・マサチューセッツ州ボストンで、イギリス本国議会の植民地政策に憤慨した植民地人の組織が、アメリカ・インディアンに扮装して、港に停泊中のイギリス船に侵入、イギリス東インド会社の船荷の紅茶箱をボストン湾に投棄した事件。アメリカ独立革命の象徴的事件である。

どうでもいいんですが、なんでインディアンに扮装する必要があったかなあ? 結構卑屈じゃね?

そんなわけで、名前の由来は、アメリカ人に根本を思い出させる名前である。日本でいうと…う〜ん…「聖徳太子エキスプレス」…じゃないか。

ではもう一つ、記事を。

AFP米ワシントンD.C.で大規模デモ、オバマ政権に抗議
http://www.afpbb.com/article/politics/2640641/4578285

 メリーランド(Maryland)州から参加したウクライナからの移民だという参加者はAFPに、「今の米国を見ているとかつての共産圏の国々を思い出す。あっちで失敗した社会主義がこっちで成功するわけがないじゃないか」と話した。 

 同じくメリーランド州から来たという女性は「彼(オバマ大統領)の背後にはサウジアラビアがいると思う。選挙運動の資金はどこから出たのかしらね」と話した。

 こういった人を説得しようとデモに参加した人もいる。女性の近くにいたジョージタウン大学で法律を学んでいるという学生(22)は、米国がかかえる問題を解決するためには互いに理解することが必要だと語りかけた。

 オバマ大統領とジョゼフ・バイデン(Joseph Biden)副大統領を描いたTシャツを着たこの学生が「わたしはあなた方を説得しようとは思いません。ただ、あなた方を理解したいんです。米国の問題を解決するには対話が必要です」と女性のグループに語りかけると、一緒にいた女性の娘がこう言い返した。

「オバマはスリーパーセル(長期間社会に潜伏している工作員)よ。対話したかったらどこかよそに行きなさいよ」

だから皆保険制度は社会主義じゃないし、医療保険はサウジと関係ないし、オバマは工作員じゃないって。アホすぎる…。

まあね、好きにすりゃいいじゃん。ジム・ロジャースは、英国→米国ときた世界の覇権は今アジアというか中国にうつっているといってたし、覇権国じゃなくなるなら好きにすればいいと思うよ。自国の制度を押し売りしたりしなくなるだろうから。でも、その中国もアメリカと似ているんだよなあ…。

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2)

September 12, 2009

オバマの医療保険改革演説

2009年9月9日、オバマ大統領が米国議会で行った医療保険改革演説

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
ON HEALTH CARE

U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.

THE PRESIDENT:  Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month.  Credit was frozen.  And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods.  A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away.  And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them -- (applause) -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.  That is our ultimate goal.  But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.  (Applause.)

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who've taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery.  I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises.  We came here to build a future.  (Applause.)  So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future -- and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.  (Applause.)  It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform.  And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.  A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943.  Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.  (Applause.)

Our collective failure to meet this challenge -- year after year, decade after decade -- has led us to the breaking point.  Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy.  These are not primarily people on welfare.  These are middle-class Americans.  Some can't get insurance on the job.  Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.  Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover.

We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people.  There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.  In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point.  And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.  In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured.  Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.   More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too.  More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care.  It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about.  They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.  Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.  By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size.  That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.  (Applause.)

Then there's the problem of rising cost.  We spend one and a half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it.  This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages.  It's why so many employers -- especially small businesses -- are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely.  It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally -- like our automakers -- are at a huge disadvantage.  And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.  When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.  If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.  Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem.  Nothing else even comes close.  Nothing else.  (Applause.)

Now, these are the facts.  Nobody disputes them.  We know we must reform this system.  The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's -- (applause) -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I've said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches.  But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have.  Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.  (Applause.)  And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst.

We've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform.  Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week.  That has never happened before.  Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups, and even drug companies -- many of whom opposed reform in the past.  And there is agreement in this chamber on about 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government.  Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics.  Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise.  Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge.  And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well, the time for bickering is over.  The time for games has passed.  (Applause.)  Now is the season for action.  Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.  Now is the time to deliver on health care.  Now is the time to deliver on health care.   

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.  It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance.  It will provide insurance for those who don't.  And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.  (Applause.)  It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody including employers and individuals.  And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans -- and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.   

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan.  First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.  (Applause.)  Let me repeat this:  Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you.  Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.  (Applause.)  As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most.  (Applause.)  They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime.  (Applause.)  We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick.  (Applause.)  And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.  That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.  (Applause.)

Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices.  (Applause.)  If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage.  If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage.  We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.  Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers.  As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage.  This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance.  It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance.  And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves.  (Applause.)

Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need.  And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned.  This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.  In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill.  (Applause.)  This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.  (Applause.)

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.  There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.  The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money.  If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.  If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.  And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.  (Applause.)  Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.  There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.  (Applause.)  But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.  Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

And while there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe -- (laughter) -- I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined:  consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole.  Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize -- (applause) -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform.  So tonight I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.  The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.  Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible.  It is a lie, plain and simple.  (Applause.)

There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants.  This, too, is false.  The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  You lie!  (Boos.)

THE PRESIDENT:  It's not true.  And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.  (Applause.) 

Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.  As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.  (Applause.)

So let me set the record straight here.  My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition.  That's how the market works.  (Applause.)  Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies.  In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.  And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.  And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly -- by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage, and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people; they do it because it's profitable.  As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it.  All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business.  They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.  (Applause.)  And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that.  But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange.  (Applause.)  Now, let me be clear.  Let me be clear.  It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance.  No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance.  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea.  They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government.  And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option.  But they won't be.  I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.  But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers, and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.  (Applause.)

Now, it is -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight.  But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated -- by the left or the right or the media.  It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.  To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.  (Applause.)  The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end -- and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.  And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.  (Applause.)

For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies.  Others have proposed a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan.  These are all constructive ideas worth exploring.  But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.  (Applause.)  And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.  (Applause.)

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public -- and that's how we pay for this plan.

And here's what you need to know.  First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.  (Applause.)  I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.  And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize.  (Applause.)  Now, part of the reason I faced a trillion-dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for -- from the Iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy.  (Applause.)  I will not make that same mistake with health care. 

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system, a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.  Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier.  That's not my judgment -- it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.  And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years.  That's how Medicare was born.  And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next.  (Applause.)  And that is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.  (Applause.) 

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies -- subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors.  And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.  (Applause.)   

Now, these steps will ensure that you -- America's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised.  They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations.  And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.  (Applause.)  That's what this plan will do for you.  So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.  That will not happen on my watch.  I will protect Medicare.  (Applause.) 

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody.  We have long known that some places -- like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania -- offer high-quality care at costs below average.  So the commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system -- everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.  (Applause.)  Now, much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers.  And this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money -- an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts.  And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.

Now, finally, many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care.  (Applause.)  Now -- there you go.  There you go.  Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.  (Applause.)  So I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.  (Applause.)  I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas.  I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.  (Applause.)

Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years -- less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration.  (Applause.)  Now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent -- but spent badly -- in the existing health care system.  The plan will not add to our deficit.  The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.  And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

Now, this is the plan I'm proposing.  It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight -- Democrats and Republicans.  And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead.  If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen.  My door is always open.

But know this:  I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it.  (Applause.)  I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.  If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out.  (Applause.)  And I will not -- and I will not accept the status quo as a solution.  Not this time.  Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing.  Our deficit will grow.  More families will go bankrupt.  More businesses will close.  More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most.  And more will die as a result.  We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail.  Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed -- the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago.  It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy.  He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal.  He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.  And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform -- "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it -- would finally pass.  He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things."  "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days -- the character of our country.  One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government.  And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate.  That's our history.   

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty.  In their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here -- people of both parties -- know that what drove him was something more.  His friend Orrin Hatch -- he knows that.  They worked together to provide children with health insurance.  His friend John McCain knows that.  They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights.  His friend Chuck Grassley knows that.  They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience.  It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.  He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick.  And he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large-heartedness -- that concern and regard for the plight of others -- is not a partisan feeling.  It's not a Republican or a Democratic feeling.  It, too, is part of the American character -- our ability to stand in other people's shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.  In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism, but the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.  In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- did not back down.  They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind. 

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem.  They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.  But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.  And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges.  We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then.  It remains true today.  I understand how difficult this health care debate has been.  I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them.  I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road -- to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what the moment calls for.  That's not what we came here to do.  We did not come to fear the future.  We came here to shape it.  I still believe we can act even when it's hard.  (Applause.)  I still believe -- I still believe that we can act when it's hard.  I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress.  I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that's who we are.  That is our calling.  That is our character.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

原文 ホワイトハウスホームページより
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

| | Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)

医療保険改革とオバマの追記的な感想

一つ前のエントリ「医療保険改革とオバマ」のコメント欄で米流時評のysbeeさんが紹介してくださったMSNBCのニュースをざっと見ていたら、オバマの演説に、どうもマケインは拍手していたらしい。ysbeeさんによればマケインの盟友、共和党のリンゼイ・グラハム議員も拍手しそうになっていたそうだ。オバマ自身も、共和党のでも穏健派で医療保険改革が必要だと思っているドール議員らの声がかき消されている、と前に言っていたし、共和党の中にも、おおっぴらには言えないが、今の事態を苦々しく思っている人はいるようだ。

MSNBCをさらに見ていたら、またもや我が天敵ペイリンが出てきちゃって、本当に大統領選に出るつもりらしい。ペイリンは医療保険改革でも重要な役割、タウンホールミーティングなどにおける一般市民の「デスパネル」絶叫を牽引しているわけだが、今回の議会の反応をみると、共和党でもペイリンのような直情型と理性派が分裂しているとしかいえないだろうな。

共和党議員のヤジについても「タウンホールミーティングの一般市民じゃあるまいし」って話題になっているわけだが、「民主党議員だってブッシュをうそつきっていってただろ」(演説中にはしていないようなんだが)って意味の無い反論していたり、ラッシュ・リンボーにいたっては「大統領がうそついているんだから謝る必要がない」とか言いはってて、相変わらずである。あのさ、この問題は「大統領演説の時はヤジを飛ばさない」という米国議会の不文律を破ったことなんじゃねえの?? オバマ演説のエンディング(?)で、ブラックベリーやってた共和党議員も非難されていたし、共和党議員のお行儀の悪さが目立つわけだ。

毎度おなじみといっても知り合いじゃないけど、gooの加藤さんも書いているので、ぜひこちらもお読みください。

goo ニュースな英語
RSS9/11から8年、救援した人たちが救われない米の「国のかたち」
http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/study/newsword/monday/20090911-01.html

ysbeeさんがおっしゃるように、100年以上も医療保険導入に取り組んでいる国はないだろうなあ。莫大な利権をむさぼる米国保険業界は日本にもいろいろ制度改革を押し付けて来るわけだけど、いい加減にしてほしいものだ。

追伸:演説エントリ上げました。

ホワイトハウスホームページのビデオ見たけど、オバマは演説でマケイン持ち上げたりしているんですね。それにしても、演説中にいい話だといちいち立ち上がって拍手するのは大変そうだ。体力いりますね。ヤジは21分くらいです。そんなにひどいという感じはしないけど。

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

September 11, 2009

医療保険改革とオバマ


夕べは呑んだくれていたわけだが、酔っぱらいながらも気になっていたのはオバマの医療保険改革演説である。そのニュースはこちら。

産経 多数が無保険「先進国で米国だけ」 オバマ大統領、医療保険改革に支持訴え
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/america/090910/amr0909101054005-n1.htm

 オバマ大統領は演説で、セオドア・ルーズベルト大統領が医療保険改革を最初に唱えて以来、約1世紀が経過し、国民の忍耐は「限界点に達した」と強調。「ゲームのための時は過ぎた。今こそ行動する時期だ」と訴えた。

最後に大統領は先月末に死亡したケネディ上院議員から受け取った手紙を紹介。「米社会で未達成の偉大な仕事がついに達成される…医療保険改革は将来の繁栄に不可欠だ」というケネディ氏の“遺言”を引いて、改革の失敗は許されないと訴えた。

ロイター オバマ米大統領が医療保険改革で議会演説、早急な対応求める
http://jp.reuters.com/article/domesticEquities4/idJPnTK854341320090910

大統領は、議会は「改革のゴールにかつてないほど近い距離にいる」と強調。改革について、保険に入っている人にとっては安定性が増し、無保険者にとっては「公的保険制度」など選択肢が増えると説明した。

 一方、改革反対派の議員に対しては、脅し戦略をとっているなどと厳しく非難。「計画をよいものにするのではなく、葬り去ったほうが政治上有利と計算した議員と、時間を無駄にするつもりはない」と述べた。

共同 米大統領演説の要旨 
http://www.47news.jp/CN/200909/CN2009091001000319.html

つくづくこの大統領で良かったね、と言いたくなる。ほかの人だったら、こんなに一生懸命になるだろうか? 大統領選時代の集票マシンを使ってるんじゃないかと思うんだが、各地で集会を行い、それでもだめなら、自分の最大の武器である演説で、直接、議員と国民に呼びかける。というわけで、少し、理解が進んだらしい。

CNN 医療保険改革法案の支持者増える、オバマ氏の議会演説を境に
http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/CNN200909100029.html

オバマ米大統領が9日、議会の上下両院合同会議で演説し、医療保険改革法案の可決を訴えた問題で、同法案の支持者が演説を境に53%から67%に増えたことが最新世論調査で1日分かった。CNNとオピニオン・リサーチ社が共同実施した。

まあ、聞いていたのは民主党支持者で、共和党支持者は最初から見てなかったらしい。もうさあ、共和党支持者ってどうして頑なでアホなの?

議員のほうも同じで、まだフル映像が探せていないんだけど、民主党がスタンディングオーベーションなのに、共和党議員はぶす〜っとして見ているだけだったわけだ。(JIN注:フル画像を見てみると、時々共和党もスタンディングオーベーションしてますね。この時点ではダイジェストしか見てなかったので)共和党の議員の中には、ヤジを飛ばす奴がいたらしいが、日本では普通だし、イギリスではヤジのセンスが問われるこの事態、アメリカでは御法度らしく、謝罪しなければいけなくなったらしい。

CNN 共和党議員が演説中の大統領にやじ、後に謝罪表明
http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/CNN200909100012.html

不法移民に無料で医療保険を提供するとのうわさをオバマ大統領が否定した際、ウィルソン議員は大統領に向かって「うそをついている(You lie)」と叫んだ。大統領は演説を中断し、「それは違う」と反論した。

この医療保険改革演説の前には、歴代大統領も取り組んでいたただの教育演説に「オバマは子供を洗脳していようとしている」という共和党支持者のアホな親たちの反対があり、演説原稿を見せなくちゃいけなくなったりとかしているわけだ。聞いてもないのに、洗脳とかいうなよ。貧しくても大統領になった人なんだから、その面は尊敬しろって。もうね、確かに教育をきちんとしたほうがいいよ。コイツらにな。

医療保険改革について、一人ひとりの条件によってどうなるという情報も出しているんだけどな。ただ反対を叫ぶ奴は多分読んでないだろ〜な。

The Obama Plan: Stability & Security for all Americans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/

医療保険制度改革についてはgooの加藤さんのこのコラムがナイス。

goo ニュースな英語
米国(の一部)が医療保険改革に反対なのは「クレージー」だからか
http://news.goo.ne.jp/article/newsengm/world/newsengm-20090817-01.html

| | Comments (9) | TrackBack (2)

September 02, 2009

だからなんだよ

前のエントリの最後に、NYTの記事がアメリカで鳩山由紀夫批判を起こしているようだけど、それって無断で掲載されたもんだよねということを書いたわけだ。で、波紋が波紋を呼んでいるようなんだが。

産経 米ワシントン・ポストが鳩山氏に警告「米国との決別は危険」
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/situation/090901/stt0909012357021-n1.htm

1日付の米紙ワシントン・ポストは、日本の総選挙で勝利した民主党の鳩山由紀夫代表を「経験のない政治家」と評し、北朝鮮の核の脅威があることから、「日本が米国との決別を模索すること」はあまりに危険だと主張する社説を掲載した。

WAPOだけじゃなくて、ほかの新聞も書いているそうで。

産経 米主要紙、鳩山氏の対米姿勢に相次ぎ懸念
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/america/090902/amr0909020154000-n1.htm

当該社説はこれだ。

WAPO Shake-Up in Japan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083103044.html

The LDP stood for close U.S.-Japan relations, while Yukio Hatoyama, the inexperienced politician who leads the DPJ and will probably be Japan's next prime minister, has called for a more Asia-centered foreign policy, sometimes dressing this up with assaults on American "market fundamentalism" and other ills of globalization. There will no doubt be room for negotiation with the Obama administration, perhaps over such issues as the basing of U.S. Marines in Okinawa. But the threat of a nuclear North Korea makes Japan's neighborhood too dangerous, we think, for the government in Tokyo to seek a rupture with Washington or for the Obama administration to let one develop.

自民党は日米関係を緊密化させる立場を取ってきた。一方、次期首相になるだろう民主党党首の鳩山由紀夫という経験の浅い政治家はもっとアジア寄りの外交政策を取ろうとしている。アメリカの「市場原理主義」やグローバリゼーションの病魔をたたいたりする。沖縄基地の問題とかアメリカに起因するこうした問題については、きっとオバマ政権との交渉の余地はあるだろう。でも日本政府にとってワシントンやオバマ政権と亀裂を生むことは、北朝鮮の脅威によって日本の近隣諸国を危険にさらすことにつながる。(適当訳)

微妙に何が言いたいかわからんが、まあアメリカと仲良くしようぜという脅しらしい。だって市場原理主義で破綻したじゃん? 自分たちだって自己批判したじゃん? 他国に批判されるのがそんなに嫌なんかい?? 自分たちはスコットランドの司法当局の判断について偉そうに文句言うくせに。しかも経験の浅さからいったらオバマのほうが浅いぜ!

そんでもってNYTはこれかなあ? 違うかもしれないけど。

NYT Japan’s New Leadership
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01tue2.html

Yukio Hatoyama, who is expected to be the next prime minister, wants a more equal alliance with the United States. Some of his policy proposals are reasonable, but others are cause for concern. We are eager to hear more details. The United States needs a responsible strategic partner committed to a strengthened alliance.

鳩山次期首相は米国とのより対等な同盟関係を望んでいるけ。その提案は理解できるものもあるが、心配な面もある。我々はもっと詳しく知りたい。アメリカは堅い同盟を約束する戦略的で責任感のあるパートナーを求めているのだから。(適当訳)

給油は来春まで続けろよって言ってます。あと、靖国に行って中国と韓国との間に緊張を作るなと。反日NYTだけに大きなお世話だ。

とはいえ、ぐっちーさんの訳したウォールストリートジャーナルではこんな風だそうで。

ぐっちーさん
民主党はアメリカでは評判が悪いのか?
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/kitanotakeshi55/e/a05746446081988e31ac2675fb9ba780

The Democratic Party of Japan, victorious in Sunday's election, has vowed greater independence from Washington as a centerpiece of its foreign policy. But people involved in relations between the two countries play down the notion of a serious break, noting that cooperation has been tepid from the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party on a range of overlapping interests, from promoting global free trade to containing North Korea's nuclear program.

今回勝利した民主党はワシントンからのより大きな独立を抱げ距離を置くことを外交的政策の中心にすると宣言している。
しかし、これまでの両国の関係に従事してきた人は基本的概念に関する相違というものを軽視し、(意見の)ブレークについてあまりにも長くの間ぬるま湯的「なーなー」な自民党との関係に終始して来ただけであって、それは北朝鮮問題から自由貿易協定に至るまで幅広いテーマにかかわっている。

更に続けて

"All things get harder when the government doesn't have any political capital," said the former U.S. ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, referring to the LDP's plunging popularity during his tenure from 2005 until earlier this year. "Hopefully, this election will clear that up. ... Hopefully, Japan will take a stronger role in the international community."

2005年から直近まで駐日大使だったシーファーは彼の任期中の凋落し続けた自民党に言及し、政府が政策における支柱を持っていない時ほど物事を難しくするものはない、と言及。今後はこの選挙ですべてがクリアーになり、日本が国際社会においてより強い役割を果たすように望むと述べた。

ちなみにシーファーさんってのは、ブッシュの友人で駐日大使になったけど、本当は民主党な人です。

今、批判している人たちって日本通、いわゆる親日派な人たちなんだけど、それってジャパンハンドラーな人たちなんだろうし、どうでもいいっす。多分、脅しだろ?

鳩山兄、もうじきオバマと電話会談ですね。英語できるんだろうから頑張ってください。

追記:外務省抜きで行われたようで

読売「日米同盟は基軸」鳩山・オバマ電話会談
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/news/20090903-OYT1T00125.htm

| | Comments (2) | TrackBack (4)

政権交代の感想など

私の感想などどうでもいいとは思うがとりあえずまとめてみる。体調不良なんで、あまり調べてないです。すみません。

○小泉は本当に自民党をぶっ潰した
 小泉純一郎が「自民党をぶっ潰す」といって自民党総裁になったのは2001年。以来8年で自民党がブッ潰れることになったわけだ。小泉が潰したかったのは田中派だけだったはずなんだが、田中派の票田である郵便局を潰したことで、それに便乗していた人々まで潰れてしまい、結果、清和会だけが残った…ともいえないけど、清和会はある程度残ったね。しかも2世や3世ばっかりの世襲党となりましたとさ。

○麻生太郎の大失策っつうのは当たった
 世襲だって頭とハートと実行力があればいいわけなんだけど、それがありそうだった鳩山邦夫が取り組んでいた郵政民営化見直し議論、つまり小泉改革についての自民党なりの総決算が唐突に終了したために、この大惨敗となったわけだ。あそこで「小泉改革はだめだった」と言っていれば、ここまで大惨敗にはならなかったし、まだ自民党が政権を取っていたかもしれないと思う。鳩山更迭のとき「麻生太郎の大失策」というエントリを書いたけど、やっぱりそうだったね。というか、清和会を切るつもりで戦わんでどうするよ、麻生さん。

○オバマのチェンジとは違うけど、新鮮な空気は感じられる
 停滞感が長かったんで、新鮮な気持ちにはなっているんじゃないかな。みんな「本当にマニフェストを実行できるのか」とか「これからどうなっちゃうんだか」とか言いながら、新しい空気の流れを味わっている感じがする。アメリカみたいな熱狂はないけれど、少しは変わるかもと期待している。そんな感じ。

○記者ってさあ…
 大マスコミ様に何を言っても便所の落書きなんだろうが、鳩山由紀夫に対して「鳩山総理」とか「鳩山首相」とか声をかけるのはどうかと思う。調子こいてんじゃねえよ。恥ずかしいだろ。

○既得権益を破れるのかが見物
 政権交代はこれが期待されるわけだ。自民党がやっている限り、既得権益者の声が強くて、今日本がやるべきことができてこなかったというのはあると思う。それがこの経済停滞を招いた原因だと思うし。規制緩和ということではなく、実はいろんな政策において既得権益の弊害はある。
 例えば大店法とか地方の商店街を壊した一因だったりするわけだけど、これは都市部の大資本であるスーパーが政治力を使って緩和していった法律だ。スーパーができれば地方の消費者にとってはメリットはあるが、地方の消費者のお金は地方で稼がれたお金なわけで、スーパーによって商店街にあったはずの上がりが中央に吸い上げられれば、地方に残る金は少なくなる。そんで地方が疲弊するとスーパーも撤退しちゃったりして、地方の消費者は遠い街にお買い物にいかなきゃならなくなり、さらに人が減るわけだ。さすがにこれについては見直しもされているけれど、新政権を取る民主党にもジャスコが食い込んでいるわけだ。もちろん地方の疲弊はそれだけが原因じゃないから、ただの例えだけどね。
 まあ、いろんなところでがんじがらめになっていたものを解きほぐせればいいとは思う。

○NYTの記事は、勝手に掲載されたらしい
 NYTに載って物議をかもしているらしい鳩山由紀夫代表の論文なんだが、VOICEに掲載された鳩山論文を、無断でNYTが抜粋して掲載したらしい。それってマスコミの仁義として、どうよ? 
NYTの記事 A New Path for Japan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27iht-edhatoyama.html
VOICE 祖父・一郎に学んだ「友愛」という戦いの旗印
http://voiceplus-php.jp/archive/detail.jsp?id=197

以上。

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

最高裁は全員信任

いや〜仕事が忙しかったので、民主党圧勝も適当に流していたんだが、一区切りついて体調不良につき休んでいるついでに、そういや最高裁どうなったんだと思って探してみたんだけど、なんと全員信任だったのね。ネット上ではいつになく盛り上がっていたように思うんだが、つまりネット見て判断する人は少ないってことか。こちとらメモまで持って行ったのに。

毎日 最高裁裁判官国民審査:9人全員が信任
http://mainichi.jp/select/seiji/news/20090831dde007010028000c.html

 ◆最高裁裁判官国民審査の結果◆

氏名(出身)     罷免要求票数(率%)

桜井龍子(行政官)  4656462(6.96)

竹内行夫(行政官)  4495571(6.72)

涌井紀夫(裁判官)  5176090(7.73)

田原睦夫(弁護士)  4364116(6.52)

金築誠志(裁判官)  4311693(6.44)

那須弘平(弁護士)  4988562(7.45)

竹崎博允◎(裁判官) 4184902(6.25)

近藤崇晴(裁判官)  4103537(6.13)

宮川光治(弁護士)  4014158(6.00)

 ※告示順、敬称略。◎は長官

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (2)

« August 2009 | Main | October 2009 »