« November 2009 | Main | January 2010 »

December 25, 2009

医療保険改革法案上院通過でのオバマ大統領声明

Another Tremendous Step Forward for Health Insurance Reform

Remarks by the President on Senate Passage of Health Insurance Reform

For Immediate Release December 24, 2009

State Dining Room

8:47 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  In a historic vote that took place this morning members of the Senate joined their colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass a landmark health insurance reform package -- legislation that brings us toward the end of a nearly century-long struggle to reform America’s health care system.

Ever since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform in 1912, seven Presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have taken up the cause of reform.  Time and time again, such efforts have been blocked by special interest lobbyists who’ve perpetuated a status quo that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.  But with passage of reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people.

The reform bill that passed the Senate this morning, like the House bill, includes the toughest measures ever taken to hold the insurance industry accountable.  Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny you coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition.  They will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get sick.  No longer will you have to pay unlimited amounts out of your own pocket for the treatments you need.  And you’ll be able to appeal unfair decisions by insurance companies to an independent party.

If this legislation becomes law, workers won’t have to worry about losing coverage if they lose or change jobs.  Families will save on their premiums.  Businesses that would see their costs rise if we do not act will save money now, and they will save money in the future.  This bill will strengthen Medicare, and extend the life of the program.  It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it -- 30 million Americans.  And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.

As I’ve said before, these are not small reforms; these are big reforms.  If passed, this will be the most important piece of social policy since the Social Security Act in the 1930s, and the most important reform of our health care system since Medicare passed in the 1960s.  And what makes it so important is not just its cost savings or its deficit reductions.  It’s the impact reform will have on Americans who no longer have to go without a checkup or prescriptions that they need because they can’t afford them; on families who no longer have to worry that a single illness will send them into financial ruin; and on businesses that will no longer face exorbitant insurance rates that hamper their competitiveness.  It’s the difference reform will make in the lives of the American people.

I want to commend Senator Harry Reid, extraordinary work that he did; Speaker Pelosi for her extraordinary leadership and dedication.  Having passed reform bills in both the House and the Senate, we now have to take up the last and most important step and reach an agreement on a final reform bill that I can sign into law.  And I look forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers over the coming weeks to do exactly that.

With today’s vote, we are now incredibly close to making health insurance reform a reality in this country.  Our challenge, then, is to finish the job.  We can't doom another generation of Americans to soaring costs and eroding coverage and exploding deficits.  Instead we need to do what we were sent here to do and improve the lives of the people we serve.  For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and our future, let’s make 2010 the year we finally reform health care in the United States of America.

Everybody, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

Q    Do you have a holiday wish for the troops?

THE PRESIDENT:  I do, and I will be actually -- I'm on my way right now to call a few of them and wish them Merry Christmas and to thank them for their extraordinary service as they're posted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

END
8:52 A.M. EST

原文:ホワイトハウスホームページより
Remarks by the President on Senate Passage of Health Insurance Reform
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-senate-passage-health-insurance-reform

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

米上院で医療保険改革法案が可決

米上院は米国民に素晴らしいクリスマスプレゼントをしたようだ。

ロイター 米上院が医療保険改革法案を可決
http://jp.reuters.com/article/topNews/idJPJAPAN-13101420091224

  採決は60対39と党派に沿った結果となった。下院は11月7日に独自法案を可決しており、1月から一本化作業に入る。
  オバマ大統領は「上下両院で改革法案が可決されたことで、意味のある本物の医療保険改革に関する約束を果たす用意がついに整った。われわれの課題は仕事をやり遂げることだ」と述べた。
  法案は一本化の後、再び両院で可決される必要があるが、共和党側は成立阻止を目指す構えを崩していない。
  医療改革法案はオバマ政権の最重要課題であり、1965年のメディケア(高齢者向け公的医療保険)創設以来の大規模な改革となる。

NYT Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html

WAPO Senate approves landmark health-care bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122400662.html

政権の最重要課題であった医療保険改革法案が通過した。60対39だから、リーバーマンなどの民主党寄り独立系含め票数どおりである。つまり異例のクリスマスイブの投票に、誰一人欠席しなかったのだ。92歳のByrd上院議員も出席した。彼は「これは友人のテッド・ケネディのためだ」と言って「Aye(賛成)」と言ったそうだ。ケネディは最後のオバマへの手紙でこう書いていた。「その日が来るとき、私はそこにいないだろうが、君は偉大な医療保険改革法に長いサインを書く大統領となるだろう」

WAPO Washington Sketch: During Senate health-care vote, Ted Kennedy is gone -- but far from forgotten
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122402395.html

The president pro tempore of the Senate, 92-year-old Robert Byrd, shot his finger into the air to signal his "aye" vote.

That was very much the story of the massive health-care legislation that finally cleared the chamber early Thursday morning. Though Kennedy died in August of brain cancer at age 77, the longtime senator from Massachusetts remained the Democrats' spiritual floor leader.

More than anything, it was his memory, and his final exhortation, that allowed the Senate Democrats to overcome considerable differences between moderates and liberals in drafting a compromise. President Obama, in his address to Congress in September, read from a letter Kennedy had written as he neared death, saying he was "confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the president who at long last signs into law the health-care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society."

ちょっと感傷的に言えば、ケネディが最後に、一つの穴を開けたんだと思う。まだ終わったわけじゃないけど。

ホワイトハウス
Another Tremendous Step Forward for Health Insurance Reform
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/24/another-tremendous-step-forward

| | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

クリスマスイブの「銃弾」

すっかりクリスマス気分の夕暮れの表参道をぶらぶらしていた。仕事の打ち合わせの帰りで、まだ会社に帰れば会議の予定もあったのだが、なんとなく帰りたくなくて、少し時間つぶしをするところを探していたのだ。

だから、いつもなら歩かないところまで、ちょっとだけ足を伸ばした。といっても、表参道駅の近くの大通り沿いなんだが、ゆっくり歩いていたら小さな看板を見つけた。

Img_1169_3 YOKO ONO
A HOLE  

看板にはそう書いてあった。

YOKO ONO。オノ・ヨーコだ。

オノ・ヨーコがここで? そう思って周りを見回してみたが、階段しか見当たらない。開催期間は25日までだからもう来る機会はない。一瞬、どうしようか迷ったが、階段を昇ってみることにした。

狭くて急な階段を昇ると、引き戸のドアがあった。そこがGALLERY360°だった。Hole_a_2

とても小さなギャラリーで、開けたらすぐにガラスが目にはいった。真ん中に小さな穴が空いていて、ヒビが入っている…。そう、銃弾で打ち抜かれたと思われる窓ガラスが、真ん中に1枚、壁に何枚もならんでいた。

ガラスには薄い文字でこう書かれている。

“A HOLE GO TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLASS AND SEE THROUGH THE HOLE.”

乱暴に言えば「撃たれる側に立ってみろ」ってことだろう。

この作品を作るためにヨーコは自分で銃を握ったのだろうか。何発も何発も、この作品を作るために撃ったのだろうか。

そう思ったら胸が締め付けられる思いがした。

銃でなくてもこの穴は空くのかもしれない。だけどどう見ても銃弾だ。ジョンを銃弾で失ったヨーコが、この作品を作るという、その深い悲しみと怒りに、衝撃を受けた。

でも、ヨーコはいうのだ。穴は風穴を開けるという意味もあると。

銃弾でどんな風穴が空くのだろう? ジョンが死んで、どんな世界がやってきたんだろう? 

9.11でやってきたのは、どうにも行き詰まった世界。銃弾では何も風穴は空かないんじゃないのか? この行き詰まった世界に、風穴はどうやったら空くのだろう?

なんだか感傷的になりながら、階段を降り、電車に乗って会社に帰った。まだ会議は開かれていなかった。

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 24, 2009

JIN-仁- DVD-BOX 3月発売

"JIN-仁- DVD-BOX" (角川映画)


「謎が解き明かされる」はずの『JINー仁ー』最終回も、結局謎は謎のままで終わってしまった。続編を期待したいところだけど、どうでしょうね〜。漫画でもなぜタイムスリップしたか、解き明かされていないそうなんで。続編は出来そうな感じだったので、なるべく映画じゃなくて、ドラマを半年後くらいにやってほしいですよ。ええ。

TBS 日曜劇場「JIN -仁-」 http://www.tbs.co.jp/jin2009/

最終回のオチはともかく、全11話、結構楽しませてもらった『Jinー仁ー』。3月にDVDボックスが出るそうなので、もう一度見たい!という人は予約なんていかがでしょう? DVD発売は3月か〜。であれば、4月から次のシリーズを放映開始するなんていかがでしょうか。スケジュール的に無理かしら。半年後でもいいですよ。
それにしても内野龍馬の魅力的だったこと。もう一度、会いたいなあ。あ、もちろん仁先生にも会いたいですよ。ただし、もちっと性根入れて江戸時代を過ごして欲しいっす。

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

オバマのノーベル平和賞スピーチ


War and Peace in Oslo | The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/10/war-and-peace-oslo

原文:ホワイトハウスホームページ
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize | The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

共同:オバマ米大統領ノーベル平和賞受賞演説の全文(日本語訳) 
http://www.47news.jp/47topics/e/137313.php


For Immediate Release December 10, 2009
Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize

Oslo City Hall
Oslo, Norway

1:44 P.M. CET

THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END
2:20 P.M. CET

Continue reading "オバマのノーベル平和賞スピーチ"

| | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 03, 2009

オバマのアフガニスタン新戦略演説

アフガニスタンに関する新戦略演説

演説原文
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

日本語訳
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/091201-obama-afghanistan-speech-japanese.pdf

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

ホワイトハウス
報道官室

For Immediate Release December 01, 2009
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

2009年12月1日
大統領による演説
国民に向けて
アフガニスタンとパキスタンにおける今後の方策

Eisenhower Hall Theatre, United States Military Academy at West Point, West Point, New York
8:01 P.M. EST

アイゼンハワーホール劇場
米国陸軍士官学校、ウェストポイント
東部標準時午後8時1分

THE PRESIDENT:  Good evening.  To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans:  I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.  It's an extraordinary honor for me to do so here at West Point -- where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.

こんばんは。米国士官候補隊の皆さん、米軍の皆さん、そしてアメリカ国民の皆さん。私は今夜、アフガニスタンにおける我々の努力、そこでの米国のコミットメントの本質、国益の範囲、私の政権がこの戦争を成功裏に完結させるために追求する戦略について話したいと思います。ここウェストポイントで話をすることは非常に名誉なことですが、ここでは余りにも多くの男女が米国の安全保障のために立ち上がり、我が国の最も素晴らしいものを代表するために準備しているからです。

To address these important issues, it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.  We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people.  They struck at our military and economic nerve centers.  They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.  Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.

これらの重要問題を論じるためには、米国と同盟諸国がなぜアフガニスタンにおいて戦争をしなければならなかったかをまず思い起こすことが重要です。2001年9月11日、19人の男が4機の旅客機をハイジャックし、それを使って3千人近い人々を殺害しました。彼らは、我が国の軍事・経済の神経中枢を攻撃したのです。彼らは、信仰、人種、あるいは地位など一切お構いなしに、罪のない男女、子供達の命を奪いました。この旅客機の1機に乗っていた乗客達の勇敢な行動がなかったならば、彼らはワシントンにおけるアメリカ民主主義の偉大な象徴の1つをも攻撃し、さらに多くの人々を殺していたはずです。

As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban -- a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.

ご存知のように、この男達は、罪のない人々の虐殺を正当化するために世界の偉大な宗教の1つであるイスラム教を歪曲し冒涜した過激主義者のグループ、アルカイダに属していました。アルカイダの活動拠点はアフガニスタンにあり、同国が長年のソ連占領と内戦により荒廃し、アメリカとその友好国の注意が他の場所に向けられた後に、国の支配権を握った無慈悲で抑圧的で過激な運動であるタリバンにより彼らは保護されていました。

Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day.  The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing.  The vote in the House was 420 to 1.  For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 -- the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.  And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.  America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.

9月11日から数日後に、議会はアルカイダと彼らを保護する者達に対する武力行使を承認しましたが、その承認は今日まで継続しています。上院での表決は98対0でした。下院での表決は420対1でした。北大西洋条約機構はその歴史において初めて、一加盟国に対する攻撃は同盟全体への攻撃であるとするコミットメント、すなわち憲章第5条を発動しました。そして、国連安全保障理事会は、9月11日テロ攻撃に対応するために必要なあらゆる措置を承認しました。アメリカ、同盟諸国、そして世界は、アルカイダのテロ・ネットワークを破壊し、我々の共通の安全を保護するために1つになって行動しました。

Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan.  Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.  The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.  A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.  At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.  And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.

この国内の結束と国際的な正当性の旗のもとで、タリバンがウサマ・ビンラディンを引き渡すのを拒否した後に初めて、我々は軍隊をアフガニスタンに派兵しました。数ヶ月以内に、アルカイダは散り散りになり、その活動要員の多くが殺害されました。タリバンは権力の座を追われ、続いて後退させられました。何十年もの間、恐怖を体験してきた場所に希望の兆しが出てきました。国連が召集した会議の際に、ハミド・カルザイ大統領のもとで暫定政権が樹立されました。そして戦争で荒廃した国に永続的な平和をもたらすのを助けるために、国際治安支援部隊が設立されました。

Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war, in Iraq.  The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.  It's enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq war drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention -- and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.

それから、2003年初めに、イラクで第2の戦争を開始する決定が下されました。イラク戦争をめぐる痛々しい議論はよく知られており、ここで繰り返す必要はありません。その後6年間にわたって、イラク戦争が我々の軍隊、資源、外交、国家的関心の圧倒的な部分を占めるようになり、イラクに進攻する決定がアメリカと世界の多くの国々との間に大きな亀裂を生じさせたと言うだけで十分です。

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.  We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  (Applause.)  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.

今日、途轍もない代償を払った後に、我々はイラク戦争を責任ある形で終結させようとしています。我々は来年夏の終わりまでに米戦闘旅団をイラクから撤収させ、2011年末までに米軍を全面的に撤収させます。我々がそうすることは、米軍の男女兵士の人格への証です。(拍手)。彼らの勇気、根性、忍耐心のお陰で、我々はイラク人に自らの将来を形作る機会を与え、イラクをその国民に成功裏に委ねつつあります。

But while we've achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated.  After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.  Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it's been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces.

しかし、我々がイラクにおいて苦労して画期的な業績を達成している間に、アフガニスタン情勢は悪化しました。アルカイダの指導部は2001年と2002年に国境を越えてパキスタンに逃走した後、そこで安全な隠れ家を確立しました。アフガン国民の選挙により合法的な政府が樹立されましたが、政府は腐敗、麻薬取引、未発達の経済、不十分な治安部隊などの障害に直面してきました。

Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government.  Gradually, the Taliban has begun to control additional swaths of territory in Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating attacks of terrorism against the Pakistani people.

過去数年間にわたり、タリバンはアルカイダと共通の目的で協力を維持してきましたが、それは両者がアフガニスタン政府の転覆を目指しているからです。タリバンは、パキスタン国民に対するますます大胆で破壊的なテロ行為に関与するようになり、徐々にアフガニスタンの広い地域を支配し始めました。

Now, throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq.  When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war.  Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.  And that's why, shortly after taking office, I approved a longstanding request for more troops.  After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan.  I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.

この期間を通じて、アフガニスタンに駐留する米軍のレベルは、イラク駐留米軍に比べごく小規模に止まってきました。実際私が就任した時、イラク戦争のピーク時にそこに駐留した16万人に比べて、3万2千人余りの米軍部隊がアフガニスタンに駐留しているだけでした。アフガニスタンに駐留する司令官達は、タリバンの復活に対処するために追加支援を繰り返し要請しましたが、大規模な増援は実現しなかったのです。それゆえに、私は就任直後に、以前からの部隊増派要請を承認しました。同盟国との協議の後、私は、アフガニスタンにおける戦争努力とパキスタンにおける過激派の安全な隠れ場所との間の基本的な関係を認識した戦略を発表しました。私は、アルカイダとその過激派同盟者を阻止・解体し、撃退するという狭義に定義された目標を設定し、我々の軍事・民生努力をより良く調整することを誓約しました。

Since then, we've made progress on some important objectives.  High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we've stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda worldwide. In Pakistan, that nation's army has gone on its largest offensive in years.  In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and -- although it was marred by fraud -- that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution.

それ以降、我々は、いくつかの重要な目的における進歩を遂げました。アルカイダとタリバンの幹部指導者が殺害され、我々は世界中でアルカイダに対しての圧力を強化しました。パキスタンにおいては、同国の軍隊が過去最大規模の攻勢に出ました。アフガニスタンにおいては、米国と同盟諸国は、タリバンが大統領選挙を阻止するのを防止し、選挙は不正により損なわれはしたものの、アフガニスタンの法律と憲法に合致した政府が誕生しました。

Yet huge challenges remain.  Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards.  There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum.  Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.  And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population.  Our new commander in Afghanistan -- General McChrystal -- has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated.  In short:  The status quo is not sustainable.

しかし大きな挑戦課題が残っています。アフガニスタンは失われてはいませんが、過去数年間にわたり後退してきました。政府が転覆させられるという当面の脅威はありませんが、タリバンは勢いを得ています。アルカイダはアフガニスタンでは、9月11日テロ事件以前と同じ人員を得るところまで復活してはいませんが、国境沿いに安全な隠れ場所を維持しています。米軍部隊は、アフガン治安部隊を効果的に訓練し、同部隊と提携し、同国民の安全をより良く確保するのに必要な全面的な支援を欠いています。アフガニスタン駐留米軍の新しい司令官マクリスタル大将は、治安状況が予想以上に深刻であると報告しました。要するに、現状維持を持続させることは不可能なのです。

As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger.  Some of you fought in Afghanistan.  Some of you will deploy there.  As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service.  And that's why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy.  Now, let me be clear:  There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war during this review period.  Instead, the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options, along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners.  And given the stakes involved, I owed the American people -- and our troops -- no less.

皆さんは士官候補生として、この危険な時に軍務を志願しました。皆さんの中には、アフガニスタンで戦闘した人もいるでしょうし、そこに配備される人もいるでしょう。私は最高司令官として、明確に定義され、軍務に値する任務を皆さんに提供する義務があります。だからこそ、アフガニスタンの選挙が終了した後、我々の戦略の徹底した見直しを主張しました。明らかに、私の前には、2010年までに軍隊の配備を要請したオプションはありませんでした。ですから、この見直し作業の結果、戦争遂行に必要な資源の提供が遅れたり、否定されたりすることはありません。むしろ、見直し作業により、私は答えづらい質問をし、国家安全保障チーム、アフガニスタンに駐留する米軍人・文民指導部、米国の重要パートナーと一緒にさまざまなオプションの全てを探索することができました。これに関わる利害を考えると、私は米国民、米軍兵士に返すべき義務を負っていました。

This review is now complete.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.  After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.  These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. 

この見直し作業は完了しています。私は最高司令官として、3万人の米軍部隊をアフガニスタンに増派することが米国の重要な国益であると判断しました。18ヵ月後に、米軍部隊は帰還を始めます。この増派部隊は、我々がこのイニシャチブを制するために必要な資源であり、同時に米軍のアフガニスタンからの責任ある推移を可能にするアフガンの能力を構築するのに必要な資源です。

I do not make this decision lightly.  I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.  We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.  Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.  And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

私は安易にこの決定をしたわけではありません。私がイラクでの戦争に反対したのは正に、軍事力の行使において自制がなければならず、我々の行動の長期的な結果を常に考慮しなければならないと考えるからです。我々は、膨大な人命と資源の犠牲を払って、8年間戦争をしてきました。イラクとテロリズムをめぐる何年間にもわたる議論が、国家安全保障に関する我々の結束を崩し、この努力に対する極めて分極化された党派対立の背景を生み出してきました。そして、アメリカ国民は大恐慌以来最悪の経済危機を経験したばかりで、当然のことながら、国内での経済再建と雇用回復に焦点を当てています。

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you -- a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens.  As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars.  I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed.  I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place.  I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.  If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

何よりも、この決定が皆さんにさらに多くを要求すること、皆さんの家族とともにすでに最も重い負担を背負っている軍隊に多くを要求することを知っています。私は大統領として、この戦争で命を捧げたアメリカ人一人一人の家族に対する悔やみ状に署名してきました。私は派兵された兵士の両親や配偶者からの手紙を読んできました。ウオーターリード病院に入院中の負傷した勇敢な兵士を訪ねました。永眠の地に運ばれるために米国に帰還した米国人18人の国旗に覆われた棺を迎えるためにドーバーに旅してきました。私は、戦争の恐ろしい代価を直接見てきました。もし私が米国の安全保障と米国民の安全がアフガニスタンの問題と関わっていると思わないならば、明日にでも米軍兵士の全員を帰国させる命令を喜んで発することでしょう。

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly.  I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.  It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.  This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.  In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity.  We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

ですから、私は、この決定を安易には下しません。私は、アフガニスタンとパキスタンに米国の重要な利害があると確信しています。そこは、アルカイダが実践する暴力過激主義の震源地であり、9月11日テロ攻撃はここから行われ、私が話している間にも、ここから新しいテロ攻撃が計画されているのです。これは待機中の危険でもなく、仮説的な脅威でもありません。過去数ヶ月間だけでも、新しいテロ攻撃を実行するためにアフガニスタンとパキスタンの国境地帯からここに送られた過激主義者が米国内で逮捕されました。その地域がさらに後退してゆき、アルカイダが大手を振って行動できるならば、危険は一層増大するだけでしょう。我々はアルカイダに圧力をかけ続けなければならず、そうすることによってその地域の米国のパートナーの安定と能力を増大させなければなりません。

Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear.  This is not just America's war.  Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali.  The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered.  And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.

もちろん、この負担は我々だけが背負うのではありません。これは単にアメリカだけの戦争ではありません。9月11日のテロ事件以降、アルカイダの安全な隠れ場所が、ロンドン、アンマン、バリ島に対する攻撃の源になってきました。アフガニスタンとパキスタン両国の国民と政府が危険に曝されています。アルカイダとその他の過激主義者が核兵器を追求していることを我々は知っており、彼らがそれを使用すると信じるに足る理由があるので、核武装したパキスタン国内における危険は一層大きいものがあります。

These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies.  Our overarching goal remains the same:  to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

こうした事実のゆえに、我々は友好国、同盟国と一緒に行動せざるをえません。我々の全体的な目標は変わりません。アフガニスタンとパキスタンにおけるアルカイダを阻止・解体・撃退し、将来アメリカと同盟国を脅かす能力を防止するということです。

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan.  We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven.  We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.  And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

その目標を達成するために、我々はアフガニスタン国内で次の目標を追求します。我々は、アルカイダの安全な隠れ場所を否定しなければなりません。タリバンの勢いを覆し、政府を転覆する能力を獲得するのを否定しなければなりません。アフガニスタンの治安部隊と政府の能力を強化し、彼らがアフガニスタンの将来に主導的な責任を持てるようにしなければなりません。

We will meet these objectives in three ways.  First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.

我々はこの目的を3つの方法で達成します。第1に、我々は今後18ヶ月間にタリバンの勢いを中断し、アフガニスタンの能力を増大させる軍事戦略を追求します。

The 30,000 additional troops that I'm announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 -- the fastest possible pace -- so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.  They'll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.  And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

私が今夜発表した3万人の増派部隊は、可能な限りの迅速さで2010年初頭に配備し、それによって同部隊が反政府武装勢力を標的にして攻撃し、主要な人口密集地域の安全を確保できるようにします。同部隊は、有能なアフガン治安部隊を訓練し、より多くのアフガン人が戦闘に参加できるように彼らと連携する米国の能力を増大させるでしょう。同部隊は、米国がアフガン人に責任を移譲するための条件作りを助けます。

Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies.  Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan.  And now, we must come together to end this war successfully.  For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility -- what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

これは国際的な努力なので、私は米国のコミットメントに同盟諸国からも貢献してもらえるよう依頼しました。中にはすでに追加部隊を提供している国もあり、今後さらに貢献してもらえると我々は自信を持っています。同盟諸国は、アフガニスタンで我々と共に戦い、血を流し、命を捧げてきました。今我々はこの戦争を成功裏に終えるために結束しなければなりません。なぜなら、単にNATOの信頼性が試されているだけではなく、米同盟諸国の安全保障と世界の共通の安全保障が問題になっているからです。

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.  Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground.  We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.  But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

この米軍増派部隊と国際部隊は合わせて、責任をアフガン部隊に引き継ぐのを速めることを可能にし、2011年7月に米軍部隊のアフガニスタン撤収を開始することを可能にします。丁度イラクでしたのと同じように、我々は、現場の状況を考慮に入れながら、この責任移譲を実行します。我々は、アフガニスタン治安部隊が長期にわたり成功することを保証するために、同部隊への助言と支援を継続します。しかし、アフガン政府にとって、さらに重要なことにはアフガン国民にとって、自らが最終的に自国に責任を持つのだということが明確になることです。

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

第2に、我々は、アフガニスタン政府が治安の改善を利用できるように、より効果的な民生戦略を追求するため、米国のパートナー、国連、アフガニスタン国民と協力します。

This effort must be based on performance.  The days of providing a blank check are over.  President Karzai's inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.  And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.  We'll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.  We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.  And we will also focus our assistance in areas -- such as agriculture -- that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

この努力は、パフォーマンスに基づくものでなければなりません。援助を無制限に与える時代は終わりました。カルザイ大統領の就任演説は、新しい方向に移行することについて正しいメッセージを送りました。今後は、米国の援助を受ける人々から何を期待するかについて明瞭にします。我々は、腐敗と戦い、職務を遂行するアフガニスタンの政府省庁、州知事、地方指導者を支援します。無能な人々、あるいは腐敗した人々は説明責任を問われることを期待します。我々はまた、アフガン国民の生活に即刻影響を及ぼすことができる農業などの分野での支援に焦点を当てます。

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They've been confronted with occupation -- by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes.  So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand -- America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.  We have no interest in occupying your country.  We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens.  And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect -- to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

アフガニスタン国民は何十年もの間、武力衝突に耐えてきました。彼らは、ソ連による占領、それからアフガニスタンの地を自分達の目的に利用したアルカイダの外国人戦闘員による占領に直面してきました。ですから、私は今夜、アメリカがこの戦争と苦しみの時代に終止符を打つことを目指していることを、アフガン国民に理解してもらいたいのです。我々は貴国を占領することには関心がありません。暴力を放棄し同胞市民の人権を尊重するタリバン人に門戸を開放しようとするアフガン政府の努力を、我々は支援します。そして、我々は、破壊する者を孤立させ、建設する者を強め、米軍が撤収する日を早め、アメリカが後援者ではなくパートナーとなる永続的な友好関係を育成するために、相互尊重に基盤を置くアフガニスタンとのパートナーシップを追求します。

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

第3に、アフガニスタンにおける米国の成功は、米国のパキスタンとのパートナーシップに密接に結びついているという全面的な認識を持って、我々は行動します。

We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.  But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan.  That's why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

我々は、癌が再び全土に広がるのを防止するために、アフガニスタンに駐留しているのです。しかしこの同じ癌がパキスタンの国境地域にも根をおろしています。だからこそ我々は、その国境の両側に通用する戦略を必要としているのです。

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who've argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence.  But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism.  Public opinion has turned.  The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan.  And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

過去には、パキスタンには、過激主義に対する闘争は自分達の闘争ではなく、パキスタンは暴力を使用する者達に殆ど何もしないか、和解を追求する方が利益になると主張する人々がいました。しかし近年、カラチからイスラマバードまで罪のない人々が殺害される中で、過激主義により最も危険を蒙っているのはパキスタン国民であることが明白になってきました。世論が変化しました。パキスタン軍は、スワトと南ワジリスタンで過激主義者に対する攻勢を展開しました。今や、米国とパキスタンが共通の敵を有していることには疑いがありません。

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.  Those days are over.  Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.  America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.  We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.  And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

過去には、我々もパキスタンとの関係を狭義に定義してきたことが多くありました。そういう時代は終わりました。今後我々は、相互利益、相互尊重、相互信頼の基盤の上に構築されるパキスタンとのパートナーシップに取り組む決意です。我々は、両国を脅かすグループを標的として攻撃するパキスタンの能力を強化しますし、場所が分っていて意図も明瞭なテロリストのための安全な隠れ場所を容認できないことはすでに明確にしました。アメリカはまた、パキスタンの民主主義と開発を支援するために相当な資源を提供しています。我々は、戦闘により住居を失ったパキスタン人に対する対外援助の最大の提供国です。そして今後は、パキスタン国民の偉大な潜在力が発揮できるように、戦火が沈静した後も長きにわたり、アメリカがパキスタンの安全保障と繁栄の強固な支持者であり続けることを、パキスタン国民に分かってもらわねばなりません。

These are the three core elements of our strategy:  a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

我々の戦略には3つの中核要素がありますが、これは責任委譲への条件を創出する軍事努力、積極的な行動を補強する文民増派、パキスタンとの効果的なパートナーシップです。

I recognize there are a range of concerns about our approach.  So let me briefly address a few of the more prominent arguments that I've heard, and which I take very seriously.

私は、我々のアプローチに対して様々な懸念があることを認識しています。ですから、私の耳に入ってきた幾つかの顕著な議論で、私が非常に真剣に受け止めているものについて簡略に言及したいと思います。

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam.  They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing.  I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history.  Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.  Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency.  And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border.  To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. 

第1に、アフガニスタンがもう1つのベトナムであると示唆する人々がいます。その国を安定させることは無理で、米国の損失を最小限に止め、急速に撤退する方がいいと主張しています。私は、この議論が歴史の誤った解釈に基づいていると思っています。ベトナムとは違って、米国の行動の正当性を認識する43カ国の広範な連合が我々に加担しています。ベトナムとは違って、我々は幅広い基盤をもつ人気のある反政府勢力に直面してはいません。そして最も重要なことは、ベトナムとは違って、アメリカ国民はアフガニスタンから悪意に満ちた攻撃を受け、同国国境沿いで攻撃を策謀している同じ過激主義者の標的になり続けています。この地域を今放棄し、アルカイダに敵対する努力だけに遠くから依存することは、アルカイダに圧力を与え続けるという我々の能力を大きく阻害することになり、米国本土および同盟諸国への追加攻撃に対する受け入れがたいリスクを創出することになります。

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have.  But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there.  It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

第2に、アフガニスタンを現状のまま放置することはできないことを認めるものの、すでに現地に配備されている軍隊だけで今後対応してゆくことを提案する人々がいます。しかし、これは我々がどうにか保ってきた現状を維持するだけであり、現地の状況が徐々に悪化することを許すことになります。アフガン治安部隊を訓練し引き継ぎをする余裕を与えるに必要な条件を生み出すことはできないので、最終的にはもっと高くつき、我が米軍のアフガニスタン駐留を長引かせることになります。

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility.  Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort  -- one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade.  I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.  Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government.  It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

最後に、米国のアフガニスタンへの責任移譲の時間割を特定することに反対する人達がいます。実際、米国の戦争努力のより劇的な期限を特定しない段階的な拡大、最高10年間におよぶ国家再建プロジェクトに米国が取り組むという努力を求める人々もいます。これは妥当なコストで達成可能な目標や米国の国益を確保するために達成することが必要な目標を超える大きな目標を設定するものであるため、私はこの進路を拒否します。さらに、責任移譲の時間割が欠落していることで、アフガン政府との協力における緊迫感がなくなってしまいます。アフガン人が自国の安全保障に責任を持つこと、アメリカはアフガニスタンで無期限の戦争をすることに関心がないことを明確にしなくてはなりません。

As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.  And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.  I don't have the luxury of committing to just one.  Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration:  the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

大統領として、私は米国の責任、手段、あるいは国益を超える目標を設定することを拒否します。私は、我が国が直面する全ての挑戦課題を評価しなければなりません。一つの課題だけに全面的に取り組む贅沢は許されません。実際、私は、国家安全保障を論じたアイゼンハワー大統領の言葉、「各々の提案はより幅広い考察に鑑みて評価しなければならない、つまり国家のプログラムの中でそしてその間でバランスを維持する必要性がある」という言葉を心に留めています。

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.  In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills.  Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children.  Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce.  So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

過去数年間、我々はそのバランスを失いました。米国の国家安全保障と経済との関係を正しく認識しませんでした。経済危機に伴い、余りに多くの隣人、友人が失業し、請求書の支払に苦闘しています。余りに多くのアメリカ国民が子供達の将来について心配しています。その一方で、世界経済における競争が激しさを増しています。ですから、我々はこの戦争の代価を無視することはできません。

All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars.  Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly.  Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I'll work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.

私が就任した時には、イラクとアフガニスタンでの戦争費用は合計して1兆ドルに近づいていました。今後私は、これらの費用に公然と正直に取り組む決意です。我々のアフガニスタンにおける新しいアプローチは、今年の軍事費用にして約300億ドルかかる見込みであり、私は財政赤字削減努力の中でこの費用に対処するため、議会と緊密に協力します。

But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home.  Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power.  It pays for our military.  It underwrites our diplomacy.  It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.  And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last.  That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own.

しかし、我々がイラクでの戦争を終結し、アフガニスタンに責任を移譲するに伴い、国内における国力を再建しなければなりません。我々の繁栄は、国力の基盤を提供します。それによって米国の軍事費用を支払います。米国の外交を賄います。米国民の潜在力を引き出し、新産業への投資を可能にします。前世紀と同じように、今世紀に米国が競争で成功することを可能にします。だからこそ、アフガニスタンにおける米軍のコミットメントを無期限とすることはできません。なぜなら、私が構築することに最も関心を抱く国は、米国自体だからです。

Now, let me be clear:  None of this will be easy.  The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.  It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.  And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

さて、はっきり言いましょう。このどれ一つとして容易なことはありません。暴力的な過激主義に対する闘いは速やかに終わるものではなく、アフガニスタンとパキスタンを超えてずっと広範囲に広がっています。それは、米国の自由社会と世界における米国の指導力の永続的な試験になるでしょう。そして、20世紀を定義づけてきた大国間の紛争や明確な分断線と違って、我々の努力は無秩序な地域、破綻国家、分散した敵に対するものです。

So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict -- not just how we wage wars.  We'll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.  Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

その結果として、アメリカは戦争のやり方だけでなく、戦争終結、紛争防止の方法においても米国の力を示さなければなりません。軍事力行使において、機知に富み、正確でなければなりません。アルカイダとその同盟者が足場を築こうとする場所では、それがソマリアであれイエメンであれ、他のどこであっても、増大する圧力と強固なパートナーシップで彼らと対決しなければなりません。

And we can't count on military might alone.  We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can't capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.

我々は、軍事力だけに頼ることはできません。海外の暴力的な過激主義者全員を捕獲あるいは殺害することはできないので、我々は国土安全保障に投資しなければなりません。正体のはっきりしないネットワークに常に一歩先んじるために、我々は情報活動を改善し、より良く調整しなければなりません。

We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction.  And that's why I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them -- because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

我々は、大量破壊兵器の手段を取り除かなければなりません。だからこそ、私は管理されていない核物質をテロリストから守り、核兵器の拡散を阻止し、核兵器のない世界という目標を追求することを外交政策の中心柱にしたのです。なぜなら、真の安全保障は破壊的兵器を求める果てしない軍拡競争からではなく、そういう兵器を拒絶する国によってもたらされることを、全ての国が理解しなければならないからです。

We'll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I've spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world -- one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

いかなる国も単独では、相互関連した世界の挑戦課題に対処することはできないので、外交を活用しなければなりません。私は今年、米国の同盟関係を更新し、新しいパートナーシップを形成するために、時間を費やしてきました。我々は、アメリカとイスラム教世界の間に新しい出発を画しました。それは、紛争の悪循環を断ち切ることの相互利益を認識し、平和と繁栄と人間の尊厳のために立ち上がる人々により罪のない人々を殺す者が孤立させられる将来を約束する出発です。

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values -- for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not.  That's why we must promote our values by living them at home -- which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples.  That is who we are.  That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

そして最後に、我々は米国の価値観の力に頼らねばなりません。なぜなら、我々が直面する挑戦課題は変化したかもしれないが、我々が信じるものは変化してはならないからです。それゆえ、我々は米国の価値観を国内で実践することにより、促進しなければなりません。それが、私が拷問を禁止し、グアンタナモ基地の刑務所を閉鎖する理由です。そして、圧制の暗雲のもとで暮らす世界中の男女、子供全員に対して、アメリカは彼らの人権のために叫び、全ての人のための自由と正義、機会と尊厳性尊重の光を守ることを明確にしなければなりません。それが我々の本質です。それがアメリカの権威の源泉であり、道徳的な源泉です。

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs.  We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents.  We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies.  We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

フランクリン・ルーズベルトの時代から、我々の祖父母、曾祖父母の軍務と犠牲から、我が国は世界情勢の特別な重荷を担ってきました。我々は、多数の大陸の多くの国々でアメリカ人の血を流してきました。我々は、他国が瓦礫の中から国を再建し、自国経済を発展させるのを助けるために、米国の歳入を支出してきました。我々は、人間の共通の安全保障と繁栄を提供する国連からNATO、世界銀行に至る機関の構造を展開するために他国と協力してきました。

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

我々は、こうした努力に対して常に感謝されてきたわけではないし、時として過ちを犯してきました。しかし、他のいかなる国にもまして、米国は過去60年間以上世界の安全保障を引き受けてきました。この期間中には、多くの問題もありましたが、壁が壊され、市場が開放され、何十億人もの人が貧困から抜け出し、比類ない科学的進歩が達成され、人間の自由の境界線が押し広げられた時代でした。

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades -- a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

というのも、古い時代の大国とは異なり、我々は世界支配を求めなかったからです。我が国の結束は、抑圧に対する抵抗に礎を置いていました。我々は他国を占領することを求めません。他国の資源を要求することも、信仰や民族の違いを理由に他の人々を攻撃することもしません。我々が戦ってきた、そして戦い続ける理由は、子孫のためのより良い将来です。そして、我々は、他国の子孫が自由に生き、機会が与えられるものならば、子孫の生活もより良いものになると信じています。(拍手)

As a country, we're not as young -- and perhaps not as innocent -- as we were when Roosevelt was President.  Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom.  And now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.

国家として、我々はルーズベルトが大統領だった時ほど若くはないし、おそらくそれほど純真でもありません。それでも、我々は自由のための尊い闘争を引き継いだ後継者です。今こそ、我々は新しい時代の挑戦課題に応えるために力と道徳的勧告の全てを結集しなければなりません。

In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms.  It derives from our people -- from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people, and for the people a reality on this Earth.  (Applause.) 

最後に、我々の安全保障と指導力は、軍事力だけに由来するものではありません。それは、米経済を再建する労働者、実業家、新しい産業を開拓する起業家、研究者、子供達を教育する教師や国内の地域社会で働く人々の奉仕、海外で希望を広める外交官や平和部隊のボランティア、人民の人民による人民のための政府をその地球上で現実にした間断ない犠牲の一部である男女軍人など、米国民に由来しています。(拍手)

This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue -- nor should we.  But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.

この膨大で多様な市民は全ての問題で常に意見の一致を見るわけではないし、そうあるべきでもありません。しかし、私はまた、国として、もし我々が近年米国の国論を毒してきたと同じ憎しみ、冷笑主義、党派対立による分裂を許すならば、我々の指導力を持続することも、現代の重大な挑戦課題の間を潜り抜けることもできないことを知っています。

It's easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear.  I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.  (Applause.)  I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose.  For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.

忘れてしまいがちですが、この戦争が始まった時、我々は団結していました。恐ろしい攻撃の生々しい記憶と、米国土と我々が大切にする価値観を守る決意により結束していました。我々がこの団結を再び実現できないという考え方を受け入れることを、私は拒否します。(拍手)私は自分の全存在を賭けて、我々はまだ米国民として共通の目的のもとで結束できると信じています。なぜなら、我々の価値観は羊皮紙に書かれた単なる言葉ではなく、我々を一つに結束させ、一つの国家として一つの国民として我々が最も暗い嵐の中を切り抜けることを可能にした信条であるからです。

America -- we are passing through a time of great trial.  And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear:  that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.  We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.  (Applause.) 

アメリカ―我々は、大きな試練の時を通過しています。この嵐の只中で我々が送るメッセージは明白です。つまり、我々の目的は正当なものであり、我々の決意は揺るぎないものです。正しいことが力となるという自信を持って、より安全なアメリカとより安定した世界、最も深い恐れではなく高い希望を代表する将来を形作るコミットメントを持って、我々は前進します。(拍手)

Thank you.  God bless you.  May God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

ありがとう。皆さんに神の祝福がありますように。神がアメリカ合衆国を祝福されますように。(拍手) 大変ありがとう。ありがとう。(拍手)

END  8:35 P.M. EST

終了  東部標準時午後8時35分

ホワイトハウスホームページ
特集ページ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/01/new-way-forward-presidents-address

| | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

« November 2009 | Main | January 2010 »