John McCainはDonald Trumpに恐れず立ち向かう数少ない人の一人だ。 この上院議員のガンの診断は議会から大統領への弾劾のきっかけを奪ってしまうかもしれない。

John McCain is one of the few who can stand up to Donald Trump
Senator’s cancer diagnosis could rob Congress of a catalyst for president’s impeachment 
Global Insight
JULY 21, 2017 by: Edward Luce

John McCainはDonald Trumpに恐れず立ち向かう数少ない人の一人だ。

stand up to A: A〈人組織など〉に恐れず立ち向かう

Just after Donald Trump announced this week that he was pulling the plug on US-trained Syrian moderates, America’s best-known hawk accused him of “playing right into the hands of Russia”. That was John McCain, former presidential nominee, and Republican senator for Arizona. The fact that Mr McCain, 80, was in hospital having just been diagnosed with brain cancer was neither here nor there. His condemnation arrived bang on schedule. Mr Trump’s “get well” tweet, and follow-up phone call, had no discernible influence. 

Syrian moderates:シリア穏健派
play right into someone's hands:まんまと(人)の策略にはまる
neither here nor there:取るに足りない

Whether, and how soon, Mr McCain makes it back to Washington is the crucial question. The former Navy pilot, and seven-term senator, is one of the few Republicans who could stand up to Mr Trump. He has a record to prove it. For most of George W Bush’s first term, Mr McCain was a lonely thorn in his side. He berated Mr Bush for allowing waterboarding and other forms of torture in the “war on terror”. He allied with Democrats to pass a law restricting money’s influence in politics. And he insisted on the fact of man-made global warming. None of that endeared him to the party’s base. Yet he still went on to win its nomination for the 2008 election. 


Mr McCain’s tenacity, and the fact that aspiring firebrands, such as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, demolished each other during the primaries, left him as the last man standing. “He’s tougher than a $2 steak,” tweeted John Dingell, 91, a former Democratic congressman from Michigan and the longest serving representative in US history. “He’ll be back.”

A hidden part of Mr Trump must be hoping otherwise. Mr McCain stands out for having stuck to his hawkish stance on Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The only realistic way Mr Trump could be removed from office is if his party turns against him. Were that to happen, Mr McCain would be the likeliest catalyst. 

stick to one's stance:という立場にこだわる

In the early stages of the 2016 primaries, Mr Trump shocked the US — and triggered wildly premature predictions of his political downfall — by attacking Mr McCain’s war record. In 1968, Mr McCain’s plane was shot down over Vietnam. He spent the next five years in the notorious “Hanoi Hilton” prison. He suffered frequent torture, an ordeal that drove later criticisms of Mr Bush. 


As the son of an eponymous serving US admiral, Mr McCain was dangled the chance of early release. He refused, believing it would shame his father and upset his fellow prisoners. 


Almost half a century later, Mr Trump depicted Mr McCain’s capture as a flaw. “He is not a war hero,” Mr Trump said in 2015. “I like people who weren’t captured.” To many people’s surprise, Mr McCain declined to hit back. He endorsed Mr Trump’s candidacy in 2016. 

Many of Mr McCain’s most loyal fans were secretly relieved he lost the 2008 election to Barack Obama. “The fundamentals of the economy are strong,” Mr McCain said to near-universal derision shortly after the largest stock market fall in decades. He also lost credibility for picking Sarah Palin, Alaska’s red-meat governor, as his running mate, a decision many believe unleashed the blue-collar id that culminated in Mr Trump. There were also concerns about his temperament. 


Yet he never shed his dignity. At one rally, a voter said she thought Mr Obama was an “Arab”. Mr McCain cut her off: “I have to tell you Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.” 


Although loyal to his party, Mr McCain instinctively puts his country first. He also relishes adversity. Sceptics should ask his mother, Roberta McCain, who turned 105 this month. “John’s a good boy,” Mrs 
McCain told me during the 2008 campaign. “But he’s stubborn as hell.” 




swingby_blog at 20:38コメント(0) 


Brexitと国家的な屈辱の可能性 イギリスはEUとの交渉で不快な結果に直面する。

Brexit and the prospect of national humiliation
The UK faces a range of uncomfortable outcomes from negotiation with the EU
JULY 10, 2017 by: Gideon Rachman


Things are going badly wrong in Brexit-land. The UK government is weak and divided. The EU is confident and uncompromising. The negotiation clock is ticking and only the wilfully deluded now believe that a “cake-and-eat-it” Brexit is on offer. Instead, Britain appears to face a choice between three different types of humiliation. 

have one's cake and eat it:同時に両方いい思いをする、両立させる

The first humiliating outcome is that Britain becomes so desperate for a trade deal that it is forced to accept the EU’s terms, more or less in their entirety. That will mean that Britain agrees to pay a bill of up to €100bn in gross terms, merely to get trade negotiations going. To then secure access to the single market, Britain would have to make further humbling concessions — accepting free movement of people and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. 


An alternative humiliating outcome would involve Britain refusing to make an agreement on these terms and crashing out of the EU without a deal in March 2019. British goods and lorries would then stack up at the Channel ports, as they hit new trade and customs barriers — amid general sniggering on the other side of the channel. Job losses would mount in manufacturing and a range of service industries, from finance to pharma. And as investment was diverted to continental Europe, the economy would take a permanent hit. 

take a hit:損害を被る、非難を受ける

A weakened Britain would then turn to Donald Trump’s America, in the hope that the US president would make good on his promise of a “very, very big” trade deal. But the dream of a proud, prosperous, “global Britain” would look like a sick joke. 

sick joke:〔人の不幸に付け込むなどの〕悪趣味な冗談

The third humiliating outcome involves Britain realising that there is no good Brexit on offer and abandoning the whole idea and returning meekly to the EU fold. Even to secure agreement to this outcome from the EU27, Britain might have to give up its cherished budget rebate. 

budget rebate:サッチャーは、ECの農業共通政策(Common Agricultural Policy: CAP)に過大に支出される予算負担金問題では、農業生産が少ないために、拠出額に比べて英国への受け取る補助金額が少なすぎるとして、首相に就任した直後の1979年11月のダブリンEC首脳会議以後、毎回のように、「Iwant you to pay me back my money!」と、執拗に主張し続けて、辟易する他の首脳たちに、例外的に1984年からの割戻金の支払いを強引に認めさせた。

Each of these results will cause dismay and anger in Britain. But there is an argument that a dose of national humiliation can be good for a country. The writer Ian Buruma argued recently that British and American politics have become vulnerable to nationalist self-harm because, after the second world war, “generation after generation grew up with . . . the feeling of being special”. 


All of the other big nations in Europe experienced occupation, defeat, humiliation or the collapse of democracy during the 20th century. By contrast, Britain takes a frank and understandable pride in never succumbing, in its modern history, to political extremism or military defeat. However Britain’s national pride, viewed from the Brussels perspective, has made the UK an awkward customer that has never accepted the concessions of sovereignty that are necessary to make the EU work. The Eurocrats murmur that if Britain is humbled by Brexit, that might have a positive effect in the long run, persuading the UK eventually to return to the EU with a more realistic assessment of its own power, and of the benefits of the European project. 


But is humiliation really good for a country? It is arguable that Britain’s much-prized record of political moderation is connected to the fact that the country has never really been humbled. 

political moderation:政治的な節度

Angry and confused countries often take refuge in political extremism or aggressive nationalism. The Chinese government has made avenging the country’s “century of humiliation” (which began in 1839) the centre of a nationalist ideology that its neighbours find increasingly threatening. Vladimir Putin’s sense of humiliation at the collapse of the Soviet Union has driven Russian revanchism in Ukraine and Georgia. Going further back, German humiliation, following defeat in the first world war and the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, contributed mightily to the rise of Hitler. 

take refuge:〔危険・脅威などから身を守るために安全な場所に〕避難[退避・逃避]する、逃げ込む
revanchism:(外交上の)失地奪回政策[主義], 報復(主義)

But if post-1918 Germany offers a warning about the dangers of national humiliation, post-1945 Germany demonstrates that being humbled can sometimes be good for the soul. Out of the moral and physical ruins of Nazism, the next generation of Germans built a country that is now rich, stable and widely admired. 

Fortunately, however badly Brexit goes, it will never be a humiliation to rank alongside responsibility for the Holocaust or occupation by a foreign power. Nonetheless, any of the three possible Brexit humiliations will be a profound blow to national confidence. 

rank alongside:と並んで位置づける

The resulting public anger is likely to cause a further polarisation in domestic politics. The nationalist right is likely to blame Europeans for allegedly ganging up on Britain and the liberal establishment in the UK for “selling out the country”. The Corbynite left would also stoke anti-establishment anger, and would use the general chaos to push for a massive expansion in the state — and a radical realignment in British foreign and defence policy. That, in turn, would provoke a counter-radicalisation by the right. 


But it is also possible to imagine more cheerful scenarios. A country that has made the self-mocking ditty “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” an alternative national anthem, might have the ability to shrug off a Brexit humiliation. Stereotypes about Britain’s “national character” tend to emphasise pragmatism, a sense of humour and an ability to cope with adversity. The Brits may need all of those qualities to cope with the fallout from Brexit. 

shrug:批判疑問などを無視する, A〈けが病気など〉をものともしない, A〈心配など〉を払いのける.



swingby_blog at 22:44コメント(0) 


西側諸国はロシアとの中国の軍事演習を恐れる必要はない。 もっとはっきり言えば、アメリカの海軍は中国との海軍とも、もっと協力しあうべきだ。

The West need not fear China’s war games with Russia
In fact, America’s navy should co-operate more with China’s, too
Print edition | Leaders
Jul 29th 2017


RARELY in times of peace has a country acquired naval power at such a rate as China has in recent years. Three decades ago its warships were clapped out, capable of operating only close to shore. Now its shipyards are churning out state-of-the-art combat vessels at a furious pace. Some experts believe it could have as many warships as America within a few years. China’s navy is also developing global range: this week three of its ships have been staging war games in the Baltic Sea with the Russian navy, the first joint exercises by the two countries in those waters. The intended message to the West is clear. China and Russia, united in their resentment of American power, are thumbing their noses at NATO on its doorstep. 

clapped out:ぼろぼろである
thumb one's nose at:〜を軽蔑する、〜を嘲る

China’s naval build-up worries American officials. Hardly a week goes by without some new development that troubles them. In April the country launched its first domestically built aircraft-carrier, and then in June its first 10,000-tonne destroyer—similar in size to the ones America deploys in the region. This month Chinese ships filled with troops sailed for Djibouti to set up the country’s first overseas military base.


China’s naval build-up is giving it the wherewithal to seize and hold disputed territory to which it lays claim in the East and South China Seas, and to threaten Taiwan. In the event of a conflict, America could be drawn in. This week’s exercises with Russia in the Baltic, meanwhile, suggest not only a shared enmity towards the West but also mutual admiration of each other’s thuggish political systems. President Xi Jinping has turned a blind eye to Russia’s land-grab in Ukraine, and President Vladimir Putin to China’s in the South China Sea. 

wherewithal:財源 (アクセントは前)
dràw A ín [ín A]:(無理やり口論戦争などに)A〈人〉を巻き込む
enmity :(長期にわたる)憎しみ, 憎悪

Yet there is far less to the Russia-China relationship than meets the eye (see article). Russian officials worry about China’s growing economic and military might almost as much as their American counterparts do. Russia sells China a lot of weapons, but sells similar stuff to India, China’s rival. True, Mr Xi ignores the West’s sanctions on Russia—but that is mainly because he wants a stable relationship with a huge neighbour which China has come close to fighting in living memory.

far less:殆ど〜ない
meets the eye:目に映る
in living memory:現存の[今生きている]人々の思い出せる[知っている]限りでは

Exercising responsibility
As for China’s naval muscle-flexing in the Baltic, that is a development that should, in several respects, be welcomed rather than feared. If China wants to show that its warships can operate in distant seas, there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, it is entirely right that China, as a global economic power, should play a larger part in providing the maritime security on which global trade depends. It is already taking part in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden—something for which its base in Djibouti will play a useful supporting role. 

in several respects:幾つかの点で

Deploying its navy far beyond its own waters might also help China understand that America, too, has good reasons for doing so. China frequently huffs about American warships in the western Pacific, refusing to accept one of the Pentagon’s main reasons for deploying there: that America has a vital stake in the security of Asian trade. 

vital stake:必須の利害関係

Rather than fretting about joint exercises like those taking place this week, America should encourage China to participate in more of them, including the biennial multi-country RIMPAC manoeuvres, to be held off Hawaii next year. In May the Pentagon invited China to join in, for what would be the third time. Some American politicians grumble about the involvement of a navy so unfriendly to the West. But they are wrong to do so. Such exercises are an important way to prevent confrontation triggered by misunderstanding. And China’s inclusion would help ensure that its increasing naval assertiveness bolsters global security, rather than threatens it. 




swingby_blog at 20:35コメント(0) 



There Will Be No New Korean War': What Putin Knows That Western Pundits Don't c Sputnik/ Michael Klimentyev


Russian President Vladimir Putin during a meeting with representatives of foreign business circles as part of the 3rd Eastern Economic Forum

At the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed confidence that there would not be another large-scale military conflict on the Korean peninsula. Russian political observer Anatoly Wasserman explains what it is that the Russian president knows that many observers don't.


Addressing participants of the forum on Thursday, Putin said he believed all the parties involved in the standoff in the Korean peninsula are likely to "have enough common sense and understanding that they bear responsibility to the people in the region, and [that] we could solve this problem by diplomatic means."

standoff :手詰まり

"Like my South Korean counterpart, I am sure that there will not be a large-scale conflict, especially one involving the use of weapons of mass destruction," the Russian leader added.

Down to Business: US to Make Billions in Arms Sales to Fraught Korean Peninsula Putin also recalled that in 2005, the parties to the conflict were on the verge of reaching an agreement on Pyongyang's nuclear program. "Agreements were reached under which North Korea assumed responsibility to curtail its nuclear and missile programs. All other parties in this process promised to contribute to this. But then, someone started demanding from North Korea what it did not promise, and gradually the situation deteriorated to the present state," he said.

verge:Aの間際で, 今にもAするところで
demanding from:に要求し始めた

Analyzing the Russian president's remarks in an article for RIA Novosti, Anatoly Wasserman took note of the fact that "first of all, Putin diplomatically avoided naming this 'someone'. It's like in the famous anecdote about a group of woodland critters including a fox sitting down in the woods to play cards, one of them saying 'if someone cheats, they'll get a slap in the face –their sneaky orange face.'"

critters:生き物・けなして 人

"In the conflict we're discussing here, it's equally obvious just who it was that may have demanded from North Korea something that Pyongyang never promised," the political observer wrote.

Putin Slams American Establishment for Lack of Political Culture
"Factually," Wasserman suggested, "among all the potential parties in the conflict on the Korean peninsula, only one is known for its inadequacy. Specifically, it was the same one that the Russian president was referring to a few days earlier at a press conference following the BRICS summit, when he said that these were the people who would confuse Austria with Australia."

In the case of the Koreas, the observer suggested that both of them are rational enough, "if only because the conflict that's developing today is just another stage of a confrontation that's been going on in the peninsula since the beginning of the 20th century, when Korea was first occupied and thoroughly genocided by Japan. Then, after Japan was expelled, there were those who sought to turn the territory…into their own strategic base, and who would use this base for another genocide of Korea."


Background note: During the Korean War of 1950-1953, the US Air Force dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, nearly 150,000 tons more than it had in the entire the Pacific Theater during World War II, on Korea. The Korean War caused over 3 million civilian casualties, the vast majority of them in the north.

A South Korean JSA guard (front R) and North Korean guard (L) stand guard opposite each other at the border of the truce village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas. File photo.


"So far as I understand it, both Koreas remember the genocides that were arranged for them perfectly well, and do not have the slightest desire to allow anyone to repeat them," Wasserman wrote. Therefore, he added, "I am quite certain that among all the participants of the conflict in the Korean peninsula, only the US is capable of behaving inadequately and aggressively."

North Korean Leader Orders Scientists to Strengthen Nuclear Forces
"Given these circumstances, I believe that the behavior of the South Korean president, which consists of a harmonious combination of a reminder of the danger posed by North Korea's conduct, and promises to offer Pyongyang a role in mutually beneficial economic projects, is the most reasonable way forward," the observer noted.


"Because on the one hand, participation in such projects significantly weakens interest in any aggressive behavior, even though it does not completely eliminate it…And on the other hand, extensive global experience shows that when a country has great economic potential, it often also has the opportunity to build up its defense potential quickly and, therefore, does not have to do so in advance and spend a great deal of money doing so…For this reason, countries that are economically developed, as a rule, appear less aggressive."

With these facts in mind, Wasserman noted that the strict pro-diplomacy position "expressed by the South Korean and Russian presidents at the Eastern Economic Forum is the most promising way to resolve the conflict."

Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of South Korea Moon Jae-in, left, during a joint press statement on the results of the meeting held as part of the 3rd Eastern Economic Forum at the Far Eastern Federal University, Russky Island. September 6, 2017

Pyongyang Will 'Inevitably Respond' to South Korea's New 'Frankenmissile'
The analyst recalled that in the early period of the dispute over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, "the United States promised Pyongyang that it would help it resolve a number of serious energy problems by supplying it with sufficient energy resources at world energy prices, and create in the country a powerful nuclear energy complex using American technology which would guarantee the inability to use this complex for military purposes."

"Pyongyang readily agreed to these proposals," Wasserman wrote. "But after that, Washington, quibbling over some small issue, refused to fulfill their own promise. And thus North Korea was forced to develop its own nuclear energy, giving it the opportunity to continue its project to create nuclear weapons. So the US did not simply demand from North Korea something that Pyongyang did not promise, but also violated their own promises, and in a way that obviously led to an aggravation of the situation."

quibbling :難癖をつける

Ultimately, Wasserman wrote that he could not exclude that the US may have sought to deliberately aggravate the situation in the region, "because without this they would risk losing the political reason for the deployment of US troops in the Korean peninsula."

"Is there anyone now who's interested in war?" the commentator asked. "I think not," he answered. "Theoretically, one can imagine that for a part of the American establishment, this war could be deemed profitable under the present circumstances, since President Trump won the election thanks to his promise to return jobs to the country. And jobs began leaving the US for South Korea long before than they started to leave for China. Therefore, I cannot rule out the possibility that the destruction of South Korea as a result of a war would be beneficial to the US," or at least to those financial and industrial groups who may look to rebuild the US industrial base at any cost.

rule out:〈可能性など〉を除外[排除]する.

"But even in the US, those forces for which a war in Korea would be unprofitable are even stronger. And the Russian president, I think, is also aware of this," Wasserman concluded.



swingby_blog at 21:14コメント(0) 



Sep 3, 2017 | 17:23 GMT
stratfor Why North Korea Won't Stop


Why North Korea Won't Stop

South Korean officials from the meteorological administration in Seoul monitor screens showing graphs of seismic waves originating from North Korea, Sept. 3.
(JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images
South Korean officials from the meteorological administration in Seoul monitor screens showing graphs of seismic waves originating from North Korea, Sept. 3.(JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images) 


North Korea has indeed conducted its sixth nuclear test. The U.S. Geological Service and the China Earthquake Administration recorded a 6.3 magnitude earthquake as a result of the detonation on Sept. 3, followed by a 4.1 magnitude quake due to a suspected cave collapse resulting from the explosion. It's unclear at this time how much radiation and other radionuclide (unstable atoms released with excess nuclear energy) indicators have escaped into the atmosphere, but U.S. and Japanese aircraft specialized in tracking nuclear radiation are already airborne. Numerous ground-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty monitoring stations are attempting to collect sample data to further assess the test as well. 


So far, all data points to a much larger explosion than any previous North Korean nuclear test. Based on the magnitude of the explosion, the yield of the device could easily surpass the 100 kiloton-level, underlying the strong likelihood that a much more powerful hydrogen bomb was tested. 

The North Korean government in fact claimed that they had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb. It also said that the hydrogen bomb tested was specifically designed to fit into an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Prior to the test, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and other officials were shown standing around what appeared to be a model of a miniaturized hydrogen device resembling a two-stage thermonuclear bomb. Finally, Pyongyang claimed that the device was yield-adjustable, or that it can be preprogrammed to detonate at variable explosive power levels. This implies that North Korea could mass produce a single design for multiple functions, and that they could have tested the bomb at a much higher yield setting. It's possible, then, that the North Koreans deliberately did not detonate a hydrogen bomb at a higher yield level setting to avoid collateral damage and emissions. 


The United States may now calculate that North Korea cannot be deterred or that the risk of deterrence failing is too high. Washington could also determine that allowing North Korea to develop ICBMs is unacceptable because of the risk of nuclear proliferation. In such a case, the United States would resort to preventive military action to disarm the country. 


Regardless, the United States is running out of time to stage such a preventative attack. Washington is already constrained by the technological sophistication of North Korea's missiles and warheads — mainly their ability to effectively reach, reliably detonate at, and significantly damage targets in the continental United States. The uncertain number of such missiles believed to be in North Korea's arsenal is equally problematic: The United States is more likely to risk a first strike to eliminate a few North Korean missiles, not a large arsenal. Although the U.S. intelligence assessment on the projected size of North Korea's ICBM arsenal is unclear, North Korea is already estimated to be on track to field a reliable one by the end of 2018. 


A powerful thermonuclear warhead would shorten the window for U.S. intervention further, as an ICBM equipped with a thermonuclear warhead doesn't need to be precise or possess reliable reentry technology to be a threat, enabling North Korea to rely on the weapon's sheer destructive power to compensate for deficiencies in other missile development areas. Even a high-altitude airburst with a megaton warhead would cause severe collateral damage and fallout across large swaths of the United States. The latest North Korean test, especially if confirmed as a thermonuclear one, could boost North Korea's ability to deter U.S. and allied military action. 

reentry technology :〔宇宙船の大気圏への〕再突入

The latest nuclear test would also appear to reduce the chance for dialogue with the North, despite past calls by China, Russia and South Korea to pursue engagement rather than isolation. South Korea has already said it will seek tighter U.N. sanctions to isolate North Korea, and the U.S. Treasury Department said it intends to pursue sanctions designed to cut all North Korean trade. China will continue urging caution to avoid escalating into a potential military scenario, but has argued privately that "crippling" sanctions against the North will only hurt the people of North Korea, not stop the government's pursuit of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. 


The latest test has solidified the positions of all the countries involved, and made the rift between Washington and Seoul even more apparent. South Korean President Moon Jae In has sought a policy of containment and engagement with North Korea, something U.S. President Donald Trump criticized in a tweet following the North's nuclear test. While U.S. and South Korean security officials held phone calls, it was reported that Trump would be calling Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, not the South Korean president. The strain between the allies leaves more room for North Korea to exploit, and highlights the concerns in Seoul that the United States may ultimately pursue a military path, despite the South's objections. 


北朝鮮の水爆実験が成功したので、米朝日が緊張している。韓国のMoon Jae Inは北朝鮮との対話を求めているが、Trumpは徹底した経済制裁を考えている。ただこうした制裁が金正恩のミサイル開発を阻止するよりも、北朝鮮の国民の生活を逼迫させるだけだろう。今後、アメリカは韓国を外して、日本と協議を始めるかもしれない。いずれにしても、今しばらくは北朝鮮から目が離せない。


swingby_blog at 22:42コメント(0) 


Aung San Suu Kyiとその外国の支持者たちはロヒンギャをたすけなければならない。 彼らは認めている以上に影響力を持っている。

Aung San Suu Kyi and her foreign admirers must help the Rohingyas
They have more clout than they admit
Sep 9th 2017

Aung San Suu Kyiとその外国の支持者たちはロヒンギャをたすけなければならない。

THE reports are horrifying: soldiers and militiamen surrounding villages, raping women, decapitating children, herding men into buildings and setting them ablaze. The Burmese army is letting few outsiders into the northern part of Rakhine state, near the border with Bangladesh, so it is hard to be certain about the scale of the atrocities. But the UN says that well over 150,000 refugees have fled to Bangladesh since August 25th, with 35,000 crossing the border in a single day this week. They are the lucky ones. Satellite images reveal burning villages across northern Rakhine, and bodies have been washing up on the shores of the river that separates Myanmar from Bangladesh (see article). The victims are Rohingyas, a Muslim minority that has been persecuted by the Burmese authorities with varying degrees of ferocity since the 1980s. 

decapitating :首を切り落とす

Today’s government is led by Aung San Suu Kyi, herself a victim of persecution by past military regimes, and winner of the Nobel peace prize for her long vigil for democracy. But she seems no more sympathetic to the Rohingyas’ plight than her jackbooted predecessors. She denies that there is any systematic abuse by the security services, claiming instead that they are simply trying to hunt down organised Rohingya militants who have attacked police and army posts. Pleas from the UN, neighbouring governments, aid agencies and even her fellow Nobel laureates to curb the violence and allow humanitarian aid to flow to the victims have had no effect. She is not even willing to use the term Rohingya; her government dismisses the 1m-strong group that has been present in Rakhine since precolonial times as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. 


Ms Suu Kyi’s initial reluctance to take up the Rohingya cause was understandable, though not admirable. The vast majority of Burmese share the official view, that Rohingyas are foreign interlopers; many also imagine that, as Muslims, they are plotting against Buddhism, the religion of the majority. When sectarian riots broke out in 2012 between Rohingyas and Rakhines, a largely Buddhist ethnic group inhabiting the same region, the local media painted the Rohingyas as the aggressors, even though they came off much the worse. Moreover, Ms Suu Kyi has little authority over the army, which granted itself the right to regulate itself (and the police) before handing power to her civilian government. Why take on an unpopular fight that she had almost no prospect of winning? 


But the violence in Rakhine has reached such an unconscionable level that there can be no justifying continued passivity. Whether it is popular or not, the first duty of any government is to keep the people it governs alive. Even if Ms Suu Kyi cannot rein in the army, she should at least denounce its behaviour, and make clear to ordinary Burmese the horrors it is unleashing in their name. She has managed to face the generals down once before, after all, during her campaign for democracy, and retains immense moral authority. 


Give and take
By the same token, Western governments have been reluctant to take Ms Suu Kyi too strongly to task, for fear of undermining the transition to democracy that they advocated for so long. The time for such delicacy is past. Democracy is of little worth if it entails mass displacement and slaughter. Foreign donors should make it clear that continued development aid depends on efforts to end to the violence. 

By the same token:同じ理由で・それと同じで

Best of all would be to try to change the army’s behaviour by adopting sanctions that punish it directly. It is heavily involved in business, with investments in everything from jade-mining to mobile networks. The top brass, in particular, benefit from sinecures in and payouts from this empire. Should America and other countries reinstate penalties for firms that do business with companies linked to the army, the generals’ wealth would be imperilled. That might make them reconsider their conduct in Rakhine. The Burmese army is not easy to influence, but economic and diplomatic isolation do seem to have played a part in persuading it to surrender power in the first place. To spare the Rohingyas further suffering, such sanctions should be deployed again. 

spare :たすける・難を逃れる

ロヒンギャの虐待だが、Aung San Suu Kyiは何もしていない。彼女が何も出来ないというのが正しい。軍に対して発言できないからだ。ブータンと一緒で、異民族を追い出そうという争いが背景にある。この著者は世界が軍に制裁をしたらどうかと言うが、あまり期待は出来ない。結局ブータンと一緒で、100万人がバングラディシュに逃げるしかないのだろう。ブータンからネパールに逃げたネパール系ブータン人は30万人だった。こじれた民族の争いは解決できそうにない。


swingby_blog at 20:53コメント(0) 
livedoor プロフィール

海野 恵一



Swingby 最新イベント情報
海野塾のイベントはFacebookのTeamSwingbyを参照ください。 またスウィングバイは以下のところに引っ越しました。 スウィングバイ株式会社 〒108-0023 東京都港区芝浦4丁目2−22東京ベイビュウ803号 Tel: 080-9558-4352 Fax: 03-3452-6690 E-mail: clyde.unno@swingby.jp Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/clyde.unno 海野塾: https://www.facebook.com TeamSwingby

Recent Comments
  • 今日:
  • 累計:


社長ブログ ブログランキングへ