現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４１ > 810.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争４１ > 810.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
【写真】議事堂ホールで緑の党のケリー・ネトル上院議員［左から３人目］がブッシュ氏［右端・後ろ姿］に、グアンタナモに不法拘留されているオーストラリア人マムドウー・ハビブ氏の問題を訴える手紙を渡そうとしている。だがハワード首相を筆頭に、保守系の議員たちが身を挺してそれを阻止している。ケリー・ネトル議員は手紙を持ってる。その後ろのメガネの男性が、緑の党・党首のボブ・ブラウン上院議員。手前で両手を拡げて泣きそうな表情で立ちはだかっているのがハワード首相。
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/bush_being_nettled_23oct03.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
●オーストラリアに立ち寄った小ブッシュは議会演説を行ないましたが、
日本のマスコミ報道によれば「議員のヤジ」で演説が二度ばかり中断した、
とのこと。そして毎日新聞によれば「私はスピーチの自由を愛する」と
軽口を叩いて演説を続行したけれども、「世界最強の超大国の元首としては、
この体験は恥辱だ。イラク戦争にも参戦した友好国での出来事だけに、
政権周辺のショックも大きい」と報じられている。
●「ヤジ」ってのは何だ？ 日本の国会みたいに下品な言葉でも飛んだのか？
手元の三省堂・新明解国語辞典によれば――
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
やじる
①一緒宇検見え演説している弁士に水を差すような、からかいや非難の言葉を掛ける。
②（味方を応援するために）集中力を失わせるようなひやかしの言葉などを競技の相手側に掛ける。
【表記】野次る（弥次る）は借字
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
こうした定義に当てはまるような不埒な言葉を、オーストラリア野党
「緑の党」の党首や上院議員が小ブッシュに吐きかけたのか？
からかいや非難を浴びながら、小ブッシュは「私はスピーチの自由を愛する」
と返したのか？
「私はスピーチの自由を愛する」という日本語から連想するのは
たとえば「I love freedom of speech.」という表現ですが、
「スピーチの自由」という日本語を英語に“直訳”して出てくる
英熟語の「freedom of speech」というのは、ふつうは「言論の自由」
のことであって「スピーチの自由」には限定されない。（日本語の
スピーチは、この英単語が意味する広義の「発話行為」全般ではなく、
「公衆の面前での演説」という狭い意味に限定されているので、
そうした演説を指す意味で「スピーチの自由」というのなら、
たとえば英語では「freedom of public speech」という限定的な
表現になるだろう。小ブッシュはこうした限定的な意味の表現を
使ったのだろうか？）
いったいオーストラリアの野党議員は小ブッシュに何を言ったのか？
そして「ヤジ」を飛ばした議員が追い出されてから、「公衆の面前での
演説の自由を愛しています」みたいなマヌケなことを言ったのか？
これは確認しておくべき重要なことだと思い、ちょっと調べてみたわけです。
●まず、オーストラリア議会の小ブッシュ演説騒動についての
日本のいくつかのマスコミ報道をおさらいしておきましょう。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
（毎日新聞）[10月23日14時5分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031023-00001055-mai-int
＜米大統領＞豪州議会で演説 ヤジで２度中断のハプニングも
【キャンベラ中島哲夫】
ブッシュ米大統領は２３日午前、ハワード豪首相と会談し、同国議会で演説した。議会演説は、議員のヤジで２度にわたり中断するというハプニングが起きた。
ヤジを飛ばしたのは野党「緑の党」の議員。最初はブッシュ大統領がイラク戦争を正当化している場面でヤジが飛び、大統領は演壇で苦笑いしながら立ち往生。この議員が退場させられてから演説を再開した。
ところが演説も終わりに近づき、二人目の同党議員がヤジを飛ばした。大統領は「私はスピーチの自由を愛する」と切り返した。しかし、世界最強の超大国の元首としては、この体験は恥辱だ。イラク戦争にも参戦した友好国での出来事だけに、政権周辺のショックも大きい。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
日経新聞 2003年10月23日
http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/kaigai/20031023AT2M2301923102003.html
米大統領の豪国会演説、ヤジで２回にわたり中断
（キャンベラ＝秋田浩之） (13:01)
ブッシュ米大統領の23日のオーストラリア連邦議会での演説がヤジで二度にわたって中断、大統領が「自分は演説の自由を信奉する」と切り返す一幕があった。同盟国の国家元首による議会演説の最中に、こうした騒ぎが起きるのは外交上極めて異例だ。
ヤジを飛ばしたのは米外交に批判的な野党「緑の党」のブラウン党首とネトル上院議員。大統領が「サダム・フセイン（イラク元大統領）はもはやいない。それを悲しむべきではない」などと訴えると、声を張り上げて演説を妨害した。司会役の下院議長はいったん演説をとめ、まずはブラウン党首を退場させた。ところが、大統領が米豪ＦＴＡ締結を呼びかけると、ネトル議員がヤジを浴びせたため再び演説を中断し、同議員も退場させた。緑の党はイラク戦争にも不支持を鮮明にしていたが、豪州世論にもブッシュ外交への批判が根強いのが実情。大統領は「緊密な同盟国」とみなす豪州で思わぬ平手打ちを受けた格好だ。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
朝日新聞 (10/23 13:48)
http://www.asahi.com/international/update/1023/009.html
拡散防止で連携を訴え 米大統領、豪連邦議会で演説
ブッシュ米大統領は２３日、オーストラリア連邦議会で演説し、自身が提唱した拡散防止構想（ＰＳＩ）をめぐる米豪両国の連携強化を訴えた。演説に先立つハワード首相との首脳会談では、アフガニスタンやイラクへの派兵をはじめ「対テロ戦」への「絶大な貢献」に謝意を表明。年内の自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）締結に向け、協議を急ぐことでも一致した。
演説でブッシュ大統領は「私たちの国々は大量破壊兵器の拡散の脅威に直面している」と呼びかけた。９月にオーストラリア北東部沖で日米豪仏が初めてＰＳＩの合同訓練を実施したことにも触れ、「拡散の懸念を高めている兵器やミサイルを捕らえるため、私たちは不審な貨物を積んだ飛行機、船舶、列車、トラックを調べる準備を進めている」と語り、同構想へのさらなる理解と協力を求めた。
また、アフガニスタンでの「対テロ戦」で犠牲になったオーストラリア兵の名を挙げて哀悼の意を表し、軍事面での同国の支援に感謝。米豪両国は日本などのアジア諸国と協力し、台湾海峡の安定にも寄与、朝鮮半島の非核化に向けても協調していると述べた。
演説の途中、イラクのフセイン元大統領を批判することで対イラク戦争の正当性を訴えたことに対し、一部の議員が抗議の声をあげ議長が忠告。演説が２度にわたって遮られた。ブッシュ大統領は「私は言論の自由が好きだ」とアドリブでこたえた。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
朝日新聞 (10/24 01:44)
http://www.asahi.com/international/update/1024/002.html
豪と米の「緊密な関係」に東南アジア諸国の警戒も
オーストラリアのハワード首相は２３日、ブッシュ米大統領を連邦議会の議場に迎え、価値観を分かち合う両国の強固な同盟関係を改めて強調した。しかし、豪が米との「緊密な関係」を強調すればするほど、東南アジア諸国の一部からは「白人同士の連携」と受けとめられ、警戒の目を向けられる構図がある。
豪非難の先頭に立つのは、マレーシアのマハティール首相。ハワード政権を「（アジアにおける）米国の保安官代理」と常々なじってきた。これに対して、ブッシュ大統領は１０月中旬、ワシントンでの豪記者とのインタビューに「いや、（豪は）保安官そのものだ」と答え、東南アジア側を刺激した。
新聞やテレビでブッシュ発言が報じられた後、米側は「豪とは対等の関係というのが真意」と弁明したが、マレーシアのサイドハミド外相は「保安官代理から保安官に出世したのだから、さぞ豪は満足だろう」と皮肉り、親米派のフィリピンのオプレ外相までが「この地域に保安官はいらない」と不快感を示した。
ハワード首相は、対アジア重視を豪外交の柱と位置づけながらも、しばしば「われわれ西洋の国は……」という表現を使う。こうした姿勢に、在豪アジア外交筋は「豪がアジアでしかるべき地位を得たいなら、絹のように、もう少しアジア人の心理に繊細であるべきだ」と批判的だ。
----------------------------------------------------------------
【写真】キャンベラで２３日、ブッシュ米大統領の訪問に抗議する反戦活動家たち。イラク戦争などで米国に追随したハワード豪首相をブッシュ大統領の「忠犬」と皮肉る人形が登場した＝ＡＰ
http://www.asahi.com/international/update/1024/images/nat1024001.jpg
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
ＮＮＡ
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00000045-nna-int
【オーストラリア】兵器拡散防止へ、米大統領が議会で演説
ブッシュ米大統領は23日、連邦議会で演説し、豪州のイラク戦争への貢献に感謝した上で、両国は今後も対テロ戦争や大量破壊兵器拡散防止で共闘していくと述べた。これに先立ち同大統領はハワード首相と会談し、交渉中の自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）について年内合意を目指す考えを明らかにしている。
ブッシュ大統領は、豪州を公式訪問した米大統領としては４人目。豪議会で演説したのは３人目という。
大統領は演説の中で、米豪両国が過去60年以上にわたり、自由と民主主義という共通の価値を守るために共に戦ってきたとし、両国の同盟関係は現在、かつてないほど強固なものだと語った。
大統領は、イラク戦争への豪州の参加に謝意を表明。豪州兵の勇気と能力をたたえた上で、アフガン戦争で命を落とした豪特殊空てい部隊（ＳＡＳ）隊員の名を挙げて哀悼の意を示した。
また、米国主導の「拡散防止イニシアチブ（ＰＳＩ）」に基づいて豪サンゴ海で先月行われた合同演習についても触れ、両国が協力し、「大量破壊兵器拡散防止に向けてイランに圧力をかけ、核開発の継続はさらなる孤立につながることを北朝鮮に納得させていく」と語った。
■台湾海峡の平和維持
大統領は、両国が日本やフィリピン、タイ、インドネシア、シンガポールなどとともに貿易強化や対テロ戦争のほか「台湾海峡の平和維持でも協力する」と発言。
さらに対テロ戦争や朝鮮半島の平和維持に中国が大きく貢献しているとし、中国についての豪州の見解は米国と一致していると述べた。中国の胡国家主席が豪州を訪問中であることも意識してか、「１つの中国」政策をあらためて確認した形だ。
■ＦＴＡ年内合意へ
演説に先立ち、ブッシュ米大統領は同日朝、ハワード首相と会談。会談後の記者会見で同大統領は、交渉中のＦＴＡの年内合意は可能だと発言。「農業問題と知的所有権保護などが大きな論点となるのは明らかだ」とした上で、ＦＴＡが両国の利益につながると主張した。
なお同大統領は、キューバのグアンタナモ米軍基地で身柄を拘束されている豪州国籍のタリバン兵２人の問題について、早急に解決することをハワード首相に約束したという。
■議会内外で反発
議会演説の途中、大統領がイラク攻撃の正当性について言及すると、グリーン党（緑の党）党首のブラウン上院議員が立ち上がり抗議。議長に退出を命じられた。さらにこの後、同じグリーン党のネトル議員が退場処分を受けている。
議会の外には1,000人余りの活動家が集まり、「ゴーホーム、ブッシュ」などと叫びながら米大使館まで行進。その後警官隊ともみ合い、数人が逮捕されたもよう。
なおブッシュ大統領は議会演説の後、戦争記念館を訪問し、イラク戦争に参加した豪州兵をねぎらった後、同日夜に専用機で帰国の途についた。
▼NNAの無料メールマガジン⇒http://nna.asia.ne.jp.edgesuite.net/free/bm/（NNA）
[10月24日10時29分更新]
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
（毎日新聞）[10月24日10時43分更新]
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20031024-00003018-mai-int
＜豪野党議員＞４１人、米大統領あてに「イラク戦争非難の手紙」
オーストラリアの野党・労働党の下院議員４１人は２３日、同国を訪問していたブッシュ大統領あてにイラク戦争を非難する手紙を渡した。「イラクを非武装化するには、国連の査察を続けるなどもっと別の道があった」と、一方的な攻撃を批判している。手紙は６４人の労働党下院議員のうち４１人がサインした。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●……さて、日本のマスコミが報じた上記のような話の真相はどうだったのか？
評論ぬきの具体的な事実関係を単刀直入に知るには、インディーメディアの
報告などをみるのが迅速にして簡潔なので、下記のサイトで記事を探しました。
----------------------------------------------------------------
メルボルン・インディーメディア：Melbourne Indymedia （反戦ページ）
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/features/anti-war/
----------------------------------------------------------------
●すると、オーストラリア議会での騒動の全顛末を紹介した次の記事が
出てきました。
これによれば、緑の党の議員２人が小ブッシュにむけて発し、大統領
演説を中断させたのは、「ヤジ」という軽蔑的な言葉で表わすことが
できない、豪米外交関係にとっては極めて重要な問題だったことが
わかりました。つまり米軍が国外で拉致し、グアンタナモの強制収容所
に不当に拘留しつづけているオーストラリア国民の処遇についての
要求が、主たる内容だったのです。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Melbourne Indymedia
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/56694.php
Bushwacked in Canberra by the Greens
【緑の党がキャンベラで藪狩り】
by Takver, Thursday October 23, 2003 at 10:51 PM
While thousands protested on the street against George Bush, it was the protests of Greens Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle which upset John Howard and caused the corporate media to take notice that all Australians weren't stuck up George's arse.
【ジョージ・ブッシュのオーストラリア訪問に抗議する数千人のデモ行進が街頭を練り歩いていたとき、緑の党のボブ・ブラウンとケリー・ネトルの両上院議員も抗議行動を行なってジョン・ハワード首相の思惑を打ち砕き、まぬけ野郎ブッシュにオーストラリア国民すべてが降参したわけではないことをマスコミも注目せざるを得なくなった。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
Photo: Halls of Parliament - Senator Kerry Nettle, attempting to reach Mr Bush on the right with a letter about the illegal detention of an Australian in Guantanamo Bay. (Sydney Morning Herald)
【写真】議事堂のホールにて：ケリー・ネトル上院議員［左から３人目］がブッシュ氏［右端］に、グアンタナモに不法拘留されているオーストラリア国民の問題を訴える手紙を渡そうとしている。
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/bush_being_nettled_23oct03.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
●People protest Bush on Canberra Streets
【●人々はキャンベラの街に出てブッシュへの抗議を行なった】
Thousands protested Bush and the invasion of Iraq outside parliament today. The police had tried to ban any marches from occurring and to ban Public Address equipment from use. In defiance of a march ban people marched first to the US Embassy, then to The Lodge, the Prime Minister's permanent residence in Canberra, really just his holiday house, as he lives at Kirribili house in Sydney.
【本日、議会の周辺では数千の群衆がブッシュとイラク侵略への抗議デモを行なった。警官隊がデモを一切禁止しようと企て、拡声器の使用を禁止した。こうして事前にデモ禁止措置が出されていたが、人々はそれを打ち破ってまず米国大使館まで示威行進し、さらに首相官邸に向かった。官邸は首相が住み込むというタテマエになっているが、実際にはハワードはシドニーのキリビリに住んでいるので休暇滞在の別荘同然である。】
At one point people broke through the police cordon outside the USA embassy, and it seems that two or three people may have been arrested.
【デモ隊は米国大使館の外側に貼られた警戒線を突破し、二、三人の逮捕者が出た模様である。】
●Green Party Senators speak out against Bush
【緑の党の上院議員がブッシュへの抗議を叫んだ】
In parliament house, the Greens Senators managed to cause some attention by interjecting during George Bush's speech. Senator Bob Brown interjected: "I call on you to return our Australians (and) treat them as the Americans do (and) we will respect you." Senator Keery Nettle shouted protests about the US-led war in Iraq and interjected urging Australia not to sign a free trade agreement with the United States. Mr Bush smiled and responded, "I love free speech". But the Prime Minister, John Howard, was not amused!
【議事堂では緑の党の上院議員たちが奮闘し、ジョージ・ブッシュの演説に口をはさんでちょっとした注目を浴びた。ボブ・ブラウン上院議員はブッシュの演説中にこう言って口を挟んだ――「あなたに要求する。我が国民を返しなさい。アメリカ人なみの待遇を与えなさい。そうすれば偉さを認めてあげるよ」。ケリー・ネトル上院議員は米国主導の対イラク戦争への抗議を叫び、オーストラリアは自由貿易協定にサインするなと訴えて演説を中断させた。ブッシュ氏はにやけ顔でこう答えた――「言論の自由バンザイだね」。だがジョン・ハワード首相は血相を変えていた。】
Afterwards, in the corridors of parliament house, Greens Senator Bob Brown shook Mr Bush's hand - this must have reallly outraged the conservatives, that Bob Brown should think he was the equal to the US President and shake his hand.
【その後、議事堂の廊下で緑の党のブラウン上院議員はブッシュ氏と握手したが、これは保守系議員を心底仰天させたに違いない。なぜならブラウン議員は自分を米国大統領と同格だと見なし、対等の握手をしたからである。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
"I was physically elbowed and had my feet trodden on," Senator Brown said. "Despite all that I reached through and had a double handshake with George Bush, including the thumb around." He said Mr Bush returned his gaze and acknowledged him when he said: "I hope you will release our citizens from Guantanamo Bay."
Charge of the Lightfoot brigade doesn't stop Green protest - Sydney Morning Herald
【「肘鉄を食らったし足も踏まれましたからね」とブラウン議員は証言する。「妨害されたけど、私はしっかりジョージ・ブッシュの両手を取ってがっちり握手しましたからね。」 彼によればブッシュ氏は最初は誰かわからなかったが、「我が国の市民をグアンタナモから釈放してくださいね」というとさっきの人物だと気づいたという。（シドニー・モーニングヘラルド記事「敏速なる軍勢の突撃も緑の党の抗議を止められず」）】
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631547601.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 18-year-old son of Mamdouh Habib, one of two Australians being held at a US military prison in Cuba without charge after the Afghan invasion, was dragged out after yelling: "Hey Bush, what about my Dad?". He attended parliament as a formal guest of one of the Green Party Senators.
【キューバの米軍強制収容所にはアフガン侵攻以降、２人のオーストラリア人がいまだに起訴されぬまま拘留されている。そのうちの１人がマムドウー・ハビブ氏だ。ハビブ氏の18歳の息子も「こら、ブッシュ！ 僕のおやじはどうなってんだよ？」と叫んで議場から引きずり出された。この青年は緑の党の上院議員が正式に招いた賓客としてブッシュ氏の演説を聴いていた。】
《★訳注：原文では「18歳の息子」になっているが、下記の『エイジ』紙報道では「８歳の息子」と書かれている。両者が同一人物かどうかは不詳である。もしブッシュの議会演説に招かれたハビブ氏の息子が８歳の子供だったとすると、この少年がとばしたヤジはこんな感じだっただろう――「おいブッシュ！ とうちゃんをどうしたんだ！」 このヤジを発した幼い子供までも議場から引きずり出したということなら、ブッシュなりオーストラリア議会は小学生の子供にまでビビッて過剰反応していたわけだから、尋常な光景ではない。》
Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, attempted to reach George Bush to give him a letter written by Maha Habib, the wife of a detainee in Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp in Cuba.
【緑の党の上院議員ケリー・ネトルは、グアンタナモ強制収容所に拘留されているハビブ氏の妻であるマハ・ハビブさんの手紙を、ジョージ・ブッシュに届けようとした。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
The wife of Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib has written a letter to George W Bush which she hopes to hand deliver to the US president. Maha Habib and her eight year old son Ahmed will be in parliament as guests of Greens senator Kerry Nettle to hear Mr Bush's address to a joint sitting. Mrs Habib said her husband had been detained in Pakistan two years ago and had yet to be charged with breaking any laws.
Detainee wife has letter for Bush - The Age
【グアンタナモに拘留されているマムドウー・ハビブ氏の妻が、ジョージ・Ｗ・ブッシュに宛てて手紙を書いた。彼女はこれを自分で米国大統領に手渡したいと考えていた。マハ・ハビブさんと８歳の息子アハメドちゃんは、緑の党ケリー・ネトル上院議員の招待客として議会にいき、両院総会でのブッシュ氏の演説を聴くことになっている。ハビブ夫人によれば、彼女の夫は２年前にパキスタンで拘留されたが、いまもって法律違反で起訴されてはいないという。（エイジ紙記事「抑留者の妻がブッシュあてに手紙」）】
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631504164.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently Ms Nettle did manage to almost reach Mr Bush and offered him the letter, which he refused to accept.
【ネトル氏はブッシュ氏に手紙をわたす寸前までいったのだが、ブッシュ氏は受け取りを拒んだ。】
●Labor Party - protests lost in pragmatism
【●労働党――お行儀じょうずで抗議はみられず】
And where was the Labor Party voicing its dissent from the War on Iraq? and the policies of George Bush and John Howard?
【対イラク戦争のときから政府のやりかたに異議を唱えていた労働党は今回どうしていたか？ ジョージ・ブッシュとジョン・ハワードの政策にはどんな態度を示したか？】
When Health Minister Tony Abbott demanded that Senators Brown and Nettle be suspended from Parliament, some on the Labor side said "No". When Senator Brown called for a "division" so the matter could be voted on the government dropped its demand.
【トニー・アボット厚生大臣がブラウン上院議員とネトル上院議員の議場からの一時退場を求めたとき、労働党議員のなかにも「ノウ！」と声を上げた者はいた。ブラウン議員が、この問題についての「採決」を求めたが政府はそれを却下した。】
As President Bush shook hands with MPs, Sydney Labor MP Tanya Plibersek walked around and gave Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice a book of speeches by Labor MPs opposing Australia invading Iraq without UN approval. Ms Rice shook Ms Plibersek's hand and took the book with a smile.
【ブッシュ大統領が議員たちと握手をしているときに、シドニー選出の労働党議員ターニャ・プリバーセクがコンドリーザ・ライス国務長官［訳注：ライスは大統領補佐官なのでこれは誤記］につかつかと歩み寄り、国連承認なしのイラク侵略に反対した労働党議員たちの演説を収めた本を渡した。ライス氏はプリバーセク氏に握手して笑顔でその本を受け取った。】
Forty-one ALP federal parliamentarians have written an open letter to George Bush. Read it at the Sydney Morning Herald
【オーストラリア労働党の41人の連邦議員は、ジョージ・ブッシュに公開書簡を出した。これは『シドニー・モーニングヘラルド』に載った。】
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499919.html
The only Labor politicians with the guts to speak out, in the great tradition of Jim Cairns, were Harry Quick and Carmen Lawrence.
【労働党の議員のなかにも、ほんのわずかだが勇敢に大声を上げた人物がいた。ジム・ケアンズの偉大な伝統を実践したそれらの議員とは、ハリー・クイック氏とカーメン・ローレンス氏である。】
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/56203.php
●Bush and Howard do away with accountability and democracy
【ブッシュとハワードは説明責任と民主主義を“抹殺”した】
Bush has refused to give a customary joint media conference during his sleepover stay in Australia. Australian Journalists have been denied the ability to be in the close up media pool following the President around, all 4 places being allocated to the Whitehouse press corps.
【今回のオーストラリア一泊旅行では、ブッシュは慣例の合同記者会見を拒否した。オーストラリアのジャーナリストたちは、大統領に随行するクローズアップ撮影が許された特別待遇取材団への参加を拒否された。特別待遇取材団用の４つの部屋はすべてホワイトハウスからやってきた取材団に提供されたのである。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Secret Service rejected an application from the Canberra press gallery for equal access, on the basis that the journalists did not have the required US security clearances. The Secret Service then declined to allow the journalists to apply for those clearances; no reason was given.
【米国のシークレットサービスは。キャンベラの報道陣が出していた米国記者団と同様の取材をさせてほしいという要請を拒否した。理由は、当地のジャーナリストが大統領密着取材に必要な米国の機密取扱資格を有していないからだという。しかもシークレットサービスは、当地のジャーナリストにそうした資格を付与することまで拒んだのである。理由をまったく語らずにである。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read "Why is Bush avoiding the Australian media? Don't ask" by Mark Riley, Political Correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald.
【『シドニー・モーニングヘラルド』紙に政治記者のマーク・ライリー氏が書いた「なぜブッシュはオーストラリアのメディアを忌避したのか？」をお読みいただきたい。】
Basically democracy in Canberra has been severely curtailed during George Bush's visit. Rights to protest and march have been severely limited. Read Margot Kingston's column in the Sydney Morning Herald: Howard cancels democracy for Bush and beyond: Can we stop him?
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/21/1066631424417.html
【オーストラリア首都の民主主義は、ジョージ・ブッシュの訪問中にすっかり刈り取られてしまった。異議申し立てや街頭行進をする権利は極端に抑え込まれた。『シドニー・モーニングヘラルド』紙のマーゴット・キングストン氏のコラム「ハワード首相がブッシュに迎合して民主主義を抹殺しながら突っ走る：我々は彼を止められるか？」をお読みいただきたい。】
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
● ……たとえば日本の国会に北朝鮮政府の代表者が招かれて演説を行ない、
その場に拉致被害者の会のひとが招かれてこの演説を聴くことになった
としましょう。北朝鮮の政府代表が演説している最中に、被害者の会の
人物や、拉致問題解決で動いている議員が、「わたしの家族をはやく
返して下さい」とか「人間としてまともに扱ってください」と叫んだ
場合、これを日本のメディアは「ヤジを飛ばした」の一言で済ませる
でしょうか？
●日本のメディアが、自分ではまともに取材せず、現地のマスコミ報道を抄訳して
日本に送っていることは歴然としてます。しかも自分でいろいろと調べない
から、オーストラリアでは大きな問題になっている“米軍による拉致拘留”
スキャンダルの意義が理解できず、「ヤジ」などという表現が、まったく
安直に、条件反射的に出てきて、それを吟味せずに記事に書いてしまうのでしょう。
●それにしても「スピーチの自由を愛する」……はないでしょう。日本の新聞社
はワーキングホリデーで遊学している学生さんに記事を書かせているのでしょうか？
（小ブッシュは「free speech」と言ったわけですが、これも通常は「言論の
自由」を意味します。）
● ……ときびしいことを書いたのは、日本のマスコミ報道の紋切り型の馬鹿げた
表現や、取材をしないで大本営発表や現地メディアの抄訳リライトに
甘んじている怠慢ぶりに腹が立ったからです。
オーストラリアの野党議員は、ハワード首相が泣きっ面を晒すほどの奮闘を
したのです。その奮闘ぶりは、冒頭に紹介した写真をみれば明らかでしょう。
一介の議員でも、世界で最も凶暴で強力な「帝国」の独裁者をギャフンと
言わせるくらいのことはできるわけです。この創意と工夫に富んだ
フットワークの軽快な抗議行動のやりかたは、日本の議員たちも学んで
ほしいものですね。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●上記のインディーメディア・レポートのなかで言及されていた
参考記事を掲げておきます。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631547601.html
Charge of the Lightfoot brigade doesn't stop Green protest
By Margo Kingston
October 23, 2003 - 12:56PM
----------------------------------------------------------------
《写真》
Scrum at the top ... Greens Senator Kerry Nettle (third from left) appears to be jostled by Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot (second from left) and other coalition politicians as she attempts to present George W Bush (far right) with a letter from the Habib family regarding the detention of Mamdouh Habib in Guantanamo Bay as Prime Minister John Howard blocks her path after the President's address to Parliament. Photo by Graham Tidy/Canberra Times/POOL
http://smh.com.au/ffxMedia/urlmedia_id_1066631560424_lightfootbig,0.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greens Senator Bob Brown claims he and Senator Kerry Nettle were assaulted by Coalition MPs in the parliamentary chamber to stop them meeting George Bush and one told Senator Nettle she should "die", but their efforts did not stop Senator Brown shaking Mr Bush's hand.
The president's address to Parliament was given amid high tension in the House of Representatives after Senator Brown interrupted with a call to Mr Bush to release two Australian citizens detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay.
Coalition MPs shouted him down as he said: "I call on you to return our Australians (and) treat them as the Americans do (and) we will respect you."
When Kerry Nettle rose later to urge Australia not to sign a free trade agreement with the United States, Coalition MPs again shouted her down. But when Mr Bush responded, "I love free speech", they burst into applause.
As President Bush left the chamber Liberal Senator Ross Lightfoot (Western Australia) and two other unidentifed Coalition MPs, jostled the Green Senators to stop them giving the president a letter from the family of one of the detained Australian citizens. Senator Nettle said Senator Lightfoot told her she should "die".
Senator Brown said Senator Lightfoot was the most physically vigorous with him.
"I was physically elbowed and had my feet trodden on," Senator Brown said. "Despite all that I reached through and had a double handshake with George Bush, including the thumb around." He said Mr Bush returned his gaze and acknowledged him when he said: "I hope you will release our citizens from Guantanamo Bay."
An officer of the Parliament tried to eject Senator Brown after his intervention during the president's speech but he refused and the official walked away.
Mr Howard went bright red and clutched the despatch box. After Mr Bush left the chamber, health minister Tony Abbott demanded that Senators Brown and Nettle be suspended from Parliament.
Coalition MPs yelled out "Yes" but some on the Labor side said "No".
When Senator Brown called for a "division" so the matter could be voted on the government dropped its demand.
Sydney Labor MP Tanya Plibersek walked around the chamber as President Bush shook hands with MPs to give Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice a book of speeches by Labor MPs opposing Australia invading Iraq without UN approval. Ms Rice shook Ms Plibersek's hand and took the book with a smile.
The president later cancelled a photocall with Opposition leader Simon Crean.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631504164.html
Detainee wife has letter for Bush
October 22, 2003
The wife of Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib has written a letter to George W Bush which she hopes to hand deliver to the US president.
Maha Habib and her eight year old son Ahmed will be in parliament as guests of Greens senator Kerry Nettle to hear Mr Bush's address to a joint sitting.
Mrs Habib said her husband had been detained in Pakistan two years ago and had yet to be charged with breaking any laws.
Mr Habib is being held with other suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at the US military base in Cuba.
"In this two years of imprisonment, I have not been able to speak with him," his wife wrote.
Mrs Habib said her youngest child, at three, cannot remember her father.
"Mamdouh has never broken any law of the US or of any country. He is a decent and loyal citizen of Australia where he has lived for 19 years and was in Pakistan for family business.
"In fact, his only crime was that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"If the US government considers that he is a threat to its security then please inform us of his crime and press charges against him.
"If not, then please return him to his family and his country."
Mrs Habib told SBS television she would carry the letter in parliament in the hope of handing it to Mr Bush.
She said she had posted the original to the president.
"I think this will cover what I want to say better if I get to meet him face to face," she told SBS.
"He has committed no crime. A crime has been committed against him. What has he done to deserve what is happening to him.
"I just want to pass a message to all the Australian people. What happened to my husband could happen to any person who's travelling overseas on an Australian passport.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
The Sydney Morning Herald
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/22/1066631499919.html
Mr Bush, here is why we opposed the Iraq war
October 23, 2003
Forty-one ALP federal parliamentarians have written an open letter to George Bush.
----------------------------------------------------------------
《写真》 http://smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1031608280097_2002/09/12/12wld_bush.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear President Bush,
The friendship between our countries is longstanding and deeply felt. We have a great deal in common, particularly our commitment to democracy. We retain our commitment to the ANZUS alliance.
That's why we feel it's important for you to understand why so many Australians opposed the war on Iraq.
Australians have a history of support for international efforts to stop the spread of weapons including weapons of mass destruction and landmines. Weapons inspectors should have been given the time they asked for to peacefully disarm Iraq. No evidence of a massive weapons building program nor capability has emerged since the war. Australia, the US and Britain went to war because of a "clear and present danger" which just did not exist.
The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations. When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used.
What is to prevent other countries from following the example of our attack on Iraq, and arguing the right to preventative self-defence? Why shouldn't North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan?
The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe, not more, because of our actions. Certainly the British Joint Intelligence Committee believes the risk of terrorism will increase due to the war with Iraq.
Our own government knew of this increased risk before the war and refused to tell the Australian people.
Many Australians have continuing concerns about what will happen in Iraq now. Civil unrest continues. The death toll for Iraqis and US, UK and allied troops mounts. The bombing of the United Nations headquarters shocked the world, and it seems that instead of eradicating terrorism in Iraq the country has become a terrorist magnet.
The United States must now redouble its efforts to enlist the help of the world community to bring peace and rebuild Iraq, and then withdraw as soon as practicable. Iraqis must regain control of their destinies and their resources as soon as possible.
While many of us didn't support the war on Iraq, all Australians welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.
Our hope for Iraq is that there will be a strong, stable, democratic government which represents all the people of Iraq, including the ethnic and religious minorities.
Our hope is that the people of Iraq will have control over the rich resources of their country and be able to use those resources for their collective benefit. Our hope for the world is that this mistake will lead us to renew our commitment to the United Nations and its processes for promoting and maintaining global peace.
Signed by:
Dick Adams, Anthony Albanese, Anna Burke, Ann Corcoran, Laurie Ferguson, Jennie George, Steve Gibbons, Sharon Grierson, Alan Griffin, Jill Hall, Kelly Hoare, Julia Irwin, Harry Jenkins, Duncan Kerr, Mark Latham, Carmen Lawrence, Kirsten Livermore, Jann McFarlane, Leo McLeay, Bob McMullan, Daryl Melham, Michelle O'Byrne, Brendan O'Connor, Gavin O'Connor, Tanya Plibersek, Harry Quick, Lindsay Tanner, Maria Vamvakinou. Senators Nick Bolkus, George Campbell, Peter Cook, Trish Crossin, Kay Denman, John Faulkner, Linda Kirk, Kate Lundy, Jan McLucas, Gavin Marshall, Claire Moore, Ruth Webber, Penny Wong.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
The Sydney Morning Herald
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/21/1066631431000.html
Why is Bush avoiding the Australian media? Don't ask
By Mark Riley, Political Correspondent
The Sydney Morning Herald
October 22, 2003
George Bush's word is apparently beyond question. At least, by the Australian press.
The US President has declined a customary joint press conference after his address to the Federal Parliament tomorrow.
The media event, which normally allows two or three questions from Australian media and an equal number from the visiting press, would have been the only official opportunity for Australian journalists to quiz Mr Bush on the Iraq war and its aftermath.
It would also be the only opportunity to ask the US President about the two Australian citizens being detained without charge at Guantanamo Bay.
Australian journalists have also been denied any place in a so-called "close-up media pool" that will follow Mr Bush on all his official stops on the day. All positions in the four-member pool have been allocated to members of the White House press corps.
The US Secret Service rejected an application from the Canberra press gallery for equal access, on the basis that the journalists did not have the required US security clearances. The Secret Service then declined to allow the journalists to apply for those clearances; no reason was given.
A marquee has been set up in the grounds of The Lodge to allow the American journalists to file their stories. No Australian media will be allowed on the grounds.
A member of the team put together by Mr Howard's department to make press arrangements for the visit conceded yesterday that Australian media will learn of events at Government House and The Lodge from news reports filed in the US.
Asked why there would be no joint press conference with Mr Bush and Mr Howard, the spokesman said: "Because it isn't on the itinerary."
Mr Bush and Mr Howard had joint media conferences both times the Prime Minister visited the US this year.
The Chinese President, Hu Jintao, has agreed to participate in a joint press conference, with two questions from the Australian media and two from the travelling Chinese press, after he addresses Parliament on Thursday.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Sydney Morning Herald.
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/21/1066631424417.html
Howard cancels democracy for Bush and beyond: Can we stop him?
By Margo Kingston
October 21, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
【画像】Illustration by Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com
http://smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1066631422671_2003/10/22/mdavies_liberty.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
G'day. I gagged at Mark Riley's story today, Say what you like, but don't expect Bush to hear. Not only has Howard moved the Bush protest far away from Parliament House so George won't see it, he's banned the use of loudspeakers so he won't hear it either:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by the US President, George Bush, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like - just as long as they can't be heard. Last week, the Federal Parliament's presiding officers announced that no members of the public would be allowed into Parliament on Thursday or Friday, when the leaders deliver historic addresses to the "people's house". Now, organisers of an anti-war protest have been told they have been banned from using a public address system anywhere in the precinct encircling Parliament. The only spot made available for protests is at the back of Old Parliament House in Federation Mall. But the speakers must be pointed away from the new Parliament House so that no one inside, particularly the two presidents, can hear the protest speeches. The organisers will also have to find a way to carry the stage and the equipment to the site. All roads servicing the area will be closed from early Thursday morning, preventing the protesters from bringing in their buses.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It gets worse. I made inquiries after receiving this email from Bronte Germaine:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will there be an opportunity for Australian political journalists to freely question George Bush tomorrow? While our parliament has "questions without notice", the US relies on journalists to ask those questions. But no administration has had as few press conferences, and US journalists who have "access" play ball with the president so their "access" is not denied. While the president is in Australia he must play by our rules or clear off. If free access is denied, this must be the biggest story tomorrow, surely. If there is free access, I hope our journalists take the opportunity for some more robust questioning than "W" is used to.
----------------------------------------------------------------
George and John won't hold a press conference, so Australian journalists won't be allowed to ask him any questions on behalf of the Australian people. Not only that, journos have to be in Parliament by 9am and can't leave until after Bush does, so we can't even report the protest! If you're at the protest, please email me a report.
What's the point of this Bush whistlestop? Bush is so ignorant of our circumstances that he thought it was a compliment to dub us sheriff of our region, yet while he's here he won't see real Australians, hear them or meet them. The trip is for our 'representatives' to swoon before him, our businesspeople to beg him for favours and our defence people to salute him. It's a strange free world Bush leads, the one Howard has scripted.
And Howard did it to the Thais. Bangkok reader Tony Williams writes:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thought your readers might like to know that whilst Little Johnny is here in Bangkok for the APEC fiasco he's allowed City Hall to close Lumpini Park (our equivalent of Sydney's Royal Botanic Gardens) from 4 p.m. on his behalf so that he can have the opportunity to go jogging in the park. The closure of the entire park and the cost of the security forces required to provide the park for his sole use is absurd, but what is more disturbing is the eviction of all the Thais who use this park daily for their recreation and relaxation. If he really wants to gain political mileage, he should go jogging alongside the thousands of Thais who use Lumpini Park every day and meet real Thai people enjoying themselves and satisfying their well-being. Ah, but that would contradict the travel warning advice issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra!
----------------------------------------------------------------
They're in league, these two, in the most radical, anti-democratic agenda I've observed in my lifetime, and even George's Dad can't stand it! (Bush Sr.'s 'message' to Bush Jr)
George Jnr and JW Howard have decided that real democracy doesn't suit their corporate mates and backers (controllers?) so they're destroying it, piece by piece. I ran my scenario by you in Howard's roads to absolute power and Faultlines in Howard's plan for absolute power, and the Howard strategy for total control has become even clearer in the few months since.
And Labor? David Spratt in North Fitzroy, Victoria:
Last Friday I resigned from the Labor Party after 20 years. Simon Crean is completely dead in the water, seemingly surrounded by little more than flotsam and jetsam. Here's what I wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon, I can take it no longer. Iraq lies in ruins, occupied by a superpower whose strategic worldview is full spectrum dominance. The desire and right of the people of Iraq to democratically determine their own affairs is indefinitely denied. War is justified by a lie. The credibility of George Bush and Tony Blair continue to plummet, and so should that of John Howard.
And what are you, the Australian opposition leader worried about? You're worried about offending George Bush!
In February this year, opposition to war on Iraq came from every sector of Australian society, including faith organisations, former prime ministers, most of the military chiefs of Australia's 1991 Gulf War forces, business leaders, aid organisations, intelligence analysts and the entertainment industry. Why was the government not forced to listen and act?
The most significant factor was the weakness of the ALP. In Europe, parties of the left and the right had been swayed by public opinion, but in Australia Labor under your leadership simply went missing. For six months Labor sat on its hands and gave no support to the anti-war movement. You and Kevin Rudd prevaricated and squirmed this way and that, and did not say this war was always going to be wrong, with or without the UN Security Council. There was a roar of silence from the Labor State premiers. And then at the last moment, Simon, you said you were against the war, and became mute. At a Brisbane rally, you were booed from the stage; your opposition's weakness had given John Howard free rein.
And now it's all about cheer-leading George Bush. My 20-year membership of the ALP has come to an end.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke at the launch of the University of Technology's "right to know" conference last Friday night on the frustrations of dealing with democracy's so-called watchdog, the Australian Electoral Commission, on Tony Abbott's 'Honest Politics' trust. I published Julian Burnside's despairing speech critiquing our media at Media silence abets Ruddock's atrocities, and hope to publish the speeches of Oxfam CEO Andrew Hewett and ABC hero Quentin Dempster soon. Here is the opening remarks by Chris Nash, director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at UTS:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The PR2K conferences were established in 2001 as an annual series to explore issues in and around the Public Right to Know, with particular reference to any potential Bill of Rights in a republican constitution for Australia.
That mission may have looked a little quixotic in 2001, especially in the light of the divisive defeat of the republican referendum two years earlier. The Tampa and September 11 events of that year also gave an urgency to humanitarian, religious, ethnic and international perspectives that might have made concern with a national constitution appear rather bookish and even diversionary. Nonetheless, our first conference was a very strong one, particularly in the opening night focus on the plight of refugees.
And events since that time, especially over the last twelve months, have made it very clear that the lack of entrenched constitutional protection of civil rights in this country have left us legally exposed in these increasingly turbulent times in a way the citizens of few other liberal democracies are. Collectively these developments seriously undermine the assumptions most would have about the fundamentals of their political system.
Specifically, the ASIO Act 2003 federally and in NSW the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 are serious assaults on the freedoms to remain silent and for journalists to protect the confidentiality of sources. They go beyond the restraints imposed by comparable legislation in the UK and USA, both of which states have much greater experience of terrorism within their borders but also have constitutional protections of civil rights.
The unlimited detention of asylum-seekers challenges the protections of habeas corpus, and draws dangerous divisions between categories of people who come under the jurisdiction of Australian law.
A bedrock principle of the Westminster system of government is that a Minister is accountable for the actions of his or her department. But the politics of 'plausible deniability' and ministerial ignorance pursued in the 'children overboard' affair, and other less brutal instances, turn that principle on its head. It is now the role of senior public servants specifically not to inform the Minister or indeed Prime Minister of politically sensitive decisions they are making in his or her name, precisely so that the Minister can't be held accountable. And of course the public servants won't be held accountable either - to the contrary, the evidence to date is that their careers will prosper.
The constitutional convention of Ministerial responsibility has been torn up - there is no now no operative constitutional provision for the accountability of government action through ministers accept through a winner-takes-all ballot at periodic elections.
Journalists, particularly in the parliamentary press galleries, are finding it increasingly difficult to get responses from Ministers to their written questions, or to question politicians at proper press conferences in a room around a desk or podium. Rather, they're deluged with transcripts of ministerial speeches or appearances on talkback radio, or given occasional doorstop interviews where politicians can disappear through a door when the questions get difficult.
The squeezing of the media isn't confined to individual journalists. The national broadcasters, ABC and SBS, have come under sustained assault in the fulfilment of their responsibilities to deal with the Australian people as citizens, and not as potential consumers for the goods and services being advertised.
The ABC has suffered a cumulative cut of 25% in its real budget over the last fifteen years, under both Coalition and Labor governments. Most recently, the then Minister for Communication and the Arts, Senator Alston, and a number of rightwing commentators have floated the idea that the ABC should cease to be the national broadcaster, and become a subscriber-supported organization like the marginalised PBS network in the United States.
Truly, some of the institutional pillars of public and political life that have taken for granted for most of the period since Federation have been brought into question. But precisely who is allowed to ask the questions is also now a matter of contention. The federal government has proposed the prohibition on public comment and criticism of government policy by non-government organizations funded as charities by government. It is a truly stunning assault on freedom of speech, not to mention the rights of the disadvantaged to organise and represent themselves collectively, that would be inconceivable in the contemporary North American or European context. It underlines just how fragile the position of fundamental democratic rights is in this country without entrenched constitutional protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's all getting so obvious the mainstream media's refusal to see it indicates that something's stopping it. Check out Will Hutton's piece There's a Revolution Going On in the US. It begins:
Britain's political class and commentators just don't get contemporary America. They don't understand the revolutionary nature of US conservatism and the profundity of its ambitions. They don't understand the extraordinary self-serving venality of corporate America and its Republican allies. They don't understand the ruthless pursuit of radical conservative interests and disregard for all others. They think, like Tony Blair, that America is having an eccentric wobble and that if George Bush is engaged with, it will sooner or later be business as usual. They should read these two books (The Great Unravelling: From Boom to Bust in Three Short Years by Paul Krugman and The Roaring Nineties by Joseph Stiglitz) and be disabused...
Krugman states a truth from which many still shrink: todays conservatives are radical revolutionaries who do not accept the legitimacy of America's current political system and aim to subvert it. Their goals are the establishment of an American military imperium abroad, under American rather than international law, and to minimize the responsibilities of the rich and corporate America to the common weal at home. This is so breathtaking, says Krugman, that to say it risks being condemned as alarmist. Indeed, quoting Henry Kissinger, he argues it is one of the characteristics of revolutionary power that it draws just this response; it is those who counsel adaptation to circumstances who are considered balanced and sane. Consensual mainstream opinion cannot come to terms with the radicalism of the revolutionaries - it is too far outside its ambit. It seems delusional, almost hysterical, to acknowledge what is really happening.
Hutton sets out Krugman's five rules when reporting such a regime - journos awake!:
1. Don't assume any policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals
2. Do some homework to discover the real goals
3. Don't assume the normal rules of politics apply
4. Expect a revolutionary power to respond to criticism by attacking
5. Don't think there's a limit to a revolutionary powers objectives
For more info on Krugman see Bush administration ignites condemning fire in columnist. For more on Joseph Stiglitz see Blowing the whistle on Dubyanomics
I recommend a close read of a wonderful open letter written by Democrat Ernest Partridge to a friend in Liberal slant. Headline: Is This the Kind of Country That You Want? A Letter to a Republican Friend. It echoes conversations happening now in Australia, little by little, partly because of the cross-party opposition to invading Iraq. Webdiary is reflecting a little of this stirring: the contributions of worried conservative Daniel Moye, who became a Webdiary contributor after reading 'Howard's roads to absolute power', are a good example.
These conversations will, I think, get deeper and more urgent. Would any of you like to have a go at a letter to a friend of different political persuasion along the lines of Ernest's? Here's a taste:
----------------------------------------------------------------
At no time in my memory, or yours, I suspect, has the rivalry between the two major parties been more mean-spirited and poisonous. And yet, despite our separate party affiliations, we remain close friends as we have for all the decades since high school. Moreover, I see no reason for this to change, nor, I trust, do you.
Surely you know that I have never regarded you as a fascist, just as I know that you have never thought of me as a traitor. Yet these are the kinds of labels that are routinely hurled by one fringe of our respective parties against the other.
Such mutual incivility is more than acutely unpleasant, it strikes at the foundation of our republic. Thus it falls upon cooler heads, such as ourselves, to reject the insult and abuse, and to restore the calm civic dialog and mutual respect that is the foundation of a just and secure political order.
Sadly, much more is required if we are to restore our republic to its former health and vigor. For our country and its founding political principles are gravely endangered by a radicalism that has taken control of all branches of our government as well as our mass media.
This means that it has, regretfully, taken control of the Republican Party - your party. It is thus imperative that moderates, such as yourself, take back their party.
----------------------------------------------------------------
...
Our political differences have been a constant topic of conversation between us over the years, occasionally heated, but never placing our friendship in any great peril. You see, we are both moderates. And while, in our arguments, our attention was understandably focused upon our differences, we took little notice of our common ground of commitment and belief.
You correctly describe yourself as a Conservative. I am willing to be called a liberal, despite the recent disparagement of that once honorable label. However, because of the abuse of that word, I prefer to call myself a progressive. Conventional wisdom treats conservative and liberal as opposing point of view. I prefer to see them as complementary. Thus and authentic conservative and a liberal can hold a great deal in common...
For now I must urge you to look directly and soberly upon your Party. With the aforementioned principles of conservatism firmly in your mind, ask yourself: Does this organization embody your conservative convictions? Do those public figures who so readily describe themselves as conservative authentically fit that label? Where your Party is leading our country, do you truly wish to follow?...
Face it, my friend: your party has deserted you and your fellow moderates. All worthy content has been drained from this party, and all that remains is the empty shell with the name, Republican, and the false attribution of the word conservative.
If you are to take back your party, you must paradoxically leave it for a brief season. Clearly, the moderates can not now wrest control of the party from the radicals - certainly, not before the 2004 election which, if Bush wins a second term, will solidify the radical right control of our government for another generation.
If moderate republicanism is to revive, the radicals must be repudiated and thrown out of power next year. To accomplish this, you and your fellow moderates must form an alliance with the moderate Democrats - with whom, I submit, you share a significant inventory of political ideals and policies. You differ with these Democrats primarily in name - and what's in a name?
When I reflect upon the political landscape today, and upon the dilemma faced by moderate Republicans such as yourself, I am reminded of the closing scene in the magnificent war drama, The Bridge on the River Kwai. Col. Nicholson (Alec Guinness), the commander of the British prisoners of war, becomes so personally invested in the project of building the bridge, that he forgets that he is assisting the enemy. Seeing the explosive charges set by the Allied saboteurs to destroy the bridge, he rushes down to the river to save the bridge and, upon encountering the British and American commandos, is suddenly shocked into a recognition of his authentic loyalties and duties. My God, he says, what have I done?
So, in closing, I must ask you: Wherein is your ultimate loyalty? To your party or to your country? If you reflect soberly on what has become of your party, on the full import of the crisis facing our country, and upon you duty as a conservative and as a patriot, I am confident that you will arrive at wise and just conclusion.
***
And now, emails from Australians worried about where we're going, and what they can, and are, doing about it.
Peter Gellatly in Canada
I would go further than Julian Burnside in Media silence abets Ruddock's atrocities. To me, the Aussie press - including Fairfax, and especially The Age - seems entirely uninterested not only in uncomfortable issues, but particularly in providing a conduit for "outsider" voices. In this way is community debate and dissent smothered. Webdiary remains a treasured anomaly.
As to the International Criminal Court and the relevant Aussie legislation regarding crimes against humanity, I venture Julian would agree that participation/enactment by Western democracies is done on the basis of a winking "but we don't mean us"! Yet there is the law, in black and white.
A decade or so ago, I seem to recall a British case where a citizen petitioned the courts to force the country's Attorney General to do his job and bring prosecution. Don't recall the outcome, save that the tactic proved somewhat effective. So a question: is there some equivalent Aussie legal provision whereby Julian et al could pressure Ministerial enforcement of the country's laws?
***
Marilyn Shepherd in Adelaide, refugee activist
Last time I saw Julian Burnside he was delightedly on his haunches talking to Nagina, Montezar and Alamdar Bakhtiaryi, the most abused and maligned children currently in this country of ours. The kids were actually impressed by this famous man and his delight was obvious considering his part in their release.
Several times during his inaugural Don Dunstan lecture Nagina was a bit overcome, remembering her own time in the hell that is Woomera. Nagina knew she was finally safe and with friends, as I hugged her and Lowitja O'Donoghue talked to Alamdar and Montezar.
A powerful and impressive oration earned Julian a 5 minute standing ovation, richly deserved, for his commitment and passion about the treatment of refugees.
I was behind Julian in court room 5 of the Adelaide Federal Court when he argued for the release of Amin Mastipour, who had been in an isolation cell for 45 days. Mr Roder for the minister, Mr Ruddock, claimed that this nation is allowed to keep asylum seekers in any conditions we want and it would still be lawful. It seemed they were happy to lock Mr Mastipour in isolation for the term of his natural life.
His initial crime was to refuse to be strip-searched in front of his 7 year old daughter, a daughter who was subsequently stolen from him by force and trickery and deported to Iran.
Mr Mastipour spent 60 days in that cell before Justice Mansfield ordered his release to Maribynong or Villawood. Last I heard he was in Melbourne.
On Saturday I was at the airport with a group of carers and supporters, including lawyers, Afghan refugees, a Catholic priest and others as we were forced to put two wonderful boys on a plane in a vicious pantomime. These kids were 18 and 19, sent to Australia for protection and given Woomera.
St Ignatius College wanted them to stay, we wanted them to stay, but no-one at all in the department would budge. These kids had to go to the most evil place on earth, according to the US state department on Monday, stay there and try and survive for 6 weeks while DIMIA worked out return visas as students.
Alexander Downer knew the boys and he wrote a character reference, but he would not even try and stop this cruel charade. Just the week before another boy just like these two, another war orphan, was granted permanent residence. These are the orphans of Afghanistan, a nation we have helped bomb to bits.
For his treatment of the Bakhtiaryi children alone Ruddock should spend the rest of his life in prison.
We must appeal to Amanda Vanstone not to imprison new-born Mahzar at the end of the week.
To do so would be monstrous is the extreme - he is only 6 days old, already labelled as an "unlawful non-citizen" and his mum has spent 34 months today in prison even though DIMIA knew all along that Ali was in the country as a refugee. (High Court file S134/2002 - 4th February).
With the law as it stands, according to the Commonwealth Solicitor General David Bennett on 30th September in the High Court case for the kids, "the detention of children is more finite than the detention of adults because they can end it when they turn 18".
Think about that. Mahzar is 6 days old. No-one in the media reported that remark as noteworthy, but my first thought was for Roquia's babe, then unborn. The possibility, as it stands, is that Mahzar could spend 18 years in jail, for being born.
Also on the weekend, as you know Margo, it was the 2nd anniversary of the drowning of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men on SIEV-X. Not a bloody word in the media. Not interesting anymore, if it ever was.
***
Glenn Floyd
The Australian nation and our society has altered permanently, directly at the hand of the Prime Minister John Howard and former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock. Both these men have profoundly subverted our nationally cherished ethical and democratic values, once fiercely held and defended in periods of great human and national challenge within our open, loving society.
There was a time when we faced overwhelming odds, by any historical measure far more overwhelming than any of those of the past three years. We both faced these challenges together as a nation and never at any time believed we would resile from our widely and deeply understood duty to address our obligations and our common belief in our nation, ourselves, our ethics and our democracy.
As a nation under these two men, we have demonstrated we no longer stand for these universal values of human integrity and dignity.
The essence of depth of these treasured values, deeply felt and abided since nationhood, are concisely enshrined in a United Nations General Assembly resolution of 2000, the momentous Millennium Declaration. This statement of world-agreed fervent belief reminds us these values are everlasting and of perpetual beauty and may never be tarnished by any national politicians anywhere at any time.
The impact of the declaration is profound, as it encapsulates what we once proudly stood for and what we have lost.
I am no longer able to accept my hitherto legally defined being as an Australian, and choose world citizenship over that of this nation. I adopt the Universal Declaration Of Humanity as the only means of ethically existing under the damaged status of this nation and society. The move is not one loss or lament, it is one of great pride and restoration in belief in humanity and our common destiny. While national dignity will be destroyed by many politicians throughout history, human dignity remains sacrosanct.
I take this stand in part because of Prime Minister John Howard's damage to the historically honoured reputations of all Australians worldwide. This destruction of our reputation was caused by attacking and killing innocent Iraqi people after an immoral declaration of war. This heinous act was perpetrated when the disarmament of Iraq was being honourably managed with the full agreement of the Iraqi authorities and under the unanimous agreement of and at the demand of the United Nations.
This killer and butcher of innocents took this morally indefensible decision to kill in the full knowledge that he had not undertaken the paramount responsibility of his position and fully and utterly verified the spurious forged and corrupt intelligence of USA and British leaders. He is an accessory.
In addition, I am not able to rest in ethical good conscience knowing that Australia is internationally reviled as implementing a barbarous detention system declared by the United Nations as the most brutal in the democratised world. This brutality was consistently and mercilessly metered out on weak and helpless people under the barbaric, ruthless and chilling personality of former Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock. This man's continuing actions against innocent women, children, men and families have breached the U.N. Conventions on Human Rights and Refugees.
We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our own societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. Our politicians have a duty therefore to all the world's people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.
Upon the innate goodness, the innocence of and the name of Ali Ismail Abbas, the 12 year old Iraqi boy whose parents and brothers and sisters were slaughtered and who had his arms blown off by John Howard's warring butchery, I also pledge my life tos removing John Howard and Phillip Ruddock from power. I will stand at Canberra this Thursday 23 October as a proud world citizen protesting the presence of the barbaric American warring butcher.
The Universal Declaration Of Humanity
2003 Glenn Floyd Australia
In the absolute interests of and to ethically serve the posterity of all humanity, I - Glenn Francis Floyd - do solemnly declare that I hereby fully renounce my Australian citizenship and nationalistic identity in all its forms forthwith.
I accordingly adopt the status of world citizen as defined, in spirit and intent, by the United Nations General Assembly Millennium Declaration.
I declare my future allegiance to honourably align my being as a human, my personal philosophy, my indebted service and future to the welfare of all humankind and all species of our planet Earth.
I make this declaration for the purposes of fully accepting in totality all responsibilities, rights and obligations in perpetuity bestowed upon all nation's citizens, as paramount over my own nation's stated and implied obligations and rights. I will no longer serve any nation over humanity.
Signed: Glenn Francis Floyd
Twentieth Day Of October 2003
***
Brian Gore
Many of us within the Catholic Justice and Peace groups have been thoroughly disgusted with the Australian Government's attitude to the UN and its lack of adherence to the principles of International Law. This is our little protest.
Columban Mission Institute
420 Bobbin Head Road
North Turramurra NSW 2074
OPEN LETTER TO ALL ELECTED FEDERAL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
We, the undersigned organisations and individuals, are concerned at attempts to discredit and undermine the role of the United Nations as exemplified by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which was done without the endorsement of the UN.
Pope John Paul II has said that the United Nations has a more important role than ever in the reconstruction of nations after conflict and disasters. This is not so true where conflict could and should have been avoided. He also said that it was important to adhere to International Law to achieve world peace. The Pope had declared that the invasion of Iraq would be immoral and did his best to stop it.
At the reception of Letters of Credence on new ambassadors to the Vatican, the Pope said:
"Since the period of the great world conflicts, the international community has provided itself with organizations and specific legislation so that war will never break out again, which kills innocent civilian people, devastating regions and leaving wounds that take a long time to heal."
In announcing John Paul II's topic for the 2004 World Day of Peace recently, the Vatican said that the United Nations is "irreplaceable" as a forum for international dialogue and world peace, and "the Holy See has not stopped supporting it". We fully endorse the words of Pope John Paul 11.
Australian Governments in the past have made significant contributions to the foundation and development of United Nations organizations. We are very concerned that the current Australian Government is contributing to the undermining of the hard won advances in human rights, recognition for which the United Nations stands.
Those who denigrate the effectiveness of the United Nations as a global peacekeeping force and decision-making body should remember that it is only as good and effective as its members want it to be. "If the UN 'fails', it is because governments fail," says Margaret Reynolds, National President of the United Nations Association of Australia.
We reject totally the attempts to sideline the role of the United Nations and to manipulate and ignore International Law. Creating solutions to international problems through the United Nations, while not perfect, we believe is the most democratic way at present to building a more peaceful, sustainable world community.
The "Coalition of the Willing" ignored the UN and the majority of the international community and invaded Iraq. Now they want the UN and other nations to clean up the mess they have made. We ignore the UN at our peril.
As Church groups and individuals who work for peace and justice in Australia and the world community, we believe that we need to work together to express support for the role of the United Nations as a platform for world peace.
We as Australian voters want you our elected political leaders to uphold the commitment of previous Australian Governments to the Charter of the United Nations and to speak out against any attempts to diminish the role of the United Nations and adherence to International Law.
Yours Sincerely
Fr Brian Gore, Convenor Columban Centre for Peace Ecology and Justice
Br Shane Wood cfc, Broome Diocesan Office of Justice, Ecology and Peace
Ms Margaret Reynolds, United Nations Association of Australia
Mr John Dacey Community Education Coordinator & Mr Roger O'Halloran Executive Director, PALMS Australia
Sr Margaret Hinchey, Convenor Catholics in Coalition for Justice & Peace
Sr Patty Fawkner SGS, Director Uniya Jesuit Social Justice Centre
Ms Margaret Perkins, Chairperson Rockhampton Social Justice Action Group
Mr James McGillicuddy, Coordinator PolMin, Australian Political Ministry Network Ltd
Fr Claude Mostowik msc, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice & Peace Centre
Mrs Rita Camilleri, Pax Christi Australia
Sr MaryLou Moorehead rscj, Pax Christi New South Wales
Mr Marc Purcell, Executive Officer, Catholic Commission for Justice & Peace, Melbourne
Bro Steve Cram cfc, Edmund Rice Centre, Sydney
Ms Julie Morgan, Promoter of Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, Franciscan Friars Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei.
Sr Judith Dynan, Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, Australia
Sr Aileen Crowe fmm, NetAct, A Project of Catholic Social Justice, Welfare & Educational Agencies
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
●小ブッシュがオーストラリア国会で行なった演説の全文を紹介しておきます。
英文のままですが、二回目の中断の直後に「I love free speech」と
軽口を叩いたことも、ちゃんと記録されています。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●小ブッシュがオーストラリア国会で行なった演説の全文
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-bush-text,0,7642828.story
Text of Bush's Speech in Australia
By Associated Press
October 22, 2003, 10:20 PM EDT
Text of President Bush's speech to the Australian parliament Thursday, as supplied by the White House:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Governor General Michael Jeffery, Prime Minister John Howard, Speaker of the House, leader of the Senate, leader of the opposition Simon Crean, distinguished members of the House and Senate, premiers, members of the diplomatic corps, ladies and gentlemen:
Laura and I are honored to be in the Commonwealth of Australia. I want to thank the prime minister for his invitation, I want to thank the members and senators for convening this session of parliament, and I want to thank the people of Australia for their gracious welcome.
Five months ago, your prime minister was a distinguished visitor of ours in Crawford, Texas, to our ranch. You might remember that I called him a "man of steel." That's Texan for "fair dinkum." Prime Minister John Howard is a leader of exceptional courage, who exemplifies the finest qualities of one of the world's great democracies. I'm proud to call him friend.
Americans know Australia as a land of independent, enterprising and goodhearted people. We see something familiar here, and something we like. Australians are fair-minded, and tolerant, and easygoing. Yet in times of trouble and danger, Australians are the first to step forward, to accept the hard duties, and to fight bravely until the fighting is done.
In a hundred years of experience, American soldiers have come to know the courage and good fellowship of the diggers at their side. We fought together in the battle at Le Hamel, together in the Coral Sea, together on New Guinea and on the Korean peninsula, in Vietnam. And in the war on terror, once again, we are at each other's side.
In this war, the Australian and American people have witnessed the methods of the enemy. We saw the scope of their hatred on Sept. 11, 2001. We saw the depth of their cruelty on Oct. 12, 2002. We saw destruction, and grief -- and we saw our duty. As free nations in peril, we must fight this enemy with all of our strength.
No country can live peacefully in the world that terrorists would make for us. And no people are immune from the sudden violence that has come to an office building, or an airplane, or a nightclub, or a city bus. Your nation and mine have known the shock, and felt the sorrow, and laid the dead to rest -- and we refuse to live our lives at the mercy of murderers.
The nature of the terrorist threat defines the strategy we are using to fight it. These committed killers will not be stopped by negotiations. They will not respond to reason. The terrorists cannot be appeased -- they must be found, and they must be fought, and they must be defeated.
The terrorists hide and strike within free societies -- so we are draining their funds, and disrupting their plans, and finding their leaders. The skilled work of Thai and Indonesian and other authorities in finding and capturing the terrorist Hambali, suspected of planning the murders in Bali and other attacks, was a model of the determined campaign we are waging.
The terrorists seek safe harbor to plot and to train -- so we are holding the allies of terror to account. America, Australia and other nations acted in Afghanistan to destroy the home base of al-Qaida and rid that country of a terror regime. And the Afghan people, especially the Afghan women, do not miss the bullying, and beatings, and public executions at the hands of the Taliban.
The terrorists hope to gain chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, the means to match their hatred. So we are confronting outlaw regimes that aid terrorists, and pursue weapons of mass destruction and defy the demands of the world. America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer.
Since the liberation of Iraq, we have discovered Saddam's clandestine network of biological laboratories, the design work on prohibited long-range missiles, his elaborate campaign to hide illegal weapons programs. Saddam Hussein spent years frustrating U.N. inspectors for a simple reason: because he was violating U.N. demands. And in the end, rather than surrender his programs and abandon his lies, he chose defiance and his own undoing.
Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons, or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms. Surely not the families of the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East.
(INTERRUPTION)
Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. Today, Saddam's regime is gone, and no one should mourn its passing.
In the months leading up to our action in Iraq, Australia and America went to the United Nations. We are committed to multilateral institutions, because global threats require a global response. We are committed to collective security. And collective security requires more than solemn discussions and sternly worded pronouncements; it requires collective will. If the resolutions of the world are to be more than ink on paper, they must be enforced. If the institutions of the world are to be more than debating societies, they must eventually act. If the world promises serious consequences for the defiance of the lawless, then serious consequences must follow. Because we enforced Resolution 1441, and used force in Iraq as a last resort, there is one more free nation in the world, and all free nations are more secure.
We accepted our obligations with open eyes, mindful of the sacrifices that had been made and those to come. The burdens fall most heavily on the men and women of our armed forces and their families. The world has seen the bravery and skill of the Australian military. Your special operations forces were among the first units on the ground in Iraq. And in Afghanistan, the first casualty among America's allies was Australian: Special Air Service Sgt. Andrew Russell. This afternoon, I will lay a wreath at the Australian War Memorial, in memory of Sergeant Russell and the long line of Australians who have died in service to this nation. And my nation honors their service to the cause of freedom, to the cause we share.
Members and senators, with decisive victories behind us, we have decisive days ahead. We cannot let up in our offensive against terror, even a bit. And we must continue to build stability and peace in the Middle East and Asia as the alternatives to hatred and fear.
We seek the rise of freedom and self-government in Afghanistan and Iraq for the benefit of their people, as an example to their neighbors and for the security of the world. America and Australia are helping the people of both those nations to defend themselves, to build the institutions of law and democracy and to establish the beginnings of free enterprise. These are difficult tasks in civil societies wrecked by years of tyranny. And it should surprise no one that the remnants and advocates of tyranny should fight liberty's advance. The advance of liberty will not be halted. The terrorists and Taliban and Saddam holdouts are desperately trying to stop our progress. They will fail. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq measure progress every day. They are losing the habits of fear and they are gaining the habits of freedom.
Some are skeptical about the prospects for democracy in the Middle East and wonder if its culture can support free institutions. In fact, freedom has always had skeptics. Some doubted that Japan and other Asian countries could ever adopt the ways of self-government. The same doubts have been heard at various times about Germans and Africans. At the time of the Magna Carta, the English were not considered the most promising recruits for democracy. And to be honest, sophisticated observers had serious reservations about the scruffy travelers who founded our two countries. Every milestone of liberty was considered impossible before it was achieved. In our time, we must decide our own belief: either freedom is the privilege of an elite few, or it is the right and capacity of all humanity.
By serving our ideals, we also serve our interests. If the Middle East remains a place of anger and hopelessness and incitement, this world will tend toward division, and chaos, and violence. Only the spread of freedom and hope in the Middle East, in the long term, will bring peace to that region and beyond. And the liberation of more than 50 million Iraqis and Afghans from tyranny is progress to be proud of.
Our nations must also confront the immediate threat of proliferation. We cannot allow the growing ties of trade, and the forces of globalization, to be used for the secret transport of lethal materials. So our two countries are joining others in the Proliferation Security Initiative. We are preparing to search planes, ships and trains and trucks carrying suspect cargo and to seize weapons or missile shipments that raise proliferation concerns. Last month, Australia hosted our first maritime interdiction exercise in the Coral Sea. Australia and the United States are also keeping pressure on Iran to conform to the letter and spirit of its nonproliferation obligations. We are working together to convince North Korea that the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will bring only further isolation. The wrong weapons, the wrong technology, in the wrong hands, has never been so great a danger, and we are meeting that danger together.
And our nations have a special responsibility throughout the Pacific to help keep the peace, to ensure the free movement of people and capital and information and advance the ideals of democracy and freedom. America will continue to maintain a forward presence in Asia and continue to work closely with Australia. Today, America and Australia are working with Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore and other nations to expand trade and fight terror to keep the peace in the Taiwan Straits.
Your country is hosting President Hu Jintao. Australia's agenda with China is the same as my country's. We are encouraged by China's cooperation in the war against terror. We are working with China to ensure the Korean peninsula is free of nuclear weapons. We see a China that is stable and prosperous, a nation that respects the peace of its neighbors and works to secure the freedom of its own people.
Security in the Asia-Pacific region will always depend on the willingness of nations to take responsibility for their neighborhood, as Australia is doing. Your service and your sacrifice helped to establish a new government, and a new nation, in East Timor. And working with New Zealand and other Pacific island states, you are helping the Solomon Islands re-establish order and build a just government. By your principled actions, Australia is leading the way to peace in Southeast Asia and America is grateful.
Together with my country, Australia is also promoting greater economic opportunity.
(INTERRUPTION)
I love free speech. Our nations are now working to complete a U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement that will add momentum of free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region, while producing jobs in our own countries.
The relationship between America and Australia is vibrant and vital. Together, we will meet the challenges and the perils of our time. In another time, when the Philippines were on the verge of falling and your country faced the prospect of invasion, Gen. Douglas MacArthur addressed members of the Australian parliament. He spoke of a code that unites our two nations, the code of free people, which, he said, "embraces the things that are right, and condemns the things that are wrong."
More than 60 years later, that code still guides us. We call evil by its name, and stand for the freedom that leads to peace. Our alliance is strong. We value, more than ever, the unbroken friendship between the Australian and American peoples. My country is grateful to you, and to all the Australian people, for your clear vision and your strength of heart. And I thank you for your hospitality. May God bless you all.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
