| ★阿修羅♪ > Ψ空耳の丘Ψ42 > 1119.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
| Tweet |
(回答先: 情報感謝！「パンケーキ」がどんどん崩壊します（笑）：本文なし 投稿者 バルセロナより愛を込めて 日時 2006 年 2 月 27 日 09:41:38)
こんにちは
スレッドに関係なくて大変申し訳ないのですがこの場をお借りして、以下、
もしご存知でしたら教えて下さい。
・先日ご紹介いただいたプラウダ英語版の記事に、９１１直前にWTCで停電と
ネットアクセスが不可になったとの記述がありましたが、他の媒体等で
この点に言及しているものをご存知でしたら教えて下さいませ。
・スペインでパーレヴィ一家に関する報道はありますか？
実は数年前、イラク攻撃開始前後から、イタリアで何度かこの一家の特集を
目にしているため、奇妙に思っていました。
紙媒体は新聞系のニュース週刊誌やバラエティ誌などで、ゴシップとは別に
「祖国帰還を切望する（＊ホンマかいな？）悲劇の一家」
「祖国を想い、支援者を集める長男」 ってな書き方がされています。
テレビはソラヤ王妃の連続ドラマを放映。あの一家がいかに世俗化・民主化
（＝西洋化ですね）に努め、いかに理不尽な形で国を追われたか と描かれて
いました。
まさか？まさか？今更それはありえないと思っていたところ、ニューヨーカーの
最新号にこんな記事があったもので、そちらの状況も知りたいと思った次第です。
http://www.newyorker.com/press
Issue of 2006-03-06
Posted 2006-02-26
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 26, 2006
THIS WEEK IN
THE NEW YORKER
PRESS CONTACTS:
Perri Dorset, (212) 286-5898
Daniel Kile, (212) 286-5996
Exiles and the Future of Iran
In “Exiles” (p. 48), in the March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, Connie Bruck reports that many Iranian exiles are positioning themselves to get support from the Bush Administration in the hopes of being able to fill any ensuing power vacuum in the wake of a possible regime change in Iran. Bruck also reports on the belated emergence of a comprehensive policy from the Bush Administration. She writes, “A little over a year into President Bush’s second term, they can finally argue that a two-track policy has emerged.... The Administration ... has achieved its longtime goal of bringing Iran to the Security Council. And, once that was secured ... the Administration was finally free to pursue a reconstituted policy of regime change, or, as it now says, democratization.” The concern, Bruck writes, is that having had zero diplomatic ties with Iran since 1979, the United States is in a “situation ripe for exploitation by the opposition groups, who were eager to sell themselves as guides to the unmapped region, as the ready-made solution to what was, in truth, an increasingly intractable and grave dilemma.”
Bruck meets with Reza Pahlavi, the forty-five-year-old son of the deposed Shah of Iran, and with Shahriar Ahy, an opposition figure who effectively serves as Pahlavi’s political strategist, mentor, and speechwriter. “For years,” Bruck writes, “the Iranian opposition has been so beset by factionalism that it has defied efforts at mobilization. Pahlavi says that those days are past. Ahy is organizing a national congress, built around the Iran referendum movement, which calls for a nationwide vote on changing the constitution in order to make Iran a secular state.” Pahlavi tells Bruck, “Today, it is not ‘You are a monarchist,’ ‘You are a republican,’ ‘You are a Marxist’—we are all in the same boat, fighting a common enemy.” While loyalists, and even some of his friends, claim Pahlavi has his heart set on the throne, Bruck writes, “he insists that his ‘sole mission’ is to bring democracy to Iran, and that the Iranian people will then decide whether they want a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchy.” Another exile group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (People’s Mujahideen), or M.E.K., is the best-funded and best-organized of the groups. While they have been on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list since 1997, they also have supporters in Congress.
Bruck writes, “The dearth of options and of knowledge about Iran—combined with the Bush Administration’s renewed commitment to regime change—makes virtually anything seem possible.” Since the movement of the issue of Iran’s nuclear program to the Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 15th (asking for supplemental funding adding up to $85 million to increase pressure on the Iranian regime, by expanding radio and television broadcasting into Iran and helping political dissidents) those within and without the Administration who had advocated for more of a hard-line policy with Iran have been discouraged. The exiles, who are finally seeing the indications of possible regime change, are ecstatic. When Bruck asks R. Nicholas Burns, the State Department’s Under-Secretary for Political Affairs, whether, if the Iranians were to signal some readiness to compromise, he could envision the U.S. holding talks with Iran, he replies, “The Iranians have given no indication of a willingness to be receptive—none—since Ahmadinejad was elected. And, you know, Secretary Rice has been saying consistently that we are on a diplomatic track, and we are. But diplomacy has to be hard-edged. I don’t mean warlike. I mean hard-edged. And so we think it’s far more likely that Iran is going to respond to isolation, to sanctions, and to tough measures like that from the international community, rather than just jaw-jaw. So we believe we’ve entered a new phase of the diplomacy, where we have to take the Iranians to the Security Council, where we have to illuminate their transgressions, and countries have to begin to penalize them with sanctions, and other punitive measures, in order to tighten the pressure around them.”
Also in this week’s issue:
In “Drawing the Line,” Jeffrey Toobin reports that while Tom DeLay, the former majority leader of the House of Representatives, was the architect of the redistricting of the Texas congressional districts in 2003, the new map could end up costing him his seat. “On March 1st,” Toobin writes, “the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the Texas congressional map, and the outcome is by no means clear. In the first major case to be heard by the two new Justices, John G. Roberts, Jr., and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., the Court will weigh the constitutionality of the Texas plan, which represents just one of the partisan gerrymanders that have transformed Congress in recent years.... The best thing that could happen to [DeLay] now may be for the Court to strike down the plan he created.” Toobin explains that the 2003 redistricting plan went into effect when DeLay still looked unbeatable in Texas, so he was generous toward his Republican colleagues when he redrew the lines. But DeLay faces a serious Democratic opponent in 2006, in Nick Lampson. A recent poll shows Lampson leading DeLay by eight points, with a large number of voters undecided. “I have the luxury of being able to concentrate on issues like health care, immigration, and refinery safety,” Lampson tells Toobin. “I can say I’m going to be making headlines for the right reasons. I don’t have to concentrate on what he did wrong, because that’s showing up in the headlines in story after story after story.” Toobin writes that while the Court is generally leery of the practice, some of the Justices have argued that partisan gerrymandering is not a subject that belongs in federal court, since, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion on a similar case in 2004, it “involves no judicially enforceable rights.” Yet the Court may very well decide to stake a middle ground in the Texas case, Toobin writes. “Instead of striking down all partisan gerrymandering, thus sowing chaos in dozens of states shortly before the 2006 congressional elections, the Justices could simply say that a politically inspired mid-decade redistricting”—as was carried out in Texas in 2003—“violates the Constitution.” “We’re simply asking for them to go back to the map the courts approved in 2001, and that Texas used in the 2002 election,” Sam Hirsch, a lawyer for the Democrats, says. “It takes care of the worst of the problems, it’s neat and simple, and there’s no need for the courts themselves to draw district lines.” “This option,” Toobin writes, “which would be a major loss for the Texas Republican Party, might mean a win for Tom DeLay. Instead of running against DeLay, Nick Lampson could run in the district where he won as an incumbent in 2002.” “I think that everybody knows this is a national scandal,” says Samuel Issacharoff, of N.Y.U., who has filed a brief in support of the Democrats in the Texas case. “Every Justice has at some point said the situation is deeply wrong. They may disagree about whether the courts can do anything about it, or about how to fix the problem, but not a single member of the Court is willing to say that this is how our democracy is supposed to work.”
Plus: Hendrik Hertzberg, in Comment, on voting reform (p. 27); James Surowiecki on asbestos claims (p. 31); Nancy Franklin on the Winter Olympics (p. 88); Fintan O’Toole on Irish playwright Martin McDonagh (p. 40); John Lahr on the Broadway revival of “The Pajama Game” (p. 80); Joan Acocella on the sixth annual New York Flamenco Festival (p. 90); and fiction by Charles D’Ambrosio (p. 64).
The March 6, 2006, issue of The New Yorker goes on sale at newsstands beginning Monday, February 27th
▲このページのＴＯＰへ HOME > Ψ空耳の丘Ψ42掲示板
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。