現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２３ > 651.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２３ > 651.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●朝鮮戦争再開時の被害見積もりを報じた米国『星条旗』新聞の記事を
韓国ではどう報じているか、日本語でよめる韓国のウェブ新聞を
巡回していたら、東亜日報に興味深い記事を見つけました。
●英国『エコノミスト』誌が、イラクへの国家テロを実行しようとしている
米国小ブッシュ政権のトンデモない自惚れぶりを嘲笑しながら憂慮する記事を
発表しているのです。
●この記事の結論は、けっきょく世俗社会の政治のために神さまごとを利用している
だけだ、という醒めた分析なのですが、米国の連中はすでに「明白なる天命」と
いう麻薬のような言葉で“自慰”を続けながら、大陸の先住民を大量虐殺し、
太平洋の島国を奪ってきた歴史がありますからねえ。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
東亜日報
http://japan.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2003021099818
イラク攻撃は十字軍戦争？ 英誌がブッシュ大統領を非難
FEBRUARY 09, 2003 22:39
by 洪銀澤 (euntack@donga.com)
米国の対イラク攻撃が、キリスト教の信仰で武装した「十字軍戦争」になるのか。
ブッシュ米大統領に対する批判論者たちは米大統領が、「神さま」のために、今度の戦争を起こすのではないか憂慮している、 と英国の週刊誌「エコノミスト」が６日付で伝えた。同誌は、「神さまのための戦争は『文明の衝突』に拡大し、キリスト教とイスラム教の全面的な葛藤に広がる可能性がある」と指摘した。
ブッシュ大統領は、米同時多発テロが発生した直後テロとの戦争を、「十字軍戦争」で表現した後に、取り消したことがある。しかし相変らず、イラクのサダム・フセイン政権の抽出を「悪の軸」に対する応酬とみているという証拠が少なくない。
６日、国の朝食会および祈祷会では、リチャード・マイアース統合参謀本部議長とジョージ・テネット中央情報局（ＣＩＡ）局長に対して、「試練の時期に２人のリーダーが聖書と祈りを捧げているということは適切だ」と話した。また「米国は、国民の特性と抑圧から解放しようという欲望、信義意志のため、試練の時に勝利するべきであり、この時、我々には祈りが必要な状況だ」と付け加えた。
一時期飲酒癖に陥った後、敬虔なクリスチャンに生まれかわったブッシュ大統領は、今は毎日の朝ひざまずいて祈る、「カーター元大統領以来、最も宗教的な大統領」だ。彼の演説文を作成していたデビッド・フロム氏が、ブッシュ大統領に初めて対面した時に聞いた言葉は、「ホワイトハウスの聖書勉強会であなたに会えなくて残念だった」という。
米国は２００を超えるキリスト教テレビチャンネル、１５００のキリスト教ラジオ放送局がある最もキリスト教的な国だ。政治的影響力も大きく、福音主義がある教壇である南浸礼教会の信者たちは、共和党の「近衛兵」を成しているとエコノミストは報じた。
しかしエコノミストは、ブッシュ大統領が所属している教壇の連合監理教会（United Methodist Church）でも反戦の声が出ているため、彼の宗教的色彩を根拠にイラク戦争を宗教戦争に断定することは無理だ、と主張した。
米国はイスラム諸国とは違い、聖と俗が厳格に分けられた世俗的な国家であり、米同時多発テロ後、テロリストのネットワークと「やくざ国家」、そして大量破壊兵器などの３種に対する、あまりにも世俗的な恐怖をとり除くために外交政策を打ち出しているだけだ、とこの週刊誌は結論付けた。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●小ブッシュはユナイテッド・メソジスト・チャーチの教会員なんですね。
この教会は骸骨団の会員でも受け入れるわけだ。
まあとにかく、この教会のビショップが先日、小ブッシュに宛てて
「戦争に頼らずにイラクを武装解除するために万策を尽くせ」と
書簡で申し入れたとのこと。しかしパウエルの国連演説をうのみにして
サダム・フセインを暴君よばわりして非難しているのですから、やっぱり
お目出度いですな。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
United Methodist News Service
http://umns.umc.org/03/feb/063.htm
Bishops' president urges Bush to use restraint with Iraq
Feb. 6, 2003 News media contact: Joretta Purdue・ (202) 546-8722・ Washington {063}
NOTE: Both letters released by Bishop Sharon A. Brown Christopher are reproduced in their entirety at the end of this story. A photograph of the bishop is available on the Headshot Gallery.
( http://umns.umc.org/photos/headshots.html )
By United Methodist News Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
The president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops has written to President George W. Bush, a fellow church member, urging him to seek "every opportunity to disarm Iraq without resorting to war."
Bishop Sharon A. Brown Christopher released two letters Feb. 6, one to Bush, addressing the crisis with Iraq, and the other to 9.8 million United Methodists around the world, encouraging them to join in prayer.
In her letter to Bush, Christopher said that as "the president of the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church and, therefore, one of your pastors, I write to you, a fellow United Methodist, because of the awesome burden that rests on your shoulders in these days."
"The human community stands at an intersection of decision that will shape its common life and international relations for years to come," she said. "In your hands rests in large part the path we will follow.
"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of peace," the bishop continued. "It calls us to transcend political ideology and national interests to act on behalf of the welfare of the whole human family."
She commended Bush for his "careful work within the processes of the United Nations" and urged him "to stay the course, seeking every opportunity to disarm Iraq without resorting to war and looking for every peaceful way of protecting the world and our nation against the tyranny manifest around the globe."
Saddam Hussein's tyranny has been demonstrated, Christopher said. "He must be held accountable."
At the same time, Christopher asks the president to consider the potential
suffering and loss of life among the military personnel and the men, women and children of Iraq.
"I beseech you to listen to the voice of hundreds of thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries who demonstrate for peace and ask your utmost restraint," she said.
Her letter to United Methodists throughout the world explains that the Council of Bishops feels called by faith in the Prince of Peace and by the denomination's highest legislative body to "speak to the church and from the church to the world."
"The Council of Bishops urges you to join us in prayer," she wrote. "World-shaping and life-shaping decisions will be made in the coming days and weeks that require God's guidance."
Both of Bishop Christopher's letters follow:
-----------------------------------------------------------
February 6, 2003
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Bush,
As the president of the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church and, therefore, one of your pastors, I write to you, a fellow United Methodist, because of the awesome burden that rests on your shoulders in these days. The human community stands at an intersection of decision that will shape its common life and international relations for years to come. In your hands rests in large part the path we will follow. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Gospel of peace. It calls us to transcend political ideology and national interests to act on behalf of the welfare of the whole human family.
President Saddam Hussein has the world on edge. The lack of forthcoming evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and President Hussein's resistance to complete cooperation with the inspectors of the United Nations, as indicated by the inspectors' report last week and Secretary of State Colin Powell's address yesterday, raise suspicion of the highest order. President Hussein's tyranny has been demonstrated. He must be held accountable.
Military personnel now stand on the front line, willing to give their lives. They personally bear the cost of the decision of war. I thank you, Mr. President, for your words of care for the Armed Forces. I beseech you to listen to the voice of hundreds of thousands of Americans and citizens of other countries who demonstrate for peace and ask your utmost restraint.
President Bush, I commend you for your careful work within the processes of the United Nations. I compliment you for presenting the U.N. Security Council with additional U.S. intelligence about Iraq's weapons program. I urge you to stay the course, seeking every opportunity to disarm Iraq without resorting to war and looking for every peaceful way of protecting the world and our nation against the tyranny manifest around the globe.
The United Methodist Council of Bishops, made up of voices from Europe, Africa, the Philippines, and the United States, has heard the voices of the men, women, and children of Iraq who suffer daily from the effects of U.N. sanctions. Their present misery will fade against the innocent bloodshed to come in the event of war.
We pray that every possible means to prevent war will be pursued in the coming days. This is not a moment for haste but rather for deep thoughtfulness and prayer. It is a moment to reflect upon the well-spoken concerns of our allies around the world. The welfare of our human family depends on it.
The Council of Bishops holds you before God in prayer in this time of decision.
In the name of the Prince of Peace,
Sharon A. Brown Christopher
cc: The people called United Methodist
The United States Congress
Dear United Methodists around the world,
Once again the Council of Bishops in prayer has been called to speak a Gospel word. This time it is spoken directly to the president of the United States, President George W. Bush. We do so again out of the mandates of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the General Conference of The United Methodist Church to "speak to the church and from the church to the world."
We commend President Bush for his decision to work within the processes of the United Nations. He has done what we asked of him in October, 2002. Now, for the well-being of the innocent citizens of Iraq and the faithful U.S. military personnel and their families, we urge him to continue to work with the United Nations and to seek out every possible peaceful means to deter the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The attached letter speaks for itself.
The Council of Bishops urges you to join us in prayer. World-shaping and life-shaping decisions will be made in the coming days and weeks that require God's guidance.
In the name of the Prince of Peace,
Sharon A. Brown Christopher
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●ついでにカトリックはどうなってるのか、日本の中央協議会のサイトを見ると、
法皇の動きがご〜〜〜く簡単に報じられていました。これから戦争が
起きそうだってのに、ヴァチカン方面の信者は呑気すぎやしませんか。
この“戦前”を作り出したのは、まずもって米国の小ブッシュ政権だし
（だって小ブッシュは、アルカイダとの絡みで強引にイラクを持ち出して
中東危機を生み出した張本人だからね）、さらに、あえて中東の最近の
危機に目をやれば、それを作り出したのは大量破壊兵器を抱えている
イスラエルに他ならない。
ローマ法王がイラクの高官を説得するのは重要なことだし欠かせない。
しかし米国とイスラエルの高官にも同じ程度かそれ以上の説得を
行なわなきゃバランスを欠いてますわな。
イラクを「野蛮」とみなして「教導」しようとしている人種差別なり地域蔑視
が働いているか、さもなければヴァチカンが、米国とイスラエルを「鬼門」と
見なしているかのどっちかなのかな……などと考えざるを得ませんですな。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
カトリック中央協議会
http://www.cbcj.catholic.jp/jpn/news/index.htm#pope
■教皇 イラク問題で特使を急派
ローマ教皇ヨハネ・パウロ二世は、２月１０日、特使としてＲ・エチェガレイ枢機卿をバグダッドに派遣。国際協力への再考を促す教皇のメッセージをイラク当局者に伝える。
教皇は、９日（日）正午、バチカンで行った「アンジェラスの祈り」の中で、全世界の信者に向け、ロザリオの祈りで、神の恵みである 平和を求めるよう呼びかけた。
教皇は、２月７日、ドイツのフィッシャー外相と会談し、イラク問題について意見を交わした。
さらに教皇は、１４日にはイラクのアジズ副首相と会談する予定になっており、今月末には国連のアナン事務総長と会談する。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●砂嚢までに『エコノミスト』誌の記事「神さまとアメリカ流の外交」という記事の
原文を転載しておきます。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
ECONOMIST
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1565874
God and American diplomacy
Feb 6th 2003
（From The Economist print edition）
Actually, He has much less to do with it than many Europeans fear
【実際のところ、ブッシュは“神さま”を利用しているだけで
多くの欧州市民が心配するほど信仰と密着した戦争なんぞ程遠い。】
（Get article background：
http://www.economist.com/background/displayBackground.cfm?story_id=1565874&CFID=3100124&CFTOKEN=5220dab-5700b160-9a35-4f2c-8ec9-f3b6424416b1 ）
ONLY one thing unsettles George Bush's critics more than the possibility that his foreign policy is secretly driven by greed. That is the possibility that it is secretly driven by God. War for oil would merely be bad. War for God would be catastrophic: the beginning of a "clash of civilisations" that would pit Christians and Jews against Muslims.
Is there anything to this? The war-for-God crowd can certainly point to bits of evidence. The current White House is the most religious since Jimmy Carter's days. In his memoirs of his time as a presidential speechwriter, David Frum says that the first words he heard in the Bush White House were "Missed you at Bible Study". Mr Bush, a born-again Christian who turned to God after many years of hard drinking, starts each day kneeling in prayer. Michael Gerson, his main speechwriter, is a master at clothing public policy in religious language.
The second piece of evidence is that America, despite a decline in churchgoing, is a much more religious place than Europe, supporting more than 200 Christian television channels and 1,500 Christian radio stations. Religion is particularly important to Mr Bush's party. Republican voters attend church more frequently than Democrats do. Evangelical southerners constitute the praetorian guard of the Republican Party.
The third piece of evidence is the scariest: some right-wing Christians seem to be spoiling for a clash of civilisations. Jerry Falwell has called the Prophet Muhammad a "terrorist". He has since apologised, but Pat Robertson, who called him a "wild-eyed fanatic", a "robber" and a "brigand", has not. Franklin Graham, son of Billy, has branded Islam "evil". Many American evangelicals believe that the complete restoration of the nation of Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming. Thwarting Ariel Sharon is thus tantamount to thwarting God's master-plan.
A born-again president; a highly religious country; a bunch of extremist Republican stormtroopers: doesn't this all add up to a clash of civilisations? The surprising answer is no. John Maynard Keynes once described one of Friedrich von Hayek's books as "an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam". The war-for-God crowd start with not one mistake but three.
The first mistake is to equate the role of religion in America with its role in theocratic societies. Americans often argue about where the line between church and state should be drawn?about whether "faith-based charities" are permissible under the constitution, for example?but nobody really doubts there should be a line. Islam is one of the fastest- growing religions in America. Mr Bush has been careful to visit mosques and invite Muslim leaders to the White House. He has also been careful to make his public speeches as ecumenical as possible, couched in the language of faith in general rather than Christianity in particular. Yes, he once uttered the world "crusade", but that slip of the tongue has not been repeated. Yes, he has chosen to cast America's enemies as "the axis of evil", but some of the sternest proponents of regime change in the Middle East are secular liberals who want to bring the benefits of the Enlightenment to an area repressed by religious orthodoxy.
The second mistake is to assume that all religious Americans think alike about foreign policy. In fact, no anti-war protest is complete without a large contingent of religious leaders. The Catholic church, America's biggest, is particularly iffy on this subject (and, incidentally, also on Israel). Even the evangelical community is divided. A bishop in Mr Bush's own denomination, the United Methodist Church, appears in a television commercial arguing that going to war against Iraq "violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ".
The third mistake is to equate influence on the margins with influence over essentials. Evangelical Christians have certainly put their stamp on some areas of foreign policy, most notably population control in the developing world. But their influence has been constrained by questions of realpolitik and economic sense. The evangelicals failed dismally in their campaign against granting China its most-favoured-nation trading status.
● Down-to-earth imperatives
Since September 11th America's foreign policy has primarily been driven not by religious passions but by an all-too-earthly fear of three things: terrorist networks, rogue states and highly destructive weapons. The people who steer foreign policy on a day-to-day basis, people like Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, are hard-headed realists: Hobbesians rather than holy rollers. The "visionaries" who have been warning about rogue states for years are not evangelical Christians but sophisticated, secular conservative intellectuals who hang out in Washington think- tanks and write for highbrow magazines.
What about Israel? Isn't this one area of foreign policy where America is sacrificing its national interest to the combined might of evangelical Christians and the Israel lobby? The answer here can only be wait and see. In the past, the Republicans have never had any trouble standing up to the Israel lobby when national interest demanded it: remember Ronald Reagan's decision to sell radar systems to Saudi Arabia. The alliance between the evangelicals and supporters of Israel has certainly deepened. But the main reason why most Americans, including Mr Bush, have backed Mr Sharon is surely because the Palestinians made the catastrophic mistake of continuing with suicide bombings in the months after September 11th.
So Mr Bush is not on a crusade. Yet the fact that he has frightened non-Americans in this way is not helpful to his cause. Religious rhetoric may stir the nation, but Mr Bush's words carry much further. America's squabble is with terrorism rather than Islam. He should keep saying that as often as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------
●『エコノミスト』誌が今年初めに掲載した
小ブッシュについての解説記事
http://www.economist.com/background/displayBackground.cfm?story_id=1565874&CFID=3100124&CFTOKEN=5220dab-5700b160-9a35-4f2c-8ec9-f3b6424416b1
George Bush
Jan 16th 2003
From Economist.com
George Bush's mandate-less victory over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election led many to expect that his cabinet would be strongly bipartisan and weakly conservative. Not so. Mr Bush picked a managerial team of both co-operative and confrontational conservatives, including the controversial John Ashcroft. Despite pretending otherwise, he has proved as partisan a president as America has had.
Mr Bush's first 100 days in office saw him win a (promised) $1.3 trillion tax cut and pull out of a variety of international agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol. He also touted unpopular plans for a missile-defence shield and pursued closer economic ties with the Americas.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, Mr Bush seemed to find his voice and successfully turned his hand to fighting terrorism. Domestically, before the year's end, he helped push through an education bill and fast- track negotiating authority for trade deals from the House.
Following a forceful state-of-the- union address in January 2002, Mr Bush reached out to allies in Asia and Europe. But in June his administration's one-sided vision for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict failed to bring peace. Lingering economic recession and the whiff of corporate scandal also worried Mr Bush, who began to lose control of the American political agenda (though he did win Senate approval for fast- track.)
Hard campaigning by the president helped the Republican Party record an unprecedented victory in the November 2002 mid-term elections, suggesting Mr Bush may have started to redraw the political landscape. But in January 2003 his popularity dipped, as possible war with Iraq loomed, North Korea rattled sabres and a second Bush tax-cut proposal met with unexpected opposition, even from some Republican Senators.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。