投稿者 佐藤雅彦 日時 2001 年 11 月 16 日 11:58:22:
●米国や、その卑しい子分である日本では、政治屋もメディアも９・11事変の
ことを「テロリズム」と呼んでいますが、「terrorism」の本来の定義は「時の
政治権力者による恐怖支配」を意味しているので、これは言葉の意味や成り立ち
を知らない庶民を恐怖に追い込んで支配するためのマインドコントロールでしか
ありません。
つまり、暴力的な政治行為に「テロリズム」というレッテルを貼ることによって
副次的な恐怖政治を扇動しているわけであり、こういうプロパガンダ行為のほうが
「terrorism」の本来の定義にふさわしいものと言えるでしょう。（私はこれを
「メタ・テロリズム」と呼びたいと思いますが。）
●さて、BBCは、かつての大戦中には「可能な限り真実を伝え、それによって敵味方
双方の信頼を獲得し、いよいよ必要なときに大胆にウソをつく」という戦略的な
プロパガンダを行なってきた放送局として知られています。
●それはともかくとして、今回の９・11米国事変については「米国に対するテロリズム」と呼ばないで、あえて「米国に対する攻撃」と呼ぶという方針を守っているそうです。
●米国事変が起きて以来、世界貿易センターの間近の旧ロックフェラー所有地に建って
いる国連ビルのなかでは「テロ撲滅国際条約」を作ろうと、今さらながらの大騒ぎを
繰り広げています。９・11事変が「テロリズム」だというなら、米軍が民間機を撃ち落
としたり潜水艦体当たりで水産高校の実習船を沈めたり、スキー場のロープウェイを
“撃墜”したり、そういう「テロリズム」は山ほど起きてきたわけです。（軍隊が起こ
した対民間殺戮行為だから「テロリズム」じゃない、というのなら「不正規戦争」と
呼んでもいいですけどね……。） あるいはパレスチナでは、ユダヤ人たちを苦しめた
ワルシャワゲットーや「水晶の夜」のような差別的虐待とテロリズムと、さらに虐殺
行為が、もう半世紀も続いているわけです。そうした状況のなかで「テロリズム撲滅
条約」を作るというのだから、永らく国連の決議を無視して不正占領や住民虐待を続け、
９・11事変の直前の国連会議で「アパルトヘイト国家」と規定されるところだった
イスラエルなんぞ、たちまち「テロリスト国家」とされてしまうことでしょう。
……というわけで、何が「テロリズム」か、という基本的な概念定義をめぐって
国連は大混乱しているわけです。
●英米の中東・アジア政策がクルド人やアフガニスタン人などの難民流出を助長してきた
ことは歴然としていますが、そういう政策に無節操に加担しておきながら、日本に漂着
した難民を「難民認定」せずに取っ捕まえて違法入国者強制収容キャンプに閉じこめたり
本国に強制送還しているなんてのも、これまた一種の「テロリズム」と呼べるでしょう。
●BBCが９・11米国事変を「テロリズム」ではなく「攻撃」と呼ぶことに決めたのは、
ひとつの見識でしょうな。なぜなら「テロリズム」という言葉には、政治的思惑や
イデオロギー的意図や、何を「恐怖」と見なすかについての主観が付いて回るからです。
●日本のメディアは、どうせ海外メディアの既報やインターネット宣伝をパクって
おうむ返しに繰り返しているだけのブローカーでしかないので、客観性とか信頼性など
大事だとは思っていないのでしょうね。市ヶ谷の大本営が、ワシントンに“移転”した
だけで、それを垂れ流す卑しさと見識のなさは、半世紀たっても全然変わっていない
わけですから……。
●以下の記事は、BBCが米国事変を「テロ」呼ばわりしないことについての
覚悟や反響を伝えたものです。
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
World Service will not call US attacks terrorism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,593647,00.html
Matt Wells
Thursday November 15, 2001
The Guardian
The BBC World Service has taken a policy decision not to describe theattacks on the US as "terrorism".
Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy director of news, said the service would loseits reputation for impartiality around the world if it were seen to use sucha subjective term.
While guests and contributors to World Service programmes may describe thedeliberate flying of jet planes into the World Trade Centre as acts ofterror, news correspondents use more neutral terms such as "attack".
Mr Damazer, speaking in a debate about television coverage of September 11at the Newsworld conference in Barcelona, insisted the decision was notintended to downgrade the horror of the event. But if the word terrorism wasused there would be implications for the description of more subjective actsof terror such as those carried out by Hamas in the Middle East or ETA inSpain.
He said of the attack on the US: "However appalling and disgusting it was,there will nevertheless be a constituency of your listeners who don't regardit as terrorism. Describing it as such could downgrade your status as animpartial and independent broadcaster."
Because of its reputation for impartiality, the World Service has to becareful about its use of language. It does not usually describe IRA attacksas terrorism, because they may not be seen as such in a world context.
John Renner, commissioning editor for news programmes at the World Service,said after the debate yesterday that while the attacks on New York andWashington had put a strain on the policy, it had to be maintained.
US networks came in for particular criticism. Tony Burman, executivedirector at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, said the US coverage ofthe crisis had failed to take account of the international perspective:
"It's depressing to see the jingoism which is lamentably part of the cultureand spirit of the coverage." He said US networks regarded the attacks onAfghanistan as a football match with Washington as the home team.
Comparing BBC World coverage of the war with that of the US networks, hesaid they appeared to describe "two different wars".
Bill Wheatley, the vice-president of NBC, in a satellite link from New York,rejected the charge of jingoism, but said: "It's true that US networks arefocusing on the attempt to defeat the Taliban and apprehend Osama Bin Laden,but I don't think we've been pulling punches in terms of the difficulties ofthe war effort and the problems of US foreign policy."
He acknowledged that the Qatar-based news channel al-Jazeera was not alwaysregarded as a trusted source, despite its insistence of impartiality.
"Because they have been given special status in Kabul we feel it's correctthat our viewers know that they have that special access."
==================================
World Service helps BBC to enjoy a great war
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3K8IBW2UC&live=true&tagid=ZZZLZDL1B0C&subheading=media,%20entertainment,%20%20sport
By James Harding, Media Editor, in London
Published: November 15 2001 18:25 | Last Updated: November 15 2001 18:27
While the US has deployed the B52 bomber to pound Afghanistan with weeks ofair strikes, the UK's main contribution to the rout of the Taliban hasarguably been a hearts-and-minds bombardment by the BBC Pashto and Persianservice.
With roughly 70 per cent of the Afghan population said to tune in regularlyto the local language radio broadcasts, the BBC World Service has penetrateddeeper into Taliban territory than the British army special forces.
On Thursday, the BBC's central role in the conflict was underlined by theTaliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar. The one-eyed cleric called the BBC outof the blue on Tuesday night, a couple of days after his followers had fledKabul, to say he wanted to give an interview to address both the Afghanpeople and his enemies.
Speaking via an intermediary on a walkie-talkie, Mullah Omar warned the Westthat the "destruction of America...will happen within a short period oftime." Later in the same day, the BBC broadcast in Pashto an interview withDick Cheney, the the US vice-president, who promised a long, but ultimatelysuccessful war on terrorism.
The BBC World Service, which is funded by the UK foreign office, has nearlydoubled its Pashto and Persian broadcasts since September 11, raisingtransmission hours from 6 to 11 hours a day.
Other state-funded international broadcasters, such as the Voice of Americaand Germany's Deutsche Welle, have also poured more resources into locallanguage transmissions targetted at Afghanistan and its neighbours.
But the BBC has built up a lead among Pashto and Persian listeners thanks toyears of broadcasting, a reputation for impartial news and, as almost anyAfghan will tell you, an unmissable soap opera.
Naway Kor, Naway Jwand - New Home, New Life - is a radio soap opera set inthe fictitious village of Bar Killi.
Broadcast three days a week for 15 minutes in the morning and repeated atnight, correspondents in Afghanistan have reported back that the programmehas wedded Afghan listeners to the BBC.
"It is as popular as any soap opera in the West," says Baqer Moin, head ofthe BBC Pashto and Persian service. "When one of the characters died, theyheld services for him in the mosques."
As with all other information from Afghanistan, the audience numbers arefuzzy. Nawaz Kor is broadcast both in Pashto for the predominantly-Pashtun speakingsouth of Afghanistan and in Persian - otherwise known as Dari inAfghanistan, Farsi in Iran and Tajik in Tajikistan - to an estimated 35mlisteners a week.
Beyond the anecdotal reports that the BBC is the most widely listened-toradio service in Afghanistan, the United Nations conducted a listener surveynearly two years ago which showed 72 per cent of household heads regularlylistened to the BBC Pashto service.
In the television world, the Al Jazeera network, based in Qatar, has beenthe media meeting-point for both sides to put their arguments. In radio, ithas been the BBC.
"Political leaders and military commanders in Afghanistan are phoning us because they want to get their message through to the people of Afghanistan," says Mr Moin. "They think we are the best medium."
To its stalwart supporters, who were called to defend the World Service when people in the early 1990s asked what purpose it would serve after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the Afghanistan conflict has provided a timely reminder that the World Service offers the British government an immeasurable return on its investment.
The UK government provides L182m annual grant-in-aid to fund the World Service. The Pashtun and Persian service costs about L4m a year.
Mark Byford, director of the BBC World Service, says: "At the start of a new century, the World Service's impact and importance is as great, if not greater, than ever." Mr Byford has asked the government for an extra L4m to fund the World Service this year and, with the government funding for 2003-2006 to be decided in the next six months, he is hoping the BBC's role in the war will not be lost on the Foreign Office.
The government's interest in the World Service extends beyond broadcasting. The BBC also operates a monitoring service in the English country town of Caversham, west of London, where a bunch of linguists listen, watch, read and report back on broadcasts and transmissions from around the world. Their reports are fed into government intelligence as well as BBC news gathering. But the difficult trick for the BBC, as with the VOA, has been to maintain the government's financial support while shunning its attempts to interfere with editorial content.
Both the BBC and the VOA have had to face questions from politicians about airing incendiary comments from Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Phil Harding, director of English networks and news, says that so far there has been no government meddling. What there has been, though, is a queue of politicians willing to go on air.
"The list of guests reads like an international who's who," says Mr Harding, mentioning some of the recent interviewees: Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
At Bush House, the home of the BBC World Service, the broadcasters, editors and journalists often see themselves as the poor, but exotic and intellectual cousins of the media celebrities in the main BBC buildings across London. But the mood has been buoyed not just by the stream of high-profile interviewees. They like to boast high-profile listeners, too.
When a visitor to Kinshasa stopped in a few weeks ago on Laurent Kabila, it was reported back at Bush House that he found the president of the Congo clocking into the BBC World Service website to catch up on the latest post-September 11 developments.
■■■■@■■■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。