コクは積分

スゴ技Ｑ　お手ごろ＆うまさ倍増！　すき焼き　大変身 【番組冒頭】ご注意！偽サイト詐欺 ｜ＮＨＫ あさイチ:
　http://www1.nhk.or.jp/asaichi/2015/01/27/01.html

　和牛肉っぽくするには。　ココナッツミルク＋練乳に漬けるとかだっけか。スキムミルクでも効果あるとか。
和牛には ラクトンが多いとか何とか。　ラクトンだかには　味が舌に長く留まり続けさせる効果があるそうな。味覚の余韻を引っ張る？
コクは積分。


http://web.archive.org/web/20070509075000/http://www.protein.osaka-u.ac.jp/physical/html/oisisa.html

平成26年5月12日 日・イスラエル共同声明

佐藤優のインテリジェンス・レポート---日本の防衛政策に無視できない影響を与える「日本・イスラエル共同声明」　佐藤優直伝「インテリジェンスの教室」Vol036　インテリジェンス・レポートより | 佐藤優直伝「インテリジェンスの教室」 | 現代ビジネス [講談社]:http://gendai.ismedia.jp/articles/-/39267

佐藤優 集団的自衛権より重大な日本・イスラエル共同声明: http://t.co/unVoEWFJd9

準同盟国宣言http://t.co/NfOWH4n5CH

　@wantonblog @tokaiama　@hanayuu
http://t.co/NfOWH4n5CH

― コスタリカ共和村 ♡♪ 安音♫•*¨*• (@costarica0012) 2014, 5月 19

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

有志連合に入りたい（憲法改正）→ISIS人質事件（好都合）→イスラエルへ企業引き連れ行脚→何故かイスラエルで米国と協議→今ココ

― ネズミさん (@Nezmi_san) 2015, 1月 25

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

②イスラエルとコッソリ昨年５月に准同盟国となった。快挙である、がマスゴミは敢えて無視した。日本人はこの時遠い国だから「分かってない」、そのイスラエルや中東に企業を連れて行脚だ。「何で殆ど国交無いイスラエルか？」、いやその答えは③である。イスラエルとは欧米の中東拠点である。

― ネズミさん (@Nezmi_san) 2015, 1月 25

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

平成26年5月12日 日・イスラエル首脳会談等 | 平成26年 | 総理の一日 | 総理大臣 | 首相官邸ホームページ:
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/96_abe/actions/201405/12israel.html

Summary of PM Netanyahu's visit to Japan:
http://embassies.gov.il/tokyo/NewsAndEvents/Pages/Summary%20of%20PM%20Netanyahu%27s%20visit%20to%20Japan.aspx

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4520129,00.html

日本の対ISIL有志連合度。二枚舌外交の成果？集団的自衛権による対中韓シーレーン防衛強化策の帰結？

”日本の有志連合度”は いかばかりであろうか？

2015年1月のカイロ演説で立場を劇的に変更したって訳でもないようだなあ。上乗せとタイミングで閾値越えた？ QT http://t.co/MdDLfc2VOQ ■構成国　有志連合に参加もしくは貢献している国 出典:ロイター,米国防省（2014年10月3日作成)

― raycy (@raycy) 2015, 1月 23

<script charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>

 

http://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20150121/coalition.gif

2014年10月3日には ロイターや米国務省の認識として 貢献国には 入れてもらえてたようだ。岸田外相、安倍首相、よかったね。

いつごろからだったんだろうか。

U.S. Department of State Search: Japan ISIL:

G7外相会合だか

G7外相会合（概要） 平成26年9月25日｜ 外務省:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/page4_000707.html 
4　イラク・シリア情勢（ISIL）

（1）テロ組織ISILの残虐な暴力，憎悪及び不寛容さを非難するとともに，ISILは致命的な脅威を与えるとの認識を共有した。また，人質となっている者の即時，安全かつ無条件の解放を強く訴えた。

（2）ISILを弱体化させ，壊滅させるための包括的かつ連携された取組を支持することで一致した。米国等がとった軍事行動は，イラクがISILから防衛し，ISILに対して安住の地を与えないことを助ける重要な貢献であるとの認識を共有した。

（3）今後もISILに対抗する勢力を支援し，引き続き人道支援を行っていくことで一致した。
G7外相声明テロ組織ISIL/DAESHとの戦いのための共同行動（英語（PDF）PDF／仮訳（PDF）PDF）

http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000053664.pdf

 

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/232125.htm

G-7 Foreign Ministers' Statement on Joint Action to Fight the Terrorist Organisation ISIL/DAESH

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

New York City, NY

September 25, 2014

---

The text of the following statement was released by the Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and High Representative of the European Union:

Begin Text:

We, the Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union jointly condemn the brutal violence, hatred and intolerance of the terrorist organisation operating under the name ISIL. It negates basic Islamic and human values and poses a deadly threat to Iraq and Syria, the broader Middle East and beyond, including our own societies. We reaffirm our commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2170 (2014) and demand the immediate, safe and unconditional release of all those who are kept hostage by ISIL or associated individuals and entities.

リストに入れてもらえた

（Korea,China,Russiaはリストに入ってない。）

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/09/231886.htm

Building International Support to Counter ISIL

Media Note
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 19, 2014

Share

The ISIL Threat: a Global Challenge

A Global Effort to Support Iraq and to Defeat ISIL

The breadth and diversity of countries and organizations making contributions across one or more of the lines of effort demonstrate the global and unified nature of this fight. Below are some of the partners that have made contributions and commitments to date. This is an ongoing effort, and we expect the number of countries to grow.

国連の一員として？

http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/07/20140724304426.html State’s State’s McGurk at Senate Hearing on Iraq
24 July 2014

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.
July 24, 2014

Statement for the Record:
Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing:
Iraq at a Crossroads: Options for U.S. Policy

As noted, numerous countries have come forward and donated to the UN’s appeal for humanitarian assistance. In addition to Saudi Arabia, other contributors include Kuwait, Japan, New Zealand, and a number of others. The United States to date has contributed $13.8 million in humanitarian assistance in response to this crisis, and we are working closely with the UN team in Iraq to coordinate the response.

同盟国 集団的自衛権の集団と見做せてもらえる条件は？　かな？

http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/07/20140702303143.htmU.S. Official on Obama’s Foreign Policy Priorities
01 July 2014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington Foreign Press Center
Washington, D.C.

July 1, 2014

QUESTION: Thank you again. This is Sumiki Mori from Fuji TV. This is about Japan. What is the White House reaction to the Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s reinterpretation of constitution to allow collective self-defense? Considering the reaction of China and South Korea, are you worried about any effect this might have in relations in Asia? And also with this collective self-defense, what is U.S. expecting Japan to do beyond what they do already? Thank you so much.

MR. RHODES: Well, President Obama discussed this issue with Prime Minister Abe when he was in Japan, and the United States very much welcomes the steps that Japan has taken forward with respect to collective self-defense. And President Obama’s been very supportive of his policy, of Prime Minister Abe’s. Again, we believe it’s part of the continued maturation of our alliance and it opens the door to additional cooperation. And when you look at issues such as Japan’s support for peacekeeping efforts around the world or their commitment to regional security and stability in Asia, I think this policy creates space for Japan to play an even greater role as a security partner of the United States and as a country that upholds international order.

With respect to the neighbors, I think what we’d encourage Japan to do is to be very transparent about its policies, be very clear about what they mean and what they don’t mean. We would welcome their continued efforts to engage in diplomatic consultations with the neighbors to have those discussions, particularly the Republic of Korea. So we support Japanese efforts to engage in diplomacy to make clear what this new policy means, and again, to have a degree of transparency around it so that there are no misunderstandings.

And again, we very much believe that in terms of the region, the United States wants our allies to get along. So we very much want to see Japan and the Republic of Korea to continue dialogue to address not just collective self-defense but also some of the issues around historical tensions that have emerged in recent months.

But again, bottom line is the White House welcomes the Japanese announcement and the policy of collective self-defense, believes that if it’s pursued in a transparent fashion in consultation with neighbors in the region that that can reduce misunderstanding and tensions and contribute, ultimately, to the stability and security of the Asia Pacific region.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

Yeah.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. even expect Japan to do more beyond what they are doing right now?

MR. RHODES: Well, I think that’ll be an ongoing process. Again, I think Japanese contributions to international security efforts ? peacekeeping and other international efforts to uphold rules and norms ? I think there is space for Japan to be a positive contributor in that respect. And then again, I think in the Asia Pacific we’ve had a security dialogue, obviously through our alliance. We know Japan has had increasing dialogue with other partners in the region.

And I think we’ll have to evaluate as this policy’s implemented what it means in practice. I think what people need to understand is it doesn’t mean Japan is going to engage in any destabilizing activity. I think it means that Japan is going to be better able to invest in the types of international cooperation that supports stability. So that’s why we think it’s a positive step forward. We’ll continue to discuss with them in practice what it means on everything from exercises to support for international efforts beyond Japan’s borders.



We’ll go over here, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. My name is Atushi Okudera from Asahi Shimbun, Japanese newspaper. Nice to see you again. I’d like to ask ? my question was almost covered by my friend, but let me ask about ? on China. As you say, there are lots of differences between United States and China. One year has passed since the last Sunnylands, but lots of things, including declaration of the ADIZ and the maritime dispute in South China Sea and East China Sea, lots of things happened. So ? and at the same time, the West Point speech ? President Obama concerned about the aggression in South China Sea. So my question is: How would you in the United States raise these concerns to the Chinese leader this time in the S&ED next week in Beijing?

I know the United States always urge Chinese leader to resolve dispute peacefully and they should follow the international law. But how the United States, then ? the Chinese leader understand the importance of the international law? What is the strategy to solve these maritime disputes for the United States? Thank you.

MR. RHODES: Well again, I think, clearly, issues associated with territorial disputes, maritime security, have been a key focus not just in our bilateral conversations with China, but in the region more generally. And the principles we apply to that are consistent to whatever country’s involved, which is we don’t want nations to try to resolve those disputes through coercion. There are established international legal means for resolving those disputes. There are negotiations underway around code of conduct to avoid unnecessary escalation, between, for instance, China and ASEAN countries. And this will certainly be a topic at the S&ED given how much it is a leading topic in the region.

And our point is simply that we don’t want to see a process where a big nation ? a bigger nation can bully a smaller one to get its way on a territorial dispute. We want to see an understanding of what the international legal basis is for resolving claims and what the process is in the region for avoiding tensions. So I think we’ll make very clear the same points that President Obama made throughout his trip to Asia.

With respect to the U.S. and China, though, I think it’s also important that we have our own military-to-military dialogue because we, too, want to avoid an inadvertent escalation or a misunderstanding. So we’ve sought to introduce greater transparency between our own militaries and greater lines of communication.

And ultimately, that’s the type of dynamic we’d like to see in the region, where countries are able to work together, again, to avoid miscalculation, to avoid a confrontation that neither side is seeking, and to find peaceful means of addressing problems, whether it be arbitration, for instance, as the Philippines has pursued, or other means of resolving claims. The United States is not a claimant, but we do have an interest, obviously, in the free flow of commerce and in the stability of the region.

So it’ll be a topic at the S&ED, one among many, and I think you can expect that will continue to be a topic in our conversation with all the countries in the Asia Pacific region given how much it’s at the forefront right now.

Yeah, we’ll go here.

QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Wada. I am with Japan’s Mainichi newspaper. Thank you very much for doing this. Kind of quick follow up to the Japanese Government decision to allow the use of ? the right to collective self-defense. There’s a sizeable opposition inside the Japanese public about this government move. How would you address that kind of opposition inside the Japanese society? Thank you.

MR. RHODES: Well, we understand that there’s clearly very deeply held views inside of Japan about these issues. That’s a process for the Japanese people to determine. We respect the fact that Japan has democratic institutions and a very vibrant press, as is on display here today. And so we would not want to put ourselves in the middle of an internal debate inside of Japan. We’d expect there to be differences of opinion about any policy that a democratic government pursues. That’s certainly the case here.

In terms of our alliance, I think what we can make clear to the Japanese people is we welcome Japan playing a growing role in terms of supporting international peace and security and contributing to the U.S.-Japan bilateral alliance. That’s a sign of the progress that we’ve made over the last several decades. And so I think what we would make clear is that we believe that this is good, potentially, for our alliance, which has been very much in the interest of the U.S. and Japan, and I’d argue in the interest of the region. I mean, the network of U.S. alliances has provided the environment in which many nations have thrived and prospered.

And so again, we’ll fully respect the internal Japanese debate. We’ll look to the leaders and democratic institutions of Japan to sort through that debate, and we will continue to look for ways to mature our own alliance because we believe it’s so profoundly important to the United States and in our own interest.

Yeah, we’ll go to the gentleman there.

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Jane Bojadzievski, Voice of America. I have a question regarding the NATO enlargement, the same one. NATO insists that its open door policy remains. However, it doesn’t seem that the new members who were received at this year’s summit in Wales. Still, does the U.S. plan to pressure European allies in NATO to extend membership to Macedonia, Montenegro, and Georgia? Does giving them support that Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia received in light of the situation in Ukraine? Thank you very much.

MR. RHODES: Yeah. Look, I don’t think it’s a matter of pressure from the United States. NATO is an alliance. We make ? we take decisions together, so inherently there is a collective nature to NATO decision-making. I think what we would say to our European allies is there’s a very clear process. Everybody knows what the steps are that are necessary in terms of military modernization, in terms of alliance interoperability, in terms of enhanced cooperation with NATO. And everybody should have the opportunity to ? who has, again, a membership action plan and is an aspirant, to participate in that process and to be judged on the basis of their progress. And at the point in time in which I think nations can demonstrate that they’ve fully gone through that process and are a good candidate for membership and have the public’s support for taking that step, the alliance has an obligation through its open door policy to take that seriously.

But that takes time. There’s a reason that NATO is the best and strongest alliance that we’ve had in history, and the reason is that there’s a very high standard of membership and there are very strong commitments that come with membership. So it’s natural that there be an extended period in which nations work through those issues.

So this will be addressed at the summit, but I think people should know the United States has always demonstrated not just in its words but in its deeds that there is an open door to NATO membership, and that’s certainly the ? continues to be the case with all the aspirants. And that’s what we’d say to our European allies, that we as an alliance have committed to an open door, committed to nations that, if they work through this process, that there is a pathway for them.

However, we’re in alliance; we take decisions together. There’s a standard that needs to be met, and we can all work through our view of how far nations have come and how much farther they need to go to meet that standard.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. John Zang with CTI TV of Taiwan. Ben, on the occasion of the presidential inauguration in Panama, Secretary Kerry is said to be having a chance encounter or informal meeting with President Ma of Taiwan. What is the significance of this meeting to U.S.-Taiwan relations? And also, could you also comment on the Taiwan’s aspirations for inclusion in the TPP negotiations at an early date? Thank you very much.

MR. RHODES: I don’t have the latest on Secretary Kerry’s engagements to Panama, to be honest, so I ? we’d have to check on whether or not they did have an interaction. I mean, the fact is that in the international fora that Taiwan participates in it’s not uncommon for us to have interaction with Taiwan. We obviously have very close economic and defense ties with Taiwan that are important to the United States, and even as we have a one China policy we very much look to reaffirm our commitment to those longstanding political, economic, and defense ties with Taiwan. So I would imagine that that would be the nature of any exchange that takes place.

On TPP, I think we’re focused on the current negotiation, which is very much entering an endgame with the current participants in TPP. So I wouldn’t want to go beyond that in terms of potential participation. We have ? in APEC, for instance, we have a forum to coordinate with Taiwan on economic issues. I think right now, we’re focused on getting TPP done, which is proving hard enough. And again, we have other venues through which we can cooperate with Taiwan economically.

Yes, the lady back there.

QUESTION: Claudia Trevisan from the Brazilian newspaper O Estado de Sao Paolo. I have two questions, the first regarding Iraq. I’d like to know in which condition ? which kind of conditions would trigger military action from the U.S. against the ISIL in Iraq?

And the other one regarding Latin America, Argentina. Argentina is now facing the risk of an involuntary or technical default because of decision of the American justice. Has the Argentinean Government in any way approached the Administration? Has the President Kirchner talked with President Obama? And what kind of solution do you think it’s possible in this case? Thank you.

MR. RHODES: So on your first question, we ? President Obama has been very clear that there’s not a U.S. military solution that can be imposed on the current dynamic in Iraq. Actually, the fact of the matter is that even a very extended, nearly nine-year U.S. military engagement wasn’t going to force Iraq’s political leadership to govern in an inclusive way. Ultimately, these are challenges that the Iraqis need to settle themselves, and that starts with forming an inclusive government, and then that includes committing to inclusive security forces that all of Iraq’s communities can have confidence in.

But the United States has a role to play in a number of different ways. First, we’re going to continue to provide training and assistance and equipment to that Iraqi security force. And our assessment teams are on the ground. The up to 300 advisors that President Obama announced, they are looking at ways in which we can better provide support to the Iraqi Government in their fight against ISIL. Our joint operation centers that we’ve ? we are establishing with the Iraqis will help support their efforts to coordinate operations against ISIL as well. But those are Iraqi operations, ultimately.

In terms of additional U.S. military action, President Obama again made clear that while he has not ordered any military action, he reserves the right to do so as necessary. I think the threats that we would look to, for instance, would include an evaluation of whether ISIL is posing a threat to U.S. interests that would necessitate our taking action against them, as we have against terrorist organizations in other parts of the region. I think the security and safety of our personnel would certainly be of profound interest to the United States. And we’ve deployed additional military resources to provide for the security of our Embassy in Baghdad and our personnel in Iraq as well.

Again, ultimately, that’s a core interest of the United States: the security of our people, counterterrorism. And I’d add keeping that Embassy open and keeping our operations running in Iraq is what facilitates our ability to cooperate with the Iraqi Government and provide them with security assistance and political support.

So we’re going to be very deliberate in making any decisions about direct U.S. military action. We have left that door open if we believe it can make a difference, a positive difference, or if we believe that it is in our core interest to do so because we face a counterterrorism threat or a threat to our personnel. But ultimately, this has to be an Iraqi-led solution, and that’s why we’re focused, above all, on supporting a urgent and inclusive government formation process and training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

On Argentina, I don’t have any particular engagements in the White House to read out. I know we are obviously engaged with Argentina through the State Department and other departments of the U.S. Government, but President Obama has not had recent conversations with the president of Argentina about these issues, although they have obviously seen each other at the G20. Again, I think that we believe that this is not simply a bilateral matter, that there are established mechanisms for Argentina to address its own financial commitments, and it’s going to be necessary for Argentina to do so to have the full confidence of the international community and to have their economy on a stable footing.

That’s of interest to the United States. That’s of interest to the region in countries like Brazil that have very deep trading relationships with Argentina. So we’ll encourage Argentina to resolve these issues, to meet their obligations. But I don’t have a particular engagement with President Obama to read out.

アンネの日記 戦後70年目 お言葉

NHK ラジオ第2 学びの森│年末年始特集2014　番組詳細:（更新日時2014年12月9日 15:29:27）

新春朗読特集「アンネの日記」　

放送日時

1月1日(木）～1月3日（土）午後2時30分～4時00分
[再]1月1日(木）～1月3日（土）[再]午後11時00分～翌午前0時30分

http://www.nhk.or.jp/r2/special2014/005.html?pc

　・「アンネの日記」アンネ・フランク　深町眞理子 訳（文春文庫）(&脚本)
　・朗読：竹下景子

「当時、日記の中でアンネも語っていますが、人間同士の戦闘、罪も無い人々への殺戮、飢餓・差別は、世界各地で　今も変わることなく続いています。 アンネが亡くなって70年、今回の作品を紹介することで こういった問題について あらためて考えることも 意義あることに思えます。http://twitsound.jp/musics/tstdDaIvc」脚本：深町眞理子、朗読：竹下景子

アンネの日記　戦後70年目　お言葉

cf. 天皇陛下のご感想（新年に当たり）：平成27年 - 宮内庁: