Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?
The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant
The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China ― and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.
the underlying principles have not changed much.
Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.
Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will.
Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster.
The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to U.S. orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade them and destroy them.
he said that we had to “destabilize” Chile in the interests of “stability.” That’s not perceived to be a contradiction
In fact, it’s a little ironic, because traditionally the United States and Britain have by and large strongly supported radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a force to block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. It has a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam to Pakistan, funding terror. But it’s the bastion of U.S. and British policy. They’ve consistently supported it against the threat of secular nationalism from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim’s Iraq, among many others. But they don’t like political Islam because it might become independent.
The history is that every U.S. administration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as if the United States needed psychiatric treatment or something.
Within several months of the toppling of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the dock facing criminal charges and prosecution. It’s inconceivable that U.S. leaders will ever be held to account for their crimes in Iraq or beyond. Is that going to change anytime soon?
That’s basically the Yglesias principle: the very foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence at will. So how can you charge anybody?
But the rights really reside in Washington. That’s what it means to own the world.
The purpose of America, on the other hand, is “transcendent”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he’s a good scholar, like Carothers. So he went through the record. He said, when you study the record, it looks as if the United States hasn’t lived up to its transcendent purpose. But then he says, to criticize our transcendent purpose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds” ― which is a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched religious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” ― interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.
every U.S. administration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests.
また、国連は民間人の犠牲に関する実質的証拠を厳密に調査する予定だが、その結果、無人機や奇襲部隊の攻撃で死亡した民間人犠牲者の数に関する、国際的な基準が初めて作られる可能性がある。無人機による民間人犠牲者の増加には大きな非難が集まっているが、米政府はこれまでほとんど正式に認めていなかった。
エマーソン氏はロンドンで行われた記者会見のなかで、まずは無人機の攻撃で犠牲が出たと見られる25件のケースに注目するつもりだと語った。Guardian紙は、エマーソン氏がいわゆる「ダブルタップ」攻撃－－無人機が一度攻撃した場所へ短い時間の間にあらためて攻撃するというもの。救助員など、集まってきた人々が犠牲になることも多い－－に懸念を示していたと報じている。
無人機の利用に批判的な専門家たちは、今回の調査開始報道に歓迎の声を上げている。米国の無人機利用に関して、違法ギリギリのものだとする警告も、国際法の専門家の間から挙がっていた。米国自由人権協会のヒナ・シャミは、「一部の人々を密かに敵と断定し、彼らを関係の無い民間人も含めて殺害するという米国が主張する権限には、事実上どの国も賛成していません」と話す。「これまで米国政府の標的殺害プログラムは、絶望的なほど透明性と説明責任に欠いていたのです
French President Francois Hollande is triumphant about his operation in Mali, but stories are emerging which show a different side of the war. Journalist Gonzalo Wancho tells RT that for every two rebels killed in airstrikes, a dozen civilians died.
“We’re learning what happened in battle day by day. In the town of Konna, we heard stories from the fog of war. [Rebels] fled to the north when French troops showed up. It’s reported that the cost of that victory was high. While French planes killed only two rebels, the number of civilian casualties were an estimated 14,” journalist Gonzalo Wancha told RT.
It comes just days after French President Francois Hollande declared “victory” in northern Malian cities. But the victory also had its price:
“I wasn’t home when the bombing began. I started praying when I learned my house was under attack. They ruined everything I had – my family and my livelihood. [My children were 11, 10, and 6]. They all died,” Idrís Meiga, a farmer from Konna, told RT.
Unexpectedly, Peng Peng began crying, saying the teacher said, “Japanese people are Chinese people’s enemy, you are all unpatriotic!”
国民の安全を守る警察官の不祥事が後を絶たない。ゆゆしき事態だ。
警察が信頼を失えば、捜査協力が得られず、治安の維持に悪影響が出かねない。警察庁や都道府県警察は強い危機感を持つべきだ。
警察庁によると、昨年１年間に懲戒処分を受けた全国の警察官、警察職員は４５８人に上った。このうち、６２人が免職、１２８人が停職処分を受けた。この１０年で最も多い９３人が逮捕された。
懲戒処分の理由では、痴漢やわいせつ行為などの性犯罪、窃盗や横領などが上位を占めた。
・・・・・
警察組織全体が改革の原点に立ち返り、綱紀粛正に努めねばならない。
AKB48のメンバー峯岸みなみさんが恋愛禁止令を破ったことを理由に丸刈りになって涙で謝罪した映像にはとにかく愕然とした。
恋愛禁止というのはジョークかと思ってきたけれど、実際に降格させられたり、丸刈りになって謝罪をさせられるということにおどろいた。
言うまでもないけれど、そんな個人の自由を禁止する就業規則があったら人権侵害で違法・無効であることは明らか。懲戒処分など認められないでしょう。
そもそも、好きでもない男(しかも少年)に公然と胸を触らせるポルノで「児童ポルノ」に該当する撮影をしたのは放任し、そちらの責任を上層部が何らとっていない。
なぜ好きでもない男とのわいせつな画像を撮影して、それを公然と公衆の目に晒すようなことをAKBメンバーに「仕事」としてやらせて、犯罪行為の責任も取らない上層部が、メンバーが好きな男と密かにあうことは禁止し、降格処分を下すことができるのか、そのポリシーに合理性・正当性はまったくない。
彼女は、「自分の意思で丸刈りにした」と言っているが、あのような髪型になって、Youtubeの画像に出ること自体、秋元氏らがすべてのプロデュースをコントロールしていると言われるAKBでありうるのだろうか。
上層部の許可なくそのようなことが行えるとは到底思えない。
Girls Lead in Science Exam, but Not in the United States - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com via kwout
Girls Lead in Science Exam, but Not in the United States - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com via kwout
Researchers say cultural forces keeping girls away from scientific careers are strong in the United States, Britain and Canada but far less pervasive in Russia, Asia and the Middle East.
Reporters Sans Frontieres accuses Jpn of "almost 0 respect 4 access 2 information on Fukushima". Such hyperbole; undermines my trust in RSF.
7:50 1月30日(水)
数年前から信用できないなと思っている。少なくとも日本認識については。事実に基づかない固定観念にとらわれているように見える。
アメリカの「記者クラブ」事情 http://j.mp/WmCmgo
返信 リツイート お気に入りに登録 その他
アメリカの「記者クラブ」事情
nofrills @nofrills さんより
共同通信の澤康臣さん（在ニューヨーク）と、毎日新聞の和田浩明さん（元在ワシントン）のやりとりを中心に……。 See also: 真夜中の記者クラブ談義 2010-03-05 http://togetter.com/li/8041
「ほほえんで」とするところを「ほほええんで」とミスした。
Migrants handed ￡1m a week for children back home as thousands of British families are stripped of THEIR child benefit | Mail Online via kwout
‘What has happened to this f*****g country’, before directly abusing Miss Thompson who was sitting down.
She asked her ‘Where do you come from?’, to which Miss Thompson replied: ‘What does it matter where I'm from?’
The woman said: ‘We are paying taxes you a***holes and we are going down in this crisis’, before Miss Thompson replied: ‘Don't call me an a***hole’.
But the woman said: ‘I will, because you're coming over here and you're pleading poverty. I am not well.’
But Miss Thompson responded: ‘You won't call me an a***hole. I will not accept that. Don't call me an a***hole. Don't come to my face and insult me. You won't do that. Calling me an a***hole? Are you alright?’
The woman said back: ‘Don't accept it, you fat a***’, before a voice off camera said the police had been called.
The woman was then apprehended by a group of nurses, paramedics and security guards, saying: ‘There's a revolution going on here.’
・・・・
‘This woman was a very normal looking woman who you wouldn't think would abuse you. How many people are the same like that? I’m scared.'
A Suffolk Constabulary spokesman told MailOnline: 'We have arrested and charged somebody. She has been charged with assault on a police officer, two counts of racially aggravated assault and two charges of assault. So, five charges altogether.
In a common assault charge, no physical violence needs to follow the threat; just the fear experienced by the victim is inclusive of this charge.
If one accepts the notion that collectivities should always be held -
and/or should hold themselves - accountable for bad things that they
did in the past, than yes, it is a justified criticism. There is ample
evidence that Japanese forces and the Japanese government behaved in
ways that were atrocious by any standard. The fact that these details
were censored at the time underlines that they were atrocious even by
Japanese standards at the time. Germany has faced up to the dark sides
of its history (although it was a far longer and more difficult process
than is commonly appreciated). Japan looks bad in comparison.
The fact that other countries have done as bad or worse things without
apologizing - for instance Russia under Stalin (see David Satter's
devatating account of the politics of memory in Russia, "That War long
ago, and never happened anyway), or that some of those who criticize
Japan have failed to face up to more unseemly sides of their own pasts
(European colonialism, the United States in the Philippines or
indiscriminate use of force during WW II) is true. It does not excuse
Japan.
If one has a different notion of moral liability, that one should hold
individuals, not nations responsible for their actions, things may seem
a bit different. After all, the number of Japanese alive today who were
directly involved in atrocities or the colonial oppression are very few
and dwindling. Of course, one can argue - following Karl Jaspers - that
there are different shades of guilt, and while Japanese today do not
have criminal guilt for the past, nor political responsibility for what
happened, arguably they should have some sort of metaphysical guilt as
members of the Japanese nation. But arguably that calls for a rather
different sort of criticism than the sort that Evans levels against
Japan.
If one wants to look at it from a humanitarian point of view (which
overlaps with, but separable from the moral one discussed above), then
Japan should do more than it has. What it does, however, depends not on
what it it did in the past, but on what it can do in the present. To
what extent can Japan do something that will relieve in a significant
way the suffering of those who have been armed by it int he past? This
is a difficult question, because it requires that one define who is a
victim, what have they suffered, and what benefit are they likely to
derive from Japanese apologies, compensation, etc. Of course, activist
groups who speak on the behalf of victims will claim that there is
great benefit. That is their raison d'etre. And they may be perfectly
sincere in their views. But would exhuming the history of the surviving
comfort women really help them psychologically, especially if it means
that in some they may have to confront painful issues? For instance,
some historians warn that in some cases their own family members may
have been complicit in their being pressed into sexual slavery, a fate
that many Japanese women suffered at the time, and which continues to
be true of many women (and some men) in the sex industry around the
world today. It is a difficult issue, but one that has to be faced
regardless if assistance is to provided.
