シリア 各国の反応 ＢＢＣ
27 August 2013 Last updated at 13:18 GMT Share this pageEmailPrint
124
ShareFacebookTwitter
Syria crisis: Where key countries stand
米英仏 軍事行動に積極的的
ロシア、中国 は 反対
ドイツ
シュピーゲル
Syria Intervention May Endanger Merkel's Re-Election
This time around, though, Chancellor Angela Merkel appears to be betting that the horrific images that emerged from last week's apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria will be enough to trump the German electorate's traditional pacifism.
On Monday, she came out strongly in favor of an international response to the massacre last Wednesday. "The alleged widespread use of gas has broken a taboo," Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert said. "It requires consequences and a very clear response is needed."
Foreign Minster Guido Westerwelle joined her. Saying the use of chemical weapons would be a "crime against civilization," Westerwelle said: "Should the use of such weapons be confirmed, the world community must act. At that time, Germany will belong to those who support consequences."
ドイツ政府は、制裁を支持
The US and the UK are routinely referred to as "hawks" in the German media, the insinuation being that Washington and London are just waiting for an excuse to attack Syria.
英米はシリア攻撃の口実が欲しかっただけだ、と。
As such, the line of argumentation taken by Merkel's challenger, the SPD chancellor candidate Peer Steinbrück, is hardly surprising. "Given the confusion surrounding the situation in Syria, I would advise caution when it comes to the discussion over military intervention," Steinbrück said in an interview published on Monday with the southwestern German daily Südwest Presse.
He was joined in his circumspection by Green Party co-head Claudia Roth, who told SPIEGEL ONLINE that "all parties must reach a political solution as quickly as they can." She also said elsewhere that "we have extreme doubts that a military intervention will stop the conflict or de-escalate it."
軍事介入しても、紛争はやまない、との批判も。
エコノミスト
America, Syria and chemical weapons
Guttering, choking, drowning
Aug 27th 2013, 12:25 by M.S.
The simplest explanation is just that America is willing to overlook or even abet the use of poison gas by its allies or associates, which Iraq was in 1988 when the Reagan administration was trying to contain Iran. When America's enemies use poison gas, on the other hand, it serves as a legitimate excuse to use military force against them, as in Syria today, or indeed in Iraq 15 years after its use of chemical weapons. This, however, is an unsatisfying explanation, because it implies that Barack Obama is looking for an excuse to attack Syria today, when he is plainly not. Mr Obama is visibly being dragged into war on Syria against all his inclinations and his better judgment. And you would think one lesson of 1988 is that if the American government doesn't want to punish a regime for using chemical weapons, it doesn't have to. So what is forcing Barack Obama to bomb Syria now?
アメリカは、味方が化学兵器をつかうことは見逃すが、敵が使えば、敵を叩く口実になる、という説もあるが、それでは、なぜ、”いま”なのかが説明できない、と。
One factor, obviously, is the fact that Mr Obama committed himself to treating the use of chemicals weapons as a red line. He did so at a moment when America was more disposed to intercede on behalf of the Syrian rebels (at least rhetorically, as with Hillary Clinton's "Assad must go" proclamation) than it is now; at the time, the chemical-weapons ultimatum might have seemed like a handy line in the sand, rather than the albatross neckwear it has since become. Another factor is the mounting international exasperation and sense of helplessness in the face of the carnage of the Syrian civil war. The fact that America views the Syrian regime and army as strategic enemies, whose patrons are Russia and Iran, rather than quasi-allies is certainly a necessary condition.
But the decisive factor is simply the rapid availability of mesmerisingly horrifying video imagery of the gas victims. In Iraq, video imagery of Saddam's Kurdish gas victims ultimately came out, but it took years; there was no sense of urgency or an ongoing threat. Even so, the imagery of the massacres ultimately seeded a longstanding American sympathy for the Kurdish cause and remained the clearest indictment of Saddam as a mass murderer. The impact of such video images rests partly on the unique horror of poison gas in the Western imagination.
一つには、オバマが設定した一線を越えたこと、さらに、地獄の様相を呈しているシリア状況を打開すべしという国際的な 気運の高まり、また、ロシアやイランが支持するシリア政権は戦略的にアメリカの敵であることなどあげられるが、決定的だったのは、毒ガスでやられた人々の残酷な映像であろう、と。
もっとも、アメリカ国民は、
Reuters/Ipsos poll
As Syria war escalates, Americans cool to U.S. intervention: Reuters/Ipsos poll
LikeDislike
Reuters Lesley Wroughton August 24, 2013
…
By Lesley Wroughton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Americans strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.
About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
アメリカ国民、９％しか、軍事介入を支持していない。
Obama has been reluctant to intervene in the Syria war, where rebel forces opposed to Assad are made up of dozens of militant factions, some not friendly to the United States.
オバマは、アメリカの好意的でないものたちがいる反政府軍を支援するのはためらってきた。
Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.
Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a "no-fly" zone over Syria that would ground Assad's air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).
アメリカ国民に一番支持されている選択肢は、シリア介入しないこと。
Ｓｌａｔｅ
シリア
米軍史上、最も不人気な戦争が始まる？
Least Popular War Ever?
シリア政権による化学兵器の使用で軍事介入を検討するアメリカだが、国民の支持はたったの９％
2013年8月27日（火）16時32分
ジョシュア・キーティング
Ｓａｌｏｎ
TUESDAY, AUG 27, 2013 05:55 AM +0900
Less popular than Nixon during Watergate: Our potential Syria intervention!
If Obama moves ahead in Syria, he'll have less of the public behind him than in any other military intervention
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
That makes the intervention less popular than communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill, less popular than Richard Nixon during Watergate, less popular than Paris ― and even less popular than Congress, that most hated of American institutions
軍事介入は、共産主義より、ニクソンより、パリよりも嫌われている、と。
アルジャジーラ
Syria, Iraq and moral obscenities big and small
Other governments should be held to the same standard as Syria when it comes to use of chemical weapons.
Last Modified: 27 Aug 2013 14:16
Chemical weapons, and particularly the kind of nerve agents used by Saddam Hussein and now likely Bashar al-Assad's regime, are effective precisely because they can kill large numbers of people, can be used easily and indiscriminately against civilian targets, last long enough to cause damage well after the immediate fighting has ceased, and can help turn the tide of a conventional battle.
Because of these factors, the side subjected to ongoing chemical weapons attacks will usually seek to acquire and use them as well. This inevitably creates an arms race that will exacerbate an already deadly conflict.
Moral calculi
Beyond confirming their effectiveness as a weapon of war and terror, the US intelligence reports analysed by the Foreign Policy article are important for another reason. They reveal that the United States government not only knew about the use of chemical weapons by Iraq - in fact, the same neurotoxin, sarin, was most likely also used in the recent attack in Syria - but aided their use by providing satellite and other intelligence to the Iraqi government.
This reality leads to the question with which I began this column: Can a government that supported the use of chemical weapons in one conflict claim any moral, political or legal authority militarily to attack another country for using the same weapons, particularly when the attack is not authorised by the UN Security Council?
Not only did the US aid the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi government, it also used chemical weapons on a large scale during its 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq, in the form of depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition.
As Dahr Jamail's reporting for Al Jazeerahas shown, the use of DU by the US and UK has very likely been the cause not only of many cases of Gulf War Syndrome suffered by Iraq war veterans, but also of thousands of instances of birth defects, cancer and other diseases - causing a "large-scale public health disaster" and the "highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied" - suffered by Iraqis in areas subjected to frequent and intense attacks by US and allied occupation forces.
Thus what we have now is a situation in which a government (the United States) that has both supported and committed large-scale and systematic war crimes in one country (Iraq) is leading the international effort to stop Iraq's neighbour Syria from continuing to use chemical weapons against its own people.
The US is being opposed by other major powers, particularly Russia, which have their own history of committing large-scale war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, such as in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
アメリカが黙認したイラクの化学兵器使用のときがそうだったのように、化学兵器の使用は対通常兵器戦で、形成逆転するほどの威力をもっているが、無差別に被害が及び、また、その影響も残存、双方が使用し始めれば収拾がつかなくなる。アメリカはシリアによる化学兵器使用を moral obscenities 道義上極めて不快というが、アメリカもイラクが使用するときには、間接的に支援しており、また、自身も劣化ウラン弾を使用しているのだから、同様に道義上極めて不快なはずである。そのアメリカがこれまた、アフガンで化学絵兵器をつかったロシアに反対されている、というのが今の状況である。
A little common sense
The fact that the United States has supported and committed war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons (in Vietnam even more than in Iraq), does not mean that it should play no role in trying to stop Syria from continuing to commit its own war crimes.
Nor does it mean that we should ignore the crimes of the Assad regime and its allies in Russia, Iran, Lebanon or other places.
Imperfect though it may be, the international community must come together when possible to stop the kind of mass murder that has been witnessed in Syria during the last two years. But if we are to heed Kerry's call to respond to the alleged actions of the Syrian government in a manner that is "grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense", then supporters and opponents of a forceful response should hold other governments accountable to the same standard.
This would mean getting rid of the UN Security Council veto enjoyed by the major powers, which has so often been used to shield themselves and their most important clients from punishment for war crimes and other violations of international law. It would also mean turning off the weapons tap across the region: in Israel as well as Saudi Arabia (with whom the US just signed an agreement to sell cluster bombs, another weapon banned under most interpretations of international law), in Egypt as well as in Syria.
もっともアメリカが戦争犯罪を犯しているからといって、シリアの戦争犯罪を野放しにしておいていいわけではない。国連の安全保障理事の拒否権は、自己保身および、自身の属国の保身のために悪用されており、戦争犯罪を問えなくしていることが多く、廃止すべきもので、また、地域への武器の供給をやめるべきである。
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
状況は複雑だが、化学兵器は無差別に市民を大量殺害でき、また、その影響も残存、ということになると、核兵器と似た性格を有することになり、しかも、貧困国でも開発可能となれば、かなり危険な兵器となりうる。
通常兵器で殺されても、化学兵器で殺されても、不法な殺害には変わりはないのであって、国際社会は、通常兵器で大量の市民の犠牲者がでた時点で、なんらかの介入をすべきだったと私は思うが、しかし、今回、イギリス、フランス、アメリカなど核保有国が化学兵器の使用にとくに反応しているのは、通常兵器、および、核武装による秩序を揺るがしてしまう深刻な可能性をもちうる兵器だからではないか、というのが私の一つの仮説だ。
その意味ではロシアも反応していいのだが、ロシアは当初から、
Obama Succeeded in Libya; He's Failing in Syria
Why did the administration's response to the chemical weapons use not involve either punishing the commanders in charge or a strategy to secure the weapons?
STEVE CLEMONSJUN 24 2013, 11:08 AM ET
The Russians, who have interests in not seeing the sectarian hostilities inside Syria drive other regional and transnational ethnic instabilities, have suggested numerous times that the White House walk back its rhetoric on Assad having to leave -- and then get all parties to commit to an election process or governance structure that would be inclusive of those protesting against the government. This is surely short of revolution that many human rights and global justice advocates desired -- but it might have been the best strategy to get the killing to stop.
アサドを除外しないで、選挙を実施させようという話をしていたわけであるが、アメリカがアサドはシリアから出て行け、と、当初その話に乗らなかったのである。
Now, America is back in the game of the Syrian civil war and has used low-level use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime to justify stepping up military support provided directly to the rebels by the US. America has taken a side in the war -- and the Russians and Iranians are on the other. Thus, underway today in Syria is now clearly a proxy battle between regional and great global powers set on top of a sectarian civil war.
、アメリカが反政府軍に武器供与していた時点で、 対 ロシア・イランの代理戦争の様相を呈していたわけであり、ロシア、そして、中国にせよ、化学兵器の使用は反対するにせよ、ここでアメリカのやりたい放題にはさせない、ということであろう。
アサドが化学兵器をつかったという可能性は強いものの、依然として、
Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad)
by Shoebat Foundation on August 27, 2013 in Blog, General
An Atlantic column by Dominic Tierney from the same time argues that if we "strip away the moralistic opposition to chemical weapons" what we'll find lying underneath is "strategic self-interest... Powerful countries like the United States cultivate a taboo against using WMD partly because they have a vast advantage in conventional arms. We want to draw stark lines around acceptable and unacceptable kinds of warfare because the terrain that we carve out is strategically favourable." Even those who argue that chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons assume they are only good at killing civilians indiscriminately, and not very practical for winning conventional battles.
Western logic on Syria: ‘We need to bomb it to save it’
Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Get short URL Published time: August 27, 2013 07:42
There are numerous revelations that would suggest that anti-government militias have access to these weapons and are in fact guilty of using them. Carla Del Ponte, head of a UN commission of inquiry that looked into the use of chemical weapons in northern Syria in late March suggested that the evidence was stronger to implicate anti-government militants in using chemical weapons, not the Syrian government.
In May, Turkish police found cylinders of sarin nerve gas in the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front who were detained in the south near Syria’s northern border. In July, Russian experts submitted reports to the UN detailing how the missiles used in previous chemical weapon attacks were crude and not factory made, and that the chemical components found were not consistent with what the Syrian military has.
The Syrian military has just recently discovered chemical weapons in a rebel tunnel in the Jobar suburb of Damascus, including shells, gasmasks manufactured in the United States, chemical substances of Saudi Arabian origin. Arabic language reports also indicate that a former high-ranking Saudi Arabian member of Al-Nusra Front claimed that the group possessed chemical weapons in a tweet.
反政府軍がつかったという説もあり、この点については、いまだはっきりしたことはいえない。
