"Was the U.S. use of nuclear weapons...a violation of the same international law?"

Daily Press Briefing - August 28, 2013
August 28, 2013






Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 28, 2013

MS. HARF: I do. And I make a few points here. I think that it’s clear that Syria violated international law here. They used chemical weapons in an indiscriminate manner with respect to civilians. That’s – they have violated the general laws of war. We talked a little bit yesterday – and we can talk a little bit more – about the international norms surrounding this issue.



32:17

QUESTION: Was the U.S. use of nuclear weapons resulting in the mass and indiscriminate killing of civilians in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki a violation of the same international law that you are referring to?

MS. HARF: I’m not even going to entertain that question, Arshad.

「原爆投下も国際法違反か」シリア化学兵器使用で米国務省に質問飛ぶ
2013.8.29 12:24 ［国連］

　原爆投下も化学兵器使用と同じ国際法違反か－。米国務省の定例記者会見で２８日、ロイター通信の記者がシリアの化学兵器使用疑惑をめぐり、米国による広島、長崎への原爆投下の例を挙げて軍事介入の正当性について追及した。

　米政府はアサド政権による化学兵器使用を断定。この日の会見でハーフ副報道官は国連安全保障理事会による武力行使容認決議なしに軍事介入することを念頭に、多数の市民を無差別に殺害したことが一般的に国際法違反に当たると強調した。

　これに対してロイターの記者は「米国が核兵器を使用し、広島、長崎で大量の市民を無差別に殺害したことは、あなたの言う同じ国際法への違反だったのか」と質問。ハーフ氏はコメントを避けた。（共同）

　NYTの記者でないことはたしかなようである。

If they cared about the Syrian people, they would have done something constructive much sooner

Attacking Syria is about saving face, not saving lives
There is no such thing as a "surgical strike", and we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes.
Last Modified: 28 Aug 2013 15:00
Rachel Shabi
Rachel Shabi

It should be clear that these planned western alliance airstrikes aren't about Syrian lives - not the unimaginable death tolls in excess of 100,000, nor the agonising lines of refugees pouring into neighbouring countries.

If these heads of state cared about Bashar al-Assad butchering and dropping bombs on the Syrian people, they would have "done something" constructive much sooner - not, as the so-called liberals suggest, stormed in with counterproductive airstrikes. Rather, they would have exerted the necessary pressure on rebel allies and conducted the necessary diplomacy with Assad backers, to quickly get the regime and its opponents to a negotiating table. And it is not too late to do any of that now.


If these proposed strikes were about Syrian lives, and not a proxy war to destabilise the "Shia axis" of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the West wouldn't snub Assad's allies - Russia, China and Iran - by proposing to bypass the UN. Nor would it blatantly discredit the currently working weapons inspectors whom Russia used its pressure to persuade Assad to allow into Syria in the first place.



If the US were remotely serious about a morally correct international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons it would, as the former British government security advisor, Admiral Lord West, suggested on Wednesday, share any evidence it claims to possess with Russia and China. Antagonising Russia also makes it much harder to coordinate the humanitarian effort desperately needed not just in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, but within Syria itself.

If the goal were to help the Syrian people, how could this diplomatically rude unilateralism count as a sensible move?





Most of all, it should be clear that the strikes are about saving face, not saving lives, because of the warnings of disastrous consequences. First, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike" - we must assume that civilians may be killed in any airstrikes against Syria. But more broadly, a military intervention will make the situation much worse because the terrible war within Syria is also a cynical, neo-Cold War. In this context, and given Assad's loyal allies, it is likely that a western military move will spark retaliation, not just against the Syrian population but across the region, too.

Yet because of the current, accelerated impetus to strike, there is little thought given to consequences, no planning for the day after - no political plan at all. And even as the region buckles under the strain of this brutal, spreading battle, crucial warnings are seemingly brushed aside in the overwhelming need to prove that the West is the good side.

Perhaps if we stopped believing that the Middle East needs the West's moral posturing, we might start to think differently about its role and responsibilities in that region. Leaders will always seek to justify military interventions using democratic values and lovely human rights slogans when it suits particular agendas of the time. But we don't have to lap it up so willingly - or give them a green light to go ahead.

　アサドの市民虐殺が問題ならば、もっと早い段階で介入があって然るべきであったし、シリアの市民の命を大事に思い、道義的に正しくありたいというなら、国連の調査官の調査を尊重すべきだし、また、ロシアや中国にアサドがやったという証拠を見せて然るべきであろう、と。　

　空爆すれば市民が犠牲になるかもしれず、また、アサド派の復讐が国内のみならず、国際的に拡大するかもしれないにもかかわらず、軍事介入するというのは、人命救助のためではなく、自分たちの面子のためにやっているだけではないか、と。

　西洋人は、自分たちに都合のいいときだけ、民主主義や人権などの言葉を使って軍事介入しているだけだ、と。

ーーー建前と本音というか、言っていることとやっていることの不一致というのは、国際政治でつねに注目しておくべきで、西洋人の発するかっこいい言葉に酔うーーーこれはこれで必要ーーーーのは若いときに卒業して、ある程度したら、彼らがどのようにそれらを使い分けるかの研究をはじめたほうがいいかもしれない。


　国際社会で大人になるというのは、自分のやっていることはべつにして、建前を貫けるかどうか、また、アメリカメディアで働く日本人記者やコラムニストのように、米軍や強いものの罪に目を背けて、国際的強者を支持し続けられるかどうか、ーそこらへんが問題になってくるようである。

シリア戦 イギリス国民にも不評

British Public Oppose War With Syria, As MPs Prepare To Debate Intervention
The Huffington Post UK | Posted: 28/08/2013 07:20 BST | Updated: 28/08/2013 10:57 BST

But despite the pictures of bodies wrapped in white sheets, children with limp limbs and mourning mothers after Wednesday's apparent chemical attack outside Damascus, a YouGov survey for The Sun revealed that 74% oppose deploying British troops to the conflict-torn country, perhaps demonstrating that scars from intervention in Iraq are too raw.


24% say the atrocity has turned them in favour of action, while it has had the opposite effect on 5%. Meanwhile two-fifths said they remained against any involvement.

And 50% of Britons oppose attacking even with long range missiles from ships, while just a quarter are in favour of it.

It showed that British military involvement is unpopular no matter what political party people support, with Ukip voters the most strongly against it at 68%




The poll also showed that nearly half oppose enforcing a no-fly-zone, while nearly two-thirds were against sending full-scale weapons including tanks.

And it found that a majority of almost 3-1 also think the Government should be bound by Parliament's vote .

国際法的観点から

Saving Syria: International law is not the answer
Those who want forceful action against Assad cannot rely on international treaties as justification.
Last Modified: 27 Aug 2013 13:33

The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 is the main inter-state treaty on the subject. This treaty is a model of clarity: Its opening lines state that "each state party to this convention undertakes never under any circumstances … to use chemical weapons". This is as clear as it gets in international law. Unfortunately, Syria has never signed the treaty and is not bound by it.


UN inspectors visit Syria attack site
Syria also has not signed the treaty on the International Criminal Court - the "Rome Statute" - that makes it a war crime to use "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices" in war. Neither has it signed the Convention Against Torture; the "Ottawa Convention", which bans landmines; the Convention on Cluster Munitions; or many others that attempt to regulate the instruments of warfare. Syria signed but never ratified the Convention on Biological Weapons. These treaties therefore do not apply.

Yet in 1953 Syria did sign the Geneva Conventions and, in 1968, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925. These are important commitments. The first establishes general rules for the treatment of civilians in wars, specifying that non-combatants not be subject to murder, torture, rape, or other cruel treatment. The Geneva Gas Protocol prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids".

The Syrian government has repeatedly broken the first of these commitments, and if it was responsible for the chemical attacks last week, then it has clearly broken the second as well. But the problem is that, legally, the Gas Protocol regulates only wars between states, not civil wars. It does not govern how a government behaves inside its own territory.

シリアは化学兵器禁止条約 にも、国際刑事裁判所ローマ規程にも署名しておらず、ジュネーヴ条約　　ジュネーヴ議定書 (1925年）には署名しているものの、内戦には適用されないから、国際法違反を問えない。

条約に署名していなくても、化学兵器は普遍的な自然法に違反するという主張も考えられるが、

But there is little history to back the claim that chemical weapons are universally prohibited. Many states continue to hold enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, including the US and Russia, which suggests they do not believe they are inherently illegal.

アメリカやロシアも化学兵器を所有しており、普遍的に違法という主張を裏付ける根拠は薄弱である、と。


かえって、



Military intervention in Syria would need U.N. approval: Brahimi
GENEVA | Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:52am EDT





Russia warns against military intervention in Syria

By Alexei Anishchuk
MOSCOW | Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:20am EDT
(Reuters) - Russia warned Western powers on Monday against any military intervention in Syria, saying the use of force without a U.N. mandate would violate international law.



国連の承認なしに、軍事介入するほうが国際法違反となる、ようである。



　平和主義日本は宗主国アメリカが国際法に違反する軍事介入ーーー市民の犠牲は必然といわれるーーーを支持するか、どうか？

ドイツは軍事介入せず

シュピーゲル
Letter From Berlin: Merkel's Empty Rhetoric on Syria

By David Crossland

"Merkel won't distance herself from the US and Britain and France when they take action. But I'm totally sure she will rule out any military involvement by Germany," Jürgen Falter, a political analyst at Mainz University, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.





Were the allies to call on Germany for military help -- and there's no sign that they will -- the government is likely to point to legal hurdles such as the lack of a UN Security Council mandate, and the need for a parliamentary vote, said Falter.



Manfred Güllner, the director of the Forsa polling institute, said the Syrian crisis was unlikely to have much impact on the election.


Germany a 'B Country'

"The West is divided into A-countries that are fundamentally prepared and in a position to use military force -- those are basically the US, Britain and France," center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote in an editorial on Wednesday. "The B countries don't completely rule out military intervention but usually practice big restraint for domestic political reasons. Where possible, they stay out of it. The biggest and most important B country is Germany."

　ドイツはシリアに軍事介入する同盟と距離をおくことをしないが、自ら軍事行動を起こすこともなく、仮に支援を頼まれても、国連決議がないこと、国会の決議が必要などのことから、困難である、と伝えるだろう、と。

怖いからそばにいるだけ

朝日新聞デジタル：人身取引、夏休み相談増　売春強要の１４歳「死にたい」 - 社会

（人身売買）

英米は国連決議がないままでも攻撃に踏み切る

UK and US ready to strike Syria without UN say-so
TODAY @ 09:29
RELATED Germany not keen to join France and UK on Syria strike UN ignores EU calls for Syria inspections EU arms to Syria: what, how and if
BY ANDREW RETTMAN


英米は国連決議がないままでも攻撃に踏み切る模様。




「事態改善に努力」　日本政府は慎重に対応検討

　日本政府は、シリアへの軍事介入の可能性が高まっていることを受けて、慎重に今後の対応を検討しています。

　「我が国としては引き続いて各国と連携しつつ、事態の改善に向けて努力していきたい」（菅義偉官房長官）

　菅官房長官はこのように語ったうえで、アサド政権側が化学兵器を使用したと考えているのかどうかについては「関係各国とのやりとりで様々な具体的な情報はある」と述べるにとどめました。

　また安倍総理は訪問先のカタールで、「シリア情勢悪化の責任は人道状況の悪化を顧みないアサド政権にある」などと語り、アサド政権の退陣を求めました。

　日本政府はアメリカなどが国連の決議がないまま攻撃に踏み切った場合、歩調を合わせる姿勢をどの程度まで示すのか、慎重に検討しています。（29日11:27）

　さあ、どうする、平和主義ニッポン

戦争好きアメリカ雑誌ＮＹＴのコラムニスト シリア攻撃を支持

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Reinforce a Norm in Syria
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: August 28, 2013


戦争好きアメリカの雑誌ＮＹＴのコラムニスト　シリア攻撃を支持

But when I was last in Syria, in November, I met a grandma who had already lost her husband, her son and her daughter-in-law to the Assad regime. She was living in her fifth home that year, a leaky tent, wondering who would die next, and like everyone was desperate for international support. “We ask for God’s help in ending this, and Obama’s,” she said.

これで、シリア攻撃が許されるなら、アメリカの無人機に身内を殺されたイスラム教徒がアメリカを攻撃するのも当然だわなああ。

President Bashar al-Assad may escalate. Hezbollah may retaliate against Western targets. Our missiles may kill civilians. We’ll own a civil war in a broken country. We’ll be distracted from nation building at home. A couple of days of missile strikes will offer merely a slap on the wrist that advertises our impotence.

・・・・

Are we making too much of chemical weapons? Probably less than 1 percent of those killed in Syria have died of nerve gas attacks. In Syria, a principal weapon of mass destruction has been the AK―47.

これだけわかっていて、それでも戦争したいのかね？　軍備力というのは、若きアメリカにとって危ないおもちゃですね。

それと、アメリカのリベラルってロシアとの協調とかの選択肢は考えないんだね。

国連決議とか一顧だにされていないところも注目。


ＮＹＴというのは、米軍の性奴隷問題は断固として、黙認しつづけて、米軍無罪を最大限推進しようという雑誌だから、こういったコラムニストがいるのも不思議ではない。

少子高齢化のシナリオ 衝撃の結果

蓮舫 れんほう - 超高齢日本の30年展望。 http://www.dir.co.jp/project/thirty-years/...

DIR30年プロジェクト「超高齢日本の30年展望」

”米国が・・・守ろうとしているのはシリア国民ではなく・・・・自国の威信”

社説:シリア緊迫　米は軍事介入を急ぐな
毎日新聞　2013年08月29日　02時33分

米大統領報道官によると、攻撃は政権転覆を狙うものではなく、地上部隊派遣も考えていないという。空爆にほぼ限定する点では米英仏などのリビア攻撃（１１年）、ＮＡＴＯによるユーゴスラビア空爆（１９９９年）などを念頭に置いているようだが、この二つの作戦が政権崩壊につながったことを思えば、アサド政権は実質的に存亡の分かれ道ともいえよう。

　武力行使含みの局面になったのは残念だが、攻撃を境にシリア情勢が混迷を増す可能性も排除できない。米国にはあくまで慎重な対応を望みたい。シリアと関係が深い露中は、危機回避に向けてアサド政権への最後の説得に努めるべきだろう

なんやかやいって毎日は、武力行使容認だね、これは。しかも、国連決議なしでＯｋａｙという口ぶり。



ロイター
コラム：米国がシリアに軍事介入する本当の理由
2013年 08月 28日 19:52 JST
国際政治学者イアン・ブレマー

　via mozu

２年が経過したシリア情勢で、明らかになったことがある。それは、米国が本当に守ろうとしているのはシリア国民ではなく、化学兵器使用を禁じる国際基準と、そして何よりも自国の威信だということだ

CNN

Why Western intervention in Syria will leave chaos
By Ed Husain, Special for CNN
August 28, 2013 -- Updated 1504 GMT (2304 HKT)

U.S.-led military strikes in Syria will not change the tide of the war. That is not the mission, nor is it achievable by aerial blitzing. The Syrian opposition is not a government in waiting. It is too fragmented ideologically, overwrought by al Qaeda affiliates, deeply anti-American, and dominated by suburban fighters with little control of major cities, mercenaries who are not committed to peaceful coexistence with Syria's religious Christians, nor its Jewish neighbor.
The case against Syria Arab League weighs in on Syria
Syria after al Assad will be worse. A new civil war will break out between opposition factions. By bombing Syria today, we bear the burden of the instability we leave in our wake.

By intervening, Syria may well prove to be Obama's war, bequeathed to a new president in 2016. Civilian casualties are inevitable: The images on our screens will not be Syrians using chemical weapons to kill each other, but American bombs creating carnage and killings in yet another Muslim country.

　アサドの後の受け皿がなく、むしろアサドより反米的。

　アメリカによる軍事攻撃で市民に犠牲がでるだろう、と。


Democracy Now


As Strikes on Syria Loom, Is U.S. Ignoring a Diplomatic Track That Could Prevent More Violence?

At the end of the day, there is no military solution. There have got to be negotiations. Striking Syria now will only make the situation worse for Syrians on the ground. It’s a very dangerous move

　軍事的解決策はない。シリア攻撃してシリアは悪化するだけ。

東京新聞

シリア情勢　外交手段は尽きたのか

2013年8月29日

空爆を限定的に行ったとしても、地上軍の派遣の可能性が排除されている以上、アサド政権に及ぼし得る効果は疑問だ。

　曲がりなりにも、国連調査団が現地入りするところまで外交努力は進んでいる。米側は明らかな証拠があるとしているが、イラク戦争での大量破壊兵器をめぐる教訓もある。まずは調査団の報告を待つのが筋ではないか。
　ロシア、中国とて化学兵器使用が人道上許されない国際法違反行為であることに異論はあるまい。その一点でも合意できれば、外交の糸口は残されている筈（はず）だ。

調査団の報告をまてば武力行使も可、という含みか？


朝日

シリア情勢―国連の調査が先だ

　空爆が反体制派を勢いづけたとしても、各派はいまも結束していない。中には国際テロ組織アルカイダに通じるイスラム過激派もいる。アサド政権後を担える国家体制の受け皿はまだ見えていないのだ。

　米欧の強硬策は、アサド政権を支えるイランのロハニ新大統領を対話路線から遠ざける心配もあるだろう。中東全域が流動化する懸念がぬぐえない。

　今回の化学兵器疑惑を機に米欧が力を注ぐべきは、無秩序な争いをやめさせ、各派を話し合いの席につかせるための方策を練ることだ。空爆では、抜本的な解決策は生み出せない。

空爆では解決策は生み出せない、というなら、はっきり、反対という立場を打ち出したらどうか？


　「２年半におよぶ内戦の死者は１０万を超えた」というわりに、それまで、日本の新聞社はシリア情勢に無関心すぎたのではないか？


シリア:安倍首相　アサド大統領退陣を求める
毎日新聞　2013年08月28日　21時06分



どうかな？


そもそも、西側諸国、とくにアメリカはアサド退陣を求めてきたわけだが、それでは、



2 February 2012 Last updated at 16:55 GMT Share this pageEmailPrint
ShareFacebookTwitter
UN Syria text drops call for Assad power handover




Russia: Syria opposition thwarting peace with Assad exit demand
2013年 05月 30日 16:59 JST

Russia..... has repeatedly said it is not trying to prop him up but that his exit cannot be a precondition for a political solution.

Russia says U.S. not putting enough pressure on Syria opposition
LikeDislike
Reuters June 3, 2013

May 7 that they would try to bring Assad's government and its opponents together as soon as possible at an international conference to seek an end to the civil war, but no date has been set.

"In our view, the United States is definitely not working hard enough in terms of putting influence on Syrian opposition groups so that (they) will come to the international conference," state-run RIA quoted Ryabkov as saying.

He said the United States "should not allow the opposition to try to issue ultimatums and impose preconditions. The main such condition ... is the demand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's exit."

The Atlantic
ブレジンスキー
Brzezinski on the Syria Crisis

Share on email Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on digg | More Sharing ServicesMore
Printer-friendly version
Zbigniew Brzezinski | June 24, 2013

. . .there should be some sort of internationally sponsored elections in Syria, in which anyone who wishes to run can run, which in a way saves face for Assad but which might result in an arrangement, de facto, in which he serves out his term next year but doesn't run again.

ロシアと折り合わない。

なるほど、ロシアは、

Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region.

アメリカに地域の主導権を握られたくないのだ、というが、ロシアの言い分が不条理かというと、無条件降伏せよ、と、ごり押ししてアサドの態度を硬直化させ、犠牲者を増加させるよりーーーーアサドは多くの国民を殺害した独裁者であり、その罪が赦されるものではないにせよーーーーアサドを除外しないで、シリア国民に選ばせる、というほうが実情に即しており、かつ、犠牲者がより少なかったのではないか。

　これからも、はじめからアサド排除ということでは、話し合いのテーブルにつきようがなく、アサドは徹底抗戦するだろう。

　もっとも、どれくらい時間がかかるかわからないが、アメリカの関与が始まった以上、リビアのガダフィのように暗殺されて終わりかな、とも思う。　

　問題はそれから、シリアの地獄が始まるということだ。

オーストラリアとシンガポールの情報機関が日本からイギリスに伸びる海底ケーブルSEA-ME-WE-3を盗聴

フォロー

Aceface
‏@Aceface4ever

Australian spies in global deal to tap undersea cables http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/australian-spies-in-global-deal-to-tap-undersea-cables-20130828-2sr58.html … @theageさんから

Aceface
‏@Aceface4ever

オーストラリアとシンガポールの情報機関が日本からイギリスに伸びる海底ケーブルSEA-ME-WE-3を盗聴していたことが明らかに。英国は米英加豪ＮＺの情報共有サークルに所属しているので、豪とシンガポールの主要ターゲットは日本、ということに。

suzuky

‏@suzuky
前も書いたけど、日本はちゃんと他国政府の盗聴をしているのでしょうか？