2013年7月16日火曜日
米韓同盟終了へのカウントダウン
7/15/2013 @ 8:00AM
60 Years After The Korean War, The U.S. Must End Its Cold War Alliance With South Korea
略
President Barack Obama has said less, but American policy remains largely unchanged. The U.S. maintains a defense guarantee with and nearly 30,000 troops in the ROK, has been tightening its alliance with Seoul, sent B-52s and B-2s to overfly the peninsula earlier this year, and conducts annual exercises with the ROK military.
This policy is not in America’s interest. Washington should disengage from the peninsula. That requires turning security for the South over to Seoul. Normalizing relations with North Korea while handing the nuclear issue to its neighbors. And leaving the two Koreas free to decide their future relationship.
First, the U.S. should end its Cold War alliance with South Korea. Six decades ago the Korean War ended. That conflict spawned the “mutual defense” treaty with Seoul, a one-way security guarantee backed by forces stationed in the ROK. Although the American garrison has diminished in size and the South talks of taking on increased security responsibilities, the alliance remains antiquated and one-sided.
Washington’s defense promise obviously benefits the ROK, but makes no sense for America. The Korean peninsula no longer is tied to a global military struggle, as during the Cold War. The likelihood of the DPRK’s Cold War allies, Beijing and Moscow, offering military support to the North in a rerun of the Korean War is vanishingly small. Finally, the South enjoys huge economic and other advantages over North Korea and is capable of defending itself.
Washington should end joint military exercises, give notice of its intention to terminate the security pact, and begin planning the withdrawal of U.S. military forces. The two governments then could negotiate, as equals, terms for future military cooperation. The focus would not be the DPRK, which would be Seoul’s responsibility, but broader regional and global activities in both nations’ interest.
Second, American officials should set aside the nuclear issue in order to engage Pyongyang. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions most directly affect its neighbors. The North lacks any means to attack the U.S.—other than targeting troops which should be brought home from South Korea. Even if the DPRK could act, confronting America would be suicidal, a quality not evident in Pyongyang. Washington should make the one genuine threat, nuclear transfers to non-state actors, a red line. Otherwise the U.S. should turn over the issue to the countries with the most at stake: China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia.
Then the U.S. should indicate its willingness to sign a peace treaty and open diplomatic relations. These long have been North Korean priorities: the North’s ambassador in Geneva, Sin Son-ho, recently held an unprecedented press conference denouncing the U.S. for “the hostile relations between the DPRK and the United States, which can lead to another war at any moment.”
Set aside his reflexive blame of America. Six decades surely is long enough to officially end the Korean War. Moreover, the U.S. government would benefit from a small window into DPRK society, direct process to handle mundane diplomatic matters, and official channel for more serious communication.
Third, American policymakers should make clear that it is up to the two Koreas to work out the peninsula’s future. If the U.S. no longer was responsible for defending the South, it would have no reason to object to ROK initiatives such as the Sunshine Policy which subsidized the North. The future of the Kaesong Industrial Complex, the subject of ongoing inter-Korean negotiations, similarly criticized for benefiting Pyongyang, also would become a matter of indifference to Washington.
Reunification—whether and, if so, in what form?—would be entirely up to the Korean people. The U.S. would retain strong ties to even a reunited Korea given the abundant commercial and extensive family ties across the Pacific. However, Washington would not presume to dictate the ultimate inter-Korean relationship, which needs to evolve along with events on the peninsula. Most important, the U.S. would not attempt to turn the peninsula into a base for use to contain Beijing.
A more relaxed American approach offers numerous advantages. Leaving the ROK responsible for its own defense would reduce U.S. outlays by cutting America’s troop requirements. Doing so also would make the South fully accountable for the consequences of its policies.
Eliminating Washington’s military presence in South Korea and improving its relationship with the DPRK would take America out of the region’s line of fire. There’s no reason for the U.S. to be entangled in Korean disputes with minimal impact on America. Although the North currently lacks the ability to challenge the U.S., the former believes Washington’s policies require doing so.
Moreover, if anyone can convince the North to abandon nuclear weapons, it will be its neighbors. This includes China, which would recognize that Seoul and Tokyo might develop their own nuclear weapons if America no longer maintained a “nuclear umbrella.” Instead of expecting Washington to produce a miracle solution, other nations would be forced consider new strategies to address the DPRK.
Simultaneously stepping back militarily and advancing diplomatically would diminish the North’s rationale for both its nuclear program and advanced conventional deployments, opening the way for possible reform. Yonsei University’s John Delury recently suggested that “North Korea today resembles China in 1970: waiting for a security guarantee from Washington before embarking on real economic reform.”
Of course, Mao Zedong, not Richard Nixon, was the biggest obstacle to change then. Pyongyang’s complaints might be propaganda boilerplate and the government’s belligerent policy might continue unchanged. The Korea Economic Institute’s Nicholas Hamisevicz complained that Pyongyang’s behavior made “it extremely difficult for countries such as the United States, South Korea, and Japan to engage North Korea and begin moving toward a more positive environment.”
However, the DPRK long has criticized the combined military exercises, which don’t look as harmless from the North. Moreover, the U.S. claims the right to attack any nation at any time for any reason, and North Korea clearly is on America’s “list.” Pyongyang has reason to worry that the allies might attempt regime change if they believed they had a favorable opportunity to do so, as in Libya.
Amb. Sin said that dissolution of what formally remains the United Nations Command could be followed by “confidence-building measures.” Last week Japan’s TV Asahi reported that the Kim regime intends to demobilize 300,000 soldiers. Only the prospect of sustained peaceful engagement with America offers any chance, however small, of turning such possibilities into reality.
In any case, current policy is broken. Is there a genuine desire to reduce tensions hidden within the North’s endless bombast? There’s no way to tell without challenging Pyongyang by accepting its latest proposal for talks.
So long as North Korea is devoted to producing more nuclear weapons, it will not look or act like a “normal country.” Nor will it be easy for the U.S. and DPRK to put aside fundamental differences, such as on human rights. But that doesn’t mean the two governments cannot have a peaceful relationship.
Both sides would benefit from reducing the possibility of conflict. That’s a good starting point for any negotiation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/07/15/60-years-after-the-korean-war-the-u-s-must-end-its-cold-war-alliance-with-south-korea/2/
で韓国といふお荷物が消えて、米国にとって日米同盟の重要性が更に揺るがないものになるわけですよ。
、、、（ｗ
フィリピンが訴追を勧告 日本の大手パチンコメーカー「ユニバーサルエンターテインメント」
フィリピンのカジノ建設をめぐり日本の大手パチンコメーカー「ユニバーサルエンターテインメント」（ＵＥ、東京）が不正な企業活 動をしたとして、フィリピン捜査当局が、外国人の企業活動を制限する反ダミー法の違反容疑で、ＵＥの岡田和生会長や現地法人の日本人社員、フィリピン人ら 計２６人の訴追を勧告していたことが１５日分かった。
共同通信が入手した国家捜査局（ＮＢＩ）の捜査報告書で判明した。法相が最終的に訴追するかどうか判断する。
http://www.47news.jp/CN/201307/CN2013071501001827.html
、、、（ｗ
2013年7月15日月曜日
ジョージ・ジマーマン氏が｢白人｣と報道されてる件
白人に虐げられてる黒人って構図を意図的に煽りたいんでしょうけど・・・
→Hispanic
更に・・・
黒人の血も混じってるロマカトなわけで・・・（ｗ
どちらかといふと・・・
まあ日本も同様ですな。（ｗ
朝日新聞をも含め｢人権｣でメシを食ってる連中とそのスポンサーや国策として他国に対するヘイトスピーチを世界中で行いまくるような国が存在する限りいわゆる｢差別｣は無くならない。（爆ｗ
アシアナ航空事故:乗客の中国１４１人と韓国人７７人への賠償金は・・・（爆ｗ
Courts will treat Asiana passengers differently, even if they were sitting side by side
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, July 14, 5:46 AM
SAN FRANCISCO — When the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 goes to court, the potential payouts will probably be vastly different for Americans and passengers from other countries, even if they were seated side by side as the jetliner crash-landed.
An international treaty governs compensation to passengers harmed by international air travel — from damaged luggage to crippling injuries and death. The pact is likely to close U.S. courts to many foreigners, forcing them to pursue claims in Asia and elsewhere, where lawsuits are rarer, harder to win and offer smaller payouts.
Northern California attorney Frank Pitre represents two Americans who were aboard the plane. He says U.S. citizens will have no problem getting into U.S. courts. Other people, he says, will have a fight on their hands.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/courts-will-treat-asiana-passengers-differently-even-if-they-were-sitting-side-by-side/2013/07/14/8433e4aa-ec9c-11e2-b46e-f15eec37b46c_story.html
アシアナ航空事故:乗客の約半数は中国人
毎日新聞 2013年07月07日 11時28分（最終更新 07月07日 12時55分）
米サンフランシスコ国際空港で６日（日本時間７日未明）、ソウル発のアシアナ航空旅客機２１４便が着陸に失敗し、機体が地面に衝突して炎上した事故で、韓国国土交通省によると、乗客２９１人の国籍は、日本１人、中国１４１人、韓国７７人、米国６１人、インド３人、ベトナム１人、カナダなどその他７人だった。韓国メディアによると、中国から米西海岸に向かう際には韓国・仁川国際空港を経由地として利用し、韓国から米国へ向かう便を利用する人が多いという。
http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20130707k0000e040125000c.html
wktk!（爆ｗ
アシアナ航空 賠償金総額は数億ドル単位
賠償金総額は数億ドル単位か、アシアナ航空事故 米弁護士
2013.07.14 Sun posted at 17:33 JST
ニューヨーク（ＣＮＮＭｏｎｅｙ） 米サンフランシスコ国際空港で今月６日起きた韓国アシアナ航空の着陸失敗、炎上事故で、航空事故の賠償問題の第一人者とされる米弁護士は１４日までに、乗 客に対する同航空の補償金総額は数億米ドル単位に達する可能性があるとの見解を示した。
米フィラデルフィアを拠点にするアーサー・ウォーク弁護士は、今回の事故に触れ１００万ドル（約９９００万円）以下の賠償請求があるとは予想されず、多くは数百万ドルを要求するだろうと指摘。
事故では乗客ら１２３人が無傷で難を逃れたが、職場復帰などが難しくなる心的外傷後ストレス障害（ＰＴＳＤ）を理由に１００万ドル単位の補償金を求める可能性があるとしている。
同弁護士は、航空事故に伴うＰＴＳＤ問題で和解を勝ち取ったのは、大手ユナイテッド航空が１９８９年に米アイオワ州で事故を起こした大手ユナイテッド航空の乗務員が最初だった。これ以降、航空事故の生存者に対しＰＴＳＤを配慮して賠償金を支払うのが普通の対応になったという。
ウォーク弁護士はただ、８日時点でアシアナ機事故の乗客や家族から賠償金問題などについての接触は受けていないと語った。
アシアナ機事故では、３人が死亡、１８２人が負傷した。米国で大手航空会社が死傷者が出る事故を起こしたのは過去約４年で初めて。
同弁護士は、犠牲者や負傷者の賠償金はより高額になると指摘。事故に遭遇後の給料の損失額、被った苦痛の代償、医療費などを換算して計算されると述べた。 アシアナ航空は、事故発生時の乗務員の対応の是非などへの注目が長引くことを避けるため、賠償金支払いの責任問題は争わないだろうとも予想した。
また、事故機の７７７型機を製造した米ボーイング社やサンフランシスコ国際空港の運営団体などが、事故に絡む裁判闘争の被告となったとしても賠償金支払いを命じられる事態にはならないと見ている。
事故で死亡した中国人少女２人のうちの１人 については、事故現場に駆け付けた緊急対応車両にはねられたことが判明し、死因を含めた追加捜査が進められている。ウォーク弁護士はこの事実が本当だとし ても、死亡につながった法的責任を最初に問うのは空港や消防当局にではなく、航空会社側にあるとの解釈は変わらないとも述べた。
http://www.cnn.co.jp/world/35034666-2.html
まあ当然でしょうなあ・・・
で、下朝鮮とNHKが必死に・・・
→操縦ミスとの印象を与える
っていふかあきらかに操縦ミスでしょうに・・・
どこまでも卑怯で卑しい連中ですなあ・・・（爆ｗ
、、、（ｗ
六本木アーバンビルで、「爆発音があった」との通報
東京・六本木のビルで14日夜、「爆発音がした」との通報があり、消防などが出動して爆発音の原因を調べている。
午後9時すぎ、港区六本木の六本木アーバンビルで、「爆発音があった」との通報があり、消防車16台が出動して爆発音の確認にあたっている。
このビルは8階建てで、現在、出火はしていないという。現場は3連休の中日ということで、多くの人でにぎわっていて、消防などが出火原因の特定を急いでいる。
FNN http://www.fnn-news.com/news/headlines/articles/CONN00249888.html
、、、（ｗ
2013年7月14日日曜日
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿