世界中で起きている重要な事件、事象についての忌憚なき批判、批評の場とします。


by shin-yamakami16

G8・Putin:「シリア兵の内蔵を食べる反政府軍を援助するのか?」—英国各紙

f0166919_2321435.jpg


  英国『ミラー』紙:「シリア内戦」→「中近東戦争」→「第三次世界大戦」? 



「シリア内戦は第三次世界大戦へ発展するか?」—‘Mirror’ 紙

                                    山上 真

 今日6月17日から北アイルランド Lough Erneで開催されるG8 サミットを前にして、一足先にロンドンに乗り込んで英国首相キャメロンと会談し、一緒に記者会見に臨んだロシア大統領プーチンの一言が、殆ど全ての英国メディアの冒頭を飾っている。

f0166919_23262796.jpg



 他ならぬ「シリア内戦」への対応をめぐって、欧米とロシアの間で、一触即発的な雰囲気が醸し出されているのだ。きっかけは先日米国政府が突如として発表した「シリア政府軍・サリン使用」という断定であった。

 この内戦での「サリン使用」疑惑については、このブログでも度々取り上げているように、国連関係機関が既に「反政府軍・サリン使用」疑惑を公表している。

 どこに真実があるかということを突き止めるのは、英・仏・米など、すでにシリア内戦に深く関わっている当事国以外の「客観的判断」機関、例えば国連という場しかないことは明らかだが、これら三国は、その判断を全く無視の姿勢だ。

f0166919_23355898.jpg


                シリア内戦:Homsの惨状

 その立場から英国首相が一方的にシリア政府を非難し、’Rebels’ と呼ばれる反政府軍への軍事的支援を合理化したのに対して、プーチンは激怒を露にして

「 欧米はシリア兵の内蔵を食べる反政府軍を援助するのか?そうすることで、数世紀に渉って欧米が培って来た人道的価値観に背くことがないのか?」

と英国首相に厳しく迫ったのである。

f0166919_23304362.jpg


     シリア政府軍兵士死体から心臓を切り取って食べる反政府軍指揮官

 実は英国では、日本での場合と同様、シリア反政府軍指揮官が政府軍兵士の死体を捌き、心臓を抜き出して食べるというおぞましいヴィデオ映像のことを、『ガーディアン』紙などごくわずかなメディアを除いて、公表していなかったのだ。通常は何でも報道する右派大衆紙『サン』が、今回初めて紙面に「残虐写真」を掲載しているのを見れば、「プーチン言及」での慌てぶりが分かろうというものだ。

f0166919_23274861.jpg


        ロンドン市長ボリス・ジョンソン「狂人たちに武器を渡すな」

 特に注目されるのは、保守系と言われる『タイムズ』・『テレグラフ』両紙が「敵国」ロシア大統領の言辞を肯定的に掲載していることだ。前者は、キャメロン首相が、国内で政治的に孤立していることを指摘し、シリア反政府軍への武器援助を行う法案が議会で否決されるだろうとする。後者は、保守党ロンドン市長ボリス・ジョンソンが、「シリアの狂乱集団に武器を与えるな」と警告し、首相の「シリア方針」に真っ向から反対していることを伝えている。

 米国オバマがG8サミット会議の場で、シリア政府軍による「サリン使用」の証拠を示すことを約束していると報じられているが、さてどんな「代物」が出て来るか興味深々というところだ。米軍・CIA 総力挙げての努力の甲斐はあるだろか。提出された「現物」は、中立的な国際機関の徹底的な検証を受けなければならない。
 よく言われているように、軍事的に優勢なシリア政府側に「サリン使用」の動機が全く無いのだ。欧米の軍事介入を招くだけの「愚を冒す」だろうか?
 
 「リビア」の場合もそうであるが、イスラム過激派は「虚偽」を働くことは全く意に介さないという性癖を持っている。そして、「神を冒涜」した少年を殺したように、人道を全く無視するという「非道」集団だ。欧米的価値観と相容れる存在では有り得ない。 (2013.06.17)


                     <追記>
今日6月21日付『ワシントン・ポスト』紙は、「シリア化学兵器使用主張について、透明性の欠如が批判される」というタイトルの長文記事が冒頭に掲載された。そこでは、シリア政府軍が市民に対してサリンなどを使用したという米国政府の主張について、その資料の収集と分析方法で信憑性に欠けることを、国際的に最高レベル専門家が指摘しているという。これで、G8サミットでオバマが「証拠を出す」という約束を、果たせなかった訳が説明される。 (2013.06.21)
The Washington Post
In Syrian chemical weapons claim, criticism about lack of transparency

By Colum Lynch and Joby Warrick, Friday, June 21, 7:26 AM

UNITED NATIONS — Despite months of laboratory testing and scrutiny by top U.S. scientists, the Obama administration’s case for arming Syria’s rebels rests on unverifiable claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, according to diplomats and experts.

The United States, Britain and France have supplied the United Nations with a trove of evidence, including multiple blood, tissue and soil samples, that U.S. officials say proves that Syrian troops used the nerve agent sarin on the battlefield. But the nature of the physical evidence — as well as the secrecy over how it was collected and analyzed — has opened the administration to criticism by independent experts, who say there is no reliable way to assess its authenticity.

The technical data presented by the three Western powers is of limited value to U.N. inspectors trying to determine whether
Syria’s combatants used chemical weapons during the country’s 25-month-old conflict. Under the United Nations’ terms of reference, only evidence personally collected by its inspectors can be used to fashion a final judgment.

But no inspectors have been allowed inside Syria, so Western governments have relied on physical evidence smuggled out of the country by rebels or intelligence operatives. Precisely who acquired the evidence and what methods were used to guard against tampering may be unknowable, according to experts experienced at investigating chemical weapons claims.

“You can try your best to control the analysis, but analysis at a distance is always uncertain,” said David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. “You’d be an idiot if you didn’t approach this thing with a bit of caution.”

U.S. defends analysis

The Obama administration announced last week that it was expanding military support to the rebels after concluding with “high confidence” that Syria’s government had used chemical weapons on a small scale, according to a White House statement. President Obama had warned Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in August that any use of his chemical arsenal would cross a “red line” and draw a strong U.S. response.

The first report of sarin attacks trickled out of Syria in January, and the administration initially played it down. By March, Britain and France reported that they had received evidence of the attacks and, in a joint letter, asked the United Nations to expand its investigation and then provided soil samples tested in Britain. The Obama administration continued to collect and analyze data for three more months before reaching the same conclusion.

The number of deaths from poison gas was estimated at 100 to 150 — a relatively small number in a conflict that has killed more than 90,000 people. But the “red line” declaration had committed the administration — which had been resisting pressure to militarily intervene — to act. At the same time, the president’s language handed the Syrian opposition a powerful incentive to fabricate evidence, some weapons experts noted.

“If you are the opposition and you hear” that the White House has drawn a red line on the use of nerve agents, then “you have an interest in giving the impression that some chemical weapons have been used,” said Rolf Ekeus, a Swedish scientist who headed up U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq during the 1990s.

U.S. officials staunchly defend what they describe as an extensive, rigorous and multilayered analysis that led to the White House’s June 13 pronouncement on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The conclusion that Assad’s forces used sarin was based on scientific assessments of dozens of evidentiary samples representing multiple attacks spanning several months, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the evidence.

The evidence came from a variety of sources, and some was collected by non-Syrians, said the sources, who like others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing strict secrecy surrounding the operation. Details about how the evidence was gathered and tested could not be disclosed without compromising ongoing intelligence operations, the officials said.

Having been famously burned by the 2003 intelligence failure over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, U.S. analysts now approach all such claims with exceptional care, said a third administration official familiar with intelligence analysis. “You have to use sophisticated analytic techniques that account for, and carefully weigh, competing evidence and subject your findings to intense self-imposed scrutiny,” the official said.

But Western officials and diplomats also acknowledged that the lack of transparency undermined the credibility of the chemical-weapons claims.

“The chain-of-custody issue is a real issue,” said a senior Western diplomat whose government has closely tracked the Syrian investigation. But the official said the totality of the evidence “from different sources, different times, different locations” should convince the U.N. investigating body that the claims were real.

Challenge for U.N.

The key fact-finder for determining whether and how chemical weapons were used is Ake Sellstrom, a Swedish scientist and the chief U.N. weapons inspector. He must try to link the physical evidence to a verifiable use of chemical weapons inside Syria, like a criminal prosecutor assembling a case that can stand up in court.

Sellstrom is scheduled to travel next week to Turkey, the first leg in a reporting trip that will include stops in Lebanon and Jordan. There, he is expected to interview witnesses and medical professionals who claim to have treated victims of chemical-
weapons attacks.

The senior Western diplomat said Sellstrom and his team should be able to put together a “pretty coherent picture of what happened,” though the diplomat voiced frustration that it has taken Sellstrom months to send a team to the region to interview refugees.

“If we have criticism with Sellstrom, it’s that he has been very passive,” the official said.

U.N. officials continue to push for an on-the-ground inspection in Syria, even as they acknowledge the diminishing chances that the Assad government will let them in.

“The validity of any information cannot be ensured without convincing evidence of the chain of custody,” U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon cautioned after the White House disclosed plans to arm Syria’s rebels. “That is why I continue to emphasize the need for an investigation on the ground in Syria that can collect its own samples and establish the facts.”

But even if inspectors are allowed in, the passage of time since the alleged attacks would make their task even more difficult, as sarin degrades quickly after exposure to air and sunlight, weapons experts say.

Jean Pascal Zanders, who until recently was a research fellow at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said he has scoured the Internet for photographs, video and news reports documenting alleged nerve agent attacks in Syria. What he has seen has made him a skeptic.

Few of the photographs, Zanders said, have borne the trademark symptoms of a chemical weapons attack. In a paper he presented last week to the E.U. Non-Proliferation Consortium, he compared photographs documenting Iraq’s 1998 chemical weapons attack against Kurds in the town of Halabja.

The Halabja victims appeared to have died instantaneously from chemical agents, he said, and their bodies showed tell-tale signs of exposure to sarin: blue lips and fingertips caused by suffocation and a pink hue brought on by excessive sweating and high blood pressure. “No press reports from Syria refer to those descriptions, which is one of the reasons why I am skeptical about those reports,” he said.

Zanders said the problem with the U.S., British and French evidence is that it cannot be tested by independent scientists. Some of the published reports of chemical weapons use “make certain alarm bells ring,” he said, but it is impossible to reach a definitive conclusion on the basis of what governments have put forward. “We don’t have the barest of information. There is not even a fact sheet documenting the samples,” he said. “This is an immensely political process, and there is no way of challenging the findings.”

Other weapons experts were prepared to accept that sarin was used but said the allegation that the Syrian government has deliberately used toxins against its own people appeared to based on circumstantial evidence.

“There are so many people who would like us to believe that the regime used chemical weapons,” said a former senior U.S. official who had been involved in intelligence assessments of claims about weapons of mass destruction. “You have to question whether any of those advocates were involved in collecting the evidence.”
Warrick reported from Washington.

<写真> Mirror, Telegraph, The Independent, Daily Mail, Le Monde

                 <参考資料>

17 Jun 2013

1. 仏『ル・モンド』紙ー「オバマ、若年層で大幅な支持下落」ーシリア反政府軍への武器供与に反対する声は米国民の70%に達するー(Pew Research Center)
Obama en chute libre chez les jeunes
S'il a été l'un de seuls dirigeants réélus malgré la crise économique, c'est parce que ses compatriotes lui faisaient confiance. Quelle que soit leur opinion de sa politique, les Américains avaient plutôt une bonne opinion personnelle de Barack Obama.

f0166919_6423650.png


               「令状無し電話盗聴」

La surveillance massive des communications mondiales par la National Security Agency (NSA) les poursuites contre les journalistes, le ciblage des groupes Tea Party par les services des impôts, ont érodé ce capital de sympathie (le taux de "likeability", qui est l'un des critères prépondérants pour un homme politique, si on en croit les politologues).
<中略>
Dans la génération Facebook, la désaffection est spectaculaire. Elle s'accompagne d'une montée de l'hostilité envers l'autorité étatique.
60 % des 18-34 ans pensent que le gouvernement fédéral est devenu si puissant qu'il pose "une menace immédiate" aux droits et aux libertés des citoyens.

Yes we scan
Le président "yes we can" n'a manifestement pas réussi à convaincre le public.
Avant de partir en Europe, il a donné une interview à Charlie Rose, l'animateur du show "intello" de PBS, qui doit être diffusée lundi soir.
Obama va parler des écoutes de la NSA et de l'autorisation de livrer des armes à l'opposition syrienne, une autre décision qui passe mal: 70 % des Américains sont contre, selon le Pew Research Center.

2. 6月17付の『ギャラップ』世論調査に依れば、米国民の54% がオバマ大統領の「シリア反政府軍」への武器供与に反対しているという。「支持」は37%に過ぎない。
June 17, 2013
Americans Disapprove of U.S. Decision to Arm Syrian Rebels
Democrats favor the actions, while Republicans and independents do not
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- The slight majority of Americans -- 54% -- disapprove of the Obama administration's decision to send direct military aid to Syrian rebels fighting against the Syrian government, while 37% approve. Those who are following the situation in Syria closely -- about half of the public -- are significantly more likely to approve of the decision than are those who are not following the situation closely, although a majority of both groups disapprove.

f0166919_8453371.png


3. 今日6月18日付英国『テレグラフ』紙が伝える所に依ると、ITV世論調査で、英国人の56%はシリア反政府軍に武器を供与することに反対であることが分かったという。やはり、武器がアルカイダなどテロリストに渡ることを懸念しているからだ。

Tonight, an opinion poll conducted by ITV News and Comres found the majority of the British public was against arming the rebels. Fifty-six per cent of those questioned were concerned about the weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

4.‘Mirror’
Blood on your hands: Vladimir Putin’s attack on Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of G8 talks on SyriaG8 summit crisis talks as Putin warns David Cameron not to help Syrian rebel forces who "eat organs"

5.‘The Independent’
Blood on your hands: Vladimir Putin’s attack on Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of G8 talks on Syria
After talks in Downing Street, the tough Russian President referred to horrific video footage of a rebel leader apparently eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier
Russian President says his country will continue to arm the 'legitimate government' in Syria as Cameron's Coalition allies warn against involving Britain in the conflict. Oliver Wright
Sunday, 16 June 2013
<後略>

6.‘Telegraph’
Boris Johnson: Don't arm the Syria maniacs
Boris Johnson warns that arming the Syrian rebels would be disastrous, adding to tough warnings from Vladimir Putin, the Archbishop of York and an ex-Army leader.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the Mayor of London warns David Cameron that the UK must not use Syria as an “arena for muscle-flexing” Photo: PA

By Peter Dominiczak, and Christopher Hope
10:00PM BST 16 Jun 2013
<後略>

f0166919_0133990.jpg


7.‘Mirror’
Could Syria conflict start World War III? ITV's Bill Neely on how war is spreading
15 Jun 2013 00:00
America has a poor record in the Middle East. It may be about to get worse. And the war threatens to get worse, too

Mushroom cloud - Atomic bomb
Reuters
President Obama agreeing to give more help to the rebels in Syria is a Code Red decision in every sense.
It will almost certainly drench Syria in even more blood and it’s another danger signal that the war there is escalating and spreading far beyond its borders.
The announcement came on the same day as the UN declared that at least 93,000 people have been killed in Syria up to April, probably more. A year ago it was 10,000.
That’s 5,000 a month. Assuming the same rate of killing since April, the figure is now over 100,000.
Into this bloodbath, the West is about to send planeloads of weapons.
Syria’s rebels, a loose alliance of army deserters, Sunni civilians and al-Qaeda-linked fanatics, are now to be armed to the teeth by the world’s only superpower.
It’s one thing for a few thousand fighters from Hezbollah to join the war, or for the Gulf state of Qatar to supply weapons... It’s quite another for the world’s strongest power to back Sunni rebels against Shia forces in a civil war.
America has a poor record in the Middle East. It may be about to get worse. And the war threatens to get worse, too.
Already the danger is not just deadlier fighting within Syria. That’s already happening.
Government forces are beginning a new offensive against rebels who control half of the second city, Aleppo.
Fresh from victory in the strategic town of Qusair, the army is turning to the city of Homs, the cockpit of the revolution.

America may believe that by arming the rebels it can halt the regime’s advance before both cities are retaken.
But the war now involves fighters from the Lebanese group Hezbollah. They provided the muscle that made Qusair fall. Hezbollah, and Syria’s army, are being supplied by Iran. Russia is supplying President Assad’s forces. America is about to supply their enemies.
It’s the Cold War all over again – this time fought in the most volatile region of the world. It’s a proxy war that pushes American-Russian relations to a new low. The possibilities of miscalculation are endless.
Major powers getting dragged into regional conflicts have sparked World Wars in the past.
America is entering a sectarian war that is already spreading beyond Syria’s boundaries.
On the one side is a Sunni Muslim front, led by Saudi Arabia, backing the rebels.
On the other is a Shia front, led by the Saudis’ sworn enemy Iran.
America is now entering this intra-Muslim war, while at the same time confronting Iran. Its weapons against the Ayatollahs’.
<後略>
by shin-yamakami16 | 2013-06-17 23:43 | Comments(0)