久々の「熱湯浴はアホだ」という話

　「拉致問題、置き去りにするな」ですか。
そりゃまあごもっともではあるんだが、逆にさ、あんたには「拉致問題をつまみ食いするな」と言っておこうぢゃないの。

　でなに？　今回も投稿のベタ貼りですか？
投稿者は徳永圀典さんだそうだけど名前がすごい割にはなんだかね。ｗ
末尾が、

こんな時こそ野党ではないか、小沢党首が野党党首を引率し、訪米して談じ込んでよいのである。
政権党や内閣に空威張りするより遥かに国民的に喝采を浴びようというものだ。

と結ばれてるんだけど、これって熱湯浴や似而非保守に共通するメンタリティーみたいだね。

　けどね、今アメリカの対北朝鮮前のめりに辛うじて抑制を掛けてるのは一にイスラエル、二に小沢一郎だと思うよ。
なんで一がイスラエルかちゅうとさ、れいのシリアの核施設がらみでイスラエルはアメリカ政界に強烈なロビー活動を展開していて、政権中枢を外れたネオコン系が急に元気がよくなってる。
一番目立つのはJohn R. Boltonなんだけど、他にもIleana Ros-Lehtinen下院議員なんかは明らかにイスラエルの意向に従って発言してる罠。
アメリカ政府は、指摘される国連安保理決議に反するシリアと北朝鮮の関係についてはだんまりを決め込んではいるけれども、指摘に関しては無視出来ないから動きにくくなっている。

　そして次は小沢一郎で、共同発の「拉致解決へ支援できず ３月、安倍氏見解を封印 」に目くじらたてている熱湯浴や似而非保守は多いんだけど、この問題があったからこそ「拉致問題の解決を重視 拉致問題の解決を重視 米高官、公電の存在認める」で言われるシーファーからブッシュへの「私的公電」事件、その公電がどれほど効果があるのか？有ったのか？そこは定かではないにしろ、事件は起きているんだな。
っとなりゃ前から言っているように、小沢のテロ特延長反対はＧＪだちゅうことだよ。
小沢さんの本意はさておき、少なくともすべてに腰の引けた外務相や官邸よりゃ、テロ支援国家リスト問題には有効な手を打ったということなんだけど違うか？

　　最後になりますが、11月7日の国務省定例会見における質疑にこんな一節があり、完全に余談とは言えないと思うので参考までに付記しておきます。

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, Mr. Whiton, Deputy Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, gave a speech in Brussels, Belgium. And he said a resolution on North Korean human rights was on the table in the United Nations General Assembly's Human Rights Committee. And United States (inaudible) support from South Korea again this year to pass that resolution. So does his remarks indicate that the United States will raise North Korean human rights issue more intensively in the future nuclear negotiations with North Korea?
MR. MCCORMACK: I can't speak to this specific set of remarks, but the issue of human rights in North Korea has been very high on our agenda, and one that we have consistently raised around the globe, that we have raised with the North Koreans. So it's something that we have talked about quite a bit and I expect that we are going to remain quite concerned about the plight of the North Korean people.

　さらに、11月3日の日本記者クラブにおける会見でクリス・ヒルが拉致および関連事項に触れた部分のみ抜粋しておきますが、下線の部分は、少なくとも9月まではヒルの発言にはなかった内容です。
しかし同時に、テロ支援国家指定はアメリカの国内法の問題であるという従前からの主張（赤字部分）も併せて行ってはいますが、しかし下線の部分は意味があると思います。

QUESTION: Hayashi of NHK. I have two questions. First of all, very shortly the (delisting) process will begin. Specifically, what will this process involve? Japan is very interested in delisting of DPRK from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It seems that what you're explaining to Japan and what you're explaining to DPRK may or may not be different. `Are they truly consistent, what you are explaining to DPRK and Japan? Those are the two questions.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Well, they are consistent. `The DPRK wants very much to be delisted, and we are prepared to work with them. Indeed, we are obligated according to the February agreement to have begun this process, which we have begun. And whether or not we get to the end of this process, of course, depends on future developments. It's not just dependent on denuclearization; it's also dependent on the statutory requirements of this U.S. law with respect to the terrorism list. I think it's important to understand that this is a U.S. list, U.S. law passed by the U.S. Congress, supported by the U.S. President. So what we are doing in the U.S. is to work with the DPRK to ensure that, if they want to be delisted, that they have to qualify to be delisted. Now you don't delist a country because they have done something in some other area where you want them to do something. They have to address the terrorism concerns that put them on the list in the first place. So we will be working with them on that. I think it's in our interest that when there are countries on the terrorism list, it needs to be understood that they are on the list for a reason. They are on the list because they've been supporting terrorism in some respect. So it's in our interest to get countries to stop supporting terrorism and therefore to get off the list. So we are working with them. I don't want to make a prediction now of where we end up on this. But I will say that we understand very well the great sensitivity of this terrorism list. We understand that -- even though it is a U.S. list and a U.S. law passed by a U.S. Congress and signed by a U.S. President -- that nonetheless it has international repercussions, including in some countries; in Japan itself. We are in very close contact with Japan on this issue. We are in very close contact with Japan on our mutual efforts to achieve progress, achieve meaningful progress on the matter of the Japanese citizens so brutally abducted some years ago by the DPRK. So we will continue to work very closely with Japan on this issue of delisting and the relationship of this issue to the abduction issue.

Let me just say with respect to dealing with the Japanese, I don't think there's a negotiating team that we've had closer relationships with than the Japanese negotiating team. And this has gone on for me since the Koizumi premiership. So I've worked very closely with Sasae-san on these issues. These are tough issues for everybody. You know, having a Six-Party process -- I mean, Japan is in a very special place, because not only is it really in the shadow of some of these nuclear threats, it's also in the shadow of missile threats. And it's very much burdened by the shadow of this terrible abduction matter. So we have to fully factor in and fully understand Japanese sensitivities on this, and that's why I spend a lot of time with my Japanese counterparts. You should see my phone bill. You know, I'm calling Tokyo. So I think we have good cooperation. It's not for me to talk about Japanese Government attitudes to their own negotiations. You know, they have a bilateral process the way we do. It's not for me to say, should they give more or should they give less? How flexible should they be? That's really for them to do. Except to say that I can assure you we have very good relations with Japan, and we are not engaged in a Six-Party process in order see our relationship with Japan worsen. On the contrary, we see this as a real example where the U.S. and Japan, with a common interest -- the number-one, number-two economies in the world -- we ought to work together. And I think together we're going to solve this.

QUESTION: Deguchi of Kyodo News. It's a related question to the previous one. The Department of State comes up with its country reports on terrorism on an annual basis. And in terrorism state sponsors there was one item -- that they continue to protect the hijackers of the airplane. And in order for them to be delisted, the sending of those criminals back to Japan, that extraditing is also a requirement? And have you required that to the DPRK?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL: Let me just say, that issue has come up. I think we can reach a satisfactory result on that. I'm not sure -- I really should have a State Department lawyer here to answer the question of whether it's a statutory requirement that they would have to return the Japanese Red Army terrorists from the 1970 hijacking. So I'm not sure if it's a statutory requirement. I should check with our legal people on that. The issue has come up. I must say, what I've been careful to do on dealing with this is, you know, we'd like to see progress on this abduction issue. And I would like to focus to the extent that there would be people coming out of the DPRK and back to Japan. I would like it to be abductees. That's sort of our focus. I don't want any thoughts that, you know, they could satisfy one request by fulfilling another. So I think that we'll work through that issue. But, again, I don't feel comfortable answering your question on the legal issue. Again, I can't emphasize enough. This is U.S. domestic law. It's in our Congress. It's not an international law. It's a U.S. law that has created this terrorism list.

その他参照記事
US Envoy Questioned on Disarming N.Korea
U.S. envoy predicts end to N.Korea nuclear threat
Bolton: US Should Support Musharraf
Bush Loyalist Now Sees a White House Dangerously Soft on Iran and North Korea