国連安保理イラン追加制裁決議
窮地に追い込まれたイスラエルに配慮するアメリカの恫喝・根回しが奏功したのでしょう、大方の予想通りの決議。従って年中行事？となった 「キューバ制裁解除決議」 *1 同様にさして実効性のないガス抜き。ただし国連のあり方はこれから議論されるでしょう；
イラン制裁決議を採択…国連安保理
6月10日1時17分配信 読売新聞
【ニューヨーク＝吉形祐司】国連安全保障理事会は９日午前（日本時間１０日未明）、イランの核開発に対する追加制裁決議を賛成１２、反対２（ブラジル、トルコ）、棄権１（レバノン）の賛成多数で採択した。
対イラン制裁決議としては４本目だが、初めて反対票が出たことで、国際社会による一致しての意思表示とはならなかった。反対したブラジルとトルコは、イランによる核燃料の国外搬出を仲介し、制裁よりも外交解決を訴えてきた。両国は投票直前に相次いで発言し、「制裁は有効な方法ではない」（ブラジル大使）と強調した。 （以下略）
Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention
9 June 2010, Security Council
- 【うちイランの声明】
MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran) said that his nation had endured unfair pressures for many years due to the aggression of some of the same countries that supported today’s resolution. He pointed specifically to a suit by the United Kingdom which had claimed that the nationalization of Iran’s oil endangered international peace, and the subsequent United States-supported coup, mounted under a similar pretext of maintaining international peace, which had reinstated the dictatorship of the Shah. The clear message was that no one should be allowed to endanger the vital interests of the capitalist world, he asserted.
The similarity of those efforts was that the United States and United Kingdom were, then as now, trying to deprive Iran of its absolute right to achieve energy self-sufficiency, he said. However, the difference was that today Iran was more powerful and enjoyed greater support among its people, who had enjoyed three decades of political experience, a scientific, cultural and industrial renaissance, and the support of the overwhelming majority of nations.
Recalling also the support that the United States had offered Iraq in its war with his country, he said that the Security Council Powers that had refused to take action against Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in that conflict were the same ones that had imposed today’s resolution. Weapons of mass destruction were religiously proscribed in Iran, which was committed to strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while remaining determined to exercise its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
He said there was robust cooperation with IAEA, with more than 4,500 person-day inspections permitted since 2003. But even so, a few Western countries continued their provocative behaviour, exemplified by the politically motivated reactions to the deal for the supply of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. However, Iran still responded positively to the efforts of Turkey and Brazil, which had pursued that deal in good faith, leading to a declaration on the exchange of fuel. But instead of welcoming that agreement, the hostile Powers had immediately introduced the current resolution.
The Council had been turned into the tool of a few countries which did not hesitate to abuse it, he said. Those countries should provide answers about their behaviour, including their threats of force against Iran. Their prevention of Council action against the criminal Israeli regime, which daily issued such threats, indicated double standards, he said, maintaining that his own country was merely trying to exercise its legal and inalienable rights, while Israel violated the most basic principles of international law, as demonstrated by the Goldstone Report and the recent “flotilla massacre”. Iran would never bow to hostile actions and pressures on the part of a few Powers, and would continue to defend its rights, he vowed.
- 【うちブラジルの声明】
MARIA LUIZA RIBEIRO VIOTTI (Brazil), speaking before action, said her delegation would vote against the draft resolution to honour the Tehran Declaration signed by her own country as well as Turkey and Iran on 17 May. Brazil also opposed the text because it did not see sanctions as effective in the present case. They would lead to the suffering of the Iranian people and play into the hands of those on all sides who did not want a peaceful resolution of the issue. Furthermore, adopting sanctions at the present juncture ran contrary to the efforts of Brazil and Turkey to engage with Iran on a negotiated solution, she added.
Describing the Tehran Declaration as a unique opportunity that should not be missed, she went on to point out that it had been approved by the highest Iranian officials as well as Parliament. The Declaration provided for the use of nuclear energy and set out ways to verify fully its peaceful purposes. The only possible way to further that collective goal was to achieve Iran’s cooperation through dialogue and negotiations. Indeed, the Declaration showed that dialogue could do more than sanctions, she said, expressing the Brazilian Government’s deep regret that the document had neither received the recognition it deserved, nor been given time to bear fruit.
She said she was also very concerned that the letter of the Vienna Group had only arrived hours ago and no time had been given for Iran to react to its opinion, including its call for a technical group meeting on details. Also of concern was the fact that the Council’s permanent members, together with a State that was not a member, had negotiated behind closed doors for a month. Brazil reaffirmed the imperative to carry out all nuclear activity under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iran’s activities were no exception, she emphasized, adding that the Tehran Declaration was “sound policy” that should be pursued. The resolution would delay rather than accelerate or ensure progress, and concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme would not be resolved until dialogue began. By adopting sanctions the Council was adopting one of two tracks to solving the question, and in Brazil’s opinion, it had chosen the wrong track.
- 【うちトルコの声明】
ERTUĞRUL APAKAN (Turkey), also speaking before the vote, said his country was fully committed to all its non-proliferation obligations and, as such, was a party to all major relevant international instruments and regimes. Indeed the development of nuclear weapons by any country would make it even more difficult to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Turkey also wished to see a restoration of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
To that end, seeing no viable alternative to a diplomatic and peaceful solution, Turkey had signed, with Brazil and Iran, the Tehran Declaration, which aimed to provide nuclear fuel to the Tehran Nuclear Research Reactor. It had created “a new reality” with respect to Iran’s nuclear programme, he said, adding that the agreement was designed as a confidence-building measure, which, if implemented, would contribute to the resolution of substantive issues relating to that nuclear programme in a positive and constructive atmosphere. “In other words, the Tehran Declaration provides a new and important window and opportunity for diplomacy,” he said, stressing that sufficient time and space should be allowed for its implementation.
Turkey was therefore deeply concerned that the adoption of sanctions would negatively affect the momentum created by the Tehran Declaration and the overall diplomatic process, he said. Furthermore, it was “rather unhelpful” that the responses of the Vienna Group had been received only a few hours ago. The negative nature of those responses and their having been sent only on the day when the Council planned to adopt sanctions “had a determining effect on our position”, he said, adding that Turkey’s position demonstrated its commitment to the Tehran Declaration and to diplomatic efforts.
He went on to say that his delegation’s vote against the resolution should not be construed as indifference to the problems emanating from Iran’s nuclear programme. “There are serious question marks within the international community regarding the purpose and nature of [that] programme, and those need to be cleared up.” Iran should be absolutely transparent about its nuclear programme and demonstrate full cooperation with IAEA in order to restore confidence. Turkey supported a diplomatic solution and the sanctions-based resolution would be adopted despite unrelenting efforts to that end.
However, the resolution’s adoption should not be seen as an end to diplomacy, he emphasized, expressing his firm belief that, after the adoption of the text, efforts towards finding a peaceful solution must be continued even more resolutely. “Our expectation from Iran is that to work towards implementation of the Tehran Declaration [it] must remain on the table and Iran should come to the negotiating table with the 5+1 [five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany] to take up its nuclear programme, including the suspension of enrichment,” he said.
- 【うちレバノンの声明】
NAWAF SALAM (Lebanon), stressing the importance of ridding the Middle East and the world of nuclear weapons, said his country had been one of the first parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, adding that the recent Review Conference had reaffirmed the importance of a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. Israel was the only country in the region that held nuclear weapons, he said, emphasizing that it should allow IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilities, and that enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime should not be selective.
Iran had a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as an obligation to adhere to the safeguards regime, he said. The fuel swap deal negotiated by Turkey and Brazil provided a road towards resolving the problems that had arisen, he said, adding that the agreement was still a gateway to confidence-building measures. The solution to the overall issue would come about through dialogue and not pressure. The sanctions regime represented a painful failure of diplomatic efforts, he said, while stressing his refusal to give up on such efforts and calling for a reinvigorated, flexible and constructive dialogue.
- 【うち中国の声明】
LI BAODONG (China) said that, like previous texts, the current one reflected international concerns as well as the desire of all parties to resolve the matter through dialogue and negotiations. China therefore called on all States to implement the resolution fully and effectively. However, any actions undertaken must be conducive to stability in the Middle East, must not affect the daily lives of the Iranian people, must be commensurate with Iran’s actual practice in the nuclear field, and must respect all international norms on nuclear matters.
He said the adoption of the current text did not mean the door was closed to diplomatic efforts. Indeed, it was an attempt to bring Iran back to the table, since the sanctions it outlined could be suspended, or even lifted, if Iran complied with its IAEA obligations. Over the years, China had worked hard to ensure a negotiated settlement of the issue, and welcomed the tripartite agreement between Brazil, Turkey and Iran. It was to be hoped that Iran would use the momentum generated by the Tehran Declaration to build the international community’s confidence.
- 【うちロシアの声明】
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said his vote in favour had been guided by his country’s consistent position on the need for to resolve through dialogue all questions involving Iran’s nuclear programme. Hopefully Iran would see the resolution as an appeal to launch substantial negotiations to clarify all issues and to fulfil its responsibilities towards IAEA and the Security Council. The Russian Federation would continue to make significant efforts to promote dialogue and the resolution of all such problems.
Thus far, Iran had not opened the road sufficiently to allow it fully to master the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, thanks to its lack of cooperation with IAEA, he said. Sanctions, forceful measures that must be used in a balanced and proportional way, were aimed exclusively at bolstering the non-proliferation regime and not at the well-being of the Iranian people, he stressed, welcoming the efforts of Brazil and Turkey.
以下関連記事を紹介：
'UN resolution counts for nothing'
Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:16:30 GMT, PRESSTV
Russia cautions against 'excessive' Iran sanctions
Published 08:59 08.06.10, Latest update 08:59 08.06.10 / Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News （決議前）
- −−−This resolution should not be excessive, should not put Iran's leadership, the Iranian people in a tricky situation that creates barriers on the way of development of Iran's peaceful nuclear energy," Putin told reports on the sidelines of a conference in Istanbul, also attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. （以下略）
MESS Report / It will be the next round of U.S. sanctions that really hurts Iran
Published 02:26 10.06.10, Latest update 02:26 10.06.10 / Haaretz Daily Newspaper Israel News
- Both Israel and the United States realize that the new sanctions won't bring Iran to its knees; the key to that is in complementary sanctions, imposed by the U.S. and like-minded nations. （以下略）
.
*1:国連１８回目のキューバ制裁解除決議（１０月２９日）
CROWN JEWEL [クラウンジュエル] - クラウンジュエルブログ − ラテンアメリカの政治経済 参照
“Enough is Enough” ベトナムを凌駕したアフガニスタン戦争
出典： http://www.truemajority.org/aggressiveprogressive/
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AD_BLACK_WHITE2.pdf 
上掲広告のｐｄｆ版
出典： http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
上掲写真およびそのＰＤＦは、現地時間６月９日朝ワシントンＤＣ発行の Politico - Wikipedia 紙２８ページに掲載の全面広告です。ページのサイズは 10in X 13.5in らしい；
- “Enough is Enough” – Brave New Foundation, TrueMajority/USAction Up the Ante in Fight to End Afghanistan War
Posted by Robert Greenwald at 2:58 pm June 9, 2010, AlterNet
−−−Instead of a serious effort to consider non-military solutions, what we’ve seen is a continued escalation of the war, a president who has not broken out of the military/think tank counterinsurgency bubble in Washington, and a Congress that is not taking on the administration.
The result of this lack of courage and imagination has been three weeks of awful milestones capped by what one author called NATO’s “worst day ever in Afghanistan.” These milestones include:
The 1,000th U.S. death in Afghanistan
The trillionth dollar spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; and
The Afghanistan war becoming the longest war in history, supplanting Vietnam. （中略）
These stacked-up, tragic milestones led supporters of Brave New Foundation and TrueMajority/USAction to say, “Enough is enough.” In just a few hours, they provided the funds necessary to purchase a full-page Politico ad. （以下略）
- Politics, Policy, Political News - POLITICO
In print, POLITICO publishes Monday through Friday when Congress is in session and exclusively on Tuesdays when Congress is in recess. The newspaper is hand-delivered to congressional offices, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Pentagon, federal departments, media outlets, lobbying firms, PR firms, think tanks and associations. Seven thousand copies are available via 164 news boxes in select locations around the nation’s capital with concentration on the Hill, K Street, as well as the diplomatic community. POLITICO prints and distributes over 33,700 copies every day Congress is in session.
POLITICO reaches more influentials than any other Capitol Hill news source! （Advertising Rates & Specs - POLITICO より）
これが大きなうねりになることを期待します。
速報： いわれのない追加制裁決議に噛みついたイラン
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20100610-00000079-mai-int
＜イラン＞ＩＡＥＡ理事会で異例の日本批判
6月10日19時40分配信 毎日新聞
【ウィーン樋口直樹】「大量の核燃料を所有する日本に、国際社会は深刻な懸念を有している」−−。ウィーンで開かれている国際原子力機関（ＩＡＥＡ）の理事会で９日、イランのソルタニエ大使が異例の日本批判を展開した。イランはこれまで、日本の平和的な原子力開発のあり方を見習う意向を示していただけに、日本側は意図を測りかねている。 （中略）
これに対し中根大使は「日本には申告済み施設の転用も、未申告の核物質、原子力活動を示唆するものもない。ＩＡＥＡと追加議定書を締結し、法的義務を超えて透明性を維持している。非難の余地はない」などと反論した。
真意を測り兼ねる？ 全く馬鹿揃いとしか言いようがない。「国際社会が懸念を有して」 いるかどうかは別として、核を平和利用している日本が制裁されず （それどころか制裁の側に回った） 何故イランだけが制裁されるのだ、ってことでしょう。中根大使の言い分が 「国際社会」 で認められているかどうかは甚だ疑問ですが、それはそれとして正論でしょう。しかしイランが 「ＩＡＥＡと追加議定書を締結していない」 ことがルール違反とは言い難い。先日も引用しましたが改めて示しますと；
http://tanakanews.com/090927iran.php
歪曲続くイラン核問題 ２００９年９月２７日 田中 宇
−−− 米国などは「イランの一存でＩＡＥＡとの協定を破棄することは許されない」と主張しているが、ＩＡＥＡは加盟国との協定で成り立っている組織であり、たとえばイスラエルはＩＡＥＡに加盟していないため、ＩＡＥＡが何を決めても守らなくてよい立場にある。イラン議会がＩＡＥＡとの協定を批准せず、協定が最終的に破棄された以上、イランが守るべきＩＡＥＡの規則は「稼働の半年前までに新施設について申告する」ということだけになる。イランは違反しておらず、米国など「国際社会」の方がお門違いな非難をしていることになる。 （以下略）
同じく先日 （６月４日付け） 岡田外務大臣のノーテンキなコメントを紹介しましたが、イランはＩＡＥＡのトップも含め日本の態度が余程腹に据えかねたのでしょう。さて日本政府はどう対応する？ アメリカ様に助けを求めるのでしょうが、タダじゃあ対応してくれませんよ、今度は何を差し出すつもり？
いわれのない追加制裁決議に噛みついたイラン： 続報 他人事ではない
イランの言い分についての補足・検証：
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20100610-00000079-mai-int
＜イラン＞ＩＡＥＡ理事会で異例の日本批判
6月10日19時40分配信 毎日新聞
−−− イランのウラン濃縮活動などに批判的な天野之弥（ゆきや）ＩＡＥＡ事務局長の報告に日本の中根猛大使が賛同の意を示したところ、イラン側は「日本の発言は反イラン的だ」と反発。ソルタニエ氏が「日本はトン単位のプルトニウムを持っている」などと発言した。 （以下略）
- ※ ハイ、持ってます；
出典： 日本のプルトニウム保有量 | 一般社団法人 原子燃料政策研究会
出典： 日本のプルトニウム保有量
では、日本に核兵器開発能力はあるか？
この件については多くのサイトがあります。例えば−−−
- 日本の核開発能力を検証する: Fukuma's Daily Record
- 日本の核開発能力を検証する(2): Fukuma's Daily Record
- 日本の核開発能力を検証する(3): Fukuma's Daily Record
※ どうもありそうですね。
では、日本が核武装する可能性はあるか？
- 日本の核武装論 - Wikipedia
読みでがありますよ。幾つか抜粋しますと−−−；
- 「その可能性は大きい。日本はその気になれば90日以内に核爆弾を製造し、ミサイルに搭載できる技術的能力を持っている。われわれはすでに大陸間弾道弾（ICBM）水準のミサイル（ロケット）を保有しており、50トン以上のプルトニウムを備蓄している。核爆弾2,000基を製造できる分量だ。日本はすでに30〜40年前、原爆製造に必要なあらゆる実験を終えた。日本が核武装をしないのは国民情緒のためだ。9割の日本人が核兵器の開発に反対している。広島と長崎の悪夢のためだ。しかしわれわれが北朝鮮核兵器の実質的脅威を受ける状況になれば、世論は急変するはずだ」（2005年2月25日 大前研一 経済評論家 韓国マスコミの「北朝鮮の核保有が最終確認された場合、日本も核武装に動くのか」という質問に対して）
- 「自衛のための必要最小限度を超えない限り、核兵器であると、通常兵器であるとを問わず、これを保有することは、憲法の禁ずるところではない」「核兵器は用いることができる、できないという解釈は憲法の解釈としては適当ではない」（2002年5月13日 安倍晋三官房副長官 早稲田大学の講演において）2003年、週刊金曜日および朝鮮新報の紙上で、安倍晋三官房副長官が早稲田大学で行われた講演の後の懇談会で「北朝鮮なんて核落として、ぺんぺん草一つ生えないようにしてやるぜェ」なる発言をしたと伝聞調で紹介された[4][5]。「政府や党の機関としては議論しない。それ以外の議論は自由だから言論封鎖することはできない」（首相就任後 後述中川昭一らが唱えた核保有論について）
- 「日本に核武装」― 米国から出た初めての奨励論
国際問題評論家 古森 義久氏, 2006年10月13日
※ 憲法の拡大解釈やら捻じ曲げで、持とうとする動きは間違いなくあるみたいですよ。
では海外では （と云うより横文字では） どの様に捉えられているか？ 例えば−−−
Japanese nuclear weapon program - Wikipedia
Nuclear Weapons Program
Federation of American Scientists
Nuclear Weapons Program
GlobalSecurity_org - Reliable Security Information
※ これらはほんの一部、結構賑やかですよ。
私は核武装なんて自殺行為と考えますが、 「国防」 を 「真剣に」 考える 「政治家」 や 「知識人」 や 「学識経験者」 や 「軍事マニアあがりの有名人」 などの中には、 「日本国民の核アレルギー」 にもかかわらず核武装すべきである、とする 「憂国の士」 が少なく無い様です。被爆後の 『過ちは、繰り返しませぬ』 と云う 「青臭い、センチメンタルな」 誓いなどどこへやら。イランの言い分は、本当にもっともだと思います。平和を標榜する筈の日本が、今回は準核保有国の様な形で他国から非難されるなんて、思いもしなかったのでしょうが。少しはイランの悔しさがわかりましたか？ 日本もいつその立場に置かれるかわからない−−−
