昨日神経失いブレア「武装解除されちゃ困る」本音失言で本日神経取り戻す曲芸

転送、転載、引用、訳出、大歓迎！

　いやはや、国際的な悪餓鬼の乱舞に、まともに付き合うと、疲れる。疲れる。

　昨日からの騒動は、以下の阿修羅戦争25掲示板の投稿の表題に象徴されている。この説明は蛇足と心得る。

-----　引用ここから　------------------------------
トニー・ブレアの大失言！！『我々はサダム・フセインが武装解除を続けるのを許すことは出来ない』
http://www.asyura.com/2003/war25/msg/820.html
投稿者 ドメル将軍 日時 2003 年 3 月 13 日 03:01:45:
-----　引用ここまで　------------------------------

　これは、イギリスでは少し野党的な『ガーディアン』の昨日(2003/03/12)の記事の論評だった。

　ところが、以上に対して、早くも翌日の本日(2003/03/13)、『ガーディアン』は、ブレアの「護衛」に早変わり。「ブレアは神経を取り戻した」と報じた。

-----　引用ここから　------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912995,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4624004,00.html

After days of setbacks and jitters, Blair regains his nerve

Short and Chirac upset No 10, and US rang alarm bells. But PM is now ready for war

Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Thursday March 13, 2003
The Guardian

The discomfort of Labour MPs was plain on their faces in the Commons yesterday, but after wobbly Tuesday in Downing Street moral certitude has returned to the frontbenches.

At prime minister's questions, Tony Blair gave the impression that his great decision has been made. There will be war, with or without the support of the UN security council. Even if a majority of security council members fail to endorse a second resolution, British troops will go into military action alongside the US. Moreover, Mr Blair declared - after weeks of speculation about the legality of conflict - that "we would not do anything that would not have a proper legal basis to it". He presumably would not risk such a view unless he felt sure he was supported by the attorney general, his good friend Lord Goldsmith.

This certainty contrasted markedly from Tuesday, when it appears the lines of communication between the White House and Downing Street became extremely fragile.

Rightly or wrongly, the White House was becoming increasingly anxious that Mr Blair's diplomats at the UN were going an extra mile too far in search of support from the swing six states. Calls between the Foreign Office and the state department, and to a lesser extent, between British and US diplomats at the UN, became difficult.

Mr Bush has always been aware of the political shelter a second UN resolution would provide Mr Blair in his battle with Labour and British opinion. But Washington feared Mr Blair was starting to stray over some of America's diplomatic red lines.

It has been an article of political faith for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to keep their tactical differences to a minimum in public. But the swing six states, struggling to make a choice between the US and France, started to discern Britain was willing to go much further than the US in search of a compromise and their support.

Britain started to brief discreetly in the immediate wake of last Friday's report by the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, that it was not seeking total Iraqi disarmament by the proposed deadline of March 17 - a date tolerated by the US, sceptical of the need for a second resolution. Chile - one of the swing six - demanded to know in detail at a closed session on Friday what Iraq had to do to comply with the deadline.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's soft-spoken ambassador to the UN, saw his chance. Influential voices in London, including Peter Mandelson, the former cabinet minister, had long been pressing Downing Street to set out in detail the yardsticks by which Saddam Hussein's compliance could be tested. Without some rational yardsticks, set on Britain's terms, the battle for public opinion, and the swing six, would be lost.

At the weekend the six countries were given a first clear idea of the tests, all of them drawn from the analyses published by Mr Blix. At the same time, the swing six suggested either a 45-day deadline for Iraq, or alternatively April 17. They also wanted it made clear that the passing of such a resolution would not be taken as an automatic trigger for war.

Britain knew a 45-day deadline was a non-starter for the US, but floated a deadline of March 28.

But the word coming back to the Foreign Office's political director, Peter Ricketts, was that the US was not enthusiastic about the British initiative. Weekend cables from the UN were gloomy. There was little sign that the six would buy the idea on terms that the Americans could wear. President Bush would not allow the deadline for action to be pushed beyond two or three days after March 17, and calls by the prime minister on Sunday to Mr Bush and Ricardo Lagos, the Chilean president, saw little return.

Sunday and Monday night saw two further hammer blows.

Clare Short, the international development secretary, threatened to resign from the cabinet on Sunday night, encouraging the Commons rebels on the Labour backbenches.

On Monday on TV the French president, Jacques Chirac, pronounced that "whatever the circumstances, France will vote No".

Within the shocked Foreign Office, two interpretations emerged. Either Mr Chirac, buoyed by international support, had decided to confront the US, the world's only superpower. Or he had acted in a desperate bid to hold the nerve of the swing six, to prevent France needing to wield its veto on the security council, something French business opinion fears. Either way, France had changed the whole equation.

Mr Blair knew by Tuesday that he would have to focus exclusively on the swing six. If he did not win them over, he would have to break his pledge only to go to war if there was an "unreasonable" veto.

With Mr Bush losing patience and the search for a resolution at New York going nowhere, Mr Blair faced the decision he had struggled for months to avoid.

He called in his closest cabinet colleagues - Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the defence staff, John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary. Downing Street has been reluctant to brief on what must have been a sombre discussion, covering the legality of British military action if a second resolution was defeated at the UN.

Mr Blair needed little reminding that if he went ahead, the political price would be heavy. The government whips, battered a fortnight ago, were working hard to restore support, as a backlash set in against the hard left for openly threatening to dislodge the prime minister.

But the word coming back to the whips was that Mr Blair had permanently lost some supporters, and some of them were now prepared for the consequences - a government led by Gordon Brown.

On top of this extreme tension in London came the explosive comments from Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, that the US was contemplating the possibility of going to war without its closest ally.

Mr Rumsfeld spoke after one of his regular phone conversations with his British counterpart, Geoff Hoon. The American, under the impression that Britain might have to hold its troops back, must have been reflecting the despondent tone emerging from London.

The effect was confusion in political, diplomatic and military circles, and a midnight call between Mr Bush and Mr Blair to clarify their position.

It was the culmination of a bad few days for Downing Street. But by this morning the wobble was over. Overnight Mr Blair faced down the difficulties mounting on many sides and emerged more resolute than ever.

The rebels at yesterday's Labour's parliamentary party meeting were seen off after overplaying their hand. Mr Blair told MPs at question time that British troops would fight alongside the US.

The only issue left now for the diplomats to resolve is whether Mr Blair fights with the support of a "moral majority" of the UN security council.

Either way, in a matter of days, the baton will be handed to the military, and it will be the speed with which the army achieves its aims that may decide Mr Blair's fate.
Guardian Unlimited  Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
-----　引用ここまで　------------------------------

　はい。ここで一日戻って、冒頭の表題に投稿の全文の紹介。

-----　引用ここから　------------------------------」
トニー・ブレアの大失言！！『我々はサダム・フセインが武装解除を続けるのを許すことは出来ない』
http://www.asyura.com/2003/war25/msg/820.html
投稿者 ドメル将軍 日時 2003 年 3 月 13 日 03:01:45:

Today at PMQs
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Wednesday March 12, 2003

This morning's Downing Street briefing revealed that the prime minister would use PMQs to announce six "benchmarks", which Britain is proposing should be included in a new UN security council resolution on Iraq.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has just finished announcing the measure to backbench Labour MPs in a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party.
The conditions include a demand to enable 30 key Iraqi weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus to be interviewed by the UN weapons inspectors, and the destruction "forthwith" of 10,000 litres of anthrax and other chemical and biological materials the Iraqis are believed still to be holding.
Midday Labour's Peter Bradley kicks proceedings off, with a double- edged question measuring the cost of waiting versus action with the US.
Iain Duncan Smith queries when the vote on a second resolution will take place.
The prime minister says there will be, and the opposition fires back:
"What is the government's position in light of a veto?"
"The US could go alone, and this country should not take action unless it is in the national interest to do so," begins Mr Blair, before stressing that in his view the international community should back up the message it sent to Saddam Hussein.
Mr Duncan Smith comes back - will the prime minister confirm that he could commit troops without UN backing?
"The best thing is to go flat out for that second resolution," says Mr Blair, and begins to list his new set of tests for Iraq to demonstrate its compliance.
He mentions anthrax, and the unmanned drone plane.
12.05pm "Does cabinet collective responsibility apply to this situation?"
ponders the Conservative leader.
"Of course it does," responds Mr Blair, as Tory backbenchers chorus "where is she?"
in reference to Clare Short.
"It's perfectly understandable for him to score points, but it's better if we discuss the substance," replies Mr Blair, attempting to out-statesman the opposition leader.
Mr Duncan Smith comes back by quoting Ms Short's full "reckless" speech - "the prime minister's big tent is not big enough to include Clare Short and Donald Rumsfeld - which is it?"
demands the Tory chief.
12.10pm Tony Wright, the Labour public administration committee chief, begins by praising the prime minister's efforts to go through the UN - always suspicious - before quoting a 1998 document from Bush administration personnel, including Paul Wolfowitz, saying that Iraq must be invaded.
"Let's work out the right thing to do and do it," Mr Blair flatly replies, calling such documentation "conspiracy theories".
Again.
Charles Kennedy rises to his feet - has the attorney general advised that an attack without UN authorisation would be illegal?
Mr Blair merely responds that we would do nothing to breach international law.
"So, is Kofi Annan wrong?"
blasts back the Liberal Democrat leader, referring to the UN secretary general's view stated earlier this week that such an unauthorised attack would be "invalid".
12.15pm Edinburgh MP Mark Lazarowicz asks Mr Blair to keep attention on the Middle East and push the new Israeli government back towards talks.
Mr Blair merely welcomes the new Palestinian prime minister, and adds that few in the Middle East will shed tears for president Saddam.
A Lib Dem asks why action in Kosovo required no UN resolution, while action on Iraq does.
Mr Blair does not answer specifically.
Huddersfield Labour MP Barry Sheerman condemns "undue haste to war".
Mr Blair reiterates the terms of resolution 1441.
Tory Andrew Robathan brings matters back to the domestic, with a question on education.
12.17pm Colin Challen, Labour, calls for a moratorium on Gats, and compliments tomorrow's day of action across the EU.
Mr Blair says he "understands the concerns" of the NGOs, but the developing countries are keen for this to move forward and have their markets liberalised.
12.20pm Plaid Cymru's Elfyn Llwyd asks simply:
"When will MPs have a vote on whether to commit British troops?"
The prime minister makes his usual statement - that there should be a vote, pending the security of the armed forces.
Win Griffiths, the Bridgend Labour MP, asks when the prime minister will visit Indonesia.
Mr Blair answers that the UK is committing several million pounds towards aiding democracy there.
Julian Brazier, a Tory, gets up to point out that the Muslim world needs to see "even-handedness" from the US and the UK, in particular in relation to the Palestinians and Kashmir.
Mr Blair agrees - sort of, while adding the concerns of Israelis blown up by terrorists.
12.22pm Northern Ireland-born Labour MP Kate Hoey calls for there to be no amnesty for IRA prisoners on the run as part of the ongoing negotiations on the Good Friday agreement.
12.24pm Lib Dem Vincent Cable pointedly brings up yesterday's revelation that the US is now handing out contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, including to the vice president's former firm Halliburton, and that the US president sees war as an opportunity to hand out contracts, which for all the UK support, we have not been offered.
The prime minister flatly denies this:
"I don't agree with him at all."
12.25pm "Does the prime minister need the support of the parliamentary Labour party or the country before going to war?", asks a Tory MP.
Mr Blair merely asserts he has attempted to put his case over the past few months.
Tory turncoat MP Alan Howarth gets up to agree with the MP, and say there should be no delay until the summer on disarming President Saddam.
Mr Blair agrees, saying there is no way we can leave US and UK troops "out there for months".
He then attacks those countries who have threatened a veto.
12.28pm John Randall, the Tory whip who resigned this week over Iraq, asks the prime minister to publish the legal advice the government has received.
Mr Blair replies that this is not the precedent, before making a slip of the tongue to assert that "we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to continue disarming" - a moment that may be replayed on TV, if anyone notices it.
12.30pm Loyalist MP Derek Foster gets up to compliment Mr Blair on taking the multilateral approach.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,912662,00.html
-----　引用ここまで　------------------------------

　これに対して、即座にフォローあり。

-----　引用ここから　------------------------------
最近のブレア首相は目がいっちゃってますから本音がでたんでしょう。　－　もうイラク攻撃は止めたほうが賢明　－
http://www.asyura.com/2003/war25/msg/823.html
投稿者 あっしら 日時 2003 年 3 月 13 日 03:58:21:

(回答先: トニー・ブレアの大失言！！『我々はサダム・フセインが武装解除を続けるのを許すことは出来ない』 投稿者 ドメル将軍 日時 2003 年 3 月 13 日 03:01:45)

ドメル将軍、こんばんわ。
「アフガンジハードニュース」の“配達”を毎日楽しみにしていました。
ありがとうございました。

米英は、１４１１号決議もフセイン政権が素直には受け入れないと思っていたフシがあるし、査察活動も制限されると踏んでいたのでしょう。

あれよあれよ言う間に査察が進み、「大量破壊兵器」とやらの証拠は出てこずじまい。
（米英ははじめからないことを知っていますから、その通りになったというだけですが）

そうこうしているうちに、世界中でイラク攻撃反対運動が沸き起こり日を追って大きくなっていく。

足元の英国でもロンドンで２００万人規模の反対デモが展開され、与党の多数派が安保理決議なしのイラク攻撃に反対を表明している。イラク攻撃に賛成の保守党に助けられているような状態になっている。

ここ半年ブレア首相を見続けていますが、日を追うごとに、言動から余裕がなくなり、石破防衛庁長官のように目がいっちゃっている状態を頻繁にさらすようになっています。

これじゃあ、ブレア首相が、「サダム・フセインのやつ、なんで素直に武装解除なんか続けるんだ」と腹立たしく思うのも無理もありません。

それを言葉に出してしまうのは、失態というより、不適格ということになるのでしょう。

ブレア首相は、ブッシュ大統領よりも小利口な分、今回の“大役”により適さない人物といえるのかもしれません。

（ストロー外相も、小賢しさが言動に出ています）

米英ともに、役者の質が低すぎます。
-----　引用ここまで　------------------------------

　以上。

「イスラエル関与疑惑」関連記事総覧へ
アメリカ「ゲリラ攻撃」関連記事総覧へ

『亜空間通信』2003年03月分へ