2009年3月11日水曜日

オバマ 希代のテロリストとおしゃべりか

オバマが希代のテロリストとおしゃべりしたい言う。
オバマはニューヨーク・タイムズ紙の週末版に掲載されたインタビューで、
米国がイラクで成功を収めた一因は、反米スンニ派の武装勢力に接触して
協力を取り付けたことにあるとする軍司令部の見解を紹介。
「アフガニスタンとパキスタンでも、これと同じようなチャンスがある
かもしれない」との認識を示した。
国家安全保障問題評論家のピーター・バージェン氏は、米国もタリバーン
も対話の用意ができているとは思えないと解説。
「タリバーンは自分たちが勝利しつつあると考えており、対話の必要がある
とは考えていない」と述べ、オバマ政権が1万7000人の増派を決めたことも
「友好のための派遣ではない」と指摘した。

オバマは神学生の集団だったタリバンだから、まだ話合いになると思った
のかもしれないが、アルカイダと接してからは、自爆テロや無差別テロ
の実行により、アルカイダと一体化しつつあり、面影もないようだ。
「希代のテロリスト」と本人らが収容所で認めたとおり、タリバンも同様な
思想を持つのであれば、おしゃべりしても米国の味方になるとは思えない。
公約へのパフォーマンスか。


Afghanistan welcomes Obamas Taliban initiative RT


---テロ被告:「骨の髄までテロリスト」 激しい対米非難---
毎日新聞 2009年3月11日 7時47分
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/america/news/20090311k0000e030006000c.html

 米国防総省は10日、2001年の米中枢同時テロに関与したとしてキューバのグアンタナモ米海軍基地に収容されている5人の被告が、特別軍事法廷に提出した陳述書面を公開した。5人はテロ共謀罪を「笑っちゃう」と一蹴。広島、長崎への原爆投下などに触れながら激しい米国批判を展開し「おれたちは骨の髄までテロリストだ」と対米闘争の継続を宣言した。
 オバマ大統領は同基地のテロ容疑者収容施設の1年以内の閉鎖を表明したが、長期拘束や過酷な尋問でも揺らぐことのない強烈な反米感情を持つ容疑者の処遇は、頭の痛い問題となりそうだ。
 書面を提出したのは、国際テロ組織アルカイダ幹部で同時テロの主犯格とされるハリド・シェイク・モハメド被告ら。
 5人はアフガニスタン、イラクなどでイスラム教徒ら市民の殺りくを続ける米国こそ「世界一のテロ国家」だと非難。「広島、長崎に原爆を落としたことも忘れたのか」として「価値観も倫理観も何の原則もない」米国へのテロを「神へのささげ物」と正当化した。
 特にテロ共謀罪については「攻撃計画を事前に教えると思っていたのか」と米国をあざ笑い、計画を察知できなかった自らを処罰すべきだと挑発した。
 さらに「本当のテロリストは誰だ」と問題提起し「われわれの国家、宗教、土地を守るためおまえたちと戦う」として、米国への攻撃を今後も続ける決意を表明した。(共同)


---米大統領がタリバーンとの対話に言及、専門家は懐疑的---
2009.03.10 Web posted at: 14:19 JST Updated - CNN
http://www.cnn.co.jp/usa/CNN200903100009.html

(CNN) オバマ米大統領が、アフガニスタンの旧支配勢力タリバーン穏健派との対話も辞さないと表明したことについて、専門家の間から懐疑的な見方が出ている。
オバマ大統領はニューヨーク・タイムズ紙の週末版に掲載されたインタビューで、米国がイラクで成功を収めた一因は、反米スンニ派の武装勢力に接触して協力を取り付けたことにあるとする軍司令部の見解を紹介。「アフガニスタンとパキスタンでも、これと同じようなチャンスがあるかもしれない」との認識を示した。
ただしアフガニスタンの情勢はイラクに比べて複雑で、新戦略の確立は「はるかに難しくなるだろう」とも予想。米国はアフガニスタンでの戦争に勝利しているかとの問いには「ノー」と答えた。
オバマ大統領のこの発言について、元米中央情報局(CIA)のギャリー・バーンセン氏は「タリバーンが勝利を収めているというのなら、われわれと戦っている相手がわれわれに歩み寄る動機などどこにあるのか」と述べ、タリバーンを米国に協力させるのは難しいだろうとの見方を示した。バーンセン氏は、2001年の同時テロを受けたアフガニスタン攻撃でCIA部隊の指揮を執った人物。
一方、国家安全保障問題評論家のピーター・バージェン氏も、米国もタリバーンも対話の用意ができているとは思えないと解説。「タリバーンは自分たちが勝利しつつあると考えており、対話の必要があるとは考えていない」と述べ、オバマ政権が1万7000人の増派を決めたことも「友好のための派遣ではない」と指摘した。


---Talking With the Taliban: Obama Idea Draws Skepticism---
By Aryn Baker / Kabul Tuesday, Mar. 10, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883854,00.html

Seeking alliances with more moderate Taliban elements against al-Qaeda is not a new idea in the Afghanistan-Pakistan context, but until now it is one that has typically drawn a skeptical response - from U.S. officials who have regularly cast doubt on the wisdom of Pakistan pursuing such agreements. So, the news last weekend that President Barack Obama was entertaining the same idea to reverse what he described as a war that America is losing in Afghanistan was greeted with some raised eyebrows in the region. Obama's suggestion was welcomed by President Hamid Karzai, who has been advocating a similar approach for some time now. "This is approval of our previous stance and we accept and praise it," Karzai said Sunday. But Karzai's own exhortations to the Taliban to come to the negotiating table have always carried an air of desperation, seen in the context of the militant's steady advances across much of Afghanistan, while his own authority doesn't extend much beyond the capital. His proposals have always been vague over just how what is fundamentally a power struggle could be resolved through talks. And those are just two of the problems identified by skeptics of President Obama's latest proposal.

Obama has authorized the deployment of 17,000 American troops to reinforce the NATO mission currently struggling to contain the Taliban's advance. That's only half of the number requested by U.S. commanders on the ground, but the President is awaiting the completion of a strategy review (the third since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in late 2001) before committing to a new plan. And his comments on Saturday, in an interview with the New York Times, suggest that reconciliation with elements of the Taliban may be a key part of that strategy. For many observers on the ground, however, proposing negotiations and compromise while the Taliban is militarily in the ascendancy sounds like capitulation. (See pictures from the frontline of the war against the Taliban.)

Nobody has defined the negotiation strategy, in as much as even determining what would constitute a Taliban "moderate" and what exactly they'd be asked to "reconcile" with - much less considered, given the balance of power on the ground, what the U.S. and its Afghan allies would have to concede in order to get a deal that would make a difference. The model for Obama's suggestion, of course, is Iraq, where the U.S. managed to pacify Anbar province by recruiting most of the local Sunni sheikhs, who had previously been part of the insurgency, to wage a common fight against al-Qaeda. But Obama himself admitted that the Iraq strategy is hardly an easy fit: "The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex [than Iraq]," he told the New York Times. "You have a less-governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes... [which]sometimes operate at cross-purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge."

Indeed, far more of a challenge than Obama acknowledged. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was led by foreign jihadists, making it easier to turn locals against the organization, particularly when they chafed under its imposition of strict Islamic law. But in Afghanistan, particularly in the south where the insurgency is at its strongest, the militants are natives. In Iraq, an established and functioning government could also offer sheikhs switching sides a credible alternative center of power, whereas in Afghanistan, the government is generally perceived to be corrupt, weak and unable to provide security. In Iraq, moreover, the strategy depended less on the willingness of the insurgents to change their minds on the new order in Iraq than on the ability of the U.S. to buy them off in exchange for temporary cooperation against a common foe. But in Afghanistan, the ethnic political coordinates and the political consequences of accommodating the insurgency may be substantially different.

The Taliban is predominately based among ethnic Pashtuns, Afghanistan's largest ethnic group. Increasing Pashtun power in government would exacerbate ethnic tensions in the capital and in the relatively stable north, where Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara groups that helped Karzai into power are in the majority. Success in Iraq, moreover, was based on the presence of security forces numbering some 600,000 troops and policemen (Iraqi and foreign), whereas Afghanistan, which is larger both in land mass and population, has only 160,000. The moderate Sunni insurgents in Iraq could be confident that they would be protected if they switched sides, but NATO forces in Afghanistan would not be in a position to offer the same guarantees to Taliban-aligned warlords who change their allegiance, making such defections less likely.

"We should identify what are the limits of the concessions the government is willing to give," says Anwar-ul-Haq Ahadi, the former Minister of Finance now running against Karzai for president. "Probably they will have some demands of their own, and we might have to be more accepting of those demands, like increased cultural conservatism. But if they say we will not accept a leadership based on elections I am not sure we can accept that."

Even many ordinary Afghans who loathe the Taliban favor negotiation in the hope that they can reverse the deteriorating security situation. "We've had 30 years of war and fighting has not provided the solution, so now we have to try negotiations," says Ahmedzai, an employee at an international development agency. But that's an option born of despair. "We hate the Taliban, but we also hate the suicide bombings," says 18-year-old student Hekmatullah Hekmat. "In order to have a peaceful, stable Afghanistan we must negotiate," but adds that if the price of peace is a return to the social strictures of the Taliban era, "I will run away to Pakistan, all of the Afghans will."

And many in Kabul, who have embraced the freedom won by the invasion, raise a moral argument against concessions to the Taliban. "Are you going to sacrifice the hard-won freedoms of 29 million people for the sake of a few hundred thousand militants?" says a Kabul-based businessman who declines to use his name for fear of repercussions. "That just opens up the floodgates to any one who wants to have a stake in power, all he has to do is just go and be as violent as possible; kill a couple of people and there will be some sort of concessions made and he can come into power." Many Afghans like the businessman quoted fear that Obama's proposal heralds the onset of a policy aimed at withdrawing from the quagmire rather than helping Afghanistan to its feet. "Basically it means that suddenly you have capitulated on your core fundamental principals for the sake of a few weeks of peace and getting out of here." But given the direction of the war, many in Washington, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have begun to bluntly argue that setting up a state in Afghanistan based on the core principles America holds dear may be a bridge too far.



---Obama's Outreach to Adversaries Takes Unexpected Turn With Taliban Approach---
Some analysts cringed at the president's suggestion over the weekend that it might be time to open talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.
FOXNews.com
Monday, March 09, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/talk-taliban-outreach-obama-makes-court-press/

Only seven weeks into his presidency, President Obama has already made fresh overtures to countries like Syria, Iran and Russia, fulfilling a campaign pledge to reach out to America's adversaries in hopes of settling tensions and shoring up U.S. interests around the globe.

But ... working with the Taliban?

In an interview with the New York Times over the weekend, the president pointed to the success the U.S. military had in persuading Sunni insurgents in Iraq to turn away from Al Qaeda, and he suggested that the U.S. would consider working with moderate Taliban elements in Afghanistan to do the same.

"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region," Obama said.

But some foreign affairs analysts cringed at the suggestion.

David Rittgers, a legal policy analyst with the Cato Institute who served three tours with the U.S. Army's Special Forces in Afghanistan, said the statement would mark the most extreme attempt so far to engage an adversary.

He said negotiating with moderates at the local level, some of whom might fall under the multifaceted umbrella of the Taliban, could be possible and worthwhile. But he said any attempt to divide and conquer the Taliban would probably fail, and he said Obama had given the Taliban leadership "propaganda strength" in publicly suggesting that outreach is possible.

"They really are negotiating from a position of strength. What are we going to offer them?" Rittgers said. "I don't know where we're going to find the common ground, with the exception of leaving their drug money alone."

He said the Taliban does not offer the same opportunities as the Sunnis in Iraq, because whereas the Sunnis could be economically motivated, many in the Taliban control drug money and are economically independent.

Shortly after the Obama interview was published, a Taliban spokesman told Britain's Guardian newspaper that the overture was a sign that Americans are "tired and worried."

He challenged Obama to find so-called moderates in the Taliban: "They will not be able to find such people because we are united around the aim of fighting for freedom and bringing an Islamic system to Afghanistan."

Some analysts have also questioned whether the moderates are plentiful or influential enough to make a difference.

"The notion of moderates ... I'm not sure they exist," said Simon Henderson, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But he said it is "worth trying" to reach out to persuadable elements of the Taliban.

"This is a distraction which (Obama) wants to settle down and also to contain," Henderson said. "It's a cancerous growth which he would like to cut off completely but in fact can't."

Obama told the Times he understands that dealing with the complex nature of the Taliban is challenging. And some argue that the need for discussions with these groups is a political reality.

Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs in December urging the U.S. to distinguish political opponents of the U.S. from global terrorists like Al Qaeda -- suggesting members of the Taliban could be swayed. Rubin envisioned an agreement that would prohibit the Taliban from allowing Afghanistan to be used for launching international terrorism, in exchange for an agreement from the U.S. and NATO to end military action.

"Any agreement in which the Taliban or other insurgents disavowed Al Qaeda would constitute a strategic defeat for Al Qaeda," the article said.

Obama has won both praise and criticism for his efforts to mend troubled relations with other U.S. adversaries.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled a major shift when she said the U.S. would send two envoys to Syria to begin "preliminary conversations." It would mark the highest-level U.S. administration visit in more than four years to Syria, which has been called a state sponsor of terrorism. The Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador to Syria in early 2005 to protest the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. (Syria officials have been investigated in the killing, though Damascus denies involvement.)

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday that Syrian behavior is still of "great concern" to the Obama administration.

"We want to work with Syria, but it does take, you know, two to tango here. And up until now, Syria hasn't played that positive role that we've wanted to see in a number of areas, with regard to foreign fighters in Iraq, with regards to interference in Lebanese affairs," he said.

Further, Congress is poised to pass a spending bill that includes provisions to ease restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba.

Wayne Smith, with the Center for International Policy, said Obama should go even further than that in order to send a friendly signal to Latin America ahead of the upcoming Summit of the Americas, a meeting of North, South and Central American countries. He said Obama could move to lift restrictions on academic travel, for instance.

"All this can be done with the stroke of a pen," Smith said. He said normalizing relations with Cuba might actually prove less challenging than some of Obama's other diplomatic aims.

"This is much easier than talking with the Taliban," he said.

The Obama administration is also reportedly planning to invite Iran to an international conference on Afghanistan in late March.

And the administration has escalated outreach to Russia in recent weeks, with Obama writing a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Though Obama denied it, some officials suggested the letter floated the possibility that the U.S. could junk its plans for a missile defense shield Moscow opposes in exchange for Russia's help in stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Clinton also met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov last week, saying the talks marked a "fresh start" in resetting relations with Russia.

---Afghan leader welcomes Obama Taliban talks offer---
March 08, 2009
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBGLfCXS71Ja5ayrkn2eyz97lrbw

KABUL (AFP) - Afghanistan's president on Sunday welcomed comments by his US counterpart Barack Obama hinting at possible talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Hamid Karzai said his government had long supported dialogue with those members of the extremist group not connected with the "terrorists" waging an increasingly bloody insurgency in Afghanistan.

"It is very good news that the American president, his excellency Obama, has backed talks with those Taliban that he termed as moderate.

"This is the Afghan government's long stand. We wanted this and we support and stand with them to bring peace and stability to this land," Karzai said at an event in Kabul to mark International Women's Day.

"Only those who have left their homes and are fighting their country because they are forced to, or are scared (of being arrested) or for other reasons, they are welcome (to join talks)," he added.

Obama said in an interview with the New York Times published Sunday the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and hinted at possible talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Karzai set up a reconciliation commission in 2005 in the hope of persuading rebels to put down their weapons. Nearly 7,700 low-level Taliban and other militants have signed up, according to officials.

However, Taliban leaders have repeatedly rejected Karzai's calls for reconciliation and the group has redoubled its insurgency, using increasingly sophisticated tactics including Iraq-style suicide bombings.

The Taliban, driven from government in a US-led invasion for sheltering Al-Qaeda after the September 2001 attacks, have said they would only agree to negotiations if international troops helping the government pull out.

Obama's review of US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, launched shortly after he took office in January, is set to be delivered before he heads to Europe on March 31 for a round of international meetings.

0 コメント: