As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished. The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. Now these questions are not new. Support for human rights. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. (Applause.). I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles. « オバマのアフガニスタン新戦略演説 | That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace. But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Main And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. Investments in development. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations. As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey. For we are fallible. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him." But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. There's no simple formula here. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified. ãã¼ãã«è³ãåè³ããå±±ä¸ä¼¸å¼¥ææãã¯ããã¨ããæåäºº17åã®æåããã¹ãã¼ããåé²ãã1åã§ãã CD3æã¨å¤§å®¹éã§ããããã³ãã¤ãã£ãã®ã¹ãã¼ããå¤æ°åé²ããã¦ãããä¸çã®è±èªããªã¹ãã³ã°ã§ â¦ So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. Let us live by their example. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. And yet too often, these words are ignored. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified. And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. アフガン増派は大統領選時代から言っていたことだから、アフガン増派だからオバマに失望っていうのもどうかと。9.11でアフガン戦争は国際社会に認められていたし、イラク戦争が理由なき戦争だっただけだし。まあ、これから戦争することがわかっているのに平和賞を与えたノーベル委員会の問題でしょう。演説自体は戦争をしている覇権国のトップによる現実的な演説だなと思った。かなり難解だし。, しかしこの演説でいう「大義のある戦争」にアフガン戦争があたるかというと、ちょっと疑問だ。9.11があったからって、アフガンの一般市民を巻き込んでいいわけじゃない。ビン・ラディンを捕まえるだけなら、空爆して一般市民を殺す権利はないわけだし。一般市民を抑圧するタリバンは潰したほうがいいわけだけど、そのために米国が戦っているわけではない。むしろ石油ルート確保という深謀遠慮もあるのかもしれないし。そもそもブッシュのアメリカはわざとビン・ラディンを捕まえなかった、もしくは捕まえる気がなかったという話もあるわけだし。, というわけで、アフガン戦争だって間違った戦争だったと思う。だけど今やめるわけにはいかないだけだ。とにかくアフガンがいち早く落ち着いて、かつてのような肥沃な土地に戻ることを望む。, 01:37 AM in 経済・政治・国際, in オバマ演説, in オバマウォッチ | Permalink The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. (Not displayed with comment.). But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. 2017å¹´1æ10æ¥ãç¬¬44ä»£ã¢ã¡ãªã«å¤§çµ±é ããã©ã¯ã»ãªããå¤§çµ±é ãéä»»ã¹ãã¼ããè¡ãªãã¾ããããã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ãåè³ããæ°ã
ã®åç¸¾ãæ®ãã¦ãããªããæ°ããæå¾ã«èªã£ãè¨èãéå¸¸ã«ç´ æ´ãã â¦ That is a source of our strength. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." In some places, this fear has led to conflict. Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. Let me make one final point about the use of force. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. ãªããå¤§çµ±é ã¯8å¹´åã®é¸ææ¦ã®ããããæ°ã
ã®åè¨ãæ®ãã¦ãã¾ãããã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ãåè³ãã2016å¹´8æã«ã¯ç¾å½¹å¤§çµ±é ã§ã¯ããã¦åºå³¶ãè¨ªåããããã§ãã¹ãã¼ããæ®ãã¦ãã¾ãã When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world: And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. 共同：オバマ米大統領ノーベル平和賞受賞演説の全文（日本語訳) I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams. å
ãå¶ãã¦ã¯ãããªãã£ããã¨èãã¦ãããè³ã¯æ ¸ã®ãªãä¸çã®å®ç¾ã«åããåãçµã¿ãå¥¨å±ããæå³ã®ãã®ã§ãã£ããã«ã³ãã¹ã¿ãæ°ãåé¡§é²ãå¹³åæ¸è¨ãã§è¿°ã¹ãã We lose our sense of possibility. For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. I reject these choices. ããã©ã¯ã»ãªãããè¦ã¦ãã ãããå½¼ã¯å®éã«ã¯ä½ãããããã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ãåè³ããã å½æå½¼ã¯å¤§çµ±é ã«å°±ä»»ãã¦ã¾ã 1å¹´ã§ãããã¤ãã®ç´ æ´ãããã¹ãã¼ããããè¦ãç®ãæªããªããããããå®éã«ã¯å½¼ã¯å¹³åã®ããã«ä½ããã¦ããªãã£ãã I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. Billions have been lifted from poverty. å»å¹´ã®11æã ã£ãããã®ãããã«ãªããç±³å¤§çµ±é ããã¼ãã«è³ãåè³ãããã¤ã©ã¯ã¸ã®ç±³è»å¢æ´¾ãªã©ã§ãã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ã®åè³ãæããã¦å¦¥å½ã§ãããã¨ãããã¨ã«ã¤ãã¦çåè¦ããå£°ããã£ããããã¼ãã«è³å§å¡ä¼ã®ææãããã®ã§ã¯ãªããã¨ããè©±ããã£ããããã Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions. We lose our moral compass. Some time ago in Calcutta we had great difficulty in getting sugar, ä»¥åãç§éã¯ã«ã«ã«ãã¿ã§ç ç³ãæã«å
¥ããã®ã«ãã®ãããè¦å´ãã¾ããã In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. In many ways, these efforts succeeded. It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/10/war-and-peace-oslo, 原文：ホワイトハウスホームページ ãã¶ã¼ãã¬ãµ ãã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ ã¹ãã¼ãä¸é¨æç². What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. ããããè¦ãã°ããªããæ°ãããã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ã ããªã©ã¨ãåæ¬æ°ååã§ãæ¡ç¨ããªãã³ã³ãã§ãããã¨ãããåããã æ¿æ²»ã¨ã¯çµæ. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. ã«ãã ãã¼ãã«å¹³åè³æä¸æ¼èª¬ ããã¯ãã¼ã¹ãã¼ãã«ããéå
¬å¼è¨³ã§ãããè±èªã®åæï¼ä»¥ä¸ã®ãªã³ã¯ï¼ã®èä½æ¨©ã¯© the nobel foundation, stockholm, 2017ã«ããã And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. (Laughter.) ãªããå¤§çµ±é ã2016å¹´ã«è¡ã£ãåºå³¶ã§ã®ã¹ãã¼ããã¡ã¤ã³ã¨ãããã«ã¼ãã³å¤§çµ±é ã®ãåçæä¸å£°æããã¢ã¤ã¼ã³ãã¯ã¼å¤§çµ±é ã®ãåååã¯å¹³åã®ãããã§ããã¨ããæ¼èª¬ãã±ããã£å¤§çµ±é ã®ãã¢ã¡ãªã«ã³å¤§å¦åæ¥å¼ã§ã®å¹³åæ¼èª¬ãããªããå¤§çµ±é å°±ä»»æ¼èª¬ããªã Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. ã£ã«ã»ãããã¯ã¼ã¯ãã¨ããæ ç»ã«åãããã¾ããã æ ç»ã«åºã¦ããå°ãã¿ãæã¿ãªãããåæ¥çã¸å¹´é½¢ã®è¿ãå½¼ã ããããä¼ããããæããèªã£ã¦ãã¾ãã http://www.47news.jp/47topics/e/137313.php, For Immediate Release December 10, 2009 And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. | JIN-仁- DVD-BOX 3月発売 », War and Peace in Oslo | The White House Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Posted on 2020å¹´10æ8æ¥ by 2020å¹´10æ8æ¥ by And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come. Peace requires responsibility. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. ããªããå¤§çµ±é ãã¼ãã«è³ ã¹ãã¼ããã®é¢é£ãã¥ã¼ã¹. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war. First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. >>> ãªããå¤§çµ±é ã®ä»ã®åè¨ãè¦ã¦ã¿ã >>> åäººã®åè¨ãè¦ã¦ã¿ã. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. æªåé¡ ãªãã ãã¼ãã«å¹³åè³ æ¼èª¬. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I. Sanctions must exact a real price. In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines. And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. We also know that the opposite is true. America's commitment to global security will never waver. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression. ã¹ãã¼ãã®å¤©æã¨ç§°ããããªããå¤§çµ±é ãå¤ãã®æ°è¡ãæåã«å°ããã®ç§å¯ã¨ã¯ï¼é»ãè¸ã¿ããªãºã ãå¤§åã«ããªãããè§£ããããä¾ããéå»ã®åäººã®è¨èãã¬ããªãã¯ãäº¤ãã¦æ£ãã°ãã¦ããå½¼ã®ææ³ã¯è±èªææã¨ãã¦ãéå¸¸ã«é«ãä¾¡å¤ãçã¿åºãã¦ãã¾ãã In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. What might this evolution look like? Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such. The absence of hope can rot a society from within. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change.