| Tweet |
Ｊ．ミアシャイマー：ゆっくりと着実に広がるロビー支配のひび割れ（London Review of Books）
２００６年３月にハーヴァード大学ケネディ行政大学院教授ステファン・ウォルトとともにイスラエル・ロビー批判である「イスラエル・ロビーとアメリカの外交政策」を書いたシカゴ大学教授ジョン・ミアシャイマーが、オバマによるチャールズ・フリーマンのＮＩＣ（国家情報会議）議長指名がロビー（特にＡＩＰＡＣ）による猛烈な妨害で頓挫した件について、London Review of BooksにThe Lobby Falters（よろめくロビー）と題された文章を寄せています。
オバマの失敗（というよりイスラエル・ロビーとその道具である米国上院のなりふりかまわぬ横槍）については、先日の拙稿でお知らせしました。もちろんですが、イスラエルとその米国内の代理人の目的は、対イラン戦争遂行にあります。
（参照）
http://www.asyura2.com/09/wara7/msg/267.html
《オバマvsロビー》「オバマ１回戦敗退」：フリーマンJr.のＮＩＣ議長への指名失敗劇
全訳まではできませんが、後半の部分でミアシャイマー教授が述べていることの要旨をご紹介します。
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
フリーマンの件で注目すべきことは、所用メディアがほとんど注意を払わず、その代わりにインターネットのブログでキャンペーンが行われたことである。ところが、彼らは今までなら起こらなかっただろうことに直面した。情報的にも理論的にも非常に洗練されたブロガーたちによるフリーマン弁護が激しく起こったのだ。ロビーは今まで大新聞でそんな事態に面したことが無かったがインターネットでの批判を黙らせることがほとんどできなかった。
親イスラエル勢力に対する反撃はジミー･カーターが最初だった。ロビーは彼を黙らせることができない。フリーマンはそれに続くものだが、もっと手ごわい。指名をはずされた後も、殻は米国に与えるイスラエルの影響とそれを強要しそれ以外の見方を許さない勢力を批判し続ける。彼の声は世界中に届くが、これはロビーにとって不都合だ。彼らはフリーマン降ろしをその足跡を残さずにやりたかった。彼は発言し続けるだろうし同盟者が徐々に現れてくるだろう。米国内でイスラエルについて正直に語ることに対して、ゆっくりとだが着実に、そのスペースが広がりつつある。
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
ひょっとして（もしオバマが本気でイスラエル･ロビーに対抗していると仮定すればですが）先日の「１回戦敗退」はロビー勢力にかけた一種の罠だったのかもしれません。国家情報長官デニス・ブレアーは、意図的にロビー勢力が「コイツだけは絶対に認めない」と言うに決まっている人物を意図的に指名したわけで、またフリーマンがこのまま黙っているような人物ではないことも承知のうえで（つまり身の安全を保証したうえで）辞退を勧めたのでしょう。さて次はどんな手を使ってくるか
以下に、London Review of Booksに掲載されたミアシャイマー教授の文章を全文貼り付けておきます。
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html
The Lobby Falters
John Mearsheimer
Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.
Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.
The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.
The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.
In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.
On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’
Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.
Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.
An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.
John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
- 訂正：「所用メディア」→「主要メディア」、「殻は」→「彼は」（部分概訳箇所：スンマヘン！）本文なし バルセロナより愛を込めて 2009/3/23 07:51:21
(0)
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
掲示板,ＭＬを含むこのサイトすべての
一切の引用、転載、リンクを許可いたします。確認メールは不要です。
引用元リンクを表示してください。