|
イラン核合意とトランプ ２年前に成立したイラン核合意について、トランプはこれに同意することを強く拒絶する姿勢を見せている。例によって、トランプのこの判断の根拠は、根拠薄弱である。他の締結参加国すべては、イランはこの合意の線を忠実に守っている、との判断を示しているからである。こうしたなか、トランプは「イランがそんな約束を守るはずはなく、５年以内に核爆弾を開発することになる。それにイランはテロリスト国家である」と一方的な判断をあげながら、最悪の合意である、と述べている。 これにたいし、マクロンとメイはそれぞれ、トランプを説得すべく個別会談をもったが、トランプのスタンスは変わることはなかった。 この件に関連しての重大なできごとは昨日、国防長官マティスが上院での公聴会で、イラン核合意の存続にたいし、支持を表明したことである。このことが意味することは、トランプとマティスの見解が真っ向から食い違うということである。残る１０日のあいだにこの齟齬がどう収束に向かうのか、向かわないのかは、重要な問題である。かりにトランプが承認を拒んだ場合、議会でこの問題を審議する機会が残されている。 因みに、中国、ロシアはこの合意に賛成している。トランプが抱えているもう１つの問題は地球温暖化をめぐるパリ合意からの離脱問題である。これについても中国、ロシアは合意に賛成している。アメリカは自ら、事実をみないことで (自作のフェイクに耽ることで) 孤立化の道を突き進んでいる。「アメリカを強く」は、アメリカを弱体化させる方向に突き進んでいる。 ＊＊＊ 核問題に関係する危機のもう１つ －いまはこちらの方がはるかに深刻である －である北朝鮮問題に関し、中国を訪問していた国務長官ティラーソンは、「いくつかの協議の道がある」と述べたところ、トランプは、ツィッターで「そんなむだなことはするな、と言ったはずだ」的発言をしている。これなどは、トランプの外交音痴（彼には外交はできない。自分しか見ていないから）の最たるものである。水爆というきわめて深刻な帰結を引き起こす行為を自ら選択しているのである。これは、最大級の戦争犯罪行為に相当する。 これについても、中国、ロシアは対話の道を強調している。 こうみてくると、世界をリードしているのは中国、ロシアということになるだろう。アメリカは自ら、これまで確立してきた道（対ＥＵ、対ＮＡＴＯなど）をすべて遮断してきている。こうしたなか、日本はまったく世界の舞台でニュースにすら登ってこない状況が続いている。トランプ政権にたいして、日本政府が何か明確な態度をみせたことはあるのだろうか（ない）。 Europe’s governments look to bypass Trump to save Despite pressure from • Julian Borger in Washington European governments fear a concerted effort to persuade Donald Trump to continue to certify the Iran nuclear deal may have failed and are now looking for other ways to try to salvage the two year-old agreement. European lobbying efforts Fresh sanctions could in turn trigger Iranian withdrawal and a ramping up of its now mostly latent nuclear US defense secretary breaks with Trump in backing Iran nuclear deal Read more When Trump threatened to withhold certification by a congressional deadline of 15 October, the UN general assembly in mid-September was seen by the European signatories of the agreement – the UK, France and Germany – as the last best chance to convince Trump of the dangers of destroying it. But according to the accounts of several diplomats involved, the effort got nowhere. Angela Merkel, in the final stages of an election campaign, could not attend, so it was left to Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron to use their meetings with the US president in New York to make a personal plea to keep the deal alive. The French president made no headway. To his consternation, Trump kept repeating that under the deal, the Iranians would have a nuclear bomb in five years, and nothing Macron could say would persuade him otherwise. May’s session with the US president two days later was equally fruitless. She used half the 50-minute meeting trying to engage Trump on the merits of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but he grew testy in response. He said he had decided on what to do, but flatly refused to tell her what that was. And he shrugged off her arguments, telling her “You make your decisions; I’ll make mine”. A British diplomat described it later as a “robust” conversation. Another opportunity for the Europeans to defend the deal came on the evening of 20 September, when the foreign ministers of all signatory nations attended a meeting of the Joint Commission charged with implementing it, chaired by the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini. The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, both attended the meeting around a long table in one of the security council’s meeting rooms, marking the first high-level meeting between Tehran and the Trump administration. There was no chance of any personal chemistry breaking the ice, however. It was a perfunctory meeting, with Tillerson When it was Tillerson’s turn, he did not repeat the arguments the administration made in public that Iran was somehow in violation. Instead, he The former oil executive suggested the other countries around the table had made a “mistake” in striking a deal with the Obama When their moment came, the European ministers around the table all observed that Iran was keeping its side of the Tensions surface between UK and US over Iran nuclear deal Read more Speaking near the end of the meeting, Zarif declared Tillerson was “ill-informed” for failing to acknowledge the fact that the JCPOA had been enshrined in a security council resolution, which the US, a permanent council member, was now threatening to violate. Tillerson ignored the reference to the UN resolution, and repeated his line that the JCPOA was not a formal ratified treaty, so it should be open to renegotiation. Emerging from the meeting, Mogherini was clearly furious, and she echoed Zarif’s argument in her own remarks to the press. “This is not a bilateral agreement. This is not an agreement that involves six or seven parties,” she told reporters. “This is a UN security council resolution with an annex The EU foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini:’This is not a bilateral agreement In a postmortem teleconference last week, the political directors from the foreign ministries of UK, France and Germany agreed to plan for the worse and marshal European political resources for a potential rearguard action lobbying in Congress. “The E3 [the three European states] are keen not to make it all about the president’s decision,” one diplomat said. “Even if the decision is not to certify, we will want to see on what terms he passes it to Congress.” Asked about administration policy on Wednesday, Tillerson responded: “We’ll have a recommendation for the president. We are going to give him a couple of options on how to move forward to advance the important policy towards Iran.” The secretary of One possibility is that Trump will wound the deal by refusing to certify, but not push for a restoration of sanctions. The state department is reported to be talking to Congress to amend its legislation so that Trump does not have to certify the deal every 90 days, a political embarrassment. But such The Senate currently appears delicately balanced on the issue, with almost all Republicans and Democrats likely to vote by party line. The majority leaders in the Senate and the House, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, are reluctant to get bogged down in gruelling debate on an issue they believe the president should decide. “Congress doesn’t want to get in the middle of this and own it,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former state department official now at the Centre for a New American Security. However, the hand of the congressional leadership could be forced by hardline opponents of the deal who One of the most vociferous critics of the Iran deal in the Senate, Tom Cotton, launched his campaign in a speech on Tuesday. He urged Trump not to certify the deal in order to clear the way for a period of “coercive diplomacy” and to persuade European governments, Russia, China and Iran to open the agreement for renegotiation. He backed the threat of more sanctions and ultimately “calibrated strikes” against Iran’s nuclear “The United States has the ability to totally destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure,” Cotton told the Council on Foreign Relations. “If they choose to rebuild On the same day, however, the Iran's foreign minister urges Europe to defy US if Trump sinks nuclear deal Read more The Europeans can count on resistance from party leaders irritated at having an executive decision palmed off on them. There are also signs that Among the 52 Republican senators, meanwhile, there are likely to be a handful reluctant to take responsibility for steering the US towards another conflict. “Congress has an insatiable appetite for sanctions. But it would be disastrous to impose new sanctions on Iran now and senators know that,” said Joe Cirincione, the head of the Ploughshares Fund, a non-proliferation advocacy group. How the vote would go, he added, was anybody’s guess. Even if the JCPOA’s enemies did not manage to kill it with their first shot, said Reza Marashi, the research director of the National Iranian American Council, they are unlikely to give up. “The Iran hawks will try to have multiple bites of the cherry and will keep pushing for more votes,” Marashi said. If the Europeans wanted to try to save the JCPOA, he added, “they now have very little time”. |
平井俊顕 （ひらいとしあき・経済学者・上智 大学名誉教授) 資本主義社会、市場と国家、自由と統治、自由貿易と保護主義、グローバル資本主義のゆくえ等の問題を追究することを目指しています。
