最近、ジャイアン極まりないロシアに対して次のようなケネディの言葉を見かけます。1961年のベルリン危機の際に発せられた言葉のようです。有名なIch Bin ein Berlinerのスピーチはベルリンの壁が立ってしまった後のスピーチで、使われていた1961年の7月のスピーチはベルリンの扱いを巡って米ソの緊張が最高度に高まった時になされ、その直後の8月にベルリンの壁が立ったそうです。
When it comes to Putin and Ukraine, President John Kennedy’s admonition in 1962 to Nikita Khrushchev during the Berlin Crisis comes to mind: “We cannot negotiate with those who say: ‘What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable’.”https://t.co/1oSlUWNUTb
But I must emphasize again that the choice is not merely between resistance and defeat, between atomic holocaust and surrender. Our peace-time military posture is traditionally defensive; but our diplomatic posture need not be. Our response to the Berlin crisis will not be merely military or negative. It will be more than merely standing firm. For we do not intend to leave it to others to choose and monopolize the forum and the framework for discussion. We do not intend to abandon our duty to mankind to seek a peaceful solution. As signers of the UN charter, we shall always be prepared to discuss international problems with any and all nations that are willing to talk--and listen--with reason. If they have proposals--not demands--we shall hear them. If they seek genuine understanding--not concessions of our rights--we shall meet with them. We have previously indicated our readiness to remove any actual irritants in West Berlin, but the freedom of that city is not negotiable. We cannot negotiate with those who say "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable." But we are willing to consider any arrangement or treaty in Germany consistant with the maintenance of peace and freedom, and with the legitimate security interests of all nations.
We recognize the Soviet Union's historical concern about their security in Central and Eastern Europe, after a series of ravaging invasions, and we believe arrangements can be worked out which will help to meet those concerns, and make it possible for both security and freedom to exist in this troubled area.
For it is not the freedom of West Berlin which is "abnormal" in Germany today, but the situation in that entire divided country. If anyone doubts the legality of our rights in Berlin, we are ready to have it submitted in International adjudication. If anyone doubts the extent to which our presence is desired by the people of West Berlin, compared to East German feelings about their regime, we are ready to have that question submitted to a free vote in Berlin, and if possible, among all the German people. And let us hear at that time from the 2 and 1/2 million refugees who have fled the Communist
At the Vienna summit on 4 June 1961, tensions rose. Meeting with US President John F. Kennedy, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev reissued the Soviet ultimatum to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany and thus end the existing four-power agreements guaranteeing American, British, and French rights to access West Berlin and the occupation of East Berlin by Soviet forces.[1] However, this time he did so by issuing a deadline of 31 December 1961. The three powers responded that any unilateral treaty could not affect their responsibilities and rights in West Berlin.[1]
Rising tensions[edit]
In the growing confrontation over the status of Berlin, Kennedy undercut his own bargaining position during his Vienna summit negotiations with Khrushchev in June 1961. Kennedy essentially conveyed US acquiescence to the permanent division of Berlin. This made his later, more assertive public statements less credible to the Soviets.[2] Kennedy decided on a flexible policy proposed by his younger advisors, with only a few concessions to the hardliners around Dean Acheson. The United States now defined three vital interests in its policy for Berlin, and linked all of them only to the western part of the city: the presence of Western troops in West Berlin; the security and viability of the western sectors; and Western access to them.[3]
As the confrontation over Berlin escalated, Kennedy delivered on July 25 a television speech in Washington on CBS, and broadcast nationwide in the US. He reiterated that the United States was not looking for a fight and that he recognized the "Soviet Union's historical concerns about their security in central and eastern Europe." He said he was willing to renew talks, but he also announced that he would ask Congress for an additional $3.25 billion for military spending, mostly on conventional weapons. He wanted six new divisions for the Army and two for the Marines, and he announced plans to triple the draft and to call up the reserves. Kennedy proclaimed: "We seek peace, but we shall not surrender."[4]
Vacationing in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Khrushchev was reported to be angered by Kennedy's speech. John Jay McCloy, Kennedy's disarmament adviser, who happened to be in the Soviet Union, was invited to join Khrushchev. It is reported that Khrushchev explained to McCloy that Kennedy's military build-up threatened war.
STANFORD, CA—Offering sympathy and verifying widespread reports about the former secretary of state’s health, sources confirmed Thursday that Condoleezza Rice, 67, will die one day. “It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that I share with you the news that Secretary Rice, who dutifully served her country throughout a distinguished career in public service, is eventually going to pass away,” said a source close to Rice’s family, who requested that details concerning the death of the first African American woman to lead the State Department not be released to the public, as they were not yet known.
Madeleine Albright was not only a trailblazer for women worldwide, but a fearless fighter for freedom on behalf of all humanity. She changed the world in remarkable ways. May she rest in peace. pic.twitter.com/XslXE8J8CT
Published on: Mar 28, 2022, 4:37 AM by Andy Bustard
LOS ANGELES, CA – In one of the wildest moments in television history, Will Smith slapped Chris Rock in the face during the 2022 Oscars on Sunday night (March 27) after the comedian poked fun at his wife, Jada Pinkett.
LAPD investigative entities are aware of an incident between two individuals during the Academy Awards program. The incident involved one individual slapping another. The individual involved has declined to file a police report. If the involved party desires a police report at a later date, LAPD will be available to complete an investigative report.
Duranty, one of the most famous correspondents of his day, won the prize for 13 articles written in 1931 analyzing the Soviet Union under Stalin. Times correspondents and others have since largely discredited his coverage.
Taking Soviet propaganda at face value this way was completely misleading, as talking with ordinary Russians might have revealed even at the time. Duranty’s prize-winning articles quoted not a single one – only Stalin, who forced farmers all over the Soviet Union into collective farms and sent those who resisted to concentration camps. Collectivization was the main cause of a famine that killed millions of people in Ukraine, the Soviet breadbasket, in 1932 and 1933 – two years after Duranty won his prize.
Even then, Duranty dismissed more diligent writers’ reports that people were starving. “Conditions are bad, but there is no famine,” he wrote in a dispatch from Moscow in March of 1933 describing the “mess” of collectivization. “But – to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”
Some of Duranty’s editors criticized his reporting as tendentious, but The Times kept him as a correspondent until 1941. Since the 1980’s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures. Ukrainian-American and other organizations have repeatedly called on the Pulitzer Prize Board to cancel Duranty’s prize and The Times to return it, mainly on the ground of his later failure to report the famine.
After more than six months of study and deliberation, the Pulitzer Prize Board has decided it will not revoke the foreign reporting prize awarded in 1932 to Walter Duranty of The New York Times.
In recent months, much attention has been paid to Mr. Duranty's dispatches regarding the famine in the Soviet Union in 1932-1933, which have been criticized as gravely defective. However, a Pulitzer Prize for reporting is awarded not for the author's body of work or for the author's character but for the specific pieces entered in the competition. Therefore, the board focused its attention on the 13 articles that actually won the prize, articles written and published during 1931. [A complete list of the articles, with dates and headlines, is below.]
In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.
The famine of 1932-1933 was horrific and has not received the international attention it deserves. By its decision, the board in no way wishes to diminish the gravity of that loss. The Board extends its sympathy to Ukrainians and others in the United States and throughout the world who still mourn the suffering and deaths brought on by Josef Stalin.
アメリカ外交の偽善や違法な武力行使を論じて、ロシアの行動を相対化、正当化したがる方が多いので、ご紹介。外交史家であればそれはある程度自明で、建国以来の人種的偏見や暴力、偽善に触れたのが本書。▪️Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy Michael H. Hunt https://t.co/eYJXPxGPEr@amazonJPより
I ask you now to honor the memory of thousands of Ukrainian men and women, all those who were killed as a result of Russia's invasion of the territory of our peaceful Ukraine with a moment of silence.
After weeks of Russian invasion, Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities hit by the occupiers resemble the ruins of Verdun. As in the photos of the First World War, which, I'm sure, each and every one of you saw. The Russian militaries do not care which targets to hit. They destroy everything: residential neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, universities. Warehouses with food and medicine are being burned. They burn everything.
She reflected in a 2012 CSPAN interview that what was once considered groundbreaking achievement was no longer a rarity.
"My youngest granddaughter, when she turned 7, said to her mother, 'So what's the big deal about Grandma Maddie being secretary of state? Only girls are secretary of state.' "
America’s Opportunity to Lead the Fight Against Authoritarianism
By Madeleine K. Albright November/December 2021
安易な逆張りは避けないといけない状況なのは理解しています。現時点でロシアの肩を持つのは論外です。中東系のメディアで発表されていたのはオルブライト元長官を批判的に書いているものでした。避難をしているのはイラクの制裁で子供たちが亡くなっていることを無慈悲にもprice to payと切り捨てたこと、NATOによるユーゴ介入を批判しています。
25 March 2022 14:32 UTC | Last update: 6 hours 42 mins ago
The media’s propaganda role could not be starker: it has whitewashed US war crimes promoted and defended by the late US diplomat that overshadow even Putin’s
こちらはNato空爆を非難しているところ。
Global policeman
Albright’s other signature policy as US secretary of state emerged in 1999 in Kosovo, a breakaway province of Serbia plagued by ethnic violence between a Serbian minority and an ethnic Albanian majority that wished to secede.
The obituarists have celebrated Albright’s role in giving Nato a new lease of life after the western military alliance lost its Cold War rationale following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Under Albright, Nato became a US-led global policeman, supposedly pursuing humanitarian goals, that chose Kosovo as the first venue in which to flex its muscles. Soon a reinvigorated Nato was striding across eastern Europe towards Russia.
Albright’s choices in Kosovo not only smashed apart international law, but created the precedent for subsequent wars of aggression, such as Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Putin’s of Ukraine.
Are we in a moment where many in the West are kind of remembering why we want a liberal international order?
Fukuyama: I have a general theory about this populist moment. It has to do with generational turnover. People really like being in liberal societies after they’ve gone through either horrible nationalist conflict (as in the two world wars of the 20th century) or they’ve had to live under authoritarian dictatorship (as people in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union did under communism).
This generational cycle has turned, and you’ve got this whole generation of people who don’t appreciate liberal democracy because they haven’t really experienced the alternative.
Sargent: You see this on the home front. Demagogues like Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance and others have really lost their ideological footing. They know they’re supposed to express concern about Ukraine, yet they also want to keep arguing that there’s nothing inherently malignant about right-wing nationalism and that we shouldn’t bank on any sort of international order to deal with these types of problems.
Sargent: You write that a Russian defeat would revitalize democracy globally. Does that mean we should be optimistic about this defeat leading to some sort of revitalized liberal international order?
Fukuyama: I do think that if people are made to appreciate institutions like NATO and the fact that they live in liberal democracies, presumably it’s going to increase the solidarity that these democracies feel.
The challenges are not going to stop with Putin. You’ve got China waiting in the wings. And then you’ve got a whole bunch of lesser dictators around the world.
Hopefully, we will devise cooperative mechanisms by which democracies can become mutually supportive again.
Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion.
後半に中国の言及もしていますが、アメリカ人にとってはこちらが本丸なのかもしれません。
The war to this point has been a good lesson for China. Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations. We may hope that the Chinese leadership will not delude itself as to its own capabilities the way the Russians did when contemplating a future move against Taiwan.
「1989年の精神」はもう30年も前ですが、彼はそれを肯定的に捉えているようです。
A Russian defeat will make possible a “new birth of freedom,” and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to a bunch of brave Ukrainians.
You are like behind the wall again. Not the Berlin Wall. But in the middle of Europe. Between freedom and slavery. And this wall grows stronger with each bomb that falls on our land, on Ukraine. With every decision that is not made for the sake of peace. Not approved by you, although it may help.
When did it happen?
******
It is difficult for us to endure without the help of the world, without your help. It is difficult to defend Ukraine, Europe without what you can do. So that you don’t look over your shoulder even after this war. After the destruction of Kharkiv... For the second time in 80 years. After the bombing of Chernihiv, Sumy and Donbas. For the second time in 80 years. After thousands of people tortured and killed. For the second time in 80 years. Otherwise, what is the historical responsibility to the Ukrainian people still not redeemed for what happened 80 years ago?
And now - so that a new one does not appear, behind the new Wall, which will again demand redemption.
I appeal to you and remind you of what is needed. The things without which Europe will not survive and will not preserve its values.
Former actor, President of the United States Ronald Reagan once said in Berlin: Tear down this wall!
And I want to tell you now.
Chancellor Scholz! Tear down this wall.
Give Germany the leadership you deserve. And what your descendants will be proud of.
そこで紹介されていたのが、Tear down this wallを盛り込んだエピソードなのですが、当初国務省とかはソ連を刺激しないように穏便に済ませようとしていたそうで、この文言も当初は反対されていて、妥協案として今回のゼレンスキーのように締めではなく、演説の途中に盛り込んだとか。本でも紹介されていたスピーチライターのこのフレーズの着想について話しているものです。反共で好戦的なレーガンが盛り込んだと思ったら、実際に住んでいる人たちの想いを反映したものだったようです。アメリカの役人は壁の生活には慣れているからと言っていたのに実情は正反対だったのです。だからこそ、今でも語り継がれる名文句となっているかもしれません。
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.
Early in the 20th century, the Canadian government actively recruited Ukrainians with the promise of cheap farmland, hoping they would help settle the country’s three prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Around 150,000 Ukrainians immigrated to Canada from 1891 to 1914.
The second wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada occurred between the World Wars, when Ukrainians, mostly from western Ukraine, fled to Canada to escape Polish rule. The aftermath of World War II sparked the third wave of Ukrainian immigrants into Canada.
The prairies are still home to the bulk of Ukrainian Canadians: Around 37% of all Canadians who identify as Ukrainian-born or having Ukrainian heritage reside in the three provinces that otherwise make up 3% of the country’s population.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Canada on March 3 announced a new immigration program for Ukrainians, which could spur a fourth wave of immigration. The new scheme will prioritize and expedite Ukrainians’ applications to enter Canada. All Ukrainians who apply will be eligible for work permits, the Canadian government said in a statement last Thursday. Canada will also streamline the reunification process for Ukrainian family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. “There will be no limit to the number of Ukrainians who can apply…and [the program] eliminates many of the normal visa requirements,” the government said.
戦争当事者でなくても経済制裁などによって影響を実感するようになると、Freedom is not freeという言葉も重みを帯びてくることになります。日本政府はロシア産の水産物に輸入禁止措置を見送るようですから、まだfreeを謳歌しようとしているかもしれませんが。。。
Freedom is not freeという表現は、文字通り身体を張ってくれている軍人を労う形で使われているようでオバマが大統領だった頃も15分10秒あたりに軍人を前にして使われています。
(Wikipedia)
"Freedom isn't free", "freedom is not free", "freedom's not free", or "freedom ain't free" is an American idiom. The expression is used to describe sacrifice during times of crisis, being used widely in the United States to express gratitude to the military for defending freedom. The phrase is also found in an Australian political ad.[citation needed] It may be used as a rhetorical device.
Youtubeで調べてみると自由を守るための代償について語っていた1981年のレーガン大統領の就任演説がありました。なぜ就任演説でこのようなことを語っているのか不明ですが、冒頭に引用しているWe will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever.（われわれは平和のために交渉するし、犠牲を払う。ただわれわれは、未来永劫に平和のために降伏することはないだろう）の部分は今のウクライナの人々の気持ちかもしれません。
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever.
Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength.
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.
I am told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I am deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inauguration Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer.
This is the first time in history that this ceremony has been held, as you have been told, on this West Front of the Capitol. Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city's special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man: George Washington, Father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence.
And then beyond the Reflecting Pool the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.
Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery with its row on row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom.
Each one of those markers is a monument to the kinds of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir, and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam.
Under one such marker lies a young man—Martin Treptow—who left his job in a small town barber shop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire.
We are told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, "My Pledge," he had written these words: "America must win this war. Therefore, I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone."
The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.
そして結局、どうしてそれが信じられないというのだろう？ われわれはアメリカ人ではないか。
And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.
village in northern France northwest of Château-Thierry and north of the World War I battle site at Belleau Wood village population 142
Argonne
A wooded and hilly region of northeast France between the Meuse and Aisne Rivers. The area was a major battleground during World War I.
Omaha Beach
the west central part of Normandy beaches in northwestern France northwest of Bayeux
NOTE: During World War II Omaha Beach was a landing place of American army forces during the Allied invasion of France on June 6, 1944.
Tarawa
The capital of Kiribati, on an atoll in the western Pacific Ocean. It was occupied by the Japanese in 1942 and retaken by US Marines after a hard-fought battle in November 1943.
Guadalcanal
A volcanic island of the western Pacific Ocean, the largest of the Solomon Islands. Visited by English navigators in 1788, the island became a British protectorate in 1893. It was occupied by the Japanese in World War II, leading to an invasion by US troops in August 1942. After fierce jungle fighting, the island was captured by the Allies in February 1943.
Just imagine... Imagine that at four in the morning each of you hears explosions. Terrible explosions. Justin, imagine that you hear it. And your children hear it. Hear missile strikes at Ottawa airport.
The famous CN Tower in Toronto... How many Russian missiles will be enough to destroy it? Believe me, I do not wish this to all of you...
Our Freedom Square in Kharkiv and your Churchill Square in Edmonton. Imagine Russian missiles hitting its heart.
Our Babyn Yar is the burial place of the Holocaust victims... The Russians did not stop before bombing even this land. And what about the National Holocaust Monument in Ottawa?
From tanks - at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Direct guidance. When the fire started there. Can you imagine that happening to your Bruce Station in Ontario?
Blood, toil, tears and sweatもよく聞きますよね。5ポンド紙幣の裏面はチャーチルだそうですが、I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.も書かれているとか。
今回取り上げるのはFinest hourの方。シェイクスピアのヘンリー5世を意識したものだとか。
（オックスフォード）
Henry V
a play (1599) by Shakespeare which celebrates the military victories in France of King Henry V. It contains several famous patriotic speeches, including the king’s famous speech before the battle of Agincourt. There have been two film versions of the play, the first in 1944, directed by Laurence Olivier with himself as Henry, and the second in 1989, directed by Kenneth Branagh,who also played the title role.
“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;For he today that sheds his blood with meShall be my brother.”
Henry V
Agincourt
a battle fought in northern France in 1415, between the French and the English under King Henry V. Though there were many more French soldiers, the English won and were then in a strong position to take much of France. Agincourt is especially remembered because it forms an important part of Shakespeare’s play Henry V.
famous patriotic speechesと書かれていますが、その一つが以下のもの。1944年と最近のBBCドラマから同じスピーチを。これがfinest hourのスピーチに影響を与えているとか。
At the height of the Battle of Britain in August 1940, Churchill pronounced some of his most famous speeches of the war. His moving and defiant words were reminiscent of the speech by Shakespeare’s Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt.
Churchill was very moved during a visit to the operations room at Uxbridge, which was tracking the course of the Battle of Britain. He said to General Ismay, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.” A few days later he used the phrase in a speech to the House of Commons, making it one of his most famous speeches of the war.
Another famous speech occurred two months earlier, after the rescue of British forces from Dunkirk. Churchill rallied the nation with defiant words worthy of Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt on St. Crispin’s day. Henry said, “And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, / From this day to the ending of the world,/ But we in it shall be remembered” (Act 4, Scene 3, Lines 59-61). Churchill echoed him: “if the British Empire … lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.'”
Ukraine that saves people despite the terror of the invaders. Defends freedom despite the blows of one of the world's largest armies. Defends despite the open sky. Still open to Russian missiles, aircraft, helicopters. "To be or not to be?" - You know this Shakespearean question well.
13 days ago, this question could still be raised about Ukraine. But not now. Obviously, to be. Obviously, to be free. And if not here, where should I remind you of the words that Great Britain has already heard. And which are relevant again.
We shall not give up and shall not lose!
We shall go the whole way.
We shall fight in the seas, we shall fight in the air, we shall defend our land, whatever the cost may be.
We shall fight in the woods, in the fields, on the beaches, in the cities and villages, in the streets, we shall fight in the hills ... And I want to add: we shall fight on the spoil tips, on the banks of the Kalmius and the Dnieper! And we shall not surrender!
チャーチルの1940年のスピーチを想起させる内容ということなので該当部分を見比べてみます。細かい表現に違いはありますが、we shall ,,,と色々と挙げて最後にwe shall never surrenderと締めるという大枠はそのままですね。
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous states have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
書き出し部分ですが、名指しはしていませんが、condemnを使って侵攻をしっかりと非難しています。そしてOur number one priorityがour peopleであることを明言しています。その後にしっかりとウクライナの従業員の給料は払い続けますとも言っています。トヨタや日立、コマツなど日本企業のプレスリリーを読みましたが、給料保証を明記しているプレスリリースはほとんどなかったです。
This article was originally sent via email from CEO Chris Kempczinski to McDonald’s employees and franchisees.
The conflict in Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Europe has caused unspeakable suffering to innocent people. As a System, we join the world in condemning aggression and violence and praying for peace.
Our number one priority from the start of this crisis has been – and will remain – our people.
As Ian Borden shared last week, the Company has provided immediate financial support to our team in Ukraine. We are continuing to pay full salaries for our Ukrainian employees and have donated $5 million to our Employee Assistance Fund, and continue to support relief efforts led by the International Red Cross in the region. We have been overwhelmed by the offers of support across the System and thank you for your generous contributions to date.
ロシアの撤退については説明を丁寧にしています。ロシアでの現状を語りながら、“Do the right thing.”という哲学に背くことはできないので、営業を一時停止するのだと、ただし、従業員の給料は払い続けるとロシア市民にしわ寄せがいかないようにしています。
In Russia, we employ 62,000 people who have poured their heart and soul into our McDonald’s brand to serve their communities. We work with hundreds of local, Russian suppliers and partners who produce
the food for our menu and support our brand. And we serve millions of Russian customers each day who count on McDonald’s. In the thirty-plus years that McDonald’s has operated in Russia, we’ve become an essential part of the 850 communities in which we operate.
At the same time, our values mean we cannot ignore the needless human suffering unfolding in Ukraine. Years ago, when confronted with his own difficult decision, Fred Turner explained his approach quite simply: “Do the right thing.” That philosophy is enshrined as one of our five guiding values, and there are countless examples over the years of McDonald’s Corporation living up to Fred’s simple ideal. Today, is also one of those days.
Working closely in consultation with our Chairman, Rick Hernandez, and the rest of McDonald’s Board of Directors over the last week, McDonald’s has decided to temporarily close all our restaurants in Russia and pause all operations in the market. We understand the impact this will have on our Russian colleagues and partners, which is why we are prepared to support all three legs of the stool in Ukraine and Russia. This includes salary continuation for all McDonald’s employees in Russia.
We don’t take this decision lightly. Mastercard has operated in Russia for more than 25 years. We have nearly 200 colleagues there who make this company so critical to many stakeholders. As we take these steps, we will continue to focus on their safety and well-being, including continuing to provide pay and benefits. When it is appropriate, and if it is permissible under the law, we will use their passion and creativity to work to restore operations.
Africa, thus, is a “theater” for Russia’s geostrategic interests rather than a destination itself—a perspective reflected in the means that Russia employs. Unlike most major external partners, Russia is not investing significantly in conventional statecraft in Africa—e.g., economic investment, trade, and security assistance. Rather, Russia relies on a series of asymmetric (and often extralegal) measures for influence—mercenaries, arms-for-resource deals, opaque contracts, election interference, and disinformation.
This strategy works for Russia and the respective leaders who gain international diplomatic cover, resources to consolidate power domestically, a mercenary force, arms, and revenues from resource deals. However, Russia’s opaque engagements are inherently destabilizing for the citizens of the targeted countries, resulting in stunted economic development, human rights abuses, disenfranchisement of African citizens, the perpetuation of illegitimate governments, and social polarization.
Through this model, Russia has been able to advance its objectives with limited financial and political costs. Accordingly, we can expect to see Moscow continuing to expand its influence on the continent in 2022.
Harry Broadman, chair of emerging markets at consulting firm Berkeley Research Group and former economic adviser for the Africa region at the World Bank, highlighted that Russia’s relationships in Africa are largely tied to ruling elites in countries with vast chasms between leaders and the general population.
“It’s a relatively small number of countries, but they all have one characteristic which is that they’re quite shaky and resource-oriented, or they have military leaderships at the very top,” he told CNBC on Thursday.
He suggested the African Union will have difficulty establishing itself as a “powerful entity” in opposing Russia, since Moscow’s strategy is not continent-wide.
“They’re picking off certain countries based upon the elites, based upon minerals, based upon military interests – it’s a very different strategy than what China has been doing,” he added. China, in contrast, has developed an Africa-wide economic presence through decades of loan financing and infrastructure investment.
There is significant agricultural trade between countries on the continent and Russia and Ukraine. African countries imported agricultural products worth US$4 billion from Russia in 2020. About 90% of this was wheat, and 6% was sunflower oil. Major importing countries were Egypt, which accounted for nearly half of the imports, followed by Sudan, Nigeria, Tanzania, Algeria, Kenya and South Africa.
Similarly, Ukraine exported US$2.9 billion worth of agricultural products to the African continent in 2020. About 48% of this was wheat, 31% maize, and the rest included sunflower oil, barley, and soy beans.
Russia and Ukraine are substantial players in the global commodities market. Russia produces about 10% of global wheat while Ukraine accounts for 4%. Combined, this is nearly the size of the European Union’s total wheat production. The wheat is for domestic consumption and well as export markets. Together the two countries account for a quarter of global wheat exports. In 2020 Russia accounted for 18%, and Ukraine 8%.
Both countries are also notable players in maize, responsible for a combined maize production of 4%. However, Ukraine and Russia’s contribution is even more significant in exports, accounting for 14% of global maize exports in 2020. Both countries are also among the leading producers and exporters of sunflower oil. In 2020, Ukraine’s sunflower oil exports accounted for 40% of global exports, with Russia accounting for 18% of global sunflower oil exports.
