Posted at 2015.05.02 Category : Washington Post
最新号のTIMEは安倍首相の訪米について写真くらいしか載せていませんでした。ボルチモアの冒頭やネパールの地震があったため仕方がないかもしれませんが。。。
議会演説でTPP推進について触れていました。
平成27年4月29日
米国連邦議会上下両院合同会議における安倍内閣総理大臣演説
日本語
英語
TPP
In this way, prosperity was fostered first by the U.S., and second by Japan. And prosperity is nothing less than the seedbed for peace.
こうして米国が、次いで日本が育てたものは、繁栄です。そして繁栄こそは、平和の苗床です。
Involving countries in Asia-Pacific whose backgrounds vary, the U.S. and Japan must take the lead. We must take the lead to build a market that is fair, dynamic, sustainable, and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation.
日本と米国がリードし、生い立ちの異なるアジア太平洋諸国に、いかなる国の恣意的な思惑にも左右されない、フェアで、ダイナミックで、持続可能な市場をつくりあげなければなりません。
In the Pacific market, we cannot overlook sweat shops or burdens on the environment. Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property.
太平洋の市場では、知的財産がフリーライドされてはなりません。過酷な労働や、環境への負荷も見逃すわけにはいかない。
No. Instead, we can spread our shared values around the world and have them take root: the rule of law, democracy, and freedom.
That is exactly what the TPP is all about.
許さずしてこそ、自由、民主主義、法の支配、私たちが奉じる共通の価値を、世界に広め、根づかせていくことができます。
その営為こそが、TPPにほかなりません。
Furthermore, the TPP goes far beyond just economic benefits. It is also about our security. Long-term, its strategic value is awesome. We should never forget that.
しかもTPPには、単なる経済的利益を超えた、長期的な、安全保障上の大きな意義があることを、忘れてはなりません。
The TPP covers an area that accounts for 40 per cent of the world economy, and one third of global trade. We must turn the area into a region for lasting peace and prosperity.
That is for the sake of our children and our children's children.
経済規模で、世界の4割、貿易量で、世界の3分の1を占める一円に、私達の子や、孫のために、永続的な「平和と繁栄の地域」をつくりあげていかなければなりません。
As for U.S. - Japan negotiations, the goal is near. Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership.
日米間の交渉は、出口がすぐそこに見えています。米国と、日本のリーダーシップで、TPPを一緒に成し遂げましょう。
先ほどのElizabeth WarrenはTPP反対の有力者のようです。
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose
By Elizabeth Warren February 25
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.
The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?
One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.
TPPに反対というよりISDS条項への反対のようですが、両党派の協力を呼びかけています。アメリカも一枚岩ではないんですね。
This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules.
Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations.
議会演説でTPP推進について触れていました。
平成27年4月29日
米国連邦議会上下両院合同会議における安倍内閣総理大臣演説
日本語
英語
TPP
In this way, prosperity was fostered first by the U.S., and second by Japan. And prosperity is nothing less than the seedbed for peace.
こうして米国が、次いで日本が育てたものは、繁栄です。そして繁栄こそは、平和の苗床です。
Involving countries in Asia-Pacific whose backgrounds vary, the U.S. and Japan must take the lead. We must take the lead to build a market that is fair, dynamic, sustainable, and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation.
日本と米国がリードし、生い立ちの異なるアジア太平洋諸国に、いかなる国の恣意的な思惑にも左右されない、フェアで、ダイナミックで、持続可能な市場をつくりあげなければなりません。
In the Pacific market, we cannot overlook sweat shops or burdens on the environment. Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property.
太平洋の市場では、知的財産がフリーライドされてはなりません。過酷な労働や、環境への負荷も見逃すわけにはいかない。
No. Instead, we can spread our shared values around the world and have them take root: the rule of law, democracy, and freedom.
That is exactly what the TPP is all about.
許さずしてこそ、自由、民主主義、法の支配、私たちが奉じる共通の価値を、世界に広め、根づかせていくことができます。
その営為こそが、TPPにほかなりません。
Furthermore, the TPP goes far beyond just economic benefits. It is also about our security. Long-term, its strategic value is awesome. We should never forget that.
しかもTPPには、単なる経済的利益を超えた、長期的な、安全保障上の大きな意義があることを、忘れてはなりません。
The TPP covers an area that accounts for 40 per cent of the world economy, and one third of global trade. We must turn the area into a region for lasting peace and prosperity.
That is for the sake of our children and our children's children.
経済規模で、世界の4割、貿易量で、世界の3分の1を占める一円に、私達の子や、孫のために、永続的な「平和と繁栄の地域」をつくりあげていかなければなりません。
As for U.S. - Japan negotiations, the goal is near. Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership.
日米間の交渉は、出口がすぐそこに見えています。米国と、日本のリーダーシップで、TPPを一緒に成し遂げましょう。
先ほどのElizabeth WarrenはTPP反対の有力者のようです。
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose
By Elizabeth Warren February 25
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.
The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?
One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.
TPPに反対というよりISDS条項への反対のようですが、両党派の協力を呼びかけています。アメリカも一枚岩ではないんですね。
This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules.
Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations.
スポンサーサイト
Tracback
この記事にトラックバックする(FC2ブログユーザー)