本領発揮

アン・マリー・スローターさんは、昨年雑誌アトランティックに『Why Women Still Can’t Have It All』を発表して以来、女性の社会進出の推進者として登場することが多かったですね。

JULY/AUGUST 2012
Why Women Still Can’t Have It All
It’s time to stop fooling ourselves, says a woman who left a position of power: the women who have managed to be both mothers and top professionals are superhuman, rich, or self-employed. If we truly believe in equal opportunity for all women, here’s what has to change.
ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER　JUN 13 2012, 10:15 AM ET

彼女はアメリカ国務省政策企画本部長を務めたほどの国際政治の専門家です。シリアの化学兵器使用に関して、ワシントンポストのOpEdに投稿していました。タイトルだけを見ても、ルワンダを引き合いに出していることから、虐殺を防ぐことを訴える介入支持派の意見になるのではと想像できますね。

Obama should remember Rwanda as he weighs action in Syria
By Anne-Marie Slaughter, Saturday, April 27, 9:37 AM

The Rwanda genocide began in April 1994; within a few weeks, nongovernmental organizations there were estimating that 100,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus had been massacred. Yet two months later, Reuters correspondent Alan Elsner and State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly had an infamous exchange:

Tom Toles goes global: A collection of cartoons about international news.
Shelly: “Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda.”

Elsner: “What’s the difference between ‘acts of genocide’ and ‘genocide’?”
Shelly: “Well, I think the — as you know, there’s a legal definition of this. . . . Clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label. . . . But as to the distinctions between the words, we’re trying to call what we have so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.”

Elsner: “How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?”
Shelly: “Alan, that’s just not a question that I’m in a position to answer.”

「‘acts of genocide’ は認められるけど、 ‘genocide’かどうか分からない」というような言い回しを思い起こさせることで、例えば先ほどの記事で取り上げたヘーゲル長官のhas used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syriaのようなコメントをあてこすっているのかもしれません。

the U.S. intelligence community assesses with some degree of varying confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.

クリントン政権の頃はgenocideを認めるとGenocide Convention of 1948によって介入せざるをえなくなるので慎重になっていた。今回のオバマ政権もchemical weaponの使用をgame changerとしてきたので、慎重になっている。と同じような状況であることを指摘しています。

The Clinton administration did not want to acknowledge that genocide was taking place in Rwanda because the United States would have been legally bound by the Genocide Convention of 1948 to intervene to stop the killing. The reason the Obama administration does not want to recognize that chemical weapons are being used in Syria is because Obama warned the Syrian regime clearly and sharply in August against using such weapons. “There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical-weapons front or the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “That would change my calculations significantly.”

Unfortunately, changing the game is hard. Moreover, even against the reported recommendations of his advisers, Obama has shown little interest in intervention in Syria beyond nonlethal assistance to some opposition forces, diplomatic efforts with Russia and the United Nations, and political maneuvering to try to unify the opposition.

彼女が大切にしているのはアメリカ政府の信頼性のようですね。U.S. credibility is on the line（米国の信頼性が問われている）と語っています。言葉と行動のギャップというのは我々にとっても耳の痛い話題ですが、the gap between words and deeds becomes too great to ignoreというかたちで表現しています。

But the White House must recognize that the game has already changed. U.S. credibility is on the line. For all the temptation to hide behind the decision to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, Obama must realize the tremendous damage he will do to the United States and to his legacy if he fails to act. He should understand the deep and lasting damage done when the gap between words and deeds becomes too great to ignore, when those who wield power are exposed as not saying what they mean or meaning what they say.

彼女の立場は、例え少量でも化学兵器が使われたことが認められたのだから、今すぐに行動に移しなさいという推進派のようです。最後にも以下のようにオバマ大統領への訴えで終わっていました。

Mr. President, how many uses of chemical weapons does it take to cross a red line against the use of chemical weapons? That is a question you must be in a position to answer.