2009年 04月 09日
オバマの大戦略？ |
デント予測の続きを書く予定でしたが、面白い記事があったのでこれの紹介を。
＝＝＝
Hints of Obama’s Strategy in a Telling 8 Days
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 7, 2009
VIENNA — In eight days in Europe, President Obama has started down the road to remaking the global financial system, reinvigorating the NATO commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan, rewriting nuclear policy, and repairing relations with the Muslim world.
So, 77 days into his presidency, is there an emerging Obama grand strategy?
Not yet, but that may have been the point. Pragmatic, conciliatory, legalistic and incremental, he pushed what might be called, with a notable exception or two, an anti-Bush doctrine.
There was no talk of pre-emption, or of the American mission to eradicate tyranny. From the Thames to the Bosporus, and at several landmarks in between, Mr. Obama barely mentioned his predecessor. But he emphasized one of their main differences: that the United States planned not only to give greater authority to international institutions that President George W. Bush often shunned, but also to embrace the creation of some new ones.
（中略）
Looking for a grand strategy, a coordinated plan to use American power for broad goals in the world, is always risky.
（中略）
Mr. Obama had more of a strategy in place by the time he reached NATO. In the days before the celebration of the alliance’s 60th anniversary, the new administration briefed the allies on a refocused strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, one intended to halt the establishment of a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other terror groups while downgrading the goal of turning Afghanistan into a centrally controlled democratic state.
（中略）
It is a strategy based on a bet: if the United States demonstrated a willingness to sharply reduce its atomic arsenal, and if it revived treaties that would ban all signers from conducting nuclear tests or producing new uranium and plutonium suitable for bomb-making, it would be far easier to rally nations to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions and North Korea’s presumed arsenal.
Mr. Obama was embracing a concept that the Bush administration had repeatedly rejected. To counter proliferation, he argued, the United States could no longer simply ignore the fact that some countries, like Iran, were signatories to international treaties and could correctly claim a “right” to produce nuclear fuel.
Mr. Bush’s approach was to declare that some countries could simply never be trusted. Mr. Obama’s approach is to tighten the web of treaties and amend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to make it harder for nations like Iran to limit inspections or refuse to answer questions about suspect documents.
“For me, it is a different world,” Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in his office in Vienna on Monday. “When was the last time you heard a president talk about moving toward zero nuclear weapons? Or fixing a nonproliferation system that is clearly falling apart?”
He added: “We are beginning to see a strategy. What we don’t know yet is whether he can implement it.”
＝＝＝
「大戦略」という言葉が正しく定義されている優れた記事です。
結局のところはブッシュの大戦略の否定がオバマの大戦略である、ということになってますが、まだ見極めるのは時期尚早だということでしょうか。
しかし最後のエルバラダイさんのコメントは完全にクラウゼヴィチアンなものなので笑いました（苦笑）戦略は実行するのが一番難しいんですよね。
＝＝＝
Hints of Obama’s Strategy in a Telling 8 Days
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: April 7, 2009
VIENNA — In eight days in Europe, President Obama has started down the road to remaking the global financial system, reinvigorating the NATO commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan, rewriting nuclear policy, and repairing relations with the Muslim world.
So, 77 days into his presidency, is there an emerging Obama grand strategy?
Not yet, but that may have been the point. Pragmatic, conciliatory, legalistic and incremental, he pushed what might be called, with a notable exception or two, an anti-Bush doctrine.
There was no talk of pre-emption, or of the American mission to eradicate tyranny. From the Thames to the Bosporus, and at several landmarks in between, Mr. Obama barely mentioned his predecessor. But he emphasized one of their main differences: that the United States planned not only to give greater authority to international institutions that President George W. Bush often shunned, but also to embrace the creation of some new ones.
（中略）
Looking for a grand strategy, a coordinated plan to use American power for broad goals in the world, is always risky.
（中略）
Mr. Obama had more of a strategy in place by the time he reached NATO. In the days before the celebration of the alliance’s 60th anniversary, the new administration briefed the allies on a refocused strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, one intended to halt the establishment of a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other terror groups while downgrading the goal of turning Afghanistan into a centrally controlled democratic state.
（中略）
It is a strategy based on a bet: if the United States demonstrated a willingness to sharply reduce its atomic arsenal, and if it revived treaties that would ban all signers from conducting nuclear tests or producing new uranium and plutonium suitable for bomb-making, it would be far easier to rally nations to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions and North Korea’s presumed arsenal.
Mr. Obama was embracing a concept that the Bush administration had repeatedly rejected. To counter proliferation, he argued, the United States could no longer simply ignore the fact that some countries, like Iran, were signatories to international treaties and could correctly claim a “right” to produce nuclear fuel.
Mr. Bush’s approach was to declare that some countries could simply never be trusted. Mr. Obama’s approach is to tighten the web of treaties and amend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to make it harder for nations like Iran to limit inspections or refuse to answer questions about suspect documents.
“For me, it is a different world,” Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in his office in Vienna on Monday. “When was the last time you heard a president talk about moving toward zero nuclear weapons? Or fixing a nonproliferation system that is clearly falling apart?”
He added: “We are beginning to see a strategy. What we don’t know yet is whether he can implement it.”
＝＝＝
「大戦略」という言葉が正しく定義されている優れた記事です。
結局のところはブッシュの大戦略の否定がオバマの大戦略である、ということになってますが、まだ見極めるのは時期尚早だということでしょうか。
しかし最後のエルバラダイさんのコメントは完全にクラウゼヴィチアンなものなので笑いました（苦笑）戦略は実行するのが一番難しいんですよね。
by masa_the_man
| 2009-04-09 00:54
| ニュース
