米紙 「待ち」の政府姿勢批判
アメリカの新聞「ワシントンポスト」は８日付けの紙面で、「北朝鮮を待つ」と題した社説を掲載しました。社説では、マカオの銀行にある資金の返還問題をめぐってアメリカは譲歩を繰り返してきたと指摘し、現在北朝鮮が求めている外国の銀行への資金の送金については、「アメリカ財務省がこれまで国際金融システムにおいてタブーとしてきたことだ」として、これ以上の譲歩は適切でないと主張しています。また、「北朝鮮の約束と実際の行動がいかに違っているかに注意を払わないのはばかげている。２月の６か国協議での合意以来、北朝鮮がしたことはアメリカからいくつもの譲歩を引き出したことだけだ」として、北朝鮮が核施設の稼働停止などの措置を履行しない中、北朝鮮側の行動を忍耐強く待つ姿勢をとり続けるアメリカ政府を批判しました。これに対して、国務省のマコーマック報道官は８日の記者会見で、「北朝鮮は履行の意思を繰り返し示しており、もうしばらく時間を与えたい」と述べて、引き続き見守ることに理解を求めましたが、
このまま事態の進展が滞れば、
アメリカ政府の外交方針への批判が
強まることも予想されます。
魚拓
“北朝鮮がＩＡＥＡと接触”魚拓
アメリカ国務省のマコーマック報道官は、８日の記者会見で、北朝鮮がＩＡＥＡと非公式ながら幾度か接触していることを明らかにしました。北朝鮮は、３月にＩＡＥＡのエルバラダイ事務局長をピョンヤンに招いたほか、先月には、マカオの銀行にある資金の返還問題が解決すれば代表団を招く用意があるという書簡を送っていますが、報道官の発言はこれ以外にもやりとりがあったことを示すものです。これについて、マコーマック報道官は「北朝鮮の核施設の稼動停止に向けた行動がまったくないわけではない」と述べ、北朝鮮に措置を履行する意思があることを表すものだとして、引き続き北朝鮮の動きを見守る考えを示しました。しかし一方で、アメリカの新聞「ワシントンポスト」は８日付けの紙面で、「２月の合意以来、北朝鮮がしたことは、アメリカから譲歩を引き出したことだけだ」と指摘して、北朝鮮の行動を待ち続けるアメリカ政府の姿勢を批判しており、
このまま事態の進展が滞れば、
アメリカ政府の外交方針への批判が
強まることも予想されます。
北朝鮮資金 米経由の送金検討魚拓
北朝鮮は、バンコ・デルタ・アジアにある北朝鮮関連の２５００万ドルに上る資金の扱いをめぐって、凍結の解除だけでなく、別の銀行口座に送金されなければ問題が解決したことにはならないと主張して、さきの６か国協議で合意した核施設の稼働停止などの措置に着手していません。アメリカ政府の当局者は８日、ＮＨＫの取材に対し、問題の資金をバンコ・デルタ・アジアからアメリカの金融機関を経由し、第三国の銀行に送金することを検討していることを明らかにしました。この当局者によりますと、すでに特定の金融機関との協議に入っているということです。しかし、アメリカ財務省は先月、アメリカの金融機関に対して、バンコ・デルタ・アジアとのすべての取り引きを禁止する措置を発動しています。このため、今回に限ってアメリカの金融機関を経由した送金を例外的に認めるかどうか、アメリカ政府内部で調整が続いているということです。これに関連して、国務省の高官は「最終的にはホワイトハウスが判断することになるだろう」と述べて、最終的にはブッシュ政権としての政治的な判断が必要になるという認識を示しています。
赤い所はＮＨＫの希望的観測とミスリード
現実：
State Dept. Daily Press Briefing May 8, 2007http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0705/S00155.htm
Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 10:43 am
Press Release: US State Department
Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
QUESTION: Sorry, on North Korea, there is an editorial in The Washington Post which highlights the fact that it's been 24 days since the April 14th deadline. There's been no movement by the North Koreans. They claim that all North Korea has managed to do is to draw more concessions from the U.S. Are you still confident that North Korea intends to abide by its denuclearization commitments? You said yourself that you're not willing to wait an infinite amount of time, so --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: How much longer are you willing to wait on that?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll let you know. For the time being, we are willing to give this process a little more time. Everybody shares the sense that we wish that we had been able to move beyond this point, but we haven't been up until now. And the North Korean Government has reassured us multiple times throughout this entire period that they are, in fact, committed not only to the September '05 agreement, but the February 13th agreement as well.
And there are indications that they are actively working to resolve the BDA issue. We have said that we're going to give them a little time and space to do that. It's incredibly complicated and arcane, so it has taken much longer than anybody would have expected. What we want to do is get past this particular issue so we can return to the six-party talks, regain some of that momentum, and actually get down to the business of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, because that's ultimately what this is all about.
QUESTION: And just to follow up what you were saying about they're actively working to resolve the BDA issue, is the U.S. pushing for them to start shutting down Yongbyon while they're trying to resolve the BDA issue or are you willing to wait until the BDA issue is resolved?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, obviously, the North Korean Government can take steps on its own volition to begin shutting down the Yongbyon reactor and sealing the Yongbyon reactor. I know that they have had some contacts with the IAEA, so there hasn't been a total absence of action in that regard on the issue of Yongbyon.
What we would like to see is the BDA issue in everybody's rearview mirror so I don't have to answer these questions every single day -- that's just from a purely parochial standpoint -- and really get down to the serious matter of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and plus, Chris Hill hasn't been to Beijing for a while, so I'm sure he's itching to get back.
QUESTION: Same subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.
QUESTION: On the same subject?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, we'll go back here and we'll come up.
QUESTION: Just one follow-up on what you said to her question, then I have another question. The IAEA, has there been any contact since the initial contact back in February?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think there -- you can check with the IAEA, but I think there has been some subsequent contact.
QUESTION: There has been some?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And secondly, are you --
MR. MCCORMACK: I think they would describe it more as informal in its manner, but yeah -- some contact, yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And on the Washington Post article once again --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: It keeps on saying that there are -- the Administration has made concessions after concession after concession in giving back all of the money, unfreezing the accounts, working to help transfer. Do you look at these -- does the Administration look at these as concessions or is this part of your obligation as your commitment to resolve the BDA issue?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it's worth stepping back for a second. The -- let's remember what was -- the issue for the United States Government was the behavior of Banco Delta Asia and its ultimate -- it was ultimately determined that it was a -- part of an ongoing money laundering concern in contravention of U.S. law as well as inter -- customary practices of the international financial system.
So the action was against the Banco Delta Asia. The idea was never to "seize the assets" of Banco Delta Asia. How those -- once the Treasury issued its rule regarding BDA, it was up to the account holders as well as the regulatory authorities in Macau and China how to dispense of the assets that were in BDA. So that --
it ceased to become a U.S. Government issue at that point,
as we talked about.
Now since then, we have tried to offer our advice to the various parties in as much as it's asked for regarding any potential transfer of funds out of BDA to some other financial institutions. So that, I expect, is something that the Treasury Department will be involved in as this process unfolds and as appropriate. But beyond that, it is not --
it hasn't been the U.S. Government that has been in charge of how these assets are dispensed out of BDA.
このままこんないい加減な
報道を続けてたら、
��ＨＫの報道方針への批判が
強まることも予想されます。
、、、（ｗ