「ほっ」と。キャンペーン

風知草:みんな直人が悪いのか=山田孝男

(Mainichi Japan) July 26, 2011
Blaming everything on Kan won't solve nuclear issue
風知草:みんな直人が悪いのか=山田孝男

In his presentation "Tsuzuri Katakyoshitsu," rakugo storyteller Ryutei Chiraku IV pokes fun at himself with the saying, "It's all my fault that the postboxes are red and the telegraph poles are high."
 四代目・柳亭痴楽(りゅうていちらく)の「綴(つづ)り方狂室」に「〓郵便ポストが赤いのも、電信柱が高いのも、みんな痴楽が悪いのヨ」という自虐ギャグがあった。

Strange as it seems, this phrase is exactly the kind of thing we are hearing during debate in Japan's Diet now.
 いまの国会論戦がそれだ。

The March 11 disaster and nuclear crisis, the political strife, the strong yen, the budget deficit are all Prime Minister Naoto Kan's fault.
震災も、政争も、円高も、財政赤字も、みんな菅直人が悪いのヨである。

"If Kan would only quit, everything would be solved," politicians in both the opposition and ruling parties seem to be thinking.
野党も与党も「菅さえやめれば万事解決」の胸算用。

Kan, meanwhile, keeps his eyes low when he makes rebuttals, and it sounds as if he is making excuses.
菅の反論がまた、伏し目がちで言いわけがましい。

With the Fukushima nuclear crisis raging on, politicians should be questioning Japan's national policy of promoting nuclear power.
 今は原発推進の国策を問い直す時だ。

So why aren't the main parties facing up to the issue and debating the risks of nuclear power plants?
なのになぜ、大政党は原発リスクを正面から論じないのか。

Why is it always the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party that take issue with these risks? リスクを追及するのはなぜ、いつも共産党と社民党なのか。

Surely this is a scientific issue, not a matter of ideology.
これはイデオロギーではなく、科学技術の問題ではないのか。そこを問いたい。

The lack of debate was recently highlighted over the issue of Vietnam's order of Japanese nuclear power plants.
 早い話が「ベトナム原発」問答だ。

Last year Japan received orders from Vietnam for two nuclear power plants.
日本は昨秋、ベトナムから原発を2基受注した。

It was Kan's top deal for the nation.
菅のトップセールスだった。

Now, however, Kan has moved toward abandoning nuclear power in his homeland.
その菅が脱原発へ動いた。

In a meeting of the House of Representatives Budget Committee on July 20, a lawmaker from the opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) posed the question, "Is it all right to export dangerous nuclear power plants?"  先週20日の衆院予算委で、自民党が「危ない原発を輸出していいのか」と追及した。

Kan explained the background to the deal, but sidestepped the question, saying, "We need to debate this within the context of our energy policies and growth strategies."
菅は経過説明の揚げ句、「エネルギー政策と成長戦略を含めた中で議論が必要」とかわした。

This dialogue was an example of an intelligent question and a silly answer, but the lawmaker posing the question didn't provide any view on the issue either, and as a natural consequence the debate sank into superficiality.
賢問愚答には違いないが、攻める側も最後まで自分の考えは明かさず、当然の帰結として、論戦そのものが浅くなった。

Balancing the nation's role as an economic superpower built on exports, and moves abandoning nuclear power is an issue of great magnitude.
 「経済技術大国=輸出立国主義」路線と「脱原発」路線の調和は歴史的な課題である。

Ideally Kan should clearly explain the issues, but one cannot say he is incompetent or insincere just because he has been slow.
首相が鮮やかに説明できれば理想的だが、もたついたから無能、不実とも言えない。

If Japan's leader were "Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda" or "Prime Minister Yoshito Sengoku" or "Prime Minister Sadakazu Tanigaki" would we then receive a clear explanation?
 もしも野田佳彦首相や、仙谷由人首相や、谷垣禎一首相であれば、説明しきれるか。

It's unlikely.
そうもいくまい。

The answers to nuclear problems do not come simply by changing the face of the prime minister.
首相の顔を代えれば答えが出る問題ではない。

If politicians are to question nuclear power plant exports to Vietnam, they must go to the root of the issue and settle the question of what, exactly, is dangerous.
「ベトナム原発」問答の背景は大きく、根は深い。
 ベトナムへの原発輸出の是非を問うなら、まず、何が危険かという根源の問題から整理しなければならない。

Scientists are divided over the risks associated with nuclear power plants, but the diagnosis of the insurance industry is said to be uniform and objective.
 原発リスクに関する科学者の見解は割れているが、保険業界の見立ては均質で客観的だと言われている。

Masaji Shinagawa, 86, the former president of Nipponkoa Insurance Co. and a current company adviser, as well as a permanent executive secretary of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives, gave his opinion on the issue in the May issue of the journal Sekai, in an article titled, "Nuclear Power and Damage Insurance."
元日本興亜損保社長、品川正治(86)=現同社相談役、経済同友会終身幹事=がこう言っている。

"The nuclear power industry can only exist in a framework separate from that of regular economic business, including from the perspective of damage insurance," he stated.
 「原子力事業は、損害保険という側面から見ても、通常の経済的営みとは別枠でしか存在しえない」(「世界」5月号「原子力と損害保険」)

The reason for this is that nuclear disasters can't be tested, and so even in a worst-case scenario, the damages remain unpredictable.
 なぜなら原発災害は、テストできないので発生の確率が読めず、最悪の規模も損害も見当がつかないからだ。

The damage caused by a nuclear plant disaster spreads not only through the air and through society, but also spreads over time, damaging the genes of subsequent generations.
 被害は空間的、社会的のみならず、子孫の遺伝子を傷つけて時間的にも広がる。

Building nuclear power plants may be on the same scale as jumbo jets or huge tankers, but the elements are completely different.
同じ巨大技術でも、ジャンボジェットやマンモスタンカーとは全く異質だというのである。

Proponents of nuclear power say, "All we need to do is improve safety," but just what are the standards for safety, and what exactly can be considered safe?
 原発推進派は「安全性を高めればいい」と言うが、そもそも何を基準とし、何をもって安全と見るのか。

And how will spent nuclear fuel -- something we found out about through the Fukushima nuclear crisis -- be dealt with?
福島原発震災で思い知らされた使用済み燃料の処分はどうするか。

What are we to do with a nuclear fuel cycle that has no upside?
展望なき核燃料サイクルをどうするか。

What is to become of Japan's Monju sodium-cooled fast reactor?
「もんじゅ」はどうか。

Has the handling of spent nuclear fuel been settled in the contract with Vietnam?
ベトナムとの契約で使用済み燃料の処理をどう決めたのか。

There are mountains of issues that should be debated in the Diet, but politicians have tended not to focus on them.
 国会論戦に付すべきことは山ほどあるが、そういう流れになっていない。

Why?
なぜか。

Because they say Kan has already declared that he will resign.
首相はすでに退陣表明したことになっている。

As the opposition thinks that Kan will resign soon, it has put more energy into shaking up the ruling administration than in getting to the main issues.
もうちょっとで辞めると思うから、野党は本論より揺さぶりに精を出す。

Kan's perseverance is one of his merits.
 菅は粘りが身上だ。

The view earlier proposed by Keisen University professor Toru Takeda that Kan is playing the clown, giving the public time to think, is funny, but the Diet is clearly wasting time.
粘りながら「道化師」を演じ、国民に考える時間を与えているという武田徹・恵泉女学園大教授の見立て(本紙21日朝刊)が面白いが、国会は明らかに時間を空費している。

I want politicians to debate the risks of nuclear power rather than talking about Kan.
菅より原発リスクを論じてもらいたい。

(By Takao Yamada, Expert Senior Writer)
(敬称略)(毎週月曜日掲載)

毎日新聞 2011年7月25日 東京朝刊
[PR]

by kiyoshimat | 2011-07-28 03:58 | 英字新聞

<< 社説:米債務上限交渉 世界を道... 中国鉄道事故―背伸びせず原因究明だ >>