Doubts in the Summit Meeting: Fabricating the President’s Words
Published in Ryukyushimpo
(Japan) on 1 October 2011
by (link to original)
(Japan) on 1 October 2011
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Stephanie Chiu.
Edited by Nathan Ladd.
I want to ask this of Mr. Roos, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan: In your country, is a diplomat allowed to speak his own “personal thoughts” as if they were the president’s own words?
I was informed that on Sept. 21 (the 22nd in Japan) in the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, President Obama stated the following about the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma: “A period in which results must be seen in the relocation plan is approaching.”
While explaining the state of the meeting in a press conference immediately after, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell said something along these lines: “Both sides understand we are approaching a period where you need to see results. That was made very clear by the President.”
On the contrary, the lack of this kind of speech is exemplified in Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s answers in the National Diet of Japan, in which he expressed the explainer’s “personal thoughts.”
What are these personal thoughts? “If an agreement between Japan and America isn’t quickly made, it’ll escalate into something worse.” It’s intentionally designed to threaten Japanese citizens of each prefecture.
In the U.S. Congress, the pressure to reduce war funds is growing stronger every day. Until the deadline for additional deficit reduction plans comes at the end of November, the agreement between Japan and America will inevitably be reconsidered, if the possibility of the Henoko relocation being realized isn’t expressed. If they have to start from the beginning again, then a question mark will be placed on the validity of the people who are bound to that impossible agreement.
A diplomat “fabricating” the president’s words is an abnormal situation. He doubts the validity of his party and is impatient toward the disappearance of his own personal significance in life; there’s no other way to explain this fabrication.
Additionally, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs blamed it on a mistranslation from the press conference, which feels like they’re covering up for Mr. Campbell. If they have to start from the beginning again, then a question mark will be placed over their dear friend, so it’s just natural for them to do so. However, beyond asserting that “it will be made clear with help from the President,” the only solutions we have are makeshift ones, no matter how much we persist.
At any rate, before any more fabrications are made, it’s good to take an intimidating approach, and it’s good to hesitate and keep the truth away from the citizens of one’s own country, as if it were a suzerain bureaucracy. The speech and conduct of people involved in the negotiations between Japan and America is unpardonable.
I would ask Ambassador Roos because, during the circumstances of Mr. Maher’s discriminatory remark, respect was shown through quick and swift judgment: Should this kind of unfair diplomacy be allowed to continue beyond this? Please think about this for a moment.
I was informed that on Sept. 21 (the 22nd in Japan) in the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, President Obama stated the following about the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma: “A period in which results must be seen in the relocation plan is approaching.”
While explaining the state of the meeting in a press conference immediately after, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell said something along these lines: “Both sides understand we are approaching a period where you need to see results. That was made very clear by the President.”
On the contrary, the lack of this kind of speech is exemplified in Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s answers in the National Diet of Japan, in which he expressed the explainer’s “personal thoughts.”
What are these personal thoughts? “If an agreement between Japan and America isn’t quickly made, it’ll escalate into something worse.” It’s intentionally designed to threaten Japanese citizens of each prefecture.
In the U.S. Congress, the pressure to reduce war funds is growing stronger every day. Until the deadline for additional deficit reduction plans comes at the end of November, the agreement between Japan and America will inevitably be reconsidered, if the possibility of the Henoko relocation being realized isn’t expressed. If they have to start from the beginning again, then a question mark will be placed on the validity of the people who are bound to that impossible agreement.
A diplomat “fabricating” the president’s words is an abnormal situation. He doubts the validity of his party and is impatient toward the disappearance of his own personal significance in life; there’s no other way to explain this fabrication.
Additionally, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs blamed it on a mistranslation from the press conference, which feels like they’re covering up for Mr. Campbell. If they have to start from the beginning again, then a question mark will be placed over their dear friend, so it’s just natural for them to do so. However, beyond asserting that “it will be made clear with help from the President,” the only solutions we have are makeshift ones, no matter how much we persist.
At any rate, before any more fabrications are made, it’s good to take an intimidating approach, and it’s good to hesitate and keep the truth away from the citizens of one’s own country, as if it were a suzerain bureaucracy. The speech and conduct of people involved in the negotiations between Japan and America is unpardonable.
I would ask Ambassador Roos because, during the circumstances of Mr. Maher’s discriminatory remark, respect was shown through quick and swift judgment: Should this kind of unfair diplomacy be allowed to continue beyond this? Please think about this for a moment.