Dégustation?: Depressing

【ヘイトスピーチの欺瞞】International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

2014-09-05T18:40:00.000+09:00

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
source : United Nations Human Rights (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

Adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965

entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that the Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action, in co-operation with the Organization, for the achievement of one of the purposes of the United Nations which is to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, colour or national origin,

Considering that all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination,

Considering that the United Nations has condemned colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith, in whatever form and wherever they exist, and that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960 (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)) has affirmed and solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing them to a speedy and unconditional end,

Considering that the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 20 November 1963 (General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII)) solemnly affirms the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world in all its forms and manifestations and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the human person,

Convinced that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and that there is no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere,

Reaffirming that discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples and the harmony of persons living side by side even within one and the same State,

Convinced that the existence of racial barriers is repugnant to the ideals of any human society,

Alarmed by manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas of the world and by governmental policies based on racial superiority or hatred, such as policies of apartheid, segregation or separation,

Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination,

Bearing in mind the Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation adopted by the International Labour Organisation in 1958, and the Convention against Discrimination in Education adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1960,

Desiring to implement the principles embodied in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Al l Forms of Racial Discrimination and to secure the earliest adoption of practical measures to that end,

Have agreed as follows:

PART I

Article 1

1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.

4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Article 2

1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to en sure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
(b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations;

(c) Each State Party shall take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind or nullify any laws and regulations which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination wherever it exists;

(d) Each State Party shall prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, including legislation as required by circumstances, racial discrimination by any persons, group or organization;

(e) Each State Party undertakes to encourage, where appropriate, integrationist multiracial organizations and movements and other means of eliminating barriers between races, and to discourage anything which tends to strengthen racial division.

2. States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields, special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These measures shall in no case en tail as a con sequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

Article 3

States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 4

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

Article 5

In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:

(a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;

(b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;

(c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections-to vote and to stand for election-on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;

(d) Other civil rights, in particular:

(i) The right to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;

(ii) The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;

(iii) The right to nationality;

(iv) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;

(v) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others;

(vi) The right to inherit;

(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

(viii) The right to freedom of opinion and expression;

(ix) The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

(e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:

(i) The rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;

(ii) The right to form and join trade unions;

(iii) The right to housing;

(iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;

(v) The right to education and training;

(vi) The right to equal participation in cultural activities;

(f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport hotels, restaurants, cafes, theatres and parks.

Article 6

States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination.

Article 7

States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and effective measures, particularly in the fields of teaching, education, culture and information, with a view to combating prejudices which lead to racial discrimination and to promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial or ethnical groups, as well as to propagating the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and this Convention.

PART II

Article 8

1. There shall be established a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) consisting of eighteen experts of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality elected by States Parties from among their nationals, who shall serve in their personal capacity, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the representation of the different forms of civilization as well as of the principal legal systems.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by the States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals.

3. The initial election shall be held six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least three months before the date of each election the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within two months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.

4. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at a meeting of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General at United Nations Headquarters. At that meeting, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be nominees who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.

5.

(a) The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. However, the terms of nine of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these nine members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the Committee;

(b) For the filling of casual vacancies, the State Party whose expert has ceased to function as a member of the Committee shall appoint another expert from among its nationals, subject to the approval of the Committee.

6. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 9

1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for consideration by the Committee, a report on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures which they have adopted and which give effect to the provisions of this Convention: (a) within one year after the entry into force of the Convention for the State concerned; and

(b) thereafter every two years and whenever the Committee so requests. The Committee may request further information from the States Parties.

2. The Committee shall report annually, through the Secretary General, to the General Assembly of the United Nations on its activities and may make suggestions and general recommendations based on the examination of the reports and information received from the States Parties. Such suggestions and general recommendations shall be reported to the General Assembly together with comments, if any, from States Parties.

Article 10

1. The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
2. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years.

3. The secretariat of the Committee shall be provided by the Secretary General of the United Nations.

4. The meetings of the Committee shall normally be held at United Nations Headquarters.

Article 11

1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may bring the matter to the attention of the Committee. The Committee shall then transmit the communication to the State Party concerned. Within three months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties, either by bilateral negotiations or by any other procedure open to them, within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter again to the Committee by notifying the Committee and also the other State.

3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the case, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged.

4. In any matter referred to it, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned to supply any other relevant information.

5. When any matter arising out of this article is being considered by the Committee, the States Parties concerned shall be entitled to send a representative to take part in the proceedings of the Committee, without voting rights, while the matter is under consideration.

Article 12

1. (a) After the Committee has obtained and collated all the information it deems necessary, the Chairman shall appoint an ad hoc Conciliation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) comprising five persons who may or may not be members of the Committee. The members of the Commission shall be appointed with the unanimous consent of the parties to the dispute, and its good offices shall be made available to the States concerned with a view to an amicable solution of the matter on the basis of respect for this Convention;
(b) If the States parties to the dispute fail to reach agreement within three months on all or part of the composition of the Commission, the members of the Commission not agreed upon by the States parties to the dispute shall be elected by secret ballot by a two-thirds majority vote of the Committee from among its own members.

2. The members of the Commission shall serve in their personal capacity. They shall not be nationals of the States parties to the dispute or of a State not Party to this Convention.
3. The Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its own rules of procedure.

4. The meetings of the Commission shall normally be held at United Nations Headquarters or at any other convenient place as determined by the Commission.

5. The secretariat provided in accordance with article 10, paragraph 3, of this Convention shall also service the Commission whenever a dispute among States Parties brings the Commission into being.

6. The States parties to the dispute shall share equally all the expenses of the members of the Commission in accordance with estimates to be provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

7. The Secretary-General shall be empowered to pay the expenses of the members of the Commission, if necessary, before reimbursement by the States parties to the dispute in accordance with paragraph 6 of this article.

8. The information obtained and collated by the Committee shall be made available to the Commission, and the Commission may call upon the States concerned to supply any other relevant information.

Article 13

1. When the Commission has fully considered the matter, it shall prepare and submit to the Chairman of the Committee a report embodying its findings on all questions of fact relevant to the issue between the parties and containing such recommendations as it may think proper for the amicable solution of the dispute.
2. The Chairman of the Committee shall communicate the report of the Commission to each of the States parties to the dispute. These States shall, within three months, inform the Chairman of the Committee whether or not they accept the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission.

3. After the period provided for in paragraph 2 of this article, the Chairman of the Committee shall communicate the report of the Commission and the declarations of the States Parties concerned to the other States Parties to this Convention.

Article 14

1. A State Party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in this Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.
2. Any State Party which makes a declaration as provided for in paragraph I of this article may establish or indicate a body within its national legal order which shall be competent to receive and consider petitions from individuals and groups of individuals within its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in this Convention and who have exhausted other available local remedies.

3. A declaration made in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article and the name of any body established or indicated in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article shall be deposited by the State Party concerned with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General, but such a withdrawal shall not affect communications pending before the Committee.

4. A register of petitions shall be kept by the body established or indicated in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, and certified copies of the register shall be filed annually through appropriate channels with the Secretary-General on the understanding that the contents shall not be publicly disclosed.

5. In the event of failure to obtain satisfaction from the body established or indicated in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the petitioner shall have the right to communicate the matter to the Committee within six months.

6.

(a) The Committee shall confidentially bring any communication referred to it to the attention of the State Party alleged to be violating any provision of this Convention, but the identity of the individual or groups of individuals concerned shall not be revealed without his or their express consent. The Committee shall not receive anonymous communications;

(b) Within three months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

7.

(a) The Committee shall consider communications in the light of all information made available to it by the State Party concerned and by the petitioner. The Committee shall not consider any communication from a petitioner unless it has ascertained that the petitioner has exhausted all available domestic remedies. However, this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged;

(b) The Committee shall forward its suggestions and recommendations, if any, to the State Party concerned and to the petitioner.

8. The Committee shall include in its annual report a summary of such communications and, where appropriate, a summary of the explanations and statements of the States Parties concerned and of its own suggestions and recommendations.
9. The Committee shall be competent to exercise the functions provided for in this article only when at least ten States Parties to this Convention are bound by declarations in accordance with paragraph I of this article.

Article 15

1 . Pending the achievement of the objectives of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the provisions of this Convention shall in no way limit the right of petition granted to these peoples by other international instruments or by the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
2.

(a) The Committee established under article 8, paragraph 1, of this Convention shall receive copies of the petitions from, and submit expressions of opinion and recommendations on these petitions to, the bodies of the United Nations which deal with matters directly related to the principles and objectives of this Convention in their consideration of petitions from the inhabitants of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories and all other territories to which General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) applies, relating to matters covered by this Convention which are before these bodies;

(b) The Committee shall receive from the competent bodies of the United Nations copies of the reports concerning the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures directly related to the principles and objectives of this Convention applied by the administering Powers within the Territories mentioned in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph, and shall express opinions and make recommendations to these bodies.

3. The Committee shall include in its report to the General Assembly a summary of the petitions and reports it has received from United Nations bodies, and the expressions of opinion and recommendations of the Committee relating to the said petitions and reports.
4. The Committee shall request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations all information relevant to the objectives of this Convention and available to him regarding the Territories mentioned in paragraph 2 (a) of this article.

Article 16

The provisions of this Convention concerning the settlement of disputes or complaints shall be applied without prejudice to other procedures for settling disputes or complaints in the field of discrimination laid down in the constituent instruments of, or conventions adopted by, the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and shall not prevent the States Parties from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them.
PART III

Article 17

1. This Convention is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which has been invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to this Convention.
2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 18

1. This Convention shall be open to accession by any State referred to in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention. 2. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 19

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.
2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twenty-seventh instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

Article 20

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States which are or may become Parties to this Convention reservations made by States at the time of ratification or accession. Any State which objects to the reservation shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of the said communication, notify the Secretary-General that it does not accept it.
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of this Convention shall not be permitted, nor shall a reservation the effect of which would inhibit the operation of any of the bodies established by this Convention be allowed. A reservation shall be considered incompatible or inhibitive if at least two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention object to it.

3. Reservations may be withdrawn at any time by notification to this effect addressed to the Secretary-General. Such notification shall take effect on the date on which it is received.

Article 21

A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary General.

Article 22

Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.

Article 23

1. A request for the revision of this Convention may be made at any time by any State Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. The General Assembly of the United Nations shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such a request.

Article 24

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in article 17, paragraph 1, of this Convention of the following particulars:

(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 17 and 18;

(b) The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 19;

(c) Communications and declarations received under articles 14, 20 and 23;

(d) Denunciations under article 21.

Article 25

1. This Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States belonging to any of the categories mentioned in article 17, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

【朗報】来年２月以降は偽装「国産うなぎ」は無くなるそうだ

2014-07-29T19:11:00.000+09:00

中国経由の「欧州ウナギ」輸入中止へ　来年２月以降、品薄加速か

source : 2014.07.28 産経ニュース (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

減少が著しいニホンウナギの代替品として中国経由で大量に輸入されているヨーロッパウナギについて、中国政府当局が２０１５年２月以降は輸出を認めないとの意向を日本国内の業界関係者に伝えていることが２８日、分かった。ヨーロッパウナギはニホンウナギに比べ安価で、人気が高い。ウナギの市場供給量が来年以降はさらに減り、安いウナギは遠くなりそうだ。

ヨーロッパウナギは国際自然保護連合（ＩＵＣＮ）が絶滅危惧種に指定、ワシントン条約の取引規制対象種となっている。許可証があれば輸出は可能だが１０年末以降、欧州連合（ＥＵ）が輸出を禁止している。

中国にはＥＵの輸出禁止前にフランスから稚魚のシラスウナギが大量に輸出され、養殖したウナギが「合法的な製品」として日本に再輸出されている。ところが来年１月中には過去に輸入したウナギが全て出荷され、それ以降の輸出はなくなるという。フランス起源のヨーロッパウナギの成魚は１２年に２万７３８０キロ、１３年には９万８８４９キロが中国経由で輸入された。

仙谷氏発言で振り返る「むちゃくちゃ」だった民主党政権

2013-04-13T10:32:00.000+09:00

source : 2013.04.13 産経ニュース【産経抄】 (クリックで引用記事開閉)

　ああ、お懐かしい。きのう午後、インターネットのＭＳＮ産経ニュースでは、菅直人政権で官房長官を務め、昨年末の総選挙で落選した仙谷由人氏の発言がトップを飾った。一敗地にまみれた経験から学び、深い反省の弁を発したのかと思いきや…。

▼民主党の会議に呼ばれた彼は、黒田東彦日銀総裁による異次元緩和を「日銀が国債を買い占めたら、市場は成り立たなくなる」と厳しく批判。安倍晋三政権の経済政策「アベノミクス」に至っては「むちゃくちゃだ」とばっさり斬り捨てたそうな。

▼気持ちはよくわかる。民主党の無為無策で、１ドル７５円台にまで跳ね上がった円相場が安倍政権になるや否や急速に円安となり、今や１００円近くまで戻った。株価も当時の野田佳彦首相による「衆院解散宣言」からわずか４カ月で、日経平均株価が５０００円近くも急騰した事実を前政権幹部として認めたくないのだろう。

▼残念ながら「むちゃくちゃ」だったのは、３年以上続いた民主党政権の方だった。経済政策は言うに及ばず、外交も日米関係は危うくなるわ、あれほど中国に媚（こ）び続けてきたのに日中関係も戦後最悪になるわ、何一つ成果がでなかった。

▼ただし、民主党の「むちゃくちゃ」ぶりも北朝鮮の３代目には負ける。機関紙で「日本全土はわれわれの報復行為の対象になる」と東京、大阪、横浜など５都市を挙げて挑発するとは、世界征服を狙うショッカーもはだしで逃げ出しそうだ。

▼経験もなく権力の頂点に立ってしまった３代目は、現実と空想の区別がつかなくなっているようである。いざというときも役に立たない韓国は対話を呼びかけているが、放っておけばいい。北の核もミサイルも所詮、張り子の虎にすぎないのだから。

test

2013-03-18T22:49:00.000+09:00

Label
Post

Triangle South　南向き三角形

Triangle East　東向き三角形

生活保護で月収29万円でも貧困と報じる朝日新聞

2013-03-08T15:23:00.000+09:00

生活保護で月収29万円の女性「減額されたら食費を切り詰めるしかない」
ネットの声「先に2万6千円の携帯代減らせば？」
source : 2013.03.06 Pouch (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

3月6日の朝日新聞（大阪版 31面生活）の記事によると、とある2人の子供を抱えた母子家庭の生活保護受給者の女性は、月額約29万円の支給を受けていることが報じられました。

女性は朝日新聞に対して「生活保護の支給額より高額の収入になるのは難しいが、子供に劣等感を持たせたくない。今でも食べ盛りの子供2人と自分で食費を1日1500円に切り詰めている。これ以上減額されたら私の食費を減らすしかない」とコメント。
※朝日新聞記事より要約

また、朝日新聞に掲載されていた女性の生活保護支給額と、用途の詳細は以下の通り。これを見てあなたはどうお思いになるでしょうか？

筆者注：「女性の生活保護支給額」と「用途」は下記関連ブログに記載…

この内容を見たネットユーザーたちは「固定電話の料金はいるのか？」、「携帯電話料金が高すぎないか？」、「普通の家庭でも子供の習い事に4万円もかけられない」、「そもそも支給額が高すぎる」など、といったコメントを残していました。

確かに使いきれていないお金もあるようですし、食費を切り詰める前に、携帯代や娯楽費を削ればもっと生活に余裕が出ると思うのですが…。

これが普通だと思っている女性にも問題がありますが、書かれている金額が事実なのであれば、一般の家庭よりも贅沢な暮らしのできる金額を支給してしまう行政にも問題があると言わざるを得ません。

そもそも生活保護とは、「国が生活に困窮するすべての国民に対し、その困窮の程度に応じ、必要な保護を行い、その最低限度の生活を保障するとともに、その自立を助長すること」（※生活保護法第一章一条より引用）を目的として定められているのに、受給を続けたいと思ってしまう状況になるのは本末転倒。改善の余地があるかもしれません。

自民党河野太郎氏によって久々に明らかになったテレビ局の「電波利用料」

2013-03-05T23:37:00.002+09:00

テレビ局が支払っている電波利用料
source : 2013.03.05 河野太郎公式ブログごまめの歯ぎしり
(ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

平成23年度ローカル局を含めた電波利用料

柴山昌彦総務副大臣の英断により、各テレビ局の支払っている電波利用料の金額が再び、公表された。

■以下…「表」と「PDFファイル」なので…筆者が画像化（上記）しました…

「河野太郎公式ブログごまめの歯ぎしり」より…

テレビ局の「電波利用料」に関する記事を…

もう少し引用しておきます…

電波利用料
source : 2013.02.21 河野太郎公式ブログごまめの歯ぎしり
(ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

党本部でＮＨＫ予算の説明。

２０１３年度のＮＨＫの事業収入６４７,９０６百万円に対してＮＨＫが負担する電波使用料は１,９０３百万円。国民の財産である電波を占有しておいてその対価が事業収入の０.２９％というのは安すぎるのではないか。

現状では、電波使用料は一般会計に入るが電波管理のための特定財源という扱いになっている。

本来、電波使用税として一般会計に入れ、一般歳出の財源として充てられるべきもので、総務省の電波管理の費用も財務省の査定を受けた一般歳出としてあつかわれるべきだ。

企業が電波を利用して事業を行い、売上をあげ、利益を出しているのだから、その企業が支払うべき電波利用税の金額をどうするのかをしっかり議論する必要がある。

総務省が最後に各テレビ局の電波利用料を公開したのは２００８年までさかのぼる。
■筆者注：下記引用記事「本邦初公開？」へのリンクです…

今日の会議に出席していた柴山総務副大臣が、電波利用料の公開についてフォローしてくださることになった。

本邦初公開？
source : 2008.02.24 河野太郎公式ブログごまめの歯ぎしり
(ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

国民の共有財産である電波を使用する対価である電波利用料が不当に低いのではないかという思いで、総務省に、まず、各テレビ局ごとの電波利用料の負担金額を出して欲しいと要求すると、なんと総務省の課長は、個別の負担金額は開示しておりませんときた。

なんで出さないのかとたずねると、テレビ局のプライバシー。
あのね、個人が儲けた金額に応じて支払う所得税がプライバシーだというならばわかるが、国民の共有財産を使用してお金を儲けているときに、共有財産の使用料がいくらかを出さなくて良いということにはならないだろ、と突っ込むと、これまで国会の答弁でも個別テレビ局ごとの負担額は出したことがありません。

じゃ、仕方がない。政調の審議会で電波法の改正案を了承するときの条件が、各テレビ局ごとの収益金額と電波利用料をだすということだったが、出さないんじゃ、あの決定は白紙だね。お宅の局長が自ら出しますといったものを課長がひっくり返すんだねと脅す。

平成１８年度　テレビ局の
営業収益と電波利用料
持ち帰って検討します。どうぞ、検討してください。

総務省、園田政調会長代理のところに駆け込んだ。
河野太郎が、個別のテレビ局の電波利用料を出せ、と言ってききません。
出せばいいじゃないか。

ということで、本邦初公開（？）、テレビ局ごとの電波利用料。
営業収益100億円以上のテレビ局、但しNHKは経常事業収入。

テレビ局の電波利用料負担は、ここにあげなかった局を含めて総計で34億4700万円にしかならない。
一方で営業収益は3兆1150億8200万円。
電波を独占して上げる収益に対して利用料が千分の一。
低すぎませんか。

それいけ、空飛ぶ埋蔵金
source : 2008.02.01 河野太郎公式ブログごまめの歯ぎしり
(ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

今日の政審はなんと案件が、12件。
まじめに審査するには多すぎるぜ。

閣法として国会に提出しようという法案は、まず自民党内の部会で審査され、それぞれの部会を通ったものが政調審議会、略して政審で審査される。
ここを通ると総務会にかけられ、最終承認となり、それで閣議決定される。
議会制民主主義の根本を否定する馬鹿げたシステムだ。

閣法には国対が定める国会提出期限があり、それに間に合わせようとすると、どんどん法案が部会にかけられ、一時間で法案三本審査みたいなことになる。まともに審査なんてできるわけない。で、各部会がそんなでたらめをやったものが一気に政審に集まるから一時間半で12本の審査みたいなことになる。

で、それでも今日の政審で、もめたのが電波法の改正。
最大の骨子は、電波利用料の改定。
電波は有限な国民共有の資源だ。このかぎられた資源を使うことに対する対価が電波利用料だ。

が、この電波利用料、実はむちゃくちゃ。利権の山。はっきり言って、空飛ぶ埋蔵金！

電波利用料は、究極の特定財源だ。電波関係に国庫が支出する額が決まり、それに応じて電波利用料が決まる。
19年度は653億円。
特定周波数変更対策202億円、電波資源拡大のための研究開発154億円、無線局データベースの管理81億円、電波監視76億円、無線システム普及支援事業44億円など。
だから653億円だけ集めましょうね、と。

で、どこからいくらいただくかというと、まず、携帯電話、携帯無線電話などの包括免許で410億円、携帯電話などの広域専用電波の使用料127億円、以下人工衛星局、人工衛星の中継局、移動局、固定局などなどの項目があり、アマチュア無線局2億5800万円。
ん、テレビ局はどこにはいるのかと思うと、あったあった。
「放送をする無線局　テレビ放送、ラジオ放送」。えーっと金額は、6億7000万円。

え？　アマチュア無線やっている人の電波利用料が全国合計で2億5800万円。それに対して、電波使って金を儲けている、いわばプロ中のプロであるテレビとラジオの電波使用料の合計が６67000万円。
え、なに、放送局は追加で負担が30億円。つまり暫定税率？

つまりテレビ局とラジオ局合計で、電波の使用料は37億円。これで公共の電波使い放題。

携帯電話一台につき、420円に対して、テレビの発信局一つにつき25700円。
総額653億円のうち、携帯電話が支払うのはそのうちの82％にのぼり、テレビ局・ラジオ局は合計で6％！！！
追加負担分をのぞくとテレビ局、ラジオ局の支払は1％にしかならない。

だって携帯電話のほうが数が多いじゃん。
いいやこれは、電波利用料だから、どれだけ電波を使用しているかということに比例するべき。
で、テレビ局は携帯電話の1.4倍の周波数帯域を使っている。
本来、携帯電話の1.4倍の電波利用料を支払うべきところ、本則では八十分の一しか払っていない。

だから、NHKの年間収入のうち、原価である電波使用料はそのうちわずか0.5％。粗利99.5％。

じゃあ、限られた電波資源使って、民放はまるもうけ？

いえ、ですから今回、この制度を見直しまして、テレビ局合計で平成二十二年度には５０億円の電波料ということに．．．。

じゃあ、僕もその電波使いたいんですけど。
えっ、だめ？
テレビ局って、既得権、利権なんすか？

公共の資源を独占的に使っているんだから、それに応じた負担をしてもらうべきだし、それがお得な価格で提供されているなら、もっと公平にその権利が配分されないと。

空飛ぶ埋蔵金、電波利用料を今のような特定財源ではなく、一般財源にして、値上げして、公平な負担を求めるようにして、社会保障に使ったら？

30日のオンライン申請2426件（三日連続で前日比減）、有効証明は305件、失効の申し出2件。
ちなみに取り下げ、補正は上記件数には含まれていません。

さらにソフトのベンダーへの仕様の公開は二月上旬、乙号オンライン申請の窓口受領は3月から試行開始、その後、全国展開へ。
ということで、よろしくお願いします。
（法務省に言ってもらちがあかないものは、直接お知らせください、って、なんでや！）

【TPP】日米の温度差で読み解く経産省の思惑と財務省の凋落

2013-02-26T23:27:00.000+09:00

【Opinion】Who Has Abe's Back?
source : 2013.02.24 The Wall Street Journal (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

■Obama leaves doubts whether he fully supports Japan.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to Washington last Friday bore fruit in several ways. In public, both sides emphasized the strength of the alliance and the importance of Japan shouldering more responsibility for global peace and prosperity. In private, Mr. Abe discussed with President Barack Obama Japan's plans to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Perhaps most encouraging was the Prime Minister's optimistic message: I am back and so is Japan.

Mr. Abe has enjoyed considerable success in the first two months of his return to power. With the stock market on a tear and his popularity rating above 70%, he has momentum needed to overcome domestic vested interests and commit to trade liberalization. But he also needs the Obama Administration's support to ensure American interests don't block Japan's entry into TPP. That support is still in question, in part because US automakers and unions don't want to see lower tariffs on Japanese trucks.

The Prime Minister was also focused on shoring up Japan's security, which depends on the US alliance. In public he only obliquely referred to the long-running conflict over a deal to relocate US bases on Okinawa, but he left little doubt that his government will work to clean up the mess left by the Democratic Party of Japan's attempt to renegotiate the plan.

China's challenge over the Senkaku Islands drew the most pointed comments of his visit. In an interview with the Washington Post published as the visit began, and again in a speech to a foreign policy think tank, Mr. Abe stressed that he would not allow Beijing to change the status quo in the East China Sea by force or intimidation. At the same time, the Prime Minister made clear that he is not spoiling for a fight with China. He offered an open hand of cooperation and compromise to Beijing, and he steered clear of controversies over Japan's wartime history.

One disappointment was the tepid US public statements on the Senkakus. According to Japanese media reports, Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in private to Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida the US treaty commitment to help Japan defend the Senkakus if they come under attack. Mr. Obama failed to mention the islands in his joint public appearance with Mr. Abe, perhaps for fear of offending China.

Yet if the Japanese experience with the Senkakus teaches anything, it's that Beijing likes to ratchet up tension until it receives a strong response. Reticence can be dangerous. As Mr. Abe told the Post, the Chinese Communist Party has a deeply ingrained need to maintain its historical grievances with Japan because its hold on power depends in part on fanning the flames of nationalism.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman promptly complained that Mr. Abe's comments "defamed China." But Beijing's behavior says otherwise. Chinese government vessels make almost daily incursions into Japanese waters and maneuver aggressively, in one case turning weapons radar on a Japanese ship. Such actions are a clear threat of force, and they risk an accidental confrontation like the collision between a US Navy EP-3 and a Chinese fighter in 2001.

In two months in office, Mr. Abe has already shored up relations with other Asian countries threatened by China. But such ties are no substitute for the engagement of a US President. Let's hope the Obama Administration will remove any doubts about US support for Mr. Abe before the tyranny of events takes over.

【社説】米国は安倍首相の味方か
source : 2013.02.25 The Wall Street Journal (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

安倍首相は政権復帰後の2カ月間でかなりの成功を収めている。株式市場の急騰と70％を超える支持率を背景に、首相には国内の既得権益を打破して貿易自由化を推進していくだけの勢いがある。ただし、日本のTPP参加が米国の利害関係者によって阻止されないよう、オバマ政権の支援を取り付ける必要もある。その支援が得られるかは依然、不明だ。理由の一つは、米国の自動車メーカーや組合が日本製トラックの関税引き下げを望んでいないことである。

安倍首相は日本の防衛力強化も強調したが、これは米国との同盟関係に依存する問題だ。公式には、首相は長らく紛糾している沖縄米軍基地の移設問題について遠回しに言及しただけであったが、民主党政権が移設計画の再交渉を試みた結果生じた混乱を自らの政権で収拾するつもりであることはほぼ間違いない。　

訪米した安倍首相の最も厳しい発言は、尖閣諸島をめぐる中国の出方に対するものだった。首相は、訪米直後に発表されたワシントン・ポストとのインタビュー、および外交政策シンクタンクでの講演で、中国が武力や威嚇によって東シナ海の現状を変えることは認めないと強調。その一方で、中国との争いは望んでいないことを明確にした。中国に対して協力と譲歩の手を差し伸べ、日本の戦時中の歴史問題に関しては議論を避けた。

ひとつ残念だったのは、尖閣諸島に関する米国の公式声明に熱意がなかったことだ。日本の報道によると、ケリー米国務長官は非公式の場で岸田外相に対し、尖閣諸島が攻撃を受けた場合は、米国は日米条約に基づき日本の防衛を支援する責任があると改めて表明した。オバマ大統領は安倍首相とともに公の場に姿を現したとき尖閣諸島に言及しなかったが、これはおそらく中国を刺激することを恐れたためだろう。

しかし、尖閣諸島をめぐる日本の経験が示しているように、中国は明確な反応が得られるまで緊張を高めたがるものだ。沈黙は危険を招きかねない。安倍首相はワシントン・ポストに対し、中国共産党は政権維持を図るためにナショナリズムを扇動している面もあり、日本に対する歴史的批判を続けることを強く必要としていると述べた。

中国外務省の報道官はすぐにこれに反応し、安倍首相の発言は「中国を中傷する」ものだと批判した。しかし中国の行動は矛盾している。中国政府の船はほとんど毎日、日本の領海に侵入し、強気な態度で航行を続け、日本の船に火器管制レーダーを照射する場面もあった。こうした行動は明らかに武力による脅しであり、2001年の米海軍偵察機と中国戦闘機の衝突のような偶発的事故を招く恐れがある。

就任2カ月の安倍首相はすでに、中国の脅威にさらされている他のアジア諸国との関係強化を図っている。だが、こうした連携は米国大統領との関係に取って代わるものではない。恐ろしい事態が起こる前に、オバマ政権が米国の対日支援に対する疑念を晴らすことを願おう。

ＪＡＬ再上場に疑義　「第２のリクルート事件じゃないか！」の指摘も

2013-02-20T21:20:00.000+09:00

source : 2013.02.19 zakzak (クリックで引用記事開閉)

「国士」自民党の西田昌司参院議員
日本航空（ＪＡＬ）の公的支援や再上場への疑義が、１８日の参院予算委員会で突き付けられた。再上場前に計８社から募った第三者割当増資や、外国人株主が３分の１以上になっていること、多額の公的資金を投入されながら法人税減税がされていることなどだ。日航の再生は、民主党政権主導で行われたが、質問者からは「第２のリクルート事件じゃないか！」という厳しい指摘もあった。

疑義を指摘したのは「新国会の爆弾男」こと、自民党の西田昌司参院議員。まず、日航が会社更生法の手続き終了直前の２０１１年３月に実施した総額１２７億円の第三者割当増資について、「必要のない増資だし、（再上場後の値上がりが確実な）有利発行ではないか」とただした。

この増資は、日航の稲盛和夫名誉会長の出身母体である京セラが５０億円、上場主幹事の大和証券グループ本社が５０億円、大手旅行会社や損保など計８社がおこなっている。

これに対し、金融庁は「上場の際の規定には抵触していない」との見解を示したが、麻生太郎副総理兼財務・金融担当相は「上場前だからインサイダーにはなりません。ただ、一般的にみておかしい。それは、みんなそう思う。なかなか意味深な名前もありますよ」などと答弁した。

西田氏は続いて、現状で日航株の３８％程度を外国人が保有していることも問題視した。航空法には、日本の航空会社は外国人の議決権割合を３分の１未満に抑える「外資規制」がある。

麻生氏は「税金で助かった企業の利益が国民に戻らず、海外に行くのは公平性を欠く。腑に落ちない」と答弁した。

さらに、西田氏は、経営破綻して公的資金を投入された日航が、会社更生法適用企業として法人税減税の特例措置を受けていることも問題視。

安倍晋三首相は「多くの課題と問題があると認識している。今後、法制度が必要かどうかも含め、よく検証してみたい」と述べた。

このことについて、全日空などは「公的支援が業界の競争をゆがめている」と批判している。

一連の疑義について、日航は「増資は更生計画に示された方針に基づくもので、裁判所に許可されたものだ」との見解を示している。

【G20】Christine Lagarde「Statement」「Press Briefing」

2013-02-19T19:49:00.003+09:00

Statement by IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on G-20 Ministerial Meeting in Moscow
source : 2013.02.16 IMF (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), issued the following statement today after the conclusion of the Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting in Moscow:

Christine Lagarde
“I would like to thank the Russian authorities for hosting us, including President Vladimir Putin, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Bank of Russia Governor Sergey Ignatiev. They were instrumental in facilitating discussions among G-20 ministers and governors on the significant challenges facing the world economy, and helped everyone to continue deliberations over policy actions needed to strengthen the global economic recovery.

“As emphasized by the G-20, global growth is still weak, with unemployment remaining unacceptably high in many countries. The weak global performance derives from policy uncertainty, private deleveraging, continued fiscal drag, as well as insufficient progress on rebalancing global demand. Implementation of the financial reform agenda to build a more resilient financial system remains a priority. Credible medium-term fiscal plans also need to be in place to provide flexibility while growth is more fully restored.

“I welcome G-20 resolve to achieve a lasting reduction in global imbalances through joint actions to avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments, and the group’s commitment to refrain from competitive devaluation, to resist protectionism in all forms, and to keep markets open. It was heartening to see the G-20 reaffirmed its commitment to move more rapidly toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and exchange rate flexibility to reflect underlying fundamentals.

“We think that talk of currency wars is overblown. People did talk about their currency worries. The good news is that the G-20 responded with cooperation rather than conflict today.

“Lastly, I welcome G-20 support for completing the 2010 quota reform agreement, and I urge countries to quickly ratify the measures necessary to implement this important agreement. The G-20 continues to demonstrate its interest in global economic cooperation through the IMF. I know that the 188 member countries of the Fund are committed to reaching agreement on the 15th General Review of Quotas, including a new quota formula, by January 2014.

“Many of the key issues discussed today will be reviewed at the Fund’s International Monetary and Financial Committee´s spring meeting in April, and at the next G-20 ministerial meeting, which will take place at roughly the same time in Washington. Until then, it is crucial that all countries continue efforts to strengthen global recovery.”

Transcript of a Press Briefing
source : 2013.02.16 IMF (ボタンクリックで引用記事が開閉)

Transcript of a Press Briefing by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, at the Conclusion of the Group of 20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting

Christine Lagarde
MS. LAGARDE: (In progress following remarks thanking the Russian authorities) …with unemployment outrageously high in many countries and clearly all policies should be aimed at restoring growth and creating jobs. There are key commitments of the G-20, including a commitment to establish fiscal plans. You will see that in paragraph 3 of the communique which I suppose you have received. And prominently, the G-20's adoption of exchange rate language that is common to all members and that is clearly a policy commitment on their part.

There has been a lot of talk about a currency war and we have not seen any such thing as a currency war. We have had currency worries, not a currency war. We have not seen confrontation, but dialogue, deliberation, discussions, and clearly this G-20 Moscow meeting has been extremely helpful and productive in that respect. I will clearly engage you to look at the paragraph in the communique that deals specifically with that issue of common language concerning exchange rates.

As far as IMF-specific items are concerned, we have been really heartened by the support extended by the G-20 for our institution, the IMF, including for the work that we have been doing under the integrated surveillance decision, under the spillover reports, and on the work that we will be developing going forward that deals with sovereign debt in general, looking at those sovereign debts from multiple perspectives. This is work that is underway and that we will continue doing and on which we will deliver in the course of 2013 for the G-20, as well as for our own institution.

Lastly, the IMF governance reform was extensively discussed by the G-20 members. These are only 20 out of the 188 members of the institution, but they have a significant voice given their size, and they have clearly showed signs of renewed commitment in view of the results that were developed by the Executive Board of the IMF late in January. We have goals and we have delivery targets that will take in parallel the quota review and the quota formula review, with hopeful delivery of results before the end of 2013, and with clear support from the G-20 and the G-20 Russian presidency, in particular.

With that I would welcome any questions that you have on any particular matter.

QUESTION: -- will you comment on your concern by fiscal imbalances in the United States or fiscal worries in the United States and Japan? How confident are you that they will be overcome?

MS. LAGARDE: There is a clear understanding on the part of both the U.S. authorities and the Japanese authorities present with us on the occasion of this meeting that the fiscal agenda is critical. What I mean by fiscal agenda is clearly the medium-term goals that have to be identified, that have to be supported broadly in those countries, and that need to be specific and detailed enough in order to eliminate as much as possible the uncertainty that goes with a lack of agenda, so that there is that political determination of the authorities.

QUESTION: There is also a very divided U.S. political scene at the moment going back into another self-inflicted division. Are you confident that the problem can be overcome as the Obama administration eases itself into a second term?

MS. LAGARDE: There will be debates about sequestration, there will be debate about the long-term fiscal plans of the U.S. authorities, and our position has always been the same. We need to have the anchoring of a medium-term fiscal consolidation plan on the part of the U.S. economy. What we also acknowledge is that there has been quite a lot of fiscal consolidation over the last few years, and as scheduled without sequestration there will be fiscal consolidation which is desirable, not in excess but desirable.

QUESTION: One last question. Where is the happy medium for you then in terms of austerity versus any further stimulus? Because -- quite critical of some of the austerity measures taken in some parts of say Europe for example.

MS. LAGARDE: There has to be fiscal consolidation and it has to be at the right pace and it has to be country specific. It often has to go hand in hand with monetary policy and we have seen quite accommodative monetary policy in order to actually support and help the fiscal consolidation efforts. They cannot be a substitute for each other. They have to go in parallel and that's what we certainly hope to see with the missing element, if I might say, which is this medium-term anchoring that is needed in those countries.

QUESTION: -- in the past you've called for even a more accommodative policy in Europe. Are you still of that view considering that the data we've recently seen that the Euro Zone is still mired in recession? And on IMF governance reform, are you in a sense frustrated if you get support but then when it comes to negotiating you don't actually see a whole lot of progress?

MS. LAGARDE: On the issue of an accommodative policy by the central banks, certainly what the European Central Bank has done in the last few months has been critical in order to restore confidence, clearly creating a shift in investors' expectations as far as the euro and the Euro Zone is concerned. There are no longer questions about the viability of either the euro or the Euro Zone. What we also noted is that there is some leeway, some room if you will, because of the weak economic outlook and subdued underlying inflation, and the interest rate in the Euro Zone is also clearly higher than in many other regions, including the U.S., the U.K. or Japan, and there is a system that is now in place but that has not been operated if you will, the OMT, which as a tool expands massively the toolbox of the European Central Bank but may have to be put to use at some stage. But I would regard the changes that have taken place in the last six months as fundamental and instrumental in restoring confidence in the zone.

On the sort of gap between declared intention, in other words, reform the governance, implement the doubling of the quotas under the 2010 reform and the quota formula review and the quota review on the one hand, and on the other hand the difficulty in closing that gap, reaching agreement, coming to terms with the difficulty of defining criteria, aligning with the economic changes, is going to be hard work. It's going to be a process that will hopefully take us to the end of 2013 with results. I note that having in parallel the quota formula review and the quota review should by all accounts help in reaching closure of this gap.

QUESTION: Madame Lagarde -- let me ask it this way. The IMF is putting together a new framework for capital controls. As I understand it, under exceptional circumstances or under some circumstance some type of capital controls could be acceptable in the future. Would you say that there is an understanding in this between developed nations and developing nations that enlists developing nations to do their stimulus when it's necessary -- what we have on inflows ?

MS. LAGARDE: First of all, what I saw in this meeting was not currency war. There were currency worries, no doubt about it and they were debated, they were discussed, there was a good dialogue on the part of everyone. What does the IMF do in relation to those exchange rate and currency issues? As you mentioned, we have done a lot of work on capital flows. Capital flows come and go depending on many factors and there are quite a few drivers of this come-and-go movement of capital flows. We have slightly amended our guidelines to account for a combination of macroeconomic policies and potential macroprudential rules in case of excess or abuse of capital flow movement . That's one thing that we're doing. We will be developing (operational) guidelines in the course of this year to really update and develop this new position that we have taken and which has been approved by the Board of the IMF.

The second thing that we do is this External Sector Report that actually compares and balances in many ways the various currencies around the world -- that takes into account both the currency rates and the current account balances and determines whether there is enough consistency and fair value if you will, which is work that we have developed in 2012 on a pilot basis and that we will develop yet again in 2013.

Our job is to identify excesses and abuses that can take the form of bubbles, that can take the form of excessive volatility, and frankly we are not seeing that at the moment, but it is something that we need to be attentive to, that we need to be alerted on and that is clearly based on cooperation. Again as opposed to division, we have seen cooperation on the occasion of this G-20, and this is very directly reflected in the communique language. I'm not going to expand forever about it. I think I have been quite explicit on this no currency war, currency worries, no division, cooperation, discipline and the IMF having to do its job on the capital flows review and guidelines and on the External Sector Report, which reviews the equilibrium if you will in the fair value of currencies.

QUESTION: If I may follow-up and let me put it this way. The IMF new guidelines about bringing about this equilibrium contributed -- so you didn't see the currency wars in this meeting?

MS. LAGARDE: Zero currency war. Okay? That's very simple. I have to say it again and I'll be happy to repeat it as often as necessary. The capital flows work that we've done over the last 12 months, which you will happily find on the IMF website, actually is leading to practical work in the form of (operational) guidelines. We will clearly do that. In the same fashion we will continue developing our external sector report and we will include the concept of volatility in our study and in our work.

QUESTION: The IMF quota report. That's what my question -- I wonder if you foresee any changes in SDR -- changes requires in connection with the IMF quota report? And if yes, what changes might be applied in that respect?

MS. LAGARDE: There are two things. One is the reform of the quota formula on which the (IMF) Executive Board has issued its report, its review report if you will, on time, submitted it to the IMFC, and now more work needs to be done because it does not deliver in and of itself a new formula. It delivers the building blocks and more work needs to be done. As a result of that there will be quota moves, if you will. I mentioned the quota review because the quota review might very well entail an increase in the quota, which would help in the process of reallocating among the various countries to reflect the changes of the global economy. As far as the Special Drawing Rights are concerned, I think that's a separate issue. The basket of currencies, the way they're defined, this is a matter that has not been discussed in the course of this G-20 and that is not sort of top of the agenda at the moment. Last question.

QUESTION: -- specifically mention the situation in Japan, isn't the G-20 kind of inviting the yen to fall ?

MS. LAGARDE: There is one thing that has been discussed, it's not talking up, talking down, but talking together and there has been very much that determined, creative and disciplined approach among the G-20 members. I will give it like that because I think that's highly respectable. Thank you.

海江田代表を提訴　安愚楽牧場出資者３０人　東京地裁

2013-02-19T01:11:00.000+09:00

source : 2013.02.18 jiji.com (クリックで引用記事開閉)

「和牛オーナー制度」で約４２００億円を集め経営破綻した安愚楽牧場（栃木県、破産手続き中）をめぐり、民主党の海江田万里代表が経済評論家時代に書いた雑誌記事などをきっかけに出資し、損害を受けたとして、４０～７０代の出資者３０人が１８日、海江田氏に計約６億円の損害賠償を求める訴訟を東京地裁に起こした。

訴状によると、海江田氏は１９８７年ごろから９２年ごろまでの間、雑誌や書籍に安愚楽牧場の和牛オーナー制度への投資を推奨する記事を掲載していた。

Dégustation?: Depressing

【ヘイトスピーチの欺瞞】International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

【朗報】来年２月以降は偽装「国産うなぎ」は無くなるそうだ

仙谷氏発言で振り返る「むちゃくちゃ」だった民主党政権

test

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Popular Posts

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Blue

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Blue

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Yellow

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Yellow

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Green

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Green

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Red

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Red

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Purple

Hover me!! / Fantasic Light Title / Purple

生活保護で月収29万円でも貧困と報じる朝日新聞

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

自民党河野太郎氏によって久々に明らかになったテレビ局の「電波利用料」

【TPP】日米の温度差で読み解く経産省の思惑と財務省の凋落

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

ＪＡＬ再上場に疑義　「第２のリクルート事件じゃないか！」の指摘も

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

【G20】Christine Lagarde「Statement」「Press Briefing」

海江田代表を提訴　安愚楽牧場出資者３０人　東京地裁

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

Dégustation?: Depressing

【ヘイトスピーチの欺瞞】International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

【朗報】来年２月以降は偽装「国産うなぎ」は無くなるそうだ

仙谷氏発言で振り返る「むちゃくちゃ」だった民主党政権

test

生活保護で月収29万円でも貧困と報じる朝日新聞

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

自民党 河野太郎氏によって久々に明らかになったテレビ局の「電波利用料」

【TPP】日米の温度差で読み解く経産省の思惑と財務省の凋落

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

ＪＡＬ再上場に疑義 「第２のリクルート事件じゃないか！」の指摘も

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

【G20】Christine Lagarde「Statement」「Press Briefing」

海江田代表を提訴 安愚楽牧場出資者３０人 東京地裁

関連ブログで記事を解説しています…

自民党河野太郎氏によって久々に明らかになったテレビ局の「電波利用料」

ＪＡＬ再上場に疑義　「第２のリクルート事件じゃないか！」の指摘も

海江田代表を提訴　安愚楽牧場出資者３０人　東京地裁