死に体(レームダック)の菅内閣ー前編 [政治]
内閣不信任決議案否決と菅総理辞任表明のニュースをニューヨーク・タイムズが取り上げています。
内閣不信任決議案に反対票を投じて、自分の席に戻る菅直人首相
Japan Prime Minister Survives No-Confidence Vote
この記事の投稿者はニューヨーク・タイムズ東京支局長のMARTIN FACKLERさんです。
記事内容は次の通り。
「前編」
「菅直人首相は、東日本大震災の復興・復旧や福島第一原発事故の対応に一定のめどがついたら辞任をすると表明。そのあとに行われた野党から提出されていた熾烈な内閣不信任決議案を否決した。
菅総理の辞任表明の狙いは、遅々として進まず、決断力のない菅総理の大震災の対応に対して党内から不満が続出している民主党に大打撃を与える分裂を避けることであった。しかし第二次世界大戦以来最悪の大震災から日本を復興させるまで菅総理が続投するとしても、そうした動きはもはや菅内閣を死に体(レームダック)にするだけである。
このままだと、何年にもわたって日本を襲っている政治空白が相変わらず続くことは間違いない。菅総理が夏の終わりごろまでに辞任するとなれば、この５年間で辞任する6番目の総理となる。
菅総理は内閣不信任決議案を、２９３対152の大差で否決したが、これは民主党分裂を避け、自民党に政権が移行しないようにするため辞任を表明したからである。
「私の責務を全うしたら、若い世代にいろいろな責任を引き継ぎたい」と菅総理は述べたが、これは日本の政治に特有の遠回しな表現で、辞任の意向を表明したものであり、「私は民主党をつぶさない」ということなのである。
自民党が提出した内閣不信任決議案可決の可能性が高まる中、菅総理は、菅総理に不満を抱いている小沢一郎グループの議員らによる大量造反者が出るのではないかという脅威に直面していた。大量造反で不信任案が可決されるかどうかわからない中、小沢氏は離党して新党結成の可能性にまで触れて物議を醸していた。
菅総理は退陣時期については明確にしていない。記者会見では、総理は福島第一原発事故が収束するまでーつまりは来年の初めごろまでー総理職を務めたいとの意向を示していた。復興支援追加予算案を盛り込んだ第二次補正予算案編成のめどがつく夏ごろには菅総理には退陣してもらいたいと思っている民主党議員もいる。
注)
lame duckとは「政権を担っているが、選挙で敗れて政権を離れることになる議員、知事、大統領、政権、政党など」を示すー英辞郎より
「参考」
MARTIN FACKLERさんが書いた記事が掲載されているサイト
Japan Prime Minister Survives No-Confidence Vote
By MARTIN FACKLER
TOKYO — Prime Minister Naoto Kan survived a bruising no-confidence vote in Parliament on Thursday, but only after promising to resign once his government made progress in overcoming the nuclear crisis and the devastating earthquake and tsunami that caused it.
The offer to resign appeared to be aimed at avoiding a destructive split in his governing Democratic Party, where there has been rising discontent with what many call Mr. Kan’s plodding and indecisive response to the triple disaster. But the move also turns Mr. Kan into essentially a lame duck even as he must still guide his nation out of its most deadly catastrophe since World War II.
It also appears almost certain to prolong the political paralysis that has gripped Japan for years. If he leaves office before the end of summer, Mr. Kan will be the sixth prime minister to resign in five years.
Mr. Kan won the vote on Thursday in the 480-seat lower house by a comfortable margin of 293 to 152, after offering to resign to keep his party intact and prevent power from reverting to the opposition Liberal Democratic Party.
“I want the younger generation to take over my responsibilities once I fulfill my duty,” Mr. Kan told Parliament, signaling his intention to quit in the often oblique language of Japanese politics. “I will not destroy this Democratic Party.”
In the buildup to the vote, sponsored by the Liberal Democrats, the prime minister faced the threat of mass defections by lawmakers loyal to his own party’s disgruntled former kingmaker, Ichiro Ozawa. While it was unclear if the defections would have been enough to turn the no-confidence vote, Mr. Ozawa was also making noises about possibly splitting off to form a new party.
Mr. Kan left unclear when he would actually step down. At a news conference, he seemed to hint that he wanted to stay in office until the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was brought under control, which might take until early next year. However, some members of his party called for him to do so after the expected passage in the summer of a supplementary budget with additional funds for reconstruction.
While that budget is likely to total in the tens of billions of dollars, economists say it could cost at least a quarter of a trillion dollars to fully rebuild from the March 11 disaster, which left the country with the nuclear crisis, more than 24,000 people dead or missing and hundreds of miles of the coastline rendered uninhabitable by vast masses of tangled debris.
There had been hopes in Japan that the shock of the multiple disasters could motivate the nation to finally find a way out of a two-decade period of economic and social stagnation. However, voters appear to be increasingly disappointed with their national leadership.
In particular, Mr. Kan has come under intense public criticism for his government’s apparently clumsy handling of the nuclear crisis and delays in building temporary housing for the tens of thousands still homeless. His government has also suffered from the perception that it has not been forthcoming about the risks from the radioactive material that continues to spew from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
However, the public was also put off by the political maneuvering that brought about the no-confidence vote. On the streets of Tokyo, voters expressed disappointment and disgust with lawmakers on both sides for engaging in what they called petty political struggles when the country’s needs were so urgent.
“Sure, Prime Minister Kan is a weak leader, but this is not the time for such political games,” said Harumi Ishihara, 55, a commuter in Tokyo’s crowded Shibuya train station. “It’s irresponsible to do this when so many people are suffering in the northeast.”
Ms. Ishihara echoed the view of many voters here that the opposition Liberal Democrats bore equal blame for the political paralysis, for trying to weaken Mr. Kan when the focus should be on rebuilding. Local media coverage has also been harsh in its coverage of the role of Mr. Ozawa, a scandal-tainted political operator whom many here see as trying to extract political revenge for Mr. Kan’s exclusion of Mr. Ozawa and many of his supporters from the current cabinet.
Newspaper editorials blamed both Mr. Kan and the Liberal Democratic leader, Sadakazu Tanigaki, for the political impasse. “These parliamentary maneuvers are a joke and sickening,” the daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun said in a recent editorial.
Many of the Democrats who turned against Mr. Kan said they did so for fear that the unpopular prime minister could become a liability in future elections.
“This is not a time for stagnation,” Yukio Hatoyama, a former prime minister and ally of Mr. Ozawa, said in Parliament. “The atmosphere inside the party is very grim.”
Apparently appeased by Mr. Kan’s offer to resign, Mr. Hatoyama and other Democratic critics of Mr. Kan ended up voting against the no-confidence measure. Mr. Ozawa abstained from the vote.
(The New York Times 2011/06/02)
内閣不信任決議案に反対票を投じて、自分の席に戻る菅直人首相
Japan Prime Minister Survives No-Confidence Vote
この記事の投稿者はニューヨーク・タイムズ東京支局長のMARTIN FACKLERさんです。
記事内容は次の通り。
「前編」
「菅直人首相は、東日本大震災の復興・復旧や福島第一原発事故の対応に一定のめどがついたら辞任をすると表明。そのあとに行われた野党から提出されていた熾烈な内閣不信任決議案を否決した。
菅総理の辞任表明の狙いは、遅々として進まず、決断力のない菅総理の大震災の対応に対して党内から不満が続出している民主党に大打撃を与える分裂を避けることであった。しかし第二次世界大戦以来最悪の大震災から日本を復興させるまで菅総理が続投するとしても、そうした動きはもはや菅内閣を死に体(レームダック)にするだけである。
このままだと、何年にもわたって日本を襲っている政治空白が相変わらず続くことは間違いない。菅総理が夏の終わりごろまでに辞任するとなれば、この５年間で辞任する6番目の総理となる。
菅総理は内閣不信任決議案を、２９３対152の大差で否決したが、これは民主党分裂を避け、自民党に政権が移行しないようにするため辞任を表明したからである。
「私の責務を全うしたら、若い世代にいろいろな責任を引き継ぎたい」と菅総理は述べたが、これは日本の政治に特有の遠回しな表現で、辞任の意向を表明したものであり、「私は民主党をつぶさない」ということなのである。
自民党が提出した内閣不信任決議案可決の可能性が高まる中、菅総理は、菅総理に不満を抱いている小沢一郎グループの議員らによる大量造反者が出るのではないかという脅威に直面していた。大量造反で不信任案が可決されるかどうかわからない中、小沢氏は離党して新党結成の可能性にまで触れて物議を醸していた。
菅総理は退陣時期については明確にしていない。記者会見では、総理は福島第一原発事故が収束するまでーつまりは来年の初めごろまでー総理職を務めたいとの意向を示していた。復興支援追加予算案を盛り込んだ第二次補正予算案編成のめどがつく夏ごろには菅総理には退陣してもらいたいと思っている民主党議員もいる。
注)
lame duckとは「政権を担っているが、選挙で敗れて政権を離れることになる議員、知事、大統領、政権、政党など」を示すー英辞郎より
「参考」
MARTIN FACKLERさんが書いた記事が掲載されているサイト
Japan Prime Minister Survives No-Confidence Vote
By MARTIN FACKLER
TOKYO — Prime Minister Naoto Kan survived a bruising no-confidence vote in Parliament on Thursday, but only after promising to resign once his government made progress in overcoming the nuclear crisis and the devastating earthquake and tsunami that caused it.
The offer to resign appeared to be aimed at avoiding a destructive split in his governing Democratic Party, where there has been rising discontent with what many call Mr. Kan’s plodding and indecisive response to the triple disaster. But the move also turns Mr. Kan into essentially a lame duck even as he must still guide his nation out of its most deadly catastrophe since World War II.
It also appears almost certain to prolong the political paralysis that has gripped Japan for years. If he leaves office before the end of summer, Mr. Kan will be the sixth prime minister to resign in five years.
Mr. Kan won the vote on Thursday in the 480-seat lower house by a comfortable margin of 293 to 152, after offering to resign to keep his party intact and prevent power from reverting to the opposition Liberal Democratic Party.
“I want the younger generation to take over my responsibilities once I fulfill my duty,” Mr. Kan told Parliament, signaling his intention to quit in the often oblique language of Japanese politics. “I will not destroy this Democratic Party.”
In the buildup to the vote, sponsored by the Liberal Democrats, the prime minister faced the threat of mass defections by lawmakers loyal to his own party’s disgruntled former kingmaker, Ichiro Ozawa. While it was unclear if the defections would have been enough to turn the no-confidence vote, Mr. Ozawa was also making noises about possibly splitting off to form a new party.
Mr. Kan left unclear when he would actually step down. At a news conference, he seemed to hint that he wanted to stay in office until the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was brought under control, which might take until early next year. However, some members of his party called for him to do so after the expected passage in the summer of a supplementary budget with additional funds for reconstruction.
While that budget is likely to total in the tens of billions of dollars, economists say it could cost at least a quarter of a trillion dollars to fully rebuild from the March 11 disaster, which left the country with the nuclear crisis, more than 24,000 people dead or missing and hundreds of miles of the coastline rendered uninhabitable by vast masses of tangled debris.
There had been hopes in Japan that the shock of the multiple disasters could motivate the nation to finally find a way out of a two-decade period of economic and social stagnation. However, voters appear to be increasingly disappointed with their national leadership.
In particular, Mr. Kan has come under intense public criticism for his government’s apparently clumsy handling of the nuclear crisis and delays in building temporary housing for the tens of thousands still homeless. His government has also suffered from the perception that it has not been forthcoming about the risks from the radioactive material that continues to spew from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
However, the public was also put off by the political maneuvering that brought about the no-confidence vote. On the streets of Tokyo, voters expressed disappointment and disgust with lawmakers on both sides for engaging in what they called petty political struggles when the country’s needs were so urgent.
“Sure, Prime Minister Kan is a weak leader, but this is not the time for such political games,” said Harumi Ishihara, 55, a commuter in Tokyo’s crowded Shibuya train station. “It’s irresponsible to do this when so many people are suffering in the northeast.”
Ms. Ishihara echoed the view of many voters here that the opposition Liberal Democrats bore equal blame for the political paralysis, for trying to weaken Mr. Kan when the focus should be on rebuilding. Local media coverage has also been harsh in its coverage of the role of Mr. Ozawa, a scandal-tainted political operator whom many here see as trying to extract political revenge for Mr. Kan’s exclusion of Mr. Ozawa and many of his supporters from the current cabinet.
Newspaper editorials blamed both Mr. Kan and the Liberal Democratic leader, Sadakazu Tanigaki, for the political impasse. “These parliamentary maneuvers are a joke and sickening,” the daily newspaper Asahi Shimbun said in a recent editorial.
Many of the Democrats who turned against Mr. Kan said they did so for fear that the unpopular prime minister could become a liability in future elections.
“This is not a time for stagnation,” Yukio Hatoyama, a former prime minister and ally of Mr. Ozawa, said in Parliament. “The atmosphere inside the party is very grim.”
Apparently appeased by Mr. Kan’s offer to resign, Mr. Hatoyama and other Democratic critics of Mr. Kan ended up voting against the no-confidence measure. Mr. Ozawa abstained from the vote.
(The New York Times 2011/06/02)
コメント 0