通訳 スカイプで学習! 柴田バネッサの通訳演習

時代アカデミーでは、先祖が残してくれた古武道の忍者武芸その他、護身や英語通訳教室を提供しています。
道場で忍者 鎧 手裏剣体験 Hands-on Ninja Experience in Tokyo
電話:090-3691-8165   住所:東京都北区田端6-3-5 メール:office@musashi.ninja

バネッサの通訳講座 通訳入門から同通まで


スカイプ 日時固定コース(50分) (全てプライベート・レッスン)45分の無料体験あります。


木曜 デイタイム  09:00-18:00 要望があれば調整可 
土曜・日曜フレックスタイム(45分) コース

時間 集中講座 日曜

料金 \26,000円入会金\3,000円開始時間は相談で決定

集中講座を日曜以外の曜日にご希望の方は、お問い合わせ下さい。

HP http://www.geocities.jp/vanessa_482/index.html ia3

------------------------------------------------------------------


通訳案内士さんのための忍者・侍ツアーの3時間研修  日時は相談
2名以上6名までのグループでお申込み下さい。料金1名3500円

------------------------------------------------------------------

忍者体験などのサービス

参照:HP http://ninjawarriors.ninja-web.net/experience.html


貸し道場(20畳)

武蔵流忍術クラス。  第1,第3 火曜日 20:00  @時代アカデミー道場  会費:2000円/回 服装:自由(忍者装束推奨) 内容:武蔵一族としての動作。九字、礼法、座法、立法、歩法、車手裏剣(構え、打ち方、理合)要予約


テーマ:

“Paid parental leave is about creating freedom to define roles”— UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Anne Hathaway

 

http://webtv.un.org/topics-issues/global-issues/women/watch/anne-hathaway-un-women-global-goodwill-ambassador-at-the-un-observance-of-international-womens-day-2017/5352041606001

script

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2017/3/speech-anne-hathaway-iwd-2017

President of the General Assembly,
UN Deputy Secretary-General,
Executive Director, UN Women,
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

When I was a young person, I began my career as an actress. Whenever my mother wasn’t free to drive me into Manhattan for auditions, I would take the train from suburban New Jersey and meet my father—who would have left his desk at the law office where he worked—and we would meet under the Upper Platform Arrivals and Departures sign in Penn Station. We would then get onto the subway together and, when we surfaced, he would ask me “Which way is north?" I wasn’t very good at finding North at the beginning, but I auditioned fair amount and so my Dad kept asking “Which was is north?" Over time, I got better at finding it.

I was struck by that memory yesterday while boarding the plane here. Not just by how far my life has come since then, but by how meaningful that seemingly small lesson has been. When I was still a child, my father developed my sense of direction and now, as an adult, I trust my ability to navigate space. My father helped give me the confidence to guide myself through the world.

In late March, last year, 2016, I became a parent for the first time. I remember the indescribable—and as I understand it universal—experience of holding my week-old son and feeling my priorities change on a cellular level. I remember I experienced a shift in consciousness that gave me the ability to maintain my love of career and cherish something else, someone else, much, much more. Like so many parents, I wondered how I was going to balance my work with my new role as a parent, and in that moment, I remember that the statistic for the US’s policy on maternity leave flashed through my mind.

American women are currently entitled to 12 weeks’ unpaid leave. American men are entitled to nothing. That information landed differently for me when, one week after my son’s birth I could barely walk, when I was getting to know a human who was completely dependent on my husband and I for everything, when I was dependent on my husband for most things, when we were relearning everything we thought we knew about our family and relationship. It landed differently.

Somehow, we and every American parent were expected to be “back to normal” in under three months. Without income. I remember thinking to myself, “If the practical result of pregnancy is another mouth to feed in your home and America is a country where most people are living paycheck to paycheck, how does 12 weeks unpaid leave economically work?”

The truth is, for too many people it doesn’t. One in four American women go back to work two weeks after giving birth because they can’t afford to take any more time off than that. 25 per cent. Equally disturbing, women who can afford to take the full 12 weeks often don’t because it will mean incurring a “motherhood penalty”— meaning they will be perceived as less dedicated to their job and will be passed over for promotions and other career advancement. In my own household, my mother had to choose between a career and raising three children- a choice that left her unpaid and underappreciated as a homemaker- because there just wasn’t support for both paths. The memory of being in the city with my Dad is a particularly meaningful one since he was the sole breadwinner in our house, and my brothers and my time with him was always limited by how much he had to work. And we were an incredibly privileged family—our hardships were the stuff of other family’s dreams.

The deeper into the issue of paid parental leave I go, the clearer I see the connection between persisting barriers to women’s full equality and empowerment, and the need to redefine and in some cases, destigmatize men’s role as caregivers. In other words, to liberate women, we need to liberate men.

The assumption and common practice that women and girls look after the home and the family is a stubborn and very real stereotype that not only discriminates against women, but limits men’s participation and connection within the family and society. These limitations have broad-ranging and significant effects, for them and for children. We know this. So why do we continue to undervalue fathers and overburden mothers?

Paid parental leave is not about taking days off work; it is about creating freedom to define roles, to choose how to invest time, and to establish new, positive cycles of behavior. Companies that have offered paid parental leave for employees have reported improved employee retention, reduced absenteeism and training costs, and boosted productivity and morale. Far from not being able to afford to have paid parental leave, it seems we can't afford not to.

In fact, a study in Sweden showed that every month fathers took paternity leave, the mothers’ income increased by 6.7 per cent. That’s 6.7 per cent more economic freedom for the whole family. Data from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey shows that most fathers report that they would work less if it meant that they could spend more time with their children. How many of us here today saw our Dads enough growing up? How many of you Dads here see your kids enough now?

We need to help each other if we are going to grow.

Along with UN Women, I am issuing a call to action for countries, companies and institutions globally to step-up and become champions for paid parental leave. In 2013, provisions for parental leave were in only 66 countries out of 190 UN member states. I look forward to beginning with the UN itself which has not yet achieved parity and who's paid parental leave policies are currently up for review. Let us lead by example in creating a world in which women and men are not economically punished for wanting to be parents.

I don't mean to imply that you need to have children to care about and benefit from this issue—whether you have—or want—kids, you will benefit by living in a more evolved world with policies not based on gender. We all benefit from living in a more compassionate time where our needs do not make us weak, they make us fully humans.

Maternity leave, or any workplace policy based on gender, can—at this moment in history—only ever be a gilded cage. Though it was created to make life easier for women, we now know it creates a perception of women as being inconvenient to the workplace. We now know it chains men to an emotionally limited path. And it cannot serve the reality of a world in which there is more than one type of family. Because in the modern world, some families have two daddies. How exactly does maternity leave serve them?

Today, on International Women’s Day, I would like to thank all those who went before in creating our current policies—let us honour them and build upon what they started by shifting our language- and therefore our consciousness—away from gender and towards opportunity. Let us honor our own parents sacrifice by creating a path for a fairer, farther reaching truth to define all our lives, especially the lives our children.

Because paid parental leave does more than give more time for parents to spend with their children. It changes the story of what children observe, and will from themselves imagine possible.

I see cause for hope. In my own country, the United States—currently the only high income country in the world without paid maternity let alone parental leave—great work has begun in the states of New York, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Washington which are currently implementing paid parental leave programs. First Lady Charlene McCray and Mayor Bill de Blasio have granted paid parental leave to over 20,000 government employees in NYC. We can do this.

Bringing about change cannot just be the responsibility of those who need it most; we must have the support of those at the highest levels of power if we are ever to achieve parity. That is why it is such an honor to recognize and congratulate pioneers of paid parental leave like the global company Danone. Today I am proud to announce Danone Global CEO, Emmanuel Faber as our inaugural HeForShe Thematic Champion for Paid Parental Leave. As part of this announcement, Danone will implement a global 18 weeks gender-neutral paid parental leave policy for the company’s 100,000 employees by the year 2020. Monsieur Faber, when Ambassador Emma Watson delivered her now iconic HeForShe speech and stated that if we live in a world where men occupy a majority of positions of power, we need men to believe in the necessity of change, I believe she was speaking about visionaries like you. Merci.

Imagine what the world could look like one generation from now if a policy like Danone's becomes the new standard. If 100,000 people become 100 million.

A billion.

More.

Every generation must find their north.

When women around the world demanded the right to vote, we took a fundamental step toward equality.

North.

When the same sex marriage law was passed in the US, we put an end to a discriminatory law.

North.

When millions of men and boys answered Emma Watson’s call to be HeForShe, the world grew.

North.

We must ask ourselves, how will we be more tomorrow than we are today?

The whole world grows when people like you and me take a stand because we know that beyond the idea of howwomen and men are different, there is a deeper truth that love is love, and parents are parents.

Thank you.

- See more at: http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2017/3/speech-anne-hathaway-iwd-2017#sthash.jMZaVEjn.dpuf

AD
いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)
最近の画像つき記事  もっと見る >>

テーマ:

The U.S.-Japan Bilateral Economic Relationship: Past, Present, and Future

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2vo4fb1uDY

 

The Economic Imperative of Empowering Women - A Conversation with Christine Lagarde  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdwfTRzdrD4

 

 

AD
いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55c7IhTdyVk

 

Mexicanas y mexicanos:

Es un gusto saludarlos al iniciar 2017. Espero que hayan celebrado en familia las fiestas decembrinas y de Año Nuevo.

Éste será un año de importantes retos; retos para México, para el Gobierno y para nuestra sociedad. Son retos para los que estamos preparados si los enfrentamos unidos.

El primero, sin duda, es el aumento en el precio de las gasolinas.

Sé que hay mucha molestia y enojo por esta situación. Son sentimientos que entiendo y que comprendo.

Por eso, hoy quiero ofrecerles una amplia explicación sobre este tema, esperando que ayude a aclarar las dudas que todavía hay.

En primer lugar, es importante subrayar que este ajuste en el precio de la gasolina no se debe a la Reforma Energética ni tampoco a un aumento en los impuestos.

Por qué subió entonces el precio de la gasolina. Porque en el último año, en todo el mundo, el precio del petróleo aumentó cerca de 60 por ciento.

Esto, a su vez, ha aumentado el precio internacional de la gasolina, lo que nos afecta directamente, ya que desde hace años, México importa más de la mitad de los combustibles que consumimos.

En pocas palabras, se trata de un aumento que viene del exterior. El Gobierno no recibirá ni un centavo más de impuestos por este incremento.

Tratar de mantener el precio artificial de las gasolinas nos hubiera obligado a recortar programas sociales, a subir impuestos o a incrementar la deuda del país, poniendo en riesgo la estabilidad de toda la economía.

De hecho, mantener un precio artificial de la gasolina en 2017, como el que teníamos en diciembre, habría significado un gasto adicional de más de 200 mil millones de pesos.

Este monto equivale a paralizar por cuatro meses todos los servicios del Seguro Social, desde consultas con el médico familiar, hasta cirugías, guarderías y servicios de emergencia; interrumpir dos años completos los apoyos que entrega el Programa PROSPERA a casi 7 millones de familias; suspender tres años el Seguro Popular, que cuida la salud de más de 50 millones de mexicanos.

Aquí les pregunto: qué hubieran hecho ustedes.

Además, mantener precios artificiales de la gasolina significaría quitarles recursos a los mexicanos más pobres para dárselos a los que más tienen.

Los datos duros hablan por sí mismos: 60 millones de mexicanos, los de menores ingresos, sólo consumen el 15 por ciento de la gasolina, mientras que 12 millones, el 10 por ciento de la población de mayores ingresos, consume 40 por ciento de la gasolina.

En el pasado, otros gobiernos decidieron mantener artificialmente bajo el precio de la gasolina, para evitar costos políticos.

Lo pudieron hacer porque el país producía más petróleo, que se vendía más caro que nunca en la historia y el Gobierno tenía ingresos excedentes.

Así, tan sólo en el sexenio anterior, se perdieron casi un billón de pesos, es decir un millón de millones, subsidiando la gasolina.

Y digo que se perdieron porque literalmente fue dinero que se quemó regalando gasolina, en lugar de invertir en cosas más productivas como sistemas de transporte público, escuelas, universidades y hospitales.

En nuestro caso, lo primero que hicimos antes de tomar esta medida, fue recortar el gasto del propio Gobierno de la República en casi 190 mil millones de pesos. Incluso, a la fecha, hemos tenido que eliminar alrededor de 20 mil plazas laborales, lo que representa una reducción en sueldos y prestaciones de más de 7 mil 700 millones de pesos.

Adicional a lo anterior a partir del primer trimestre de este año, se reducirá en 10 por ciento la partida de sueldos y salarios de servidores públicos de mando superior de dependencias federales.

A pesar de esta explicación sé que el hecho de que las gasolinas se ajusten a su precio internacional es un cambio difícil.

Pero como Presidente mi responsabilidad es justamente tomar decisiones difíciles en el presente, para evitar afectaciones mayores en el futuro.

Si no cuidáramos la estabilidad de nuestra economía, qué pasaría.

Habría jefes y jefas de familia que perderían su trabajo; jóvenes que hoy se están graduando, no encontrarían  un empleo; las parejas que acaban de comprar una casa a crédito, verían muy difícil completar sus pagos; y las amas de casa verían que su gasto ya no les alcanza, pues subirían todos los precios.

Eso es lo que pasa cuando un país pierde su estabilidad económica: las familias, sobre todo las de menores ingresos, acaban siendo profundamente afectadas. Y para evitarlo, es que hoy el Gobierno está tomando decisiones difíciles.

Para proteger a la población y evitar que el aumento en el precio de las gasolinas sea pretexto para incrementos injustificados en otros productos o servicios, he dado indicaciones a las dependencias de gobierno, para que mantengan una permanente vigilancia para evitar abusos.

Además, el Gobierno de la República está dialogando con los sectores productivos, para diseñar un paquete de medidas que apoye la economía de las familias, fomente la inversión, y promueva el empleo.

El otro reto que deberemos enfrentar en 2017, es el de construir una relación positiva con el nuevo Gobierno de los Estados Unidos.

Refrendaremos los sentimientos de amistad del pueblo de México con el pueblo norteamericano, y trabajaremos con toda decisión para mantener y fortalecer las relaciones económicas, culturales y familiares entre los dos países.

México sabrá defender y asegurar el respeto y el reconocimiento internacional que se ha ganado en el mundo.

Para hacerlo, nuestro país cuenta con su inquebrantable dignidad, la fuerza de su historia, su cultura excepcional y, hoy como siempre, con la unidad nacional.

La unidad es el valor supremo que ha permitido a México preservar su independencia y soberanía, y afrontar con éxito los mayores desafíos de nuestra historia. La unidad nacional la construimos cada día, entre todos.

La unidad está hecha de compartir valores profundos, de amor a la Patria y del orgullo de ser mexicanos; de cumplir todos los días con el esfuerzo generoso por nuestros hijos, nuestra familia y nuestro país; de mantener y desplegar los sentimientos de solidaridad que nos brindamos unos a otros, sobre todo, en momentos difíciles.

Tengo plena confianza en que, inspirados en nuestra unidad, México y los mexicanos estamos preparados para hacer frente a cualquier reto.

Con esa confianza, trabajaré para que cada hogar y cada familia, tenga un 2017 de salud, éxito y bienestar.

Muchas gracias.

AD
いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

https://www.ted.com/talks/lux_narayan_what_i_learned_from_2_000_obituaries

0:11 Joseph Keller used to jog around the Stanford campus, and he was struck by all the women jogging there as well. Why did their ponytails swing from side to side like that? Being a mathematician, he set out to understand why.

0:28 (Laughter)

0:29 Professor Keller was curious about many things: why teapots dribble or how earthworms wriggle. Until a few months ago, I hadn't heard of Joseph Keller. I read about him in the New York Times, in the obituaries. The Times had half a page of editorial dedicated to him, which you can imagine is premium space for a newspaper of their stature.

0:52 I read the obituaries almost every day. My wife understandably thinks I'm rather morbid to begin my day with scrambled eggs and a "Let's see who died today."

1:03 (Laughter)

1:05 But if you think about it, the front page of the newspaper is usually bad news, and cues man's failures. An instance where bad news cues accomplishment is at the end of the paper, in the obituaries.

1:18 In my day job, I run a company that focuses on future insights that marketers can derive from past data — a kind of rearview-mirror analysis. And we began to think: What if we held a rearview mirror to obituaries from the New York Times? Were there lessons on how you could get your obituary featured — even if you aren't around to enjoy it?

1:41 (Laughter)

1:42 Would this go better with scrambled eggs?

1:45 (Laughter)

1:47 And so, we looked at the data. 2,000 editorial, non-paid obituaries over a 20-month period between 2015 and 2016. What did these 2,000 deaths — rather, lives — teach us?

2:03 Well, first we looked at words. This here is an obituary headline. This one is of the amazing Lee Kuan Yew. If you remove the beginning and the end, you're left with a beautifully worded descriptor that tries to, in just a few words, capture an achievement or a lifetime. Just looking at these is fascinating. Here are a few famous ones, people who died in the last two years. Try and guess who they are.

2:27 [An Artist who Defied Genre] That's Prince.

2:31 [Titan of Boxing and the 20th Century] Oh, yes.

2:34 [Muhammad Ali]

2:35 [Groundbreaking Architect] Zaha Hadid.

2:39 So we took these descriptors and did what's called natural language processing, where you feed these into a program, it throws out the superfluous words — "the," "and," — the kind of words you can mime easily in "Charades," — and leaves you with the most significant words. And we did it not just for these four, but for all 2,000 descriptors. And this is what it looks like. Film, theatre, music, dance and of course, art, are huge. Over 40 percent. You have to wonder why in so many societies we insist that our kids pursue engineering or medicine or business or law to be construed as successful. And while we're talking profession, let's look at age — the average age at which they achieved things. That number is 37. What that means is, you've got to wait 37 years ... before your first significant achievement that you're remembered for — on average — 44 years later, when you die at the age of 81 — on average.

3:39 (Laughter)

3:40 Talk about having to be patient.

3:41 (Laughter)

3:43 Of course, it varies by profession. If you're a sports star, you'll probably hit your stride in your 20s. And if you're in your 40s like me, you can join the fun world of politics.

3:53 (Laughter)

3:54 Politicians do their first and sometimes only commendable act in their mid-40s.

3:58 (Laughter)

3:59 If you're wondering what "others" are, here are some examples. Isn't it fascinating, the things people do and the things they're remembered for?

4:07 (Laughter)

4:11 Our curiosity was in overdrive, and we desired to analyze more than just a descriptor. So, we ingested the entire first paragraph of all 2,000 obituaries, but we did this separately for two groups of people: people that are famous and people that are not famous. Famous people — Prince, Ali, Zaha Hadid — people who are not famous are people like Jocelyn Cooper, Reverend Curry or Lorna Kelly. I'm willing to bet you haven't heard of most of their names. Amazing people, fantastic achievements, but they're not famous. So what if we analyze these two groups separately — the famous and the non-famous? What might that tell us?

4:51 Take a look. Two things leap out at me. First: "John."

5:00 (Laughter)

5:02 Anyone here named John should thank your parents —

5:06 (Laughter)

5:07 and remind your kids to cut out your obituary when you're gone. And second: "help."

5:17 We uncovered, many lessons from lives well-led, and what those people immortalized in print could teach us. The exercise was a fascinating testament to the kaleidoscope that is life, and even more fascinating was the fact that the overwhelming majority of obituaries featured people famous and non-famous, who did seemingly extraordinary things. They made a positive dent in the fabric of life. They helped.

5:45 So ask yourselves as you go back to your daily lives: How am I using my talents to help society? Because the most powerful lesson here is, if more people lived their lives trying to be famous in death, the world would be a much better place.

6:02 Thank you.

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbSsILLh28

https://www.ted.com/talks/bj_miller_what_really_matters_at_the_end_of_life

Well, we all need a reason to wake up. For me, it just took 11,000 volts.

0:22 I know you're too polite to ask, so I will tell you.

0:26 One night, sophomore year of college, just back from Thanksgiving holiday, a few of my friends and I were horsing around, and we decided to climb atop a parked commuter train. It was just sitting there, with the wires that run overhead. Somehow, that seemed like a great idea at the time. We'd certainly done stupider things. I scurried up the ladder on the back, and when I stood up, the electrical current entered my arm, blew down and out my feet, and that was that. Would you believe that watch still works? Takes a licking!  1:08 (Laughter)

1:09 My father wears it now in solidarity.

1:14 That night began my formal relationship with death — my death — and it also began my long run as a patient. It's a good word. It means one who suffers. So I guess we're all patients.

1:30 Now, the American health care system has more than its fair share of dysfunction — to match its brilliance, to be sure. I'm a physician now, a hospice and palliative medicine doc, so I've seen care from both sides. And believe me: almost everyone who goes into healthcare really means well — I mean, truly. But we who work in it are also unwitting agents for a system that too often does not serve.

2:02 Why? Well, there's actually a pretty easy answer to that question, and it explains a lot: because healthcare was designed with diseases, not people, at its center. Which is to say, of course, it was badly designed. And nowhere are the effects of bad design more heartbreaking or the opportunity for good design more compelling than at the end of life, where things are so distilled and concentrated. There are no do-overs.

2:41 My purpose today is to reach out across disciplines and invite design thinking into this big conversation. That is, to bring intention and creativity to the experience of dying. We have a monumental opportunity in front of us, before one of the few universal issues as individuals as well as a civil society: to rethink and redesign how it is we die.

3:18 So let's begin at the end. For most people, the scariest thing about death isn't being dead, it's dying, suffering. It's a key distinction. To get underneath this, it can be very helpful to tease out suffering which is necessary as it is, from suffering we can change. The former is a natural, essential part of life, part of the deal, and to this we are called to make space, adjust, grow. It can be really good to realize forces larger than ourselves. They bring proportionality, like a cosmic right-sizing. After my limbs were gone, that loss, for example, became fact, fixed — necessarily part of my life, and I learned that I could no more reject this fact than reject myself. It took me a while, but I learned it eventually. Now, another great thing about necessary suffering is that it is the very thing that unites caregiver and care receiver — human beings. This, we are finally realizing, is where healing happens. Yes, compassion — literally, as we learned yesterday — suffering together.

4:55 Now, on the systems side, on the other hand, so much of the suffering is unnecessary, invented. It serves no good purpose. But the good news is, since this brand of suffering is made up, well, we can change it. How we die is indeed something we can affect. Making the system sensitive to this fundamental distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering gives us our first of three design cues for the day. After all, our role as caregivers, as people who care, is to relieve suffering — not add to the pile.

5:41 True to the tenets of palliative care, I function as something of a reflective advocate, as much as prescribing physician. Quick aside: palliative care — a very important field but poorly understood — while it includes, it is not limited to end of life care. It is not limited to hospice. It's simply about comfort and living well at any stage. So please know that you don't have to be dying anytime soon to benefit from palliative care.

6:12 Now, let me introduce you to Frank. Sort of makes this point. I've been seeing Frank now for years. He's living with advancing prostate cancer on top of long-standing HIV. We work on his bone pain and his fatigue, but most of the time we spend thinking out loud together about his life — really, about our lives. In this way, Frank grieves. In this way, he keeps up with his losses as they roll in, so that he's ready to take in the next moment. Loss is one thing, but regret, quite another. Frank has always been an adventurer — he looks like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting — and no fan of regret. So it wasn't surprising when he came into clinic one day, saying he wanted to raft down the Colorado River. Was this a good idea? With all the risks to his safety and his health, some would say no. Many did, but he went for it, while he still could. It was a glorious, marvelous trip: freezing water, blistering dry heat, scorpions, snakes, wildlife howling off the flaming walls of the Grand Canyon — all the glorious side of the world beyond our control. Frank's decision, while maybe dramatic, is exactly the kind so many of us would make, if we only had the support to figure out what is best for ourselves over time.

7:48 So much of what we're talking about today is a shift in perspective. After my accident, when I went back to college, I changed my major to art history. Studying visual art, I figured I'd learn something about how to see — a really potent lesson for a kid who couldn't change so much of what he was seeing. Perspective, that kind of alchemy we humans get to play with, turning anguish into a flower.

8:20 Flash forward: now I work at an amazing place in San Francisco called the Zen Hospice Project, where we have a little ritual that helps with this shift in perspective. When one of our residents dies, the mortuary men come, and as we're wheeling the body out through the garden, heading for the gate, we pause. Anyone who wants — fellow residents, family, nurses, volunteers, the hearse drivers too, now — shares a story or a song or silence, as we sprinkle the body with flower petals. It takes a few minutes; it's a sweet, simple parting image to usher in grief with warmth, rather than repugnance. Contrast that with the typical experience in the hospital setting, much like this — floodlit room lined with tubes and beeping machines and blinking lights that don't stop even when the patient's life has. Cleaning crew swoops in, the body's whisked away, and it all feels as though that person had never really existed. Well-intended, of course, in the name of sterility, but hospitals tend to assault our senses, and the most we might hope for within those walls is numbness — anesthetic, literally the opposite of aesthetic. I revere hospitals for what they can do; I am alive because of them. But we ask too much of our hospitals. They are places for acute trauma and treatable illness. They are no place to live and die; that's not what they were designed for.

10:09 Now mind you — I am not giving up on the notion that our institutions can become more humane. Beauty can be found anywhere. I spent a few months in a burn unit at St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, New Jersey, where I got really great care at every turn, including good palliative care for my pain. And one night, it began to snow outside. I remember my nurses complaining about driving through it. And there was no window in my room, but it was great to just imagine it coming down all sticky. Next day, one of my nurses smuggled in a snowball for me. She brought it in to the unit. I cannot tell you the rapture I felt holding that in my hand, and the coldness dripping onto my burning skin; the miracle of it all, the fascination as I watched it melt and turn into water. In that moment, just being any part of this planet in this universe mattered more to me than whether I lived or died. That little snowball packed all the inspiration I needed to both try to live and be OK if I did not. In a hospital, that's a stolen moment.

11:35 In my work over the years, I've known many people who were ready to go, ready to die. Not because they had found some final peace or transcendence, but because they were so repulsed by what their lives had become — in a word, cut off, or ugly. There are already record numbers of us living with chronic and terminal illness, and into ever older age. And we are nowhere near ready or prepared for this silver tsunami. We need an infrastructure dynamic enough to handle these seismic shifts in our population. Now is the time to create something new, something vital. I know we can because we have to. The alternative is just unacceptable. And the key ingredients are known: policy, education and training, systems, bricks and mortar. We have tons of input for designers of all stripes to work with.

12:48 We know, for example, from research what's most important to people who are closer to death: comfort; feeling unburdened and unburdening to those they love; existential peace; and a sense of wonderment and spirituality.

13:07 Over Zen Hospice's nearly 30 years, we've learned much more from our residents in subtle detail. Little things aren't so little. Take Janette. She finds it harder to breathe one day to the next due to ALS. Well, guess what? She wants to start smoking again — and French cigarettes, if you please. Not out of some self-destructive bent, but to feel her lungs filled while she has them. Priorities change. Or Kate — she just wants to know her dog Austin is lying at the foot of her bed, his cold muzzle against her dry skin, instead of more chemotherapy coursing through her veins — she's done that. Sensuous, aesthetic gratification, where in a moment, in an instant, we are rewarded for just being. So much of it comes down to loving our time by way of the senses, by way of the body — the very thing doing the living and the dying.

14:25 Probably the most poignant room in the Zen Hospice guest house is our kitchen, which is a little strange when you realize that so many of our residents can eat very little, if anything at all. But we realize we are providing sustenance on several levels: smell, a symbolic plane. Seriously, with all the heavy-duty stuff happening under our roof, one of the most tried and true interventions we know of, is to bake cookies. As long as we have our senses — even just one — we have at least the possibility of accessing what makes us feel human, connected. Imagine the ripples of this notion for the millions of people living and dying with dementia. Primal sensorial delights that say the things we don't have words for, impulses that make us stay present — no need for a past or a future.

15:41 So, if teasing unnecessary suffering out of the system was our first design cue, then tending to dignity by way of the senses, by way of the body — the aesthetic realm — is design cue number two. Now this gets us quickly to the third and final bit for today; namely, we need to lift our sights, to set our sights on well-being, so that life and health and healthcare can become about making life more wonderful, rather than just less horrible. Beneficence.

16:21 Here, this gets right at the distinction between a disease-centered and a patient- or human-centered model of care, and here is where caring becomes a creative, generative, even playful act. "Play" may sound like a funny word here. But it is also one of our highest forms of adaptation. Consider every major compulsory effort it takes to be human. The need for food has birthed cuisine. The need for shelter has given rise to architecture. The need for cover, fashion. And for being subjected to the clock, well, we invented music. So, since dying is a necessary part of life, what might we create with this fact? By "play" I am in no way suggesting we take a light approach to dying or that we mandate any particular way of dying. There are mountains of sorrow that cannot move, and one way or another, we will all kneel there. Rather, I am asking that we make space — physical, psychic room, to allow life to play itself all the way out — so that rather than just getting out of the way, aging and dying can become a process of crescendo through to the end. We can't solve for death. I know some of you are working on this. 17:51 (Laughter)

17:56 Meanwhile, we can — 17:57 (Laughter)

17:59 We can design towards it. Parts of me died early on, and that's something we can all say one way or another. I got to redesign my life around this fact, and I tell you it has been a liberation to realize you can always find a shock of beauty or meaning in what life you have left, like that snowball lasting for a perfect moment, all the while melting away. If we love such moments ferociously, then maybe we can learn to live well — not in spite of death, but because of it. Let death be what takes us, not lack of imagination.

18:47 Thank you.

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

Prime Minister's St David's Day speech 2017  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Y6J4Zs-TQ

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/st-davids-day-reception-2017-prime-ministers-speech

I am very pleased to be able to welcome you to Number 10 and to have this opportunity to say Dydd Gŵyl Dewi Hapus.

This reception is about celebrating everything that Wales has to offer to the world – and there is indeed much to celebrate. This proud country – and a special part of our United Kingdom – is home to some of the greatest talent and industry in the world.

And we can see that right here today. Whether it is leading figures from the worlds of business, sport and politics – or one of the finest arrays of award-winning cheese, cakes, ham, wine, beer, whiskys, spirits and flowers that I have ever seen.

It is no wonder there are quite so many Number 10 staff who have suddenly discovered their Welsh heritage.

I want to take this opportunity to say 2 things today.

The first is that I am immensely proud to be Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom – and together with Alun as Secretary of State, I am absolutely committed to promoting and supporting Wales as part of that honour and responsibility.

As a UK government we will always do everything we can to support Welsh business and to help create more jobs in Wales.

That is why we are investing £500 million in the Cardiff Capital Region City Deal – the biggest City Deal in the UK. And why we remain committed to negotiating a City Deal for the Swansea Bay City Region too.

It is why we will continue to promote Wales as one of the great tourist destinations in the world, with no fewer than 5 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including the first ever, Gower.

And we will continue to champion Wales as a top destination for iconic World sport – from hosting Rugby World Cup matches to the European Champions League Final in Cardiff this May.

The second point I wanted to address briefly, and Alun has alluded to this, is how we seize the opportunity of this great moment of national change as we leave the European Union and forge a bold new future for ourselves in the world. And I have said I will strike a deal with the EU that works for all parts of the UK – and for the UK as a whole.

And we are engaging fully with groups and people from across Wales, including the Welsh government and indeed with all the devolved administrations as we form our negotiating position. I want to ensure that Wales is in the strongest possible position to benefit as we work to spread wealth and prosperity to every part of the UK.

And as we forge bold new trade deals with old friends and new allies around the world – I want that to mean more jobs in Wales, more exports of Welsh products and more growth for the Welsh economy. Because we are one United Kingdom – England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. And we will succeed as one United Kingdom.

And as I said on the doorstep of Number 10 when I became Prime Minister, I will always fight to preserve our proud, historic union.

And I am determined that we will emerge from this great period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more-outward looking than ever before. And that will be the best possible outcome for Wales – and for the whole of our United Kingdom.

So thank you everybody for coming today – thank you to those who have brought their wares here to sample, thank you for everything that you contribute to Wales, and everything you contribute to the United Kingdom. And please do stay and enjoy the rest of the reception.

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJHPpNAxlak

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:  More questions please. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2:  Thank you.   So if we look back at NATO- Russian relations starting with the post, with the beginning of the post-Soviet period, so there was a period of dialogue and even expectations that a new democratic Russia would actually join NATO.  Then by the end of the 90s, with the bombings of Yugoslavia, with many post-communist states becoming NATO members these relations have really gone sour, then there was a rapprochement after the 9/11 when Putin supported Bush in the war of terror in Afghanistan, then starting with I think the Iraq war, there has been a constant period of falling and deteriorating relations.  So my question is, has NATO membership or some sort of a joint security programs with Russia, have they ever been on the table and if the cooperation with post-Soviet Russia failed, why do you think is the reason for such failure?

JENS STOLTENBERG:  So first of all you are quite right in that for many, for several years we actually established closer and closer corporation and dialogue with Russia and I was myself, as Prime Minister, attending different NATO Summits where Putin attended and Medvedev attended, President Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev so, so that was an example of how we were working together and we also had practical cooperation in different things.  Of course there were some ups and downs, but at least we were moving in the direction of more cooperation. 

The main reason, there are different reasons, but the main reason why this has changed is Crimea.  The illegal annexation of Crimea, to use military force  against a neighbour is unacceptable and of course NATO had to respond and we have responded partly by, increasing our military presence in the Eastern part of the Alliance, to send a clear signal that we are ready to defend all allies against anything similar to what has happened in the Ukraine, Crimea.  We also responded by suspending our practical cooperation with Russia, so we still have political dialogue with Russia but we don’t have practical cooperation with them and then of course the West has also responded by implementing economic sanctions against Russia.  That’s not a NATO decision, but all NATO allies have, through the European Union the United States and Canada, have implemented sanctions.  So the main reason for the, the worsening, the deteriorating relationship is Crimea.  Then the question is why did Russia do that?  Well I think it’s because they have this idea of some kind of, they want to control their neighbours and to control neighbours is not compatible with the idea sovereign nations and sovereign states.  I am coming from the neighbour State of Russia and of course I am very glad that I haven’t tried to control Norway in the same way, as they have tried to control other neighbours and ah, and ah, but at the same time one of the lessons that I have learned from regional politics is that it is possible to talk to Russians.  It is possible to have a dialogue with them and Norway having a very long border line in the sea where we have gas and oil on the Barren Sea and the Polar Sea but also on land, we have been able to work in a pragmatic way both with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but also with Russia but the reason why we have been able to work with Russia is not despite of our membership in NATO but it’s more because of it, because as long as we are strong, as long as we are part of a strong military alliance, we have the best possible foundation also to engage in dialogue with Russia.  So I believe that we should, we have to stay strong, we have to stay united, but based on that we should continue to work and strive for a more cooperative and constructive relationship with Russia.  We should continue to have a chance for political dialogue open and manage our relationship with Russia as good as we can because Russia will not disappear, Russia will be there, Russia will be our biggest neighbour and therefore we have to relate to them in the best possible way. 

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:  Do you think one of the reasons you were appointed as Secretary General is because you have experience in this sort of corporate dialogue with Russia from when you were Prime Minister? 

JENS STOLTENBERG:  It’s hard for me in a way to answer why the leaders of NATO appointed me but as least they have, what I have said to some of them is that, is that it has also to do with my, my, let me put it another way, of course it has to do with my experience as a Norwegian politician because that’s what I have done all my life and I became Secretary General so it’s hard imagine something else and, and, and one important part of my political life in Norway has been to relate to Russia.  Actually when I became Deputy Minister for Environment back in 1990 one of my first tasks was to start to work with Russia on addressing pollution, emissions of sulfur up in the ( inaudible) which damaged a lot of nature in Norway and I went to ( inaudible)  and Murmansk and different cities and we discussed practical environmental cooperation.  Then later on in the 1990s I became Minister for Energy and Industry and we had a lot of commissions, we had a Norwegian Russian Commission on Industry and Energy.  We met in Moscow, we met in Oslo and we developed a lot of projects on energy and industry with the Russians and that was a mutual benefit both for Norway and for Russia and then when I was Prime Minister we worked on the Delimitation Line which is a borderline in the sea, in the Barents Sea, but it’s important partly because it’s a big, big sea, territory but also, because it divides the continental shelf and there is oil and gas there and we were able to reach an agreement with President Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev.  That was good for Norway, it was good for Russia and part of that agreement is also that we are going to cooperate up in the High North related to energy and also when I was Prime Minister I also and that’s still the case we had to know that the Russian military, the Sixth Fleet, the fleet up at the (inaudible) Peninsula they meet with the Norwegian Armed Forces every week, that is they communicate with them regularly to make sure that there are no misunderstandings, no incidents and no accidents.  We also have strong joint exercises with them related to search and rescue and so on up in the Barents Sea.  The reason why I say this is that, in the North there is some practical, as I say pragmatic relations between a NATO ally Norway and Russia but that takes place based on some absolute principles that they respect our sovereignty, our territorial integrity and actually they respect it so much that they have agreed on a new borderline and of course it’s based on the knowledge that NATO, sorry that Norway is a NATO ally so even if Norway is not really a big power they know that NATO is there to protect and defend us.  So for me, Norway is an excellent example of how strength and dialogue, defense and dialogue is not something which contradict each other but reinforce each other and I guess that’s one of the reasons why I was elected as Secretary General of NATO.

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:  Thanks.  Let’s get another question from the audience.  Let’s go to the sort of turquoise jumper.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 3:  Can you understand that Vladimir Putin sees it as a provocation that NATO has expanded to the east after the end of the Cold War, especially in light of the belief of apparently some Russians that the negotiations about the reunion of Germany were based on the promise or implicit promise that NATO would not expand to former Warsaw Pact countries.

JENS STOLTENBERG:  The answer is no, I cannot understand that Russia has the opinion that it is a provocation, that NATO has enlarged with new members from central and eastern Europe and the reason why I can’t understand that and I cannot accept that is that I very much believe that every nation, big or small, east or west, have the right to decide its own path.  So, it’s not, in a way, NATO that has expanded, it is Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, that has applied for membership because they want to become members through the democratic processes and should we then tell them no, you’re not allowed to become a member of NATO because Russia would not like it.  That’s an impossible message.  And it’s violating everything I believe in when it comes to the respect for people to decide their own destiny and their own future.  So, the notion of NATO expanding sounds like we are, in a way, grabbing land. No, they are coming to us asking for membership and after various thorough assessment procedures and they have to qualify and meet standards and implement reforms, then they are invited in, but only as long as there are democratic processes and they meet NATO standards, and after many years of assessment.  So this is based on the idea that Russia has the right to decide the destiny of its neighbours and Russia do not have that right but neither do any other country.  So, for instance, yesterday I met the Serbian Prime Minister and Serbia do not want to become a member of NATO.  That’s fine. We respect countries if they say we don’t want to be a member of NATO and respect them if they say they want to be a member of NATO. It’s not for us to decide, it’s for them to decide and Russia should be more relaxed and accept that neighbours decide their own path and that will be good for the neighbours and for Russia.

UNNAMED PERSON: Let’s go to back middle, yeah, you’re turning around.

Q: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary General. I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. NATO has been involved in Afghanistan since 2003. I think Operation Resolute Support is going into its’ 3rd year and 10 years prior to that with ISAF.  The treasure and blood that has been spilled in Afghanistan is quite astounding in NATO’s history and I wanted to ask you whether this has led to lessons learned or any lessons for NATO members in terms of expeditionary versus neighbourhood activities?

JENS STOLTENBERG:  I would also like a moment, I just have to add one small thing to my last answer and that it’s not true, it’s a false statement that it was an agreement when Germany was unified that NATO should not have new members.  So that’s not true but second, even if it was on such an agreement, it would have been absolutely unacceptable that in a way the President of the United States or someone else should agree on what Poland or Hungary or Latvia have the right to do.  So it’s double wrong.  It’s wrong because it didn’t happen and if it happened, it would have been wrong anyway.  So that’s not the case. 

Second on Afghanistan, of course there are lessons learned from Afghanistan and I think that the most important lesson, there are actually two lessons.  One is that it was right to go into Afghanistan because it was necessary to react to an attack that killed thousands of people in Washington and New York, the Twin Towers on the 9/11 attacks, and it was impossible to accept that Afghanistan remain a safe haven for international terrorists.  It was a clear UN mandate, the international community supported it and NATO has been the instrument for the international community to fight terrorism and to prevent Afghanistan becoming a safe haven for international terrorists. 

The other lesson I think we have learned from Afghanistan is that we should have started earlier to train local forces because in the long run, it is difficult to beat foreigners, in a way, coming from NATO countries and partner countries and to fight the war in Afghanistan for the Afghans.  So it’s much better if local forces, forces from the country itself, can take responsibility for security and stability in its own country and therefore, we have now ended our combat mission in Afghanistan. Since 2015, we are only in to train, assist and advise  mission where we train and advise local Afghan forces and I’m absolutely certain that in the long run, that’s a much more sustainable and viable solution that we don’t do the big combat operations but we enable the Afghans themselves to stabilize their own country.  This is a lesson which is relevant for Afghanistan and if anything, we should have started to train local forces earlier so we could have ended our own combat operations earlier but I think it was an important lesson learned for other countries because I think one of the best weapons we have against terrorism is to train local forces, is to enable local forces to fight terrorism themselves because the fight against terrorism is not a fight between the West and the Muslim world. Most of the victims of terrorist attacks are Muslims. So we have to enable countries in the region, in the Middle East, in North Africa, to fight ISIL, DAESH, terrorist organizations themselves and in the long run, that’s a more stronger weapon than we fighting their wars.

UNNAMED PERSON: We have time for one more question. Let’s go to the person there.

Q: General Secretary, thank you for your time. I was wondering what is NATO taking in steps into de-escalating the tension between the NATO Alliance and Russia on a non-military basis. Thank you.

JENS STOLTENBERG:  What we do is that we keep the channels for political dialogue open in different ways. We have something called a NATO-Russia Council, which is a council that was established back in the 1990s where Russia and the 28 NATO allies meet.  This kind of dialogue is important because it is important in a way to just sit around the same table and address some of our different security challenges and even if we don’t agree on all of them, I think it’s important that we talk, that we have dialogue, that we speak because that at least helps us to find solutions.  For instance, we have discussed Ukraine, we didn’t agree, but I think it’s important that we meet, discuss Ukraine. We have discussed Afghanistan and we have discussed what we call risk reduction and transparency and that is about how can we avoid incidents, accidents related to military activity because with more military build-up, more military activities along our borders, the risk for incidents, for accidents, has increased and we saw the downing of the Russian plane over Turkey last year and we have to try to do whatever we can to avoid that kind of incidents or accidents and if they do happen, prevent them from spiralling out of control and create real dangerous situations.  So the higher tensions, the more military activity, the more important it is that we have direct dialogue, direct contact, to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations that can create really dangerous situations.  So, we do this, we continue to do that and of course, we also then continue to meet.  On a political level, I have met Foreign Minister Lavrov, my deputy secretary general has contact with her counterparts with Russian officials, so we continue to have and also many NATO allies have on a bilateral level contacts and dialogue with Russia. I mentioned Norway but also other NATO allies engage with Russia in different ways, for instance, the United States. The other thing is that NATO’s response, our increased military presence for instance in the Baltic countries, is measured, it’s responsible. We speak about battalions, which is an important but limited military presence. So there’s no way that can be a threat. NATO does not pose any threat to any country. So we also calibrate our military response in a way that contributes to keeping tensions down.  We are there not to provoke, we are there to prevent conflict and to provide the necessary deterrence to make sure that all allies are safe in a more unstable world.

UNNAMED PERSON: Thank you.  Ladies and gentlemen, firstly join me in thanking Secretary General JENS Stoltenberg

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg Speaks About President-Elect Donald Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKYQML_KRp8

 

NATO News w/CC: 11-24-16. Sec. General Stoltenberg's Speech at Oxford University, London.   http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_137882.htm?selectedLocale=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3871toAgq8

NOAH LACHS (President, Oxford Union): Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the first event of three today. Our next speaker is a former Prime Minister of Norway, and in October of 2014, he became the thirteen Secretary General of NATO. Please join me in welcoming Jens Stoltenberg.

CROWD (Oxford Union): (Clapping).

JENS STOLTENBERG (Secretary General of NATO): Thanks so much and good afternoon. It’s really a great honour and a great pleasure to see you all today and to be able to speak to you because I know that the Oxford Union has really been a platform for free speech and for open debate for almost two hundred years. And for me, to be able to speak to you is really an honour because free speech and open society is what NATO is there to defend. That’s our core value is to defend open and free societies. And that I also would like to tell you that there are many alumnis from Oxford that have, and people who have been members of this union for many years that have served in NATO for many years. One, general called Wesley Clark–he was our Supreme Allied Commander for some years and he’s a Oxford Union member. And also my Assistant Secretary General, sitting there, Patrick Turner ­– he’s responsible for operations and he is a member of the Union, he studied here and he told me, just now, that he studied Medieval History and Medieval War, and then he started to work for NATO, which also…

CROWD (Oxford Union): (Laugh).

JENS STOLTENBERG (Secretary General of NATO): How should I say, not only good news. So, my task, or what I will do today, is that I will try to be brief, not too long, and to share with you some reflexions on NATO and how NATO is adapting to a new and more demanding security environment. And after that, I’m happy to take questions and answer. So, to have time for that, I’ll try to be brief and not covering all the issues but at least, pointing out some of the main challenges we face as an alliance today. And NATO’s core task being a military and political alliance is to defend and protect all allies – 28 member states from Europe, US and Canada. And we do so by protecting and defending each other while standing together based on the principle or the idea of “one for all, and all for one.” And this idea or this principle is enshrined in our founding treaty, the Washington Treaty, in something called Article 5, which is our collective defence clause. And the main message there is that an attack on one ally would be regarded as an attack on all allies, on the whole alliance. So, by standing together, and promising to defend each other, we are strong and we have been able to contribute to peace and stability in Europe for almost seventy years and to be the strongest alliance in history, protecting all allied countries. We have done so under very different circumstances. For approximately forty years, we did that during the Cold War, from our foundation in 1949 until the end of the Cold War with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and then elated, the dissolution of the Soviet Union. But during the Cold War, we had a big confrontation between NATO, the United States on one side, and then the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on the other side. And we successfully were able to deter the Soviet Union and the Cold War ended without any shot being fired, and we started after the end of the Cold War to try to build a partnership with Russia. We enlarged more and more of those countries that were previously members of the Warsaw Pact, they became NATO members. And people started also to ask whether we needed NATO anymore, because the reason why we existed – to confront the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact – didn’t exist anymore.

But then we soon discovered that it was still a need, still a reason to keep NATO as a strong alliance, because we saw that we had instability around our borders close to NATO allies, first in the Balkans, where we had a civil war in the 1990’s, or several wars in the 1990’s, and NATO moved into Bosnia and Herzegovina with a big military operation. We went into Kosovo to preserve, or to end the war and to preserve the peace and stability in the Balkans. That was, of course, important for our own security because the fighting and the civil war we saw in the Balkans was also a direct threat to NATO allied countries. Then we conducted a big military operation in Afghanistan after attacks on the United States, 9/11. We have been fighting piracy off the Horn of Africa, conducted air strikes in Libya and we have done what we, in the NATO language, call “crisis management” or “projecting stability” beyond our borders because when our neighbours are stable, then we are more secure. So, for about twenty five years, we didn’t focus so much on collective defence in Europe because the Soviet Union wasn’t there. We didn’t see a real threat coming from Russia. And we focussed on crisis management, projecting stability beyond our borders: Afghanistan, the Balkans and other places in the world. Then the world changed again with a more assertive Russia, with Russia using force first in Georgia, then later on in 2014, against Ukraine, illegally annexing Crimea. And then NATO was called upon again. And then we are now faced with the double challenge of both, continuing to project stability beyond our borders with actually more instability, more violence close to NATO borders: Iraq, Syria, ISIL and North Africa. And Afghanistan is still a challenge for us. So we have to continue to do crisis management, project stability beyond our borders, but at the same time we have to do more collective defence in Europe. So we have in a way, not the luxury of choosing either crisis management beyond our borders or collective defence in Europe. We have to do both at the same time. That’s exactly what NATO now is doing. We are adapting NATO to a new and different world. We are increasing our strength in Europe. We have implemented the biggest reinforcement to our collective defence since the end of the Cold War. We have increased the readiness and responsiveness of our forces. We have tripled the size of something we call the “NATO Response Force,” a force which is able to reinforce to deploy quickly. And then, we have also for the first time deployed forces, so we are in the process of deploying forces, to the eastern part of the Alliance with the battle groups in the three Baltic countries, and to Poland and also increased presence in the south east of the Alliance. We do this because for us it is, of course, a co-responsibility is to continue to provide the necessary deterrents to prevent the war, not to provoke a war and we have adapted to a more assertive Russia, being responsible for aggressive action in Ukraine.

The important thing to remember is that, what NATO does is defensive, it is proportionate and we don’t want a new Cold War. We don’t seek confrontation with Russia and we, therefore, keep the channels for political dialogue open with Russia. And we are not strengthening our defence because we want to fight the war, but we are delivering strong deterrents because we now that’s the best way to prevent a war. At the same time, we are also now starting to increase defence spending because this has a cost, so we decided at our summit in Wales in 2014, that we needed to invest more in our defences. And some countries already meet the NATO target of spending 2 per cent or more on defence. The UK is among those countries, the United States is another. But most of the NATO allies do not spend 2 per cent, they spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence. So one of my, or perhaps, my main priority since I became Secretary General of NATO back in 2014, has been to urge member allies to invest more in defence. The good news is that they have actually started to do so. After many years of decline, defence spending have started to increase and there’s a long way to go, there’s still much to do, but at least, it is a good thing to see that more and more allies understand that they have to invest more in our security when times are changing, and when we see a more challenging and demanding security environment. In addition to doing more on collective defence in Europe, increasing our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, we have also stepped up our efforts to fight terrorism and to stabilize our neighbourhood. We continue in Afghanistan our biggest military operation ever. We support the effort of the coalition fighting ISIL. We train Iraqi officers. We provide support with our AWACS surveillance planes to planes from the UK and from the United States, and from other countries conducting airstrikes over Syria and Iraq against DAESH or ISIL. And we also work with other countries in the region like Jordan and Tunisia to help them being able to fight terrorism and to stabilise their own, or to maintain their own countries, as stable countries in the region. We are also present in the Mediterranean. We have deployed ships to the Aegean Sea to help cut the lines of illegal trafficking of the Aegean Sea.

The reason why I tell you all this is just to illustrate that NATO has been able to adapt and to change. The world has changed, so NATO has changed and we are doing both a collective defence in Europe but we stepped our op at the same time, our efforts to stabilize our neighbourhood. And that’s perhaps the most important thing, is that NATO has proven again and again that when the security environment changes, we are also able to change. We are changing the way we are delivering our core tasks. But our core tasks remains exactly the same that by standing together, by being strong and by defending each other, we make sure that all allies are safe and by that also, preserving peace and stability in Europe and North America. So for NATO, it is important to continue to be united and that’s the most important strength of our Alliance. I will stop there to make sure that we have time for some questions. Thank you so much.

CROWD (Oxford Union): (Clapping).

NOAH LACHS (President, Oxford Union):  Thank you very much Secretary General.  You ended there saying that the world has changed and therefore NATO has changed.  To what extent to you think Russia who, you know, originally the power you are blocking in terms of the Warsaw Pact, in terms of the potential saying the invasion to what extent are they once again the greatest threat to European stability and European peace? 

JENS STOLTENBERG (NATO SECRETARY GENERAL):  So we don’t see in there any imminent threat from Russia against any NATO country but what we see is a more assertive Russia, a Russia which has, over many years, invested heavily in defense.  They have tripled their defense spending since the year 2000 in real terms.  They have modernized capabilities, they are exercising more and they are much more modern in defence capabilities now, than they had just a few years ago and they are also modernizing their nuclear forces and they are also using a lot of, what I should say, rhetoric to intimidate neighbours and also related to their nuclear forces, a rhetoric related to the use of nuclear forces but, the most important thing is that we have seen a Russia which is willing to use military force against neighbours. 

We saw it first in 2008, in Georgia, but even more serious, we saw it in Ukraine, where they annexed, illegally annexed, Crimea and where they continue to destabilize Eastern Ukraine and the illegal annexation. Crimea is the first time since the end of the Second World War in Europe, that one country has used force to annex a part of another country so, all of this is the reason why we have stepped up, why we are investing more in collective defense, not because we want confrontation, not because we want a new arms race but because we have to respond in a measured, responsible, proportioned way to make sure that there is no miscalculations in Moscow about our resolve to protect and defend all allies. 

Q:  Sir, what do you think of the reasons for this sort of aggressive rhetoric, the increased defence spending.  Are Russia paranoid or is there an expansionist agenda?

JENS STOLTENBERG:  I think as always, what I say, I am bit reluctant to speculate too much about the thinking but what we can see is, what they actually do. And, what they actually do, is that they are trying to re-establish some kind of sphere of influence in the neighborhood to re-establish the thinking we had after the Second World War with the Yalta Agreement, where Europe was divided in spheres of interest.  That is history, that is not a way to, what should I say, govern Europe because that is undermining or violating the respect for each and every nation’s sovereignty and a right to decide its own path.  So we don’t believe in spheres of influence, we believe in the independence and the sovereignty of all nations but what Russia does in Georgia, in Moldova, in Ukraine and in other countries is to try to, in different ways, to re-establish some kind of neighborhood which they control and especially for the Baltic countries which were part of the Soviet Union of course for them it is extremely important to have the guarantees from NATO, that we will protect them, that they will be independent and free countries and that NATO is there to make sure that no one violates their sovereignty and their the territorial integrity of those countries.

Q:  Another place that Russia seems to have some influence is in the mind of President-elect Donald Trump who has hinted that he might be willing to join Putin in Syria to re-establish the total rule of Bashar Al Assad and defeating ISIS in the process.  If this is not simple rhetoric and if it is true, what does it mean for Russia’s and NATO’s, sort of former satellite states?

JENS STOLTENBERG:   First of all the important thing is that I am absolutely certain that the United States will continue to be committed to NATO and to our collective defense and to US security guarantees to Europe.  I spoke with the President-elect last week on the phone and he expressed strong support to NATO.  He expressed strong support to the idea of NATO, of our collective defense, our security guarantees and I am certain that that will continue to be the case, not only because President-elect Donald Trump stated clearly that he supports NATO, and the obligations we all have made as in being members of the alliance, but I also strongly believe of it because a strong NATO is not only good for Europe, it’s obviously good for us because that is a cornerstone of security, but it’s also good for the United States. I think that two World Wars and the Cold War have taught us all, including the United States, that stability and peace in Europe is also important for the United States and we have to remember that the first time we invoked the Article 5, the collective defense clause NATO, was after an attack on the United States after the 9/11 attacks on the United States back in 2001 showing NATO’s solidarity is also important for them, and hundreds of thousands of European NATO soldiers have served in Afghanistan in an operation which was triggered directly as a result of an attack on the United States.  So, I am certain that the United States will continue to be committed to NATO.  Then for NATO it is no problem that NATO Allies talk to Russia on different issues.  Actually NATO decided at our summit in Warsaw in July this year, that we will keep channels for a political dialogue open with Russia.  Russia is our biggest neighbour and we have to talk to them, we cannot isolate them, and we have to sit down and address different issues, both as NATO as an alliance, but also individual allys.  For instance, the United States. They have spoken with Russia on issues related to Syria, many times, both on how to try to find a peaceful negotiated solution, but also how to make sure that there is no, how shall I say, incidents, accidents taking place in Syria where both Russian forces operate and the United States operates.  Russia was instrumental when it came to, regarding the Iran nuclear deal so to speak to Russia, to talk to Russia, to have dialogue with Russia is, is, absolutely in line with NATO policies and NATO decisions. So that’s nothing we should be concerned of. 

Q:  Okay, one of Donald Trump’s major gripes with NATO is similar to your own, it’s people not paying their way, not reaching this 2% and in fact there is four countries in Europe that make that 2% and as you said it’s England, Poland, Estonia and Greece.  What’s the reason that the other countries aren’t paying their way?

JENS STOLTENBERG:   The reason is that almost all politicians that I have met they would have preferred to spend money on defense, no sorry, on education, on health and infrastructure instead of defense because most people like education, health more than defense.  So, if politicians have, and what I say, an opportunity to do, to spend more on health and education and less on defense, they will do it; and I think we also have to understand that this is linked to the fact that for many years we saw tensions going down.  After the end of the Cold War, tensions went down, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and we felt that we lived in a safer world and I have told many people before that when I was Minister of Finance back in Norway in the 1990s I was responsible for cutting defense spending and I was quite, as I say, impressed by my ability to do so; but, when I became Prime Minister later on, I was also responsible for increasing defense spending in Norway after 2008, and the reason why I am saying that is, that I think it’s absolutely understandable that countries reduce defense spending when tensions are going down as long as they are able to increase defense spending when tensions are increasing and we live in a more dangerous world and that’s exactly the case now.  So, yes, it was possible to explain why we reduced in the 1990s and perhaps in the beginning of the year 2000, but now we have to be able to increase and as I said, the, the picture in Europe is still very mixed, but at least the picture in Europe is better than it was two years ago, because in 2014 it made a decision to start increase defense spending and now European Allies have started to move in that direction.  The UK leads by example because more nations are now following the UK and have started to increase defense spending.

Q:   Do you think there is something to worry about in Europe, in that stable Europe that you have described with the recent Brexit referendum here and potential referendum in France if Marie Le Pen gets in?  That the EU could disintegrate and we’d see sort of more sectarian violence as we used to maybe 100 years ago?

JENS STOLTENBERG:  First, I would like to state that what you have seen is, of course, for many, many years that there has been a lot of debate about the European Union.  We have seen different discussions about the future of the European Union and that is important. But, at the same time, we are seeing that NATO has remained united and strong.  So, of course, Brexit, that is not for me to comment.  I don't have any opinion on Brexit but Brexit has not, what shall I say, made NATO less united, if anything the opposite. NATO is an alliance of 28 democracies soon to be 29 with Montenegro.  People in different allied countries elect people from, or leaders from different parties with different political views, there are many different opinions among leaders in NATO countries but we have always proven that we are able to agree on our core cause to be together, to stand together and to protect each other and as long as we are able to do that, NATO is able to deliver what we are supposed to deliver; a strong collective defense deterrent and by that, protecting all allies.  So I am not going to debate about the future of the European Union but I have seen that NATO has been able to stay united, stay strong, also in times where we have seen more instability and political uncertainties around us.

Q:   So one of those nations with a complex relationship with the European Union, but a strong relationship with NATO is Turkey.  Now in 2015, Turkey involved Article 4, after the threats by ISIS to its territorial integrity yet Kurdish forces accuse Turkey of enabling and even helping ISIS.  Can Turkey rely on NATO’s support to protect itself from ISIS but also use ISIS to pursue and anti-Kurdish agenda?

JENS STOLTENBERG:  Turkey is a key ally for NATO, not least because of its geographical location.  Turkey is bordering Syria and Iraq, bordering ISIL in Syria and Iraq and Turkey is bordering both Ukraine and Russia in the North in the Black Sea and Georgia in the East. So, and Turkey has the second largest army in NATO.  Turkey holds 3 million, around 3 million refugees, so Turkey’s key,  both when it comes to the way we respond to a more assertive Russia, but also in the way NATO addresses the challenges with turmoil, violence to the South, ISIL DAESH, but also the migrant and refugee crisis.  All of this makes Turkey important, not only for NATO but for the whole of Europe and also for the European Union.  Turkey is a member of NATO but not a member of the European Union.  I visited Istanbul when I met with President Erdogan on Monday.  We discussed many different challenges we face together, but one of the challenges of course we discussed was the fight against ISIL and Turkey has now stepped up its effort, its efforts to fight ISIL.  They have ground troops in Syria and in Iraq where they fight ISIL and the important thing for me is that there is maximum coordination between Turkey, with its forces in Syria, and the US and other NATO allies which are present in the same countries.  NATO as an Alliance, is not present in Syria.   NATO, as an Alliance, supports Turkey.  We have increased our military presence equal in insurance measures in Turkey, and we are supporting the Alliance, but NATO as an organization is not responsible for ongoing operations in Syria, so how those operations are conducted I think it’s right of me to leave to the US, Turkey and the other countries which are on the ground. 

NOAH LACHS:  Thank you very much.  Now I would like to go to the audience.  If you have a question put your hand up high and wait for the microphone to get to you.   Could we go to the gentleman on that side. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER 1:   Yes Sir.  Thank you very much for being here today.  You spoke a lot about NATO’s deterrence capability vis-à-vis Russia, and I wonder, it seems to me that, that the deterrence capability is best, best organized to deter a conventional threat and there’s a lot of talk today about hybrid warfare as a threat that emanates from Russia and I wonder if Russia isn’t really operating with tanks and fighter aircraft and overland assault but rather through propaganda, political subversion, little green men how exactly is NATO positioned to deter that threat?

 JENS STOLTENBERG:  First of all I think you are very right that cyber and different kinds of covert operations, sometimes called hybrid warfare is, what I say, is a very big challenge and many of the threats that we have seen, have been much more related to that kind of warfare than more conventional attacks and what we saw in Crimea was what is referred to as “hybrid warfare” with what you  called “little green men”.   It’s hard to where the idea is to conduct covert operations, to deny in a way, responsibility and then create and use propaganda and so on to try and destabilize the country and by that conduct aggressive operations.  This was one of the issues I discussed with Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday.  Cyber is extremely important in modern warfare.  It’s hard to imagine any conflict without a cyber-component and the U.K. is lead, the U.K. has capabilities, competent skills in cyber, which is of high value for all of us.  NATO has decided, and we are in the process of strengthening our cyber-defenses. At the Summit again in Warsaw in July of this year, we made two important decisions. 

First we made the decision to establish cyber as a domain, as a military domain so now we have air, sea, land and cyber as military domains and that will enable us to be more, to better coordinate our efforts, to better focus our efforts related to cyber and cyber-attacks. 

Second we agreed on a cyber-pledge which is a kind of road map on our way in many different ways can increase and strengthen our cyber defenses.  That’s partly about protecting our own networks against cyber-attacks and partly about assisting, helping allies to improve their defenses of their own networks because the responder is the nation, then NATO is there to help and assist if needed.  An important thing with cyber is that, is that that’s something which is ongoing, because when you speak about other kind of threats there is a kind of theoretical possibility that we will have a conventional attack sometime in the future but cyber that happens almost daily against NATO Allies and NATO, so we have to defend ourselves against cyber-attacks every day and one of the key issues about that is attribution, is to tell who is behind and so increase and improve cyber-defenses is high on our agenda and Prime Minister May is very focused on that.  The U.K. is the lead nation and we work closely with the UK in addressing those challenges. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER 1:  Thanks.

. [APPLAUSE]

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

テーマ:

3月1日分

東洋経済オンライン     http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/160053

 「今こそ、日産のCEO職を引き継ぐのに適切な時期であると判断した」

 日産自動車は2月23日、カルロス・ゴーン社長が4月1日付けで社長とCEOを退任し、後任に西川廣人共同CEOをあてる人事を発表した。ゴーン氏は引き続き代表権のある会長を務め、ルノーや三菱自動車を含む連合全体の経営を指揮する。

 日産としては2000年6月以来、およそ17年ぶりの社長交代になる。だが記者会見はなくプレスリリースのみで、いささかあっさりした発表となった。

社長退任の予兆はあった

 もっとも、社長交代が唐突というわけでもなかった。ゴーン氏は2016年12月に日産の傘下に入った三菱自動車で代表取締役会長に就任。三菱自動車の経営に一定の労力や時間を割くことを見越して、前月の11月には生産・開発など「ものづくり」を統括するCCO(チーフコンペティティブオフィサー)だった西川氏を日産の共同CEOに昇格させて仕事を分担していた。

 またゴーン氏は日産のほか、ルノーでは会長、社長、CEOを兼務しているうえ、日産・ルノー連合の会長兼CEOにも就いており、ただでさえ多忙を極めていた。

 三菱自動車を新たに加えた日産・ルノー連合の2016年の世界販売台数は1000万台規模にまで拡大。トヨタ自動車や独フォルクスワーゲン(VW)、米ゼネラル・モーターズ(GM)と匹敵する規模を手に入れ、今後は自動運転や電動化など技術開発競争でいかに勝ち残れるかが焦点になる。

 今回の体制変更についてゴーン氏は、「連合の戦略面および事業上の進化により多くの時間と労力をかけ、連合の持つ規模による競争優位性をパートナー各社に享受させることができる」と述べ、連合経営により傾注する考えを示した。

 日産の社長兼CEOをほかの人材に任せられる状況が整ったことも大きい。かつて2兆円もの有利子負債を自動車事業で抱えた日産は1999年にルノーの傘下に入り、「再生請負人」として送りこまれたゴーン氏の大胆な経営改革で息を吹き返した。北米や中国で販売を拡大し、今年度の世界販売は提携時の2倍以上の560万台を見込む。

 2013年まで8年7か月にわたってCOO(最高執行責任者)を務め、ゴーン社長の番頭役だった志賀俊之副会長は、今回の人事について「かつてはゴーンさん1人におんぶに抱っこだった日産が強くなってきたことの裏返しでもあり嬉しい」と話す。

 2016年11月、東洋経済のインタビューで自動車産業で成し遂げたい夢を尋ねられたゴーン氏は、「日産は財務的な健全性を回復し、競争力の強い会社になった。これはもう終わったこと。引き続き強化しなければならないのは連合の力だ」と語っていた。

 日産・ルノー連合の力を強化するうえでカギを握るのは、新技術の開発速度を引き上げることだろう。

 今年1月に米ラスベガスで開かれたCES(家電見本市)に日産は初出展。基調講演を行ったゴーン社長は、「電気自動車、コネクテッドカー、自動運転といった技術を同時に1社では開発できない。社内にない技術は(社外と)協力してイノベーションを起こす」と話し、異業界を含めて他社との連携を加速させる考えを示した。自動運転技術において日産は、すでに米国のNASA(航空宇宙局)、イスラエルのモービルアイ、日本のディー・エヌ・エーとパートナーシップを結び、共同開発を進める。

 他社と連携したり、技術やプラットフォームの共用化を進めたりするうえでも、連合メンバーである日産、ルノー、三菱自、ロシアのアフトワズがバラバラに動いていては効率が悪い。

ゴーン氏は持株会社トップのような存在に

 かつてゴーン氏の下で日産役員だった部品メーカー首脳は「連合の一体経営をより強化する観点からも、ゴーンさんは持株会社のトップのような役回りに徹したいのではないか」と話す。実際、ゴーン氏が会長職に就いた三菱自ではCEOは益子修社長が担う。日産からは全幅の信頼を置く生え抜きのトレバー・マン氏をCOOとして送り込んだ。任せられる仕事はどんどん任せる姿勢だ。

 一方で出身母体のルノーではまだCEOの座にとどまっている。任期は2018年までで、そのときにゴーン氏は64歳になる。ルノーではCEOの定年は65歳だが、任期中に再任されれば4年延長ができ、ゴーン氏は68歳までCEOの職にとどまることになる。だが連合の仕事に専念したいのであれば、ルノーのCEOもあと1年ほどで退任するのかもしれない。

 今年に入って日本ではトヨタとスズキが業務提携で合意。ルノーのおひざ元であるフランスでは、PSAプジョーシトロエングループがGMの欧州子会社である独オペルや、マレーシアの国民車メーカー、プロトンの買収に意欲を示すなど、自動車業界では合従連衡が進む。ちなみにPSAの現CEOは、かつてルノーCOOとしてゴーン氏と二人三脚で経営に取り組んだカルロス・タバレス氏。ゴーン氏が意識していないはずはない。

 日産やルノーのお家芸とも呼べる電気自動車では米テスラが急速に追い上げており、3万5000ドルからの量販価格帯で新型車を2017年にも発売する計画だ。VWやトヨタもEV開発を加速させている。

 変化の激しい時代に日産・ルノー連合を今後も正しい方向に導き、競争力を引き上げることができるか、日産のトップを退任してもなお、ゴーン氏の担う責任は重い。

 「今こそ、日産のCEO職を引き継ぐのに適切な時期であると判断した」

 日産自動車は2月23日、カルロス・ゴーン社長が4月1日付けで社長とCEOを退任し、後任に西川廣人共同CEOをあてる人事を発表した。ゴーン氏は引き続き代表権のある会長を務め、ルノーや三菱自動車を含む連合全体の経営を指揮する。

 日産としては2000年6月以来、およそ17年ぶりの社長交代になる。だが記者会見はなくプレスリリースのみで、いささかあっさりした発表となった。

社長退任の予兆はあった

 もっとも、社長交代が唐突というわけでもなかった。ゴーン氏は2016年12月に日産の傘下に入った三菱自動車で代表取締役会長に就任。三菱自動車の経営に一定の労力や時間を割くことを見越して、前月の11月には生産・開発など「ものづくり」を統括するCCO(チーフコンペティティブオフィサー)だった西川氏を日産の共同CEOに昇格させて仕事を分担していた。

 またゴーン氏は日産のほか、ルノーでは会長、社長、CEOを兼務しているうえ、日産・ルノー連合の会長兼CEOにも就いており、ただでさえ多忙を極めていた。

 三菱自動車を新たに加えた日産・ルノー連合の2016年の世界販売台数は1000万台規模にまで拡大。トヨタ自動車や独フォルクスワーゲン(VW)、米ゼネラル・モーターズ(GM)と匹敵する規模を手に入れ、今後は自動運転や電動化など技術開発競争でいかに勝ち残れるかが焦点になる。

 今回の体制変更についてゴーン氏は、「連合の戦略面および事業上の進化により多くの時間と労力をかけ、連合の持つ規模による競争優位性をパートナー各社に享受させることができる」と述べ、連合経営により傾注する考えを示した。

 日産の社長兼CEOをほかの人材に任せられる状況が整ったことも大きい。かつて2兆円もの有利子負債を自動車事業で抱えた日産は1999年にルノーの傘下に入り、「再生請負人」として送りこまれたゴーン氏の大胆な経営改革で息を吹き返した。北米や中国で販売を拡大し、今年度の世界販売は提携時の2倍以上の560万台を見込む。

 2013年まで8年7か月にわたってCOO(最高執行責任者)を務め、ゴーン社長の番頭役だった志賀俊之副会長は、今回の人事について「かつてはゴーンさん1人におんぶに抱っこだった日産が強くなってきたことの裏返しでもあり嬉しい」と話す。

 2016年11月、東洋経済のインタビューで自動車産業で成し遂げたい夢を尋ねられたゴーン氏は、「日産は財務的な健全性を回復し、競争力の強い会社になった。これはもう終わったこと。引き続き強化しなければならないのは連合の力だ」と語っていた。

 日産・ルノー連合の力を強化するうえでカギを握るのは、新技術の開発速度を引き上げることだろう。

 今年1月に米ラスベガスで開かれたCES(家電見本市)に日産は初出展。基調講演を行ったゴーン社長は、「電気自動車、コネクテッドカー、自動運転といった技術を同時に1社では開発できない。社内にない技術は(社外と)協力してイノベーションを起こす」と話し、異業界を含めて他社との連携を加速させる考えを示した。自動運転技術において日産は、すでに米国のNASA(航空宇宙局)、イスラエルのモービルアイ、日本のディー・エヌ・エーとパートナーシップを結び、共同開発を進める。

 他社と連携したり、技術やプラットフォームの共用化を進めたりするうえでも、連合メンバーである日産、ルノー、三菱自、ロシアのアフトワズがバラバラに動いていては効率が悪い。

ゴーン氏は持株会社トップのような存在に

 かつてゴーン氏の下で日産役員だった部品メーカー首脳は「連合の一体経営をより強化する観点からも、ゴーンさんは持株会社のトップのような役回りに徹したいのではないか」と話す。実際、ゴーン氏が会長職に就いた三菱自ではCEOは益子修社長が担う。日産からは全幅の信頼を置く生え抜きのトレバー・マン氏をCOOとして送り込んだ。任せられる仕事はどんどん任せる姿勢だ。

 一方で出身母体のルノーではまだCEOの座にとどまっている。任期は2018年までで、そのときにゴーン氏は64歳になる。ルノーではCEOの定年は65歳だが、任期中に再任されれば4年延長ができ、ゴーン氏は68歳までCEOの職にとどまることになる。だが連合の仕事に専念したいのであれば、ルノーのCEOもあと1年ほどで退任するのかもしれない。

 今年に入って日本ではトヨタとスズキが業務提携で合意。ルノーのおひざ元であるフランスでは、PSAプジョーシトロエングループがGMの欧州子会社である独オペルや、マレーシアの国民車メーカー、プロトンの買収に意欲を示すなど、自動車業界では合従連衡が進む。ちなみにPSAの現CEOは、かつてルノーCOOとしてゴーン氏と二人三脚で経営に取り組んだカルロス・タバレス氏。ゴーン氏が意識していないはずはない。

 日産やルノーのお家芸とも呼べる電気自動車では米テスラが急速に追い上げており、3万5000ドルからの量販価格帯で新型車を2017年にも発売する計画だ。VWやトヨタもEV開発を加速させている。

 変化の激しい時代に日産・ルノー連合を今後も正しい方向に導き、競争力を引き上げることができるか、日産のトップを退任してもなお、ゴーン氏の担う責任は重い。

いいね!した人  |  リブログ(0)

AD

Ameba人気のブログ

Amebaトピックス

      ランキング

      • 総合
      • 新登場
      • 急上昇
      • トレンド

      ブログをはじめる

      たくさんの芸能人・有名人が
      書いているAmebaブログを
      無料で簡単にはじめることができます。

      公式トップブロガーへ応募

      多くの方にご紹介したいブログを
      執筆する方を「公式トップブロガー」
      として認定しております。

      芸能人・有名人ブログを開設

      Amebaブログでは、芸能人・有名人ブログを
      ご希望される著名人の方/事務所様を
      随時募集しております。