[在フィリピン大使館]米国へ渡航される方へ：電子渡航認証システムの有料化

29℃のフィリピン。


大使館からのメールです。


＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

大使館からのお知らせ

＜米国へ渡航される方へ（米国ＥＳＴＡ：電子渡航認証システムの有料化）＞


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 平成２２年９月２日
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　在フィリピン日本国大使館


１．米国政府は、我が国との間で締結されている査証免除プログラムに基づき、日本国民が短期の商用や観光等で９０日以内の短期滞在目的で米国を訪問する場合（含、米国における乗り継ぎ）は査証（ビザ）を免除しており、米国の査証を取得する必要はありませんが、２００９年１月１２日以降、米国への渡航者（トランジットを含む）に対し事前に電子渡航認証システム（Electronic System for Travel Authorization／ＥＳＴＡ／以下「ＥＳＴＡ」）に従って申請を行い、認証を受けることを義務づけています。

２．この度、米国政府は、本年９月８日（米国東部夏時間午前０時）以降、「ＥＳＴＡ」申請時に運営及び旅行振興料として一人あたり１４米ドルを課すことを発表しました。なお、「ＥＳＴＡ」申請および更新の際の支払いは「ＥＳＴＡ」
専門ウェブサイトを通して行い、支払い方法はクレジットカードあるいはデビットカードに限られています。ただし、現在、「ＥＳＴＡ」システムで受付ができるカードの種類は、MasterCard, VISA, American Express及びDiscoverに限られ、また、支払い情報が受け付けられるまで、申請は完了しないとされています。

３．今回の発表では、「ＥＳＴＡ」で一度認証された渡航者が「ＥＳＴＡ」申請を更新する際、料金を支払う必要はないとされていますが、パスポートが更新された場合や「ＥＳＴＡ」を再申請する場合には、料金を支払う必要があるとのことです。

４．つきましては、米国への渡航を予定している方におかれましては、改めて以下の関係先ホームページをご覧の上、本「ＥＳＴＡ」につきご確認されるようお願いします。

＊外務省ホームページ：http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/toko/passport/us_esta.html
＊米国国土安全保障省：http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/national/08062010_2.xml
＊在京米国大使館：http://japan.usembassy.gov/j/visa/tvisaj-important.html

以上

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

休憩

26℃のフィリピン。


今朝はTwitterでも載せたけど、SLEXが大渋滞。


何故かと言うと8台が絡んだ交通事故のせいらしい。


さっきやっと顧客への報告書が終わって、午後は社長とGMへの本社移転に関する報告書の提出。


ちょっと面倒だけどね。


あっ！


夜に使う制服のベルトを忘れてきたので、一旦家に帰ります！！！


午後も頑張りましょう～！

久しぶりに

30℃のフィリピン。


今日は珍しくスコールが無かった。


昼間に学生時代の友達と電話で話をした。


先日電話したときには息子が出て、しっかりとした対応をしていたのに驚いた。


今日は本人と少し話しをした。


鍵屋の彼曰く、日本は今不景気らしい。


その中でふともう1人の人間の事が頭をよぎったので、Netで検索したら今北海道をバイクでツーリング中っぽい。


相変わらずだ。


学生のころからやっている音楽もずっと続けているみたい。


彼のブログはライオンの詩 ~sing's word & diary 2 から


結構いい唄、唄うんだよ。


元気そうで何よりだ。


ちょっと昔が懐かしくなった今日この頃。


T.G.I.F.　お疲れ様！

時間の無駄！

30℃のフィリピン。


午前中に行ったMakatiは雨だった。


今日何故本社に行ったかというと、先週辞めた運転手（彼が最短）の代わりの面接の為。


人事総務曰く3人予定との事で、仕方なく行くことに。


でもね、実際北のはたったの1人。


彼を選べって？　そりゃあ難しいな。　タガログ語が殆どで英語は少しという彼。


経歴は運転手とボディーガードだそう。


ボディーガードって言うので、興味は湧いたんだけどコミュニケーションが大事なのでやはり今回は見送ることにした。


来週再度面接のし直しです。


たった一人のために往復3時間掛けていったのにねっ！　参っちゃうよ。


自分で運転させてくれればいいのにな。。。


社長曰く、この国は拳銃で死にいたるよりも、車の事故で命を亡くす確率の方が多いからNG！


週末は運転してるんだけどな～　みたいな・・・

フィリピンバスジャック事件における警察の10の間違い

29℃のフィリピン。


あるセキュリティーアナリストの報告で、今回のフィリピンバスジャックでの警察の包囲作戦について10個の間違いが指摘されています。


今後の活動に役立てて欲しいものです。



Ten things the Philippinesbus siege police got wrong


A security analyst who has worked in counter-terrorismwith the British Army and Scotland Yard, Charles Shoebridge, says the officersinvolved in Manila's bus siege showed great courage - but they were not properly trained or equippedfor the task.

Here are 10 areas where, in his view, they could have done better.

1. Determination　決断力
The first officers who tried to storm the bus were driven out by gunshotsfrom the hostage taker, former policeman Rolando Mendoza. "They showedgreat courage to go on board. It's very crowded, just one aisle down the middleof the bus. But once you get on board it's not unexpected you are going to befired at. Squads like this have to be made up of very special people, speciallytrained and selected for their characteristics of courage, determination andaggression. In this case they acted as 99% of the population would have, whichwas to turn round and get out. They didn't seem to have the necessarydetermination and aggression to follow the attack through.

2. Lack of equipment　装備不足
The police spent a long time smashing the windows of the bus, whereasexplosive charges (known as frame charges) would have knocked in windows anddoors instantly. "They had no ladders to get through the windows. Theysmashed the windows but didn't know what to do next," Mr Shoebridge says."They almost looked like a group of vandals." Their firearms werealso inappropriate - some had pistols, some had assault rifles. Ideally theywould have carried a short submachine gun, suitable for use in confined spaces.


3. Lost opportunity to disarm thegunman 武装解除の機会を逃す

Mendoza'sgun was not always raised
There were numerous opportunities to restrain the gunman, Mr Shoebridgebelieves. "The negotiators were so close to him, and he had his weaponhanging down by his side. He could have been disabled without having to killhim."

4. Lost opportunity to shoot thegunman　犯人狙撃の機会を逃す

The video of the drama also shows there were occasions when the gunman wasstanding alone, during the course of the day, and could have been shot by asharpshooter. "You are dealing with an unpredictable and irrationalindividual. The rule should be that if in the course of negotiations anopportunity arises to end the situation decisively, it should be taken,"Mr Shoebridge says. Either this possibility did not occur to the officers incharge, he adds, or they considered it and decided to carry on talking.

5. Satisfying the gunman's demands　犯人の要求を満たせず
"I wondered why the authorities just didn't give in to all of hisdemands," says Charles Shoebridge. "A promise extracted under forceis not a promise that you are required to honour. Nobody wants to give in tothe demands of terrorists, but in a situation like this, which did not involvea terrorist group, or release of prisoners, they could have just accepted hisdemands. He could be reinstated in the police - and then be immediately put inprison for life for hostage taking." The Philippines authorities did in factgive in to the gunman's demands, but too little, too late. One message promisedto review his case, while he wanted it formally dismissed. A second messagereinstating him as a police offer only arrived after the shooting had started.

6. Televised proceedings　テレビでの情報提供
The gunman was able to follow events on television, revealing to himeverything that was going on around him. This was a "crucial defect in thepolice handling", Mr Shoebridge says. He adds that police should alwaysconsider putting a barrier or screen around the area, to shield the scene fromthe cameras and keep the hostage taker in the dark.

7. No element of surprise　全てがお見通し
It was clear to the gunman what the police were doing at all times, not onlybecause the whole incident was televised, but also because they moved"laboriously slowly", Mr Shoebridge says. The police did not distracthim, so were unable to exploit the "crucial element of surprise".

8. Safeguarding the public　市民保護


This boy, a bystander, was hit by a stray bullet At least one bystander was shot, possibly because the public was allowed tooclose. The bullet from an M16 rifle, as carried by the gunman, can travel forabout a mile, so preventing any risk of injury would have been difficult, MrShoebridge says, but a lot more could have been done. "When you saw thecamera view from above, it was clear there was little command and control ofthe public on the ground," he says.

9. Using the gunman's brother tonegotiate　犯人の弟を交渉に使用
Relatives and close friends can be a double-edged sword, Mr Shoebridge says.While they may have leverage over the hostage taker, what they are sayingcannot be easily controlled. In this case, the gunman's brother was included inthe negotiations - however, at a certain stage he became agitated and policestarted to remove him from the scene. The gunman saw this on television, andbecame agitated himself. According to one report he fired a warning shot.

10. Insufficient training　トレーニング不足
In some parts of the Philippines,such as Mindanao, hostage taking is not anuncommon occurrence, so the country has some forces that are well trained inthe necessary tactics. The detachment involved in Monday's incident clearly wasnot, says Mr Shoebridge. After smashing the windows, one of the officerseventually put some CS gas inside, though "to what effect was notclear" he says. A unit involved in this work, needs to be "trainedagain and again, repeatedly practising precisely this kind of scenario,"he says..

前回の”フィリピンバスジャック事件、生存者からの手紙 ”同様に、昨日かみさんからのメールで情報を得ました。

リンク元はBBC NEWS

情報が早いね！