ＴＰＰ交渉がまとまった、か否か、のような報道ばかり。ＴＰＰ＝関税交渉ではないのです。それは全体の一部にすぎない。
アメリカが狙っているのはその他の、ガッポリと、カネを、とくに日本から吸い上げる計画。これを報道しないのは国民を欺く行為。
ＴＰＰ交渉の全体の大枠が決まらない限り、今回の関税交渉はいつでも反故にできるのです。その点を強調した報道もない。
「参加国がアメリカの経済的な植民地になるＴＰＰ」の全体の交渉が上手く行く筈がない。現在まで行われてきた関税交渉は完全にエネルギーの無駄です。
-----------------------------------------------------
孫崎 享さんの記事です：
オバマ尖閣発言：安倍首相に好まれる部分のみ報道するマスコミ（続、原文紹介）
2014-04-27 06:591
日本のメディアは尖閣問題について「安保条約の適用になる」とのみ報道しているが、４つの点を発言している。うち３つについてほとんど関心を払っていない。 ４つのポイントは次の通り。
①尖閣諸島は安保条約の対象になる。ただしこれは何も新しい立場ではなく、国務長官、国防長官がとってきた立場である。ちなみに尖閣諸島を、this piece of land orthis rock と表現している。これを見ればオバマ大統領がどれだけの意義を尖閣に与えているかが推測される。
②領有権問題については日中のどちら側の立場も取らない。
③平和的に解決すること、事態をエスカレーションしない事、レトリックを低くすること、挑発的行為を取らない事の重要性を強調した。（当然、日本も対象）
“In our discussions I emphasized with Prime Minister Abe the importance of resolving this issue peacefully… not escalating the situation… keeping the rhetoric low… not taking provocative actions,” he said.
④（米国が武力行使するかどうかの）レッドラインは引かれていない。かつ米国の反応は軍事行動だけでなく、軍事介入しなくても貢献できる点について言及している。
この4つの中でオバマ大統領が最も言いたかったことは③である。その意義を日本のマスコミはほとんど報じていない。
今日大手マスコミの報道基準は「安倍政権が報じて欲しいか否か」であり、「ニュースにどれ位の価値があるか」でないという恐ろしい状況を作っている。
これらについて具体的にどの様な表現を下記に示す。
Joint Press Conference with President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan
Akasaka Palace Tokyo, Japan
Q To President Obama, the following question: Based on the security treaty, the obligation to defend the Senkaku Islands, this is the first time that you referred to this issue. Why did you mention this? Could you talk about the import of your statement?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Our position is not new. Secretary Hagel, our Defense Secretary, when he visited here, Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited here, both indicated what has been our consistent position throughout.
We don’t take a position on final sovereignty determinations with respect to Senkakus, but historically they have been administered by Japan and we do not believe that they should be subject to change unilaterally. And what is a consistent part of the alliance is that the treaty covers all territories administered by Japan. So this is not a new position, this is a consistent one.
In our discussions, I emphasized with Prime Minister Abe the importance of resolving this issue peacefully -- not escalating the situation, keeping the rhetoric low, not taking provocative actions, and trying to determine how both Japan and China can work cooperatively together. And I want to make that larger point. We have strong relations with China. They are a critical country not just to the region, but to the world. （一部省略）
So we are invested in an international order, and that applies to a whole range of issues, including maritime issues. My hope is, is that China will continue to engage with us and other countries in the region where we do not take a position on the particular sovereignty of this piece of land or this rock but we do take a position in making sure that all countries are following basic international procedures in resolving these disputes. And if that happens, then I think not only will China be successful, but I think there’s a great potential for Chinese and Japanese cooperation, Chinese and Vietnamese cooperation, cooperation with the Philippines and China -- all of which will benefit the peoples of the region.
MR. CARNEY: The next question comes from Jim Acosta of CNN.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Arigato, Mr. Prime Minister. Mr. President, in regards to the Senkaku Islands, I just want to make sure that this is absolutely clear. Are you saying that the U.S. would consider using military force were China to have some sort of military incursion in those islands to protect those islands? And how does that not draw another red line that you would have to enforce -- of putting U.S. credibility, your credibility on the line once again, as it was in the case with Syria and Russia? And on another key security issue, you mentioned North Korea in your meeting with the Prime Minister. Are you issuing a warning to North Korea that there should not be another nuclear test?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Jim, let me unpack that question because there’s a whole bunch of assumptions in there, some of which I don’t agree with.
First of all, the treaty between the United States and Japan preceded my birth, so obviously, this isn’t a “red line” that I’m drawing; it is the standard interpretation over multiple administrations of the terms of the alliance, which is that territories under the administration of Japan are covered under the treaty. There’s no shift in position. There’s no “red line” that’s been drawn. We’re simply applying the treaty.
At the same time, as I’ve said directly to the Prime Minister that it would be a profound mistake to continue to see escalation around this issue rather than dialogue and confidence-building measures between Japan and China. And we’re going to do everything we can to encourage that diplomatically.
With respect to the other issues that you raise, our position, Jim, the United States’ position is that countries should abide by international law; that those laws, those rules, those norms are violated when you gas children, or when you invade the territory of another country. Now, the implication of the question I think is, is that each and every time a country violates one of those norms the United States should go to war, or stand prepared to engage militarily, and if it doesn’t then somehow we’re not serious about those norms. Well, that’s not the case.
Right now, we have 87 percent of serious chemical weapons have already been removed from Syria. There’s about 13 percent left. That’s as a consequence of U.S. leadership. And the fact that we didn’t have to fire a missile to get that accomplished is not a failure to uphold those international norms, it’s a success. It’s not a complete success until we have the last 13 percent out.
孫崎 享
駐イラン大使
外務省国際情報局＊長 1997年-1999年
駐ウズベキスタン大使（初代） 1993年-1996年
＊米国のＣＩＡ，英国のＭＩ６などに相当する
日本の情報局です。でも日本の場合は攻撃性
がないですね。
amazon「戦後史の正体」孫崎 享著
http://is.gd/a7bYd4