Nobel Peace Prize Sows Discord -- and Laughter
( TIME )

There are five of them: two men, three women, all Norwegians. They
include ex-Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland, two former
parliamentarians, a top lawyer and a onetime Bishop of Oslo. They
look sobersided enough; you might easily believe them to be the board
directors of a cementmaker or an accounting firm. But the Nobel
committee has once again proved its flair for comedy, by awarding the
2012 Peace Prize to the European Union.

Comedy, of course, depends on timing, and the timing of this award
couldn’t be more piquant. As Jagland acknowledged in his Oct. 12
announcement of the winner, the E.U. “is currently undergoing grave
economic difficulties and considerable social unrest.” As the
members of the single currency find themselves trapped, in the
memorable phrase of British Foreign Secretary William Hague, “in a
burning building with no exits,” governments are battling one
another and, not infrequently, their own citizens. As soon as news of
the award broke, leaked by Norwegian public broadcaster NRK some 30
minutes before Jagland confirmed it, Twitter convulsed with
merriment. Perhaps the committee meant to honor the E.U. for
economics, mused some jesters. Others speculated that Germany would
collect the prize money, more than US$1 million, and refuse to share
it with Greece.

To be fair, it’s not easy choosing the Peace Prize recipient. This
year the committee had to evaluate 231 nominations -- 188 for
individuals and 43 for organizations. They opted for the E.U. on the
basis that “the union and its forerunners have for over six decades
contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy
and human rights in Europe,” said Jagland.

European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso greeted news of the
award with enthusiasm. It “is justified recognition for a unique
project that works for the benefit of its citizens and also for the
world,” he said. He didn’t look as if he was gritting his teeth.
Yet as previous Peace Prize winners could tell him (take a bow,
Barack Obama), the funniest thing of all about the Nobel Peace Prize
is its ability to create division and draw fire on its recipients.
Once again, the Nobel committee has excelled itself.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |


「サム・バジーレ」の友人たち 映画「イノセンス・オブ・ムスリム」人名録

Friends of 'Sam Bacile': A Who's Who of the Innocence of Muslims Film
( TIME )

An Internet clip of an amateurish, virulently anti-Muslim film called
Innocence of Muslims is being identified as one of the flash points
behind the anti-U.S. demonstrations in the Middle East that led to
the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi,
Libya, earlier this week. As journalists work to uncover more details
about the makers of the film, here’s what we know about the cast of
characters so far:

Sam Bacile

In July, a person working under this pseudonym posted a 14-minute
trailer for Innocence of Muslims on YouTube. It was widely thought to
be the filmmaker’s real name, after a man identifying himself as Sam
Bacile spoke to both the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal
on Tuesday. Bacile identified himself as a California-based real
estate developer, either 52 or 56 years old, and claimed he was both
the writer and director of the film.

“Islam is a cancer,” he repeated to both publications. He said he
was an Israeli American who filmed and produced the two-hour movie
last year in California. Funding for the movie, he explained, came
from 100 Jewish donors, who pitched in a total of $5 million.

Public-records searches by TIME and others have yielded nothing
tangible about a Sam Bacile in California, leading many to conclude
that the name is a pseudonym. The Israeli government said it has no
record of Bacile as a citizen. Steve Klein (see below), a backer and
purported consultant on the film, told the Atlantic he was neither
Israeli nor Jewish. “This guy is totally anonymous. At this point,
no one can confirm he holds Israeli citizenship, and even if he did,
we are not involved,” Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal
Palmor told CNN.

The film allegedly calls the holy Muslim Prophet Muhammad a fraud and
shows him engaged in sex acts. Muslims believe it’s inappropriate to
depict the Prophet under any circumstances, especially insulting
ones. (In 2005, a Danish newspaper published caricatures of Muhammad
that incited riots in many Middle Eastern nations.) But the film only
started riling tempers in the Middle East last week, after the Sam
Bacile YouTube account posted an Arabic translation of the Innocence
of Muslims film.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |


ムーン・サンミョン、1920〜2012年 死せる救世主は巨万の富を築いた

Sun Myung Moon, 1920 - 2012: The Death of a Messiah Who Made It Rich
( TIME )

The Rev. Sun Myung Moon was proof that charisma is not necessary to
start a religion: organization is. Born in 1920 in what is now
communist-ruled North Korea, Moon survived the battles that split the
peninsula to establish a mud-and-cardboard church in the refugee-
packed South. Through decades of steady, meticulous expansion, his
Unification Church became exceedingly wealthy; and while it was
controversial and divisive, it also became the first global
expression of resurgent Korean culture. Moon’s organizing principle
was the family -- with himself and his second wife as the true mother
and father of all adherents, holding autocratic rule over marriage
and sex -- and it was an idea that would prove key to the
indoctrination of members from the 1960s generation onward, who had
grown estranged from their real parents but still idealized the
archetype. Hailing from all over the world, the Moonies, as they were
often derisively called, would help build the fortunes of Moon and
his family -- be it income from selling roses on the street or
publishing newspapers in the U.S. and South Korea. At Moon’s death
from pneumonia at the age of 92 on Sunday, however, his biological
sons and daughters -- all 14 of them -- may be gearing up for a
dynastic battle over their inheritance. It was evidence that even the
most allegedly divine of families are unhappy in their own ways.

Americans would only confront Moon and his church in the 1970s,
hurling the charge of cult against them and sending deprogrammers to
take back young people who had been recruited by his missionaries.
But Moon had sent his first representative to the U.S. in 1959 (the
organization was already active in Japan); indeed, he would tour the
States himself in 1965. His name -- with the two celestial orbs so
clearly evoked -- may have added a layer of extraterrestriality to
him for English speakers (sun and moon vanish in other
transliterations of the original Korean, as in Seon-myong Mun). But
at a time when young Americans -- in fact, young people all over the
postindustrial world -- were questioning the bases of family and
belief, Moon’s recalibration of those ideals must have come as
particularly insidious. His appropriation of the marriage ceremony as
the centerpiece of his new faith was both bizarre and revolutionary.
In spectacularly staged mass rituals, Moon and his wife would preside
over the union of thousands of couples being wed at once. Most had
never met each other. Matches were made across nationality and race.
He particularly liked to marry people from Japan and Korea, countries
with deep historical animosity. It was in keeping with the founder’s
ideas of unification on all levels. Marriage was just another arena
to practice what he preached. What’s love got to do with it?

Unification meant several things to Moon. The official name of the
church when he founded it was the Holy Spirit Association for the
Unification of World Christianity. And throughout his career, Moon
would be constantly reaching out an ecumenical hand to the various
divisions of Christianity. But unification also reflected the very
modern Korean notion of reuniting the divided peninsula. Not only was
his church called Unification, the business conglomerate that grew
out of it was similarly named in Korean -- Tongil. Indeed, though
Moon’s politics converged with the rightist policies of the generals
who ruled South Korea in the first decades after the war, he himself
made trips to the North to befriend the dictatorial Kim dynasty of
Pyongyang. Those visits rarely met with the approbation of the South,
but Moon never stopped cultivating the leaders of the communist regime.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |



War’s Legacy Plagues Japan and Its Neighbors
( TIME )

It’s been an eventful week in Japan, what with South Korea’s
President insulting the emperor, Cabinet members paying homage to war
criminals, Chinese protesters landing on a disputed island and local
citizens demanding an apology and compensation for a land battle on
Okinawa 67 years ago.

It’s just more evidence that the legacy of World War II is alive and
not well in Asia. While resumption of open hostilities seems
unlikely, the odds are getting better all the time.

“For China and Korea, the war is still unfinished business,” says
Brad Glosserman, executive director of the Pacific Forum CSIS in
Honolulu. “What we’re seeing played out now is the politics of
resentment and grievance. It’s emotionally satisfying, but in the
absence of genuine leadership, the situation is only going to get
worse. So when there’s another incident that sparks a confrontation,
does that become a sobering moment, or kindling for the fire?”

“From our point of view, this was the most offensive position [Lee]
could have taken,” says Kazuhiko Togo, director of the Institute for
World Affairs at Kyoto Sangyo University in Japan. “We went through
a very difficult period of soul-searching after the war from which
emerged a general understanding among the majority of Japanese that
much was wrong with our colonization of Korea. And in totality, in my
view, the Japanese side has expressed a proper and sincere apology.”

M.G. Sheftall, a military historian and associate professor of
culture and communication at Shizuoka University, says Japan is
viewed with some suspicion in the region in part because it retained
many of the trappings of its wartime identity and has avoided a wide
discussion of the role of the imperial family during the war.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |



Islamist Morsy Wins Egyptian Presidency, but Will the Military Cede Any
( TIME )

An Islamist has won the first democratic presidential election in
Egypt’s history. After a week of tense delays, and a nearly hour-long
speech by the head of Egypt’s Supreme Presidential Election Commission
on Sunday, the commission declared Mohamed Morsy, a member of the
Muslim Brotherhood, the winner, having edged out his competitor Ahmed
Shafik, a former Prime Minister of ousted President Hosni Mubarak, by
only a slim margin.

In just under a year and a half of tumultuous politics, the country’s
most powerful Islamist organization has pulled off a once unthinkable
feat, propelling itself from the battered niche of a banned opposition
group to the seat of power in the Arab world’s largest country.
Thousands of Brotherhood supporters poured into Cairo’s Tahrir Square
on Sunday in anticipation of the announcement -- many promising a large-
scale protest in the case of a Shafik win. But when the announcement
came in the Brotherhood’s favor, the crowd erupted in a tidal wave of
cheers and fireworks, tears and hugs.

So while Morsy’s win may have averted a disastrous confrontation in
the streets, the Brotherhood may also have walked into the savviest of
traps. The U.S.-educated engineer promised in his Sunday-night
acceptance speech to work toward national unity, and he offered a
subtle olive branch to the military, saying: “With its people, its
armed forces and its great history, Egypt is able to defend itself and
stop any aggression or even any thought of aggression against it.” But
conciliatory or not, Stacher says, Morsy has been set up to fail. If he
proves submissive, the generals may let him stay in office, but he’ll
lose credibility in the streets. On the other hand, he says, “if Morsy
uses the office of the presidency to garner international support and
build a coalition inside Egypt, that would be very threatening to the
SCAF and they would look for some kind of legal booby trap to undermine

It’s a catch-22, but the dissolution of Egypt’s elected parliament
may have served as a useful example. Sameh el-Sorrogy, a top judge in
Egypt’s influential Judges’ Club, puts it this way: the problem with
the parliament was that it challenged the courts. “Some members of
parliament tried to direct the public against the judiciary,” he says,
particularly after MPs objected to Mubarak’s weak sentencing. Morsy,
he adds, appears more willing to play by the rules. It may make for a
toothless President. But, as some Egyptians have reasoned, at least
it’s an elected one, and that’s a first.

posted by K.Andoh | Comment(0) | 国際 | このブログの読者になる |