[] 협동조합과 주식회사(협동조합의 주식회사화, 주식회사와의 차이점, 자회사운영)   [새창]  


협동조합과 주식회사… - 목 차 - 1. 협동조합과 주식회사의 차이점 2. 외국협동조합이 주식회사화 되어가는 경향에 대한 의견 3. 협동조합의 자회사운영 의의와 특성 1. 협동조합과 주식회사의 차이점 협동조합과 주식회사는 경제사업을 영위하는 기업..

출처 : http://www.happyreport.co.kr/

Since his inauguration last September, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has advocated a more assertive foreign policy and further strengthening of the security alliance with the United States. He has also vowed to seek revisions of the postwar pacifist constitution to allow the nation to play a greater role in the international security arena, especially in step with the U.S.

TODAY’S TOP STORIES The Democrats on Iraq Withdrawal Japan’s New Tack German Cycling and Doping AFL Round 9 Review The Participatory Nature of OhmyNews

FROM THE SECTION Global Competitiveness Survey Fails Australia Gov’t Arrests Politicians in Bangladesh Eight Killed in Pakistan Violence Pakistan: Militants Warn Female NGO Workers Nine Afghan Civilians Killed

In what is widely seen as a thinly veiled snub to China, among other countries, the Abe government has also been aggressively pursuing what it dubs “a value-oriented diplomacy,” advocating strengthened relations with countries that share common values, such as freedom, democracy, market economy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Abe has put particular emphasis on strengthened ties with India and Australia as well as with the U.S.

Foreign Minister Taro Aso also unveiled his “arc of freedom and prosperity” initiative last November to enhance Japan’s relations with emerging democracies in Asia and Europe and actively support their democratic and economic development. In a speech unveiling the initiative, Aso expressed a strong desire to build such an arch “around the outer rim of the Eurasian continent through diplomacy that emphasizes values.”

“This region includes countries whose systems have been undergoing great changes now that the confrontation between the East and the West has ended,” Aso said.

When Aso announced this initiative, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, which are collectively referred to as the “CLV” countries, drew particular attention because they were the first names he specifically mentioned as his target nations and regions.

“Concretely speaking, what I have in mind right now is Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, for example,” he said.

In a speech titled “On the Arc of Freedom and Prosperity”, delivered in March at a meeting of a Tokyo-based think tank, Aso noted that while Abe and he visited Europe in January, he had his senior vice minister, Katsuhito Asano, attend the Japan-CLV foreign ministers’ meeting in the Philippines.

To be sure, the CLV nations may be among what Aso said are “countries whose systems have been undergoing great changes” since the end of the Cold War. But the CLV nations, especially Vietnam and Laos, still have a long way to go toward democratic reforms. Like China and North Korea, Vietnam and Laos are one-party states ruled by communist parties.

“Freedom in the World 2007,” the latest of annual surveys of political rights and civil liberties released early this year by Freedom House, an independent freedom watchdog based in the U.S., gave the CLV nations dismal ratings. Ratings range from 1 (the most free) to 7 (the least free). Among the CLV nations, Laos received the worst ratings — 7 for political rights and 6 for civil liberties, the same ratings China received. Vietnam’s scores were 7 for political rights and 5 for civil liberties and Cambodia’s 6 for political rights and 5 for civil liberties.

Meanwhile, Myanmar was given the ratings of 7 for both political rights and civil liberties, the same ratings given to North Korea. Thailand, another neighbor of the CLV nations, also saw its ratings lowered to 7 for political rights and 4 for civil liberties, because of a military coup last year that ousted a democratically elected premier.

Last September, the United Nations Security Council voted 10-4, with one abstention, to add Myanmar to its formal agenda. China and Russia are among the four members that voted against the move. Japan, which served a two-year term as a non-permanent council member until the end of last year, voted for the anti-Myanmar move.

Myanmar has been under strong pressure from the U.S. and Europe over human rights and democracy. The country’s military rulers have kept Nobel Peace Prize laureate and pro-democracy champion Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest for much of the past two decades. Despite the decision last September, the U.N. has so far failed to take specific action against Myanmar. In January, China and Russia vetoed a U.S.-drafted council resolution that would have demanded Myanmar’s military regime end political repression.

Japan has long advocated a policy of “constructive engagement” with Myanmar, rather than isolating that country, to encourage progress on human rights and democracy. Japan’s vote for the anti-Myanmar move at the U.N. signaled a significant departure from what the U.S. and Europe have often grumbled was Tokyo’s too soft a policy toward Myanmar. But such a policy shift may be inevitable if Japan, a self-proclaimed Asian champion of freedom and democracy, is to match its words with deeds in pursuing its “value-oriented diplomacy.”

Your first encounter with the rendition program began back in December 2001 while you were interviewing a certain congressperson, who later became one of President Bush’s key men in the war on terror. Could you briefly talk about this?

TODAY’S TOP STORIES The Democrats on Iraq Withdrawal Japan’s New Tack German Cycling and Doping AFL Round 9 Review The Participatory Nature of OhmyNews

FROM THE SECTION A New Cinematic Voice of London ‘CIA Torture Program Ensnares Innocents’ Growing Refuge Crisis in Nahr el-Bared Camp ‘Southern Cameroon Is Still Not Free’ Blackwater Runs Deep

I was working for The Sunday Times of London and I was in Washington just after Sept. 11. I sat down on a sofa in an office on Capital Hill in the office of Porter Goss, who was then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and later became head of the CIA. It was he for the first time who actually told me the term “rendition.” I was asking about what the CIA had been doing to capture Osama Bin Laden, and I said, “Could he have been kidnapped?” And he said, “It’s called rendition. Have you heard of that?” And I said, “No I haven’t.” And he said it’s a way of bringing people to a kind of justice.

So I was very intrigued to hear about this kind of concept. And that really was the start of what had become many years of inquiries to try to get to the bottom of it.

Many in the U.S. might think that this so-called rendition policy is a new weapon to pursue terrorists. But, in fact, it’s been around for a number of years. Can you speak about this?

Rendition itself — which basically means sending people across to another country without any trial, legal process, or treaty — that’s been going on since the 1880s. It started off with the case of someone being picked up in Peru by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, quite an early example of a contractor operating under presidential authority. But the point was that this kind of rendition involved bringing people back to trial in the United States, in other words before an open trial, before a judge and jury. And as such, although laws are broken abroad, it was ruled to be legal in the U.S. And that’s been going on for a very long time.

I don’t suppose many people would have much to protest about that. But what I’m writing about in the book is the program of extraordinary rendition. That began as a systematic program used against suspected Islamic terrorists in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, specifically in 1995. And its been going on ever since. Although, I have to say that while this program started under Clinton, it expanded dramatically after Sept. 11.

In the book you write about Canadian citizen Maher Arar. The U.S. sent him to Syria. Before he was sent there he was interrogated for quite some time by the U.S. When Arar found out that he would be sent to Syria, where he is originally from, he pleaded with the U.S. agents not to send him there because he was certain that he would be tortured. The Bush administration has repeated that it doesn’t torture. But, in fact, it is at the very least outsourcing torture when it sends people off to places like Syria, Egypt, or Uzbekistan. More to the point, the U.S. have been involved directly with interrogations that have involved torture, most notably Abu Ghraib. I was wondering if you might comment more on this?

	©2007 St. Martin

Sure, the basic problem for the U.S. is that the laws prohibit torture and no one can be directly involved in it. So the mechanism of sending people to another country does certainly allow interrogations to take place, which wouldn’t be allowed if carried out by U.S. agents themselves. And, you know, initially when President Bush first commented about rendition he said, “We don’t send people to countries that torture.” And they had to revise that because I think the lawyers pointed out that, in fact, America does.

And there are lots of countries that send their people to other countries to be tortured. Funnily enough the best evidence, if you want to read about torture in Syria, is to look at publications by the U.S. government that show, in very great detail, the kind of torture reserved for people who upset the state in Syria, and in particular people who are accused of being Islamic militants face the worst kind of torture.

It’s not just a matter of getting people off the street, keeping them out of harm’s way. I mean, Maher Arar could have been flown back to Canada; in fact he was on his way home to Canada. There was a deliberate choice to send him to a country where, it was believed, he would be properly interrogated. And when he arrived he wasn’t wanted by Syria; Syria had no interest in him. He was sent with a list of questions attached. He was asked about the threat that he posed to the U.S. and to Canada. He wasn’t asked about Syria. So this is a very clear example of outsourcing, of getting other people to do your dirty work for you.

I read something in the book that I found disturbing. The pilots who flew the planes were issued fake IDs and licenses by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Can you speak more on this?

It’s quite striking that these people are able to fly around the world with control and knowledge of many government agencies that they’re using false documents and false names. And it’s involved the FAA, it’s involved state offices who issue fake driver’s licenses, it involves private contractors down in San Jose. You have a major subsidiary of Boeing called Jefferson Data Plan, which is a private company that is involved in organizing private flights all around the world. And they work directly with the CIA in organizing these trips, which involve rendition. There was a quite interesting interview in the New Yorker where someone who actually worked for that company said that they were quite aware that these planes were being used for the outsourcing of torture. So there were a lot of people who had knowledge of this and I suppose everybody thinks it’s someone else’s job to work out whether this is right or wrong.

Maher Arar was not known to have any significant links to terrorists. The CIA admit that on occasion they target the wrong person. Can you talk about this more?

Well I do believe that when they pick these people up they don’t deliberately target someone who’s innocent. They really do suspect that they are capturing someone and try to get him out of the way.

But there seems to be a kind of recklessness about finding out the truth here, and Khaled El-Masri, who is a German citizen for example, he was picked up by people in the CIA who thought he was somebody else. But as Khaled himself said, to verify a passport just takes a few weeks. He was held for five months in solitary confinement. And he wasn’t even questioned for months at a time. Essentially he was forgotten in this jail and he wasn’t really that important to try to sort out the truth.

Likewise, Maher Arar was questioned on the flimsiest of evidence. He knew somebody, went for a walk with somebody who himself was under investigation. It’s amazing through these intelligence reports how you can link someone to terrorism on these small pieces of evidence. But he was completely cleared. Maher Arar was judged by an official Canadian inquiry to be a man with no connections whatsoever with terrorists. And it just highlights secret detentions, secret intelligence and no opportunity to test this intelligence in a courtroom, have a lawyer try to challenge what you’re accused of, is a system that is bound to end up locking up and mistreating people who are innocent. Because there is no safety valve to really check whether we’re doing to this to other people who really have got something that they’re guilty of.

And Maher Arar was compensated for his treatment by the Canadian government and issued a public apology, correct?

That’s right he’s been compensated, the head of the Royal Mounted Police has resigned, the government has apologized. Although there was poor evidence linking him to Al Qaeda, which turned out to be wrong, they have apologized for that. What should be said is that Canada played no role in the decision to send him to Syria. So whatever wrong intelligence they had and supplied to U.S., ultimately it was the U.S. that decided to send him to be tortured.

And what’s really striking is that, although the administration continues to state publicly that it’s against torture and that there are all kinds of laws that prohibit torture and ensure that people that take part in torture are prosecuted, there appears to be no way from him to complain in the U.S. He tried to file a lawsuit, and it’s been judged that it can’t go ahead because if it did it might reveal state secrets. So, there’s been no avenue given to these people to actually get their day in court and find justice at last.

Christopher Brown is an independent journalist living in San Francisco, Ca. He produces and hosts a podcast entitled, Crossing The Line: Life in Occupied Palestine (http://ctl.libsyn.com). Stephen Grey’s website is www.stephengrey.com.This article has appeared in no other publications. The audio version is available at http://ctl.libsyn.com.

	©2007 Walt Disney

Heading off to Singapore to capture the attention of pirate lord Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), a posse of pirates, led by Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Will (Orlando Bloom), and Barbossa (a lovingly over-the-top Geoffrey Rush), hope to book passage to Davy Jones’ Locker to retrieve Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp, doing what he’s here to do) from insanity. With the East India Trading Company hot on their tail, along with Jones (a sublime Bill Nighy) and his crustacean cronies, the team takes to the far edges of the globe to assemble a plan to fight back. Over the course of their adventure, rivalries blossom, allegiances are broken, romance is questioned, ships are blasted into pieces and death is waiting beyond the horizon.

TODAY’S TOP STORIES ‘CIA Torture Program Ensnares Innocents’ Japan’s New Tack AFL Round 9 Review China-India Influence: So Near, Yet So Far Philippines Removes Stigma of Illegitimacy

FROM THE SECTION ‘Cheeni Kum’: A Sugar-Free, Sarcastic Romance ‘Bug’ Crawls Into Your Brain The Pirates Bore in ‘At World’s End’ ‘Angel-A’ One of Luc Besson’s Best [Film Review] ‘Unnale Unnale’

I don’t know if it was ego, ambition, or stupidity, but the “Caribbean” team made a conscious decision when they embarked on “Chest” and “End” to turn their scallywag creation into a 10-cent riff on “Lord of the Rings.” “Black Pearl” featured its fair share of swift turns and traps, but it’s a drugstore comic book compared to the biblical depth of the two sequels. It’s a burden that has tainted the experience for me, turning a creation once so graceful and appealing into a dreary stint of summer school.

“End” is massive. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and director Gore Verbinski want the audience to feel as though a trilogy is coming to an end, so they’ve loaded up the widescreen cannons and settled in for cinematic war. The price for this mammoth special effects festival? Two hours of boredom. “End” goes out on a note of fierce action and operatic death so spectacular you’ll hardly believe your eyes, but before the picture can get there, there’s a whole mess of a story that needs an absurd amount of clarification.

The mess, of course, was kicked off in “Chest.” The first sequel took great pride in shaking up the narrative snow globe, trusting audiences would respond to a gentle dialing down of “swashbuckle” and a hasty elevation of complication. “Chest” wasn’t impossible to follow, but it felt like it, putting the viewer through such a punishing display of tail chasing and myth making that it should’ve come with a road map and scratch paper.

“End” picks up the story exactly where it left off, furthering the pursuit of the East India Trading Company to eradicate all pirates, Will and Elizabeth’s communication failure, Jack’s death and rebirth, and the return of Barbossa. Believe me, that’s more than enough to justify the nearly three-hour running time allotted to this alleged final act. But the production isn’t happy trying to nail down a small set of plot threads to satisfaction; they want heaping spoonfuls of uncertainty and swells of chest-huffing tragedy to add more perplexity.

As if there wasn’t enough going on already in the film, “End” pushes the story into far more problematic plot threads: romantic entanglements concerning Davy Jones and the voodoo princess Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), the troublesome madness of Jack (resulting in some awful meandering scenes with multiple and sometimes miniature Jacks), Elizabeth’s newfound pirate power and dumbfounding portraits of fantasy make-em-ups that lock a firm sleeper hold on the imagination. Cleave some of this out, and “End” would’ve been easier to digest. Spread it over 170 minutes, and it becomes numbing and infuriating. Perhaps on Jack’s next adventure he could sail to the end of the world to locate a more judicious editor.

“End” also makes an unfortunate error in tonal judgment by sailing into darker waters. While I thought the flights of fancy in “Chest” whiffed mightily, I found myself wishing I were right back in that film with its runaway water wheels and cartoon cannibals. “End” takes on an air of self-importance and squeezes the humor right out of the whole creation, building a heavier mood to better approach the smothering magnitude Verbinski is aiming for. Without fun, the whole “Pirates” idea seems downright meaningless as summer entertainment and the straight face does nothing to make this story engage the senses. Couple that with such a ridiculous length and the film feels more like a social obligation than a rollicking good time.

However lacking the drama is, the technical side of the film cannot be topped. Setting new standards in special effects filmmaking, “End” is a visual three-scoop ice cream cone, boundless in its determination to put the “O” in “WOW.” Since the series has firmly rejected the pop sensibility of “Black Pearl” for epic roar, “End” delivers the towering goods in the sea world production design, the exhaustive and nonstop CGI, and intricate character make-up. To Verbinski’s credit, no matter how monotone the story gets, there’s always something to please the eye.

As mentioned before, “End” concludes on a gargantuan note, pitting the pirates against enemies, themselves and a roundhouse punch of stormy seas, violent creatures and 50-foot-tall ladies. Disney is extremely paranoid about us heathen press giving away the surprises contained within “End,” and I will abide by their rules, but I will mention that the end juggernaut of payoffs has the effect of both suffocation and relief, which is a strange sensation to end a trilogy on. And when I write “end a trilogy,” to this film it means, “still leave plenty of doors wide open for future sequels.” All this huffing and wheezing to tie a bow on this godforsaken story and we’re still not finished? Not when people still eagerly line up for these overstuffed sequels.

“Black Pearl” surprised me with its vast expression of high-seas fun, and I was genuinely amazed that a Disney theme park ride could translate to a movie. “Chest” took that promise and buried it under layers of unreasonable complications to heavily mythologize an emaciated concept; a production so frightened by the prospect of filming two sequels, they overcompensated to a point of asphyxiation. “At World’s End” shows a similar lack of restraint and any drip of delight that this franchise once held in its yo-ho heart has dried up. Go and be wowed by the special effects and the pleasantly hammy acting — they are truly wonderful. Just don’t be surprised if the whole enterprise brings on a serious case of the yawns.

• Kristine Lefebvre
• The Cool Gadgets
• Health Blog
• pimpernel
• Web Hosting Blog
• Real Estate Blog
• Nintendo Wii
• Insurance Blog
• Blog for Money
• Cars Blog