まとめ：国連報告書２０１３年４月 国連への日本政府代表団のうそとごまかし！ 抗議締め切り5月17日！

国連の報告：　この報告は、4月30日に、発表されましたが、正式な議事録が、存在せず、内容は、主要メデイアに、報道されませんでした。　Ｎｕｃｌｅａｒ　ＮｅｗｓのＡｒｃｌｉｇｈｔさんが、掘り出してくれた以下のリンクにある、英文のみです。　　そして、アラビア語のページにしか、見られず、日本語訳がない。　その会議のなかで、Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim氏 が、レポーター担当、日本の政府団が、質問に答えるという形式で、行われました。　内容は、人権に関するいろいろなことが取り上げられ、福島事故以後の被災者についても、述べられています。　しかしながら、残念なことに、現実とかなり、かけ離れた報告になっています。　

(Source) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13277&LangID=E
 
以下、要所を抜粋：

Recovery after the east Japan earthquake had included programmes to provide funds for house and town rebuilding, also rebuilding the lives of affected persons.  In order to enable long-term health management for residents of Fukushima, particularly children, the Government was providing support to the Prefecture.  Analysis and assessment was ongoing and appropriate health management continued.

東北大震災後の復 興のため、住居や被災地の町全体の再築のための復興予算を盛り込んだプログラムを用意しました。日本政府は、福島住民（特に子供たち）の長期健康管理を、 可能にするため、福島県を、援助しています。　その分析、評価が、引き続き、行われていて、適切な健康管理を行っています。

…On a more technical point, it was explained that annual exposure to radiation was at the level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.  　…より専門的観点から説明すると、国際放射能防護基準が提唱する年間の被爆限度に従っていると解釈している。。。。

Regarding those that survived the atomic bombing, their medical needs related to their exposure was subsidized and this would allow them to maintain a suitable level of living.　　原爆被害の生存者に関して、被爆に関わる治療費は、補助金で、賄うことが、可能なので、それなりに適した生活が維持できるようになっている。

On another point, the delegation said there was financial support available for refugees as they waited for their file to be processed.  　もうひとつ指摘したいことは、代表団が、次のように発言した点です。「避難者は,異議の申し立ての書類が処理されるのを、待つことにつれて、経済援助が得られることになる

The committee may assess the action taken, or not taken, based on the state’s available resources and can decide if a violation has occurred.  It is then up to the state to　enforce and implement any recommendations made by the Committee.  人権侵害に触れると思われる事態に遭遇した時にこれを是正する何らかの措置がその国ができ得る範囲においてとられたのか、とられたとすればそれは適切だったのか、ということを踏まえて人権侵害として扱うかを決定することができる。　この社会権規約委員会によって、勧告された事項について、実際に施行するかしないかは、各国に、任せられている。

More information was now being disclosed through information materials and press conferences on Fukushima, said a member of the delegation, and this was to make decision making more transparent. 　いろいろな資料や福島事故に関しての記者会見らを通して、より多くの情報が公開されてきていると日本政府団は述べており、これらのことが、より、透明性のある決断をもたらすだろうとも、述べていた。

**************************************

この社会権規約「選択議定書」というのは、定義としては、（国連のＷｅｂサイトによると）　”国家の救済手段が、疲弊してしまったあとに、 経済的、社会的及び文化的権利に関する人権侵害に対しての不平、不満を、国連機関として、聞き入れる機会を提供してくれる”となっています。　　しかしながら、国際人権規約の中で、自由権規約　（市民的及び政治的権利に関する国際規約）のように、即時的な義務を負わなくとも良いとされています。　　

**************************************

反差別国際運動（IMADR）ジュネーブ事務所のスタッフ、この委員会に出席した白根大輔さんのコメント
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/harumi-s_2005/e/bc90e378cf16da2fd9d38e79fb3bea61　


これらの質問やコメントに対し、日本政府は多くの場合「」答弁で部分的またはあやふやな回答と一辺倒の説明を繰り返すことが多く、NGOの立場から見たら真剣に答える気が全くないように思われた。
また日本政府の報告書や委員の質問に対する回答に関して、国際基準が適確に国内で適用されていない、率直に応えていない、質問の回答になっていないなどのコメントもあった。
4月30日に行われたこれらの質疑応答による審査の結果は、勧告を含む「総括所見」として5月中旬に採択され日本政府に送られる。
委員会で指摘されたことが勧告に適切に反映されるよう注視したい。 
-------------------------------------------

昨年、11月26日、国連人権員会の「健康に対­する権利に関する特別報告者」のアナンド・グローバー氏が、記者会見を開き、声明を発表しました。 以下の動画に全内容が含まれて入ます。（日本語訳つき）　彼は、除染の効果のあることを、期待するコメント以外は、すべて、現在の日本の状態を把握している報告をしています。

 年間20ミリの避難基準を非難～国連特別報告者　

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeWz2Xj8jH0

　　 

発表内容： 

アナンド・グローバー氏は、原発事故により、日本国内の健康に関する権利が守られているかどうか調査する目的で来日。11月15日から26日の約10日、東京や福島に滞在­し、政府機関や自治体関係者、ＮＧＯ、市民団体などを対象に、ヒヤリングを重ねてきた。
　
グローバー氏はまず、日本における健康の権利状況について、事故後の安定ヨウ素が配布­されなかったことや、ＳＰＥＥＤＩの情報が公開されなかったと指摘。避難基準が年間20ミリシーベルトに設定されている現状について、放射線管理区域の設定やチャルノブイ­リ事故の基準、疫学的知見などの間に一貫性が見られないと厳しく非難した。
　　
また、健康調査については、対象地域が福島県に限られているのは問題だとして、汚染地域全体で実施するよう日本政府に要請。調査の項目が限られていることや、自分の医療記­録にアクセスできない状況も問題視し、包括的で、長期的な内部被曝調査やモニタリング­を行うことを推奨した。
　
このほかにも、原発作業員のモニタリングや避難の権利、食品の基準、除染について言及­。避難や健康調査、除染などのあり方を決定するプロセスに、子どもや妊婦、障がい者、高齢者など、社会的弱者を含めた被害地域の住民が参加できるようにすべきだとし、今年­6月に成立した「子どもお被災者支援法」の基本方針の策定に、まず、当事者を参画すべきだと求めた。

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

同じ国連から、派遣されたメンバーなのに、Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim氏 と、Annan Grover氏は、なぜ、こんなに、違うのか、疑問です。　Annan Grover氏のように、被災地に住んで、苦しんでいる人たちに会って、現地で、活動をしている人たちの意見を取り入れないと、真実が見えてきません。　いくら、社会権規約の委員会からの拘束力がないとはいえ、全 く、日本の現状を把握していない報告を、基にして、採択されるのであれば、私たちの人権を守ってくれることにはならず、その社会権規約の意義を意味するも のでもなくなります。

UN Report – Japanese Delegation to The UN Spreads Lies and Deception!  国連報告書２０１３年４月　　国連への日本政府代表団のうそとごまかし！　抗議締め切り5月17日！

皆で、抗議しましょう。

この委員会に出席した日本の代表団長は、上田秀明人権人道担当大使、外務省
その他、内閣府、法務省、厚生労働省、文部科学省の代表者等が、参加。 
外務省意見書ページ：
https://www3.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/mail/qa.html

国連合広報センター【 United Nations Information Centre 】
〒150-0001　東京都渋谷区神宮前5-53-70　UNハウス8F
Tel : 03-5467-4451／FAX : 03-5467-4455

以下英文情報：

(Source) http://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/14/un-report-bloggers-response-japanese-delegation-to-the-un-spreads-lies-and-deception/#comments
14 May 2013
Published by nuclear-news.net
By Arclight2011

Please share this article with your friends and family and/or reblog, (Copy in part or whole) Please refer to copyrighted links in article if used..Only 3 days to make a difference!!  Justice will prevail!

Below, is a report concerning the petition to the UN on behalf of the Children of Fukushima and their petition to the UN. The UN sent Mr. Anand Grover on a Country Visit to Japan on 15 to 26 November 2012. Mr Anand Grover made some comments regarding the nuclear disaster, as well as some other issues in Japan.
This short video shows the real  situation on the ground that the Japanese delegation is not responding too!  http://www.a2documentary.com/
In response to Mr Anand Grovers comments  the Japanese Government sent a delegation to reassure the UN that the points Mr Anand Grover brought up were being tackled or that clarification on issues could be made.
The document to this response has been oddly placed on the Arabic section of the UN website, though it was listed in the media section that deals with press releases. It is not available in the Japanese language.  No mention of this meeting nor any of the statements have been covered or commented on by the main stream media.　
The petition for the evacuation of the children of Fukushima was given to the UN in New York in September 2011, the special rapporteur made his visit in November 2012 and extracts of the Japanese delegations responses are below with some background info to help you see the bigger picture.
The Japanese delegation prevaricated and outright lied concerning the present situation on the ground in the most contaminated  areas downwind of the stricken nuclear plant Daichi 1 where 3 meltdowns occurred and a MOX Plutonium reactor exploded with devastating results, creating a mile high mushroom cloud!
10 Curies of PU 241 was released PER TON of MOX fuel ejected.. no figures have been done to ascertain the actual quantity of Pu241 that was ejected. In fact the Japanese can only refer to plutonium as “Alpha” (hinting at the type of energy released by plutonium 241).
…..Tepco was not just seeking approval to install 32 MOX fuel assemblies into the core of Reactor 3 at Fukushima – I.  It appears that they were intentional about taking it a step further and in fact seeking approval for a quick transition to a 1/3 MOX core at the NPP in question…...(July 31, 2010  http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=1734 )…
UN Report April 2013 – Japanese delegation to The UN spreads Lies and Deception!
[...]　　
Regarding those that survived the atomic bombing, their medical needs related to their exposure was subsidised and this would allow them to maintain a suitable level of living.　( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
 
…I would like to recall that in Chernobyl the threshold limit for obligatory resettlement was 5 mSv/year or above, apart from soil contamination levels. There are also a significant number of epidemiological studies, which indicate that cancer and other diseases could occur in low dose radiation below the accumulated does of 100 mSv. According to these studies, there is no low threshold limit for the occurrence of diseases… (Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
……Prime Minister, I know many of your advisors claim that the amount of radiation released at Fukushima No. 1 was far less than at Chernobyl. However, a report released by the U.K.-based nonprofit Institute of Science in Society in November 2012 said: “Analysis based on the most inclusive data sets available reveals that radioactive fallout from the Fukushima meltdown is at least as big as Chernobyl and more global in reach.” That conclusion was reached based on work with state-of-the-art atmospheric dispersion models by an international team led by Andreas Stohl at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research… http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/04/09/voices/rosy-fukushima-health-report-faulted-by-experts/#.UZJHFddx0xA )…
More “rosy” reports here…
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/17/rosy-fukushima-health-report-faulted-by-experts-%E5%B0%82%E9%96%80%E5%AE%B6%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%82%8B%E6%A5%BD%E8%A6%B3%E7%9A%84%E3%81%AA%E7%A6%8F%E5%B3%B6%E5%81%A5%E5%BA%B7%E8%A2%AB/
…..There will be an increased risk on the health of the children of Koriyama City due to the effects of radiation…. Statement by the Court… 26 April 2013 (...http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/26/breaking-japanese-government-found-responsible-for-the-evacuation-of-koriyama-city-children/)…
[...]
On a more technical point, it was explained that annual exposure to radiation was at the level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection..…

.( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)

…The threshold level of 20 mSv/year is in contrast to the statutory legal limit imposed by the 1972 industrial safety regulation for the nuclear industry. For workers at a nuclear power plant, the maximum limit of exposure (in the controlled area) prescribed by law is 20 mSv/year (not exceeding 50 mSv/year) and a cumulative dose of 100 mSv in five years. The law prohibits the entry of ordinary citizens into the controlled area with radiation dose of 1.3 mSv/quarter and further prohibits workers to eat, drink or sleep in that area.
It also prohibits pregnant women to be exposed to radiation dose in a controlled area of over 2mSv/year….. (Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
[Editors note ] i should point out that residents have been forced to live with more than 5mSv/y zone ,in fact as high as 20msv/y also another isotope not mentioned but has been recorded in high amounts was Pb (Lead) 210. And here are some UK findings on that, looking at MOX pollution from the processing end…
Shocking findings on effects of MOX processes on miscarriage and respiratory illness in the UK
29 April 2013
….“In women lead poisoning can cause stillbirth, miscarriage, premature birth and foetal development problems”
“We postulate that chronic low-level ecological and professional ionizing radiation exposure were causal for haemostasiological imbalance and impaired the cell-cell communication”….( 30 April 2013 http://nuclear-news.net/2013/04/30/shocking-findings-on-effects-of-mox-processes-on-miscarriage-and-respiratory-illness-in-th-uk/ )…
[...]
On another point, the delegation said there was financial support available for refugees as they waited for their file to be processed..….( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…The conditions that come with the compensation money are not clear to the Fukushima evacuees, causing confusion and adding to their stress. While they fill out a 60 page compensation claim form, and wait to see how much their former lives destroyed by the disaster are ‘worth’ – the profits of the nuclear companies involved, like General Electric, Hitachi and Toshiba, remain intact….(February 28, 2013 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/four-things-you-should-know-about-the-fukushi/blog/44098/ )...
…At the Fukushima court, the petitioners demanded restoration of the region where they lived to its condition before radioactive materials contaminated the area. They also sought 50,000 yen ($520) a month for each resident in damage payments. Total compensation being sought through the courts was about $55 million.
TEPCO refused to comment as it had not yet seen details of the cases. The Industry Ministry, which oversaw the nuclear regulatory body at the time of the accident, also declined to comment.
The 9.0 magnitude earthquake that unleashed a powerful tsunami on March 11, 2011 knocked out the Fukushima nuke plant sending out radiation that contaminated food and water, and forced the evacuation of more than 160,000 residents around a 30-kilometer radius of the stricken plant. Most of the evacuees were still living in makeshift shelters as decontamination work is at a slow pace…(12 March 2013 http://www.rttnews.com/2074876/residents-move-courts-seeking-compensation-for-fukushima-nuke-damage.aspx.)…
[...]
Another Expert said that a previous Japanese delegation had said the comments of this Committee were not binding.….( 30 April 2013 Japan Government delegation to the UN)
…It is therefore important that the chair and commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority are not only independent but are also seen to be independent. In this respect, it is well established to disclose any conflict of interest by potential incumbents. I recommend the Government to adopt such a procedure at the earliest, which will facilitate the building of confidence in the independence of the scrutinizing process…..(Annan Grover UN Japanese rapporteur statement of 26 November 2012 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12831&LangID=E )…
Concluding Remarks of the optional Protocol meeting of 30 April 2013
MOHAMED EZZELDIN ABDEL-MONEIM, Committee Rapporteur for the Report of Japan, said that at the time of reporting Japan was one of the largest world economies, and inflation in the economy had led to large debt levels.  This had made spending cuts attractive but, in the face of economic recession, this approach had failed time and again.  He also mentioned that in relation to the need to comply with obligations, the Covenant noted the need to comply with other elements of international law.
HIDEAKI UEDA, Ambassador in charge of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Japan, expressed his gratitude for a vibrant and comprehensive discussion of economic, social and cultural rights.  This was a valuable opportunity for review and Japan would continue with its efforts to improve access to these rights.
ZDZISLAW KEDZIA, Committee Chairperson, thanked all members of the delegation for the fruitful and friendly dialogue.  There remained differences in the evaluation of some points though a better understanding had been reached.  The concluding remarks of the Committee would be adopted on 17 May 2013, and as a group they looked forward to the follow-up.
Full UN source document for the reply by the Japanese delegation on the 30 April 2013 here..
http://www.ohchr.org/ar/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13277&LangID=E%20-%2095k%20-%202013-05-08%20-
[Editors note] It is interesting that Anand Gover is not the rapporteur in this meeting and it is Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim (Egypt).
Egypt is a small place and the new administration  has excessive powers. Also, the Egyptian Government have made a big deal of the other powers (USA) not complying with the arms reduction treaty in recent statements and have actually withdrawn from talks in protest.I think these are smoke and mirrors to enable Egypt to develop nuclear weapons in the future. As a side note, where will Egypt place these new reactors? On the ever shrinking Nile river or the Mediterranean Sea?...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment by Mr. Daisuke Shirane, staff at Geneva office of IMADR(The International Movement Against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism)

The Japanese Government Delegation often apply a so-called “official bureaucrats style of talking” when they speak at UN committees when answering questions. It means that they sometime talk vaguely or answer the questions only partly or repeat the same sort of things from a single aspect from the whole situation.  As a member of NGO I got an impression that they didn’t want to deliver their clear answers. 
Also, in relation to the Japanese government’s report and their answers to committees’ questions, there had been comments such as that there were no honest answers, not appropriate answers to questions and also that international standard hadn’t been applied correctly in Japan.