{"id":65255,"date":"2002-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/09\/21\/lamerique-sen-va\/"},"modified":"2002-09-21T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-09-21T00:00:00","slug":"lamerique-sen-va","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/09\/21\/lamerique-sen-va\/","title":{"rendered":"L’Am\u00e9rique s’en va<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’Am\u00e9rique s’en va<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t21 septembre 2002 Le 20 septembre, le pr\u00e9sident Bush a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 la nouvelle doctrine strat\u00e9gique am\u00e9ricaine. Plus qu’une r\u00e9volution de la pens\u00e9e strat\u00e9gique, il s’agit de l’ach\u00e8vement doctrinal et th\u00e9orique d’une tendance grandissante des USA depuis la fin de la Guerre froide, dont les signes \u00e9taient manifestes durant la Guerre froide, dont les racines existent dans les conceptions m\u00eames des USA, mais selon une perspective strat\u00e9gique renvers\u00e9e. La doctrine d’attaque pr\u00e9ventive, reposant sur le seul jugement am\u00e9ricain, implique une Am\u00e9rique \u00e9voluant seule et appr\u00e9ciant seule la situation du monde. Cette doctrine a ses racines dans la position g\u00e9opolitique et la conformation psychologique de l’isolationnisme ; ce qui compte en effet dans l’isolationnisme, c’est la notion politique et psychologique de la solitude et nullement la position g\u00e9ographique (qui peut varier).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAssociated Press pr\u00e9sente de cette fa\u00e7on<\/a> l’annonce et la pr\u00e9sentation du nouveau document :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab President Bush declared in an aggressive new national security strategy Friday that the United States will stop any adversary challenging America’s military superiority and adopt a strike-first policy against terrorist threats before they’re fully formed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The 35-page document, titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, marks the end to the deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War and officially shifts the country to a pre-emptive policy that Bush first outlined at West Point in June.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. … We cannot let our enemies strike first, Bush wrote in the document submitted to Congress as required annually by law. As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed, he added.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBien entendu, ce que nous pr\u00e9sentons comme une variante de l’isolationnisme est \u00e9galement une variante d\u00e9g\u00e9n\u00e9r\u00e9e de l’isolationnisme. Si l’isolationnisme n’interdit enrien des interventions ext\u00e9rieures, il consid\u00e8re par contre comme compl\u00e8tement aberrantes des interventions ext\u00e9rieures qui accroissent la charge pour les USA et risquent de grandir le danger qu’elle court du fait s’attitudes ext\u00e9rieures hostiles ou d’instabilit\u00e9s r\u00e9gionales.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tParmi les r\u00e9actions n\u00e9gatives aux \u00c9tats-Unis devant l’\u00e9tablissement de cette nouvelle doctrine, on notera celle du Cato Institute, qui est de tendance libertarienne et libre-\u00e9changiste et qui se rapproche dans ses conceptions des isolationnistes. Cato soutenait jusqu’alors la guerre contre la Terreur (principalement l’Afghanistan) ; sur ce point de l’Irak, le point de vue est diff\u00e9rent :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Ivan Eland, Cato’s director of defense policy studies, had the following comments on the new strategy: The Bush administration unveiled a new national security strategy today that boldly but imprudently called for U.S. military primacy and pre-emptive attacks on potential threats. Such an aggressive policy does not comport well with the Founders’ vision of what a republic’s foreign policy should be. The Founders believed that the republic had a right of self-defense, but should normally have ‘peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.’ In certain cases, the United States may need to pre-emptively strike terrorists but a general policy of what are really preventive attacks against nation states (attacking countries before they can become threats) could easily lead to a perpetual state of war to achieve peace.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tL’\u00e9tablissement officiel de cette doctrine est un acte important dans la mesure o\u00f9 il rend officiel un changement fondamental de la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des \u00c9tats-Unis. C’est ce que souligne le Times de Londres aujourd’hui<\/a>. Le Times<\/em> explique que c’est un changement radical par rapport \u00e0 une doctrine \u00e9tablie il y a un demi-si\u00e8cle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The Bush Administration’s new strategy of pre-emption is a watershed in US foreign policy. It reverses the fundamental principles that have guided successive Presidents for more than 50 years: containment and deterrence.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Based on a speech by Harry Truman to Congress on March 12, 1947, the doctrine was focused on the prevention of Communist expansion. It became the keystone of American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War and remained its moral compass until the September 11 terrorist attacks last year.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tL’appr\u00e9ciation du Times<\/em> s’attache surtout aux causes des strat\u00e9gies dans sa rapide pr\u00e9sentation. L’important est moins que la strat\u00e9gie abandonn\u00e9e ait \u00e9t\u00e9 justifi\u00e9e par le communisme, que le fait qu’elle s’ins\u00e9rait dans une appr\u00e9ciation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des relations internationales bas\u00e9e sur le refus de l’attaque non provoqu\u00e9e, qui est la description m\u00eame de la guerre d’agression. La nouvelle strat\u00e9gie abandonne cette vision.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’Am\u00e9rique ne s’estime d\u00e9sormais plus comptable des lois internationales essentielles, sauf lorsque leur respect rencontre ses int\u00e9r\u00eats. Le tournant est fondamental et il est d\u00e9sormais inscrit dans les textes strat\u00e9giques officiels. La s\u00e9paration des \u00c9tats-Unis du reste du monde, au niveau de la conception des relations internationales, est compl\u00e8te. D\u00e9sormais, le cadre est pr\u00eat dans le reste du monde pour une \u00e9volution radicale des jugements sur les \u00c9tats-Unis, cette fois au niveau des analystes de politique (cette \u00e9volution \u00e9tant d\u00e9j\u00e0 largement entam\u00e9e au niveau des opinions publiques). Reste \u00e0 voir combien de temps il va \u00eatre possible de poursuivre des politiques de coop\u00e9ration, notamment entre l’Europe et les USA, bas\u00e9es sur une vision commune, des valeurs communes et ainsi de suite, alors que l’inspiration strat\u00e9gique diverge d\u00e9sormais radicalement en se r\u00e9f\u00e9rant \u00e0 des valeurs si oppos\u00e9es.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’Am\u00e9rique s’en va 21 septembre 2002 Le 20 septembre, le pr\u00e9sident Bush a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 la nouvelle doctrine strat\u00e9gique am\u00e9ricaine. Plus qu’une r\u00e9volution de la pens\u00e9e strat\u00e9gique, il s’agit de l’ach\u00e8vement doctrinal et th\u00e9orique d’une tendance grandissante des USA depuis la fin de la Guerre froide, dont les signes \u00e9taient manifestes durant la Guerre froide, dont… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[2651,3605,2878,3606,3604,3440,2804],"class_list":["post-65255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-du","tag-frappe","tag-monde","tag-preventive","tag-reste","tag-strategie","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65255\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}