{"id":65277,"date":"2002-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-05T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/05\/us-novlangue\/"},"modified":"2002-10-05T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-10-05T00:00:00","slug":"us-novlangue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/05\/us-novlangue\/","title":{"rendered":"US Novlangue<\/em><\/strong>?"},"content":{"rendered":"

US Novlangue<\/em> ?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\t5 octobre 2002 Nous revenons sur cet article du Sidney Morning Herald du 3 octobre. <\/a> Il reprend le compte-rendu de conf\u00e9rences de Richard Butler dans le circuit universitaire australien et illustre involontairement une extraordinaire caract\u00e9ristique, non seulement de la crise actuelle, mais, plus important, de la psychologie am\u00e9ricaine. (L’article est reproduit ci-dessous, pour m\u00e9moire.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Butler d’abord, homme au-dessus de tout soup\u00e7on. Cet ancien patron de l’UNSCOM (c’est lui qui dirigeait l’ex-Marine Scott Ridder, devenu depuis l’un des opposants les plus en vue de la guerre en Irak). Butler s’est signal\u00e9 pendant son temps \u00e0 l’ONU comme tr\u00e8s proche des USA, jusqu’\u00e0 faire na\u00eetre le soup\u00e7on d’une r\u00e9elle proximit\u00e9 de la CIA. Il para\u00eet difficile de voir en Butler un antiam\u00e9ricain de quelque fa\u00e7ons que ce soit. Ses commentaires doivent \u00eatre pris pour ce qu’ils sont : un t\u00e9moignage direct sur le comportement am\u00e9ricain.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Ce que nous dit Butler, c’est qu’on se trouve, avec les Am\u00e9ricains, devant des gens qui sont dans un univers diff\u00e9rent, qui raisonnent de fa\u00e7on diff\u00e9rente. Pour eux, effectivement, il y a l’Am\u00e9rique et tout ce qui lui est li\u00e9, qui est n\u00e9cessairement, moralement bon, et les armes de destruction massive, dont le nucl\u00e9aire, tombe, comme le reste, dans cette cat\u00e9gorie. Cette appr\u00e9ciation n’a rien \u00e0 voir avec l’intelligence. C’est un probl\u00e8me d’\u00e9ducation, de conformation d’esprit. On devrait s’arr\u00eater de fa\u00e7on s\u00e9rieuse \u00e0 l’hypoth\u00e8se d’un constat selon lequel le cadre am\u00e9ricain, la pression de la circulation de l’information (\u00e9videmment orient\u00e9e) dans un pays qui n’est qu’information, finissent effectivement par conformer la psychologie humaine. (Butler : \u00ab My attempts to have Americans enter into discussions about double standards have been an abject failure even with highly educated and engaged people. I sometimes felt I was speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their inability to understand. What America totally fails to understand is that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem as are those of Iraq.<\/em> \u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Nous avons \u00e0 explorer ce territoire pour nous compl\u00e8tement inconnu (pour ceux qui n’ont pas lu les auteurs du pass\u00e9 qui ont beaucoup \u00e9crit l\u00e0-dessus), de la psychologie am\u00e9ricaine. Butler montre qu’il effleure une explication, acceptable lorsqu’il attribue cette attitude des officiels am\u00e9ricains, \u00ab even… highly educated and engaged people<\/em> \u00bb, \u00e0 l’influence de Hollywood et de ses sc\u00e9naristes. Effectivement, Hollywood fait partie d’un des grands moteurs producteur d’informations charg\u00e9 de mettre en forme la psychologie am\u00e9ricaine. (Dans le m\u00eame ordre d’id\u00e9e, on se rappellera que l’id\u00e9e de la Star War<\/em> [SDI] de Reagan est venue \u00e0 ce dernier \u00e0 partir de la lecture des comics<\/em> du genre, Buck Rogers et le reste, qui formaient une part importante de sa lecture g\u00e9n\u00e9rale.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Nous avons encore beaucoup \u00e0 apprendre, beaucoup \u00e0 accepter de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 psychologique am\u00e9ricaine. Cela nous aidera \u00e0 comprendre la situation politique actuelle et la cause des humiliations que subissent quotidiennement les Europ\u00e9ens. Un signe de notre incompr\u00e9hension s’inscrit clairement lorsque l’auteur de ce texte titre son article : \u00ab Butler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy<\/em> \u00bb. Certes, le titre lui est inspir\u00e9 par l’assimilation abusive que Butler fait de l’attitude des trois puissances nucl\u00e9aires occidentales \u00ab I confess, too, that I flinch when I hear American, British and French fulminations against weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that they are the proud owners of massive quantities of those weapons, unapologetically insisting that they are essential for their national security, and will remain so.<\/em> \u00bb En r\u00e9alit\u00e9, il n’est aucunement question d’hypocrisie pour les Am\u00e9ricains, m\u00eame si l’accusation peut-\u00eatre port\u00e9e contre les Fran\u00e7ais et les Britanniques. (Quant \u00e0 nous, nous choisirions plut\u00f4t : r\u00e9alisme, \u00e9ventuellement cynisme. Dans tous les cas, pour les Fran\u00e7ais, vous ne trouverez jamais un seul sp\u00e9cialiste et politicien estimant que les syst\u00e8mes fran\u00e7ais sont moralement bons. Ils sont utiles, n\u00e9cessaires, vitaux, essentiels pour la France, etc. Mais au-del\u00e0, rien du tout.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• … hypocrisie, c’est le \u00ab caract\u00e8re et attitude d’une personne qui d\u00e9guise son v\u00e9ritable caract\u00e8re, cache ses v\u00e9ritables tendances et pens\u00e9es, feint des opinions<\/em> \u00bb et ainsi de suite. Il y a une attitude de conscience. On n’aime ou on n’aime pas, mais l’hypocrite n’est ni inconscient, ni innocent. Il sait ce qu’il fait, et lorsqu’il parle de syst\u00e8mes moralement bons pour le cas qui nous occupe, il sait que c’est une gal\u00e9jade qui peut le servir. Les Am\u00e9ricains, ce n’est rien de cela, comme Butler l’a constat\u00e9 (et son jugement collectif d’hypocrisie montre qu’il lui reste \u00e0 comprendre des choses). Les am\u00e9ricains croient ce qu’ils disent dans cette circonstance, comme dans tant d’autres. Ils ne mentent pas, c’est leur psychologie et l’\u00e9ducation qui leur a \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9e qui les conduisent \u00e0 ces affirmations \u00e9videmment sinc\u00e8res de leur point de vue. C’est une situation effrayante, bien plus effrayante que s’il y avait hypocrisie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tButler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBy Gerard Noonan, Education Editor October 3, 2002, Sidney Morning Herald<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe former chief weapons inspector in Iraq Richard Butler has lashed out at United States \u00a0\u00bbdouble standards\u00a0\u00bb, saying even educated Americans were deaf to arguments about the hypocrisy of their stance on nuclear weapons.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler, an Australian, told a seminar at the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies that Americans did not appreciate they could not claim a right to possess nuclear weapons but deny it to other nations.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMy attempts to have Americans enter into discussions about double standards have been an abject failure even with highly educated and engaged people, Mr Butler said. I sometimes felt I was speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their inability to understand.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler’s comments to the seminar, held on September21, are reported in the university’s latest newsletter.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhat America totally fails to understand is that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem as are those of Iraq, he said, adding that Hollywood storylines fuelled such attitudes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler said the horror of September 11 had only entrenched the idea in Americans that there are good weapons of mass destruction and bad ones.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler, who headed the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq in the early 1990s, is a former Australian ambassador for disarmament.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEarlier, delivering the university’s Templeton Lecture, Mr Butler said one of the most difficult times with the Iraqi regime had been dealing with this issue of inconsistency.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmongst my toughest moments in Baghdad were when the Iraqis demanded that I explain why they should be hounded for their weapons of mass destruction when, just down the road, Israel was not, even though it was known to possess some 200 nuclear weapons, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tI confess, too, that I flinch when I hear American, British and French fulminations against weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that they are the proud owners of massive quantities of those weapons, unapologetically insisting that they are essential for their national security, and will remain so.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler said that manifest unfairness double standards produced a situation that was deeply, inherently unstable.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThis is because human beings will not swallow such unfairness. This principle is as certain as the basic laws of physics itself.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr Butler said one problem encountered in Iraq was that materials and technologies employed in making a chemical or biological weapon were identical to those used in a range of benign products for medical, industrial or agricultural use.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe UN Security Council’s decision in 1991 to destroy, remove or render harmless Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction was unique and far-reaching, far tougher than past attempts to disarm defeated countries like Germany and Japan.<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

US Novlangue ? 5 octobre 2002 Nous revenons sur cet article du Sidney Morning Herald du 3 octobre. Il reprend le compte-rendu de conf\u00e9rences de Richard Butler dans le circuit universitaire australien et illustre involontairement une extraordinaire caract\u00e9ristique, non seulement de la crise actuelle, mais, plus important, de la psychologie am\u00e9ricaine. (L’article est reproduit ci-dessous,… <\/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":[3633,3635,3634,857,3004,3099,2671],"class_list":["post-65277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-butler","tag-groupthink","tag-inculpabilite","tag-irak","tag-nucleaire","tag-psychologie","tag-us"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65277","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=65277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}