{"id":65291,"date":"2002-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-15T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/15\/we-are-all-unilateralists\/"},"modified":"2002-10-15T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-10-15T00:00:00","slug":"we-are-all-unilateralists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/10\/15\/we-are-all-unilateralists\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cWe are all unilateralists\u201d<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

We are all unilateralists<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t15 octobre 2002 Cet article publi\u00e9 ce jour par le International Herald Tribune,<\/a> apr\u00e8s l’avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 par le Washington Post<\/em>, est une bonne mesure de la progression des esprits aux USA, dans l’\u00e9lite washingtonienne. Il est \u00e9crit par Max Boot, qui fait partie du Council of Foreign Relations, qui est une organisation fameuse \u00e0 Washington, et qui est une organisation fameuse pour avoir de tous les temps soutenu les orientations multilat\u00e9ralistes de la politique US. D\u00e9duction : appartenant au CFR, Boot n’est pas un extr\u00e9miste ni un unilat\u00e9raliste. Voici ce qu’il dit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• A propos de la r\u00e9cente strat\u00e9gie nationale, que l’administration GW a officiellement proclam\u00e9e, il constate : \u00ab If the nonreaction to the National Security Strategy is any indication, we Americans are all hegemonists now.<\/em> \u00bb Et l’on ajoutera aussit\u00f4t, car cela va de pair : We Americans are all unilateralists now<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Par ailleurs et pour bien fixer les choses, Boot nous rappelle que Clinton, malgr\u00e9 le charme et les \u00e9tiquettes, n’a pas fait diff\u00e9rent. \u00ab It’s not just George W. Bush who feels this way <\/em>[i.e.: unilateralits<\/em>]. Judging by his unwillingness to defer to the United Nations in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998) and Kosovo (1999), so did Bill Clinton.<\/em> \u00bb Traduisons, l\u00e0 encore : les Am\u00e9ricains n’ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 vraiment multilat\u00e9ralistes, sinon tactiquement. Nous sommes bien d’accord avec ce constat implicite, et c’est l’ami Kagan qui n’a pas tort,<\/a> lorsqu’il nous d\u00e9voile la recette de la manipulation des concepts par les Am\u00e9ricains.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Autre conclusion de Boot : puisque nous sommes h\u00e9g\u00e9monistes et unilat\u00e9ralistes, il va falloir passer \u00e0 la caisse. Il va falloir financer notre ambition et cela implique beaucoup plus d’argent pour la d\u00e9fense que les sommes pharaoniques d’ores et d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00e9pens\u00e9es. Cela rejoint l’id\u00e9e \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par Grasso, le patron de Wall Street, dans une intervention r\u00e9cente<\/a>, sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une \u00e9norme augmentation des d\u00e9penses de d\u00e9fense.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• … En passant, Boot nous confirme que cette formidable puissance qui fait l’envie du monde entier est totalement insuffisante pour les t\u00e2ches que les \u00c9tats-Unis s’assignent. L\u00e0 aussi, confirmation…<\/a>. Voici le passage sur ces deux points :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab …By bringing this dominance out into the open, the NSC document suggests at least two important implications. First, it means spending more on defense. America spends only about 3.5 percent of its GDP on defense, down from 4.4 percent as recently as 1993. U.S. power looks daunting in world rankings mainly because the Soviet bloc collapsed and U.S. allies in Europe disarmed. But there aren’t enough troops to carry out all of America’s commitments, and the equipment they use is aging fast.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Pilots in all the services routinely fly airplanes (such as the B-52) and helicopters (such as the CH-46 Sea Knight) that are older than they are. Squadrons often wind up cannibalizing some of their planes to keep others flying. This can’t go on much longer. The armed forces took a procurement holiday in the 1990s, using scarce funds to pay for ongoing operations. Now the bill is coming due, and it’s hefty estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at about $90 billion a year. Next year’s defense budget increase $48 billion won’t begin to cover this shortfall; most of it is earmarked for terrorism and personnel costs.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb If America is serious about remaining the Big Enchilada, it will have to spend more for defense. This is not a welcome implication for the White House, which, after throwing a pork fest in the farm bill, wants to hold the line on the defense budget. Democrats can’t be too happy with a second implication of the predominance doctrine: Any nation with so much power always will be tempted to go it alone. Power breeds unilateralism. It’s as simple as that.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We are all unilateralists 15 octobre 2002 Cet article publi\u00e9 ce jour par le International Herald Tribune, apr\u00e8s l’avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 par le Washington Post, est une bonne mesure de la progression des esprits aux USA, dans l’\u00e9lite washingtonienne. Il est \u00e9crit par Max Boot, qui fait partie du Council of Foreign Relations, qui est une… <\/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":[3650,3382,3651,2804],"class_list":["post-65291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-hegemonie","tag-kagan","tag-unilateraliste","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65291","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=65291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65291\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}