{"id":65359,"date":"2002-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/12\/02\/presque-revolutionnaire\/"},"modified":"2002-12-02T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2002-12-02T00:00:00","slug":"presque-revolutionnaire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2002\/12\/02\/presque-revolutionnaire\/","title":{"rendered":"Presque r\u00e9volutionnaire<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Presque r\u00e9volutionnaire<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t2 d\u00e9cembre 2002 Nous nous devions de nous arr\u00eater \u00e0 cet article du WashingtonPost<\/em>, qui est d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9 dans la rubrique Nos Liens.<\/a> Nous disions d\u00e9j\u00e0 que le support ne peut \u00eatre soup\u00e7onn\u00e9 de parti-pris (position pro-guerre du Washington Post<\/em>), ce qui t\u00e9moigne du s\u00e9rieux des \u00e9v\u00e9nements que nous signale l’article. Nous irions m\u00eame, avec un certain machiav\u00e9lisme, jusqu’\u00e0 observer que la pr\u00e9sence d’un tel article, si important et si d\u00e9taill\u00e9, et mettant en \u00e9vidence l’originalit\u00e9 et la profondeur du mouvement anti-guerre, est en soi un signe ; on pourrait faire l’hypoth\u00e8se que le Post<\/em> est en train de prendre quelques gages face \u00e0 une \u00e9volution qu’il juge importante<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe qui est \u00e9videmment remarquable, comme le signale le journal, c’est la diversit\u00e9 du mouvement anti-guerre, ce qui le diff\u00e9rencie de mani\u00e8re d\u00e9cisive de tout ce qui a pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9. Quelques d\u00e9tails \u00e9tonnants :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Most members of Mothers Against War are grandmothers in their seventies whose lives are already full. Yet they spend hours a day on the Internet, reading and spreading information on Iraq and the United States and planning for marches, e-mail campaigns and teach-ins. Having lived through the Vietnam antiwar movement, which took years to build, the Mothers Against War are buoyed to find themselves part of a fast-growing movement of people from every walk of life, from every political stripe.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The extraordinary array of groups questioning the Bush administration’s rationale for an invasion of Iraq includes longtime radical groups such as the Workers World Party, but also groups not known for taking stands against the government. There is a labor movement against war, led by organizers of the largest unions in the country; a religious movement against the war, which includes leaders of virtually every mainstream denomination; a veterans movement against the war, led by those who fought Iraq in the Persian Gulf a decade ago; business leaders against the war, led by corporate leaders; an antiwar movement led by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; and immigrant groups against the war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb There are also black and Latino organizations, hundreds of campus antiwar groups and scores of groups of ordinary citizens meeting in community centers and church basements from Baltimore to Seattle.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb It has reached a point where United for Peace, a Web site started by the San Francisco-based human rights organization Global Exchange for groups to list events commemorating the Sept. 11 anniversary, has morphed into a national network coordinating events for more than 70 peace groups nationwide.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb We’re taking the . . . Web site and rebuilding it as a one-stop shopping for the antiwar movement, said Andrea Buffa, who co-chairs the new network. It’s a campaign of all different kinds of groups, from the National Council of Churches to the International Socialists organization; I just got a call from the Raging Grannies of Palo Alto, who want to join. We’re bringing groups together to develop a consensus statement and a calendar of coordinated antiwar events.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tCette diversit\u00e9, cette complexit\u00e9, qui apparaissent de mani\u00e8re assez symbolique comme si repr\u00e9sentatives de la diversit\u00e9 tant vant\u00e9e de l’Am\u00e9rique, expliquent la difficult\u00e9 \u00e0 cerner, \u00e0 comprendre ce mouvement, voire m\u00eame \u00e0 croire \u00e0 son existence, tout simplement. Le mouvement ne r\u00e9pond \u00e0 aucune impulsion cat\u00e9gorielle, sociale ou id\u00e9ologique pr\u00e9cise ; il est l’enfant d’un sentiment g\u00e9n\u00e9ral qui semble peu \u00e0 peu soulever divers groupes, divers milieux, diverses cat\u00e9gories, et qu’on pourrait nommer apr\u00e8s tout : bon sens. C’est tr\u00e8s bien mais, d’autre part, cela explique l’incapacit\u00e9 o\u00f9 l’on se trouve de faire des pr\u00e9visions s\u00e9rieuses \u00e0 son \u00e9gard.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette incapacit\u00e9 est aussi celle de l’administration, et m\u00eame plus forte encore que la n\u00f4tre. La surprise du mouvement anti-guerre, s’il y a une surprise, sera pour cette administration, et elle risque d’\u00eatre sal\u00e9e. Il s’agit d’un \u00e9l\u00e9ment dont nul (m\u00eame pas nous, d’ailleurs) ne tient compte, tiens, par exemple : on pourrait dire qu’il s’agit d’un \u00e9l\u00e9ment absolument d\u00e9mocratique, celui qui nous manque bien dans ce d\u00e9bat, et dont nous nous sommes inqui\u00e9t\u00e9s par ailleurs<\/a> … <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn verra vite le potentiel de ce mouvement, d\u00e8s le 10 d\u00e9cembre o\u00f9 des manifestations sont pr\u00e9vues pour la journ\u00e9e internationale des Droits de l’Homme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab After large rallies in Washington and San Francisco on Oct. 26, the next big day to test the antiwar movement’s might is Dec. 10, International Human Rights Day. Hundreds of groups plan events, rallies and civil disobedience to capture the nation’s attention, including demonstrations in Lafayette Park across from the White House and at a military recruitment center in downtown Washington.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Otherwise, antiwar groups, which tend to rely on the Internet to receive and spread information, operate largely without the attention of the media or Capitol Hill. Yet many of those speaking out against an attack on Iraq represent large numbers of Americans, including John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO (with 13 million members); the National Council of Churches (which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations, with 50 million members); and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the leadership arm of 65 million Roman Catholics).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Among themselves, the groups are quietly organizing their ranks. A letter Sweeney sent to Congress in early October expressing deep reservations about the justifications for an invasion has begun to resonate among the rank and file, said Bob Muehlenkamp, a labor consultant and former organizing director for the Teamsters union. Several hundred thousand union members, he said, have signed up against the war, with more joining every week. He expects the numbers to balloon when leaders hold an organizational breakfast meeting for all unions in New York on Dec. 18.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tImpossible de conclure quoi que ce soit de pr\u00e9cis, de faire des pr\u00e9visions. C’est justement ce qui est caract\u00e9ristique, ce qui fait que cette situation n’a pas de pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent. D’une Am\u00e9rique qui nous semblait totalement anesth\u00e9si\u00e9e et regroup\u00e9e derri\u00e8re GW, pourrions-nous passer \u00e0 une Am\u00e9rique en r\u00e9volte ouverte ? C’est une sacr\u00e9e hypoth\u00e8que. Et c’est une situation compl\u00e8tement diff\u00e9rente de celle qui pr\u00e9valait dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, lorsqu’on vit enfler la r\u00e9volte de mani\u00e8re parfaitement identifi\u00e9e, dans les milieux radicaux de gauche, dans les universit\u00e9s et chez les Noirs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’autre diff\u00e9rence avec les ann\u00e9es 1960 est qu’alors, le gouvernement avait une possibilit\u00e9 : renverser l’engagement vietnamien, chercher une porte de sortie (comme fit Nixon finalement), sans se d\u00e9juger puisque la politique officielle \u00e9tait de rechercher toutes les possibilit\u00e9s de faire la paix. Aujourd’hui, ce n’est plus le cas : l’administration GW est toute enti\u00e8re engag\u00e9e dans une guerre qu’elle n’a pas encore lanc\u00e9e, qu’elle pr\u00e9pare \u00e0 outrance mais qu’il s’av\u00e8re de plus en plus difficile de lancer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPlus encore, enfin. Cette possibilit\u00e9 de mouvement de r\u00e9volte a r\u00e9ellement une dimension r\u00e9volutionnaire. Au-del\u00e0 de toutes les consid\u00e9rations circonstancielles, il s’agit d’un mouvement qui met en cause l’organisation actuelle de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 au niveau de la communication, avec la cr\u00e9ation d’un univers virtualiste \u00e0 la place de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9. Ce qui est r\u00e9volutionnaire, c’est que cette r\u00e9volte possible est aussi une r\u00e9volte contre les structures m\u00eames du pouvoir tel qu’il a \u00e9volu\u00e9 dans nos soci\u00e9t\u00e9s modernes. C’est une perspective qui enterre tous les clivages d\u00e9pass\u00e9s et archa\u00efques de droite et de gauche, y compris les d\u00e9nonciations des dangers d’un autre temps (fascisme, communisme, etc).<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Presque r\u00e9volutionnaire 2 d\u00e9cembre 2002 Nous nous devions de nous arr\u00eater \u00e0 cet article du WashingtonPost, qui est d\u00e9j\u00e0 signal\u00e9 dans la rubrique Nos Liens. Nous disions d\u00e9j\u00e0 que le support ne peut \u00eatre soup\u00e7onn\u00e9 de parti-pris (position pro-guerre du Washington Post), ce qui t\u00e9moigne du s\u00e9rieux des \u00e9v\u00e9nements que nous signale l’article. Nous irions… <\/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":[3554,2804,3248],"class_list":["post-65359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-anti-guerre","tag-usa","tag-washington"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65359","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=65359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65359\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}