{"id":65492,"date":"2003-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/03\/01\/la-belgique-et-le-wsj\/"},"modified":"2003-03-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-03-01T00:00:00","slug":"la-belgique-et-le-wsj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/03\/01\/la-belgique-et-le-wsj\/","title":{"rendered":"La Belgique et le WSJ<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La Belgique et le WSJ<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t1er mars 2003 On lira ci-apr\u00e8s un \u00e9change entre le ministre belge de la d\u00e9fense et le Wall Street Journal<\/em>, \u00e0 la suite d’un article du 13 f\u00e9vrier du journaliste Philip Shishkin. On ne s’attardera pas au contenu de cet article du 13 f\u00e9vrier, on ne le citera m\u00eame pas, par lassitude de relever les contre-v\u00e9rit\u00e9s et arguments robotis\u00e9s de journalistes qui font consid\u00e9rer avec nostalgie l’humanit\u00e9 de leurs inspirateurs du temps de la Pravda<\/em>. (Illustrons ce propos d’une anecdote rapide, de Renata Lesnik, qui avait \u00e9t\u00e9 collaboratrice d’une radio sovi\u00e9tique avant de passer \u00e0 l’Ouest. Elle rapportait l’\u00e9puisement psychologique, la nervosit\u00e9 intenable, que provoquait ce maniement continuel du mensonge auquel elle \u00e9tait oblig\u00e9e, il n’y a en effet rien de plus \u00e9puisant que le mensonge continuel de ces journalistes s’il leur reste quelque conscience \u00e0 ce propos ; un jour, Lesnik fut prise d’une audace insens\u00e9e puisqu’elle ignorait comment l’autre r\u00e9agirait, mais elle n’y tenait plus ; elle s’ouvrit de l’humeur extr\u00eame o\u00f9 la mettait ce devoir de mensonge \u00e0 son chef de service, disons un nomm\u00e9 Boris ; Boris r\u00e9agit bien, il ne la d\u00e9non\u00e7a pas et, de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente et fort subtile, constatant l’extr\u00eame nervosit\u00e9 o\u00f9 ce devoir mettait la jeune femme, il ouvrit son tiroir, sortit une bouteille de vodka, et lui dit : \u00ab Tiens, bois, c’est ce que je fais d’habitude.<\/em> \u00bb Nos robots US ne font pas \u00e7a ; ils vous r\u00e9pondent par une le\u00e7on de morale, ajoutant l’ennui au reste et montrant qu’ils ont d\u00e9finitivement d\u00e9sert\u00e9 l’humanit\u00e9.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe qui nous a paru remarquable, c’est l’extraordinaire vigueur de la lettre de Flahaut. Cette vigueur marque bien, aujourd’hui, l’humeur des dirigeants belges et de nombre de leurs concitoyens face aux agressions am\u00e9ricaines. Il n’y a l\u00e0 ni extr\u00e9misme, ni antiam\u00e9ricanisme du type qui fait disserter chez les \u00e9diteurs Rive Gauche. Il y a une r\u00e9action d’Europ\u00e9ens, finissant par ne plus supporter la grossi\u00e8ret\u00e9 des le\u00e7ons ass\u00e9n\u00e9es par les journalistes am\u00e9ricains au nom d’une vertu dont ils repr\u00e9sentent une caricature parfaitement homoth\u00e9tique. Aujourd’hui, les Belges sont donc \u00e0 classer parmi les bons Europ\u00e9ens, et non sans verdeur audacieuse et courageuse, il en faut pour traiter le WSJ de pute remarquable par le niveau o\u00f9 elle est tomb\u00e9e. C’est une surprise heureuse, pour une classe politique qu’on pouvait croire, avec les meilleures raisons du monde, compl\u00e8tement corrompue au niveau de la psychologie et du caract\u00e8re. Que le sentiment europ\u00e9en, en m\u00eame temps qu’un sentiment national (\u00ab My Country<\/em> \u00bb, \u00e9crit Flahaut), conduisent \u00e0 une telle transformation, voil\u00e0 qui est \u00e0 mettre parmi les grandes esp\u00e9rances europ\u00e9ennes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa violence de l’\u00e9change mesure l’\u00e9tat des relations transatlantiques. C’est une bonne mesure, et, si elle est bas\u00e9e sur une anecdote et sur une affaire secondaire, elle en est encore plus significative puisque impliquant un ministre d’un pays europ\u00e9en pourtant r\u00e9put\u00e9 pour sa mesure et sa prudence, et l’organe quasi-officiel de la fraction US la plus extr\u00e9miste qualifi\u00e9 de \u00ab newspaper of this quality<\/em> \u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Pour la mesure des choses, on rapprochera ce texte de celui que nous avons r\u00e9cemment publi\u00e9 sur le m\u00e9contentement d’un universitaire turc \u00e0 la suite d’un article du New York Times.<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa d\u00e9fense du WSJ est classique : l’appel au t\u00e9moin, capitaine de surcro\u00eet, de l’arm\u00e9e belge, m\u00e9content de son ministre et qui le dit, anonymement, \u00ab who understandably declined to be identified by name<\/em> \u00bb (la police politique belge veille) ; l’appel au Grand T\u00e9moin, par-dessus tout, le mercenaire US sur place (les US le voient comme \u00e7a), le secr\u00e9taire g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l’OTAN de service.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’autre part, la r\u00e9ponse du WSJ est remarquable par un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, par ce qu’elle exprime d’un \u00e9tat d’esprit. Il y a un refus complet de prendre en consid\u00e9ration des aspects humains et les nuances qui s’y attachent, ainsi que les nuances pourtant nombreuses et chamarr\u00e9es de la Belgique ; il y a l’entra\u00eenement dans les pens\u00e9es-slogans, pens\u00e9es ramen\u00e9es \u00e0 des concepts extraordinaires par leur aspect primaire (les Belges ont peur de se battre contre Saddam) ; il y a l’emprisonnement de l’esprit, pour juger d’une situation humaine, dans les seules donn\u00e9es chiffr\u00e9es, d’ailleurs bien contestables si on les appr\u00e9cie relativement. (Aujourd’hui, 85% du personnel, civil et militaire, du DoD, est affect\u00e9 \u00e0 des t\u00e2ches non-militaires (gestion, administration, etc) ; un budget deux fois sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 ceux de tous les autres pays de l’OTAN ne permet pas aux USA, comme des n\u00e9o-conservateurs comme Max Boot et autres ne cessent de s’en plaindre,<\/a> de mener plus que la pr\u00e9paration d’une mini-guerre contre l’Irak, ce qui explique que rien n’a pu \u00eatre fait contre la Cor\u00e9e du Nord<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t• Il s’agit donc de deux textes extraits du Wall Street Journal (Europe)<\/em>, du 26 f\u00e9vrier 2003, le premier (la r\u00e9ponse de Flahaut) sous forme de Letter To The Editor<\/em>, le second (le commentaire WSJ) sous forme d’\u00e9dito.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

An Insult to My Country and Its Military<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tI have read The Wall Street Journal’s recent article concerning the armies of Europe, and in particular the Belgian armed forces (Military Budgets Show Why U.S. Can’t Rely on Major NATO Help, Feb. 13). Beyond the fact that the article’s assertions insult my country and the men and women with a military and humanitarian vocation, I am surprised that a newspaper of this quality is prostituting itself to this level.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYour unfair treatment of a long-term ally of the United States is sufficient to suffocate the most fervent defender of the freedom of the press. Deriding the concept of objectivity with such violence must alarm any citizen (American, European and Belgian).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe ease and vulgarity of your assertions suggest the intention to harm and bear witness to a lack of professionalism. Even if I can understand that the present political context makes you lose the sense for analysis and fair criticism, the deviations you give way to are inexcusable. Is it reasonable, for example, to consider that the prototype of a Belgian soldier is a 24-year-old corporal who is a hairdresser by profession? [Editor’s Note: The hairdresser in question is identified in the article as 47 years old, with 24 years of service in the Belgian Army.] I respect any person and profession, as I do respect all the employees, civil and military, of the department I am responsible for. Let me tell you this:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYes, we guarantee employment to these persons. To my knowledge the same is not true in the United States.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYes, our personnel may call in their union, because this is part of our commitment to democratic principles of active listening and well-being for our employees.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYes, the primary mission of our armed forces is to maintain the peace, and to help the civilian population (Belgian or foreign), without being belligerent or being convinced of having been elected by a higher authority to keep watch over the world order.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYes, our soldiers marched, because unlike some others, we accept that people express their thoughts and their desires, even if we prefer deliberation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tYes, we spend a reasonable budget that corresponds to our bilateral and international obligations, but we refuse to squander our public funds for the sole purpose of national glory, since we prefer to spend them on social affairs, health tare and pensions for our fellow citizens. In none of these fields do we have lessons to receive from anyone else to whatever extent this may annoy them.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tI do not wish to lose any more time relating my feelings about what I consider to be an awful caricature, unworthy of a journalist, unworthy of the Americans we like and respect. But every people has its exceptions, every profession has its misfits.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFor the quality of information of your fellow citizens, for the honor of American journalism, for the respect toward the men and women of my department, I sincerely hope you will cease to believe yourselves the keeper of universal wisdom.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Belgian Blitzkrieg<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Belgians may not want to fight Saddam Hussein, but that doesn’t mean they can’t still go to battle. As evidence, we’d point to Belgian Defense Minister Andr\u00e9 Flahaut’s lengthy letter on the opposite page responding to Philip Shishkin’s February 13 story on the decrepit shape of the Belgian war machine, if that’s what it can still be called.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNormally, we’d let the story and Mr. Flahaut’s reply speak for themselves. But the vehemence and substance of the minister’s response are revealing enough that the letter deserves greater attention.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr. Shishkin’s news story was, we understand, the product of nearly a year of investigative reporting. He received little cooperation from the Belgian Ministry of Defense, which declined to make Mr. Flahaut available for an interview for the story he now derides. Mr. Shishkin is a reporter who works separately from the writers of these columns, but we’d point out that the paper is standing by his facts.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tInterestingly enough, the Shishkin article also provoked responses from Belgian citizens and military personnel. One Army captain, who understandably declined to be identified by name, said of Mr. Shishkin’s description of the state of the Belgian military: It’s not nearly as bad in the Belgian Army as you describe, he wrote. It’s far worse!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe point here is broader than the Belgians. As NATO Secretary-General George Robertson is fond of pointing out, the alliance’s European members as a group<\/em> spend only two-thirds as much as the U.S. on defense, and for their money get only 10% of America’s military capability. The discrepancy arises largely from Europe’s under-investment in the equipment and technology that make today’s modern armies effective.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThese columns have long urged European countries to upgrade their defense capabilities and close that gap. So we were hardly surprised to see Mr. Shishkin’s story report that the Belgian Army spends more than 60% of its budget on personnel. Personnel are crucial to any fighting force, naturally. But an ill-equipped army isn’t much more than a glorified civil service. The high percentage of European budgets that goes toward personnel is a reflection of how little is spent on equipment and materiel.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMr. Flahaut’s furious reply highlights how uncomfortable this truth is for Belgium’s power elite. It also reinforces our argument and Lord Robertson’s that European militaries are not organized to field an effective fighting force. Instead they are seen by governments as jobs programs, props for ceremonial occasions and when absolutely necessary a source of peacekeepers after the fighting has stopped. No wonder the Belgians want nothing to do with Saddam.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La Belgique et le WSJ 1er mars 2003 On lira ci-apr\u00e8s un \u00e9change entre le ministre belge de la d\u00e9fense et le Wall Street Journal, \u00e0 la suite d’un article du 13 f\u00e9vrier du journaliste Philip Shishkin. On ne s’attardera pas au contenu de cet article du 13 f\u00e9vrier, on ne le citera m\u00eame pas,… <\/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":[3224,1205],"class_list":["post-65492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-flahaut","tag-transatlantique"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65492","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=65492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}