\t10 mars 2003 L’affaire de la fuite sur les \u00e9coutes US \u00e0 l’ONU faite au profit du quotidien britannique the Observer,<\/a> le 2 mars, a pris une singuli\u00e8re importance dans la semaine qui a suivi sa r\u00e9v\u00e9lation<\/a>. Ci-dessous, nous publions un article de l’organisme am\u00e9ricain FAIR (Fairnesse & Accuracy In Reporting), de Norman Solomon sur cette affaire. Nous voulons signaler trois choses.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0L’article rend compte des r\u00e9actions des m\u00e9dias am\u00e9ricains, celles-ci faibles, prudentes, voire inexistantes comme on peut l’apprendre sans surprise, malgr\u00e9 la publication d’un m\u00e9morandum de la NSA expliquant et lan\u00e7ant l’op\u00e9ration<\/a>. L’incident met en lumi\u00e8re, une fois de plus, le d\u00e9calage existant entre la presse europ\u00e9enne et la presse US, et le chemin choisi par cette derni\u00e8re, qui est d’un alignement sur la ligne gouvernementale, avec le refus de mettre en \u00e9vidence tout ce qui contrecarre cette ligne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0L’article est aussi enrichi d’une interview de Daniel Ellsberg, qui fut l’auteur en 1971 de la fameuse fuite des Pentagon Papers<\/em>. (Le dossier secret du Pentagone sur l’engagement am\u00e9ricain au Viet-n\u00e2m, fut publi\u00e9 par le New York Times<\/em> malgr\u00e9 une demande d’interdiction par l’administration Nixon, rejet\u00e9e par la Cour Supr\u00eame ; Ellsberg, qui avait \u00e9t\u00e9 analyste au DoD o\u00f9 il r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 disposer d’un exemplaire du document, fut l’objet de diverses actions ill\u00e9gales de la part des plombiers de la Maison-Blanche, l’\u00e9quipe qui r\u00e9alisa ensuite le cambriolage du Watergate.) Ellsberg estime la fuite sur les \u00e9coutes ill\u00e9gales \u00e0 l’ONU \u00ab more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers<\/em> \u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu un autre article (du 9 f\u00e9vrier) de the Observer,<\/a> rendant compte du climat actuel, extr\u00eamement mauvais, entre les services de renseignement britanniques et le pouvoir politique (Alastair Campbell et l’\u00e9quipe de Downing Street). Un autre aspect concerne les rapports entre USA et UK dans le domaine du renseignement. Les Am\u00e9ricains de la NSA sont absolument furieux de cette fuite, qui a eu lieu du c\u00f4t\u00e9 britannique (une arrestation a eu lieu<\/a>) ; ils vont en tirer une seule conclusion sans s’embarrasser de nuances : le climat anti-guerre r\u00e9gnant au Royaume-Uni a atteint les SR britanniques. Les relations entre les deux sph\u00e8res, SR am\u00e9ricains et SR britanniques, vont s’en trouver restreintes, \u00e0 l’initiative des Am\u00e9ricains, ce qui n’est pas pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment bienvenu \u00e0 la veille de la guerre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tVoici l’article de Solomon.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tBy Norman Solomon, published on Thursday, March 6, 2003 by FAIR’s Media Beat<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThree days after a British newspaper revealed a memo about U.S. spying on U.N. Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. \u00a0\u00bbThis leak,\u00a0\u00bb he replied, \u00a0\u00bbis more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe key word is \u00a0\u00bbtimely.\u00a0\u00bb Publication of the secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg’s heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had already been underway for many years. But with all-out war on Iraq still in the future, the leak about spying at the United Nations could erode the Bush administration’s already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0\u00bbAs part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq,\u00a0\u00bb the London-based Observer reported on March 2, the U.S. government developed an \u00a0\u00bbaggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates.\u00a0\u00bb The smoking gun was \u00a0\u00bba memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency — the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world — and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe Observer added: \u00a0\u00bbThe leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York — the so-called ‘Middle Six’ delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China and Russia.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, outlines the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council — \u00a0\u00bbthe whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThree days after the memo came to light, the Times of London printed an article noting that the Bush administration \u00a0\u00bbfinds itself isolated\u00a0\u00bb in its zeal for war on Iraq. \u00a0\u00bbIn the most recent setback,\u00a0\u00bb the newspaper reported, \u00a0\u00bba memorandum by the U.S. National Security Agency, leaked to the Observer, revealed that American spies were ordered to eavesdrop on the conversations of the six undecided countries on the United Nations Security Council.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe London Times article called it an \u00a0\u00bbembarrassing disclosure.\u00a0\u00bb And the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tSeveral days after the \u00a0\u00bbembarrassing disclosure,\u00a0\u00bb not a word about it had appeared in America’s supposed paper of record. The New York Times — the single most influential media outlet in the United States — still had not printed anything about the story. How could that be? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00a0\u00bbWell, it’s not that we haven’t been interested,\u00a0\u00bb New York Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale said Wednesday night, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. \u00a0\u00bbWe could get no confirmation or comment\u00a0\u00bb on the memo from U.S. officials. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe Times opted not to relay the Observer’s account, Smale told me. \u00a0\u00bbWe would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting.\u00a0\u00bb She added: \u00a0\u00bbWe are still definitely looking into it. It’s not that we’re not.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBelated coverage would be better than none at all. But readers should be suspicious of the failure of the New York Times to cover this story during the crucial first days after it broke. At some moments in history, when war and peace hang in the balance, journalism delayed is journalism denied. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tOverall, the sparse U.S. coverage that did take place seemed eager to downplay the significance of the Observer’s revelations. On March 4, the Washington Post ran a back-page 514-word article headlined \u00a0\u00bbSpying Report No Shock to U.N.,\u00a0\u00bb while the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that began by emphasizing that U.S. spy activities at the United Nations are \u00a0\u00bblong-standing.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tThe U.S. media treatment has contrasted sharply with coverage on other continents. \u00a0\u00bbWhile some have taken a ho-hum attitude in the U.S., many around the world are furious,\u00a0\u00bb says Ed Vulliamy, one of the Observer reporters who wrote the March 2 article. \u00a0\u00bbStill, almost all governments are extremely reluctant to speak up against the espionage. This further illustrates their vulnerability to the U.S. government.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTo Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the NSA memo was a hopeful sign. \u00a0\u00bbTruth-telling like this can stop a war,\u00a0\u00bb he said. Time is short for insiders at intelligence agencies \u00a0\u00bbto tell the truth and save many many lives.\u00a0\u00bb But major news outlets must stop dodging the information that emerges. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tNorman Solomon is co-author of the new book \u00a0\u00bbTarget Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You,\u00a0\u00bb published by Context Books (www.contextbooks.com\/newF.html).<\/em> <\/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":" Des espions troubl\u00e9s 10 mars 2003 L’affaire de la fuite sur les \u00e9coutes US \u00e0 l’ONU faite au profit du quotidien britannique the Observer, le 2 mars, a pris une singuli\u00e8re importance dans la semaine qui a suivi sa r\u00e9v\u00e9lation. Ci-dessous, nous publions un article de l’organisme am\u00e9ricain FAIR (Fairnesse & Accuracy In Reporting), de… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3428,3147,625,3871,3872,3873,3201],"class_list":["post-65504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-echelon","tag-ellsberg","tag-fair","tag-nsa","tag-observer","tag-papers","tag-pentagon"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65504","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=65504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n