{"id":65625,"date":"2003-05-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-05-29T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/05\/29\/la-pathetique-alliance-americaine-des-britanniques\/"},"modified":"2003-05-29T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-05-29T00:00:00","slug":"la-pathetique-alliance-americaine-des-britanniques","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/05\/29\/la-pathetique-alliance-americaine-des-britanniques\/","title":{"rendered":"La path\u00e9tique alliance am\u00e9ricaine des Britanniques<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La path\u00e9tique alliance am\u00e9ricaine des Britanniques<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t29 mai 2003 Voici deux textes qui mettent en \u00e9vidence de fa\u00e7on circonstanci\u00e9e et int\u00e9ressante les contradictions de l’alliance am\u00e9ricaine des Britanniques. Le sel de l’affaire est que ces deux articles viennent ou mettent en sc\u00e8ne des conservateurs, qui sont en th\u00e9orie les plus chauds partisans de cette alliance.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Un texte de The Independent du 27 mai<\/a> met en \u00e9vidence des dysfonctionnements qui eurent lieu en Irak, aux d\u00e9pens des forces britanniques, \u00e0 cause de la soumission de ces forces aux Am\u00e9ricains. Il s’agit d’une protestation qui vient du ministre de la d\u00e9fense du shadow cabinet<\/em> conservateur, et l’on comprend alors de quelle ironie nous voulons parler. Le probl\u00e8me est simple : des forces britanniques eurent besoin d’un appui a\u00e9rien qu’elles n’eurent pas dans certaines circonstances de la guerre. Elles ne l’eurent pas parce que le commandement am\u00e9ricain, qui contr\u00f4lait tout, avait envoy\u00e9 les avions britanniques d’appui (en plus des avions US) en appui des forces am\u00e9ricaines. Conclusion r\u00e9volutionnaire du ministre Jenkin, sur la pointe des mots : il faudrait que les forces britanniques contr\u00f4lent leurs propres moyens d’appui. Ce qui n’est \u00e9videmment pas le cas avec les alliances avec les Am\u00e9ricains. On souhaite bien du plaisir aux Britanniques avec le JSF.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Bernard Jenkin, the Shadow Defence Secretary, declared that, in future Anglo-American military actions, British forces should have first call on RAF aircraft.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Jenkin said that placing British warplanes in the coalition \u00a0\u00bbpool\u00a0\u00bb had resulted in delays in receiving air support while British forces were attempting to take Basra in southern Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He said: I have not made any criticism of the Americans. I think it is entirely natural that they would regard their main effort as the attack on Baghdad and that the slow and painstaking approach to Basra by the British forces was a secondary issue to them, and I think that is perfectly understandable. My criticism is whether it is right for British forces to pool our air support with the coalition as a whole rather than to maintain dedicated close air support with our own forces.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t• Un texte, le m\u00eame jour, du parlementaire conservateur Daniel Hannan dans le Daily Telegraph<\/a>, met en \u00e9vidence un autre probl\u00e8me \u00e0 propos de la m\u00eame contradiction due \u00e0 l’alliance am\u00e9ricaine. Hannan explique qu’il est effectivement fond\u00e9 de s’opposer \u00e0 une arm\u00e9e europ\u00e9enne et aux efforts de l’UE dans ce sens, selon le point de vue patriotique des conservateurs de refuser toute abdication de la souverainet\u00e9 nationale, mais que dire alors de l’OTAN ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The unfortunate truth is that almost all international bureaucracies are, to a greater or lesser extent, bad not because they contain bad people, but because they are not accountable. When there are no consumers to please, producers please themselves; when there are no voters to worry about, civil servants arrange matters for their own benefit. Most British people can see this when talking about the EU, but we have a collective blind-spot when it comes to Nato.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Ah yes, the EU. Now we come to the real reason why so many people are determined to cling to the Atlantic Alliance. For all its faults, Nato is seen as the only viable alternative to a European Army. This view, unquestioned in the British press, would be met with utter bewilderment in SHAPE, Nato’s Belgian headquarters.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Don’t take my word for it; listen to Nato itself. As early as 1990, the Alliance declared: The move within the European Community towards political union, including the development of a European identity in the domain of security, will contribute to Atlantic solidarity.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In every subsequent summit, Nato has reaffirmed its support for closer EU defence integration. And why not? The two organisations, after all, share the same supra-nationalist assumptions, the same belief that fonctionnaires know better than elected politicians.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb This may be your view, too. Perhaps you feel that Britain ought in principle to share sovereignty in defence matters. Or perhaps you believe we are not strong enough to act without allies (although, as the fourth military power in the world, it is hard to see how much stronger we would need to be). That is an honourable stance.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb What is harder to understand is the position of my fellow Euro-sceptics, who oppose a common European defence without seeming to realise that this is precisely what we now have. Michael Portillo famously declared that he did not want British soldiers to die for Brussels. Absolutely. Let’s pull them out of Nato command.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tNous compatissons \u00e0 ces remarques d\u00e9sol\u00e9es de deux hommes qui sont certainement sinc\u00e8res et entendent prot\u00e9ger la souverainet\u00e9 britannique. Nous les jugeons path\u00e9tiques dans leur volont\u00e9 de tenter d’\u00e9viter \u00e0 tout prix d’aborder le vrai probl\u00e8me, Jenkin en refusant de faire porter quelque responsabilit\u00e9 que ce soit aux Am\u00e9ricains dans l’affaire qu’il d\u00e9nonce, Hannan en \u00e9vitant de nous dire que le roi est nu, c’est-\u00e0-dire que l’OTAN n’est pas une organisation multinationale comme les autres, mais qu’elle est un outil de manipulation des Am\u00e9ricains, et que les Britanniques s’y soumettent parce que leur politique am\u00e9ricaine les y oblige.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans les deux cas, c’est la politique am\u00e9ricaine du Royaume-Uni qui est en cause, c’est elle qui sacrifie le bien essentiel et la marque fondamentale d’une nation, pour lesquels les Britanniques se disent pr\u00eats \u00e0 mentir, \u00e0 se battre, \u00e0 r\u00e9sister jusqu’\u00e0 la mort, leur souverainet\u00e9 nationale. Question redondante : combien de temps encore les Britanniques r\u00e9sisteront-ils \u00e0 tant d’humiliations et de dommages inflig\u00e9s, indirectement de leur propre volont\u00e9, \u00e0 ce qui leur est le plus cher ?<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La path\u00e9tique alliance am\u00e9ricaine des Britanniques 29 mai 2003 Voici deux textes qui mettent en \u00e9vidence de fa\u00e7on circonstanci\u00e9e et int\u00e9ressante les contradictions de l’alliance am\u00e9ricaine des Britanniques. Le sel de l’affaire est que ces deux articles viennent ou mettent en sc\u00e8ne des conservateurs, qui sont en th\u00e9orie les plus chauds partisans de cette alliance.… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-65625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65625","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=65625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}