{"id":65656,"date":"2003-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-06-27T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/06\/27\/proteger-a-fond-la-technologie-us-meme-au-prix-du-jsf\/"},"modified":"2003-06-27T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-06-27T00:00:00","slug":"proteger-a-fond-la-technologie-us-meme-au-prix-du-jsf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/06\/27\/proteger-a-fond-la-technologie-us-meme-au-prix-du-jsf\/","title":{"rendered":"Prot\u00e9ger \u00e0 fond la technologie US, m\u00eame au prix du JSF<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Prot\u00e9ger \u00e0 fond la technologie US, m\u00eame au prix du JSF<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t27 juin 2003 JSF ou pas JSF, la technologie am\u00e9ricaine sera prot\u00e9g\u00e9e. La loi de d\u00e9fense pour le DoD (FY2004) contient, surtout dans la version de la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants, des dispositions extr\u00eamement fermes pour prot\u00e9ger le march\u00e9 am\u00e9ricain des technologies de d\u00e9fense. Un article du Washington Post du 26 juin<\/a> nous donne quelques indications sur cette question.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The House passed its version of the 2004 defense authorization bill with provisions that would strengthen buy American laws. While current laws already give preference to U.S. defense companies, the provisions would increase even further the dominance of American manufacturers and parts suppliers. Under the current legislation, 65 percent of components in items purchased by the Defense Department would have to be made in America, up from 50 percent.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The provisions also expand the list of items the Pentagon can buy only from U.S. suppliers, including the packaging for ready-to-eat meals, tires for ground vehicles, and aircraft and bomb fuses.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The Senate’s version would give the Pentagon more options in buying from foreign suppliers. The Senate bill recognizes that while the overwhelming bulk of America’s military budget will continue to be spent on domestic products, our forces need the flexibility to procure the best of existing technologies and avail themselves of the strength of the global market, said John Ullyot, spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tQuelle que soit la version retenue, Chambre ou S\u00e9nat, il y aura renforcement du contr\u00f4le et des restrictions pour l’acc\u00e8s aux \u00e9trangers des march\u00e9s d’\u00e9quipements de d\u00e9fense. Cela signifie le renforcement d’une situation d\u00e9j\u00e0 extr\u00eamement dure pour l’acc\u00e8s aux march\u00e9s US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’industrie US (et l’administration, dans un sens) a r\u00e9agi avec vivacit\u00e9. Elle met en \u00e9vidence, particuli\u00e8rement, que plusieurs programmes de coop\u00e9ration seront menac\u00e9s, et particuli\u00e8rement le programme JSF. L\u00e0 aussi, ce serait une aggravation d’une situation d\u00e9j\u00e0 extr\u00eamement tendue, comme on l’a vu r\u00e9cemment avec diverses r\u00e9actions, dont notamment celle des Britanniques<\/a>, et \u00e0 plusieurs reprises<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Industry officials and the Pentagon are especially concerned that the provisions would throw programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the missile defense system into turmoil. Restrictions on the use of foreign parts could force the fighter project to be revamped. In a written response to the legislation, the Pentagon said the buy American provisions would require that international cooperative programs, such as Joint Strike Fighter, be modified or terminated drastically.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMais il n’y a pas en jeu le seul raisonnement commercial. Les parlementaires, qui ont bien peu de domaines o\u00f9 s’exprimer avec une administration tr\u00e8s dure et partout pr\u00e9sente, entendent le faire fortement quand l’occasion se pr\u00e9sente. La question de la protection des technologies de d\u00e9fense d\u00e9pend d’eux, puisqu’il y a une l\u00e9gislation. Les parlementaires entendent en faire une occasion pour manifester leur patriotisme, celui dont ils jugent qu’il sera payant aux \u00e9lections. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLeur r\u00e9ponse aux plaintes des industriels est donc particuli\u00e8rement ferme et ne laisse que peu d’espoir \u00e0 des possibilit\u00e9s de compromis pour att\u00e9nuer de fa\u00e7on substantielle la loi en pr\u00e9paration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, dismissed concerns that the provisions could upset the fighter program. It hasn’t been demonstrated to the committee that this would result in damaging the Joint Strike Fighter program, he said in a recent interview. Other countries just have to understand . . . we have to do everything we can to protect our defense industrial base. That is a legitimate national interest for this country.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Hunter argued that the U.S. defense industry has become too dependent on foreign components. During the Iraq war, he said, a Swiss manufacturer refused to provide a component for the Joint Direct Attack Munition, a smart bomb. Switzerland had banned military exports for war operations. An alternate U.S. supplier was found and production was not interrupted, said a spokesman for Boeing Co., which builds the weapon.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb If the war taught us anything, it’s that we can’t rely on our usual allies, said Joel D. Joseph, chairman of the D.C.-based Made in the USA Foundation. Referring to France and other European countries that opposed the war, Joseph said: They have a right to be independent, and we have a right to be independent. The way to stay independent is for our industry to be self-sufficient.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tTout tient donc dans ces mots : \u00ab Other countries just have to understand…<\/em> \u00bb Il s’agit de nouveau de l’attitude unilat\u00e9raliste am\u00e9ricaine. Les parlementaires estiment la question de la protection des technologies de d\u00e9fense comme \u00e9tant du niveau des enjeux les plus grands en mati\u00e8re de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale. Dans le climat actuel, on ne badine pas avec cela aux USA. Quoi qu’il se passe, nous aurons de toutes les fa\u00e7ons des restrictions beaucoup plus fermes, un \u00e9tat d’esprit encore plus pointilleux et m\u00e9fiant pour tout ce qui concerne ces mati\u00e8res. Le JSF, effectivement, pourrait ne pas survivre, dans tous les cas dans son habillage international actuel qui n\u00e9cessite un tr\u00e8s fort courant de coop\u00e9ration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn tenant compte de l’importance du programme et de l’importance que les Am\u00e9ricains y attachent, et une telle \u00e9volution rendant quasi impossible la coop\u00e9ration envisag\u00e9e au d\u00e9part, des chocs, voire des ruptures vont se produire avec certains pays, essentiellement europ\u00e9ens. L’effet politique sera consid\u00e9rable. Autant le JSF a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement adopt\u00e9 sans une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l’aspect politique (et pour cause, il aurait fallu que des pays europ\u00e9ens proclament qu’ils allaient investir dans un programme US ce qu’ils affirment ne pas pouvoir investir dans un programme europ\u00e9en), autant une rupture aura \u00e9videmment des cons\u00e9quences politiques, en apparaissant comme une rupture avec les USA.<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prot\u00e9ger \u00e0 fond la technologie US, m\u00eame au prix du JSF 27 juin 2003 JSF ou pas JSF, la technologie am\u00e9ricaine sera prot\u00e9g\u00e9e. La loi de d\u00e9fense pour le DoD (FY2004) contient, surtout dans la version de la Chambre des Repr\u00e9sentants, des dispositions extr\u00eamement fermes pour prot\u00e9ger le march\u00e9 am\u00e9ricain des technologies de d\u00e9fense. Un… <\/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-65656","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\/65656","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=65656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}