{"id":65685,"date":"2003-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/07\/21\/entre-europe-et-usa-entre-apparence-et-realite\/"},"modified":"2003-07-21T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-07-21T00:00:00","slug":"entre-europe-et-usa-entre-apparence-et-realite","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/07\/21\/entre-europe-et-usa-entre-apparence-et-realite\/","title":{"rendered":"Entre Europe et USA, entre apparence et r\u00e9alit\u00e9<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Entre Europe et USA, entre apparence et r\u00e9alit\u00e9<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t21 juillet 2003 Peu avant que Tony Blair ne parl\u00e2t devant le Congr\u00e8s am\u00e9ricain, Joschka Fischer s’\u00e9tait rendu \u00e0 Washington. Brave soldat de la plume respectueux des consignes, John Vinocur de l’International Herald Tribune s’est empar\u00e9 de la chose,<\/a> pour les appliquer effectivement (les consignes disent qu’il faut punir Schr\u00f6der et oublier l’Allemagne, comme elles disent qu’il faut punir la France et Chirac). Il a fait dire \u00e0 Fischer des choses qui, avec un peu d’interpr\u00e9tation empress\u00e9e, permettent de mettre en question certaines id\u00e9es troublantes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans le discours de Blair devant le Congr\u00e8s, on ne trouve pas que des vaticinations sur l’Histoire<\/a>. Il y a des consid\u00e9rations plus actuelles, notamment sur les r\u00e9flexions des uns et des autres sur les circonstances des relations internationales aujourd’hui. On ne s’\u00e9tonnera pas compl\u00e8tement qu’elles rejoignent effectivement ce que dit Fischer, traduit par Vinocur.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• Fischer vu par Vinocur, sans aucune trahison de la pens\u00e9e mais un peu de charcutage innocent, cela donne ceci :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, the leading candidate to become the European Union’s first foreign minister under its new constitution, has told Bush administration officials in Washington that the Europe of the future can be strong only together with the United States, and not as its rival.\u00a0\u00bb The statement is an important one, a German official in Berlin said, because it clearly differentiates, in an American setting, Germany’s view on Europe’s development from that of France which talks of Europe as a separate power-to-be in a world of competing poles, alongside the United States, Russia, and China. The German position does not recognize or seek a multipolar world, the official said, but a multilateral one in which issues of international importance are decided through discussion and on the basis of international law.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t• Blair devant le Congr\u00e8s, parlant effectivement des relations internationales, offrant sa th\u00e8se, applaudi comme on l’imagine (dans The Independent du 18 juillet<\/a>) :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab In his speech to Congress, he delivered a thinly veiled attack on states such as France which failed to support the war in Iraq. Any alliance must start with America and Europe, he said. If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. But if we split, all the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb There is no more dangerous theory in international politics today than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitor powers, different poles around which nations gather.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He balanced this with a message to the US not to give up on Europe but to work with it, saying: It’s not the coalition that determines the mission but the mission [that determines] the coalition. I agree. But let us start preferring a coalition and [only] acting alone if we have to, not the other way around.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tFinalement, les deux hommes, Blair et Fischer disent la m\u00eame chose : il est impensable de parler d’un monde multipolaire ; seules sont acceptables les coalitions, la coop\u00e9ration, le multilat\u00e9ralisme et ainsi de suite. Dans les deux cas, l’opposition entre multipolarit\u00e9 et multilat\u00e9ralisme est un exercice sophistique de la pens\u00e9e, vite \u00e0 son terme : on ne peut envisager du multilat\u00e9ralisme (multilat\u00e9ral : \u00ab qui concerne des rapports entre plusieurs parties, entre \u00c9tats…<\/em> \u00bb [Robert]) sans qu’il y ait multipolarit\u00e9, c’est-\u00e0-dire plusieurs p\u00f4les (dans ce sens : \u00ab point d’attraction, d’int\u00e9r\u00eat<\/em> \u00bb, d\u00e9finition appliqu\u00e9e effectivement \u00e0 des \u00c9tats). Le multilat\u00e9ralisme entra\u00eene n\u00e9cessairement la multipolarit\u00e9. Faire de la multipolarit\u00e9 un concept agressif revient \u00e0 d\u00e9former la pens\u00e9e en faisant un proc\u00e8s d’intention bien dans la logique du sophisme qui gouverne cette sorte d’attitude. C’est le cas dans ces exemples cit\u00e9s, intentionnellement dans l’esprit de Blair, qui n’a aujourd’hui comme seule ligne de pens\u00e9e l’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 coupable ; c’est le cas dans ce qu’on fait dire \u00e0 Fischer, avec cette phrase particuli\u00e8rement inepte (\u00ab The German position does not recognize or seek a multipolar world, the official said, but a multilateral one…<\/em> \u00bb), mais une phrase que ne d\u00e9mentira pas le ministre des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res allemand, qui est lui un adepte de l’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 passive plut\u00f4t que de l’ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 coupable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTout cela n’importe que pour montrer combien le discours transform\u00e9 par l’interpr\u00e9tation id\u00e9ologique ou simplement par l’usage coutumier de la logique sophistique, comme savent faire les journalistes align\u00e9s sur les consignes gouvernementales. Il faut placer ces r\u00e9flexions sous la lumi\u00e8re \u00e9clatante d’un texte d’analyse comme celui de William Pfaff, publi\u00e9 ce matin,<\/a> qui frappe par la vigueur et la clart\u00e9 de la phrase. On se permet ici d’en citer une partie substantielle, permettant ainsi de mettre dans une perspective d\u00e9finitive, celle des tromperies de la pens\u00e9e, les chinoiseries byzantines sur le multilat\u00e9ralisme et la multipolarit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The trans-Atlantic alliance is under what may be terminal strain. George Robertson says NATO will provide no further help to the United States in Iraq meaning that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s principal European members refuse to let the alliance do so.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb NATO might survive the present crisis, but only as a structure providing U.S. bases in ex-Communist Europe. The United States is going in one direction, and NATO’s European Union members in another, a rival direction.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb This is a reluctant choice by the Europeans, but their perception of Washington has in the last two years changed dramatically. The United States is now seen in Europe as a threat to Europe’s independence. The American side does not understand this.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb During the last few weeks, I have been at a half dozen European conferences bringing together political specialists and policy analysts, as well as past or present officials from both sides of the Atlantic, to talk about current affairs and the future.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The declared subjects differed: Italian-American relations, European security, global financial and economic issues, questions of world order. In every case, wherever it started, discussion quickly turned into a debate about how to cope with the Bush administration’s new America, seen as a disturber of world peace and a risk to the security even of its allies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb At these meetings, U.S. foreign policy found very few West European defenders. One or two half-hearted Brits. No Dutch, Germans, Italians or Scandinavians. Even the British said that Europe now has to have its own policy and its own security resources (although with Tony Blair’s speech in Washington, the British government now seems unqualifiedly committed to American leadership). All said this without enthusiasm. No one likes the situation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The Europeans simply no longer agree with the United States. They don’t agree about the terrorist threat. They don’t think Osama bin Laden is a global menace. They don’t take Washington’s view of rogue states. They don’t agree about pre-emptive war, clash of civilizations, the demonization of Islam, or Pentagon domination of U.S. foreign policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Such views are interpreted in the United States as anti-Americanism. The truth, as a leading (conservative) figure from ex-Communist New Europe said at one of these meetings, is that the Bush administration has turned America’s friends into anti-Americans.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He said that throughout his political life he had been an admirer and defender of the United States against left-wing European critics, but now he has become what he calls a new anti-American.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He defined new anti-Americans as former anti-anti-Americans, now forced to become anti-American themselves. He said that in his own country, the U.S. ambassador behaves in the way the Soviet Union’s ambassador did before 1989. This simply is unacceptable.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Entre Europe et USA, entre apparence et r\u00e9alit\u00e9 21 juillet 2003 Peu avant que Tony Blair ne parl\u00e2t devant le Congr\u00e8s am\u00e9ricain, Joschka Fischer s’\u00e9tait rendu \u00e0 Washington. Brave soldat de la plume respectueux des consignes, John Vinocur de l’International Herald Tribune s’est empar\u00e9 de la chose, pour les appliquer effectivement (les consignes disent qu’il… <\/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":[705,3564,1131,4080],"class_list":["post-65685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-blair","tag-fischer","tag-pfaff","tag-vinocur"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65685","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=65685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}