{"id":65806,"date":"2003-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-24T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/11\/24\/les-usa-et-la-connexion-balkanique-dans-la-mise-en-place-des-reseaux-de-la-terreur\/"},"modified":"2003-11-24T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-11-24T00:00:00","slug":"les-usa-et-la-connexion-balkanique-dans-la-mise-en-place-des-reseaux-de-la-terreur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2003\/11\/24\/les-usa-et-la-connexion-balkanique-dans-la-mise-en-place-des-reseaux-de-la-terreur\/","title":{"rendered":"Les USA et la connexion balkanique dans la mise en place des r\u00e9seaux de la terreur<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les USA et la connexion balkanique dans la mise en place des r\u00e9seaux de la terreur<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tCi-dessous, nous publions un texte int\u00e9ressant d’un ancien ambassadeur indien, K Gajendra Singh<\/a>, notamment en Turquie de 1992 \u00e0 1996. Texte int\u00e9ressant parce qu’il nous dit que, si nous connaissons bien l’effet de l’inconscience am\u00e9ricaine dans le d\u00e9veloppement des gu\u00e9rilleros islamistes dans la question de l’Afghanistan depuis 1977, nous connaissons moins les effets de cette m\u00eame inconscience dans le d\u00e9veloppement des gu\u00e9rilleros islamistes, toujours les m\u00eames moudjahiddines, dans les Balkans, pendant les crises de 1991-99. K Gajendra Singh juge que cet aspect de l’expansion de l’islamisme est au moins aussi important que celui de l’Afghanistan pour expliquer la situation actuelle, et que la responsabilit\u00e9 des Am\u00e9ricains y est bien aussi forte. Il expose sa th\u00e8se dans un article dont le point de d\u00e9part est la situation en Turquie apr\u00e8s les attentats.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDe tous les c\u00f4t\u00e9s qu’on se tourne, toutes les confirmations qu’il faut se pressent de l’inconscience et de la courte vue des Am\u00e9ricains, ou bien de leur tendance naturelle \u00e0 la destructuration et leur go\u00fbt du d\u00e9sordre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPourquoi les Am\u00e9ricains ont-ils pris le parti des musulmans (bosniaques, kosovars, albanais, etc) dans les Balkans ? Outre l’entra\u00eenement de la force d’inertie (les moudjahiddines avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 aid\u00e9s en Afghanistan, pourquoi pas dans les Balkans ?), on trouve d’abord la puissance du lobby<\/em> musulman des Balkans, qui contr\u00f4lait un certain nombre de s\u00e9nateurs (dont le s\u00e9nateur Dole, candidat r\u00e9publicain \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence en 1996). Il y avait sans aucun doute le d\u00e9sir de contrer les pays europ\u00e9ens qui occupaient une position plus centriste pour pouvoir susciter des accords de cessez-le-feu, notamment en \u00e9tant plus proches des Serbes que ne l’\u00e9taient les Am\u00e9ricains. Par cons\u00e9quent, la proximit\u00e9 des Am\u00e9ricains des musulmans garantissait presque \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr un sabotage de toute tentative europ\u00e9enne de faire signer un cessez-le-feu, les musulmans \u00e9tant syst\u00e9matiquement pouss\u00e9s \u00e0 l’intransigeance. On pouvait apr\u00e8s cela parler de l’impuissance europ\u00e9enne, l’image serait reprise par tous les m\u00e9dias (y compris les europ\u00e9ens, tr\u00e8s empress\u00e9s pour cela).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAu reste, les Am\u00e9ricains ont fondamentalement montr\u00e9 une attitude d\u00e9loyale vis-\u00e0-vis des Europ\u00e9ens, confirmant ainsi constamment leur responsabilit\u00e9 centrale dans le drame balkanique (et, au-del\u00e0, dans la constitution des r\u00e9seaux terroristes internationaux). En 1996, le bulletin Europe<\/em> (n\u00b0 6675, des 26 & 27 f\u00e9vrier 1996) notait ceci concernant une s\u00e9ance du Parlement europ\u00e9en qui avait eu lieu la semaine pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente : \u00ab Jonathan Eyal, du Royal United Services Institute de Londres, a \u00e9voqu\u00e9 lui aussi, sans d\u00e9tours, l’attitude am\u00e9ricaine en ex-Yougoslavie. Ainsi, il a affirm\u00e9 qu’aux Etats-Unis, une campagne discr\u00e8te est men\u00e9e, en partie par l’Administration m\u00eame, pour discr\u00e9diter le m\u00e9diateur de l’UE Carl Bildt, afin de pouvoir, dans cette ann\u00e9e \u00e9lectorale, dire que si tout va bien, c’est gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 Washington, et si tout va mal, c’est la faute des Europ\u00e9ens. Selon lui, Richard Holbrooke devrait obtenir le prix du recyclage, car il recycle le plan europ\u00e9en et en a fait un plan am\u00e9ricain.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn deuxi\u00e8me et derni\u00e8re partie, apr\u00e8s l’article de K Gajendra Singh, nous publions un extrait des m\u00e9moires du secr\u00e9taire g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l’ONU Boutros Boutros-Ghali, sur une s\u00e9quence de n\u00e9gociation avec les Am\u00e9ricains. On voit que le caprice, l’humeur, d’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale la vanit\u00e9 qui conduit \u00e0 bloquer toute initiative qui n’est pas sp\u00e9cifiquement am\u00e9ricaine, on voit que tout cela n’a pas attendu GW et sa bande pour fleurir du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US. Cet aspect des choses joue sans aucun doute un r\u00f4le consid\u00e9rable dans l’attitude et la politique US qui va d\u00e9boucher indirectement mais puissamment, sur la mise en place de l’infrastructure terroriste internationale.<\/p>\n

Turkey: Sow war and reap terror’<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy K Gajendra Singh, atimes.com, 22 novembre 2003<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSow war and reap terror A banner in a February peace march in Paris <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMany disquieting messages have been sent with the two car bombings in Istanbul on Thursday, just five days after attacks on two synagogues and coinciding with Queen Elizabeth’s hosting of United States President George W Bush in London. Turkey’s stock market fell immediately, and world markets felt the fallout. The latest attacks, which claimed the lives of at least 25 people, will certainly adversely affect Turkey’s economic recovery. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe bombings were against British targets – the Istanbul British consulate and HSBC bank, which is Britain-based. An attack on British interests, and even its timing, had been generally predicted in London and Washington following attacks against the interests of Israel, Australia and other US allies, including Jordan, Turkey, Spain, Italy and Saudi Arabia. Only the locale was in question. It turned out to be Turkey’s metropolitan and beautiful city of Istanbul, a capital of Romans and Byzantines for more than a millennium and of the Ottomans from 1453 until the new republic’s capital was established in Ankara in 1923. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApart from sending a very clear message to Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the two who have been at the forefront of the \u00a0\u00bbwar on terrorism\u00a0\u00bb, to which they added an attack on Iraq, without any justifiable reason, countries like Spain, Italy, Poland etc will think twice in siding further with them. India and Pakistan have said no to a request for troops, and Japan is rethinking its decision to send non-combat troops. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTurkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) leadership, with its Islamic roots, after first refusing to let the US use its territory to open a second front against Iraq in March, will also be in a quandary. The Islamic jihad, like any other multinational, is now truly a globalized entity, and it has no love for such soft Islamic parties that rule in Turkey or elsewhere. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTurkey has a well-trained armed force of nearly a million, with experience of fighting a Marxist Kurdish insurgency in southeast of the country in which over 35,000 people, including 5,000 soldiers, have lost their lives. Turkey also feels that north Iraq was stolen by the British for its oil reserves after World War I, when Kemal Ataturk molded a secular republic out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe armed forces are self-appointed guardians of Ataturk’s secular legacy and have been at odds with the ruling AKP since the latter’s massive electoral victory in last November’s elections, which made it the first-ever Islamic party to come to power in Turkey since 1923. If even Turkey, which is close to a Western democratic secular model, can be destabilized, then the region will become like many volcanos gone wild. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe dangers to European security inherent in Turkey joining the Europe Union at any time soon – when Islamic bombers can strike with such ease – are obvious. This will provide the EU leadership justification for its policy of saying \u00a0\u00bbnot yet\u00a0\u00bb. In any case, while praising Turkey for its efforts in meeting its criteria of reforms to begin talks for entry, the EU has been humming and hawing about how the reforms will be implemented on the ground. So Turkey becoming a full member of the EU, never a possibility in my opinion, can now be put on the back burner. This will only disappoint and dishearten secular forces in Turkey and encourage and embolden Islamist elements. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tHowever, taking advantage of the EU criteria, the AKP has succeeded in diminishing the military’s dominant role in Turkish politics, which it had exercised though the all powerful National Security Council (NSC), whose recommendations had to be implemented by the government. The armed forces forced the first-ever Islamist prime minister, Nacmettin Erbakan, heading a coalition government, to resign in 1997. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Turkish masses have in the past had the highest regard for the military, and have been generally happy that it has intervened to clean up the messes created by politicians in takeovers in 1960, 1971 and 1980. But eager to join the EU, which many feel will bring prosperity, people have been quite satisfied at the reduction in the military’s role in politics. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNow, though, in the changed situation of terror and insecurity, it would be easy to win public approval for the NSC to be revived. President Ahmet Sezer, a former head of the Constitutional Court, another bastion of Turkey’s secular establishment, was not happy to have signed the decree that emasculated the NSC and the Turkish armed forces. The AKP has a two-thirds majority in parliament, but its leadership, with a temperamental prime minister in Tayep Erdogan – his experience is limited to a stint as mayor of Istanbul – will have serious difficulties in tackling the new situation. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tThe missing Balkan period<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRemember the two women premiers of Turkey and Pakistan in the mid-1990s, Tansu Ciller and Benazir Bhutto respectively, both allies of the US who visited Bosnia with US encouragement to show solidarity with the massacred and suppressed Muslims. They made the day of photographers by trying to outdo each other for photo opportunities. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDuring the current debate, the Balkan chapter of the 1990s and the US and European role in the breakup of Yugoslavia and subsequent events are not scrutinized closely. The origins of al-Qaeda and other terror groups during the Afghan war of 1979-1992, their fight against the Soviet army and the role of the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others is well documented, including Osama bin Laden’s drive to recruit Muslim volunteers world-wide. US officials estimate that tens of thousands of foreign fighters were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and guerrilla warfare tactics in Afghan camps that the US Central Intelligence Agency helped set up between 1985-92. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAfter the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, and the Najibullah communist regime collapsed in 1992, the Afghan mujahideen became irrelevant to the US. But the mujahideen had acquired a taste for fighting, and now they had no cause. But soon a new cause arose. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDuring 1992-95, the Pentagon helped with the movement of thousands of mujahideen and other Islamic elements from Central Asia, even some Turks, into Europe to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbIt was very important in the rise of mujahideen forces and in the emergence of current cross-border Islamic terrorist groups who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadi mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the caves of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favored side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the mujahideen, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalized it.\u00a0\u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThis is a quotation from a Dutch government report after investigations, prepared by Professor C Wiebes of Amsterdam University, into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, entitled \u00a0\u00bbIntelligence and the War in Bosnia\u00a0\u00bb, published in April 2002. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIt details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, a vast amount of weapons were being smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organized by \u00a0\u00bbclandestine agencies\u00a0\u00bb of the US, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included the Afghan Mujahideen and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia – airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the US was \u00a0\u00bbvery closely involved\u00a0\u00bb. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Pentagon’s alliance with Islamic elements permitted mujahideen fighters to be \u00a0\u00bbflown in\u00a0\u00bb as shock troops for particularly hazardous operations against Serb forces. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times in October 2001, from 1992 as many as 4,000 mujahideen from the Middle East, North Africa and Europe reached Bosnia to fight with the Muslims. Richard Holbrooke, America’s former chief Balkans peace negotiator, said as much. The Bosnian Muslims \u00a0\u00bbwouldn’t have survived\u00a0\u00bb without the imported mujahideen, which was a \u00a0\u00bbpact with the devil\u00a0\u00bb from which Bosnia would take long to recover. If the US made a pact with the devil, then the Muslim mujahideen made a pact with Satan. They temporized with the Christian West to defeat the ungodly Russian communists, now they are after the US-led Crusaders. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDuring the mid-1990s the Turkish media were full of reports of Muslim fighters in Bosnia and Serbia. One Turkish journalist who went there was even said to have fired at the Serbs. Many even applauded the act. It was then easy for Turkish cadres to mingle, learn and establish relationships with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other international cadres. Many in the Turkish establishment are strong believers in Sunni Islam. From time to time they have massacred Turkey’s Alevis – close to the Shi’ites in belief – most of whom are perhaps the real Turkomens from Central Asia. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Balkans were part of the Ottoman empire for centuries, as a result of which many Slavs and others converted to Islam. Many Turkish tribes also migrated to the Balkan vilayats (provinces) as the ruling elite. As the Ottoman empire shrank, millions of Muslims from the Balkans migrated to Turkey, and now at least 5 million Turkish citizens have origins in the Balkans or have relatives there, especially Bosnia, and they exercise influence on the Turkish government. Later, the Ottomans took wives from Bosnia. So contact between Turks and Bosnians and Kosovars during the 1990s was normal and natural, but it may have left a legacy, perhaps deadly, yet to be investigated and untangled. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut by the end of the 1990s, State Department officials (as now vis-a-vis the Pentagon), were increasingly worried about the consequences of this devil’s pact sponsored by the Pentagon. Under the terms of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, the foreign mujahideen units were required to disband and leave the Balkans. Yet in 2000, the State Department raised concerns about the \u00a0\u00bbhundreds of foreign Islamic extremists\u00a0\u00bb who became Bosnian citizens after fighting against the Serbs, and who will remain a potential terror threat to Europe and the United States. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUS officials claimed that \u00a0\u00bbone of bin Laden’s top lieutenants had sent operatives to Bosnia\u00a0\u00bb, and that during the 1990s Bosnia had served as a \u00a0\u00bbstaging area and safe haven\u00a0\u00bb for al-Qaeda and others. The Bill Clinton administration learned that it was one thing to permit the movement of Islamic groups across territories; it was quite another to rein them back in again. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd in spite of the official US stand against jihadis, it permitted the growth and movement of mujahideen cadres in Europe during the 1990s. In the runup to Clinton and Blair’s Kosovo war of 1999, the US backed the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against Serbia. The Jerusalem Post reported in 1998 that KLA members, like the Bosnian Muslims earlier, were \u00a0\u00bbprovided with financial and military support from Islamic countries\u00a0\u00bb, and had been \u00a0\u00bbbolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahideen … [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan\u00a0\u00bb. So the US’s pact with the devil continued. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe aspect of the mujahideen’s encouragement by the US and its growth in Balkan Europe has been largely overlooked, and the Bosnia connection remains largely unexplored. In Jason Burke’s excellent Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror, Bosnia is mentioned only in passing. Kimberley McCloud and Adam Dolnik of the Monterey Institute of International Studies have written some incisive commentary calling for rational thinking when assessing al-Qaeda’s origins and threat – but little on the Bosnian link. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA cool analysis of today’s disparate Islamic terror groups, created in Afghanistan and emboldened by the Bosnian experience, would do much to shed some light on precisely the dangers of such intervention. Car bombers in Istanbul on November 15 and 20 are perhaps the results. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tK Gajendra Singh, Indian ambassador (retired), served as ambassador to Turkey from August 1992 to April 1996. Prior to that, he served terms as ambassador to Jordan, Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies. Email Gajendrak@hotmail.com<\/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

Nuages \u00e0 l’horizon, Bosnie : les zones de s\u00e9curit\u00e9<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tExtrait de Mes Ann\u00e9es \u00e0 la maison de verre, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Fayard<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAu moment o\u00f9 le Cambodge reprend pied, avec l’aide des Nations Unies, la Bosnie se d\u00e9sint\u00e8gre. En avril 1993, les forces serbes sont sur le point de s’emparer de la ville de Srebrenica. Le Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 adopte une r\u00e9solution demandant que toutes les parties traitent Srebrenica comme une \u00ab zone prot\u00e9g\u00e9e \u00bb, excluant toute attaque arm\u00e9e ou tout acte d’hostilit\u00e9. Je suis charg\u00e9 d’intensifier la pr\u00e9sence des Nations Unies \u00e0 Srebrenica et de prendre les dispositions n\u00e9cessaires pour assurer la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 des malades et des bless\u00e9s, ainsi que la livraison de l’aide humanitaire \u00e0 la population civile de la ville. Quelques semaines plus tard, le Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 d\u00e9clare que Sarajevo et les villes menac\u00e9es de Tuzla, Zepa, Gorazde, Bihac et les environs seront aussi des \u00ab zones prot\u00e9g\u00e9es \u00bb. Afin de \u00ab renforcer\u00bb l’op\u00e9ration des Nations Unies, le Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 autorise la venue dans ces zones de 50 observateurs suppl\u00e9mentaires qui seront charg\u00e9s d\u00e9 contr\u00f4ler la situation humanitaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAu cours d’une s\u00e9ance \u00e0 huis clos du Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9, le 4 mai, je pr\u00e9sente un document de travail proposant d’autoriser l’envoi d’une force de 70 000 hommes. Le contr\u00f4le op\u00e9rationnel et tactique incomberait \u00e0 l’OTAN et l’autorit\u00e9 supr\u00eame appartiendrait au Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9. Il s’agirait de Casques bleus, sous la banni\u00e8re des Nations Unies. Cette proposition me para\u00eet \u00eatre le seul moyen de r\u00e9pondre aux pr\u00e9occupations de la France et de la Russie, qui l’une et l’autre refuseraient d’admettre une op\u00e9ration men\u00e9e uniquement par l’OTAN, avec la b\u00e9n\u00e9diction de l’ONU. Aux termes de ce plan, je serais \u00e0 m\u00eame, \u00e0 chaque moment, de demander au Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de prendre \u00ab toutes les mesures jug\u00e9es n\u00e9cessaires pour r\u00e9orienter ou rectifier une op\u00e9ration militaire ou pour y mettre fin \u00bb. Au cas o\u00f9 les Nations Unies ne disposeraient pas d’une force de cette importance, dis-je, elles pourraient n’avoir d’autre choix que de se retirer, si la pression arm\u00e9e en Bosnie devenait trop forte.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSelon les \u00c9tats-Unis, ma proposition est \u00ab totalement inacceptable \u00bb. Ce qui confirme que, pour Washington, le maintien sur place de l’op\u00e9ration des Nations Unies peut avoir deux objectifs : remplacer l’intervention directe des grandes puissances ; servir de bouc \u00e9missaire \u00e0 propos des probl\u00e8mes soulev\u00e9s par la r\u00e9ticence constante des \u00c9tats-Unis \u00e0 prendre des d\u00e9cisions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe 18 mai, Madeleine Albright et Peter Tarnoff me rendent visite. Sur un ton tr\u00e8s d\u00e9tendu, Mme Albright propose que nous renoncions purement et simplement, \u00ab une fois pour toutes \u00bb, \u00e0 la politique d\u00e9finie par la Conf\u00e9rence de Londres d’ao\u00fbt 1992. \u00ab Je d\u00e9teste les discussions \u00e0 propos de la carte qui accompagne le plan Vance-Owen \u00bb, d\u00e9clare-t-elle. \u00c0 la place de ce plan, elle propose une \u00ab Conf\u00e9rence sur les Balkans \u00bb. Et Tarnoff d’ajouter : \u00ab Oui, nous voulons une perspective balkanique’. \u00bb Je demande ce que cela signifie et Mme Albright me r\u00e9pond : \u00ab Tous les pays du Danube. \u00bb Je ne vois pas bien le sens que cela peut avoir et essaie calmement d’expliquer que si des changements et une nouvelle r\u00e9flexion s’imposent, ils doivent concerner la pr\u00e9sente proc\u00e9dure. La Conf\u00e9rence de Londres est le cadre international, reconnu pour ce qui touche aux conflits dans l’ex-Yougoslavie. Les \u00c9tats-Unis y ont particip\u00e9 et il est impossible qu’ils y renoncent purement et simplement. Je sugg\u00e8re plut\u00f4t une seconde session de la Conf\u00e9rence de Londres.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApr\u00e8s cet entretien, je reste stup\u00e9fait. Pourquoi cette indiff\u00e9rence et ce m\u00e9pris \u00e0 l’\u00e9gard de ce qui constitue, apr\u00e8s tout, un processus diplomatique officiel que les \u00c9tats-Unis ont accept\u00e9 ? Je ne parviens pas \u00e0 imaginer ce que Madeleine Albright et Peter Tarnoff veulent, mais je sais que jamais ils n’accepteront le plan Vance-Owen. Chaque fois que je prononce le nom de David Owen devant Madeleine Albright, elle explose. Elle m’a pr\u00e9venu un jour: \u00ab Ne mentionnez jamais cet homme devant le Pr\u00e9sident ! \u00bb Apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9mission de Cyrus Vance, David Owen a men\u00e9 une action diplomatique impressionnante, mais son franc-parler lui a port\u00e9 ombrage. Il n’a pas cach\u00e9 son m\u00e9pris pour la politique am\u00e9ricaine en Bosnie qui, devait-il \u00e9crire plus tard, a eu pour effet de prolonger la guerre, avec son cort\u00e8ge de morts et de bless\u00e9s et avec le \u00ab nettoyage ethnique \u00bb. David Owen est ainsi devenu persona non grata \u00e0 Washington, et la vive aversion du gouvernement am\u00e9ricain \u00e0 son \u00e9gard a influ\u00e9 sur l’attitude des \u00c9tats-Unis envers les Nations Unies elles-m\u00eames.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe 27 mai, le Conseil de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 donne moins d’une journ\u00e9e au Secr\u00e9tariat pour lui soumettre des documents de travail concernant la situation humanitaire dans les diverses \u00ab zones de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 \u00bb, la situation militaire, les cartes du front dans les \u00ab zones de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 \u00bb, la notion de \u00ab zones de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 \u00bb. Nous r\u00e9ussissons \u00e0 produire ces documents dans le d\u00e9lai requis, et ce uniquement pour que les \u00c9tats-Unis critiquent la solution que nous pr\u00e9conisons \u00e0 savoir l’emploi de la force pour \u00e9tendre progressivement les zones prot\u00e9g\u00e9es, ce qui pourrait rendre n\u00e9cessaire le recours \u00e0 des troupes am\u00e9ricaines. Warren Christopher, au mois de f\u00e9vrier pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, a fait une d\u00e9claration sur la politique de l’\u00e9quipe Clinton en Bosnie que l’Europe a interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e comme l’annonce du d\u00e9ploiement des troupes am\u00e9ricaines sur le terrain. Mais il est \u00e9vident pour tous \u00e0 pr\u00e9sent que Washington ne les d\u00e9ploiera jamais.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEn r\u00e9ponse aux critiques des \u00c9tats-Unis, je ne peux qu’affirmer que la question des \u00ab zones prot\u00e9g\u00e9es \u00bb rel\u00e8ve exclusivement du Conseil et que le document soul\u00e8ve seulement des questions soumises \u00e0 son examen.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa position des \u00c9tats-Unis est incompr\u00e9hensible. Au cours du printemps, le sous-secr\u00e9taire d’\u00c9tat Tarnoff a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 publiquement que les \u00c9tats-Unis allaient cesser d’\u00eatre la premi\u00e8re puissance charg\u00e9e de la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 internationale. Pourtant les \u00c9tats-Unis continuent \u00e0 parler fort, pla\u00e7ant les Nations Unies dans des situations toujours plus intenables. Et ce uniquement pour refuser les moyens n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 une action d\u00e9cisive et pour faire marche arri\u00e8re d\u00e8s le moindre signe indiquant que l’on pourrait attendre des \u00c9tats-Unis qu’ils s’impliquent directement. Comme le dit l’un de mes collaborateurs, les \u00c9tats-Unis et certains autres membres de l’OTAN ont \u00ab men\u00e9 en bateau \u00bb l’Organisation des Nations Unies.<\/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><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les USA et la connexion balkanique dans la mise en place des r\u00e9seaux de la terreur Ci-dessous, nous publions un texte int\u00e9ressant d’un ancien ambassadeur indien, K Gajendra Singh, notamment en Turquie de 1992 \u00e0 1996. Texte int\u00e9ressant parce qu’il nous dit que, si nous connaissons bien l’effet de l’inconscience am\u00e9ricaine dans le d\u00e9veloppement des… <\/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":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-notes-de-lectures"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65806","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=65806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}