{"id":65884,"date":"2004-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/03\/01\/le-cas-de-lattention-electronique-et-britannique-portee-a-jacques-chirac\/"},"modified":"2004-03-01T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-03-01T00:00:00","slug":"le-cas-de-lattention-electronique-et-britannique-portee-a-jacques-chirac","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/03\/01\/le-cas-de-lattention-electronique-et-britannique-portee-a-jacques-chirac\/","title":{"rendered":"<strong><em>Le cas de l&rsquo;attention \u00e9lectronique et britannique port\u00e9e \u00e0 Jacques Chirac<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><h2 class=\"common-article\">Le cas de l&rsquo;attention \u00e9lectronique et britannique port\u00e9e \u00e0 Jacques Chirac<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t1er mars 2004  Dans l&rsquo;imbroglio des \u00e9coutes t\u00e9l\u00e9phoniques et autres des Britanniques, en connexion avec la guerre d&rsquo;Irak et la politique d&rsquo;alignement sur les USA, il y a le cas particulier des soi-disant \u00e9coutes du pr\u00e9sident fran\u00e7ais Jacques Chirac. Le quotidien <em>The Independent<\/em> revient, le 28 f\u00e9vrier, sur <a href=\"http:\/\/news.independent.co.uk\/uk\/politics\/story.jsp?story=495996\" class=\"gen\">la question des accusations d&rsquo;espionnage britannique direct du pr\u00e9sident fran\u00e7ais Chirac<\/a>. Cette question, d\u00e9j\u00e0 mise en \u00e9vidence par une manchette tr\u00e8s inhabituelle du <em>Financial Times<\/em> le 26 janvier, devrait \u00eatre \u00e9voqu\u00e9e publiquement cette semaine.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>Tony Blair will be challenged next week over allegations that he received British intelligence reports about the private conversations of Jacques Chirac in the approach to the Iraq war. Labour MPs will press the Prime Minister about a claim in a new biography which says he received snippets of the French President&rsquo;s private conversations when France and Britain were in dispute over the prospect of military action. Mr Blair accused President Chirac of scuppering a second United Nations resolution authorising a war.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Philip Stephens, a political columnist at The Financial Times, says in his book: Blair came to believe, partly on the basis of reports from British intelligence, that the dispute over Iraq was, in fact, a proxy for a much more serious contest.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Chirac, these reports said, had decided that Blair had usurped his own position as the natural leader of Europe. It was time for the French President to reassert himself and clip the wings of perfidious Albion. In other words, this feud was personal as well as political.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tL&rsquo;affaire \u00e9tait apparue une premi\u00e8re fois le 26 janvier, par le biais d&rsquo;un fait journalistique tr\u00e8s inhabituel : une manchette du <em>Financial Times<\/em> ((FT) sur la pr\u00e9sentation d&rsquo;un livre,  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2004\/01\/27\/international\/europe\/27BLAI.html\" class=\"gen\">Tony Blair, par Philip Stephens, un collaborateur du FT<\/a>. Certains passages \u00e9taient donc pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s, ce 26 janvier dans le FT, en pr\u00e9-publication. (Le livre de Stephens vient de para\u00eetre, trois semaines apr\u00e8s la pr\u00e9sentation du FT.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tIl est en effet tr\u00e8s inhabituel que le FT fasse sa premi\u00e8re information, non sur un \u00e9v\u00e9nement du monde mais sur un livre, et sur une r\u00e9v\u00e9lation de ce livre (les \u00e9coutes de Chirac). Le fait que Stephens soit un collaborateur du FT ne justifie pas ce choix technique de la manchette. Manifestement, il y avait intention technique de frapper le lecteur, de captiver son attention ; vu le contenu, il y avait intention politique tr\u00e8s forte. Lorsqu&rsquo;on conna\u00eet les positions du FT, adversaire de toute Europe politiquement forte, de toute initiative de d\u00e9fense europ\u00e9enne, donc de tout lien franco-anglais avec de possibles cons\u00e9quences politico-militaires au niveau europ\u00e9en, l&rsquo;hypoth\u00e8se de l&rsquo;intention politique se trouve \u00e9videmment dans une intention d&rsquo;envenimer les relations Blair-Chirac au moment o\u00f9 Blair se rapproche de l&rsquo;Europe et forme un triumvirat avec les Fran\u00e7ais et les Allemands. Tout cela est tr\u00e8s logique bien que le proc\u00e9d\u00e9 journalistique soit bien peu dans les habitudes du FT ; tout au plus pourra-t-on y distinguer un certain sens de l&rsquo;urgence, correspondant \u00e0 l&rsquo;intensit\u00e9 de la situation aujourd&rsquo;hui, et aux craintes am\u00e9ricaines (le FT refl\u00e8te tout cela) d&rsquo;une Europe ind\u00e9pendante et forte.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tSur le fait m\u00eame : y a-t-il eu espionnage ? Nous ne r\u00e9pondons pas mais nous contentons de dire que ce serait bien possible, dans tous les cas dans la tentative, tant les Britanniques ont eu (et ont encore, par instants) un comportement hyst\u00e9rique derri\u00e8re leur attitude polic\u00e9e. Ils \u00e9taient pris au pi\u00e8ge d&rsquo;une guerre absurde au nom d&rsquo;une politique d&rsquo;alignement servile qui va contre tous leurs penchants. Leur activit\u00e9 d&rsquo;espionnage d\u00e9brid\u00e9e va bien dans le sens de ce climat, aussi bien que l&rsquo;effarant climat anti-fran\u00e7ais qui se r\u00e9pandit \u00e0 Londres apr\u00e8s l&rsquo;annonce du veto fran\u00e7ais, en mars 2003. \u00ab <em>Ce serait tellement plus facile si le vote \u00e0 propos de la guerre \u00e9tait \u00e0 propos de la guerre avec la France<\/em> \u00bb, disait alors un proche de Blair, humoriste d&rsquo;occasion. L\u00e0-dessus, sur l&rsquo;hyst\u00e9rie on veut dire, un peu de parano\u00efa pour saupoudrer (Chirac veut la peau de Blair) fait l&rsquo;affaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tComme conclusion, ceci : s&rsquo;il y a eu espionnage, on se demande \u00e0 quoi cela a servi, lorsqu&rsquo;on voit les conclusions qu&rsquo;en tir\u00e8rent les Britanniques, et les erreurs d&rsquo;\u00e9valuation qu&rsquo;ils firent de la position fran\u00e7aise. Il est instructif de relire <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=768\" class=\"gen\">le texte de Charles Grant sur cette p\u00e9riode<\/a>, et relire ci-apr\u00e8s ce qu&rsquo;il dit de l&rsquo;\u00e9valuation britannique de la position fran\u00e7aise.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>The government also thought it unlikely that the French would dare to veto the resolution. Of course, it is easy to be wise after the event and if Germany and Russia had not remained firmly in the French camp, Chirac might have hesitated before threatening a veto. However, I made a trip to Paris at the end of January and I went to see several senior figures in the French administration who know me well enough to speak very frankly. They all assured me that Chirac was determined not to allow the passage of any UN resolution that gave diplomatic cover for war in Iraq. It was evident from these conversations that Chirac was not listening to the advice of some of his key officials, who were counselling a more cautious strategy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Shocked by what I had heard, I wrote a short note to some of my Whitehall contacts, explaining that I could see no chance of Chirac softening his line on a second resolution. Some British diplomats shared my view, but the government as a whole continued to believe for at least another month that the French would become more flexible.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Le cas de l&rsquo;attention \u00e9lectronique et britannique port\u00e9e \u00e0 Jacques Chirac 1er mars 2004 Dans l&rsquo;imbroglio des \u00e9coutes t\u00e9l\u00e9phoniques et autres des Britanniques, en connexion avec la guerre d&rsquo;Irak et la politique d&rsquo;alignement sur les USA, il y a le cas particulier des soi-disant \u00e9coutes du pr\u00e9sident fran\u00e7ais Jacques Chirac. Le quotidien The Independent revient,&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[705,2851,3584,4232,2852],"class_list":["post-65884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-blair","tag-financial","tag-grant","tag-stephens","tag-times"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65884","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=65884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}