{"id":66078,"date":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/09\/10\/beslan-poutine-et-les-inevitables-neocons\/"},"modified":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","slug":"beslan-poutine-et-les-inevitables-neocons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/09\/10\/beslan-poutine-et-les-inevitables-neocons\/","title":{"rendered":"Beslan, Poutine et les in\u00e9vitables \u201cn\u00e9ocons\u201d<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Beslan, Poutine et les in\u00e9vitables n\u00e9ocons<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

\t10 septembre 2004 L’article de l’excellent John Laughland dans le Guardian du 8 septembre<\/a> m\u00e9rite toute notre attention. Intitul\u00e9 : \u00ab The Chechens’ American friends The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own<\/em> \u00bb, il met d’abord en \u00e9vidence les extraordinaires soup\u00e7ons anti-russes qui ont accompagn\u00e9 les \u00e9v\u00e9nements de Beslan, jusqu’\u00e0 mettre sur un pied \u00e9gal de responsabilit\u00e9, pour ne pas dire pire, Poutine et les preneurs d’otages\/massacreurs d’enfants.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t[Cette attitude nous avait valu une r\u00e9action violente de Poutine devant les journalistes occidentaux, lors d’une longue conf\u00e9rence de presse le 6 septembre :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House, engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? Putin said to a group of Western academics and journalists late Monday night. You find it possible to set some limits in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child killers?<\/em> \u00bb]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLaughland d\u00e9veloppe une analyse en nous rappelant quelques bonnes nouvelles que nous aurions tendance \u00e0 oublier. Principalement, il s’agit de l’engagement des fameux n\u00e9o-conservateurs (neocons<\/em>) aux c\u00f4t\u00e9s des Tch\u00e9tch\u00e8nes, notamment sous la forme d’un lobby<\/em> puissant \u00e0 Washington, D.C., o\u00f9 rien ne fonctionne que par lobbying<\/em> et l’argent qui va avec. Parlant des \u00ab mounting criticism<\/em> \u00bb (contre Poutine \u00e0 l’occasion de l’affaire de Beslan, citation de l’honorable Sunday Times<\/em>), Laughland d\u00e9veloppe les remarques suivantes :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab On closer inspection, it turns out that this so-called mounting criticism is in fact being driven by a specific group in the Russian political spectrum – and by its American supporters. The leading Russian critics of Putin’s handling of the Beslan crisis are the pro-US politicians Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Ryzhkov men associated with the extreme neoliberal market reforms which so devastated the Russian economy under the west’s beloved Boris Yeltsin and the Carnegie Endowment’s Moscow Centre. Funded by its New York head office, this influential thinktank which operates in tandem with the military-political Rand Corporation, for instance in producing policy papers on Russia’s role in helping the US restructure the Greater Middle East has been quoted repeatedly in recent days blaming Putin for the Chechen atrocities. The centre has also been assiduous over recent months in arguing against Moscow’s claims that there is a link between the Chechens and al-Qaida.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb These people peddle essentially the same line as that expressed by Chechen leaders themselves, such as Ahmed Zakaev, the London exile who wrote in these pages yesterday. Other prominent figures who use the Chechen rebellion as a stick with which to beat Putin include Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch who, like Zakaev, was granted political asylum in this country, although the Russian authorities want him on numerous charges. Moscow has often accused Berezovsky of funding Chechen rebels in the past.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb By the same token, the BBC and other media sources are putting it about that Russian TV played down the Beslan crisis, while only western channels reported live, the implication being that Putin’s Russia remains a highly controlled police state. But this view of the Russian media is precisely the opposite of the impression I gained while watching both CNN and Russian TV over the past week: the Russian channels had far better information and images from Beslan than their western competitors. This harshness towards Putin is perhaps explained by the fact that, in the US, the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled distinguished Americans who are its members is a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically support the war on terror.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be a cakewalk; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush’s plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The ACPC heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin’s Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable Muslim causes, Bosnia and Kosovo implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there. In August, the ACPC welcomed the award of political asylum in the US, and a US-government funded grant, to Ilyas Akhmadov, foreign minister in the opposition Chechen government, and a man Moscow describes as a terrorist. Coming from both political parties, the ACPC members represent the backbone of the US foreign policy establishment, and their views are indeed those of the US administration.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn notera d\u00e9j\u00e0 deux choses int\u00e9ressantes :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0L’implication de Carnegie dans une campagne visant \u00e0 dramatiser la position de Poutine et \u00e0 confirmer la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 o\u00f9 il se trouverait de s’aligner sur les USA se trouve confirm\u00e9e par des analyses diverses. (Voir l’analyste Dmitri Trenin, de Carnegie Centre de Moscou, cit\u00e9 dans un article de Jonathan Steele et sur lequel nous attirons l’attention<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0La pr\u00e9sence de Bruce K Jackson dans l’ACPC est \u00e9galement int\u00e9ressante. Nous avons souvent parl\u00e9 de cet ancien VP de Lockheed Martin<\/a> devenu le relais principal des n\u00e9o-conservateurs en Europe, et instigateur des lettres de soutien de pays europ\u00e9ens \u00e0 la guerre en Irak, que ce soient les huit d’Europe de l’Ouest<\/a> ou les dix d’Europe de l’Est. On comprend mieux pourquoi un Letton-ministre qui passait par le sommet des ministres de l’UE \u00e0 Valkenbourg a sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 au ministre n\u00e9erlandais (les Pays-Bas assurent la pr\u00e9sidence de l’UE) de poser une question agressive \u00e0 Vladimir Poutine. Jackson avait encore bien brief\u00e9<\/em> ses troupes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPar ailleurs, il y a d\u00e9j\u00e0 eu des informations sur les implications des n\u00e9o-conservateurs en Russie, avec en \u00e9tendard l’inamovible Richard Perle.<\/a> Tout cela a \u00e9norm\u00e9ment \u00e0 voir avec des affaires de tr\u00e8s gros sous, dont il s’av\u00e8re que Perle et les neocons<\/em> sont extr\u00eamement friands.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tD’o\u00f9 cette conclusion de John Laughland qu’il n’est pas indiff\u00e9rent de lire avec attention : \u00ab Allegations are even being made in Russia that the west itself is somehow behind the Chechen rebellion, and that the purpose of such support is to weaken Russia, and to drive her out of the Caucasus. The fact that the Chechens are believed to use as a base the Pankisi gorge in neighbouring Georgia a country which aspires to join Nato, has an extremely pro-American government, and where the US already has a significant military presence only encourages such speculation. Putin himself even seemed to lend credence to the idea in his interview with foreign journalists on Monday.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Beslan, Poutine et les in\u00e9vitables n\u00e9ocons 10 septembre 2004 L’article de l’excellent John Laughland dans le Guardian du 8 septembre m\u00e9rite toute notre attention. Intitul\u00e9 : \u00ab The Chechens’ American friends The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own \u00bb, il met d’abord en… <\/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":[3690,3169,4346,3213,916],"class_list":["post-66078","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-bruce","tag-jackson","tag-k","tag-perle","tag-poutine"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66078","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=66078"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66078\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66078"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66078"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66078"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}