{"id":66129,"date":"2004-11-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-15T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/15\/evolution-de-la-critique-britannique-des-usa\/"},"modified":"2004-11-15T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-11-15T00:00:00","slug":"evolution-de-la-critique-britannique-des-usa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/15\/evolution-de-la-critique-britannique-des-usa\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00c9volution de la critique britannique des USA<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00c9volution de la critique britannique des USA<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t15 novembre 2004 La rencontre entre Tony Blair et GW-II le 12 novembre \u00e0 Washington a \u00e9t\u00e9 la marque de la connivence des deux hommes, et un coup de main m\u00e9diatique (rien de plus) de l’heureux r\u00e9\u00e9lu \u00e0 celui qui affrontera bient\u00f4t (au printemps 2005) les urnes \u00e0 son tour. Rien d’autre \u00e0 signaler sur le fond de cette rencontre. Le plus int\u00e9ressant est ailleurs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn climat nouveau est apparu, en Europe certes mais surtout au Royaume-Uni, depuis la r\u00e9\u00e9lection de Bush. Le processus souvent envisag\u00e9 se confirme : le maintien contre vents et mar\u00e9es de la politique ultra-suiviste de Blair vis-\u00e0-vis des Etats-Unis ne cesse de renforcer la critique des Etats-Unis, qui atteint aujourd’hui des extr\u00eames impensables il y a seulement deux ans. Il est remarquable de constater l’intensit\u00e9 nouvelle de la critique anti-am\u00e9ricaine de fond de certains \u00e9ditorialistes britanniques (ou d’autres personnalit\u00e9s) appartenant \u00e0 des milieux de l’establishment<\/em>. (On comparera, par exemple mais exemple r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur, avec la critique mi\u00e8vre et toujours prompte au compromis de la presse fran\u00e7aise en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, dans un pays qui tient pourtant, au contraire du Royaume-Uni, une politique d’opposition \u00e0 l’action des Etats-Unis.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn citera deux exemples de cette d\u00e9marche britannique. D’abord, l’article de Jonathan Steele, commentateur connu de la presse lib\u00e9rale britannique, le 8 novembre dans The Guardian<\/a>. Le titre est d\u00e9j\u00e0 tout un programme, confirm\u00e9 par un texte d’un propos d’une fermet\u00e9 rarement lue sinon sous des plumes marginales ou trop ind\u00e9pendantes pour \u00eatre diffus\u00e9es : \u00ab Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOur security doesn’t depend on the US; we should free up our thinking.<\/em> \u00bb (On notera avec int\u00e9r\u00eat cette id\u00e9e, effectivement essentielle parce qu’elle porte sur notre psychologie, notre attitude : free up our thinking<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab What Americans share with Europeans are not values, but institutions. The distinction is crucial. Like us, they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. But the American majority’s social and moral values differ enormously from those which guide most Europeans.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Its dangerous ignorance of the world, a mixture of intellectual isolationism and imperial intervention abroad, is equally alien. In the United States more people have guns than have passports. Is there one European nation of which the same is true?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Of course, millions of US citizens do share \u00a0\u00bbEuropean\u00a0\u00bb values. But to believe that this minority amounts to 48% and that America is deeply polarised is incorrect. It encourages the illusion that things may improve when Bush is gone. In fact, most Kerry voters are as conservative as the Bush majority on the issues which worry Europeans. Kerry never came out for US even-handedness on the Israel-Palestine conflict, or for a withdrawal from Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Many commentators now argue for Europe to distance itself. But vague pleas for greater European coherence or for Tony Blair to end his close links with the White House are not enough. The call should not be for \u00a0\u00bbmore\u00a0\u00bb independence. We need full independence.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb We must go all the way, up to the termination of Nato. An alliance which should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the US an unfair and unreciprocated droit de regard over European foreign policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb It is true that Nato is unlikely ever again to function with the unanimity it showed during the cold war. The lesson from Iraq is that the alliance has become no more than a \u00a0\u00bbcoalition of the reluctant\u00a0\u00bb, with key members like France and Germany opting out of joint action.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb But it is wrong to be complacent about Nato’s alleged impotence or irrelevance. Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure. Europe is automatically expected to tag along in going to war, or in the post-conflict phase, as in Afghanistan or Iraq. Who knows whether Iran and Syria will come next? Bush has four more years in power and there is little likelihood that his successors in the White House will be any less interventionist.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Nato, in short, has become a threat to Europe. Its existence also acts as a continual drag on Europe’s efforts to build its own security institutions. Certain member countries, particularly Britain, constantly look over their shoulders for fear of upsetting big brother. This has an inhibiting effect on every initiative.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb France’s more robust stance is pilloried by the Atlanticists as nostalgia for unilateral grandeur instead of being seen as part of France’s pro-European search for a security project that will help us all.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Paradoxically, one argument for voting no in the referendum on the European constitution is based on this. Paul Quiles, a French socialist former defence minister, points out that Britain forced a change in the constitution’s text so that Europe’s common security policy, even as it tries to gather strength, is required to give primacy to Nato. Without control over its own defence, he argues, greater European integration makes little sense.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The immediate priority on the road to European independence is to abandon support for Bush’s disastrous Iraq policy and get behind the majority of Iraqis who want the US to stop attacking their cities and leave the country. They feel US forces only provoke more insecurity and death.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Since Bush’s victory two Nato members, Hungary and the Netherlands (which has a rightwing government), have said they will pull their troops out in March next year. Their moves show the falsity of the \u00a0\u00bbold Europe, new Europe\u00a0\u00bb split. In the post-communist countries, as much as in western Europe, majorities consistently opposed Bush’s Iraq adventure, whatever their more timid governments said. Wanting to withdraw support for US foreign policy is not a left or right issue.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Ending Nato would not mean that Europe rejects good relations with the US. Nor does it rule out police and intelligence collaboration on issues of concern, such as the way to protect our countries against terrorism. Europe could still join the US in war, if there was an international consensus and the electorates of individual countries supported it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb But Europeans must reach their decisions from a position of genuine independence. The US has always based its approach to Europe on a calculation of interest rather than from sentimental motives. Europe should do no less. We can and, for the most part, should be America’s friends. Allies, no longer.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tNous restituons ci-dessous, \u00e0 cause de son acc\u00e8s moins facile, l’int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 du deuxi\u00e8me texte que nous signalons. Il est de Tom Spencer, un conservateur britannique lorsqu’il \u00e9tait d\u00e9put\u00e9 europ\u00e9en (il fut pr\u00e9sident de la commission des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res du Parlement europ\u00e9en, et 1997 \u00e0 1999), actuellement Executive Director, European Centre for Public Affairs. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 dans EURepoter<\/em> le 10 novembre. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Bon Voyage America<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy Tom Spencer<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere are many similarities between the 2004 election and its extraordinary<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpredecessor in 2000. However, it is the differences between the elections<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twhich matter as Europe and the world contemplate their response to the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmessage from the American people.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUnlike 2000, this election featured major debate about foreign policy and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmerica’s place in the world. The verdict of the American electorate was a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdeliberate and informed decision. In 2000 George W Bush ran as a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00a0\u00bbcompassionate conservative\u00a0\u00bb and as a \u00a0\u00bbuniter not a divider\u00a0\u00bb. His foreign<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpolicy prescriptions were deliberately vague. In 2004 President George W<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBush’s foreign policies were clearly laid out and the electorate took a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdecision on the basis of his record and competence. The decision by 51% of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe electorate was a considered one and cannot be attributed to Americans’<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tignorance of their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t There is a fashionable view that second-term presidents play to history<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trather than to the electorate and are therefore more moderate. I believe<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthere will be no such second-term effect in the case of George W Bush. His<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\telection victories are not attributable to personal competence. They are<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpart of a carefully thought out strategy to echo the Republican achievement<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof 1896 and establish the party’s dominance for thirty years. What is more,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin this case there is another Bush waiting to take over the mantle of his<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbrother. Indeed we may be witnessing the emergence of the \u00a0\u00bbVerona<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSyndrome\u00a0\u00bb, with Bush and Clinton dynasties locked as tightly together as the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCapulets and the Montagues. After the most expensive election in democratic<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thistory President Bush will have as many, if not more, political debts to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpay as he did in 2000. In 2000 the suggestion that he should govern from the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcentre lasted, in Karl Rove’s words, \u00a0\u00bbabout thirty seconds\u00a0\u00bb. There is no<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treason to think that the suggestion will have a longer half-life this time<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\taround.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEurope needs to recognise, and to accept, that what we have witnessed in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthis election is a great country absorbed in the slow-motion drama of its<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\town civil war. Longfellow’s American ‘ship of state’ has indeed sailed on<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twhile humanity hung breathless on its fate. The problem both for America<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tand for her friends is that the ship of state now looks suspiciously like a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thigh-riding supertanker, unstable in rough weather.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEurope now beholds across the Atlantic a country divided not on traditional<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tideological lines, but on grounds of religion and race. Writers of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttextbooks on International Relations may have to look to their definitions<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof what they mean by ‘post-modern’. Europe may well be ‘post-modern’ in its<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tattitude to the nation state, but the USA is clearly ‘post-modern’, or<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tconceivably ‘post-secular’, in its attitude to the relationship between<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tchurch and state. In Europe 7% of the electorate describe themselves as<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tregularly attending church. In America the figure is 60%. This election<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thas displayed a country divided between those driven by faith and those lead<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tby reality. No single statistic conveys this more vividly than the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trevelation that more than half of the American people believe that Darwinian<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEvolution and Creationism are theories of equal worth in explaining the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\torigins of humanity and should be taught as such in schools.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCycles of evangelical excitement are nothing new in the psyche of the United<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tStates. Theologians and historians trace four \u00a0\u00bbGreat Awakenings\u00a0\u00bb in US<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thistory (1730s – 1740s, 1820s – 1830s, 1880s – 1900s and 1960s – 1970s). A<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGreat Awakening happens when social change renders traditional religion<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tunable to adequately address questions posed by modern life. Europeans may<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsmile at the heated debate over precisely what God said to the President<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tabout Iraq, but they should not underestimate the seriousness with which<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmuch of the American electorate takes such discussions. The heavy emphasis<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin the 2004 campaign on moral issues such as stem cell research and gay<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmarriage was both a deliberate tactic to consolidate the Republican base and<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ta natural consequence of the mindset of conservative religious thought in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe American tradition. I personally find the deliberate targeting of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tgay community for political purposes to be an unacceptable ploy in a society<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twhich has traditionally lauded the virtues of freedom and tolerance. No<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsuch tactic has been deployed in European politics since the 1930s. Eleven<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmerican states adopted anti-gay amendments to their constitutions on<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNovember 2nd. Such tactics are addictive. Who can doubt that a further<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tcrop of anti-gay initiatives will be up for consideration at future<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\telections. What we have seen in this election is a dramatic acceleration of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ta trend. Maybe it is also a tipping point towards a more general<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tintolerance in all its grotesque garments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhat then should be the stance of Europe towards its partner in the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tso-called Euro-Atlantic Community? Europe needs to calmly and acknowledge<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe reality that Europe and America are very different and are becoming more<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tso. The European and American ships of state are set on different courses<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfor reasons which go well beyond personality or ideology. The majority of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmericans who voted for George Bush have consciously consigned any such<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAtlantic Community into practical oblivion, even if it lives on in the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\trhetoric of politicians. Atlantic institutions will survive, of course, but<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthey will have the same emotional force as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCooperation).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe European Union needs to echo the new America and steer its course solely<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ton the basis of its own self-interest. It needs to recognise that the USA<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbelieves that it has honoured the commitments made at Europe’s christening<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tand has blown out its candle. It is no longer the Godfather of European<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUnity. In this spirit Europe should have no truck with American attempts at<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpromoting division. There are no signs of the much-vaunted \u00a0\u00bbOld Europe<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tversus New Europe\u00a0\u00bb schism in the behaviour of Europe’s institutions since<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEnlargement on May 1st. In the face of, and as an appropriate reaction to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush’s victory, Europeans have yet another reason for ratifying<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe Constitutional Treaty which they signed so recently amidst the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsplendours of Rome. With the same single-mindedness that American<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tneo-conservatives have brought to American foreign policy, the European<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUnion needs to look with renewed urgency at its foreign policy and defence<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tarrangements. It needs to review its bilateral relations with Russia,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tChina, India, Latin America and the Arab world. Europe may or may not get<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmore involved in Iraq, but it must do so on a strict judgement of its own<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tself-interest. There is no need for insults. Europe does not need to mimic<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe manners of the Bush Administration. It needs rather to knuckle down to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe hard detailed work of making the Kyoto Protocol and the International<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCriminal Court work, even in the face of American hostility. The American<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpopular rejection of an honourable and intelligent man partly on the basis<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat he has a good command of French, speaks volumes in any language.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere are two constituencies for whom this week’s message from America poses<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tparticular challenges.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe British, even more than other Europeans, need to apply the cold-eyed<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttest of genuine national interest to their relations with America. Personal<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tties will remain, to be sure, but unthinking acquiescence must be abandoned.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Blair ‘bridge across the Atlantic’ lies in ruins. The Foreign Office<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmantra that British interest is always served by staying close to the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t‘cousins’ now looks as dated as the Victorian policy of Splendid Isolation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThere must be no more whispering behind the hands about the benefits to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBritain of shared intelligence with the Americans. We have learnt too much<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tabout the nature of Anglo-American intelligence effectiveness in the last<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttwo years to fall once again for that old, old story.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tI am no expert on the mind of Tony Blair, but he has publicly announced a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttimetable for his departure. Alienated from his party by the deceptions of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe Iraq war, his place in history can only be secured by returning to his<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEuropean tasks. British approval of the Constitutional Treaty and of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBritish membership of the Euro comprise his unfinished business. I doubt<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat he will find time to pick up his Congressional Medal of Honor before<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe British General Election. His reduced, but still substantial majority,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin that election will give him the headroom that he needs to win the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tReferendum on European issues. However, he should not delude himself that<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\the can secure his European goals merely by an elegant performance in the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpresidencies of the G8 and the European Union. It will take sustained focus<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tand passion to take the British people with him. In the process he might<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tjust shed the \u00a0\u00bbBush’s poodle\u00a0\u00bb tag. The British debate on the nature of its<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmembership of the European Union is immeasurably helped by the events of the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlast ten days. The only alternative to full membership of the European<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUnion would be for the British to throw themselves into the American<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tembrace. The Prime Minister would only need to fear Gordon Brown on this<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsubject if the chancellor had a taste for holidaying in Texas rather than in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe refined and muted tones of Cape Cod.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe other group that will be seriously considering their options are<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmerican companies with major operations in the European Union. Those with<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texposed and iconic brands face a continuation of the problems of the last<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthree years. All American companies operating in Europe must now be feeling<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tless like ‘family’. The wise companies will renew their efforts in<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWashington to tone down President Bush’s anti-European rhetoric. With the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdecline of emotional, political and military links, the business lobby, both<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAmerican and European, must shoulder the burden of keeping communication<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\topen across the Atlantic. This will require corporate public affairs<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texpertise of a high quality.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush faces a difficult four years. The price of electoral victory<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thas been fiscal ill-discipline on a massive scale. The US dollar has lost<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tmuch of its mythic power. So has the supposed invincibility of the US Army.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPresident Bush’s disregard of the value of American ‘soft power’ has put<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tinto play America’s cultural leadership. Astute American commentators have<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlong suspected that talk of Empire and hegemony was little more than a cover<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfor desperate attempts to unnaturally prolong the period of US dominance.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAs such it has failed. America’s military and commercial might will remain,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbut the gearing that would connect them to real influence has been wilfully<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdestroyed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEurope should therefore wish Bon Voyage to America, not Goodbye. There<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tremains the hope that other Americans will steer a course that brings the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttwin offspring of Western Civilization closer once more. Until then we<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tshould wish America well, but learn to walk alone in a world in whose<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsuccess we have an over-riding interest.<\/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","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00c9volution de la critique britannique des USA 15 novembre 2004 La rencontre entre Tony Blair et GW-II le 12 novembre \u00e0 Washington a \u00e9t\u00e9 la marque de la connivence des deux hommes, et un coup de main m\u00e9diatique (rien de plus) de l’heureux r\u00e9\u00e9lu \u00e0 celui qui affrontera bient\u00f4t (au printemps 2005) les urnes \u00e0… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66129","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=66129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}