{"id":66133,"date":"2004-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/16\/dialogue-au-dessus-du-channel-ou-de-latlantique\/"},"modified":"2004-11-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-11-16T00:00:00","slug":"dialogue-au-dessus-du-channel-ou-de-latlantique","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/16\/dialogue-au-dessus-du-channel-ou-de-latlantique\/","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue au-dessus du Channel (ou de l’Atlantique ?)<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dialogue au-dessus du Channel (ou de l’Atlantique ?)<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t16 novembre 2004 Quelle \u00e9poque \u00e9tonnante o\u00f9 l’on voit le Fran\u00e7ais donner des le\u00e7ons de r\u00e9alisme \u00e0 l’Anglais, et l’Anglais expliquer sa politique en des termes utopiques<\/a> que ne d\u00e9mentirait pas un Victor Hugo au mieux de sa forme utopique (par exemple, lorsqu’il c\u00e9l\u00e9brait L’Europe<\/em> en 1867, pour l’Exposition Universelle de Paris). <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA la veille d’un voyage \u00e0 Londres, qu’il pr\u00e9sente comme une visite de famille, Chirac interroge Blair (un peu \u00e0 la fa\u00e7on dont John Charmley interroge son pays sur le demi-si\u00e8cle de relations avec les USA<\/a>) : \u00ab Well, Britain gave its support <\/em>[to the US] but I did not see anything in return. I’m not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCe fut l’intervention que nombre de journaux britanniques ont retenu de l’entretien que Chirac a accord\u00e9 \u00e0 la presse britannique \u00e0 Paris, avant son d\u00e9part pour Londres. Aussi bien dans The Times<\/a> que dans The Guardian<\/a>, l’intervention du Fran\u00e7ais l’emporte en importance sur le discours du Premier ministre britannique, prononc\u00e9 presque en m\u00eame temps, sur le m\u00eame sujet.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe texte du Times<\/em> est int\u00e9ressant parce qu’il met ces deux interventions en perspective et les place dans le contexte am\u00e9ricain (un coup dur pour Blair : le d\u00e9part de Powell, qui affirme la prise de contr\u00f4le totale de la politique de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale de l’administration<\/a> par les faucons).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Jacques Chirac dealt a blow to Tony Blair’s attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last night by saying that the Prime Minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb As Mr Blair used a keynote speech to present Britain as a bridge across the Atlantic, President Chirac doubted whether anyone could play the honest broker. Speaking before he visits London on Thursday, he said that it was not in the nature of this Administration to return favours.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Blair suffered another setback when Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State and the administration figure most trusted by Europe, resigned. There were doubts over whether his successor, possibly Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, would be as accommodating.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

\t\u00bb In other remarks that will sting the Bush Administration, he again outlined his vision of a multipolar world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US, and mocked Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for his division of Europe into old and new. M Chirac said that there would be no division between Britain and France. It is like that nice guy in America what’s his name again? who spoke about old Europe’. It has no sense. It’s a lack of culture to imagine that. Imagining that there can be division between the British and French vision of Europe is as absurd as imagining that we are building Europe against the United States.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tD’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique, nous sommes entr\u00e9s dans une p\u00e9riode d’une nouvelle appr\u00e9ciation des relations USA-UK. Jusqu’alors, l’argument \u00e9tait autour de savoir comment renforcer et d\u00e9velopper ces relations, dont l’\u00e9vidence n’\u00e9tait pas discut\u00e9e. Aujourd’hui, c’est le pourquoi ? de ces relations (\u00e0 quoi servent-elles, que rapportent-elles ?) qui est discut\u00e9, et par un chef d’\u00c9tat \u00e9tranger, de fa\u00e7on publique. Ainsi que le rapporte le Guardian<\/a> : \u00ab But Mr Chirac said Britain’s special relationship with the US had brought few dividends. When the divergence of views between France and Britain was at its height, when the English wanted to follow the Americans and we didn’t … I said to Tony Blair, your position should at least serve another purpose, Mr Chirac said. You should obtain in exchange for it a new start for the peace process in the Middle East. Because that is vital. Well, Britain gave its support (on Iraq) but I have not been impressed by the payback.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tTony Blair est sur la d\u00e9fensive, parce que sa r\u00e9ponse aux questions pos\u00e9es est d’une faiblesse extr\u00eame et que l’attitude am\u00e9ricaine, bien entendu, ne l’aide pas. D’une fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s caract\u00e9ristique, le Times<\/em> a choisi de mettre en avant cet aspect du discours de Blair :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab The Prime Minister, aware that Mr Powell’s departure would be received with apprehension by European governments, bluntly told the US Administration to reach out to Europe and enlist its support in the war against terrorism.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Multilateralism that works should be its aim. I have no sympathy for unilateralism for its own sake, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Mr Blair also said that Europe had a big opportunity because the US realised that lasting security against terrorism could not be provided by conventional military force but required a commitment to democracy and freedom.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tLe Times<\/em>, le Times<\/em> toujours parce que, en cette circonstance, la position de ce journal conservateur, atlantiste et pro-am\u00e9ricain est compl\u00e8tement r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice. Devant une administration GW-II qui confirme et peut-\u00eatre amplifie sa position dure et extr\u00e9miste, les commentaires du Political Briefing du journal<\/a> ressemblent \u00e0 l’amorce d’une argumentation conseillant \u00e0 Tony Blair de commencer \u00e0 envisager de changer de politique (vers l’Europe, au d\u00e9triment de sa proximit\u00e9 pro-am\u00e9ricaine actuelle), ou annon\u00e7ant in fine<\/em> ce changement de politique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Prime Minister has cast himself as the middle man of transatlantic relations, who understands both Europe and America and can bring them together. His aim is laudable. But achievement is likely to prove much trickier, as the blunt comments by President Jacques Chirac show.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

\t\u00bb Mr Blair believes he has made progress in winning President Bush’s commitment to the Middle East peace process and in persuading the US to take seriously an EU role in helping the new Palestinian leadership build democratic institutions. This involves overcoming mutual suspicion, of a US bias in favour of Israel and of Europeans on the side of the Palestinians.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb That all sounds fine, but the Iraq war and its bloody aftermath have undermined Mr Blair’s hopes of being a peacemaker. Many in Washington despise European weakness. For the first time in 50 years, the US no longer backs closer European unity, but picks allies on an ad hoc basis in coalitions of the willing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Europe is divided but Donald Rumsfeld’s old versus new Europe distinction is misleading. Was Spain new Europe during the war and old Europe now under its socialist government which has withdrawn troops from Iraq? And what about the Central European countries which are also pulling out their troops? On the European side, too, France leads a group disinclined to accept America’s lead. President Chirac talks about a multipolar world in which a united Europe is even more necessary in face of global powers.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb By contrast with this Euro-Gaullism, Mr Blair believes Europe should unite to be an effective partner of the US, not a rival to it. Mr Blair’s view of Britain as a transatlantic bridge or two-lane motorway, a pivot or call it a damn high wire, as he said last night is also under threat.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

\t\u00bb When Mr Blair says that Britain should be proud of its alliance with America, clear in its role in Europe, and a tireless advocate of a strong bond between the two, he is in the tradition of most British prime ministers of the past 50 years. But critics, both Eurosceptic Atlanticists and pro-Europeans, argue that this balancing act is no longer possible.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tTout cela forme un climat qui devrait \u00eatre dramatis\u00e9 par la radicalisation US au travers de la recomposition du cabinet GW Bush, sans doute encore plus extr\u00e9miste. Cela accentue le blocage entre les USA et le reste du monde, entre les USA et l’Europe. Cela accentue l’impasse o\u00f9 se trouve Blair. Pour le premier ministre, les prochains mois jusqu’aux \u00e9lections vont \u00eatre tr\u00e8s difficiles.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Dialogue au-dessus du Channel (ou de l’Atlantique ?) 16 novembre 2004 Quelle \u00e9poque \u00e9tonnante o\u00f9 l’on voit le Fran\u00e7ais donner des le\u00e7ons de r\u00e9alisme \u00e0 l’Anglais, et l’Anglais expliquer sa politique en des termes utopiques que ne d\u00e9mentirait pas un Victor Hugo au mieux de sa forme utopique (par exemple, lorsqu’il c\u00e9l\u00e9brait L’Europe en 1867,… <\/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":[],"class_list":["post-66133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66133","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=66133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}