{"id":66269,"date":"2005-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/03\/20\/la-wolfbank-et-la-raison\/"},"modified":"2005-03-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-03-20T00:00:00","slug":"la-wolfbank-et-la-raison","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/03\/20\/la-wolfbank-et-la-raison\/","title":{"rendered":"La \u201cWolfBank\u201d et la raison<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La WolfBank et la raison<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t20 mars 2005 Ceci est remarquable: le 17 mars, le site du Financial Times<\/em> (FT) ouvrait une page pour un sondage aupr\u00e8s de ses lecteurs. Question simple : Wolfowitz est-il un bon choix pour pr\u00e9sider la Banque Mondiale? \u00c9tat des r\u00e9ponses le 20 mars \u00e0 8H00<\/a>: 614 oui (17%), 2959 non (83%). Le FT n’est pas r\u00e9put\u00e9 pour son anti-am\u00e9ricanisme et son gauchisme anti-GW.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDans le courriel qui ponctue ce sondage, deux commentaires qui nous font mesurer le degr\u00e9 de rancur et de col\u00e8re anti-am\u00e9ricaine, aujourd’hui.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La premi\u00e8re est du lecteur Nick Cohen, du 18 mars, et elle nous dit ceci : \u00ab Those of us on the left who have been heartened by the rise of anti-American sentiment around the world and by the rise of anti-U.S. governments throughout Latin America and beyond can only take heart in the Wolfowitz nomination: this will only hasten the decline of the U.S. as an influential world power. Thank you George W. Bush and your neo-con gang: you are accomplishing for us what generations of activists have largely failed to do.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t• La seconde est du lecteur Stephen Wolfe, sans cousinage et du 18 mars \u00e9galement, et pour nous dire ceci : \u00ab I would have thought that an intelligent (?) paper would not ask such an absurd question. Wolfowitz is VERY bright but just as qualified to perform minor surgery as dabble in development. Get serious. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people and a testament of the \u00a0\u00bbdumbing down\u00a0\u00bb of America that ANYone thought it was an appropriate choice.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPassons maintenant au plat de r\u00e9sistance: Paul Krugman, dans sa chronique du 18 mars du New York Times<\/em>(du 19 mars dans l’International Herald Tribune<\/a>), et Julian Cole, \u00e9galement sa chronique du 18 mars<\/a>), avec en appui un texte r\u00e9sumant l’\u00e9mission Nightline<\/em>. F\u00e9roces, tous ces textes, non pour Wolfowitz lui-m\u00eame mais pour ce que lui et ses amis n\u00e9o-conservateurs ont impos\u00e9 \u00e0 l’Irak, en mati\u00e8re \u00e9conomique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIls reviennent en d\u00e9tails sur la fa\u00e7on dont les n\u00e9o-conservateurs ont engag\u00e9 le probl\u00e8me \u00e9conomique de l’Irak, et notamment la question du p\u00e9trole le p\u00e9trole d’un point de vue compl\u00e8tement id\u00e9ologique. Voici ce qu’en dit Krugman, parlant de Wolfowitz :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab Let’s not focus on <\/em>[Wolfowitz’] mismanagement. Instead, let’s talk about ideology.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Before the Iraq war, Pentagon hawks shut the State Department out of planning. This excluded anyone with development experience. As a result, the administration went into Iraq determined to demonstrate the virtues of radical free-market economics, with nobody warning about the likely problems.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Journalists who spoke to Paul Bremer when he was running Iraq remarked on his passion when he spoke about privatizing state enterprises. They didn’t note a comparable passion for a rapid democratization.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In fact, economic ideology may explain why U.S. officials didn’t move quickly after the fall of Baghdad to hold elections even though assuring Iraqis that we didn’t intend to install a puppet regime might have headed off the insurgency. Jay Garner, the first Iraq administrator, wanted elections as quickly as possible, but the White House wanted to put a template in place by privatizing oil and other industries before handing over control.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The oil fields never did get privatized. Nonetheless, the attempt to turn Iraq into a laissez-faire showpiece was, in its own way, as much an in-your-face rejection of world opinion as the decision to go to war. Dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets have been losing ground around the world.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tCe type d’analyse est celle qui vient aujourd’hui majoritairement \u00e0 l’esprit lorsqu’il est question de cette nomination de Wolfowitz. Il s’agit donc d’id\u00e9ologie, pas d’\u00e9conomie, \u00ab Instead, let’s talk about ideology<\/em> \u00bb, dit Krugman lorsqu’il parle de Wolfowitz.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEffectivement, c’est l\u00e0 le principal ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne de la nomination de Wolfowitz, plut\u00f4t que des questions de strat\u00e9gie tactique (les USA am\u00e9ricanisent encore plus la Banque Mondiale) ou d’angoisse tiers-mondiste (que va faire la Banque Mondiale pour les pauvres avec un directeur comme Wolfowitz ?). La nomination de Wolfowitz implique l’entr\u00e9e, dans le jeu financier et \u00e9conomique, d’une pure pens\u00e9e id\u00e9ologique. Cela agace, voire angoisse nombre d’\u00e9conomistes ou de croyant en l’\u00e9conomie (voir les lecteurs du FT), persuad\u00e9s pour beaucoup que l’\u00e9conomie est une science, dans tous les cas qu’elle est gouvern\u00e9e par la raison, alors que l’id\u00e9ologie, pensent-ils, et surtout celle de Wolfowitz, n’a rien \u00e0 voir avec la raison.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’angoisse de ces \u00e9conomistes vient \u00e9galement de cette crainte de voir que l’action de Wolfowitz pourrait effectivement les conduire \u00e0 constater, sinon admettre, que l’\u00e9conomie est gouvern\u00e9e par l’id\u00e9ologie et n’a que de tr\u00e8s lointains rapports avec la raison. (Ils ne seront pas d\u00e9\u00e7us.) C’est ce qu’on comprend lorsque Juan Cole, \u00e0 propos du n\u00e9ocon qui conduisit l’Irak pendant un an, observe : \u00ab Paul Bremer, the second US civil administrator of Iraq is a fanatical laissez-fairiste<\/em> \u00bb ; de m\u00eame lorsque Krugman observe : \u00ab Journalists who spoke to Paul Bremer when he was running Iraq remarked on his passion when he spoke about privatizing state enterprises. <\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tFanatisme, passion, ces mots pour Paul Bremer valent pour Wolfowitz. Ce sont des mots pour id\u00e9ologues, les hommes qui n’ont que faire de la raison pour peser les choses. L’id\u00e9ologie est \u00e0 la t\u00eate de la Banque Mondiale. On en reparlera.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

La WolfBank et la raison 20 mars 2005 Ceci est remarquable: le 17 mars, le site du Financial Times (FT) ouvrait une page pour un sondage aupr\u00e8s de ses lecteurs. Question simple : Wolfowitz est-il un bon choix pour pr\u00e9sider la Banque Mondiale? \u00c9tat des r\u00e9ponses le 20 mars \u00e0 8H00: 614 oui (17%), 2959… <\/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":[1087,4478,898],"class_list":["post-66269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-cole","tag-ft","tag-krugman"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66269","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=66269"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66269\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}