Malcolm Rifkind est un homme respect\u00e9 dans le parti conservateur britannique, et d’ailleurs un des pr\u00e9tendants \u00e0 la direction du parti. Ancien ministre de la d\u00e9fense (1991-95) puis secr\u00e9taire au Foreign Office (1995-97), il a naturellement toujours jou\u00e9 le jeu des special relationships<\/em> avec les USA. On s’int\u00e9ressera donc avec d’autant plus d’int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 sa critique d\u00e9vastatrice de la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re de Tony Blair (\u00ab Labour’s foreign policy has been extremely damaging for Britain. Tony Blair has managed to fail in almost every area<\/em> \u00bb), particuli\u00e8rement pour ce qui concerne les relations avec les USA. (Dans The Independent d’aujourd’hui.<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’introduction est tranchante: Blair \u00ab has lead Britain into a unjust war in Iraq. He has followed a policy of unconditional support for the United States.<\/em> \u00bb Le passage qui concerne cette politique des relations avec les USA approfondit la critique: \u00ab All prime ministers, Labour and Conservative, wish to be close to the United States. However, no past prime minister, Labour or Conservative, has given unconditional support to the US. Harold Macmillan was pressed strongly by Lyndon Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam. He refused. Prime Minister John Major and President Bill Clinton disagreed on policy over the Bosnian crisis. Again, although the Americans were disappointed by our stance, they accepted and respected it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb Mr Blair appears to have believed that if he had disagreed with the US over Iraq or some other key policy, our relationship with the US would have collapsed. That judgement is deplorable. Whether it was based on Blair’s lack of experience before he became PM is unclear. What is certain is that the US needs countries which share its values but can be candid and honest. We need a foreign policy which is independent.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tCe que Rifkind dit aussi de ce qu’il juge \u00eatre un \u00e9chec complet de la politique europ\u00e9enne de Blair est \u00e9galement int\u00e9ressant. Par exemple, son appr\u00e9ciation de la position britannique en Europe, \u00e0 comparer \u00e0 ce qu’en disent les commentateurs parisiens: \u00ab His central theme was to be at the heart of Europe by <\/em>[…] joining the French and Germans in a triumvirate which would direct the EU. \tEnfin, il est \u00e9galement int\u00e9ressant de noter que Rifkind se fait l’avocat d’une Europe \u00e0 g\u00e9om\u00e9trie variable, ce qui est assez inhabituel pour un conservateur. (\u00ab A \u00a0\u00bbvariable geometry\u00a0\u00bb for Europe now makes sense. Everyone travelling at the same political speed in the same direction at the same time is wrong. It may have made sense when you had a union of six or 10, but not when you have a union of 25.<\/em> \u00bb) Conlusion : le vrais europ\u00e9ens chez les Britanniques sont, aujourd’hui, \u00e0 chercher du c\u00f4t\u00e9 des conservateurs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 7 octobre 2005 \u00e0 09H45<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Malcolm Rifkind est un homme respect\u00e9 dans le parti conservateur britannique, et d’ailleurs un des pr\u00e9tendants \u00e0 la direction du parti. Ancien ministre de la d\u00e9fense (1991-95) puis secr\u00e9taire au Foreign Office (1995-97), il a naturellement toujours jou\u00e9 le jeu des special relationships avec les USA. On s’int\u00e9ressera donc avec d’autant plus d’int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 sa… <\/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":[2],"tags":[705,4776],"class_list":["post-66900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-blair","tag-rifkind"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66900","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=66900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}