La question des droits de l’homme, pos\u00e9e comme elle l’est aujourd’hui, est d’une importance politique objective radicalement moindre que ne l’avancent les analystes qui lui font jouer ce r\u00f4le. Elle est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e par les dirigeants politiques d’abord pour son effet m\u00e9diatique et, le plus souvent, utilis\u00e9e comme un faux semblant. L’efficacit\u00e9 de cette politique dans la situation actuelle est largement contestable \u00e0 cause de cette fa\u00e7on de l’aborder qui privil\u00e9gie l’effet aux d\u00e9pens des r\u00e9sultats. Plut\u00f4t qu’en parler beaucoup, il serait pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de suivre des politiques plus \u00e9quilibr\u00e9es, moins brutales, qui aboutiraient \u00e0 des situations dont les contraintes conduiraient \u00e0 des transgressions beaucoup plus r\u00e9duites des droits de l’homme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tUn effet de cette attitude de promotion publicitaire mais sans v\u00e9ritable substance des droits de l’homme est pourtant de cr\u00e9er des situations politiques dont l’importance est r\u00e9elle, et dont les effets sont et pourraient \u00eatre \u00e0 terme b\u00e9n\u00e9fiques (y compris, indirectement, pour les droits de l’homme). L’\u00e9volution de l’image des USA est le point le plus important aujourd’hui. La politique virtualiste des USA, passant par un hubris<\/em> consid\u00e9rable, conduit ce pays \u00e0 r\u00e9futer la moindre accusation contre sa politique par simple principe d’infaillibilit\u00e9 morale et \u00e0 combattre toute tentative d’appr\u00e9ciation \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Cela place les USA dans des positions d’isolement tr\u00e8s inhabituels et tr\u00e8s dommageables. L’effet politique est important parce que la puissance des USA est fond\u00e9e en part importante sur l’apparence de la vertu morale cens\u00e9e donner \u00e0 la force am\u00e9ricaine le droit moral \u00e0 l’intervention. Si cette apparence se d\u00e9grade, la puissance am\u00e9ricaine se d\u00e9grade.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tLes derni\u00e8res p\u00e9rip\u00e9ties \u00e0 l’ONU confirment cette orientation, avec la cerise sur le g\u00e2teau d’une d\u00e9claration de Bolton expliquant l’opposition US \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation d’un Conseil des Nations Unies sur les droits de l’homme : \u00ab The United States made its decision not to support the current draft based on the principle that we should not compromise when talking about human rights.<\/em> \u00bb La philosophie boltonesque est toujours instructive \u00e0 entendre.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCi-dessous, un texte de nos sources internes. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tEU backs new U.N. Human Rights Council, leaving U.S. isolated.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab The European Union gave its backing Wednesday night to a compromise proposal to create a U.N. Human Rights Council, a move that leaves the United States isolated from some of its closest allies. U.S. opposition to the new body, which would replace the U.N. Human Rights Commission, delayed quick approval and sparked intense consultation on the pros and cons of reopening negotiations. It also put the United States on a collision course with supporters of the proposal including many U.N. member states, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, key human rights groups, and a dozen Nobel peace laureates.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb The brief EU statement, obtained from a European diplomat, said the 25-nation body considers last week’s proposal by General Assembly President Jan Eliasson to meet the basic requirements for the establishment of a Human Rights Council. The EU could therefore accept this text as a compromise, the statement said. Eliasson told The Associated Press he had been informed of the EU’s support. That’s very good news. I’m very grateful for this support, and I hope we will move closer to taking a decision on this important matter, he said. Richard Grenell, spokesman for U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, reiterated the U.S. opposition to the proposal. The United States made its decision not to support the current draft based on the principle that we should not compromise when talking about human rights, he said. Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters earlier Wednesday that the EU strongly favors adoption of a text by consensus. It also recognizes that adopting that text without United States support isn’t good for human rights and not particularly good for the council, he said. And that’s the dilemma the president of the General Assembly has, and we will give him whatever help we can as he decides now how to go forward. The EU statement didn’t mention the United States but backed efforts to increase support. The EU fully supports the president of the General Assembly’s efforts to secure the broadest possible backing for the early establishment of the Human Rights Council, it said.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n