{"id":67340,"date":"2006-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/03\/10\/le-diagnostic-du-docteur-brzezinski\/"},"modified":"2006-03-10T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-03-10T00:00:00","slug":"le-diagnostic-du-docteur-brzezinski","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/03\/10\/le-diagnostic-du-docteur-brzezinski\/","title":{"rendered":"Le diagnostic du docteur Brzezinski<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le diagnostic du docteur Brzezinski<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t10 mars 2006 Des commentaires \u00e9labor\u00e9s commencent \u00e0 circuler concernant l’article de Zbigniew Brzezinski paru dans le premier num\u00e9ro de The American Interest<\/em>, disponible par ailleurs depuis plusieurs mois. (Ce premier num\u00e9ro de The National Interest<\/em>, o\u00f9 est publi\u00e9 l’article, a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 en octobre 2005). Le texte de Brzezinski appara\u00eet comme un de ces textes qu’on appr\u00e9cie, dans la perspective, comme important parce qu’il fixe, d’une fa\u00e7on structur\u00e9e et riche, le caract\u00e8re d’une \u00e9poque et la port\u00e9e des \u00e9v\u00e9nements en cours. C’est un texte sur le d\u00e9clin de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine et, surtout, sur les effets de ce d\u00e9clin sur le reste du monde. (Le site de The American Interest<\/a> est d’acc\u00e8s payant. L’article de Brzezinski est accessible sur le site The Information Clearing House<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tStricto sensu<\/em>, ce n’est pas de l’actualit\u00e9 br\u00fblante ; le texte de commentaire et de pr\u00e9sentation du texte de Brzezinski que nous pr\u00e9sentons ci-dessous ne l’est pas non plus, puisqu’il a \u00e9t\u00e9 originellement rendu public en janvier (m\u00eame s’il est accessible au public depuis le 4-6 mars). Mais l’atmosph\u00e8re dont toutes ces r\u00e9f\u00e9rences t\u00e9moignent est, elle, devenue compl\u00e8tement d’actualit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes \u00e9v\u00e9nements s’acc\u00e9l\u00e8rent<\/a> et tendent \u00e0 recomposer le paysage g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. Il s’agit de l’Irak bien s\u00fbr, de l’arriv\u00e9e \u00e0 maturit\u00e9 de la crise iranienne dans ses composantes les plus complexes, des interrogations n\u00e9es autour du destin du dollar avec notamment la cr\u00e9ation de l’Iranian Oil Bourse, du blocage de la puissance am\u00e9ricaine dans la paralysie politicienne et corruptrice du Centre washingtonien, de l’impuissance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de la diplomatie am\u00e9ricaniste encore mise en \u00e9vidence par le r\u00e9cent voyage de GW Bush (notamment en Inde). Nous parvenons \u00e0 une situation o\u00f9 il est possible de voir un changement d\u00e9cisif en cours dans les relations internationale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes Sovi\u00e9tiques parlaient, in illo tempore<\/em>, de l’\u00e9volution de la corr\u00e9lation des forces. Cette expression, d’origine militaire et strat\u00e9gique, s’applique aussi bien au grand domaine de la politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale. Aujourd’hui, on parle, d’une fa\u00e7on plus polic\u00e9e, du passage du monde unipolaire au monde multipolaire. L’on doit signaler \u00e0 nouveau combien le texte de Martin Walker, d’UPI, nous para\u00eet tr\u00e8s illustratif de cette appr\u00e9ciation (Multi-polar World<\/a>, du 7 mars). (Nous avons \u00e9galement utilis\u00e9 le texte de Walker pour enrichir le cas russo-indien<\/a> dans la crise iranienne.) Le constat est qu’on assiste \u00e0 une r\u00e9duction sensible de la puissance g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des USA, la corr\u00e9lation des forces interne de la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tComme le signale Walker avec les exemples russe, indien, chinois, iranien (et, malheureusement, le non-exemple europ\u00e9en), les autres puissances s’affirment de plus en plus nettement et ne d\u00e9terminent plus leur politique en fonction de Washington per\u00e7u comme la puissance centrale. Le potentiel de discr\u00e9dit des trois ann\u00e9es de revers et de d\u00e9sordre am\u00e9ricanistes depuis l’invasion de l’Irak sont en train d’\u00eatre transmut\u00e9es en une nouvelle organisation de facto<\/em> des relations internationales. L\u00e0 o\u00f9 dominait la crainte de la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste, on trouve d\u00e9sormais au mieux (pour les USA) un r\u00e9alisme lib\u00e9r\u00e9 des plus lourdes contraintes, au pire une d\u00e9fiance qui peut aller de la r\u00e9serve \u00e0 l’agressivit\u00e9. Le d\u00e9clin tr\u00e8s rapide de la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste est d\u00e9sormais un facteur essentiel de d\u00e9termination de la politique. On peut alors mieux mesurer combien l’Am\u00e9rique est per\u00e7ue d\u00e9sormais comme un facteur de d\u00e9sordre, voire un danger consid\u00e9rable. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe texte de Zbigniew Brzezinski tend \u00e0 prendre en compte, d’une fa\u00e7on inhabituellement franche et brutale pour un membre si estim\u00e9 de l’establishment<\/em>, nombre de ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments de d\u00e9clin. Affirmer que \u00ab a self-confident America was being transformed into a fear-driven natrion<\/em> \u00bb est une remarque peu courante dans les cercles de r\u00e9flexion de Washington.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn trouve une approche n\u00e9cessairement critique mais, dans ce cas, tr\u00e8s objective, pour des raisons \u00e9videntes de concordance paradoxale d’analyse, dans l’interpr\u00e9tation du texte de Brzezinski par Barry Grey, de WSWS.org<\/em>. Elle se trouve dans un texte g\u00e9n\u00e9ral en deux parties, sur le site WSWS.org<\/em>, le 4 mars 2006<\/a> et le 6 mars 2006<\/a>. (La pr\u00e9sentation du texte de Brzezinski figure dans la seconde partie du texte de Grey, le 6 mars.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe texte de Grey, qui pr\u00e9sente une analyse du d\u00e9clin global du capitalisme am\u00e9ricain (\u00ab Report on US: The Bush administration and the global decline of American capitalism<\/em> \u00bb) est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 de cette fa\u00e7on, qui en fixe les circonstances : \u00ab Published below is <\/em>[….] a two-part report by Barry Grey to an expanded meeting of the World Socialist Web Site International Editorial Board (IEB) held in Sydney from January 22 to 27, 2006. Grey is a member of the WSWS IEB and the Socialist Equality Party (US) central committee. WSWS IEB chairman David North’s report was posted on 27 February. SEP (Australia) national secretary Nick Beams’ report was posted in three parts: Part one on February 28, Part two on March 1 and Part three on March 2. James Cogan’s report on Iraq was posted on March 3.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn conna\u00eet le site WSWS.org<\/em>. Mise \u00e0 part l’orientation \u00e9videmment trotskiste, dont chacun fera ce qui lui convient, les analyses sont s\u00e9rieuses, document\u00e9es et tr\u00e8s comp\u00e9tentes. C’est le cas de l’analyse du texte de Brzezinski, par Barry Grey.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00ab …Finally, I would like to cite, at some length, an extraordinary article that appeared in the inaugural issue (autumn 2005) of a new American foreign policy journal called The American Interest. This publication is being put out by well known figures in the US foreign policy establishment, including right-wingers such as Francis Fukuyama, who are critical of the decision to invade Iraq and even more critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, and find themselves at odds with the neo-conservative ideologues who largely authored the war policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The most significant article is by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Entitled The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign, it provides an insight into the thinking of the more perspicacious partisans and strategists of US imperialist interests. Brzezinski sets out an acid and devastating critique of the Bush administration’s entire foreign policy, and the so-called global war on terror that serves as its mantra.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Speaking with remarkable bluntness for a man in his position, he writes: … the emphasis on the global war on terror’ has been symbolically central, fostering patriotic mobilization and legitimizing actions that otherwise could be viewed as extra-legal or even outright illegal. To the framers of the new strategy, 9\/11 legitimized the de facto suspension of habeas corpus even for US citizens, stress interrogation’ (a.k.a. torture) of detainees, and unilateral military actionjust as Pearl Harbor eventually legitimized Hiroshima in the public mind.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb On the results of this policy, he writes that a self-confident America was being transformed into a fear-driven nation, and continues:<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Even more potentially dangerous to America’s long-term interests has been the surfacing global trend toward regional coalitions with a thinly veiled anti-American orientation. Distancing oneself from the US government and all things American has become politically popular in Asia, Europe and Latin America. That mood is facilitating China’s efforts to quietly exclude the United States from its region by exploiting a rising pan-Asian identity in East and Southeast Asia; it gives a much less Atlanticist favor to the continuing European effort to shape a more politically-minded European Union; and it encourages a cluster of new, democratically-elected but rather leftist Latin American presidents to cultivate closer relations with Europe and China. The emergence of strong pan-European and pan-Asian communities, rather than Transatlantic and Transpacific ones, would intensify America’s global isolation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Summing up, he writes: In brief, America’s post-9\/11 foreign policy is too short range in its focus, overly alarmist in its rhetoric, and has been too costly in its still early consequences. Its overall effect has been to increase America’s national vulnerability while undermining the legitimacy of its international primacy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb Even more significant that this damning critique and dire assessment, for US imperialism, of the trajectory of world developments, is Brzezinski’s central thesis: that the most significant factor in world politics is what he calls the global political awakening.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He writes: America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He elaborates: It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity…. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which American still perches …<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb To sum up, the ongoing political awakening is now global in its geographic scope, with no continent or even region still largely politically passive; it is comprehensive in its social scale, with only very remote peasant communities still immune to political stimuli; it is strikingly youthful in its demographic profile and thus most receptive to rapid political mobilization; and much of its inspiration is transnational in origin because of the cumulative impact of literacy and mass communications.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb In somewhat Aesopian language, this longtime councilor for US imperialism is talking about nothing other than world revolution, which he sees as the real danger facing the American ruling class, rather than the efforts of a relative handful of Islamist terrorists. Lest there be any doubt as to his meaning, he places the global political awakening within the historical context of the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the mass anti-colonial struggles that followed the Second World War.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb He underlines the point, writing: The policy diagnosis that follows accepts the proposition of historical discontinuity from 9\/11 but argues that the central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bb The hardened reactionary Brzezinski has put his finger on the most decisive fact of world politics: the emergence of a new period of anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist revolutionary struggle, one that assumes a more thoroughly international character than anything that preceded it.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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

Le diagnostic du docteur Brzezinski 10 mars 2006 Des commentaires \u00e9labor\u00e9s commencent \u00e0 circuler concernant l’article de Zbigniew Brzezinski paru dans le premier num\u00e9ro de The American Interest, disponible par ailleurs depuis plusieurs mois. (Ce premier num\u00e9ro de The National Interest, o\u00f9 est publi\u00e9 l’article, a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9 en octobre 2005). Le texte de Brzezinski… <\/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":[1006,2899,5170,5168,5169],"class_list":["post-67340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires","tag-brzezinski","tag-declin","tag-grey","tag-walker","tag-wsws-org"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67340","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=67340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}