{"id":67718,"date":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/07\/04\/la-methode-du-systeme-lextremisme-perpetuel-la-pression-de-force-et-la-destruction-creatrice\/"},"modified":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-07-04T00:00:00","slug":"la-methode-du-systeme-lextremisme-perpetuel-la-pression-de-force-et-la-destruction-creatrice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/07\/04\/la-methode-du-systeme-lextremisme-perpetuel-la-pression-de-force-et-la-destruction-creatrice\/","title":{"rendered":"La m\u00e9thode du syst\u00e8me: l&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme perp\u00e9tuel, la pression de force et la \u201cdestruction cr\u00e9atrice\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>On aurait tort de limiter l&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme de la politique US \u00e0 une circonstance, une influence, un groupe de pression, etc. L&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme semble \u00eatre devenu la marque syst\u00e9matique de toute la politique US, et il semble \u00eatre parfaitement v\u00e9cu et r\u00e9alis\u00e9 comme tel. Il est assorti de m\u00e9thodes de la m\u00eame tendance : les pressions de force pour tenter d&rsquo;imposer la vision extr\u00e9miste, une notion g\u00e9n\u00e9rale qui se nourrit au concept de la destruction cr\u00e9atrice, etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tVoici l&rsquo;exemple des n\u00e9gociations commerciales, le <em>Doha Round<\/em>, qui se sont retrouv\u00e9e dimanche sur la voie qui pourrait conduire \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9chec. La position maximaliste prise par les Am\u00e9ricains sur la question des r\u00e9ductions tarifaires est pour beaucoup dans cette \u00e9volution (m\u00eame si, par ailleurs et d&rsquo;une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, il semble bien improbable qu&rsquo;on puisse parvenir en tout \u00e9tat de cause \u00e0 un accord).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLes explications donn\u00e9es par la repr\u00e9sentante US aux n\u00e9gociations sont particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ressantes. Elles \u00e9clairent cette tendance au constant maximalisme, \u00e0 l&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme, \u00e0 la surench\u00e8re de la part des Am\u00e9ricains. La chose est expos\u00e9e d&rsquo;une fa\u00e7on pr\u00e9cise et argument\u00e9e comme telle. Ainsi, la notion m\u00eame de <em>leadership<\/em>, que les Am\u00e9ricains sont \u00e9videmment persuad\u00e9s de devoir tenir et d&rsquo;\u00eatre les seuls \u00e0 pouvoir tenir, implique-t-elle cet extr\u00e9misme. Pour Susan C. Schwab, la notion qu&rsquo;un <em>leader<\/em> puisse chercher une voie de compromis, une voie moyenne, est totalement perverse, compl\u00e8tement absurde.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t(Susan C. Schwab, qui vient d&rsquo;\u00eatre nomm\u00e9e au poste de U.S. Trade Representative, est loin d&rsquo;\u00eatre une id\u00e9ologue, une personnalit\u00e9 politique adepte d&rsquo;une th\u00e8se n\u00e9o-conservatrice ou autre. Il s&rsquo;agit d&rsquo;une bureaucrate, une technicienne des questions de n\u00e9gociation commerciale. Elle trouve pourtant les sens et les mots pour exprimer la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme am\u00e9ricaniste. Qu&rsquo;on puisse trouver cela au sein de la bureaucratie, d&rsquo;habitude plut\u00f4t attir\u00e9e par la mod\u00e9ration et le compromis, est particuli\u00e8rement frappant. Dans ce cas, la bureaucrate devient n\u00e9cessairement une id\u00e9ologue am\u00e9ricaniste. La recherche du compromis propre \u00e0 la bureaucratie est r\u00e9serv\u00e9e \u00e0 la politique interne, \u00e0 la bataille constante entre les divers centres de pouvoir du syst\u00e8me de l&rsquo;am\u00e9ricanisme.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tOn trouve l&rsquo;illustration de ces divers constats dans un article du Washington <em>Post<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2006\/07\/03\/AR2006070300972.html\" class=\"gen\">aujourd&rsquo;hui<\/a>. L&rsquo;article d\u00e9crit la col\u00e8re des pays en d\u00e9veloppement, qui s&rsquo;est brusquement concentr\u00e9e contre les \u00c9tats-Unis \u00e0 la suite de la position prise par les USA :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00ab <em>And Kamal Nath, India&rsquo;s commerce and industry minister, voiced incredulity that he was being asked for bigger percentage cuts in his country&rsquo;s tariffs than rich countries were willing to make in their own. If they will cut 70 [percent], I will cut 60; if they cut 60, I cut 50, he said. But they say, We&rsquo;ll cut 20, and you cut 70&prime;  well, that&rsquo;s not what this round is about.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>Those countries&rsquo; chief antagonist was the United States, which was represented by Susan C. Schwab, recently appointed U.S. trade representative. Schwab repeatedly maintained that the Doha round, named for the Qatari capital where the WTO started it, must achieve an ambitious outcome. That would mean tariff cuts that are deep enough, and with few enough exceptions for special products, to generate significant new trade around the world, including in big developing markets such as India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>She did not dispute that the United States had emerged as the outlier in the talks, in opposition to most of the WTO membership. Isn&rsquo;t that what leadership is about? she said in an interview. She said she was dismayed with the number of countries that just seem willing to settle for some least-common-denominator solution.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tFinalement, les risques d&rsquo;effondrement du processus de Doha sont r\u00e9els. Mais les Am\u00e9ricains,  l&rsquo;intervieweur dans ce cas autant que Schwab,  voient cela presque comme une bonne chose, estimant qu&rsquo;une surench\u00e8re viendrait apr\u00e8s cet effondrement pour affirmer un but plus ambitieux encore dans le prochain <em>round<\/em>. La situation conduirait alors \u00e0 des pressions am\u00e9ricaines plus fortes encore, \u00e0 la surench\u00e8re et au chantage pour parvenir \u00e0 un r\u00e9sultat toujours plus extr\u00e9miste : \u00ab <em>The last time globalization stumbled badly, at a rancorous WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003, the member nations put the Doha round back on track the following year in part because of their concern for preserving the multilateral system. Could something like that happen again? There is something to be said for everyone staring over the precipice, Schwab said.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 4 juillet 2006 \u00e0 17H45<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On aurait tort de limiter l&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme de la politique US \u00e0 une circonstance, une influence, un groupe de pression, etc. L&rsquo;extr\u00e9misme semble \u00eatre devenu la marque syst\u00e9matique de toute la politique US, et il semble \u00eatre parfaitement v\u00e9cu et r\u00e9alis\u00e9 comme tel. Il est assorti de m\u00e9thodes de la m\u00eame tendance : les pressions de&hellip;&nbsp;<\/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":[3253,5577,5578,2686,4795,4417,5579,4830,5576],"class_list":["post-67718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-americanisme","tag-commercial","tag-creatrice","tag-destruction","tag-doha","tag-extremisme","tag-pression","tag-round","tag-schwab"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67718","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=67718"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67718\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}