The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance<\/em> \u00bb, non pas l’OTAN perdante par rapport \u00e0 son r\u00f4le ou son absence de r\u00f4le dans une force multinationale au Liban, mais par rapport \u00e0 la coh\u00e9sion entre Europ\u00e9ens et Am\u00e9ricains.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCe que nous disent Perry-Crooke, c’est que la r\u00e9solution en cours de discussion est une sorte de demi mesure faite pour contenir les d\u00e9saccords, ou plut\u00f4t les incompr\u00e9hensions, et que cette sorte de tr\u00eave ne durera pas. Perry-Crooke notent que des affrontements sanglants ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 oppos\u00e9 Bolton et La Sabli\u00e8re, et la chose ne devrait que s’aggraver pour le travail sur la deuxi\u00e8me r\u00e9solution. Ce qu’on pourrait comprendre, c’est que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9solution a \u00e9clair\u00e9 les incompr\u00e9hensions et les d\u00e9saccords \u00e9normes que suscitent ces incompr\u00e9hensions, et que la seconde risque de conduire \u00e0 des d\u00e9cha\u00eenements.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tEn un sens, ce que veulent les USA, c’est une force multinationale qui prenne le relais d’Isra\u00ebl dans la mission de d\u00e9truire le Hezbollah, puisque d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment Isra\u00ebl n’y parvient pas : \u00ab The position that we’re taking in the UN is just nuts, a former White House official close to the US decision-making process said during the negotiations. The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there’s a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis could enforce Hezbollah’s disarmament. All of this, this former official noted, is covered over by this talk about how we need a substantive agreement that addresses the fundamental problems and that will last. But no one is willing to say exactly what this means.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb A former US Central Intelligence Agency officer confirmed this view: I am under the impression that [President] George [W] Bush and [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice were surprised when the Europeans disagreed with the US position they were running around saying, But how can you disagree, don’t you understand? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.’<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCette vision extr\u00eame de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 \u00e0 laquelle participe activement Isra\u00ebl est assez proche d’une construction virtualiste. Dans ce cadre, on comprend qu’on puisse attendre non seulement des affrontements mais une aggravation de la situation de la sc\u00e8ne diplomatique dans les jours qui viennent. L’incompr\u00e9hension absolue entre les USA (USA-Isra\u00ebl) et le reste, car, bien entendu, la France repr\u00e9sente l’opinion du reste dans cette affaire, va \u00e9clater au grand jour, estiment Perry-Crooke, sur une question fondamentale. Cela est r\u00e9sum\u00e9 d’une seule phrase, citation d’un diplomate de l’ONU : \u00ab Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLes derniers paragraphes de Perry-Crooke nous annon\u00e7ant l’apocalypse : <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00ab For now, Condoleezza Rice is hailing the US-French draft as a symbol for US-European cooperation. But for many European diplomats, agreement on the draft resolution has only papered over a deepening rift between the United States and its European partners, with some European diplomats muttering that America’s real goal is to induce the Europeans to wade into Lebanon on the side of a defanged and humiliated Israel.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bragged that Israel would destroy Hezbollah, a French diplomat said in Washington, and if he can’t do it that’s his problem. I don’t care what the secretary of state says, we’re not going to do it for him.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb There are more difficult days ahead particularly when the US and France square off in the coming week over the draft of a second resolution. With nearly everyone now wondering whether the US position in the Middle East is unraveling, one UN diplomat said the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict may spell the end of an era in which the US and Europe established a tradition of diplomatic cooperation: We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb No matter what the answer to that question might be, the very fact that it has been asked means that the real loser in the current Middle East conflict is the Atlantic alliance.<\/em> \u00bb <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 7 ao\u00fbt 2006 \u00e0 15H23<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant article de Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke sur le site Atimes.com, en date du 8 ao\u00fbt, sur l’\u00e9volution de la situation diplomatique \u00e0 l’ONU, entre la France et les USA. Le titre nous indique le climat : \u00ab The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance \u00bb, non pas l’OTAN perdante par rapport \u00e0… <\/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":[1092,2665,4472,2774,2622,5611,3478,4087,5744,2804],"class_list":["post-67850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bolton","tag-crooke","tag-hezbollah","tag-israel","tag-la","tag-liban","tag-onu","tag-perry","tag-sabliere","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67850","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=67850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}