sondage<\/a> a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9alis\u00e9 les 25-27 juillet et porte sur 1.734 personnes.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLes r\u00e9ponses montrent que l’esprit du public se r\u00e9v\u00e8le plus ouvert qu’on aurait pu penser sur la perspective de tels liens diplomatiques. (De tels liens \u00e9taient jusqu’alors jug\u00e9s impensables sur le principe, quoiqu’il en f\u00fbt dans la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 non-officielle.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00ab Because the current major conflicts in the world involve militarized groups, not recognized countries, the Bush administration finds itself dealing with a new wrinkle in international relations. As a result, traditional thinking about diplomacy is stretched.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Asked if the U.S. should open up negotiations with such groups as al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah, 30% said it should, while 60% said America should not enter into diplomatic relations with such groups.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Ideology was a driving force in how respondents answered this question. Just 3% of those considering themselves very conservative said they thought it was appropriate for the U.S. to open up talks with the groups, while 72% of selfdescribed progressives said it was a good idea. Among moderates, 35% said the U.S. should build a diplomatic bridge to such groups, while 54% said they were against such action. Twelve percent of moderates said they were unsure. Men were somewhat less open than women to the idea of an official relationship between the U.S. government and the nonnation state groups.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Part of the reticence to establishing official ties with such groups may stem from the fact that most Americans do not believe such a relationship would do any good. Just 16% said that, should an official relationship be struck, agreements could be reached and a permanent peace could be found.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb Nearly twothirds 63% said it was very unlikely such agreements could be reached. Even among progressives, just 7% said they thought diplomatic relations with those groups would lead to a lasting peace. Just 16% said they think that, if a diplomatic agreement were to be reached between the U.S. and such groups, the groups would abide by those agreements, while 67% said they believed the U.S. would abide by those same agreements, were they to be struck.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tA c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l’aspect novateur du domaine explor\u00e9, on observe une tr\u00e8s forte fracture id\u00e9ologique dans les r\u00e9ponses. On retrouve cette fracture, encore plus accentu\u00e9e, dans les r\u00e9ponses \u00e0 la question g\u00e9n\u00e9rale sur la valeur de la diplomatie US, mentionn\u00e9e plus haut. La coupure de l’Am\u00e9rique en deux, avec une forte radicalisation, reste une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 politique tr\u00e8s forte et en constant renforcement. (L’orientation extraordinairement conformiste de la presse MSM tend \u00e0 nous faire oublier ce fait important de la situation aux USA.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00ab The split between Democrats and Republicans is remarkable on the question <\/em>[on the US diplomacy as a whole]. Among Democrats, 97% give the nation negative marks, while 71% of Republicans give the U.S. positive marks for its interactions with other nations.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 15 ao\u00fbt 2006 \u00e0 18H03<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
L’institut de sondage Zogby a r\u00e9alis\u00e9 un sondage sur la politique ext\u00e9rieure de l’administration Bush (approuv\u00e9e par 34% des personnes interrog\u00e9es, contre 64% pas contentes), avec une partie in\u00e9dite int\u00e9ressante. Elle rel\u00e8ve de la guerre de quatri\u00e8me g\u00e9n\u00e9ration (G4G), qui oppose des nations \u00e0 des groupes non-\u00e9tatiques. Elle porte sur la question de savoir si… <\/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":[2628,5777,5701,5190,2671,5612],"class_list":["post-67883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-diplomatie","tag-fracture","tag-g4g","tag-sondage","tag-us","tag-zogby"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67883","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=67883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}