12 f\u00e9vrier 2007 — Sans aucun doute, les d\u00e9clarations diverses<\/a> de dirigeants russes de ces derniers jours, dont celles de Poutine<\/a> naturellement, repr\u00e9sentent une affirmation importante… De quoi au fait ? Les r\u00e9ponses conventionnelles, pour ne pas dire conformistes, venues de nos hommes politiques embarqu\u00e9s dans leur mission banale de r\u00e9duction de tout propos de substance \u00e0 ses marges, seraient de dire : affirmation de la puissance russe, de l’arrogance russe, du \u00ab\u00a0pouvoir fort\u00a0\u00bb russe. Passons outre \u00e0 ces banalit\u00e9s conformistes qui encombrent les colonnes de notre presse MSM<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Poutine n’a d’int\u00e9r\u00eat avec ce discours de Munich du 10 f\u00e9vrier que dans la mesure de ce qu’il d\u00e9crit. Son discours importe non pour ce qu’il nous dit des Russes mais pour ce qu’il nous dit des Am\u00e9ricains et, par cons\u00e9quent, de la situation du monde. Son discours n’apporte rien de fondamentalement nouveau. (Poutine a d\u00e9j\u00e0 qualifi\u00e9 les USA de «loup affam\u00e9 qui d\u00e9vore et ne pr\u00eate attention \u00e0 personne<\/em>» ; c’\u00e9tait en mai 2006<\/a> et le loup est toujours affam\u00e9, et toujours aussi inattentif.) L’important est dans la r\u00e9p\u00e9tition, dans l’affirmation et la r\u00e9affirmation. Ce discours marque une \u00e9tape suppl\u00e9mentaire dans l’entreprise russe de tenter de montrer au grand jour le comportement am\u00e9ricaniste et les dangers qu’il fait naître autour de lui. Il est caract\u00e9ristique qu’une des accusations de Poutine soit que les Am\u00e9ricains agissent comme ils le font, — d’une fa\u00e7on irresponsable — hors de leurs fronti\u00e8res. Traduisons (message de Poutine \u00e0 l’audience chic de Munich) : c’est notre affaire \u00e0 tous, mes fr\u00e8res.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Voici un extrait substantiel du discours, d’apr\u00e8s la traduction anglaise<\/a> propos\u00e9e par les organisateurs de la conf\u00e9rence. Il est temps ici de faire remarquer \u00e0 nos lecteurs que, dans toute cette attaque, pas une fois les USA ne sont nomm\u00e9s sinon d’une fa\u00e7on oblique et nullement exclusive («One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way<\/em>») et que tout le monde a compris sans une h\u00e9sitation qu’il s’agissait des USA, — sans doute est-ce \u00e9trange, — ou bien plut\u00f4t est-ce significatif. Pour nous aussi, nous rassurons nos lecteurs, il s’agit bien des USA. Il est bien dans la couleur des temps qu’une d\u00e9finition si sombre et si critique d’un comportement historique soit aussit\u00f4t mise au d\u00e9bit de cette puissance, comme la parfaite description de son comportement. Rien que cela justifie la critique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »And with which results?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n D’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, les Russes, commentateurs et analystes, ont une vision apocalyptique de la situation internationale et de la situation am\u00e9ricaniste. Comme en d’autres domaines, y compris leur jugement sur leur propre pays d’ailleurs, ils ob\u00e9issent de la sorte \u00e0 la psychologie russe aussi bien qu’\u00e0 une tendance \u00e0 tenter, avec plus ou moins de succ\u00e8s, d’\u00e9carter les artifices du langage auxquels ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 contraints pendant la p\u00e9riode communiste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Leur appr\u00e9ciation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale sur l’\u00e9poque est extr\u00eamement pessimiste, ce qui rel\u00e8ve plut\u00f4t d’un jugement r\u00e9aliste. Leur th\u00e8se politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, aliment\u00e9e autant par l’intuition que par l’exp\u00e9rience, est que la Guerre froide fut un syst\u00e8me corrompu et monstrueux \u00e0 deux où les USA tenaient une place essentielle, que l’un des deux composants (l’URSS) s’est effondr\u00e9 et que cela fit grand bruit ; qu’il reste le deuxi\u00e8me (les USA) et qu’il doit s’effondrer \u00e0 son tour, et que cela fera bien plus de bruit encore.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
Le sujet du discours : le destin du monde<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n