{"id":68672,"date":"2007-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-31T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/03\/31\/lanalyse-tendancieuse-mais-avisee-de-the-economist-sur-les-antimissiles\/"},"modified":"2007-03-31T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-03-31T00:00:00","slug":"lanalyse-tendancieuse-mais-avisee-de-the-economist-sur-les-antimissiles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/03\/31\/lanalyse-tendancieuse-mais-avisee-de-the-economist-sur-les-antimissiles\/","title":{"rendered":"L’analyse tendancieuse mais avis\u00e9e de The Economist<\/em> sur les antimissiles"},"content":{"rendered":"

Il est toujours du plus grand int\u00e9r\u00eat de consid\u00e9rer les aspects instructifs d’une forme de pens\u00e9e qu’on ne partage pas. Un de nos lecteurs (ZedroS<\/em> sur notre Forum le 30 mars 2007<\/a>) nous signale une analyse de The Economist<\/em> de l’\u00e9dition imprim\u00e9e de lhebdomadaire, en date du 29 mars<\/a>, sur la crise des antimissiles en Europe, dite euromissiles-II.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est en effet, pour qui nous conna\u00eet, dire l’\u00e9vidence que dire que nous ne partageons pas le sens et le ton de l’analyse, et notamment son refus cat\u00e9gorique de consid\u00e9rer d’une mani\u00e8re un tant soit peu critique la d\u00e9marche am\u00e9ricaniste. Par contre, l’analyse est assez \u00e9clair\u00e9e et subtile pour bien d\u00e9tailler les m\u00e9canismes en cours, pour montrer que ces m\u00e9canismes font de cette crise le champ d’un possible d\u00e9cha\u00eenement d’anti-am\u00e9ricanisme en Europe, anti-am\u00e9ricanisme dissimul\u00e9 par des politiques officielles stupidement align\u00e9es, mais dont la pression ne cesse d’augmenter, et anti-am\u00e9ricanisme \u00e9videmment justifi\u00e9 de tant et tant de raisons et d’arguments.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Economist<\/em> qualifie ici ou l\u00e0 cette crise et certains aspects de cette crise d’artificiels (an artificial row<\/em>). Ce n’est pas faux, puisqu’il s’agit de dix batteries antimissiles d’un syst\u00e8me qui n’existe pas et qui ne marche pas, contre une menace qui n’existe pas et ainsi de suite. Et alors? Comment qualifier la guerre d’Irak sinon d’artificielle, dans ses attendus, ses causes, ses motifs et ainsi de suite? Qui a fabriqu\u00e9 ce monde artificiel? C’est avec lui et selon ses pr\u00e9ceptes que nous devons aujourd’hui affronter les probl\u00e8mes du monde.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tQu’importe enfin, ces remarques de cette analyse sont int\u00e9ressantes \u00e0 retenir.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAs it happens, NATO has for years been preparing for the more limited option of a theatre missile defence, which could indeed be jointly procured and managed by the alliance. But strategic interceptors, albeit few in number, are another matter: the Pentagon won’t share the keys with anyone. This week, a Pentagon official stated, at a congressional hearing, that the need for unanimous decision-making in NATO made it the wrong place to decide how missile defences should be deployed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbEven if it is phoney in parts, the missile-defence row cannot be shrugged off easily. Senior American officials find it dispiriting that Russia has again divided Europe. When Russian generals threatened to attack missile-defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, some European politicians fretted that Russia was being pushed into a corner, to quote Luxembourg’s foreign minister. The fact that Europeans are more protective of Russia than of their newish NATO partners does not bode well for alliance solidarity.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOne centre-right German member of parliament, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, said it was worrisome that so many German voters, even on the right, proved receptive to Russian arguments. Mr Putin’s anti-American speech at a conference in Munich last month seemsas Mr zu Guttenberg puts itto have been rather ridiculous, but effective.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut in some parts of Europe, America’s wish to keep a deterrent capability in the face of new threats is seen as destabilising.<\/em> [German Foreign Minister] Steinmeier asserted this month that peace was no longer based on military deterrence but on the willingness for co-operation. Others close to the SPD grassroots are blunter. Rolf M\u00fctzenich, an SPD spokesman on disarmament, argues that if missile defence gives a sense of 100% security to Americans, that will bring some problems for stability.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAs one NATO hand puts it, the row over missile defences has made plain a broader challenge to America’s moral sway over its old allies. Four years after the assault on Iraq, America can sound a warning about threats from rogue statesonly to find many European voters would rather hear the opposite message from Russia.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 31 mars 2007 \u00e0 11H08<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Il est toujours du plus grand int\u00e9r\u00eat de consid\u00e9rer les aspects instructifs d’une forme de pens\u00e9e qu’on ne partage pas. Un de nos lecteurs (ZedroS sur notre Forum le 30 mars 2007) nous signale une analyse de The Economist de l’\u00e9dition imprim\u00e9e de lhebdomadaire, en date du 29 mars, sur la crise des antimissiles en… <\/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":[2748,3561,4056,3228,6488,6484,2730,2804],"class_list":["post-68672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-allemagne","tag-anti-americanisme","tag-antimissiles","tag-crise","tag-economist","tag-euromissiles-ii","tag-russie","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68672","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=68672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}