{"id":69358,"date":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/10\/25\/cerise-sur-le-gateau-bmde-divergences-entre-gw-dur-et-gates-un-peu-moins-dur\/"},"modified":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","slug":"cerise-sur-le-gateau-bmde-divergences-entre-gw-dur-et-gates-un-peu-moins-dur","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/10\/25\/cerise-sur-le-gateau-bmde-divergences-entre-gw-dur-et-gates-un-peu-moins-dur\/","title":{"rendered":"Cerise sur le g\u00e2teau BMDE : divergences entre GW (dur) et Gates (un peu moins dur)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Les chroniqueurs se sont donc mis \u00e0 l’uvre pour scruter ce qu’on peut retirer d’assur\u00e9 dans la position US dans la question des anti-missiles BMDE. Au lieu d’y trouver une clarification, ils ont plut\u00f4t constat\u00e9 une complication de plus. Bien entendu, il s’agit de la situation int\u00e9rieure US, au cur de l’administration GW.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe Washington Post<\/em> du 24 octobre<\/a> nous instruit de la chose, sous le titre plein de promesse de \u00abAdministration Diverges on Missile Defense<\/em>\u00bb:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbPresident Bush said yesterday that a missile defense system is urgently needed in Europe to guard against a possible attack on U.S. allies by Iran, while Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested that the United States could delay activating such a system until there is definitive proof of such a threat.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe seemingly contrasting messages came as the Bush administration grappled with continuing Russian protests over Washington’s plan to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The Kremlin considers the program a potential threat to its own nuclear deterrent and has sought to play down any threat from Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBoth Bush and Gates affirmed that they want to proceed with deployment of the system, including 10 antimissile interceptors in Poland and a radar-tracking facility in the Czech Republic projected for completion in 2012. Bush cited Iran’s development of ballistic missiles that could strike Israel and Turkey, and said Tehran is also developing missiles that could strike NATO countries.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe need for missile defense in Europe is real, and I believe it’s urgent, Bush said in his remarks at the National Defense University. Today, he added, we have no way to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat, so we must deploy a missile defense system there that can.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAt a separate appearance in Prague, Gates suggested that Russian concerns could be allayed by delaying operation of the Eastern European system until the Iranian missile threat to Europe materialized. We have not fully developed this proposal, Gates said, but the idea was we would go forward with the negotiations, we would complete the negotiations, we would develop the sites, build the sites, but perhaps would delay activating them until there was concrete proof of the threat from Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhite House officials said that there was no daylight between Bush and Gates, saying that Gates is committed to the system but is looking for ways to address the Russian objections. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said there is no doubt that the program will go forward.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tQuelques commentaires ne sont peut-\u00eatre pas superflus.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t En substance, l’opposition est rh\u00e9torique plut\u00f4t que substantielle, m\u00eame marginalement. On peut dire effectivement que \u00abthere is no daylight between Bush and Gates<\/em>\u00bb (pas la place pour un papier de cigarettes entre les opinions des deux). Cela, notamment, doit laisser \u00e0 penser beaucoup sur la substance de la proposition US, pour en revenir \u00e0 l’id\u00e9e fondamentale qu’une m\u00e9canique est en route<\/a> et que personne ne l’arr\u00eatera. Bush l’interpr\u00e8te en mode imperioso<\/em> et fortissimo<\/em>, Gates en mode pacato<\/em> et moderato<\/em>. R\u00e9partition des t\u00e2ches, style diff\u00e9rent mais partition similaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Il n’emp\u00eache<\/strong>, ces deux approches voulues par les circonstances correspondent \u00e9galement \u00e0 deux temp\u00e9raments, \u00e0 deux courants, \u00e0 deux visions strat\u00e9giques. Dans certaines circonstances autres, les deux peuvent \u00eatre exacerb\u00e9es et s’exprimer brusquement \u00e0 propos de la substance de la chose. On pourrait alors se retrouver dans une situation d’antagonisme r\u00e9el \u00e0 Washington. En cas de tension accentu\u00e9e, de paroxysme, etc., et tenant compte du d\u00e9sordre extraordinaire et de l’absence d’autorit\u00e9 centrale \u00e0 Washington, une telle \u00e9volution est possible.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t La seule r\u00e9alit\u00e9 pr\u00e9sente exprim\u00e9e par les propos cit\u00e9s plus haut est bien celle-ci que \u00abthere is no doubt that the program will go forward<\/em>\u00bb Le seul obstacle s\u00e9rieux qu’on peut distinguer sur cette route imp\u00e9rative de la bureaucratie peut venir du Congr\u00e8s ou\/et d’une prochaine administration, et s’accorder aux propositions US qui doivent s’appuyer sur le faux-semblant d’un syst\u00e8me install\u00e9 mais non activ\u00e9; si, effectivement, cela para\u00eet la situation vers o\u00f9 l’on s’achemine, le Congr\u00e8s pourrait trouver \u00e0 redire \u00e0 une d\u00e9pense se chiffrant en un certain nombre de $milliards pour un syst\u00e8me que l’on n’est pas assur\u00e9 d’activer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 25 octobre 2007 \u00e0 10H53<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Les chroniqueurs se sont donc mis \u00e0 l’uvre pour scruter ce qu’on peut retirer d’assur\u00e9 dans la position US dans la question des anti-missiles BMDE. Au lieu d’y trouver une clarification, ils ont plut\u00f4t constat\u00e9 une complication de plus. Bien entendu, il s’agit de la situation int\u00e9rieure US, au cur de l’administration GW. Le Washington… <\/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":[3453,4314,868,3984],"class_list":["post-69358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-anti-missiles","tag-bmde","tag-bush","tag-gates"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69358","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=69358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}