15 novembre 2007 – Une premi\u00e8re int\u00e9ressante nouvelle venue de Pologne est la nomination de Radoslaw Sikorski au minist\u00e8re des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res. Une seconde int\u00e9ressante nouvelle est la manœuvre lanc\u00e9e contre lui par les jumeaux Kaczynski, par vice-ministre sortant de la D\u00e9fense Antoni Macierewicz interpos\u00e9. Tout cela signifie que la question des BMDE (anti-missiles US en Europe) va \u00eatre au cœur de la politique polonaise dans sa partie controvers\u00e9e (les jumeaux contre le Premier ministre Tusk et son ministre Sikorski); cela signifie encore que les USA sont tr\u00e8s actifs sur cette question et craignent une \u00e9volution d\u00e9favorable sur les BMDE avec le nouveau gouvernement (m\u00eame s’ils se tiennent sur la r\u00e9serve, les USA ne d\u00e9sapprouvent pas n\u00e9cessairement ces b\u00e2tons mises par les jumeaux dans les roues de Sikorski). Cela signifie enfin que le ministre des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res sera un pion incertain mais de grand poids dans cette affaire BMDE. Pour autant, nul ne sait quelle direction de la politique polonaise sa nomination sugg\u00e8re exactement. La Pologne qui \u00e9tait une \u00ab\u00a0amie\u00a0\u00bb est en train de devenir un probl\u00e8me, dans tous les cas au moins temporairement une \u00e9nigme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
D’abord, quelques d\u00e9tails sur la pol\u00e9mique jumeaux-Tusk-Sikorski, selon une d\u00e9p\u00eache AFP\/Romandie News<\/em> du 14 novembre<\/a>:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «Saisi par le gouvernement conservateur sortant, le parquet de Varsovie a lanc\u00e9 mercredi une enqu\u00eate pr\u00e9liminaire pour v\u00e9rifier si le futur ministre des Affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res Radoslaw Sikorski n’avait pas trahi un secret d’Etat. L’enqu\u00eate a \u00e9t\u00e9 lanc\u00e9e \u00e0 la demande du vice-ministre sortant de la D\u00e9fense Antoni Macierewicz, un proche des fr\u00e8res Kaczynski, tr\u00e8s controvers\u00e9 pour sa lutte acharn\u00e9e en faveur de la d\u00e9communisation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »L’enqu\u00eate concerne des propos tenus aux m\u00e9dias en mars et avril 2007 par Radoslaw Sikorski qui pourraient inclure des informations class\u00e9es top secret, a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 Katarzyna Szeska, une porte-parole du parquet, cit\u00e9e par l’agence PAP.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n (…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Radoslaw Sikorski a fermement rejet\u00e9 les accusations d’Antoni Macierewicz qui \u00e9tait son subordonn\u00e9 lorsqu’il \u00e9tait ministre de la D\u00e9fense du gouvernement Kaczynski. M. Sikorski a d\u00e9missionn\u00e9 de son poste en f\u00e9vrier apr\u00e8s un conflit avec M. Macierewicz. \u00ab\u00a0L’incomp\u00e9tence de M. Macierewicz ne peut pas \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme un secret d’Etat\u00a0\u00bb, a-t-il dit mercredi.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Depuis que le Premier ministre d\u00e9sign\u00e9 Donald Tusk a annonc\u00e9 qu’il voulait confier la diplomatie \u00e0 Radoslaw Sikorski, les fr\u00e8res Jaroslaw et Lech Kaczynski, respectivement Premier ministre sortant et pr\u00e9sident polonais, n’ont cess\u00e9 de lancer des attaques contre lui, en l’accusant de trahison et d’incomp\u00e9tence sans jamais apporter ouvertement la moindre preuve.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »La pr\u00e9sidence polonaise a annonc\u00e9 mardi soir que lors d’une rencontre avec le futur Premier ministre, Lech Kaczynski lui a transmis des informations class\u00e9es secret d’Etat sur Radoslaw Sikorski et qui, \u00e0 ses yeux discr\u00e9ditaient cet homme politique.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Cependant, \u00e0 l’issue de cet entretien, Donald Tusk a r\u00e9affirm\u00e9 sa confiance en futur ministre des Affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res. \u00ab\u00a0Durant cette rencontre, je n’ai rien entendu qui discr\u00e9dite Radoslaw Sikorski ou qui rende difficile sa mission de conduire les affaires internationales\u00a0\u00bb, a indiqu\u00e9 M. Tusk aux journalistes.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Sikorski est un personnage connu \u00e0 divers titres en Pologne. On l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0 lu sur ce site. Sikorski est arriv\u00e9 d’un s\u00e9jour aux USA, \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence de l’institut n\u00e9o-conservateur AEI, pour prendre le poste de ministre de la d\u00e9fense, avec une fameuse r\u00e9putation pro-am\u00e9ricaniste<\/a>, voire m\u00eame de quasi-\u00ab\u00a0agent d’influence\u00a0\u00bb dans ce sens. Puis il a \u00e9volu\u00e9, pour devenir tr\u00e8s critique<\/a> de ses amis am\u00e9ricanistes, notamment apr\u00e8s sa d\u00e9mission<\/a> de f\u00e9vrier dernier qui pourrait avoir port\u00e9 notamment sur l’attitude trop dure de Sikorski vis-\u00e0-vis des USA, dans les n\u00e9gociations BMDE.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Il serait faux de voir dans Sikorski un pro- devenu anti-am\u00e9ricaniste. Il reste un \u00ab\u00a0ami des Am\u00e9ricains\u00a0\u00bb et l’on peut m\u00eame parler de lui comme d’un Polonais \u00ab\u00a0am\u00e9ricanis\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb mais il est un ami critique quand il le faut, c’est-\u00e0-dire pour ses int\u00e9r\u00eats. D’autre part, malgr\u00e9 son s\u00e9jour US il reste Polonais, et il d\u00e9fend les int\u00e9r\u00eats polonais, y compris vis-\u00e0-vis des USA, avec alacrit\u00e9. Ses positions politiques et strat\u00e9giques sont tr\u00e8s conformes \u00e0 la vision polonaise classique, pro-US, anti-russe, etc. C’est ce qu’il nous semble qu’il ressort d’une interview qu’il a donn\u00e9e \u00e0 la publication PLUS<\/em>, le 13 septembre<\/a> dernier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Voici un extrait de cette interview, portant essentiellement sur les anti-missiles.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: Political losses resulting from the construction of elements of the shield on Polish territory are inevitable. Will profits compensate for the losses?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: It depends on the conditions we manage to negotiate. If the US does not strengthen our short-range anti-missile protection, nor makes an executive agreement that puts flesh on mutual security guarantees of safety real, then public outcry in Poland will be severe.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: How would you comment on this? The President of France Nicolas Sarkozy was quoted as saying by the daily newspaper \u00ab\u00a0Le Figaro\u00a0\u00bb: \u00ab\u00a0The Shield may be something aggressive for Russia in a political sense but not in a military sense\u00a0\u00bb.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: Really? Did he really say so? I doubt it. Said so…<\/em> [consternation]. I expect Nicolas Sarkozy to be cleverer than his predecessor Jacques Chirac.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: And this, in turn, is your statement on the shield given for Polish information TV called TVN24: \u00ab\u00a0I have the impression that it has not been considered from the point of view of geo-strategy because when Iran gets warheads first and missiles first it will not drop them on the US or on the EU but rather – Iran leaders clearly state – they will attack Israel. And this shield cannot protect Israel. The situation is the same for North Korea who has bad relations with Japan, South Korea and the United States. However, North Korea would attack the US not over Europe but across the Pacific.\u00a0\u00bb If, in your opinion, the location of the shield has not been considered geo-strategically, where would you place it, as the former minister of national defense?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: You should ask the US about it because it is their offer. They say the shield is aimed at Iran. The exterminatory anti-Semitism of Iran is a real and if I were an Israeli I would take it very seriously indeed. But, as I say, the GBI base is useless in this regard.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: The participation of Poland in the anti-missile shield will influence the safety of our country. To be sincere, the shield will provoke the attack of those countries that feel endangered. Against who will the shield protect us and against who will it not?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: The shield will increase our safety with respect to countries that pose little risk to us, such as Iran. But Russia takes already executed legal and military measures, that increase uncertainty in our region. Building the shield without the supporting package would – in my judgement – bring us more disadvantages than advantages.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: So the threats made by Russian Vice-President Sergiej Iwanow referring to placing medium-range missiles in the area of Kaliningrad Oblast, in case the US does not resign from locating them in Poland and the Czech Republic, are truth?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: I think we should take them seriously because it is easy for Russia to do she promises. Why? Firstly, it has the funds to do it. Secondly, frightening former countries of the Eastern Block and dividing Europe and NATO into zones of lesser and higher security is an old Russian tactics.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: Can the offer of president Putin to build a radar in Azerbaijan influence American plans to install anti-missile systems in Poland?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: No, it’s pure PR. A Radar in Azerbaijan can only have a secondary operational role. This idea of president Putin’s concentrated public opinion on his person for one week around the time of the G8 summit.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: Russia perceives installing anti-missile system in Poland as a real menace from the US. Can ten defensive missiles really pose a threat to Russian strategic missile powers?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: Rather not. Russia has several hundred functional ballistic missiles. Ten interceptors can shoot down three, maximum four ballistic missiles.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: Russian fears are unjustified and its behavior is a psychological attack on the US and Poland?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: I think Russian authorities foment post imperial nostalgias as to look good in the eyes of their own society.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: And it tries Polish-American alliance…<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: Russian threats towards Poland are a good test of American intentions. If Russia threatens to put medium-range missiles on the territory of Kaliningrad Oblast, which is near the Polish border, and the US does not offer Poland short-range Patriot missiles, why should we believe that the US would help us in case of a more general conflict? I think it is a very good test of alliance from time to time.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: The distrust of Poles towards American anti-missile shield results from disappointment on the part of the alliance with America in Iraq. Would a gesture of friendship in the form of Patriot missiles be sufficient to ease Polish worries?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: American should be aware that we think that our relations have recently been one-sided and a gesture of reciprocity is needed. Otherwise, this shield may be viewed as the next gift that Poland makes to the US. Polish parliamentary and public opinion will not bear it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: In the March edition of the \u00ab\u00a0Washington Post\u00a0\u00bb we find your article in which you use many bitter words to address the US and especially the way how it negotiates with Poland. We read there: \u00ab\u00a0The United States may lose their last ally in Europe (…) If the Bush administration expects Polish and Czech people to jump for joy and agree to anything that is offered to them, they will be very disappointed\u00a0\u00bb.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: It was a statement of concern for the Polish-American relations which I think are important for both countries. Friendship requires honest words.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: According to the latest statistics, support for building the anti-missile shield in Poland is dropping. 60% of Polish people oppose this idea. What are the views among politicians?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: Prime Minister Kaczynski says that in foreign policy you sometimes have to say \u00ab\u00a0no\u00a0\u00bb to the great powers.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: The Presidency of George W. Bush nears its end. Certainly, he would like the decision on the building of the shield to be made during his term, because this idea is supported by 70% of Americans. Are you not afraid that because this shield is so important to Bush he will make a significant concession to Russia?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: That’s up to the US, but Poland owns 600 hectares of fields situated in the appropriate area to build the shield and we should lease them at the best price. I hope that President gives Poland the short-range Patriot missiles we need and then I’ll be first to support the deal. Someone ill-disposed could think that you draw more attention of the US when you are its opponent not ally.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: How was the American-Russian summit in the private mansion of president Bush in Kennbunkport viewed in Polish political circles? Zbigniew Brzezinski, advisor for national safety during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, called this summit \u00ab\u00a0miserable\u00a0\u00bb and stated that it was completely unnecessary.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: When in September Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski had an appointment with president Bush, it took just 10 minutes. President Bush hosted president Putin for two days. Someone ill-disposed might suggest that you get more attention from the US when you define yourself as a competitor rather than an ally.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: The decision of the Polish government to support American intervention in Iraq in 2003, focused the attention of observers on Polish-American friendship. Because many of the traditional allies of Washington opposed this war, Polish politicians and citizens expected an improvement in relations and possible benefits resulting from it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: Indeed, Polish politicians fomented these hopes but they did get any preferential treatment. They accepted the package the US gave to all members of the coalition.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: Is it possible that disappointment of Poles with the US and the growing integration between Poland and the European Union will influence the change in relations between Poland and the USA?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: It has already influenced our society. In the last 18 months the percentage of people who have a positive opinion of the US has unfortunately dropped from 60 to 38%.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »PLUS<\/em><\/strong>: What is the greatest challenge for Polish-American relations in the following 5 years?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Sikorski<\/em><\/strong>: In my opinion, the most important decision in this decade is the anti-missile shield. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, but the shield. It will have major consequences in our geo-strategic surroundings and we will not be able to withdraw from the deal. In the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, one phone call from the president to the minister of defense would be enough to make our troops come home. The shield will be an obligation for several decades.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n L’interview montre clairement des opinions tr\u00e8s tranch\u00e9es, qui restent tr\u00e8s proches des opinions n\u00e9o-conservatrices US. Sikorski va avoir un r\u00f4le important \u00e0 jouer dans ce gouvernement, dans l’aspect le plus d\u00e9licat du d\u00e9ploiement du BMDE puisque c’est lui qui, notamment, devra traiter \u00e0 la fois avec Moscou et avec les USA l’aspect diplomatique du d\u00e9ploiement. En outre, il aura pour mission d’am\u00e9liorer les relations, notamment avec la Russie (et \u00e9galement avec l’Allemagne et avec l’UE). A la lumi\u00e8re de ses d\u00e9clarations, on mesure que sa t\u00e2che ne sera pas simple. Changera-t-il \u00e0 nouveau son registre, comme il semble l’avoir fait un peu depuis son article tonitruant de mars 2007?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n (On remarque que lorsqu’on lui parle de cet article du Washington Post<\/em> où il se montre particuli\u00e8rement brutal vis-\u00e0-vis des USA, pour une fois sa r\u00e9ponse manque de superbe et de tranchant:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «It was a statement of concern for the Polish-American relations which I think are important for both countries. Friendship requires honest words.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Entre temps, – entre l’article et cette d\u00e9claration, – Sikorski a peut-\u00eatre re\u00e7u des conseils de mod\u00e9ration. La question qui se pose \u00e9galement, \u00e0 cette occasion comme \u00e0 d’autres, est de savoir si, lorsqu’il a donn\u00e9 cette interview de septembre 2007 \u00e0 PLUS<\/em>, il pouvait entrevoir d’occuper la fonction qu’il va occuper.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Le plus important dans cette interview est l’approche suivie par Sikorski, qui pourrait effectivement correspondre \u00e0 la position \u00ab\u00a0plus dure\u00a0\u00bb prise par ce nouveau gouvernement, dans tous les cas sa position th\u00e9orique: il faut que le d\u00e9ploiement du syst\u00e8me BMDE rapporte plus \u00e0 la Pologne qu’il ne rapporterait dans l’accord tel qu’il \u00e9tait n\u00e9goci\u00e9. L’int\u00e9r\u00eat de la chose est bien entendu que Sikorski voit ces avantages en termes de syst\u00e8mes d’arme US en plus, des syst\u00e8mes d’arme diff\u00e9rents de ceux que comprend le BMDE. Dans son cas, il s’agit de missiles sol-air de type Patriot<\/em>, que Sikorski estime n\u00e9cessaire pour prot\u00e9ger la Pologne en cas de d\u00e9ploiement de missiles russes directement contre la Pologne. (On remarquera que c’est une grande marque de confiance<\/a> du nouveau ministre polonais pour le missile en question<\/a>. Ou bien, Sikorski est mal inform\u00e9 ; ou bien il a une confiance aveugle dans la technologie US et dans l’industrie de d\u00e9fense US. Ou bien, ou bien..)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Quoi qu’il en soit, le cas \u00e9voqu\u00e9 par Sikorski est l\u00e0. Les Russes menacent de d\u00e9ployer des Iskander<\/em> sol-sol contre lesquels les Patriot<\/em> seraient cens\u00e9s d\u00e9ployer un rideau imp\u00e9n\u00e9trable. La chose est renouvel\u00e9e aujourd’hui<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Une remarque de Sikorski r\u00e9sume sa pens\u00e9e \u00e0 ce propos: le BMDE prot\u00e9gera la Pologne contre certains pays comme l’Iran, mais elle accroîtra la menace d’autres pays contre la Pologne, – la Russie essentiellement parmi ces \u00ab\u00a0autres pays\u00a0\u00bb. Par cons\u00e9quent, il faut que les USA fournissent une protection contre cette menace-l\u00e0.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «The shield will increase our safety with respect to countries that pose little risk to us, such as Iran. But Russia takes already executed legal and military measures, that increase uncertainty in our region. Building the shield without the supporting package would – in my judgement – bring us more disadvantages than advantages.<\/em> […] Russian threats towards Poland are a good test of American intentions. If Russia threatens to put medium-range missiles on the territory of Kaliningrad Oblast, which is near the Polish border, and the US does not offer Poland short-range Patriot missiles, why should we believe that the US would help us in case of a more general conflict? I think it is a very good test of alliance from time to time.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n C’est donc une situation int\u00e9ressante.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • Si les id\u00e9es de Sikorski sont suivies, il s’agit d’une d\u00e9marche qui peut s’apparenter \u00e0 l’acc\u00e9l\u00e9ration et \u00e0 l’\u00e9largissement d’une \u00ab\u00a0course aux armements\u00a0\u00bb r\u00e9gionale, dans laquelle les USA seraient impliqu\u00e9s, et \u00e0 propos de laquelle les Europ\u00e9ens n’auraient pas leur mot \u00e0 dire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\n
Sikorski et \u00ab\u00a0The Shield<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, version-automne 2007<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
\n
Un ami qui leur veut du bien<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n