{"id":70581,"date":"2009-03-04T09:49:29","date_gmt":"2009-03-04T09:49:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/04\/la-faiblesse-du-plan-brown-obama-est-plus-europeen-que-lui\/"},"modified":"2009-03-04T09:49:29","modified_gmt":"2009-03-04T09:49:29","slug":"la-faiblesse-du-plan-brown-obama-est-plus-europeen-que-lui","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/04\/la-faiblesse-du-plan-brown-obama-est-plus-europeen-que-lui\/","title":{"rendered":"La faiblesse du \u201cplan Brown\u201d: Obama est plus \u201ceurop\u00e9en\u201d que lui"},"content":{"rendered":"

On sait que la principale ambition de Brown en rencontrant Obama, c’\u00e9tait de convaincre le pr\u00e9sident US d’adopter ses arguments, son plan<\/a> de sauveur du mode, son Global New Deal<\/em> pour pouvoir former un front anglo-saxon qui m\u00e8nerait le G20 \u00e0 la baguette et restaurerait l’ordre anglo-saxon apr\u00e8s, disons, l’incident de parcours du 15 septembre 2008. L’affaire est ambitieuse, bien dans la mani\u00e8re des certitudes inoxydables et arrogantes des Britannique, ou des illusions britanniques. Le probl\u00e8me est qu’il semble qu’Obama, qui appara\u00eet comme d’esprit plus europ\u00e9en que transatlantique \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, ne fasse pas partie du plan. Dans tous les cas, il n’en est pas partie prenante pour l’instant et, certainement, d’apr\u00e8s ce qu’on peut en juger des \u00e9chos autour de la rencontre, il y a assez peu de chances qu’il y vienne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn \u00e9ditorial du Guardian<\/em>, du 3 mars<\/a>, apr\u00e8s la rencontre Obama-Brown, nous donne d’int\u00e9ressantes pr\u00e9cisions l\u00e0-dessus. Rappelant que Brown est le principal partisan de l’argument selon lequel le protectionnisme est la grande sinon unique cause de la Grande D\u00e9pression, et donc chose qu’il faut \u00e9viter comme la peste, l’\u00e9ditorial poursuit:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abRepetition is not the only thing that makes this argument tired. It is also false. However much Mr Brown may attack it, the protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 did not cause the Great Depression – economists lay more of the blame on the gold standard or the Federal Reserve’s many botches. In this case, the prime minister is drawing the wrong lesson from the 1930s. Nor has he learned from this economic crisis. While it is undoubtedly convenient for politicians and journalists to blame the financial meltdown on the greed of Sir Fred Goodwin and his colleagues in the City, that cannot be the whole cause of a massive worldwide crisis. No, as the financier George Soros argues, \u00ab\u00a0the crisis was generated by the<\/em> [market<\/em>] system itself\u00a0\u00bb. Ruling politicians – not least Mr Brown – let inherently unstable markets rip, whipping obstacles such as heavy-handed regulation out of their way. The result is all around us now, and still the prime minister proclaims his creed of untrammelled markets. This is partly because of his political vintage: Mr Brown came of political age when leftists either side of the Atlantic were making peace with markets. Expecting the prime minister to change is a bit like expecting a fan of Pink Floyd to dump them for the Arctic Monkeys.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbUnsurprisingly, Mr Brown’s arguments have not struck a chord with the younger resident of the White House. But there is more to this than a generation gap. The new scepticism about the benefits of letting markets rule takes three parts. For a start, the president is concerned about the environment, which stands to be harmed by endless expansion of trade. Second, the gains from globalisation in rich countries have often accrued to those at the top of the pile, while manufacturing workers and others have been left behind. Gordon Brown’s tenure as chancellor was a gilded age for the City, while nearly one in three manufacturing jobs were lost. Mr Obama is keenly aware of this rise in inequality – as are some former cheerleaders for globalisation such as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman. Finally, there is a problem of legitimacy: capital has gone global even while governance remains largely national. Mr Brown has long understood the need to reform the G7 and other multilateral institutions to give greater weight to poor countries – but his response to the other points is weak.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPour l’instant, il semble que l’attitude d’Obama vis-\u00e0-vis du G20 est sur la r\u00e9serve. Plut\u00f4t qu’un front anglo-saxon, il serait tent\u00e9 de laisser la direction coordinatrice du G20 aux Anglais, mais simplement parce qu’ils sont les h\u00f4tes; cela ne pr\u00e9juge \u00e9videmment en rien de ce qui se passera \u00e0 ce sommet, comme dans la pr\u00e9paration d’ici l\u00e0. Il y a notamment les possibilit\u00e9s que les USA chercheraient \u00e0 avoir une position plus pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rante, qu’ils chercheraient d’autres alliances que celle des Britanniques, etc. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl appara\u00eet que les lignes de fracture entre Brown et Obama portent notamment, et essentiellement sur l’appr\u00e9ciation de la globalisation. Brown pense qu’elle a rencontr\u00e9 un accident et que certaines mesures compl\u00e9mentaires suffiront \u00e0 r\u00e9parer la chose, sans rien entamer de sa substance. Notamment et essentiellement, le libre-\u00e9change reste le cat\u00e9chisme, plus que jamais. Obama aurait une vision assez diff\u00e9rente. Sa critique de la globalisation serait plus structurelle, concernerait, au moins en partie, la substance de la chose.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn point extr\u00eamement important, sur lequel nous reviendrons, est la pr\u00e9sence dans ces r\u00e9flexions, comme priorit\u00e9 presque \u00e0 \u00e9galit\u00e9 de la lutte contre la crise, de la lutte contre le saccage de l’environnement, dans le cadre de la lutte contre la crise climatique. C’est paradoxalement Brown qui en fait sa promotion (dans l’aspect lutte contre le r\u00e9chauffement climatique), mais sans r\u00e9aliser ou en dissimulant le rapport contradictoire entre les deux priorit\u00e9s. Au contraire, semble-t-il, Obama mettrait en \u00e9vidence ce rapport contradictoire; il observerait que le libre-\u00e9change, en laissant les \u00e9changes se faire d’une mani\u00e8re massive et sans r\u00e8glements, y compris \u00e9ventuellement de protection contre ces \u00e9changes, participe fortement \u00e0 la d\u00e9gradation de l’environnement et aggrave le r\u00e9chauffement climatique. Si l’on veut lutter contre cette d\u00e9gradation, il faut n\u00e9cessairement envisager des mesures contraignant et contr\u00f4lant s\u00e9rieusement le libre-\u00e9change, \u00e9ventuellement avec des mesures de protection contre lui.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAujourd’hui, Brown fait un discours devant le Congr\u00e8s o\u00f9 il mettra en garde contre le protectionnisme. D’une certaine fa\u00e7on, cela permet \u00e0 Obama de s’\u00e9viter un tel discours, qui r\u00e9pond aux imp\u00e9ratifs de la diabolisation du conformisme international, pour se m\u00e9nager plus de souplesse vis-\u00e0-vis de la question du protectionnisme, qu’on peut \u00e9tiqueter, pour ne pas choquer l’intol\u00e9rance de notre \u00e9poque postmoderne, protection ou fair-trade<\/em> (terme favori de nombre de d\u00e9mocrates).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 04 mars 2009 \u00e0 09H52<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On sait que la principale ambition de Brown en rencontrant Obama, c’\u00e9tait de convaincre le pr\u00e9sident US d’adopter ses arguments, son plan de sauveur du mode, son Global New Deal pour pouvoir former un front anglo-saxon qui m\u00e8nerait le G20 \u00e0 la baguette et restaurerait l’ordre anglo-saxon apr\u00e8s, disons, l’incident de parcours du 15 septembre… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[4038,8165,7932,3557,6208,1097],"class_list":["post-70581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-brown","tag-fair-trade","tag-g20","tag-libre-echange","tag-obama","tag-protectionnisme"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70581","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=70581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}