Il y a un article fort int\u00e9ressant dans le Sunday Times<\/em> de ce 7 f\u00e9vrier 2010<\/a>, absolument de fabrication n\u00e9oconservatrice, comme c’est normal avec le Times<\/em> de Rupert Murdoch.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t D’un c\u00f4t\u00e9, nous sommes assaillis de d\u00e9tails plus convaincants les uns que les autres sur une soi-disant tendance apparue en Chine, la tendance de faucons qui veulent une guerre froide avec les USA, voire un affrontement arm\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t De l’autre, l’article est parsem\u00e9 de d\u00e9tails int\u00e9ressants, amusants, surprenants, sans qu’il soit n\u00e9cessaire une seconde que vous les preniez pour vrais, m\u00eame avec la recommandation que vous les preniez en bonne part pour un amalgame de choses \u00e0 demi vraies et de r\u00e9v\u00e9lations \u00e0 demi fausses, etc. Il s’agit de la d\u00e9gradation des relations entre la Chine et les USA, vues du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US et chargeant les Chinois de toutes les responsabilit\u00e9s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAccording to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbAs a crescendo of strident nationalistic rhetoric swirls through the Chinese media and blogosphere, American officials seem baffled by what has gone wrong and how fast it has happened.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbDuring Obama’s visit, the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, claimed relations were really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere … a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory, according to an official transcript. The ambassador must have been the only person at his embassy to think so, said a diplomat close to the talks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe truth was that the atmosphere was cold and intransigent when the president went to Beijing yet his China team went on pretending that everything was fine, the diplomat said. In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbPresident Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbDiplomats say they have been told that there was frigid personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations. Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThen came Copenhagen, where Obama virtually had to force his way with his bodyguards into a conference room where the urbane Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, was trying to strike a deal behind his back. The Americans were also livid at what they saw as deliberate Chinese attempts to humiliate the president by sending lower-level officials to deal with him. They thought Obama was weak and they were testing him, said a European diplomat based in China.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n Cet article, ses commentaires implicites, ses r\u00e9v\u00e9lations qui concernent la visite d’Obama en Chine de novembre 2009 (puis la conf\u00e9rence de Copenhague de d\u00e9cembre 2009, selon des d\u00e9tails d\u00e9j\u00e0 connus et une orientation de leur interpr\u00e9tation qui avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 largement mise en cause<\/a>), appellent diverses observations. Le d\u00e9lai entre les \u00e9v\u00e9nements d\u00e9crits et leur publication est consid\u00e9rable, et fort inhabituel. Si des sources sont d\u00e9cid\u00e9es \u00e0 parler dans le sens o\u00f9 on le voit, il est tr\u00e8s inhabituel, sinon compl\u00e8tement improbable, qu’elles le fassent pratiquement trois mois apr\u00e8s, alors que les faits d\u00e9crits semblent si remarquables et si remarquablement divergents de la version officielle. On remarque qu’elles sont faites \u00e0 partir de sources identifi\u00e9es comme des diplomates qui ne sont gu\u00e8re identifi\u00e9es, sinon un diplomate europ\u00e9en qui fait partie d\u00e9sormais du r\u00e9seau Ashton dont on sait qu’il est noyaut\u00e9 par les Britanniques et, le plus souvent, des Britanniques de tendance n\u00e9o-conservatrice, sous la houlette de Robert Cooper<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDe ce point de vue, le tableau compl\u00e8te parfaitement le reste de l’article, fait de d\u00e9clarations belliqueuses de diverses sources chinoises qui, elles, portent sur des \u00e9v\u00e9nements plus r\u00e9cents, d’origine am\u00e9ricaniste (livraison d’armes \u00e0 Ta\u00efwan, rencontre d’Obama avec le Dala\u00ef Lama). L’observation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale que nous proposerions est que cet article constitue une construction assez classique, de tendance radicale et belliciste, ou de cette tendance n\u00e9o-conservatrice qui continue \u00e0 dominer nombre de m\u00e9dias de la presse officielle. (Dans ce cas, on dira que la tendance n\u00e9o-conservatrice est bien plus qu’une tendance, elle est la raison d’\u00eatre de toute la politique am\u00e9ricaniste, anglo-saxonne et occidentaliste.) Cette agressivit\u00e9 anti-chinoise contraste de plus en plus avec le relatif silence qui accueille les r\u00e9actions assez dures des Russes, notamment apr\u00e8s la rocambolesque affaire de l’accord (?) entre la Roumanie<\/a> et les USA concernant les futurs missiles anti-missiles SM-3. Il semblerait alors qu’on puisse prendre cet article comme l’annonce, ou plut\u00f4t la confirmation d’un changement de tactique des groupes radicaux et n\u00e9o-conservateurs, qui s’orienteraient plut\u00f4t vers le soutien \u00e0 un affrontement entre les USA et la Chine, apr\u00e8s avoir choisi l’affrontement USA-Russie comme th\u00e8me favori pendant des ann\u00e9es.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCe qui appara\u00eet \u00e9galement, c’est la consid\u00e9ration qu’ont ces groupes des positions du pr\u00e9sident Obama, dont le jugement sur la Chine (et, sans doute, sur d’autres probl\u00e8mes) semble \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme simplement d\u00e9pendant des tendances de ses conseillers (\u00abofficials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak<\/em>\u00bb). Cela impliquerait que, de plus en plus, Obama est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un pr\u00e9sident sans aucun avis, sans aucune opinion sur quoi que ce soit (du type l’\u00e9nigme \u00e9tait vide<\/a>), balanc\u00e9 d’une tendance \u00e0 l’autre de ses conseillers. Donc, un pr\u00e9sident-potiche, ajout\u00e9e \u00e0 un pr\u00e9sident <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 8 f\u00e9vrier 2010 \u00e0 07H12<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Il y a un article fort int\u00e9ressant dans le Sunday Times de ce 7 f\u00e9vrier 2010, absolument de fabrication n\u00e9oconservatrice, comme c’est normal avec le Times de Rupert Murdoch. D’un c\u00f4t\u00e9, nous sommes assaillis de d\u00e9tails plus convaincants les uns que les autres sur une soi-disant tendance apparue en Chine, la tendance de faucons qui… <\/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":[4782,3977,6648,3681,3736,3831,1406,6208,6121],"class_list":["post-71535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bellicistes","tag-chine","tag-enigme","tag-faucons","tag-kissinger","tag-neo-conservateurs","tag-nixon","tag-obama","tag-vide"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71535","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=71535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Notre commentaire<\/h4>\n