{"id":71549,"date":"2010-02-11T07:03:22","date_gmt":"2010-02-11T07:03:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/02\/11\/bho-au-boulot-pour-sauver-start-ii\/"},"modified":"2010-02-11T07:03:22","modified_gmt":"2010-02-11T07:03:22","slug":"bho-au-boulot-pour-sauver-start-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/02\/11\/bho-au-boulot-pour-sauver-start-ii\/","title":{"rendered":"BHO au boulot pour sauver START-II"},"content":{"rendered":"

BHO au boulot pour sauver START-II<\/h4>\n

Des d\u00e9clarations de Barack Obama confirment que Washington est en pleine activit\u00e9 de damage control<\/em> pour tenter de mener \u00e0 bien la signature de START-II apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9pisode roumain et les r\u00e9actions russes. (Voir notre Bloc-Notes<\/em> le 6 f\u00e9vrier 2010<\/a> et le 10 f\u00e9vrier 2010<\/a>.) Un article de Defense News<\/em> de ce 10 f\u00e9vrier 2010<\/a> le montre d’une fa\u00e7on \u00e9loquente (l’article est en acc\u00e8s payant).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tVoici les extraits de l’article concernant cette r\u00e9action de l’administration Obama, le reste \u00e9tant surtout un rappel de l’affaire, du point de vue am\u00e9ricaniste, et un rappel des r\u00e9actions russes. Il n’est pas assur\u00e9 que la m\u00e9thode BHO ne soit pas marqu\u00e9e d’une maladresse suppl\u00e9mentaire: en insistant sur la bonne volont\u00e9 russe, par contraste avec celle de la Chine para\u00eet-il, dans l’affaire iranienne, et cela sans un mot sur la question de l’accord des anti-missiles avec la Roumanie, il risque \u00e9ventuellement, en plus, de durcir la position russe sur l’Iran; dans tous les cas, il expose une faiblesse de plus, en montrant combien il a besoin des Russes pour l’Iran<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abPresident Barack Obama’s administration denied a row over the U.S. anti-missile shield was slowing a landmark nuclear treaty with Moscow on Feb. 9, after days of sharp Russian criticism of NATO.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbObama also pointedly contrasted Russia’s forward leaning approach to confronting Iran’s nuclear drive with China’s more ambivalent stance, as Washington sought significant new sanctions against the Islamic Republic.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbA year after taking office, Obama is hoping that a replacement for the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and Moscow’s cooperation on Iran will validate his decision to \u00ab\u00a0reset\u00a0\u00bb U.S. relations with Russia.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBoth the State Department and the White House attempted to downplay the notions of new divides between the two former Cold War foes, and suggested that Obama was on the same page as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe emerging missile defense architecture in Europe is not aimed at Russia, but rather the emerging threat from Iran, said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley. We continue to discuss ways in which we can cooperate with Russia on missile defense.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl faut noter, avec le commentaire ci-dessous du porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche, que la conversation t\u00e9l\u00e9phonique Obama-Medvedev \u00e0 laquelle nous faisions d\u00e9j\u00e0 allusion le 10 f\u00e9vrier 2010<\/a>, est ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 l’affaire roumaine.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abWhite House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that the reconfigured U.S. missile shield in Europe was in any way aimed at Russia, and said it was not complicating the final drive towards a START treaty. When President Obama talked to President Medvedev a couple of weeks ago, President Medvedev didn’t bring this up as an obstacle, Gibbs said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI think the notion that somehow this is in any way an impediment to what’s going on with START is simply not true. It certainly wasn’t what President Medvedev told President Obama.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSeeking to praise Russia, Obama told reporters on Feb. 10 that although he was unsure how China would respond to a UN Security Council effort to frame tough sanction on Iran, he was happy with Moscow. One thing I’m pleased about is to see how forward-leaning the Russians have been on this issue, Obama said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEnfin, cette derni\u00e8re explication (ci-dessous), d’un expert convoqu\u00e9 pour cette t\u00e2che, est de la pure rh\u00e9torique sans gu\u00e8re de signification, qui a surtout pour but d’\u00e9luder la question de l’accord avec la Roumanie qui a d\u00e9clench\u00e9 la derni\u00e8re vague de fureur calcul\u00e9e des Russes. Ce que nous dit Kuchins, c’est que plus on approche d’un accord, plus les d\u00e9saccords conceptuels fondamentaux apparaissent, ce qui est une rh\u00e9torique paradoxale un peu us\u00e9e alors que toutes les critiques russes de ces derniers jours portent sur le point pr\u00e9cis de l’accord avec la Roumanie sur les anti-missiles qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 annonc\u00e9 le 5 f\u00e9vrier. Mais de ce point-l\u00e0 (Roumanie), pas un mot du c\u00f4t\u00e9 US<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abAndrew Kuchins, director of the Russia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the imminence of the START agreement, expected within months, was driving domestic suspicion of the United States in Moscow.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThere is a lot of opposition within the Russian government toward making a decision for a more positive, constructive security relationship with NATO and the United States, he said. There is a fundamental ambivalence towards NATO and the West, and the[signing] of the treaty is one of those watershed moments that [bring] those differences to the surface.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BHO au boulot pour sauver START-II Des d\u00e9clarations de Barack Obama confirment que Washington est en pleine activit\u00e9 de damage control pour tenter de mener \u00e0 bien la signature de START-II apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9pisode roumain et les r\u00e9actions russes. (Voir notre Bloc-Notes le 6 f\u00e9vrier 2010 et le 10 f\u00e9vrier 2010.) Un article de Defense News… <\/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":[14],"tags":[3453,5223,5222,2773,6208,2720,9097],"class_list":["post-71549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-anti-missiles","tag-control","tag-damage","tag-iran","tag-obama","tag-roumanie","tag-start-ii"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71549","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=71549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}