{"id":71650,"date":"2010-03-10T14:48:19","date_gmt":"2010-03-10T14:48:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/03\/10\/bae-tout-de-meme-sur-le-fil-du-rasoir\/"},"modified":"2010-03-10T14:48:19","modified_gmt":"2010-03-10T14:48:19","slug":"bae-tout-de-meme-sur-le-fil-du-rasoir","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/03\/10\/bae-tout-de-meme-sur-le-fil-du-rasoir\/","title":{"rendered":"BAE tout de m\u00eame sur le fil du rasoir?"},"content":{"rendered":"

BAE tout de m\u00eame sur le fil du rasoir?<\/h4>\n

On se demande si l’intervention du d\u00e9partement d’Etat, bloquant temporairement les demandes de nouvelles licences d’exportation de BAE jusqu’\u00e0 la fin de l’examen du cas judiciaire de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, est une action sans grande signification ou une partie d’une action plus vaste, avec un but pr\u00e9cis. Le d\u00e9partement d’Etat bloque, le temps d’\u00e9tudier les implications de l’aveu<\/a> de BAE de certaines actions ill\u00e9gales, avec le paiement d’une somme de compromis assez ridicule par rapport aux sommes de corruption \u00e9voqu\u00e9es, de $400 millions. (Accord pass\u00e9 avec le d\u00e9partement de la justice US, en plus d’un accord au Royaume-Uni avec le Serious Fraud Office. BAE a pr\u00e8s de 50% de ses activit\u00e9s aux USA .)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa question concernant la deuxi\u00e8me hypoth\u00e8se (action avec un but pr\u00e9cis) est de savoir si le d\u00e9partement d’Etat a l’intention d’affirmer sa pr\u00e9\u00e9minence vis-\u00e0-vis d’autres d\u00e9partements (le Pentagone par exemple) en entravant l’activit\u00e9 de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, ou s’il veut faire pression vers les Britanniques en connexion avec d’autres pol\u00e9miques. (Le d\u00e9partement d’Etat est assez agac\u00e9 des r\u00e9actions de fureur des Britanniques \u00e0 la suite de la prise de position de Clinton, pro-argentine, dans l’affaire des Malouines.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tExtrait d’une d\u00e9p\u00eache Reuters du 9 mars 2010<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe U.S. State Department said Tuesday it would delay action on any new export license requests by BAE Systems PLC after the British military contractor pleaded guilty to violating several U.S. laws.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbState Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the department was studying the judgment entered in federal court in the District of Columbia and would not move forward on any export license approvals for now.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWe are assessing the implications that the plea will have, Crowley told a news briefing. Though no final determinations have been reached, our analysis indicates that it would be inappropriate for us to make decisions on pending export applications at this time. Crowley added that this meant applications for export will be delayed if those applications involve BAE Systems PLC or any of its subsidiaries.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

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

BAE tout de m\u00eame sur le fil du rasoir? On se demande si l’intervention du d\u00e9partement d’Etat, bloquant temporairement les demandes de nouvelles licences d’exportation de BAE jusqu’\u00e0 la fin de l’examen du cas judiciaire de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9, est une action sans grande signification ou une partie d’une action plus vaste, avec un but pr\u00e9cis.… <\/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":[14],"tags":[3792,934,3858,3889,3888,6641],"class_list":["post-71650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-bae","tag-clinton","tag-corruption","tag-detat","tag-departement","tag-fraude"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71650","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=71650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}