{"id":72523,"date":"2010-12-02T17:31:23","date_gmt":"2010-12-02T17:31:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/02\/wikileaks-et-les-complots\/"},"modified":"2010-12-02T17:31:23","modified_gmt":"2010-12-02T17:31:23","slug":"wikileaks-et-les-complots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/02\/wikileaks-et-les-complots\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikileaks<\/em> et les complots"},"content":{"rendered":"

Beaucoup de bruits dits divers autour de Wikileaks<\/em>, ce qui n’est pas surprenant si l’on consid\u00e8re l’\u00e9normit\u00e9 de cette affaire, notamment la divulgation des documents et d\u00e9p\u00eaches diplomatiques du d\u00e9partement d’Etat. Une interpr\u00e9tation de l’op\u00e9ration a actuellement un certain succ\u00e8s : celle d’un montage, ou d’un complot, ou d’une manipulation, ou d’une provocation, etc., soit avec la complicit\u00e9, soit \u00e0 l’insu d’Assange et de Wikileak<\/em>. Nous allons donner plusieurs appr\u00e9ciations dans ce sens, dont l’une venant d’une personnalit\u00e9 washingtonienne connue (On remarquera tout de m\u00eame que ces interpr\u00e9tations ne vont pas toutes dans le m\u00eame sens, notamment par rapport aux inter\u00eats de Washington.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t C’est effectivement Zbigniew Brzezinski qui, l’un des premiers, soul\u00e8ve l’id\u00e9e, lors d’un entretien \u00e0 trois sur la radio PBS, le 29 novembre 2010<\/a>. Judy Woodruff, de PBS, parle avec Brzezinski et Stephen Hadley (ancien directeur du NSC et conseiller de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 nationale de GW Bush, comme Brzezinski fut aupr\u00e8s de Carter). On donne ici quelques-uns des passages o\u00f9 il est question de la th\u00e8se \u00e9voqu\u00e9e par Brzezinski.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t[] Zbigniew Brzezinski<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abBut I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue Wiki Wiki WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbJudy Woodriuff<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abWell, what are you referring to?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbZbigniew Brzezinski<\/em><\/strong>: \u00ab Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThis is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt’s not a question of worry. It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAnd I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSeeding seeding it is very easy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbJudy Woodruff<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abDo you have that concern?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbStephen Hadley<\/em><\/strong>: \u00abObviously, it would always be a concern.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe what we know or what has been said publicly is it looks like a data dump through a pretty junior-level person. So, in terms of that material, it looks like a data dump. Generally, in Washington, I have had the rule that, if there are two explanations, one is conspiracy and one is incompetence, you ought to go with incompetence. You will be right 90 percent of the time.<\/em> [Laughter]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut you can’t rule out what Dr. Brzezinski talked about<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Deux jours plus tard, sur son site The Washington Note<\/em>, Steve Clemons mentionne l’intervention et la th\u00e8se de Brzezinski et donne quelques rapides commentaires, prudents mais nullement n\u00e9gatifs, sur la chose. Le commentaire est du 1er d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abI don’t know what the means and methods of Wikileaks’ document collection and review process is and feel it would be wrong of me to speculate.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAs I get deeper into reading some of these cables, I increasingly realize that I and others are seeing the equivalent of raw intelligence, massive amounts of it. And some of it even the statements by leaders in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE about the Iran threat and what to do about it seems to be missing larger contextual framing.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI know personally that there is a diversity of views around the Saudi King and among his closest national security hands and know that the same is true in the UAE. Those parts are missing from the Wikileaks material. And yet I know that there are cables about these views and statements as well but they aren’t part of the records in the dump.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAgain, I’m intrigued by Brzezinski’s query about covert ops and have my doubts about his formulation, but it does provide a good cautionary warning not to just take everything in the Wikileaks material at total face value. There may be a lot more to the story we haven’t seen yet.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Karen Kwiatkowski, ancienne lieutenant-colonel de l’USAF et commentatrice sur le site libertarien LewRockwell.com<\/em>, violemment antiguerre et anti-isra\u00e9lienne, consacre un paragraphe \u00e0 la th\u00e8se dans son commentaire du 1er d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a>. D’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale (dans le reste de son texte), elle se montre assez sceptique concernant la th\u00e8se.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThere is talk that the data released this week actually helps Israel’s case for a good old-fashioned pre-emptive attack on Iran. Why? Because Saudi Arabia supports it! Well, skyrocketing oil prices certainly would come in handy to the still dollar dependent House of Saud about now, but I digress. Now, if I were the little old US of A thinking about starting one more war with a country I didn’t like, especially given I was dead broke and already a military laughingstock based on past and present performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, listening to what the corrupt, US-dependent ruling class of Saudi Arabia had to say about it would be right up there on my go-to-war-decision-meter. Give the obvious and otherworldly stupidity of our politicians, generals, and diplomats, perhaps the Saudis do tell us what to do, and maybe Wikileaks hearts neocons. A better sense of where the US diplomatic head is at can be gained by reading reports of meetings in Tel Aviv, where the great US stumbles over itself to be inoffensive, seeking simultaneously to be both submissive and warlike when speaking to Israelis. Pathetic little weasels, the lot of them. But their pathetic weaselness cannot be blamed on Julian Assange, no matter how many neocons and other cons declare the problem to be facts in the open, rather than simply the facts.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t Enfin, John Chuckman, ancien dissident de la guerre du Vietnam, vivant au Canada, expose sur Scoop.Co<\/em>, le 2 d\u00e9cembre 2010<\/a>, une th\u00e8se radicale : Wikileak<\/em> utilis\u00e9e comme organisation frontiste de la CIA et du Mossad<\/em>, Assange manipul\u00e9 par ces organisations de renseignement Chuckman reste assez vague sur les buts et les cons\u00e9quences de cette manipulation. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe WikiLeaks material is undoubtedly authentic, but that does not at all exclude an underlying purpose in its release.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt is a well-known practice of intelligence agencies to give large bits of genuine material, none of it too compromising, in order to get either an important piece of intelligence in return or to bury some damaging deception like a fish hook planted in a minnow. The CIA used to brag of having a huge house organ whose keys could be played to create the sense of a Bach fugue of seeming news. It was talking about all the publications, both compliant and duped, in which it could plant a story and have it reverberate ultimately as a convincing event.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI’m not sure whether WikiLeaks itself falls into the compliant or duped category, but the nature of the material, the main themes plus the many important things undoubtedly missing, say something important to those listening carefully.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI am completely underwhelmed by the content of the military WikiLeaks, both this time and previously. Very little there that well-informed people did not already know. Yes, of course, the juicy tidbits about so-and-so said are fun, and so they are meant to be, but they are not all that informative. I am sure there are countless lies and atrocities contained in the universe covered so far by WikiLeaks, but they are not in the material released.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe idea that no one knows where Assange is also strikes me as slightly ridiculous in this age of massive intelligence operations and the trampling of individual rights in the name of fighting terror. If you think otherwise because of Osama bin Laden, you are rather late in learning he has been dead since the bombing of Tora Bora. The United States has kept him alive, as it were, for a focus in its insane War on Terror.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n

Notre commentaire<\/h4>\n

Ainsi nous voil\u00e0 partis pour un nouveau round<\/em> autour de la question du complot, cette fois vis-\u00e0-vis de Wikileaks<\/em>. Pour l’instant, le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne n’indique qu’une chose pour nous : l’importance de l’affaire On ne pr\u00eate qu’aux riches (\u00e9ventuellement, on pourrait ajouter qu’il n’y a pas de fum\u00e9e sans feu, mais aussit\u00f4t nuancer que cette fum\u00e9e est peut-\u00eatre un simple fumig\u00e8ne, on verra).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tManifestement, la d\u00e9marche la plus s\u00e9rieuse est celle de Brzezinski, qui reste un personnage consid\u00e9rable de l’establishment<\/em>. Il n’en est pas \u00e0 sa premi\u00e8re d\u00e9marche complotiste et, au cours d’une d\u00e9position devant le Congr\u00e8s, le 1er f\u00e9vrier 2007<\/a>, il avait fait des d\u00e9clarations \u00e0 partir desquelles on aurait pu extrapoler (\u00e0 peine) qu’il \u00e9tait convaincu que l’attaque 9\/11 \u00e9tait un montage. D’autre part, un aspect tr\u00e8s particulier de ces diverses consid\u00e9rations est que les hypoth\u00e8ses \u00e9voqu\u00e9es impliquent des orientations tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rentes. Brzezinski fait l’hypoth\u00e8se d’une manipulation (de SR ext\u00e9rieurs, semble-t-il laisser entendre) qui est faite en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral contre<\/strong> la politique US ; peut-\u00eatre pense-t-il \u00e0 Isra\u00ebl, car Brzezinski n’appr\u00e9cie<\/a> pas particuli\u00e8rement l’ing\u00e9rence du lobby juif \u00e0 Washington. Avec Chuckman, la th\u00e8se est diff\u00e9rente : Isra\u00ebl est toujours dans le coup, mais aussi, sans doute, les USA. Pour les explications justifiant toutes ces hypoth\u00e8ses, on verra plus tard.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa question, ou notre divergence avec l’importance \u00e9ventuelle accord\u00e9e \u00e0 ces approches, est que l’importance et l’effet colossal, voulus ou pas qu’importe, de l’action de Wikileak<\/em> ne sont en rien politiques, qu’ils sont essentiellement de pure communication, et relevant du syst\u00e8me de la communication. Le ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne touche les psychologies et attaque les symboles. Zbig a raison : que nous importe que Berlusconi soit un satire un peu fatigu\u00e9 qui court apr\u00e8s des starlettes \u00e0 demi-nues, mais s’essouffle souvent avant d’avoir commis l’irr\u00e9parable outrage, puisque tout le monde le sait, conclut-il. Ce n’est pas l’essentiel, car l’essentiel est que ce soit \u00e9crit, d\u00e9taill\u00e9, circonstanci\u00e9 dans les d\u00e9p\u00eaches diplomatiques, souvent avec une vulgarit\u00e9 r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice, et cela ramenant la diplomatie au niveau du ragot, mazette, la diplomatie des USA ! La m\u00eame chose pour les dirty tricks<\/em>, les calculs sordides, les corruptions minables (mais bien achaland\u00e9es), les valises pleines de dollars, les pressions comme de vulgaires gangsters, etc., mazette, toujours la diplomatie des USA !<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tQui n’a pas connu l’\u00e9poque des Keenan, des Acheson, puis d’un McGeorge Bundy, d’un John Kenneth Galbraith ambassadeur US en Inde, d’un Kissinger, malgr\u00e9 sa brutalit\u00e9 et son extr\u00eame grossi\u00e8ret\u00e9, d’un Cyrus Vance, etc., peut difficilement faire la diff\u00e9rence, c’est-\u00e0-dire la d\u00e9gradation du langage, des sujets d’int\u00e9r\u00eat, de la description des choses et des hommes, des situations, par cons\u00e9quent la d\u00e9gradation vertigineuse de l’\u00e9tat de l’esprit, accompagnant bien entendu une absence totale de scrupules dans les manifestations brutales de la puissance am\u00e9ricaniste, ou ce qu’il en reste, dans les relations avec les autres. Lorsque Brzezinski rigole en affirmant que la sorte d’espionnage ordonn\u00e9e par le d\u00e9partement d’Etat \u00e0 ses diplomates \u00e0 l’ONU a toujours exist\u00e9, du cheveu (ou de la pellicule, imagine-t-on) qu’on ramasse avec pr\u00e9caution, jusqu’\u00e0, peut-\u00eatre, l’enqu\u00eate approfondie de la lunette des chiottes apr\u00e8s le passage de la personne en question, il fait sa m\u00e9moire courte. Au contraire, le prestige de la diplomatie am\u00e9ricaniste \u00e9tait, dans les ann\u00e9es de Guerre froide un facteur important de l’influence des USA, les dirty tricks<\/em> \u00e9tant laiss\u00e9s aux op\u00e9rationnels de la CIA que le d\u00e9partement d’Etat ne portait pas dans son cur.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCette d\u00e9gradation consid\u00e9rable que les fuites de Wikileaks<\/em> traduisent a une tr\u00e8s forte puissance de communication. Elle confirme la d\u00e9cadence et le d\u00e9clin acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9s de la puissante machinerie du gouvernement am\u00e9ricaniste ; plus encore, elle les institutionnalise, confirmant l’irr\u00e9versibilit\u00e9 du mouvement. Les fuites ne vont rien apporter de nouveau, elles vont acc\u00e9l\u00e9rer un mouvement d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9vident avant elles (voir le G20<\/a> de S\u00e9oul ou la Cor\u00e9e du Nord<\/a>), l\u00e0 aussi elles vont institutionnaliser ces nouvelles relations. Alors, l\u00e0-dessus, complot, pas complot ? La question est de peu d’importance. Un complot, si c’est le cas, impliquerait un but politique, et l’on a vu que nous tenions l’aspect politique de la chose pour accessoire. Les comploteurs, s’il y a complot, ne pouvaient \u00e9videmment envisager les effets de communication dont on n’a pas fini de mesurer les retomb\u00e9es. Il s’agit du domaine de la psychologie, et celui de la psychologie la plus fine, la plus insaisissable, celle de la perception indirecte mais profonde de la puissance, l\u00e0 o\u00f9, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral les manipulateurs de type complotiste ne brillent pas par leur finesse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 2 d\u00e9cembre 2010 \u00e0 17H30<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Beaucoup de bruits dits divers autour de Wikileaks, ce qui n’est pas surprenant si l’on consid\u00e8re l’\u00e9normit\u00e9 de cette affaire, notamment la divulgation des documents et d\u00e9p\u00eaches diplomatiques du d\u00e9partement d’Etat. Une interpr\u00e9tation de l’op\u00e9ration a actuellement un certain succ\u00e8s : celle d’un montage, ou d’un complot, ou d’une manipulation, ou d’une provocation, etc., soit… <\/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":[1006,3015,4926,2631,5185,2622,5534,3014,9887],"class_list":["post-72523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-brzezinski","tag-communication","tag-complot","tag-de","tag-decadence","tag-la","tag-provocation","tag-systeme","tag-wikileaks"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72523","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=72523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}