La communaut\u00e9 internationale form\u00e9e ici en un d\u00e9tachement, dit groupe de contact, pour suivre et formater la situation libyenne, s’est r\u00e9unie hier \u00e0 Doha, au Qatar. Les \u00e9chos qu’on en a, \u00e0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de l’habituelle autosatisfaction des communiqu\u00e9s du Syst\u00e8me, sont des plus mitig\u00e9s. Apr\u00e8s tout, il y a l\u00e0 une logique de la situation du monde puisque ces \u00e9chos, dans cette forme mitig\u00e9e, sont le parfait reflet \u00e0 la fois de la situation sur le terrain (en Libye) et de la situation internationale g\u00e9n\u00e9rale.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tLisons d’abord le Guardian<\/em> du 13 avril 2011<\/a> au soir. L’article tente de montrer un certain optimisme, notamment avec son titre accrocheur (\u00abLibyan rebels receive boost of support from international community Arab world and western ministers issued unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, saying regime had lost all legitimacy<\/em>\u00bb) ; mais la chose est vite et m\u00e9chamment relativis\u00e9e par des r\u00e9serves de taille.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abMuammar Gaddafi’s regime has lost all legitimacy and he must leave power to allow the Libyan people to determine their own future, the international community warned as it boosted support for opposition forces. After three weeks of Nato-led air strikes, Arab and western ministers meeting in Qatar closed ranks to issue a first unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, boasting that they were united and firm in their r\u00e9solve about the outcome of the crisis or, at least, more than they were at the London conference late last month.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut new signs emerged of disagreements over whether UN resolutions allowed the delivery of weapons to the Libyan rebels, with Qatar pushing hard on this highly sensitive issue<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAljazeera.net<\/em> d\u00e9taille, dans son texte du 13 avril 2011<\/a>, ces r\u00e9serves de taille \u00e0 partir de contacts privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s de l’auteur du texte avec des participants \u00e0 la r\u00e9union.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAl Jazeera correspondent James Bays said some participants had deep concerns about providing Libyan rebels, who are fighting to topple Gaddafi from power, with access to funds. I spoke to the German foreign minister<\/em> [Guido Westerwelle] and he had concerns over whether it was legal or not, our correspondent said. Statements from the UK and Qatar have agreed that the situation in Benghazi is urgent. And most is due to a lack of cash it’s not all about heavy weapons for frontline fighters; it’s also about being able to pay public servants and getting schools back open.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDans The Independent<\/em>, Patrick Cockburn d\u00e9taille effectivement (le l4 avril 2011<\/a>) les diff\u00e9rents et les m\u00e9sententes entre les divers membres de cette communaut\u00e9 internationale rassembl\u00e9s dans le groupe de contact.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abBritain and France are asking other members of Nato to step up air strikes on Libyan government forces at a meeting of foreign ministers in Qatar that has underlined the radically different policies of the countries involved in the Libyan crisis.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbDivisions between the foreign ministers were also evident over issues such as using frozen Libyan state assets to fund the opposition in eastern Libya and the feasibility of arming the rebels. Germany expressed doubts about the legality of using money belonging to the Libyan government. The divisions spring primarily from the differing objectives of the Nato, Arab and African foreign ministers. Though military intervention by France and Britain was first justified as being for the defence of civilians, in practice they are committed to overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and his regime.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n