Dialogue au-dessus du Channel (ou de l’Atlantique ?)

Dialogue au-dessus du Channel (ou de l’Atlantique ?)

16 novembre 2004 — Quelle époque étonnante où l’on voit le Français donner des leçons de réalisme à l’Anglais, et l’Anglais expliquer sa politique en des termes utopiques que ne démentirait pas un Victor Hugo au mieux de sa forme utopique (par exemple, lorsqu’il célébrait L’Europe en 1867, pour l’Exposition Universelle de Paris).

A la veille d’un voyage à Londres, qu’il présente comme une “visite de famille”, Chirac interroge Blair (un peu à la façon dont John Charmley interroge son pays sur le demi-siècle de relations avec les USA) : « Well, Britain gave its support [to the US] but I did not see anything in return. I’m not sure it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favours systematically. »

Ce fut l’intervention que nombre de journaux britanniques ont retenu de l’entretien que Chirac a accordé à la presse britannique à Paris, avant son départ pour Londres. Aussi bien dans The Times que dans The Guardian, l’intervention du Français l’emporte en importance sur le discours du Premier ministre britannique, prononcé presque en même temps, sur le même sujet.

Le texte du Times est intéressant parce qu’il met ces deux interventions en perspective et les place dans le contexte américain (un coup dur pour Blair : le départ de Powell, qui affirme la prise de contrôle totale de la politique de sécurité nationale de l’administration par les faucons).

« Jacques Chirac dealt a blow to Tony Blair’s attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last night by saying that the Prime Minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq.

» As Mr Blair used a keynote speech to present Britain as a “bridge across the Atlantic”, President Chirac doubted whether anyone could play the “honest broker”. Speaking before he visits London on Thursday, he said that it was not in the nature of this Administration to return favours.

» Mr Blair suffered another setback when Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State and the administration figure most trusted by Europe, resigned. There were doubts over whether his successor, possibly Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, would be as accommodating.

(…)

» In other remarks that will sting the Bush Administration, he again outlined his vision of a “multipolar” world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US, and mocked Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, for his division of Europe into old and new. M Chirac said that there would be no division between Britain and France. “It is like that nice guy in America — what’s his name again? — who spoke about ‘old Europe’. It has no sense. It’s a lack of culture to imagine that. Imagining that there can be division between the British and French vision of Europe is as absurd as imagining that we are building Europe against the United States.” »

D’une façon très caractéristique, nous sommes entrés dans une période d’une nouvelle appréciation des relations USA-UK. Jusqu’alors, l’argument était autour de savoir comment renforcer et développer ces relations, dont l’évidence n’était pas discutée. Aujourd’hui, c’est le “pourquoi ?” de ces relations (à quoi servent-elles, que rapportent-elles ?) qui est discuté, et par un chef d’État étranger, de façon publique. Ainsi que le rapporte le Guardian : « But Mr Chirac said Britain's special relationship with the US had brought few dividends. “When the divergence of views between France and Britain was at its height, when the English wanted to follow the Americans and we didn't ... I said to Tony Blair, your position should at least serve another purpose,” Mr Chirac said. “You should obtain in exchange for it a new start for the peace process in the Middle East. Because that is vital. Well, Britain gave its support (on Iraq) — but I have not been impressed by the payback.” »

Tony Blair est sur la défensive, parce que sa réponse aux questions posées est d’une faiblesse extrême et que l’attitude américaine, bien entendu, ne l’aide pas. D’une façon très caractéristique, le Times a choisi de mettre en avant cet aspect du discours de Blair :

« The Prime Minister, aware that Mr Powell’s departure would be received with apprehension by European governments, bluntly told the US Administration to reach out to Europe and enlist its support in the war against terrorism.

» “Multilateralism that works should be its aim. I have no sympathy for unilateralism for its own sake,” he said.

» Mr Blair also said that Europe had a big opportunity because the US realised that lasting security against terrorism could not be provided by conventional military force but required a commitment to democracy and freedom. »

Le Times, — le Times toujours parce que, en cette circonstance, la position de ce journal conservateur, atlantiste et pro-américain est complètement révélatrice. Devant une administration GW-II qui confirme et peut-être amplifie sa position dure et extrémiste, les commentaires du Political Briefing du journal ressemblent à l’amorce d’une argumentation conseillant à Tony Blair de commencer à envisager de changer de politique (vers l’Europe, au détriment de sa proximité pro-américaine actuelle), ou annonçant in fine ce changement de politique.

»The Prime Minister has cast himself as the middle man of transatlantic relations, who understands both Europe and America and can bring them together. His aim is laudable. But achievement is likely to prove much trickier, as the blunt comments by President Jacques Chirac show.

(…)

» Mr Blair believes he has made progress in winning President Bush’s commitment to the Middle East peace process and in persuading the US to take seriously an EU role in helping the new Palestinian leadership build democratic institutions. This involves overcoming mutual suspicion, of a US bias in favour of Israel and of Europeans on the side of the Palestinians.

» That all sounds fine, but the Iraq war and its bloody aftermath have undermined Mr Blair’s hopes of being a peacemaker. Many in Washington despise European weakness. For the first time in 50 years, the US no longer backs closer European unity, but picks allies on an ad hoc basis in coalitions of the willing.

» Europe is divided but Donald Rumsfeld’s “old” versus “new” Europe distinction is misleading. Was Spain “new” Europe during the war and “old” Europe now under its socialist government which has withdrawn troops from Iraq? And what about the Central European countries which are also pulling out their troops? On the European side, too, France leads a group disinclined to accept America’s lead. President Chirac talks about a multipolar world in which a united Europe is even more necessary in face of global powers.

» By contrast with this Euro-Gaullism, Mr Blair believes Europe should unite to be an effective partner of the US, not a rival to it. Mr Blair’s view of Britain as a transatlantic bridge — or “two-lane motorway, a pivot or call it a damn high wire”, as he said last night — is also under threat.

(…)

» When Mr Blair says that Britain “should be proud of its alliance with America, clear in its role in Europe, and a tireless advocate of a strong bond between the two”, he is in the tradition of most British prime ministers of the past 50 years. But critics, both Eurosceptic Atlanticists and pro-Europeans, argue that this balancing act is no longer possible. »

Tout cela forme un climat qui devrait être dramatisé par la radicalisation US au travers de la recomposition du cabinet GW Bush, sans doute encore plus extrémiste. Cela accentue le blocage entre les USA et le reste du monde, entre les USA et l’Europe. Cela accentue l’impasse où se trouve Blair. Pour le premier ministre, les prochains mois jusqu’aux élections vont être très difficiles.