Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
959Le premier grand discours de politique étrangère du nouveau chef des conservateurs, David Cameron, a été donné le 11 septembre. De façon assez inattendue, alors que certains craignaient qu’il cède à l’influence des méthodes des néo-conservateurs (on en trouve au Royaume-Uni, chez les tories), Cameron a surtout marqué de nombreuses réticences à l’encontre de la politique US et appelé à retrouver une politique britannique plus critique des USA.
Selon le Times du 12 septembre :
«Mr Cameron told an audience at the British-American Project: “We have never, until recently, been uncritical allies of America . . . I worry that we have recently lost the art. I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions. The sooner we rediscover the right balance the better for Britain and our alliance.”
(…)
»Mr Cameron used the speech to outline how his foreign-policy principles differed from Mr Blair’s, implicitly criticising the decision to invade Iraq. He stopped short, however, of suggesting alternative solutions or that the Conservatives would have done things differently.
»Despite having voted in favour of the war in Iraq, Mr Cameron made clear his opposition to the idea that democracy can be easily introduced by military force. “Liberty grows from the ground. It cannot be dropped from the air by an unmanned drone,” he said, citing South Africa and India as cases of change being brought about peacefully. “Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors. They win no hearts and minds; they can build no democracies. There are more tools of statecraft than military power.”»
Le Times note que le discours de Cameron se place en contradiction avec une prise de position de la baronne Thatcher, invitée aux USA par le vice-président Cheney pour les cérémonies de commémoration du 11 septembre.
«While Mr Cameron attacked Tony Blair for his “uncritical” dealings with President Bush, his predecessor used a rare visit to Washington to insist that Britain and America must not be divided over the War of Terror.
»In a statement released through the White House, Lady Thatcher said: “This heinous attack upon America was an attack upon us all. With America, Britain stands in the front line against Islamist fanatics who hate our beliefs, our liberties and our citizens. We must not falter. We must not fail.”»
D’accord, cela se complique avec l’avis de la baronne. Cela se complique encore plus lorsque des exégètes s’attaquent à la substance du discours de Cameron. Un “bloger” de qualité, Guido Fawke, explicite la thèse selon laquelle le discours de Cameron s’inspire de Francis Fukuyama :
«On ConservativeHome the plaudits are coming in for Cameron's big foreign policy speech where he distanced himself from the Neo-Conservatives. Neatly skewering Blair by disassociating himself from Bush whilst emphasising the special relationship. Danny Kruger and Steve Hilton wrote the speech and it reflects their reading of Francis Fukuyama's ‘After the Neo-Cons’. In fact the speech lifts not only Fukuyama's themes but the entire argument, apart from the conclusion.
A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on five propositions.»
Un autre commentateur, Daniel Finkelstein, à nouveau du Times, reprend l’argument de Fawke pour le nuancer et en revenir à une version “neocon” du discours de Cameron :
«Well, the main themes of a Cameron foreign policy — including promoting freedom round the world and the notable omission of any reference to the national interest or realpolitik — seem to me undeniably neocon. Even his addition of patience and humility chime with the earliest neocon writings on domestic policy.
»Fukuyama simply believes that the conduct of the Bush regime has led to the neocon label being tainted, tangled up with, say, Rumsfeld's views about troop deployment (as this Times leader argues). And even though Rumsfeld is not a neocon, Fukuyama decides to leave him with the label and move on. For understandable reasons, Cameron has done the same. But the choice of label doesn't alter the speech's thrust.»
En résumé et en conclusion, la confusion est peut-être aussi grande chez les conservateurs (britanniques et non-néo) que chez les travaillistes. La déstabilisation et la déstructuration continuent.
Mis en ligne le 13 septembre 2006 à 15H47
-
