Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
901Dands un article du Washington Post du 17 octobre 2010, David Ignatius, plume réputée de l’establishment washingtonien, rapporte les impressions d’un rendez-vous qu’il a eu avec deux anciens conseillers de la sécurité nationale du président et directeurs du NSC, Zbigniew Brzezinski (avec Carter) et Brent Scowcroft (avec Bush-père). C’était à l’occasion de la démission de Jones, directeur du NSC d’Obama, et de son remplacement par Donilon. Brzezinski et Scowcroft sont plutôt louangeurs pour Jones, dont ils attribuent le départ aux interférences et aux désordre internes, comme nous l’avons nous-mêmes rapporté. («Both Scowcroft and Brzezinski credited Gen. Jim Jones, who recently announced his departure, for trying to create an effective policy structure. Brzezinski said that Jones's authority had been limited by the “intrusion of top domestic political advisers,” which had reduced his effectiveness.»)
D’une manière générale, les deux vétérans observent une paralysie de la politique extérieure d’Obama par le simple constat qu’ils lui donneraient aujourd’hui les mêmes conseils qu’en 2008, constatant qu’entretemps bien peu de choses ont changé. Par contre, les discours d’Obama sont beaux et prometteurs, mais nullement suivis d’effets…
«Before the 2008 election, two former national security advisers recommended that the next president craft a foreign policy strategy to align the United States with a “global political awakening” that was transforming the world.
»Two years later, as Tom Donilon prepares to take the national security adviser post, these illustrious predecessors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, are making essentially the same recommendation. They argue that U.S. foreign policy needs a clearer strategic framework that can take advantage of President Obama's ability to speak to the world – a dialogue that has unfortunately been handicapped in Obama's first 21 months. […]
»I asked Scowcroft and Brzezinski to sit down for a brief reprise of the discussions we had in 2008 that resulted in a book called “America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy.” What struck me this time was that the bipartisan agenda they framed two years ago was still mostly valid. Although Obama nominally supported most elements of this strategy, he hasn't been able to advance it very far. […]
»Brzezinski contended that it was “pathetic” to see the United States making big concessions to Israel this month – ones that should be reserved for a final “grand bargain” – simply to add another 60 days to a temporary freeze on Israeli settlements. If the peace process should collapse, Scowcroft argued that it still would make sense for Obama to specify the terms of a U.S. peace plan.
»What perplexed both men was the disconnect between Obama's strategic vision and what he has been able to achieve. “He makes dramatic presidential speeches,” said Brzezinski, “but it's never translated into a process in which good ideas become strategies.” One complication, both noted, was a process of “subcontracting,” in which major policy areas such as Middle East negotiations and Afghanistan-Pakistan have been handed over to special représentatives.»
dedefensa.org
-
