Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
945Obama le candidat est en tournée parmi nous (on veut dire : the Rest Of the World). Il passe en Irak, ce qui va de soi. Il rencontre un Maliki qui nous surprend tous, car c’est bien de Maliki dont nous voulons parler. Maliki s’affirme de plus en plus comme un acteur à part entière, une “marionnette” reconvertie dans l’habileté manœuvrière pour manipuler son colossal conquérant devenu une sorte de Gulliver ligoté et sans idée bien précise. Voici ce qu’écrit Patrick Cockburn, le 21 juillet, du Premier ministre Maliki:
«However, even if government claims to have won a military victory are overblown, its recent successes have important political consequences for itself as well as for Mr Obama and Mr McCain. The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki is confident, even over-confident, according to his allies. “Before the government offensive in Basra in late March most of the political parties in the government had agreed that Maliki had to go because he was ineffective,” said one Iraqi political commentator. “But since the attack succeeded, Maliki has become so arrogant that he has stopped paying attention to anybody outside his small inner circle.”»
Aujourd’hui, l’attitude de Maliki, notamment vis-à-vis des Américains, est presque protectrice et compatissante. Le Premier ministre irakien ne cesse d’en rajouter sur sa principale exigence: le retrait US d’Irak. D’où son interview à Spiegel, le 19 juillet, avec le fameux passage où Maliki soutient ouvertement la candidature d’Obama…
Spiegel: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.
Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?
Spiegel: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Spiegel: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?
Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.
• Plutôt dur pour McCain… Sur son blog de The Atlantic, le 19 juillet, Mark Ambinder rapporte les réactions officielles et officieuses du camp McCain. Entre le “I’m confident…” de McCain et le “We’re fucked” d’un de ses conseillers, le lecteur fera son choix.
«Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, “We're fucked.” No response yet from the McCain campaign, although here's what McCain said the last time Maliki mentioned withdrawal: “Since we are succeeding, then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about, since he has told me that for many meetings we’ve had.”»
• La porte-parole de Maliki, sous la pression de la Maison-Blanche, a fait une déclaration qui est un assez étrange démenti, où l’on parle vaguement de “faute de traduction” (selon CNN.NEWS le
«Obama is pleased, but McCain certainly is not. In an interview with Spiegel, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki expressed support for Obama's troop withdrawal plans. Despite a half-hearted retraction, the comments have stirred up the US presidential campaign. Spiegel stands by its version of the conversation.
(…)
»A number of media outlets likewise professed to being confused by the statement from Maliki's office. The New York Times pointed out that al-Dabbagh's statement “did not address a specific error.” CBS likewise expressed disbelief pointing out that Maliki mentions a timeframe for withdrawal three times in the interview and then asks, “how likely is it that Spiegel mistranslated three separate comments? Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the Atlantic Monthly, was astonished by “how little effort was made” to make the Baghdad denial convincing. And the influential blog IraqSlogger also pointed out the lack of specifics in the government statement.»
L’International Herald Tribune nous précise également, le 21 juillet encore:
«But the interpreter for the interview works for Maliki's office, not the magazine. And in an audio recording of Maliki's interview that Der Spiegel provided to The New York Times, Maliki seemed to state a clear affinity for Obama's position, bringing it up on his own in an answer to a general question on troop presence.
»The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times: “Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”
»He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”»
Concluons en observant que la position théorique d’Obama sur le retrait d’Irak vient de servir à un double emploi. D’une part, elle permet à Maliki d’affirmer d’une façon catégorique que sa politique officielle est désormais d’obtenir le retrait des forces US le plus rapidement possible, implicitement ou explicitement qu’importe selon le calendrier du candidat Obama, sans doute futur président des USA. (Dans tous les cas, Obama, candidat dont tout le monde parle d’ores et déjà comme du futur président des USA, et qui est écouté de cette façon, presque comme s’il disait d’ores et déjà la très prochaine politique des USA.) D’autre part, elle conduit Obama lui-même, très hésitant ces dernières semaines sur son propre calendrier de retrait d'Irak à l’occasion de son “durcissement” sur les matières de sécurité nationale, à revenir sur ce calendrier en l’appuyant à nouveau comme un très bon argument électoral. En quelque sorte, Maliki lui a donné un brevet de bonne conformité américaniste, contre McCain, puisque lui, Maliki, l’homme de GW Bush en Irak, le juge absolument conforme. Du coup, c’est McCain, le “faucon”, qui paraît en complet dysfonctionnement avec la réalité avec ses bavardages sur la nécessité de rester très longtemps et jusqu’au bout en Irak.
Cockburn, dans un autre texte publié aujourd’hui, observe d’une part : «The White House was clearly dismayed and embarrassed by an interview given by Mr Maliki to the German news magazine Der Spiegel in which he appeared to express agreement with Mr Obama's withdrawal plans.» D’autre part, il rapporte cette intervention du porte-parole de Maliki, après la rencontre entre ce même Maliki et Obama, hier à Bagdad : «Mr Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said his government was “hoping that in 2010 combat troops will withdraw from Iraq”. This time frame is similar to Mr Obama's.»
En d’autres mots, tout le monde est d’accord…
Mis en ligne le 22 juillet 2008 à 05H54
-
