Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
590
15 novembre 2004 — La rencontre entre Tony Blair et GW-II le 12 novembre à Washington a été la marque de la connivence des deux hommes, et un coup de main médiatique (rien de plus) de l’heureux réélu à celui qui affrontera bientôt (au printemps 2005) les urnes à son tour. Rien d’autre à signaler sur le fond de cette rencontre. Le plus intéressant est ailleurs.
Un climat nouveau est apparu, en Europe certes mais surtout au Royaume-Uni, depuis la réélection de Bush. Le processus souvent envisagé se confirme : le maintien contre vents et marées de la politique ultra-suiviste de Blair vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis ne cesse de renforcer la critique des Etats-Unis, qui atteint aujourd’hui des extrêmes impensables il y a seulement deux ans. Il est remarquable de constater l’intensité nouvelle de la critique anti-américaine de fond de certains éditorialistes britanniques (ou d’autres personnalités) appartenant à des milieux de l’establishment. (On comparera, par exemple mais exemple révélateur, avec la critique mièvre et toujours prompte au compromis de la presse française en général, dans un pays qui tient pourtant, au contraire du Royaume-Uni, une politique d’opposition à l’action des Etats-Unis.)
On citera deux exemples de cette démarche britannique. D’abord, l’article de Jonathan Steele, commentateur connu de la presse libérale britannique, le 8 novembre dans The Guardian. Le titre est déjà tout un programme, confirmé par un texte d’un propos d’une fermeté rarement lue sinon sous des plumes marginales ou trop indépendantes pour être diffusées : « Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded —
Our security doesn’t depend on the US; we should free up our thinking. » (On notera avec intérêt cette idée, effectivement essentielle parce qu’elle porte sur notre psychologie, notre attitude : “free up our thinking”.)
« What Americans share with Europeans are not values, but institutions. The distinction is crucial. Like us, they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. But the American majority's social and moral values differ enormously from those which guide most Europeans.
» Its dangerous ignorance of the world, a mixture of intellectual isolationism and imperial intervention abroad, is equally alien. In the United States more people have guns than have passports. Is there one European nation of which the same is true?
» Of course, millions of US citizens do share ''European'' values. But to believe that this minority amounts to 48% and that America is deeply polarised is incorrect. It encourages the illusion that things may improve when Bush is gone. In fact, most Kerry voters are as conservative as the Bush majority on the issues which worry Europeans. Kerry never came out for US even-handedness on the Israel-Palestine conflict, or for a withdrawal from Iraq.
» Many commentators now argue for Europe to distance itself. But vague pleas for greater European coherence or for Tony Blair to end his close links with the White House are not enough. The call should not be for ''more'' independence. We need full independence.
» We must go all the way, up to the termination of Nato. An alliance which should have wound up when the Soviet Union collapsed now serves almost entirely as a device for giving the US an unfair and unreciprocated droit de regard over European foreign policy.
(…)
» It is true that Nato is unlikely ever again to function with the unanimity it showed during the cold war. The lesson from Iraq is that the alliance has become no more than a ''coalition of the reluctant'', with key members like France and Germany opting out of joint action.
» But it is wrong to be complacent about Nato's alleged impotence or irrelevance. Nato gives the US a significant instrument for moral and political pressure. Europe is automatically expected to tag along in going to war, or in the post-conflict phase, as in Afghanistan or Iraq. Who knows whether Iran and Syria will come next? Bush has four more years in power and there is little likelihood that his successors in the White House will be any less interventionist.
» Nato, in short, has become a threat to Europe. Its existence also acts as a continual drag on Europe's efforts to build its own security institutions. Certain member countries, particularly Britain, constantly look over their shoulders for fear of upsetting big brother. This has an inhibiting effect on every initiative.
» France's more robust stance is pilloried by the Atlanticists as nostalgia for unilateral grandeur instead of being seen as part of France's pro-European search for a security project that will help us all.
» Paradoxically, one argument for voting no in the referendum on the European constitution is based on this. Paul Quiles, a French socialist former defence minister, points out that Britain forced a change in the constitution's text so that Europe's common security policy, even as it tries to gather strength, is required to give primacy to Nato. Without control over its own defence, he argues, greater European integration makes little sense.
» The immediate priority on the road to European independence is to abandon support for Bush's disastrous Iraq policy and get behind the majority of Iraqis who want the US to stop attacking their cities and leave the country. They feel US forces only provoke more insecurity and death.
» Since Bush's victory two Nato members, Hungary and the Netherlands (which has a rightwing government), have said they will pull their troops out in March next year. Their moves show the falsity of the ''old Europe, new Europe'' split. In the post-communist countries, as much as in western Europe, majorities consistently opposed Bush's Iraq adventure, whatever their more timid governments said. Wanting to withdraw support for US foreign policy is not a left or right issue.
» Ending Nato would not mean that Europe rejects good relations with the US. Nor does it rule out police and intelligence collaboration on issues of concern, such as the way to protect our countries against terrorism. Europe could still join the US in war, if there was an international consensus and the electorates of individual countries supported it.
» But Europeans must reach their decisions from a position of genuine independence. The US has always based its approach to Europe on a calculation of interest rather than from sentimental motives. Europe should do no less. We can and, for the most part, should be America's friends. Allies, no longer. »
Nous restituons ci-dessous, à cause de son accès moins facile, l’intégralité du deuxième texte que nous signalons. Il est de Tom Spencer, un conservateur britannique lorsqu’il était député européen (il fut président de la commission des affaires étrangères du Parlement européen, et 1997 à 1999), actuellement Executive Director, European Centre for Public Affairs. Il a été publié dans EURepoter le 10 novembre.
By Tom Spencer
There are many similarities between the 2004 election and its extraordinary
predecessor in 2000. However, it is the differences between the elections
which matter as Europe and the world contemplate their response to the
message from the American people.
Unlike 2000, this election featured major debate about foreign policy and
America's place in the world. The verdict of the American electorate was a
deliberate and informed decision. In 2000 George W Bush ran as a
''compassionate conservative'' and as a ''uniter not a divider''. His foreign
policy prescriptions were deliberately vague. In 2004 President George W
Bush's foreign policies were clearly laid out and the electorate took a
decision on the basis of his record and competence. The decision by 51% of
the electorate was a considered one and cannot be attributed to Americans'
ignorance of their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
There is a fashionable view that second-term presidents play to history
rather than to the electorate and are therefore more moderate. I believe
there will be no such second-term effect in the case of George W Bush. His
election victories are not attributable to personal competence. They are
part of a carefully thought out strategy to echo the Republican achievement
of 1896 and establish the party's dominance for thirty years. What is more,
in this case there is another Bush waiting to take over the mantle of his
brother. Indeed we may be witnessing the emergence of the ''Verona
Syndrome'', with Bush and Clinton dynasties locked as tightly together as the
Capulets and the Montagues. After the most expensive election in democratic
history President Bush will have as many, if not more, political debts to
pay as he did in 2000. In 2000 the suggestion that he should govern from the
centre lasted, in Karl Rove's words, ''about thirty seconds''. There is no
reason to think that the suggestion will have a longer half-life this time
around.
Europe needs to recognise, and to accept, that what we have witnessed in
this election is a great country absorbed in the slow-motion drama of its
own civil war. Longfellow's American 'ship of state' has indeed sailed on
while humanity hung breathless on its fate. The problem both for America
and for her friends is that the ship of state now looks suspiciously like a
high-riding supertanker, unstable in rough weather.
Europe now beholds across the Atlantic a country divided not on traditional
ideological lines, but on grounds of religion and race. Writers of
textbooks on International Relations may have to look to their definitions
of what they mean by 'post-modern'. Europe may well be 'post-modern' in its
attitude to the nation state, but the USA is clearly 'post-modern', or
conceivably 'post-secular', in its attitude to the relationship between
church and state. In Europe 7% of the electorate describe themselves as
regularly attending church. In America the figure is 60%. This election
has displayed a country divided between those driven by faith and those lead
by reality. No single statistic conveys this more vividly than the
revelation that more than half of the American people believe that Darwinian
Evolution and Creationism are theories of equal worth in explaining the
origins of humanity and should be taught as such in schools.
Cycles of evangelical excitement are nothing new in the psyche of the United
States. Theologians and historians trace four ''Great Awakenings'' in US
history (1730s - 1740s, 1820s - 1830s, 1880s - 1900s and 1960s - 1970s). A
Great Awakening happens when social change renders traditional religion
unable to adequately address questions posed by modern life. Europeans may
smile at the heated debate over precisely what God said to the President
about Iraq, but they should not underestimate the seriousness with which
much of the American electorate takes such discussions. The heavy emphasis
in the 2004 campaign on moral issues such as stem cell research and gay
marriage was both a deliberate tactic to consolidate the Republican base and
a natural consequence of the mindset of conservative religious thought in
the American tradition. I personally find the deliberate targeting of the
gay community for political purposes to be an unacceptable ploy in a society
which has traditionally lauded the virtues of freedom and tolerance. No
such tactic has been deployed in European politics since the 1930s. Eleven
American states adopted anti-gay amendments to their constitutions on
November 2nd. Such tactics are addictive. Who can doubt that a further
crop of anti-gay initiatives will be up for consideration at future
elections. What we have seen in this election is a dramatic acceleration of
a trend. Maybe it is also a tipping point towards a more general
intolerance in all its grotesque garments.
What then should be the stance of Europe towards its partner in the
so-called Euro-Atlantic Community? Europe needs to calmly and acknowledge
the reality that Europe and America are very different and are becoming more
so. The European and American ships of state are set on different courses
for reasons which go well beyond personality or ideology. The majority of
Americans who voted for George Bush have consciously consigned any such
Atlantic Community into practical oblivion, even if it lives on in the
rhetoric of politicians. Atlantic institutions will survive, of course, but
they will have the same emotional force as APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation).
The European Union needs to echo the new America and steer its course solely
on the basis of its own self-interest. It needs to recognise that the USA
believes that it has honoured the commitments made at Europe's christening
and has blown out its candle. It is no longer the Godfather of European
Unity. In this spirit Europe should have no truck with American attempts at
promoting division. There are no signs of the much-vaunted ''Old Europe
versus New Europe'' schism in the behaviour of Europe's institutions since
Enlargement on May 1st. In the face of, and as an appropriate reaction to
President Bush's victory, Europeans have yet another reason for ratifying
the Constitutional Treaty which they signed so recently amidst the
splendours of Rome. With the same single-mindedness that American
neo-conservatives have brought to American foreign policy, the European
Union needs to look with renewed urgency at its foreign policy and defence
arrangements. It needs to review its bilateral relations with Russia,
China, India, Latin America and the Arab world. Europe may or may not get
more involved in Iraq, but it must do so on a strict judgement of its own
self-interest. There is no need for insults. Europe does not need to mimic
the manners of the Bush Administration. It needs rather to knuckle down to
the hard detailed work of making the Kyoto Protocol and the International
Criminal Court work, even in the face of American hostility. The American
popular rejection of an honourable and intelligent man partly on the basis
that he has a good command of French, speaks volumes in any language.
There are two constituencies for whom this week's message from America poses
particular challenges.
The British, even more than other Europeans, need to apply the cold-eyed
test of genuine national interest to their relations with America. Personal
ties will remain, to be sure, but unthinking acquiescence must be abandoned.
The Blair 'bridge across the Atlantic' lies in ruins. The Foreign Office
mantra that British interest is always served by staying close to the
'cousins' now looks as dated as the Victorian policy of Splendid Isolation.
There must be no more whispering behind the hands about the benefits to
Britain of shared intelligence with the Americans. We have learnt too much
about the nature of Anglo-American intelligence effectiveness in the last
two years to fall once again for that old, old story.
I am no expert on the mind of Tony Blair, but he has publicly announced a
timetable for his departure. Alienated from his party by the deceptions of
the Iraq war, his place in history can only be secured by returning to his
European tasks. British approval of the Constitutional Treaty and of
British membership of the Euro comprise his unfinished business. I doubt
that he will find time to pick up his Congressional Medal of Honor before
the British General Election. His reduced, but still substantial majority,
in that election will give him the headroom that he needs to win the
Referendum on European issues. However, he should not delude himself that
he can secure his European goals merely by an elegant performance in the
presidencies of the G8 and the European Union. It will take sustained focus
and passion to take the British people with him. In the process he might
just shed the ''Bush's poodle'' tag. The British debate on the nature of its
membership of the European Union is immeasurably helped by the events of the
last ten days. The only alternative to full membership of the European
Union would be for the British to throw themselves into the American
embrace. The Prime Minister would only need to fear Gordon Brown on this
subject if the chancellor had a taste for holidaying in Texas rather than in
the refined and muted tones of Cape Cod.
The other group that will be seriously considering their options are
American companies with major operations in the European Union. Those with
exposed and iconic brands face a continuation of the problems of the last
three years. All American companies operating in Europe must now be feeling
less like 'family'. The wise companies will renew their efforts in
Washington to tone down President Bush's anti-European rhetoric. With the
decline of emotional, political and military links, the business lobby, both
American and European, must shoulder the burden of keeping communication
open across the Atlantic. This will require corporate public affairs
expertise of a high quality.
President Bush faces a difficult four years. The price of electoral victory
has been fiscal ill-discipline on a massive scale. The US dollar has lost
much of its mythic power. So has the supposed invincibility of the US Army.
President Bush's disregard of the value of American 'soft power' has put
into play America's cultural leadership. Astute American commentators have
long suspected that talk of Empire and hegemony was little more than a cover
for desperate attempts to unnaturally prolong the period of US dominance.
As such it has failed. America's military and commercial might will remain,
but the gearing that would connect them to real influence has been wilfully
destroyed.
Europe should therefore wish Bon Voyage to America, not Goodbye. There
remains the hope that other Americans will steer a course that brings the
twin offspring of Western Civilization closer once more. Until then we
should wish America well, but learn to walk alone in a world in whose
success we have an over-riding interest.
[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit être lu avec la mention classique à l'esprit, — “Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.”.]
-
