Le Congrès et le traité UK-USA: incertaines incertitudes

Une question importante, primordiale, qui entoure le destin du traité de défense (transfert de technologies) entre les USA et le Royaume-Uni, qui retient aujourd’hui notre attention dans notre rubrique Faits & Commentaires, c’est l’attitude du Congrès. Au travers des deux textes que nous citons dans notre F&C, on peut distinguer que l’attitude des lobbyistes divers (industriels des deux pays, officiels, etc) qui voudraient nous convaincre d’une issue favorable et très rapide, se heurte aux réalités incroyablement lourdes de la vie washingtonienne. De fait, les parlementaires US se foutent aujourd’hui du tiers comme du quart du traité UK-USA. L’un des parlementaires britanniques qui mènent l’audition du 21 novembre peut ainsi noter, après avoir rappelé que les parlementaires US qu’il a rencontrés à propos du traité semblaient parfaitement ignorants dudit traité : «Although government-to-government relations might be good and everybody might be slapping themselves on their backs in the embassies saying how wonderful it is, if it does not get through the Senate, frankly, it is a waste of time, is it not?»

Quelques remarques sur la question, selon les deux sources dont nous avons usé.

• L’article de Aviation Week & Space Technology du 26 novembre a un certain parti-pris d’optimisme lorsqu’il s’agit de généralités, sans pouvoir empêcher un certain scepticisme de percer, cela sans avertissement préalable…

«U.K. industry executives now believe a U.S.-U.K. defense trade cooperation treaty could be in effect by early in the second quarter of 2008. If implemented as envisioned by London, the treaty would sweep away a swath of bureaucracy that has been the bane of U.S. and British industry in collaborative defense programs.

»Previous efforts to negotiate a U.K. waiver to the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) collapsed as a result of political opposition in Washington. Concerns remain within the U.K. that U.S. domestic issues could still adversely affect the progress of the treaty.»

• Voici un passage substantiel sur le sujet, lors de l’audition aux Communes, le 21 novembre. On parle beaucoup, on se congratule un peu, on s'interroge beaucoup et l’impression générale reste bien incertaine. (Les “Q” indiquent les questions des parlementaires. GD UK indique la société General Dynamics au Royaume-Uni.)

«Q82 Mr Jones: Has US industry been lobbying hard for this?

»Dr McGinnw: This is a national security priority for our two Governments. That is the perspective that we have taken. It was not done as an industry initiative so we do not want to get in front of the Governments. We have taken the approach where we had some initial conversations and now we want to wait until the implementing arrangements are complete and the Senate has had time to consider them, but we will very likely be strongly supportive with members in the US Senate.

»Q83 Mr Jones: That sounds like a “No” to me.

»Dr Wilson: Could I give a perspective here?

»Mr Godden: I will as well.

»Dr Wilson: In the UK, GD UK has worked through the trade associations to get its point of view across, and we are doing exactly the same in the US. Underlying that, because we have specific issues on ITAR and TAAs, we have been lobbying quite hard for improvements to the system in a much more general sense than this specific Treaty. We have done that directly into the State Department at the normal governmental level and we have involved the UK MoD as well in that because they are things that affect us in the UK. I think we have been fairly even-handed in the way that we have approached this both in the US and the UK through the trade associations which is the right way to engage with government when it is a government-to-government deal.

»Q84 Mr Jones: Let us be honest, Mr Wilson, we saw the ITAR waiver and other things fail not because the two Governments did not agree but because the people on the Hill just did not want this and stopped this. Surely in terms of both trade associations and industry, if this is actually going to go through the Senate a hell of a lot of work has got to be done with the Senate because Senators I have talked to do not have a great deal of understanding of some of these issues. Although government-to-government relations might be good and everybody might be slapping themselves on their backs in the embassies saying how wonderful it is, if it does not get through the Senate, frankly, it is a waste of time, is it not?

»Mr Godden: Can I comment having just come back from the US and discussing with the trade associations in the US this very point. I came back last week from Phoenix. My interpretation is that the associations are very active. Whether they are active enough, I cannot judge, but they are active, they are very positive about this Treaty and they are promoting the idea of the Treaty. I cannot say any more than that. I cannot comment not being on the Hill all the time but from the positive mood in SBAC's equivalent association, the AIA, of which Jerry is a member, my observation is they are very positive and are campaigning for it.

»Mr Havard: They are being very careful about who they bankroll to be the next President as well.»

Mis en ligne le 1er décembre 2007 à 18H34