Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
968Dans son commentaire de ce 5 mars 2010 sur Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo examine la question de l’actuelle mini-crise des Malouines et la position des USA. Une fois n’est pas coutume, Raimondo approuve la politique de l’administration Obama et il explicite sa position d’un point de vue classique, mais intéressant à rappeler, du pur isolationnisme propre à la droite traditionnelle US. Cette logique est totalement hostile aux “special relationships” en général, – avec le Royaume-Uni dans ce cas, mais aussi avec israël.
«Here it comes again, the Falklands Question: one of those eternal foreign policy problems that seem to have no logical or just solution. What’s surprising is that the Obama administration is taking the right position, for once, and staying well out of it. This drives our Anglophiles, of whom there are quite a few on the neocon right – the Churchill cult and all that – absolutely wild, and the Brits, too. Why, when British troops are fighting side by sidewith Americans in Afghanistan, won’t the US stand by the Anglo-American “special relationship” and help preserve the pathetic remnants of the once-proud British empire?
»The reason is that there is no conceivable US interest in the fate of the Malvinas, as the Argentines insist on calling these dreary little atolls, most of which are uninhabited. As Alex Cockburn once described it, the sky over the Falklands is normally “the color of a mud-stained sheep,” and the main island which hosts the “city” of Stanley boasts less than two thousand year-round inhabitants. So what’s the big deal, anyway – why is this ancient dispute arising right at this moment?
»In a word: oil. The British have begun drilling for oil off the Falklands and the Argentines are in a rage over it. The Obama administration, for its part, is calling for international mediation, presumably through the UN – and no doubt putting pressure on the Argentines in private to tone it down. Yet Hillary Clinton had to be practically dragged to Buenos Aires on her recent Latin American foray, and tensions between the leftist government of Cristina de Kirchner and the Obama administration are somewhat strained… […]
»It’s unlikely in the extreme there will be any military action this time around, although an incident involving Argentine and British naval craft may be in the making. The issue, however, underscores the degree to which the legacy of colonialism continues to rankle the South Americans, who ought to be naturally pro-American but aren’t. The reason they aren’t is due to our endless intervention in their affairs, which continues right up to the present day. Under cover of the “war on drugs,” we throw our weight around down there with nary a thought as to the possible blowback. We’ve even managed to piss off Brazil — not part of the anti-American/Chavista bloc of Latin American nations — which is resisting US plans to enforce international economic sanctions against Iran.
»Whenever a country claims to have a “special relationship” with the US, and makes a point of emphasizing this “special-ness,” Americans should secure their wallets and prepare for the worst.
»There are only two nations that make such an unlimited claim on our allegiance, and our unconditional support for both of them down through the years has brought us nothing but endless trouble: I’m talking, of course, about Israel and the Brits…»
dedefensa.org
-
