Malloch Brown : explication de texte

Les déclarations faites au Daily Telegraph par le ministre du gouvernement Gordon Brown, Mark Malloch Brown (que de Brown, sans compter le Browne qui est à la défense), ont soulevé bien des tempêtes discrètes entre Londres et Washington. Nous avons parlé de cette interview dans notre Bloc-Notes du 14 juillet ainsi que dans notre F&C du 15 juillet. A cette lumière, l’article de Rachel Sylvester, de ce jour, dans le même Daily Telegraph, est du plus haut intérêt. Sylvester est l’une des deux journalistes qui ont interviewé Malloch Brown et signé l’article initial.

Dans l’article d’aujourd’hui, Sylvester analyse les premières semaines du gouvernement Brown et conclut : plus facile à dire qu’à faire (de gouverner). Plusieurs sujets sont abordés, — mais les autres sont là, surtout, pour encadrer et mettre d’autant plus en évidence ce long passage sur Malloch Brown et, d’une façon plus générale, sur ce qui est perçu comme un “mouvement brownien” d’un distanciement de Washington… Nous citons in extenso ce long passage de l’article de Sylvester.

«Yesterday, David Miliband prompted a furious reaction from Moscow by announcing that four Russian diplomats would be expelled from this country. But it is relatively easy to decide that you can't please Vladimir Putin all the time. It is more dangerous to risk alienating the White House.

»The Prime Minister has done all he can to stamp on the suggestion made by two ministers last week that the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States might be watered down. But the reality is more complicated. In private, those around Mr Brown have for months been making clear that there would be no more Colgate cosiness when he takes over.

»One of his closest Cabinet allies told me, just days before he moved into Number 10, that Britain would, under Mr Brown, be more independent of the White House. “There has been a view that Britain should always remain publicly supportive of America and that any criticisms should be voiced in private — and the balance needs to be redressed,” he said.

»It is not that Mr Brown is anti-American — quite the opposite: Cape Cod has replaced Tuscany as the Labour luvvie holiday destination of choice, now that he is in charge. But he wants to see more equality in the Anglo-American marriage. He is also keener on propriety in international relations — I do not think, for example, that he would have backed Mr Bush in going into Iraq without a UN resolution. Most importantly, he wants to deal with the perception that Mr Blair was the president's “poodle” by making clear to British voters that he will not respond to the call: “Yo, Brown.”

»Indeed, the appointment of Lord Malloch Brown as a Foreign Office minister was in itself what Mr Blair once called a “Love Actually moment”. When Alice Thomson and I interviewed the new peer last week, we were not surprised to hear him describing himself as “anti-neocon” or saying that Mr Brown would not be “joined together at the hip” with Mr Bush: he has for years been waging a war, on behalf of the United Nations, against certain parts of the White House. As one Foreign Office insider said after our interview: “Mark is Mark.”

»The Prime Minister, a close student of American politics, knew precisely what the former UN man stood for — “we've talked a lot”, Lord Malloch Brown told us. And these conversations have ranged far beyond the peer's ministerial responsibilities of Africa, Asia and the UN. He did not give up a lucrative job as manager of George Soros's hedge fund to fiddle around with policy on Outer Mongolia. He has, he told us, just completed a book about “how to govern in a globalised era”, which argues that issues such as migration, public health, terrorism and security can be dealt with only through international co-operation. “Domestic policy is foreign policy,” he said. Despite the youthful Foreign Secretary's best efforts, his “wise eminence” will not easily be put back in his box.

»Mr Brown must have known that the former UN deputy secretary general's appointment would annoy some in Washington, but he still wanted him badly enough in his “government of all the talents” that he agreed to his demand that he should attend Cabinet. The appointment was a deliberate signal to his party and the public that things would be different now that he was in charge.

»There was a similar dog-whistle message in Douglas Alexander's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. I find it inconceivable that the International Development Secretary and the Prime Minister — both astute political strategists — did not realise that a speech in Washington calling for a greater emphasis on “soft power” and “multilateralism” would not be interpreted as a coded warning to the White House.

»Whatever else Mr Brown is, he is not politically naïve. But once the message was out there, it took on a life of its own. The whistle intended to call the domestic dogs to heel became too audible and started to drive the American hounds wild. The Prime Minister had to drown it out by shouting his allegiance to the stars and stripes.»

Il y a beaucoup de choses dans cet extrait de l'article de Sylvester, ayant à l’esprit que le Telegraph est, à Londres, l’un des plus sûrs soutiens de l’alignement sur les USA, voire d’épousailles sans conditions par Londres des conceptions neo-con du monde.

• Il apparaît évident que l’interview de Malloch Brown, après le discours d’Alexander à Chicago, a soulevé une tempête à Washington et dans les relais les plus directs des USA à Londres. Il n’y a pas eu d’échos publics très explicites mais la chose a été exprimée droitement par les canaux officieux. L’article de Sylvester le dit entre les lignes et constitue aussi bien une tentative d’atténuer l’effet de l’interview de Malloch Brown qu’une pression (US) relayée vers Gordon Brown. Il n'est pas sûr que Sylvester n'ait reçu que des félicitations de ses patrons après l'interview et ses effets, d'autant que Malloch Brown reste en place et ne retire rien de ce qu'il a dit.

• Cette partie de l’article de Sylvester est en soi un aveu que la situation des relations USA-UK est, avec l’arrivée de Gordon Brown, devenue incontrôlable quant aux effets des actes des uns et des autres. L’interprétation est reine, par conséquent les paranoïas diverses et dans tous les sens. Sylvester écrit : «I find it inconceivable that the International Development Secretary and the Prime Minister — both astute political strategists — did not realise that a speech in Washington calling for a greater emphasis on “soft power” and “multilateralism” would not be interpreted as a coded warning to the White House.» On pourrait en dire autant de son interview de Malloch Brown, quand on en mesure les effets. Si bien que la remarque qu’elle fait pour Gordon Brown («But once the message was out there, it took on a life of its own») vaut aussi bien pour elle (pour son article) et pour toute autre intervention un tant soit peu substantielle sur les relations USA-UK. Le soupçon d’un côté et l’exaspération rentrée de l’autre sont tels qu’effectivement les actes et les mots sont aussitôt interprétés et “acquièrent leur propre signification”, — qui est l’addition de ce que l’auteur de l’acte ou du mot a voulu y mettre et des différentes interprétations qu’on en donne, — si possible dans le sens de la dramatisation.

• L’Independent d’hier avait déjà noté cette confusion qui semble désormais devoir caractériser les “relations spéciales” : «Gordon Brown has been accused of sending out conflicting signals over cooling the relationship with the Bush White House after David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, was forced to slap down another minister yesterday. [ …]

»Mr Miliband stepped in after the new Foreign Office minister Mark Malloch Brown, a sharp critic of the Blair-Bush policy on Iraq, said at the weekend that Mr Brown would no longer be “joined at the hip” to Mr Bush. “It is very unlikely that the Brown-Bush relationship is going to go through the baptism of fire and therefore be joined together at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was,” Lord Malloch Brown said.

»Mr Miliband used an article in the News of the World to scotch claims that it was the second attempt in 48 hours to hint that Brown is cooling relations with Bush. And on BBC TV, he said: “Our commitment to work with the Bush administration is resolute.” Pressed on whether there had been a change of tone, he said: “No ... If we want to say something you will hear it from the Prime Minister.”»

Du temps de Tony Blair, cette sorte de chose ne survenait pas, tant l’allégeance aux USA était imposée d’une main de fer, — curieux amalgame d’une volonté de fer mise au service de l’abdication de toute volonté nationale. Qu’importe, les démentis auront beau s’empiler, ils n’empêcheront plus le poison du soupçon de se répandre dans le bel édifice qu’avait édifié Tony Blair.

Mis en ligne le 17 juillet 2007 à 10H30