S’il n’a rien dit, on n’en entend pas moins (notamment à propos du KC-45)

D’accord, Obama n’a guère parlé “substance” durant son voyage en Europe, mais on en sait assez sur lui, on a saisi assez de détails ici et là, pour se faire une idée. Et ce n’est pas précisément encourageant, oh non, pas du tout. Ainsi en conclut Steven Erlanger, dans l’International Herald Tribune, ce 25 juillet.

«But for all the rock-star excitement abroad - reminiscent of the European embrace of the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton - Obama was vague on crucial issues of trade, defense and foreign policy that currently divide Washington from Europe and are likely to continue to do so even if Obama becomes president. The issues include Russia, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, as well as new refueling tankers and chlorinated chickens, the focus of an 11-year European ban on U.S. poultry imports.

(…)

»Europeans are wary about Obama's call for more European money for defense and more soldiers for the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They worry that he would not alter what they see as Bush's unbending bias in favor of Israel.

»And, despite what appears to be his sensitivity to European concerns, they perceive Obama as largely uninterested in Europe, even though he is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the region. As the newspaper Le Monde pointed out Thursday, Obama has never asked to meet the European Union's ambassador in Washington.

»But European leaders are particularly concerned about Obama's positions on trade, taken during the bruising Democratic primary campaign against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which seem to many to veer toward protectionism.»

D’une façon assez curieuse, la venue d’Obama, alors que rien de fondamental ne s’est dit, a été l’occasion pour les dirigeants européens d’affirmer indirectement leurs très grandes préoccupations devant certaines orientations US, qui ne sont pas nécessairement spécifiques à Obama, mais qu’Obama représente finalement assez bien. Nous dirions que le show qu’a été cet “European Tour” ultra-rapide et sans substance, mais avec beaucoup d’effets, a plutôt libéré des appréciations critiques.

L’essentiel des critiques européennes spécifiques contre l’évolution US porte sur le soupçon général de repli sur soi, notamment exprimé par le soupçon de protectionnisme. Dans ce soupçon, la place tenu par l’affaire EADS/KC-45 est considérable pour un domaine si spécialisé. (L’affaire a été évoquée dans les trois entretiens avec Obama des trois dirigeants d’Allemagne, de France et du Royaume-Uni, ce qui confirme le front commun à cet égard.) Elle est mentionnée à deux reprises dans l’article d’Erlanger, notamment par un paragraphe entier: «Europeans are upset about a recent decision by the Pentagon to order a new round of bidding for a $35 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers. A European-led consortium won the contract, beating Boeing, earlier this year. But Boeing and its congressional supporters managed to have the bid reviewed and ultimately overturned.» Il ne fait aucun doute que cette question des ravitailleurs en vol de l'USAF sera un des grands sujets de polémique transatlantique pour les prochains mois et au-delà, selon la durée du processus de sélection de l'USAF.

Obama, dans ses activités d’homme politique, est englobé dans ces critiques. On retrouve les remarques déjà vues de Steve C. Clemons concernant l'absence de contact d'Obama avec l'Europe institutionnelle: «And, despite what appears to be his sensitivity to European concerns, they perceive Obama as largely uninterested in Europe, even though he is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the region. As the newspaper Le Monde pointed out Thursday, Obama has never asked to meet the European Union's ambassador in Washington.»

Le même Steve C. Clemons avait publié un article le 17 décembre 2007, mettant notamment en évidence le faible intérêt ces deux dernières années d’Obama pour l’Europe, malgré sa position à la tête de la sous-commission sénatoriale des relations extérieures chargée de l’Europe.

«…My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings – at least that is how the record appears to me. Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings – or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair – or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton on a Subcommittee she chairs, and the zero hearing detail is disconcerting.

( …)

»Senator Obama has a great team. Some of his staff are friends and former colleagues of mine – though i can say the same about every one of the presidential candidates in both parties.

»But his not calling any hearings in a Senate Subcommittee he chairs ought to raise some questions that he needs to respond to. His Subcommittee deals with Europe, with NATO, with various related political and security matters – and he's got the gavel and can set the agenda.

»Given the stress NATO is experiencing today on many fronts – from the question of Europe's evolving security identity, to NATO's deployments in Afghanistan, to the evolving question of how to deal with Russia, Kosovo, and other common challenges – it seems inconceivable that Senator Obama would not want to highlight important policy concerns by way of hearings.»

Mis en ligne le 26 juillet 2008 à 12H39