Forum

LE MONDE 16.10.05 | 08h48 •  Mis à jour le 16.10.05 | 09h05

Le XVe Sommet ibéroaméricain a apporté samedi 15 octobre à Salamanque son appui à Cuba. Le président cubain Fidel Castro n’était pas à Salamanque, ayant annulé sa participation au dernier moment, mais n’en a pas moins remporté une victoire symbolique sur les Etats-Unis avec l’adoption par le sommet de deux résolutions favorables à Cuba, notaient samedi soir les observateurs diplomatiques à Salamanque.

Ces deux textes, désapprouvés par l’ambassade américaine à Madrid, selon les médias espagnols, demandent en termes assez tranchants la fin du “blocus” appliqué par Washington contre Cuba depuis 1962, ainsi que l’extradition du militant anti-castriste Luis Posada Carriles, incarcéré aux Etats-Unis et accusé d’un attentat contre un avion cubain, qui a fait 73 morts en 1976.

Le président vénézuélien Hugo Chavez, autre adversaire déterminé de Washington, est lui venu à Salamanque, mais y a adopté contre toute attente un profil assez bas, lançant tout de même un avertissement sur une poursuite de la hausse des prix du pétrole, une denrée qui devient de plus en plus rare. Le Venezuela va rejoindre comme cinquième membre à part entière le Mercosur (Marché commun du sud de l’Amérique latine) formé par l’Argentine, le Brésil, le Paraguay et l’Uruguay.

Les dirigeants de 22 pays hispanophones et lusophones des deux côtes de l’Atlantique se sont séparés avec la satisfaction d’avoir mis en place une structure permanente, le secrétariat ibéro-américain (Segib), dont ils espèrent des actions concrètes en réponse aux critiques sur l’inutilité de tels sommets. La communauté ibéro-américaine va pouvoir agir et avoir une “voix propre” dans les forums internationaux, a souligné le directeur du Segib, Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay), qui a été chargé d’une mission d’information en Haïti pour examiner la situation difficile que connaît ce pays.

NOMBREUX DÉFIS

La déclaration finale du sommet insiste sur l’urgence qu’il y a pour l’Amérique latine “d’atteindre un développement soutenu et d’affronter les défis de la pauvreté et de l’inégalité”. C’est “un défi qui ne peut attendre”, a souligné le chef du gouvernement espagnol, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, qui n’a pas ménagé sa peine et a multiplié les annonces pour assurer le succès de ce sommet.

L’Espagne va offrir 65 millions de dollars au Salvador et au Guatemala pour les aider à faire face aux dégâts causés par l’ouragan Stan. M. Zapatero a par ailleurs demandé aux entreprises espagnoles de rester en Argentine malgré les problèmes qu’elles rencontrent dans ce pays.Madrid qui se veut l’interlocuteur européen privilégié de l’Amérique latine, table sur une prochaine “deuxième vague” d’investissements espagnols dans cette région.

A Salamanque, l’accord de libre-échange prévu entre le Mercosur et l’Union européenne a été discuté, avec d’apparents progrès, par le président de la Commission européenne José Manuel Durao Barroso.

L’immigration, mais aussi le terrorisme ont occupé une bonne partie des débats du sommet de Salamanque. Une conférence sur les problèmes complexes de l’immigration et un plan d’action pour éradiquer l’analphabétisme entre 2008 et 2015 ont été annoncés par les participants qui se retrouveront en 2006 à Montevideo.

Avec AFP et Reuters

Tentatives de coup d’Etat sur le Net
A l’approche du sommet sur la société de l’information, la mainmise des Etats-Unis sur le réseau mondial est de plus en plus contestée.

Par Ludovic BLECHER
samedi 15 octobre 2005 (Liberation - 06:00)

ce devait être la zone coquine du Web. Un «quartier rouge» regroupant les sites pornos derrière un nom de domaine .xxx, comme il existe des .com (pour les sites commerciaux) ou des .fr (pour les sites français). Las : en août, les Etats-Unis ont bloqué ce projet, discuté au sein de l’Icann (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), l’autorité de régulation du Net (lire ci-contre). Rares sont les exemples où l’administration américaine a pesé de manière aussi visible sur les décisions de cette société à but non lucratif, de droit californien, qui «gouverne» le réseau, sous le contrôle du département du Commerce des Etats-Unis. Mais cette intervention anecdotique prouve que Washington peut décider du devenir du Web.

Paralyser.

Les Américains sont les maîtres de l’Internet depuis qu’ils l’ont inventé. «D’un point de vue politique et technologique, ils ont les clés du système, affirme un chercheur. Même s’ils n’ont jamais appuyé sur le bouton, Washington a la possibilité de bloquer le réseau et compte bien conserver ce contrôle total.» Les Etats-Unis ont le pouvoir de couper l’accès à tous les sites de la planète. Et de paralyser l’ensemble des connexions. Cette mainmise sur l’architecture du réseau des réseaux exaspère chaque jour un peu plus le reste de la planète, qui hausse le ton à l’approche du Deuxième Sommet mondial sur la société de l’information (SMSI) qui aura lieu à Tunis en novembre sous l’égide des Nations unies. Si les Américains ont assuré le bon fonctionnement du Net et favorisé le développement d’une Toile totalement ouverte où chacun peut créer un site en toute liberté, leur position dominante est de plus en plus contestée. «Il n’est plus acceptable qu’une seule nation décide pour toutes les autres, dans un monde qui se numérise à toute vitesse», dit un diplomate.

Des pays comme la Chine, le Brésil ou l’Iran réclament depuis longtemps une remise à plat de la gouvernance de l’Internet. Ils souhaitent que les Etats prennent le contrôle du réseau. «De nombreux pays veulent que les décisions se prennent à l’ONU, au sein d’une agence spécialisée, résume un observateur. Le risque, c’est qu’une résolution allant à l’encontre des intérêts commerciaux ou du principe de fonctionnement démocratique du Net soit votée. Des pays comme la Chine pourraient conforter leur censure du Web.»

Intérêt national.

Pour les Américains, ce risque est inacceptable. «Aucun organisme international, qu’il émane ou non de l’ONU, ne doit contrôler l’Internet, a déclaré David Gross, délégué du département d’Etat. [...] Ce n’est pas une question négociable, c’est une question d’intérêt national.» Pour lui, la régulation du Net doit rester entre les mains du «privé». C’est-à-dire de l’Icann… Mais entre la position des Etats-Unis, le maintien du statu quo, et celle de pays émergents, qui rêvent de mettre la main sur le Net, il y a un espace, que les Européens viennent d’occuper.

Ils réclament eux aussi «un nouveau modèle de gouvernance» de l’Internet. Les Vingt-Cinq, jusqu’alors divisés, ont affiché leur position commune fin septembre, à Genève, lors d’un round de négociations avant Tunis. «Les Européens ne veulent plus que les Américains soient les seuls maîtres à bord, explique un proche de la délégation française. Mais le mode d’organisation à venir doit être discuté, c’est ouvert.» Depuis, tout se joue à couteaux tirés dans les coulisses de la diplomatie internationale. Bruxelles réclame la mise en place «d’un nouveau forum des politiques publiques» liées à l’Internet. Formule volontairement floue pour ne pas trop froisser les Américains et ne pas apparaître comme suivant la ligne de dictatures comme la Chine ou l’Iran. «En gros, les Européens veulent mettre en place un système collégial et démocratique qui associerait largement les institutions existantes, les entreprises et la société civile», détaille un diplomate.

Cyberpolicés.

Malgré la prudence des mots, cette nouvelle posture, qualifiée de «révolutionnaire», a fait l’effet d’une bombe outre-Atlantique. «Il faut que l’UE passe de l’intention politique à une proposition d’organisation fonctionnelle, pour ne pas laisser croire qu’elle soutient, d’une façon ou d’une autre, la position chinoise», estime Julien Pain, chef du bureau Internet de Reporters sans frontières. Washington s’est engouffré dans la brèche : «La proposition européenne pourrait porter un frein à notre conception d’un modèle totalement ouvert», a dénoncé David Gross en fin de semaine dernière, mettant en garde contre le risque de «céder le contrôle à une espèce de groupe intergouvernemental amorphe constitué d’Etats comme l’Iran et Cuba». Il prédit que «le soutien que la position européenne reçoit de pays qui ne sont pas connus pour leur liberté d’expression pourrait amener à une restriction des contenus sur l’Internet». Avec des positions aussi éloignées, rien ne dit qu’un nouveau mode de gouvernance puisse être trouvé le mois prochain à Tunis. D’autant que le débat risque d’être éclipsé par la question des droits de l’homme en Tunisie, l’un des pays les plus cyberpolicés de la planète.

Pour tous ceux que cela intéresse, voici nouvel élément au dossier concernant l’attentat du 11/09 contre le Pentagone.

http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm

Cordialement

La France semble suivre désormais les US sur leurs fronts ? En Iran… La France est en première ligne pour agresser verbalement un pays qui finalement ne fait que vivre pleinement sa souveraineté. En Irak… Tous les commentateurs applaudissent des élections sous occupations étrangères, relaient les mêmes reportages avec des gens heureux de voter (c’est sans doute vrai), en disant que la participation est de 61%, alors que le vote n’est pas terminé, et tout en nous rappelant que les sunnites irakiens sont soutenus par les méchants chiites iraniens, et que les gentils chiites irakiens ne s’entendent pas avec les chiites iraniens… Et finalement, la démocratie va bien en Irak. Et j’oublie aussi l’alignement US-FR dans la situation en Syrie.

On doit penser quoi quand on écoute les infos françaises ?

Qq’un a des traces d’un accord US-FR pour que la France finalement s’aligne désormais sur les intérêts américains ?

“Les Hollandais sont de fervents atlantistes et partisans des Américains mais ce sont aussi d’excellents comptables qui tiennent à leurs sous.”

MDR. Dites aux Hollandais de ramener leur poubelle chez eux quand ils degustent leur gouda en France, vous serez bien aimable, merci :P

Je me souviens d’un octogenaire *francophone* qui me disait qu’il y avait plus pingre qu’un Irlandais. Il n’avait pas tout a fait tort, mais d’un point de vue de la defense europeenne? Vous auriez du mettre *au fromage* sinon au *parfum* (choisissez votre cote) les Europeens des derniers accros- euh accords anglo-saxons entre Boeing et Airbus. J’en ai entendu parler dernierement aux USA sur la traviata en trame de fond mais pas un souffle en Europe. Aux USA c’etait comme un soubresaut foetuse de la loi du plus fort a la cocorico francaise pour nous faire oublier les mauvaises aventures de Rintintin au pays de l’Irak :)

Le 17.11.2000 Jean Philippe Belleau écrit dans “Le Monde” ( On peut s’interroger comment cet article a pu passer ) : L’idiot du village global sera-t’il président des Etats-Unis ?
Mais au délà il faut s’interroger sur la et les stratégies qui ont été mises en place pour arriver à cela , l’homme n’est pas arrivé tout seul à la porte de la Maison Blanche en sonnant et déclarant c’est moi .
C’est à la fois plus subtil et déroutant d’anomalies que curieusement la presse bien pensante , sauf quelques articles d’égarés et égarés à travers les mailles des filets de contrôle , se refuse à analyser .
C’est assez inquiétant .

Sans aucun humour, je suggererais à Israêl de renoncer au “prestigious” F-35 et d’acheter des Rafales, qui coûteront moins cher et seront livrés plus vite. Qui ferait passer le message?

Turks embrace novelist’s war on EU
By Dan Bilefsky International Herald Tribune THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005
ISTANBUL The year is 2010 and the European Union has rejected Turkey. Fascist governments have come to power in Germany, Austria and France and are inciting violence against resident Turks and Muslims. A vengeful Turkey joins forces with Russia and declares war against the EU. Turkish commandos besiege Berlin, obliterate Europe and take control of the Continent.
Some critics will be quick to dismiss “The Third World War,” a new futuristic novel by a 30-year-old Turkish writer, Burak Turna, as the wild imaginings of a conspiracy theorist and literary shock jock - and in many ways it is.
But the novel, which dominates bookstore display windows in Istanbul, has sold more than 130,000 copies in just two months and is rising on best-seller lists across the country. As Turkey embarks on 10 years of tortuous talks to join the EU, Turkish observers say the novel’s popularity reflects the growing wariness of Turks about a Europe that is increasingly wary of them.
“Turks are getting fed up with the EU’s constant demands - and ‘The Third World War’ has tapped into that,” said Sinan Ulgen, a Turkish commentator. He noted that the book’s pithy, cinematographic style has helped it resonate with taxi drivers, government officials and housewives alike.
Turna is no fringe figure. His first novel, “Metal Firtina” (“Metal Storm”), became the fastest-selling book in the history of Turkey when it was published in December, a time of deep Turkish ambivalence about the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
The book is a fictional account of a U.S. invasion of Turkey that provokes a Turkish agent to detonate a nuclear bomb in a park in Washington, leveling the capital. Overnight, the grungy former journalist and philosophy student became a chat-show celebrity, a cult figure among 20-somethings and an unofficial cultural barometer for his country.
Turna says Turks’ fear of U.S. domination, reflected in the popularity of “Metal Storm,” is being supplanted by a growing Turkish ambivalence about Europe - an ambivalence that has lurked in the Turkish soul since after World War I.
At that time, West European powers dismembered the Ottoman Empire.
He says he wrote “The Third World War” - “Üçüncü Dünya Savasi” in Turkish - to give Turks an outlet for their wounded pride about the EU’s constant snubbing.
“Turks are waking up to two facts,” Turna said at a café near Istanbul’s bustling Taksim Square, where he was greeted like a rock star by young fans. “One is that everything told to the Turkish people by EU leaders is lies. Two, that a Muslim country will never get into an EU that doesn’t want us.”
Turna is a self-confessed history and science fiction junkie, whose authoritative descriptions of U.S. military maneuvers in “Metal Storm” prompted some in Turkey to accuse him of being a CIA agent.
He says he began researching “The Third World War” by brushing up on 1,000 years of European history and concluded that Europe will inevitably reject Turkey and that the Continent will descend into chaos and war.
“Europe is based on a racist nation-state structure that has created world wars for the last 900 years,” said Turna, who added that none of his works have been published abroad due to his incendiary themes.
“Even if there are no guns, the EU’s decision to turn its back on Turkey will create a cultural war between Islam and the West.”
His novel pours scorn on the West in passages like one in which Russian and Turkish officers discuss how they will carve up Europe after defeating it:
“You are right, no matter what the consequences, a new European order will be established,” interrupted Cemil Pasha, “and a new European Union will be formed, and this time the strength will lie with Eastern Europe.” The Russian general was pleased with this assessment. “I will never say no to Istanbul being the center of the new European Union. After all, I’ve been there myself,” the general joked, “and I’ve seen the Bosporus - which was quite enough for me!” Cemil Pasha said, “Such an outcome would please me. Then Western Europe would watch with grief the reconciliation between the Orthodox world and Istanbul.”
The author has been spreading his “clash of civilizations” ideas on the Turkish chat-show circuit and in fiery speeches - titled “The World Order After the Dissolution of the EU” - to sold-out audiences across the country. At a recent book signing event in Izmir, an Aegean port facing Greece, he began by asking the crowd of mostly 15- to 25-year-olds how many supported Turkey’s joining the EU. Not a single hand was raised.
He says this is a Turkish backlash against what he calls the “anti-Turkish mania” on the Continent.
Sales of “The Third World War” have been helped by the fact that the book was published in August against a backdrop of rising nationalism in Turkey.
In recent weeks, as the EU intensified its demands for Turkish concessions in sensitive, emotionally charged policy areas like Cyprus and Armenia, sales of Turkish flags have surged.
“Turks are a proud people,” Turna said. “Countries like France think we are begging them to join the EU, but the reality is that we will just turn in on ourselves, become skeptical or just lose interest.”
His depiction of Turks’ growing skepticism is borne out by opinion polls here. One by the Istanbul-based Foundation for Economic Development, an independent research institute, showed that Turkish support for EU membership plunged in May to 63 percent from 94 percent a year earlier.
Turna acknowledges that his propensity for satire and hyperbole often gets in the way of the facts. In “The Third World War,” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has become president of the United States and supports Europe’s offensive against Turkey. He provides backing through a secret pagan society, the Brotherhood of Death, that seeks global domination and is meant to represent U.S. neo-conservatives.
Turna grew up in a traditional but intellectual family in Istanbul, imbibing a mix of military history, Kantian rationality and secular Islam. As a student, he spent hours on the Internet, googling U.S. military sites and memorizing Pentagon jargon. In college, he studied business and philosophy, then worked briefly as a journalist before writing “Metal Storm” with a friend, Orkun Ucar.
He confesses that his only trip to Europe was one visit to Munich five years ago, a fact that helps explain why “The Third World War” features baroque descriptions of Germany’s beer capital but is spartan in its characterizations of the rest of the Continent.
His frequent travels in Asia, he said, have led him to conclude that Turkey’s future rests in an “eastern alliance” rather than in the West.
Turna proposes that Turkey limit its relationship with the EU to a free-trade agreement and instead link up politically with China, India and Russia.
“India has 250 million rich people, China has a huge economy and middle class. Russia is flowing with cash. Why are my politicians wasting time in the corridors of the EU when they should be visiting and courting these countries, like the U.S. does?”
Just as Europeans are ignorant about the real Turkey, Turna argues, Turks are ignorant about the real EU. He blames the Turkish media and the political establishment for portraying the EU as a panacea that will help make poor, agrarian Turkey flush with cash.
“There is not a proper debate on Europe in Turkey,” Turna said. “It has become taboo to criticize the EU. The Istanbul elite sell the EU, while the rural part of the country has little understanding of what joining the bloc really means.”
Pressed about the benefits that Turkey’s EU membership drive has brought, including better rights for minorities and the liberalization of the Turkish economy, Turna acknowledged that the carrots and sticks of the EU process have been important for a country that has been plagued by instability. But he adds a caveat often heard in the salons, cafés and boardrooms of Ankara and Istanbul.
“What matters for Turkey is being part of a process that has accelerated political and economic change,” he said. “But the process is more important than the endgame, and no one will shed a tear if the EU doesn’t let us in 10 to 15 years’ time.”
Since “The Third World War” came out, Turna has been working on a soon-to-be-published philosophical treatise called “Sistema.” He also has started his own publishing house to translate new foreign authors into Turkish.
These days, he says, he spends a lot of time playing video games. His favorite? A game called the Rise of Nations in which countries compete for global domination. “I love to pretend that I’m China and to bomb Europe into the Stone Age,” he says.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/12/news/novel.php

Excerpts from “The Third World War”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/12/news/excerpts.php

Ci-joint une liste de livres et de sites qui proposent
des enquêtes approfondies sur les motifs, les moyens
et l’occasion qui ont permis le 11/9/2001. Des
éléments accablants qui font s’effondrer la théorie
du complot islamique proposée par l’administration
américaine.

“Crossing the Rubicon : the decline of the american
empire at the end of the age of oil”, Mike Ruppert

—> Dick Cheney, le Peak Oil, les exercices militaires
qui ont paralysés l’aviation civile et militaire le
11/9, le complexe militaro-industriel américain.
La référence. Tout est documenté. Mike Ruppert
est sans doute l’un des Américains les plus
courageux encore vivant.

“The new Pearl Harbor”, “11 septembre, omissions et
manipulations de la commission d’enquête”, David Ray Griffin

—> Une liste des nombreuses questions auxquelles
ni la commission Kean, ni l’administration Bush
n’ont répondu… comme par exemple, comment est-il
possible qu’aucun avion n’ait été intercepté ce
jour-là alors que la procédure d’interception a
été utilisée des centaines de fois en 2004 et
chaque année qui précède (chacun des 4 avions a volé
pendant près d’une heure hors de son plan de vol)
Comment les tours ont-elles pu s’effondrer par
l’action du feu alors qu’aucune tour à squelette
en acier ne s’est jamais effondrée sous l’action
du feu avant WTC1 et WTC2 et surtout la tour WTC7
qui n’a été percutée par aucun avion ? Comment le
Pentagone a-t-il pu être attaqué par un avion civil ?
Il y a plus de 40 cas d’incompétence grave dans le
dispositif américain qui se sont toutes produites
simultanément le 11/9. Aucun responsable de
l’administration ce jour-là n’a été blâmé ou puni.
Beaucoup ont même reçu du galon.

“La face cachée du 11 septembre”, Eric Laurent

—> Les preuves que des investisseurs américains avaient
connaissance préalable du 11/9. Les liens entre
l’ISI (annexe pakistanaise de la CIA) et Mohamed
Atta. Les connections Saoudienne.

http://www.copvcia.com

Je vous conseille aussi fortement :

“The sorrows of empire, militarism, secrecy, and
the End of the Republic”, Chalmers Johnson

Attention, une fois que vous aurez consulté ces documents, vous ne pourrez plus revenir en arrière et croire encore dans le monde imaginaire que les médias essayent de nous vendre.

Cher M. Grasset, c’est toujours un vif plaisir de lire votre site, merci pour cet important travail (je sais que vous êtes plusieurs mais vous ne mettez pas de nom de complices!)
Je voulais revenir à la charge sur le Liban, car il est intrinsèquement lié à la Syrie.L’élimination de Hariri, absolument pas dans l’intérêt de Bachar el Assad. Wayne Madsen, sur Online journal lache le morceau (je n’ai que le lien avec une traduction française: http://www.entrefilets.com/hariri.htm. Les États-Unis voudraient une base militaire dans le nord du Liban, une idée qui n’enchantait pas Hariri, nationaliste et Panarabe. Le méchant a osé discuter avec le Hezbolah, ce qui est très mal.(cherchez son texte
Ceci dit, la Syrie est une proie beaucoup plus adaptée que l’Iran, soutenu par la Russie et la Chine,pour redonner un peu d’allant au délire militaire.

Le Soir en ligne
Merkel est chancelière

La conservatrice Angela Merkel va devenir la première chancelière de l’Allemagne. Elle a remporté le bras de fer qui l’opposait au chancelier social-démocrate sortant Gerhard Schröder.

Les directions du SPD et de la CDU ont toutes deux recommandé lundi matin l’ouverture de négociations sur le fonctionnement et le programme de travail d’un futur gouvernement de grande coalition dirigé par Angela Merkel. Celles-ci devraient commencer dès la semaine prochaine.

Plusieurs étapes doivent être franchies pendant lesquelles le chancelier Schröder expédiera les affaires courantes: il faudra que s’achèvent les négociations entre les deux partis, que la future chancelière soit élue par le Bundestag, et que les bases des partis ratifient l’accord lors de congrès extraordinaires.

Selon des sources de l’Union chrétienne-sociale (CSU), M. Schröder ne devrait pas faire partie du futur gouvernement, contrairement à certaines spéculations qui le voyaient déjà vice-chancelier. “Angie”, comme est surnommée Angela Merkel, va devenir à 51 ans la première femme à diriger l’Allemagne, à un moment où le pays, souvent qualifié d’“homme malade de l’Europe”, se trouve en profonde crise économique et sociale. Mme Merkel n’arrive pas en position de force, mais à la tête d’un gouvernement à forte composante social-démocrate.

Une victoire à la Pyrrhus

Après sept ans passés à la tête d’une coalition avec les Verts, Gerhard Schröder (61 ans) va céder la main à regret. Il a renoncé à sa prétention formulée le soir des élections anticipées, le 18 septembre, à continuer à diriger la chancellerie, ambition sur laquelle il avait commencé à reculer il y a une semaine. Les sociaux-démocrates refusaient à Angela Merkel le droit d’accéder à la chancellerie, en argant du résultat très médiocre de la CDU-CSU (35,2% contre 34,2% pour le SPD, soit 226 députés contre 222).

Selon Gerhard Schröder, le résultat du vote et la remontée spectaculaire du SPD durant la campagne électorale exprimaient le voeu d’une majorité d’Allemands de voir poursuivies les réformes comme la transformation de l’Etat providence “l’Agenda 2010”.

Pour Mme Merkel, le retrait de son rival est une victoire à la Pyrrhus. Selon des sources concordantes, les sociaux-démocrates obtiendront huit des seize postes ministériels, parmi lesquels les portefeuilles clé des Finances, des Affaires étrangères - qui devrait échoir à l’actuel ministre de la Défense Peter Struck -, du Travail, de la Santé, de la Justice.

Les partis réticents

Côté CDU, outre Mme Merkel et son ministre d’Etat à la chancellerie, les conservateurs prendraient en charge l’Economie - un ministère aux compétences élargies aux questions européennes que le conservateur bavarois Edmund Stoiber devrait diriger -, l’Intérieur, la Défense, l’Agriculture, la Formation et Recherche et la Famille.

Rien n’avait filtré à nouveau dimanche soir à l’issue d’une troisième rencontre au sommet entre Gerhard Schröder, le président du Parti social-démocrate (SPD), Franz Müntefering, Angela Merkel et Edmund Stoiber. Les quatre dirigeants ont dû faire avaler la pilule à leurs partis réticents, alors que tant Gerhard Schröder qu’Angela Merkel avaient fait campagne, avant les élections du 18 septembre, pour un “mandat clair” et contre une grande coalition. Mme Merkel a dû faire avaler aux Unions chrétiennes le prix élevé d’un renoncement de Gerhard Schröder à la chancellerie. Ces derniers jours, des barons de la CDU avaient fait monter la pression pour que des éléments essentiels du programme de campagne soient maintenus, alors que plusieurs des projets les plus libéraux sont déjà passés à la trappe.

(D’après AFP)

http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/monde/page_5715_374889.shtml

mise à jour le 10/10/2005 à 16h01 - Bruxelles - lundi 10 octobre 2005, 15:50
—-
Elections Allemandes

En Allemagne, un gouvernement mi-mi
En échange de concessions en matière économique et sociale, le SPD de Gerhard Schröder laisse la chancellerie à Angela Merkel, candidate de la CDU • Les ministères devraient être également répartis entre les deux formations • Officialisation attendue lundi après-midi •

Par Libération.fr
lundi 10 octobre 2005 (Liberation.fr - 13:06)

ngela Merkel s’apprête à devenir chancelière. Dans un gouvernement de grande coalition, le second de l’histoire allemande. Trois semaines après des élections législatives qui n’avaient pas donné de majorité claire, les deux grands grands partis CDU et SPD se sont enfin mis d’accord pour gouverner ensemble.

Une deuxième séance de pourparlers s’est tenue en terrain neutre, dimanche jusqu’à près de minuit, à la Société parlementaire près du Reichstag, à Berlin. Y participaient le chancelier Gehrard Schröder et le président du SPD, Franz Müntefering, la chef de file de la CDU, Angela Merkel, et Edmund Stoïber, de l’Union chrétienne-sociale (CSU). Aucune déclaration n’a été faite à l’issue de la réunion. Mais d’après les indiscrétions qui ont filtré dans les médias allemands, un consensus a été trouvé. Angela Merkel est donc désignée chancelière de la «grande coalition», Gerhard Schröder, qui contestait la victoire des conservateurs (1), renonce finalement au poste qu’il détenait depuis 1998.

En sacrifiant son chancelier, le SPD espère contraindre Merkel à des concessions sur son programme politique, notamment dans le domaine économique. D’après des informations encore non officielles, le SPD a ainsi obtenu que le gouvernement ait une forte composante social-démocrate, tant du point de vue de la répartition des portefeuilles –SPD et CDU-CSU devraient être à parité– que du contenu programmatique. Le SPD obtient ainsi plusieurs ministères clés, dont ceux des Affaires étrangères, des Finances, de la Justice et du Travail. Il empoche également l’Environnement, la Coopération, la Santé et les Transports.

Les chrétiens démocrates de la CDU et leurs alliés bavarois devraient par conséquent hériter de l’Economie, de l’Intérieur et de la Défense. Edmund Stoïber, chef du gouvernement bavarois et président de l’Union chrétienne sociale (CSU), est pressenti pour occuper le ministère de l’Economie. C’est Günther Beckstein (CSU) qui succéderait vraisemblablement à Otto Schily au ministère de l’Intérieur. Le député de l’Union chrétienne-démocrate (CDU) allemande, Norbert Lammert, vice-président de la précédente assemblée, est pressenti pour remplacer le social-démocrate (SPD) Wolfgang Thierse au poste de président de la nouvelle chambre basse du parlement (Bundestag), ont indiqué des sources proches de la CDU. En Allemagne, le président du Bundestag est dans l’ordre protocolaire le deuxième homme d’Etat derrière le président de la République.

L’annonce officielle de l’accord pourrait n’intervenir que dans l’après-midi. Dans la matinée, le président du SPD, Franz Müntefering, et Angela Merkel ont informé leurs directions respectives de l’état de leurs pourparlers pour les faire avaliser et entamer officiellement les négociations pour un gouvernement de «grande coalition». Côté SPD, la direction a approuvé à une large majorité l’accord conclu. Côté CDU, il a également été entériné. Une nouvelle réunion au sommet entre Gerhard Schröder, Franz Müntefering, Angela Merkel et son allié Edmund Stoiber, débutait à 11h et devrait définitivement ratifier l’accord. Les négociations formelles entre sociaux-démocrates et conservateurs débuteront la semaine prochaine, a indiqué une source proche de la CSU. L’annonce d’un accord a été saluée à la Bourse de Francfort, où le Dax a gagné 0,8%.

(1) La CDU-CSU ne dispose que de quatre sièges d’avance sur le SPD au Bundestag (226 contre 222).

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=329956
—-
La direction du SPD approuve une grande coalition dirigée par Angela Merkel
LEMONDE.FR | 10.10.05 | 10h39 •  Mis à jour le 10.10.05 | 15h17

e SPD et la CDU-CSU sont finalement parvenus à un accord, en vertu duquel Angela Merkel va devenir la chancelière de l’Allemagne. Le direction du SPD a approuvé, lundi 10 octobre, cet accord, a indiqué un porte-parole du parti. Cette décision aurait été prise dimanche soir au cours d’une réunion au sommet entre le Parti social-démocrate et l’Union chrétienne-démocrate, d’après les médias allemands.

 
Le président du SPD, Franz Müntefering, et Angela Merkel, la chef de file des conservateurs, devaient informer de ce résultat leurs directions respectives réunies lundi matin, à 9 heures. Ensuite, une nouvelle réunion au sommet doit avoir lieu à 11 heures, entre Gerhard Schröder, Franz Müntefering, Angela Merkel et son allié Edmund Stoiber, président de la CSU, la petite sœur bavaroise de la CDU.

POSTES-CLÉS POUR LE SPD ?

Les négociations pour un gouvernement de coalition vont pouvoir commencer officiellement, la CDU refusant de se lancer dans de telles discussions avant la désignation du chancelier. Les négociations formelles devraient débuter la semaine du 17 octobre, d’après une source proche des Chrétiens démocrates. Mais plusieurs hypothèses ont déjà filtré sur la composition de ce gouvernement.

Le SPD obtiendrait les postes-clés, notamment les affaires étrangères, les finances, le travail et la justice, d’après certains médias allemands qui citaient lundi matin des sources proches du SPD. Le Parti social-démocrate obtiendrait aussi les portefeuilles des transports, de l’environnement, de la coopération et de la santé. Pour le poste des affaires étrangères, le ministre sortant de la défense, Peter Struck, est pressenti. De son côté, la CDU prendrait en charge l’économie, l’intérieur, la défense, l’agriculture, la formation et la famille. Edmund Stoiberdevrait prendre la tête du ministère de l’économie.

INCERTITUDES SUR LE SORT DE GERHARD SCHRÖDER

Par ailleurs, Gerhard Schröder serait lui-même absent de ce gouvernement de coalition, a-t-on appris de source proche de la direction de la CSU. L’avenir politique du chancelier sortant fait l’objet de nombreuses spéculations en Allemagne. Dimanche, le quotiden populaire Bild évoquait la possibilité qu’il devienne vice-chancelier et ministre des affaires étrangères du futur gouvernement. Cette hypothèse est toutefois peu vraisembable de l’avis de nombreux observateurs, étant donné les relations personnelles exécrables entre le chancelier sortant et Mme Merkel.

Le député de l’Union chrétienne-démocrate (CDU), Norbert Lammert, est pressenti pour succéder au social-démocrate Wolfgang Thierse au poste de président de la nouvelle Chambre basse du Parlement (Bundestag), d’après des sources proches de la CDU. En Allemagne, le président du Bundestag est dans l’ordre protocolaire le deuxième homme d’Etat derrière le président de la République. M. Lammert était vice-président dans la précédente assemblée qui avait été dissoute pour permettre l’organisation d’élections législatives anticipées le 18 septembre.

Avec AFP, AP, Reuters

————————————————————————————————————————
La coalition gauche-droite n’est “pas une tradition française”, pour le PS
Le PS a pris ses distances, lundi, avec l’accord entre chrétiens-démocrates et sociaux-démocrates pour un gouvernement de coalition en Allemagne, en déclarant qu’un tel schéma n’était “pas une tradition française”. L’Allemagne vit “une situation particulière, avec des circonstances exceptionnelles. Il y a une spécificité, une tradition qui veut que dans des situations de crise grave, il puisse y avoir des gouvernements d’union nationale”, a affirmé le porte-parole du PS, Julien Dray. Selon lui, “il appartient au SPD d’apprécier la réalité de cette situation, il appartient au peuple allemand, après, de juger (...) Mais c’est une spécificité allemande, ce n’est pas une tradition française, ce n’est pas quelque chose qui existe dans notre histoire”.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-697606@51-642773,0.html
—-

Merkel to be German leader as Schröder steps aside
>By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin

Angela Merkel, the opposition Christian Democratic leader, is to become Germany’s first female chancellor, and the first from the former Communist east, at the head of a “grand coalition” government, it was confirmed on Monday.

The deal, which will see the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Union rule together for the first time since 1966, was struck late on Sunday night, three weeks after a general election delivered a hung parliament.

In return for dropping its demand that chancellor Gerhard Schröder should remain in office, the SPD will obtain eight portfolios in the new cabinet, including foreign policy, finance, labour and social security, development, justice, health, environment, and transport.

In addition to the chancellery and the position of chancellery chief of staff, which is to be upgraded to a full cabinet position, the CDU and its Christian Social Union Bavarian sister party will obtain six portfolios: economics and innovation; defence; home affairs; consumer protection and agriculture; education and research; as well as families, the elderly and youth.

The agreement, which also provides for the CDU to name the next president of the house, was approved by the two parties’ Präsidums, or top executive body, on Monday morning and will be put to the enlarged executives early this afternoon.

Participants described a sombre mood in the SPD Präsidium, where left-wingers and reformists had been arguing over the weekend about the staffing of the SPD side of the future cabinet. Hefty discussions were expected in the enlarged executive, or Vorstand, later in the day.

The deal over the chancellery and the distribution of portfolios by no means marks the end of the bipartite talks. The two sides will now enter formal coalition negotiations to draft a government platform. These are expected to extend over two to three weeks.

According to leaks from the draft coalition outline presented to the parties on Monday, the CDU had agreed to substantially water down its labour market reforms, abandoning a plan to decentralise wage negotiations that would have weakened the influence of trade unions.

Once the two have reached an agreement on policies, a new government will be formed and Ms Merkel formally elected by the house as chancellor by mid-November.

A question mark was still hanging on Monday morning over who would fill the cabinet positions.

The leaders of the SPD’s left wing have campaigned against several SPD reformists, arguing that they were too closely identified with Agenda 2010, Mr Schröder’s package of economic reforms, whose unpopularity was blamed for the party’s poor electoral showing.

These included Peer Steinbrück, the former SPD state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia and prominent right-winger in the party, being mulled on Monday for the finance portfolio.

Wolfgang Clement, the economics and labour minister is now the top candidate to take over a new portfolio for labour and social security. He is also a controversial choice for the left wing. So are Ulla Schmidt, the health minister expected to remain in office; Brigitte Zypries, the outgoing justice minister; and Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Mr Schröder’s chief of staff, who could take over the transport portfolio.

More agreeable to the left are Michael Müller, the leading SPD left-winger in parliament now expected to become environment minister, and Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, current and possibly future development minister.

One SPD left-winger in parliament told the FT he would not vote for Ms Merkel as chancellor when the new house reconvenes. Resistance from the SPD’s left wing, however, should not prevent Ms Merkel from entering the chancellery, as a grand coalition would have a majority of well over 150 seats in the house.

On the conservative side, Edmund Stoiber, the chairman of the CSU, looked almost certain to become economics and innovation minister. Wolfgang Bosbach, a CDU MP and home affairs expert, and Wolfgang Schäuble, a former CDU chairman, were both being rumoured as interior minister. Michael Glos, the CSU leader in the house, could become defence minister.

Among the unresolved questions was the future role of Mr Schröder. Although he will not assume a cabinet role, the chancellor is expected, alongside Franz Müntefering, the SPD chairman, to lead coalition negotiations expected to begin this week.

It is unclear whether the chancellor, who will formally remain in office until Ms Merkel is elected chancellor next month, would represent Germany at the European Union’s informal summit outside London on October 27.
 
Published: October 10 2005 12:01 | Last updated: October 10 2005 12:01
>>

Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b774ffc-397b-11da-806e-00000e2511c8,ft_acl=,s01=1.html 

depuis http://mirror.co.uk

8 October 2005
IS THIS THE DEATH OF AMERICA?
America’s sense of itself - its pride in its power - has been profoundly damaged.
By Dermot Purgavie, Veteran US Correspondent

THIS week Karen Hughes, long-time political adviser to George Bush, began her new mission as the State Department’s official defender of America’s image with a tour of the Middle East.

She might have been more help to her beleaguered president had she stayed at home and used her PR skills on her neighbours. At the end of a cruel and turbulent summer, nobody is more dismayed and demoralised about America than Americans.

They have watched with growing disbelief and horror as a convergence of events - dominated by the unending war in Iraq and two hurricanes - have exposed ugly and disturbing things in the undergrowth that shame and embarrass Americans and undermine their belief in the nation and its values.

With TV providing a ceaseless backdrop of the country’s failings - a crippled and tone-deaf president, a negligent government, corruption, military atrocities, soaring debt, racial conflict, poverty, bloated bodies in floodwater, people dying on camera for want of food, water and medicine - it seemed things were falling apart in the land where happiness is promoted in the constitution.

Disillusioning news was everywhere. In the flight from Hurricane Rita, evacuees fought knife fights over cans of petrol. In storm-hit Louisiana there were long queues at gun stores as people armed themselves against looters.

AMERICA, which has the world’s costliest health care, had, it turned out, higher infant mortality rates than the broke and despised Cuba.

Tom De Lay, Republican enforcer in the House of Representatives, was indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. The leader of the Republicans in the Senate was under investigation for his stock dealings. And Osama bin Laden was still on the loose.

Americans are the planet’s biggest flag wavers. They are reared on the conceit that theirs is the world’s best and most enviable country, born only the day before yesterday but a model society with freedom, opportunity and prosperity not found, they think, in older cultures.

They rejoice that “We are No.1”, and in many ways they are.

But events have revealed a creeping mildew of pain and privation, graft and injustice and much incompetence lurking beneath the glow of star-spangled superiority.

Many here feel the country is breaking down and losing its moral and political authority.

“US in funk” say the headlines. “I am ashamed to be an American,” say the letters to the editor. We are seeing, say the commentators, a crumbling - and humbling - of America.

The catalogue of afflictions is long and grisly. Hurricane Katrina revealed confusion and incompetence throughout government, from town hall to White House.

President Bush, accused of an alarming failure of leadership over the disaster, has now been to the Gulf coast seven times for carefully orchestrated photo opps.

But his approval has dropped below 40 per cent. Public doubt about his capacity to deal with pressing problems is growing.

Americans feel ashamed by the violent, predatory behaviour Katrina triggered - nothing similar happened in the tsunami-hit Third World countries - and by the deep racial and class divisions it revealed.

The press has since been giving the country a crash course on poverty and race, informing the flag wavers that an uncaring America may be No.1 on the world inequities index.

IT has 37 million living under the poverty line, largely unnoticed by the richest in a country with more than three million millionaires.

The typical white family has $80,000 in assets; the average black family about $6,000. It’s a wealth gap out of the Middle Ages. Some 46 million can’t afford health insurance, 18,000 of whom will die early because of it.

The US, we learn, is 43rd in the world infant mortality rankings. A baby born in Beijing has nearly three times the chance of reaching its first birthday than a baby born in Washington. Those who survive face rotten schools. On reading and maths tests for 15-year-olds, America is 24th out of 29 nations.

On the other side of the tracks, 18 corporate executives have so far been jailed for cooking the books and looting billions. The prosecution of Mr Bush’s pals at Enron - the showcase trial of the greed-is-good culture - will be soon.

But the backroom deal lives on and, in an orgy of cronyism, billions of dollars are being carved up in no-bid contracts awarded to politically-connected firms for work in the hurricane-hit states and in Iraq.

The war, seen as unwinnable, is becoming a bleak burden, with nearly 2,000 American dead. Two-thirds think the invasion was a mistake.

The war costs $6billion a month, driving up a nose-bleed high $331billion budget deficit. In five years the conflict will have cost each American family $11,300, it is said.

Mr Bush says blithely he’ll cut existing programmes to pay for the war and fund an estimated $200billion for hurricane damage. He won’t, he says, rescind his tax cuts. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says Mr Bush is “disconnected from reality”.

Americans have been angered by a reports that US troops have routinely tortured Iraqi prisoners. Some 230 low-rankers have been convicted - but not one general or Pentagon overseer. Disgruntled young officers are leaving in increasing numbers.

Meanwhile, further damaging Americans’ self image, there’s Afghanistan. The White House says its operations there were a success, yet last year Afghanistan supplied 90 per cent of the world’s heroin.

America’s sense of itself - its pride in its power and authority, its faith in its institutions and its belief in its leaders - has been profoundly damaged. And now the talking heads in Washington predict dramatic political change and the death of the Republicans’ hope of becoming the permanent government.

Il m’avait semblé aussi, dans une démarche de “guerre économique”, que le régime de Saddam Hussein avait pour projet de mettre en place un réglement en euros de son pétrole. Un élément qui avait été passé complètement inaperçu à l’époque (eh oui, plus de deux ans déjà ...) et la question à poser est la suivante : est ce que cette décision (libeller le petrole iraquien en euros) et tout ce qu’elle implique (effet boule de neige chez le voisin iranien…) n’aurait pas inciter l’administration US a “presser le pas” vers un conflit ? L’effet boule de neige n’aurait pas atteint les monarchies du golfe qui possède, comme ils disent, des “closes ties” avec les US, mais indubitablement ce mouvement aurait pour effet d’ébranler les positions US sur l’aspect monétaire et financier ... En ce sens, S. Hussein possèdait bien une “weapon of mass destruction” mais pas celle que tout le monde croyait ...

Vous pourrez trouver des nouvelles de dernières heures touchant différents sujets mettant en péril nos droits les plus élémentaires. Rendez-vous sur http://www.theresistancemanifesto.com/index.php
Vidéo et documents officiels,

Dans la partie forum, il y a une section pour les francophones.

Al Gore nous parle de l’étrangeté (“strangeness”) de discours publics qui se formulent aujourd’hui en Amérique. Son discours semble témoigner d’une certaine conscience du caractère fabriqué du monde informationnel qui est le nôtre, autrement dit, de quelque chose de l’ordre du virtualisme…

Si ça continue comme ça, Al Gore va-t-il prendre un abonnment à De Defensa ???

Plus sérieusement, les membres du Parti Démocrate (ou du moin certains d’entre eux)  commenceraient-ils à se réveiller un tantinet ? Et quand bien même serait-ce le cas, pourraient-ils changer quoi que ce soit à la machine informationnelle telle qu’elle fonctionne ? On peut hélas sérieusement en douter…
——————————————————————————————

Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Al Gore Addresses We Media

Al Gore Addresses We Media
Originally uploaded by MC We Media.

Here is the text of former Vice President Al Gore’s remarks at the We Media conference on Wednesday in New York:

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America’s fabled “marketplace of ideas” now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it’s almost as if America has entered “an alternate universe”?

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?

On the eve of the nation’s decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: “Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?”

The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, “The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history.”

But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd’s question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn’t it? Aren’t we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?

Those of us who have served in the Senate and watched it change over time, could volunteer an answer to Senator Byrd’s two questions: the Senate was silent on the eve of war because Senators don’t feel that what they say on the floor of the Senate really matters that much any more. And the chamber was empty because the Senators were somewhere else: they were in fundraisers collecting money from special interests in order to buy 30-second TVcommercials for their next re-election campaign.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was - at least for a short time - a quality of vividness and clarity of focus in our public discourse that reminded some Americans - including some journalists - that vividness and clarity used to be more common in the way we talk with one another about the problems and choices that we face. But then, like a passing summer storm, the moment faded.

In fact there was a time when America’s public discourse was consistently much more vivid, focused and clear. Our Founders, probably the most literate generation in all of history, used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason.

Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well- informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.

The values that Americans had brought from Europe to the New World had grown out of the sudden explosion of literacy and knowledge after Gutenberg’s disruptive invention broke up the stagnant medieval information monopoly and triggered the Reformation, Humanism, and the Enlightenment and enshrined a new sovereign: the “Rule of Reason.”

Indeed, the self-governing republic they had the audacity to establish was later named by the historian Henry Steele Commager as “the Empire of Reason.”

Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others—but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.

Their world was dominated by the printed word. Just as the proverbial fish doesn’t know it lives in water, the United States in its first half century knew nothing but the world of print: the Bible, Thomas Paine’s fiery call to revolution, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution , our laws, the Congressional Record, newspapers and books.

Though they feared that a government might try to censor the printing press - as King George had done - they could not imagine that America’s public discourse would ever consist mainly of something other than words in print.

And yet, as we meet here this morning, more than 40 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers and, for the most part, resisting the temptation to inflate their circulation numbers. Reading itself is in sharp decline, not only in our country but in most of the world. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by television.

Radio, the internet, movies, telephones, and other media all now vie for our attention - but it is television that still completely dominates the flow of information in modern America. In fact, according to an authoritative global study, Americans now watch television an average of four hours and 28 minutes every day—90 minutes more than the world average.

When you assume eight hours of work a day, six to eight hours of sleep and a couple of hours to bathe, dress, eat and commute, that is almost three-quarters of all the discretionary time that the average American has. And for younger Americans, the average is even higher.

The internet is a formidable new medium of communication, but it is important to note that it still doesn’t hold a candle to television. Indeed, studies show that the majority of Internet users are actually simultaneously watching television while they are online. There is an important reason why television maintains such a hold on its viewers in a way that the internet does not, but I’ll get to that in a few minutes.

Television first overtook newsprint to become the dominant source of information in America in 1963. But for the next two decades, the television networks mimicked the nation’s leading newspapers by faithfully following the standards of the journalism profession. Indeed, men like Edward R. Murrow led the profession in raising the bar.

But all the while, television’s share of the total audience for news and information continued to grow—and its lead over newsprint continued to expand. And then one day, a smart young political consultant turned to an older elected official and succinctly described a new reality in America’s public discourse: “If it’s not on television, it doesn’t exist.”

But some extremely important elements of American Democracy have been pushed to the sidelines . And the most prominent casualty has been the “marketplace of ideas” that was so beloved and so carefully protected by our Founders. It effectively no longer exists.

It is not that we no longer share ideas with one another about public matters; of course we do. But the “Public Forum” in which our Founders searched for general agreement and applied the Rule of Reason has been grossly distorted and “restructured” beyond all recognition.

And here is my point: it is the destruction of that marketplace of ideas that accounts for the “strangeness” that now continually haunts our efforts to reason together about the choices we must make as a nation.

Whether it is called a Public Forum, or a “Public Sphere” , or a marketplace of ideas, the reality of open and free public discussion and debate was considered central to the operation of our democracy in America’s earliest decades.

In fact, our first self-expression as a nation - “We the People” - made it clear where the ultimate source of authority lay. It was universally understood that the ultimate check and balance for American government was its accountability to the people. And the public forum was the place where the people held the government accountable. That is why it was so important that the marketplace of ideas operated independent from and beyond the authority of government.

The three most important characteristics of this marketplace of ideas were:

1) It was open to every individual, with no barriers to entry, save the necessity of literacy. This access, it is crucial to add, applied not only to the receipt of information but also to the ability to contribute information directly into the flow of ideas that was available to all; 2) The fate of ideas contributed by individuals depended, for the most part, on an emergent Meritocracy of Ideas. Those judged by the market to be good rose to the top, regardless of the wealth or class of the individual responsible for them; 3) The accepted rules of discourse presumed that the participants were all governed by an unspoken duty to search for general agreement. That is what a “Conversation of Democracy” is all about.

What resulted from this shared democratic enterprise was a startling new development in human history: for the first time, knowledge regularly mediated between wealth and power.

The liberating force of this new American reality was thrilling to all humankind. Thomas Jefferson declared, “I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” It ennobled the individual and unleashed the creativity of the human spirit. It inspired people everywhere to dream of what they could yet become. And it emboldened Americans to bravely explore the farther frontiers of freedom - for African Americans, for women, and eventually, we still dream, for all.

And just as knowledge now mediated between wealth and power, self- government was understood to be the instrument with which the people embodied their reasoned judgments into law. The Rule of Reason under- girded and strengthened the rule of law.

But to an extent seldom appreciated, all of this - including especially the ability of the American people to exercise the reasoned collective judgments presumed in our Founders’ design—depended on the particular characteristics of the marketplace of ideas as it operated during the Age of Print.

Consider the rules by which our present “public forum” now operates, and how different they are from the forum our Founders knew. Instead of the easy and free access individuals had to participate in the national conversation by means of the printed word, the world of television makes it virtually impossible for individuals to take part in what passes for a national conversation today.

Inexpensive metal printing presses were almost everywhere in America. They were easily accessible and operated by printers eager to typeset essays, pamphlets, books or flyers.

Television stations and networks, by contrast, are almost completely inaccessible to individual citizens and almost always uninterested in ideas contributed by individual citizens.

Ironically, television programming is actually more accessible to more people than any source of information has ever been in all of history. But here is the crucial distinction: it is accessible in only one direction; there is no true interactivity, and certainly no conversation.

The number of cables connecting to homes is limited in each community and usually forms a natural monopoly. The broadcast and satellite spectrum is likewise a scarce and limited resource controlled by a few. The production of programming has been centralized and has usually required a massive capital investment. So for these and other reasons, an ever-smaller number of large corporations control virtually all of the television programming in America.

Soon after television established its dominance over print, young people who realized they were being shut out of the dialogue of democracy came up with a new form of expression in an effort to join the national conversation: the “demonstration.” This new form of expression, which began in the 1960s, was essentially a poor quality theatrical production designed to capture the attention of the television cameras long enough to hold up a sign with a few printed words to convey, however plaintively, a message to the American people. Even this outlet is now rarely an avenue for expression on national television.

So, unlike the marketplace of ideas that emerged in the wake of the printing press, there is virtually no exchange of ideas at all in television’s domain. My partner Joel Hyatt and I are trying to change that - at least where Current TV is concerned. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are the only independently owned news and information network in all of American television.

It is important to note that the absence of a two-way conversation in American television also means that there is no “meritocracy of ideas” on television. To the extent that there is a “marketplace” of any kind for ideas on television, it is a rigged market, an oligopoly, with imposing barriers to entry that exclude the average citizen.

The German philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, describes what has happened as “the refeudalization of the public sphere.” That may sound like gobbledygook, but it’s a phrase that packs a lot of meaning. The feudal system which thrived before the printing press democratized knowledge and made the idea of America thinkable, was a system in which wealth and power were intimately intertwined, and where knowledge played no mediating role whatsoever. The great mass of the people were ignorant. And their powerlessness was born of their ignorance.

It did not come as a surprise that the concentration of control over this powerful one-way medium carries with it the potential for damaging the operations of our democracy. As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, “no nation can be free.”

As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.—including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine - though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.

And radio is not the only place where big changes have taken place. Television news has undergone a series of dramatic changes. The movie “Network,” which won the Best Picture Oscar in 1976, was presented as a farce but was actually a prophecy. The journalism profession morphed into the news business, which became the media industry and is now completely owned by conglomerates.

The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.

The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.

For these and other reasons, The US Press was recently found in a comprehensive international study to be only the 27th freest press in the world. And that too seems strange to me.

Among the other factors damaging our public discourse in the media, the imposition by management of entertainment values on the journalism profession has resulted in scandals, fabricated sources, fictional events and the tabloidization of mainstream news. As recently stated by Dan Rather - who was, of course, forced out of his anchor job after angering the White House - television news has been “dumbed down and tarted up.”

The coverage of political campaigns focuses on the “horse race” and little else. And the well-known axiom that guides most local television news is “if it bleeds, it leads.” (To which some disheartened journalists add, “If it thinks, it stinks.”)

In fact, one of the few things that Red state and Blue state America agree on is that they don’t trust the news media anymore.

Clearly, the purpose of television news is no longer to inform the American people or serve the public interest. It is to “glue eyeballs to the screen” in order to build ratings and sell advertising. If you have any doubt, just look at what’s on: The Robert Blake trial. The Laci Peterson tragedy. The Michael Jackson trial. The Runaway Bride. The search in Aruba. The latest twist in various celebrity couplings, and on and on and on.

And more importantly, notice what is not on: the global climate crisis, the nation’s fiscal catastrophe, the hollowing out of America’s industrial base, and a long list of other serious public questions that need to be addressed by the American people.

One morning not long ago, I flipped on one of the news programs in hopes of seeing information about an important world event that had happened earlier that day. But the lead story was about a young man who had been hiccupping for three years. And I must say, it was interesting; he had trouble getting dates. But what I didn’t see was news.

This was the point made by Jon Stewart, the brilliant host of “The Daily Show,” when he visited CNN’s “Crossfire”: there should be a distinction between news and entertainment.

And it really matters because the subjugation of news by entertainment seriously harms our democracy: it leads to dysfunctional journalism that fails to inform the people. And when the people are not informed, they cannot hold government accountable when it is incompetent, corrupt, or both.

One of the only avenues left for the expression of public or political ideas on television is through the purchase of advertising, usually in 30-second chunks. These short commercials are now the principal form of communication between candidates and voters. As a result, our elected officials now spend all of their time raising money to purchase these ads.

That is why the House and Senate campaign committees now search for candidates who are multi-millionaires and can buy the ads with their own personal resources. As one consequence, the halls of Congress are now filling up with the wealthy.

Campaign finance reform, however well it is drafted, often misses the main point: so long as the only means of engaging in political dialogue is through purchasing expensive television advertising, money will continue by one means or another to dominate American politic s. And ideas will no longer mediate between wealth and power.

And what if an individual citizen, or a group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But they are not even allowed to do that.

Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush’s Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told “issue advocacy” was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President’s Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad.

The advertising of products, of course, is the real purpose of television. And it is difficult to overstate the extent to which modern pervasive electronic advertising has reshaped our society. In the 1950s, John Kenneth Galbraith first described the way in which advertising has altered the classical relationship by which supply and demand are balanced over time by the invisible hand of the marketplace. According to Galbraith, modern advertising campaigns were beginning to create high levels of demand for products that consumers never knew they wanted, much less needed.

The same phenomenon Galbraith noticed in the commercial marketplace is now the dominant fact of life in what used to be America’s marketplace for ideas. The inherent value or validity of political propositions put forward by candidates for office is now largely irrelevant compared to the advertising campaigns that shape the perceptions of voters.

Our democracy has been hallowed out. The opinions of the voters are, in effect, purchased, just as demand for new products is artificially created. Decades ago Walter Lippman wrote, “the manufacture of consent…was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy…but it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique…under the impact of propaganda, it is no longer plausible to believe in the original dogma of democracy.”

Like you, I recoil at Lippman’s cynical dismissal of America’s gift to human history. But in order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum and create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the Rule of Reason. We must, for example, stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public’s ability to discern the truth.

I don’t know all the answers, but along with my partner, Joel Hyatt, I am trying to work within the medium of television to recreate a multi- way conversation that includes individuals and operates according to a meritocracy of ideas. If you would like to know more, we are having a press conference on Friday morning at the Regency Hotel.

We are learning some fascinating lessons about the way decisions are made in the television industry, and it may well be that the public would be well served by some changes in law and policy to stimulate more diversity of viewpoints and a higher regard for the public interest. But we are succeeding within the marketplace by reaching out to individuals and asking them to co-create our network.

The greatest source of hope for reestablishing a vigorous and accessible marketplace for ideas is the Internet. Indeed, Current TV relies on video streaming over the Internet as the means by which individuals send us what we call viewer-created content or VC squared. We also rely on the Internet for the two-way conversation that we have every day with our viewers enabling them to participate in the decisions on programming our network.

I know that many of you attending this conference are also working on creative ways to use the Internet as a means for bringing more voices into America’s ongoing conversation. I salute you as kindred spirits and wish you every success.

I want to close with the two things I’ve learned about the Internet that are most directly relevant to the conference that you are having here today.

First, as exciting as the Internet is, it still lacks the single most powerful characteristic of the television medium; because of its packet-switching architecture, and its continued reliance on a wide variety of bandwidth connections (including the so-called “last mile” to the home), it does not support the real-time mass distribution of full-motion video.

Make no mistake, full-motion video is what makes television such a powerful medium. Our brains - like the brains of all vertebrates - are hard-wired to immediately notice sudden movement in our field of vision. We not only notice, we are compelled to look. When our evolutionary predecessors gathered on the African savanna a million years ago and the leaves next to them moved, the ones who didn’t look are not our ancestors. The ones who did look passed on to us the genetic trait that neuroscientists call “the establishing reflex.” And that is the brain syndrome activated by television continuously - sometimes as frequently as once per second. That is the reason why the industry phrase, “glue eyeballs to the screen,” is actually more than a glib and idle boast. It is also a major part of the reason why Americans watch the TV screen an average of four and a half hours a day.

It is true that video streaming is becoming more common over the Internet, and true as well that cheap storage of streamed video is making it possible for many young television viewers to engage in what the industry calls “time shifting” and personalize their television watching habits. Moreover, as higher bandwidth connections continue to replace smaller information pipelines, the Internet’s capacity for carrying television will continue to dramatically improve. But in spite of these developments, it is television delivered over cable and satellite that will continue for the remainder of this decade and probably the next to be the dominant medium of communication in America’s democracy. And so long as that is the case, I truly believe that America’s democracy is at grave risk.

The final point I want to make is this: We must ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all citizens without any limitation on the ability of individuals to choose the content they wish regardless of the Internet service provider they use to connect to the Worldwide Web. We cannot take this future for granted. We must be prepared to fight for it because some of the same forces of corporate consolidation and control that have distorted the television marketplace have an interest in controlling the Internet marketplace as well. Far too much is at stake to ever allow that to happen.

We must ensure by all means possible that this medium of democracy’s future develops in the mold of the open and free marketplace of ideas that our Founders knew was essential to the health and survival of freedom.

Texte disponible à différents endroits et notamment à : http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2IU703.html