Le futur est déjà là – il est juste encore inégalement réparti. William Gibson
I think in some very real sense part of the world’s population is already posthuman. Consider the health options available to a millionaire in Beverly Hills as opposed to a man starving in the streets in Bangladesh. The man in Beverly Hills can, in effect, buy himself a new set of organs. I mean, when you look at that sort of gap, the man in Bangladesh is still human. He’s a human being from an agricultural planet. The man in Beverly Hills is something else. He may still be human, but he, in some way, I think he is also posthuman. The future has already happened. William Gibson
J’ai senti que j’essayais de décrire un présent impensable, mais en réalité je sens que le meilleur usage que l’on puisse faire de la science-fiction aujourd’hui est d’explorer la réalité contemporaine au lieu d’essayer de prédire l’avenir… La meilleure chose à faire avec la science aujourd’hui, c’est de l’utiliser pour explorer le présent. La Terre est la planète alien d’aujourd’hui. William Gibson
Toute technologie émergente échappe spontanément à tout contrôle et ses répercussions sont imprévisibles. William Gibson
What we call technology in our science is almost always emergent technology. … They don’t mean the technology we’ve had for 50 years, which has already changed us more than we’re capable of knowing. When I say technology, I’m sort of thinking of the whole anthill we’ve been heaping up since we came out of the caves, really. So we’re living on top of a quite randomly constructed heap of technologies that were once new, and that now we don’t even think of as technology. People think technology is something we bring home in a box from some kind of future shop.(…) When I watch my work sort of travel down the timeline of the real future, I just see it acquiring that beautiful, absolutely standard patina of wacky quaintness that any imaginary future will always acquire. That’s where your flying car and your food pills all live — and all the other stuff they promised our parents. (…) I’ve been writing stuff set in the 21st century since 1981. Now that I’ve actually arrived into the 21st century the hard way, the real 21st century is so much wackier and more perverse than anything I’ve been able to make up. I wake up in the morning, look at the newsfeed on my computer and away I go. William Gibson
L’Etat islamique n’est pas le premier groupe jihadiste coupeur de têtes. Son ancêtre, Al-Qaïda en Irak, a décapité de nombreux otages dans les années 2000, tout comme le Groupe islamique armé (GIA) algérien dans les années 1990. Outre l’objectif d’inspirer la terreur par un acte barbare, la décapitation a des motivations historiques et religieuses. Comme l’expliquait Jeune Afrique en 2004, elle fait partie de l’histoire de l’islam, avec notamment plusieurs intellectuels décapités au Xe siècle. On trouve également sa trace dans deux sourates du Coran (8, verset 12 et 47, verset 4) où il est conseillé de frapper ses adversaires au cou. Francetvinfo
Le CRC a en outre dénoncé les nombreux cas d’enfants, notamment appartenant à des minorités, auxquels l’Etat islamique a fait subir des violences sexuelles et d’autres tortures ou qu’il a purement et simplement assassinés. Le CRC rapporte « plusieurs cas d’exécutions de masse de garçons, ainsi que des décapitations, des crucifixions et des ensevelissements d’enfants vivants ». Les enfants de minorités ont été capturés dans nombre d’endroits, vendus sur des marchés avec sur eux des étiquettes portant des prix, ils ont été vendus comme esclaves », poursuit le rapport du CRC. (…) Le comité a toutefois souligné que certaines violations des droits des enfants ne pouvaient être attribuées aux seuls djihadistes. De précédents rapports relevaient ainsi que des mineurs étaient obligés d’être de faction à des postes de contrôle tenus par les forces gouvernementales ou que des enfants étaient emprisonnés dans des conditions difficiles à la suite d’accusations de terrorisme, et dénonçaient également des mariages forcés de fillettes de 11 ans. Une loi permettant aux violeurs d’éviter toute poursuite judiciaire à condition de se marier avec leurs victimes s’est particulièrement attirée les foudres du CRC, qui a rejeté l’argument des autorités de Bagdad selon lesquelles c’était « le seul moyen de protéger la victime des représailles de sa famille ».Le Nouvel Observateur
Il pourrait être un savant fou. Mais Sergio Canavero est neurochirurgien à l’université de Turin, spécialiste de la stimulation cérébrale. Son projet est pourtant incroyable : transplanter la tête d’un homme sur le corps d’un autre ! « Une folie qui permettrait aux tétraplégiques de marcher, dit-il, et aux cerveaux les plus brillants de ne jamais disparaître… »Paris Match
Je pratiquerai une découpe de la moelle épinière particulièrement nette, à l’aide de lames beaucoup plus tranchantes et précises que celles utilisées auparavant. Ensuite, pour que le sujet greffé puisse retrouver toutes ses facultés motrices, nous appliquerons du PEG-chitosane sur les extrémités de la moelle, restaurant ainsi 30 % à 60 % des fibres. C’est suffisant pour la motricité.(…) Des personnes souffrant de graves dysfonctionnements neuromusculaires ou des malades au stade initial d’Alzheimer. Cette opération leur serait utile car il semble que les tissus neufs du corps peuvent avoir un effet rajeunissant sur ceux de la tête par le simple biais de la circulation sanguine. (…) Il me faut deux ans pour coordonner une équipe d’environ 100 à 150 chirurgiens, anesthésiologistes, techniciens et infirmières. J’évalue une transplantation de tête à 10 millions d’euros. Une somme considérable que gagnent chaque année certains footballeurs… (…) Mes recherches pourraient sauver des personnes. Et notre expérience ouvre la possibilité de la vie éternelle. La vraie question éthique serait plutôt : à qui donner accès à cette vie éternelle ? Que se passerait-il si un vieux milliardaire réclamait un nouveau corps ? Les médecins se serviraient-ils dans les prisons, comme c’est déjà le cas pour certains organes ? Des questions qu’il vaut mieux poser dès à présent. (…) Nombreux sont les neurologues qui pensent, comme moi, que le cerveau n’est qu’un filtre, que la conscience est générée ailleurs. Des transferts de souvenirs ont été observés à l’occasion d’une greffe de cœur ! Sergio Canavero
Techniquement, c’est faisable. Mis à part le rétablissement de la continuité de la moelle épinière sectionnée. Mais éthiquement, ce projet me paraît difficile. On est dans le même domaine que pour la greffe du visage. Ce n’est pas une transplantation d’un rein ou du pancréas. On touche ici à des choses qui définissent la personne humaine. (…) Le questionnement éthique doit venir avant la démarche technique. Au moins aller de pair. La science qui avance sans éthique relève du fascisme. (…) Je n’y ai pas réfléchi profondément mais cela pousse la science très loin. A force de se prendre pour Dieu, on finit par créer des monstres. Je ne pense pas que l’on soit censé vivre indéfiniment. C’est mon point de vue d’homme. Sur le plan médical, c’est probablement faisable. Avec le bémol de la repousse de la moelle, l’hypothèse de Canavero, encore jamais prouvée sur l’homme, ne sera pas possible avant 20-30 ans.Dr Sorin Aldea (Neurochirurgien, hôpital Foch, Suresnes)
On a commencé avec la déconstruction du langage et on finit avec la déconstruction de l’être humain dans le laboratoire. (…) Elle est proposée par les mêmes qui d’un côté veulent prolonger la vie indéfiniment et nous disent de l’autre que le monde est surpeuplé. René Girard
La pointe d’un obus plantée dans l’œil de la Lune. Il aura suffi de cette image pour faire du Voyage dans la Lune le film muet le plus célèbre de l’histoire du cinéma. (…) cet œil rendu borgne par des spationautes conquérants est inscrit dans le patrimoine collectif. Les quatorze minutes de ce qui en son temps (1902) a été le plus long film jamais réalisé jusque-là, resurgissent aujourd’hui, dans une version coloriée qu’on croyait perdue à jamais. Ce retour, visible désormais en DVD, tient du miracle. Il est en partie le fruit d’aléas qui ont révélé l’existence de la bobine, et le résultat de l’acharnement d’une poignée de passionnés têtus, qui ont travaillé pendant de longues années pour réanimer une œuvre moribonde. (…) « Il faut penser qu’à cette même époque il fallait entre 15 et 20 minutes pour saisir avec précision chaque image. Le Voyage dans la Lune en compte 13 795. A ce rythme, il nous aurait fallu dix ans pour venir à bout de la restauration.» Alors, en attendant des temps plus propices et des moyens appropriés, l’opération est mise en jachère. Elle est définitivement relancée en 2010, sept ans plus tard. De nouveaux logiciels ont fait leur apparition entre-temps. Les ingénieurs en audiovisuel peuvent donc se pencher sur le cas Méliès. (…) En 2011, le nouveau Voyage dans la Lune est enfin prêt. (…) L’ultime étape de la restauration, celle décisive, a entraîné des coûts que Serge Bromberg chiffre à environ 500 000 euros. «Il faut encore ajouter tout le travail en aval, réalisé depuis 1999. Il n’a comporté aucun échange d’argent. Tout a été fait à l’énergie, dans un élan passionné. Mais on peut estimer le budget de l’opération à 1 million d’euros. »Le Temps
Il devient possible de rematérialiser tout ce qui est dématérialisé sur Internet, comme votre mur Facebook qu’on pourra imprimer en dos carré collé ! Hubert Pédurand
Cette machine compacte, de 2 m2 d’empreinte au sol, réalise les mêmes opérations qu’une imprimerie classique. Elle imprime le corpus de pages, façonne et colle la couverture. Pour produire un livre de 200 pages, il faut compter environ cinq minutes. (…) Une application sur smartphone permettra de choisir un livre dans un catalogue. Il sera imprimé à proximité (grâce à la géolocalisation) et sera livré à domicile ou retiré chez le libraire de son choix. (…) On vend un livre avant de l’imprimer alors qu’actuellement, on imprime un livre en espérant qu’il soit vendu. Chaque année en France, 118 millions d’exemplaires partent au pilon. (…) Il y a 70 000 à 80 000 nouvelles éditions par an. Les libraires ne peuvent pas tout avoir en stock. Par ailleurs, 20 % des livres réalisent 80 % du chiffre d’affaires. Les autres manquent de visibilité. Hubert Pédurant (consultant à l’UNIC)
C’est une grande opportunité pour tous. J’ai été surpris par la qualité de l’accueil. Certaines personnes préféraient avoir le livre imprimé devant eux plutôt que déjà publié pour pouvoir le personnaliser, par exemple. Frédéric Mériot (PUF)
Tout le monde est très excité par rapport à cette technologie. Certaines personnes qui ont essayé sans succès les circuits de publication traditionnels viennent ici pour imprimer eux-mêmes leurs ouvrages. Ils sont heureux d’avoir pu trouver le moyen de faire entendre leur voix. Margaret Harrang (employée de McNally Jackson)
Le coût conséquent de la machine, 80 000 euros, ne permettra pas à toutes les librairies d’en faire l’acquisition, mais Frédéric Mériot assure que ce ne sera pas nécessaire. Les librairies pourraient louer la machine et reverser un pourcentage des ventes. Une autre solution, compte tenu de la taille imposante de l’Expresso Book Machine, serait la mise en place d’un réseau permettant aux libraires d’être livrés en quelques heures sans avoir à accueillir la machine dans leurs locaux. L’Orient le jour
Le futur était déjà là et nous ne le savions pas !
Impression à la demande, personnalisabilisation à l’unté ou en très petites séries , encombrement réduit (2 m2 d’empreinte au sol), quasi-suppression des dépenses de transport et de stockage, fin du gaspillage, livraison quasi-instantanée (5 minutes contre 48 h pour Amazon), accès direct au consommateur, remise sur le marché d’ouvrages épuisés depuis parfois des dizaines d’années, rentabilisation de milliers de titres jusque-là voués au pilon (30 000 chaque année), retour du client dans les librairies, revanche du papier sur le numérique, rematérialisation du livre numérique, « YouTube des écrivains », possibilité de très petites séries, livres à compte d’auteur, réduction du bilan carbone …
Et s’étonner encore de ce correspondant américain de France 2 hier soir …
Qui nous faisant découvrir une machine qui équipe depuis dix ans une trentaine d’universités ou librairies américaines …
Mais qui est présentée chez nous depuis autant d’années comme l’avenir de l’impression …
Ne prendre même pas la peine de rappeler qu’il en existe quand même une demi-douzaine en France …
Comme une centaine entre Canada, Australie, Japon, Grande-Bretagne, Pays-Bas, Chine, Abu Dhabi ou Egypte …
Et que celle-ci avait il y a quelques semaines à peine fait les honneurs du Salon du livre ?
L’impression express, un avant-goût du livre du futur
L’impression express donnera-t-elle naissance à la librairie de demain ? On choisit un livre numérique sur un ordinateur qui vous propose des milliers de références, on appuie ensuite sur une touche et on obtient en cinq minutes le livre fraîchement imprimé.
Frédérique Schneider
La Croix
1/4/15
« C’est une grande opportunité pour tous », s’enthousiasme Frédéric Mériot, directeur général des Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), devant la machine transparente qui imprime des pages à toute vitesse. Les PUF et un autre éditeur, La Martinière, ont présenté deux modèles différents de l’« Espresso Book Machine » au dernier salon du livre de Paris.
Et le résultat est étonnant, l’exemplaire imprimé étant quasiment identique à un ouvrage issu d’une imprimerie traditionnelle. Il sera commercialisé au prix unique du livre.
Venue des États-Unis
Aux États-Unis, l’Espresso Book Machine est déjà utilisé dans certaines universités et librairies, comme la McNally Jackson dans le sud de Manhattan, à New York.
La machine présentée par les PUF a été créée par l’entreprise américaine Xérox il y a dix ans et est exploitée en France par Irénéo, programme de recherche sur le livre imprimé à la demande soutenu par l’Idep (Institut de développement et d’expertise plurimedia) et l’Unic (Union nationale des industries de l’impression et de la communication).
Pour Hubert Pédurand, du bureau d’études de l’Unic, « ce nouvel outil rend disponible l’indisponible tout en proposant aux éditeurs d’aller sur des marchés où ils ne sont pas. Cette machine peut être installée dans les librairies mais aussi dans les médiathèques ou les universités ».
Le modèle de La Martinière, plus petit, a été en revanche mis au point par le japonais Ricoh ; il est exploité par la société française Orséry.
Une machine chère et imposante
L’Espresso Book Machine permet de réduire considérablement les dépenses liées au transport et au stockage des ouvrages, mais son coût d’acquisition (100 000 €) semble difficile à supporter pour les libraires. « Ireneo pourra exploiter ses brevets et produire des machines en France espère Hubert Pédurand, ce qui réduira le prix par deux. Restera à trouver un mode de financement permettant aux libraires de s’équiper. Je produis ce que je vais vendre et pas l’inverse, c’est un nouvel écosystème à imaginer. »
« Nous leur proposons de les louer pour 250 € par mois », fait valoir le président d’Orséry, Christian Vié. « Ils encaisseraient en retour 33 % du prix de vente du livre », une marge légèrement supérieure à celle des livres imprimés traditionnellement, ajoute-t-il.
Autre obstacle : la taille de la machine. Si l’objet a de l’allure, un bloc en verre contenant une mini-imprimerie, il reste assez imposant, environ 1,5 mètre de haut sur 2 mètres de large.
Pour ceux qui trouveront ces appareils trop chers ou trop encombrants, les PUF pensent que la solution pourrait passer par la mise en place d’un réseau permettant aux libraires d’être livrés en quelques heures sans avoir l’ « Espresso Book Machine » dans leurs locaux.
Lutter contre Amazon
Des milliers de titres dont la demande est trop basse pour qu’ils soient rentables ne sont plus imprimés avec le modèle traditionnel. Aux PUF par exemple 300 titres disparaissent du marché par « attrition » naturelle. Cette évolution pourrait être ralentie par l’impression à la demande.
De plus, aujourd’hui, un client qui ne trouve pas un livre dans les librairies se tourne vers Amazon. « Ireneo peut alors faire en cinq minutes ce que Amazon propose en 48 heures. Une façon rapide de concrétiser l’acte d’achat et de ramener des gens dans les librairies », explique Hubert Peduran.
Mais au-delà de l’intérêt des lecteurs et des libraires, le succès de cette machine dépendra aussi de l’accueil que lui réserveront les maisons d’édition. Car le plus important c’est bien le catalogue et le nombre de fichiers PDF disponibles. « Plus on aura de maisons d’édition, plus les librairies seront intéressées », confirme Christian Vié.
La revanche du papier sur le numérique
Le numérique a été vécu comme une menace par l’industrie du livre, mais il offre aujourd’hui un grand volant d’opportunité aux auteurs et aux éditeurs. Comme l’explique Hubert Pédurand « avec l’impression à la demande, un livre produit est un livre vendu. L’incertitude n’existe plus. N’oublions pas que 30 000 titres sont pilonnés chaque année en France ! »
« Nous assistons sans doute, précise Hubert Pédurand, à la revanche du papier sur le numérique. » L’ambition de ce projet est en effet de « rematérialiser » ce qui a été dématérialisé (e-book) et de « créer un service qui serait le YouTube des écrivains »…
Société – 2min 01s – Le 21 mars à 13h20
Découvrez « L’Expresso Book Machine », un nouveau procédé d’imprimerie, qui va être présenté lors du Salon du Livre. Cette machine est capable de fabriquer un livre en moins de 5 minutes, et à la demande grâce à Internet. Il en existe 15 dans le monde, dont 6 en France. Elle pourrait révolutionner le petit monde du papier et surtout éviter le gaspillage.
À peine 150 exemplaires dans le monde dont six en France et une à Lille. L’Espresso Book Machine est une véritable imprimerie miniature, capable de fabriquer un livre de 200 pages en cinq minutes. Elle vient d’arriver à Lille, à l’Amigraf, le centre de formation des imprimeurs, pour une phase de test.
Sur le papier, c’est mieux qu’un joujou, un bijou technologique. L’Espresso Book Machine est capable de produire un livre aussi simplement que d’autres un café. Une centaine d’exemplaires sont à l’œuvre dans le monde. Six en France dont un à Lille, à la faveur du programme expérimental Ireneo, porté par l’IDEP (institut de développement et d’expertise plurimédia) et l’UNIC (Union nationale de l’imprimerie et de la communication).
Comment ça fonctionne ? Hubert Pédurant, consultant à l’UNIC, explique. « Cette machine compacte, de 2 m2 d’empreinte au sol, réalise les mêmes opérations qu’une imprimerie classique. Elle imprime le corpus de pages, façonne et colle la couverture. Pour produire un livre de 200 pages, il faut compter environ cinq minutes. »
DES MILLIONS AU PILON
L’Espresso Book Machine, fabriquée par une société américaine, trouve son sens dans l’impression de volumes à l’unité (entièrement personnalisables) ou de petites séries. Une thèse, un récit auto-édité, un livre-photos (en couleur), des documents professionnels… Ou un ouvrage épuisé. « Une application sur smartphone permettra de choisir un livre dans un catalogue. Il sera imprimé à proximité (grâce à la géolocalisation) et sera livré à domicile ou retiré chez le libraire de son choix. » Changement d’habitude : « On vend un livre avant de l’imprimer alors qu’actuellement, on imprime un livre en espérant qu’il soit vendu. Chaque année en France, 118 millions d’exemplaires partent au pilon. »
La phase actuelle d’essais (en cours depuis un an à Paris et qui démarre à Lille) doit permettre aux éditeurs, aux imprimeurs, aux libraires et aux autres d’imaginer les possibles utilisations de la machine. Elle doit aussi permettre de réaliser des tests techniques. « Il y a 70 000 à 80 000 nouvelles éditions par an. Les libraires ne peuvent pas tout avoir en stock. Par ailleurs, 20 % des livres réalisent 80 % du chiffre d’affaires. Les autres manquent de visibilité. » L’Espresso Book Machine tiendra-t-elle ses promesses? La suite dans un prochain chapitre.
L’agence Idées-3 Com fait parler le papier
TOURCOING. Le papier et le Web ne sont plus face à face. Ils sont main dans la main. C’est le principe de l’Espresso Book Machine, un outil qui permet de fabriquer un véritable livre choisi sur une application smartphone. C’est aussi l’intime conviction de l’agence de communication Idées-3 Com installée à la Plaine Images, à Tourcoing. À l’origine spécialiste de la modélisation en trois dimensions, l’entreprise mise aujourd’hui beaucoup sur le « print connecté ».
Concrètement, de quoi s’agit-il ? « Nous enrichissons tout ce qui est document imprimé, explique Sabrina Chazerault, ingénieur d’affaires chez Idées-3 Com. Par exemple, il suffit de flasher l’image d’un vêtement sur une page de catalogue pour le mettre dans son panier d’achats. On peut aussi imaginer flasher une affiche de film devant un cinéma pour avoir accès à la bande-annonce ou une vitrine de restaurant pour enregistrer son numéro de téléphone directement le numéro dans ses contacts. » La technologie utilisée par Idées-3 Com est celle de la reconnaissance d’images. « On peut aussi penser à une boîte de médicaments pour avoir accès à la posologie ou à un tableau dans un musée pour accéder à davantage d’informations. »
L’imprimé en porte d’entrée
L’exploration des possibilités est en cours. Elles sont multiples. « L’imprimé devient la porte d’entrée de l’enseigne. Il y a une vraie demande actuellement. L’idée, c’est de réduire les processus décisionnels d’achat et de booster les ventes. » Au-delà, l’utilisation de telles applications permet d’accéder à une foule de statistiques utiles. « D’un côté, les produits peuvent être poussés vers le client en fonction de ses goûts. De l’autre, l’enseigne va pouvoir gérer ses stocks de manière plus fine. » Le papier tourne une nouvelle page. Le livre n’est pas refermé.
Le centre lillois Amigraf teste une machine capable d’imprimer un livre standard en moins de cinq minutes directement chez le libraire.
Après l’imprimante 3D, l’Espresso Book Machine pourrait bien lui aussi révolutionner l’univers de l’édition. Le centre de formation professionnelle Amigraf, à Lille, vient de s’équiper de cette machine innovante, en mode « fab lab ». La fabrication n’est qu’expérimentale à ce stade. L’équipement est de taille très modeste par rapport aux outils industriels classiques de l’imprimerie puisqu’il ne nécessite que 2 mètres carrés. Ce qui n’empêche pas des performances impressionnantes : un clic permet de lancer l’impression d’un livre de 200 pages en un temps record de 4,8 minutes.
L’Espresso Book Machine fonctionne comme une plateforme d’interconnexion en mode « cloud to paper ». Une fois l’ordre donné, il va imprimer des opus de 40 à 800 pages, dans des formats de 10 × 8 à 20 × 27 cm, sous couverture quadri.
L’imprimante couple un moteur d’impression numérique à encre laser au robot proprement dit, qui représente « un concentré des métiers de l’imprimerie avec une chaîne de finition du livre ».
L’expérience baptisée « Irénéo » est financée par l’Institut de développement et d’expertise du plurimédia (Idep) mise en oeuvre par la fédération professionnelle des imprimeurs, l’Unic. Six machines sont désormais implantées en France, 100 dans le monde.
Le YouTube des écrivains
L’expérimentation vise à acclimater les professionnels avec ce nouvel outil qui pourrait redistribuer les rôles dans le monde de l’édition. Les libraires pourraient ainsi devenir imprimeurs avec ce terminal d’impression, très adapté pour les très petites séries, les livres à compte d’auteur. « Nous avons un seul objectif, favoriser le livre, sans rien imposer aux éditeurs, nous voulons composer avec eux », défend Hubert Pédurand, chargé du programme Irénéo pour l’Idec. Avec une vraie création de valeur : en supprimant la logistique – et un bilan carbone sans égal – et le stock, ce modèle du « print on demand » (PoD) démultiplie les capacités de réponse des professionnels grâce à une profondeur de catalogue inédite.
Le système pourrait apporter une cure de jouvence au monde des libraires et de l’édition. Il devient désormais possible d’imprimer en un temps record un livre épuisé publié il y a trente ans ou n’importe quelle référence à l’unité. La chaîne américaine Book-A-Million l’a installé l’an dernier dans ses magasins, dans deux villes Portland et Birmingham.
Mais les ambitions vont au-delà, avec un retour surprenant du monde virtuel vers le monde physique. « Il devient possible de rematérialiser tout ce qui est dématérialisé sur Internet, comme votre mur Facebook qu’on pourra imprimer en dos carré collé ! L’expérience est regardée de très près par les Américains », relève Hubert Pédurand, qui voit dans ce nouveau service « le YouTube des écrivains ».
L’expérience lilloise doit acculturer les professionnels régionaux, tandis qu’un test marchand sera réalisé sur le prochain Salon du livre à Paris. Et l’Idep envisage déjà de lever des fonds pour créer une société transversale pour piloter le développement de cette nouvelle offre.
La maison d’édition espère pouvoir réimprimer ses titres sur le point de s’arrêter ou déjà épuisés.
Aux Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), on mise beaucoup sur l’impression à la demande, chez ses imprimeurs ou en librairie. « Pour nous, cela peut avoir deux intérêts, explique le directeur général Frédéric Mériot. D’abord, nous permettre de continuer à imprimer les titres de notre catalogue que nous sommes sur le point d’arrêter : ceux dont les stocks s’épuisent et pour lesquels la demande tombe en dessous de la centaine d’exemplaires vendus par an ». Chaque année, les PUF doivent stopper l’impression de 250 à 300 titres sur les 4.000 titres actifs du catalogue. Avec l’impression à la demande, ils pourraient continuer à se vendre au même prix – le modèle économique n’est viable que pour les livres en noir et blanc.
« Ensuite, nous pourrions ressuciter les vieux titres déjà épuisés, ajoute Frédéric Mériot. Chez nous, ces titres représentent environ 25.000 titres au total. Une partie d’entre eux, sur lesquels nous avons encore les droits, pourraient être remis en vente ». D’anciens « Que-Sais-je ? », par exemple, sont encore très recherchés par certains lecteurs.
Combien de titres pourraient être concernés ? Difficile à dire à ce stade. Quelques centaines pourraient être de nouveau disponibles la première année, puis peut-être 1.500 titres de plus par an au fil de la montée en puissance du dispositif. « Une chose est sûre : nous serons prêts pour démarrer d’ici à l’été », promet Frédéric Mériot. Pour chacun, les ventes pourraient se limiter à 15 ou 20 exemplaires par an. Qu’importe, puisque les coûts seraient entièrement variables, et la marge fixée une fois pour toutes. L’idée est de vendre ces livres à un prix raisonnable, alors que les prix du marché peuvent monter, pour certains ouvrages, jusqu’à plusieurs centaines d’euros.
Petits avec un grand fonds
« Nous sommes une petite maison avec un très grand fonds, rappelle le dirigeant de la vénérable maison d’édition, fondée en 1921 et récemment reprise par Scor. Au final, cela peut avoir un impact significatif sur notre activité, et sur notre croissance ». C’est dans ce cadre que les PUF s’intéressent de très près à l’Espresso Book Machine, qui permet de pratiquer l’impression à la demande chez les libraires. « C’est le même intérêt que l’impression à la demande que nous pratiquons chez l’imprimeur, avec deux avantages en plus : l’abolition des coûts de transport, puisque le livre est imprimé au plus près du client. Et la possibilité pour les libraires de proposer d’autres services à leurs clients, d’auto-édition ou encore d’impression de données publiques, par exemple ». Reste pour eux à accepter d’installer dans leur boutique une machine qui occupe, au sol, 6 à 8 m2 si l’on veut pouvoir tourner autour…
Sur stand PUF La Martinière Salon livre, l’Espresso Book Machine, capable d’imprimer livre minutes. Son format relativement modeste permettrait s’inviter librairies. Elle pourrait rebattre donne… Le hic ? Son prix.
Sur le stand des PUF et de La Martinière au Salon du livre, l’Espresso Book Machine, capable d’imprimer un livre en moins de cinq minutes. Son format relativement modeste lui permettrait de s’inviter dans la plupart des librairies. Elle pourrait rebattre la donne… Le hic ? Son prix. – Photo DR
Le géant américain s’est lancé dans l’impression de livres à la demande.
La filière bâtit sa riposte autour des librairies.
A l’heure où le Salon du livre ouvre ses portes à Paris, l’ombre d’Amazon continue de planer sur l’ensemble de la filière. Les libraires ne sont plus le seul maillon de la chaîne menacée par l’ogre de l’e-commerce. Editeurs et imprimeurs sont eux aussi en première ligne. Avec une nouvelle arme : l’impression à la demande. Amazon a pris un temps d’avance en lançant CreateSpace, un service d’auto-édition et d’impression à la demande disponible aux Etats-Unis depuis 2006 et en Europe depuis 2012. « Amazon, c’est le mal à combattre. Il s’assoit sur la convention collective et sur tous les accords. On peut le faire si l’on avance avec un front uni », explique Hubert Pédurand, au bureau d’études de l’Union nationale de l’imprimerie et de la communication (Unic). Il est en charge d’Ireneo, un projet de recherche sur l’impression à la demande qui pourrait donner des arguments à une filière pesant, en France, quelque 3.700 imprimeurs et 36.000 emplois. En parallèle, longtemps confinée, l’auto-édition prend aussi plus d’ampleur. « Edilivre, qui regroupe 10.000 auteurs, représente aujourd’hui le plus gros déposant légal », précise Hubert Pédurand.
Trouver un financement
Chaque année, les ventes de livres baissent lentement mais sûrement, tandis que le nombre d’ouvrages, lui, ne cesse de croître. Pour limiter les risques et les stocks, les éditeurs réduisent donc les tirages moyens. « Le chiffre diminue de 5 à 6 % par an. Il est descendu sous les 7.000 exemplaires par livre », indique Guillaume Arnal, le responsable marketing de Jouve, une société d’impression numérique.
Pour battre Amazon, dont le succès repose sur une livraison très rapide, un catalogue très profond et des prix défiant toute concurrence, les représentants de la filière misent sur l’impression à la demande. L’idée : installer chez les libraires des imprimantes, capables de produire des ouvrages en quelques minutes, en fonction des besoins. Une solution qui éliminerait à la fois pour le libraire et l’éditeur les problèmes de stocks, de coût de fabrication, et de coût de livraison.
Financé par des syndicats d’imprimeurs, Ireneo a conclu un accord avec les inventeurs américains de l’Espresso Book Machine. Celle-ci imprime des ouvrages à la demande « en 4,8 minutes », dit Hubert Pédurant. Elle est déjà installée aux Etats-Unis, notamment à la New York University. L’Espresso Book Machine trône d’ailleurs au Salon du livre sur les stands de PUF et de La Martinière. Ireneo pourra exploiter ses brevets et « produire des machines en France », espère Hubert Pédurand. Restera ensuite à trouver un mode de financement permettant aux libraires de s’équiper de ce nouvel outil, d’une valeur de 100.000 dollars. « Ce n’est pas à eux à faire la dépense. Mais il faut voir comment on peut faire tous ensemble. Pourquoi ne pas créer un GIE ? » s’interroge Hubert Pédurand.
En attendant d’atteindre le Graal du zéro stock, l’impression numérique sur de faibles tirages continue de se développer. « Editis nous a choisis pour des tirages inférieurs à 10 exemplaires. Cela leur a permis de faire revivre des titres jusque-là indisponibles », indique Guillaume Arnal, de Jouve. La société, qui travaille aussi avec des sites d’auto-édition comme Lulu.com ou Bookelis, produit 1,5 million de livres par an, un volume qui connaît une croissance à deux chiffres. De son côté, le premier éditeur français, Hachette Livre, a pris dès 2010 le taureau par les cornes en créant avec le distributeur américain Ingram une plate-forme d’impression à la demande installée dans son entrepôt de Maurepas. En concurrence directe avec les imprimeurs.
Imaginez si, d’un simple toucher du doigt, vous pouvez imprimer un livre en seulement quelques minutes, avec un résultat quasiment identique à celui d’une imprimerie traditionnelle.
Wilson Fache
L’Orient le jour
21/04/2015
C’est là l’objectif des développeurs de l’Espresso Book Machine, une invention qui pourrait révolutionner le monde de l’édition : permettre d’imprimer et de personnaliser des livres en temps réel, par exemple parce qu’ils ne sont plus publiés.
« C’est une grande opportunité pour tous », estimait Frédéric Mériot, directeur général des Presses universitaires de France (PUF), lors de la présentation d’un modèle dernière génération de la machine au Salon du livre de Paris en mars dernier. « J’ai été surpris par la qualité de l’accueil, explique M. Mériot à L’Orient-Le Jour. Certaines personnes préféraient avoir le livre imprimé devant eux plutôt que déjà publié pour pouvoir le personnaliser, par exemple. »
Aux États-Unis, l’Expresso Book Machine est déjà présente dans quelques universités et librairies, comme la McNally Jackson à New York. Dans cette enseigne chic du sud de Manhattan, la machine a conquis les clients depuis quatre ans déjà. « Tout le monde est très excité par rapport à cette technologie », estime Margaret Harrang, une employé de McNally Jackson. Dans cette librairie où quarante à soixante livres sont imprimés chaque jour, les clients sont non seulement des lecteurs avides de trouver des livres rares, mais aussi des écrivains. « Certaines personnes qui ont essayé sans succès les circuits de publication traditionnels viennent ici pour imprimer eux-mêmes leurs ouvrages. Ils sont heureux d’avoir pu trouver le moyen de faire entendre leur voix », explique Mme Harrang.
« Un livre numérique en papier »
Le coût conséquent de la machine, 80 000 euros, ne permettra pas à toutes les librairies d’en faire l’acquisition, mais Frédéric Mériot assure que ce ne sera pas nécessaire. Les librairies pourraient louer la machine et reverser un pourcentage des ventes. Une autre solution, compte tenu de la taille imposante de l’Expresso Book Machine, serait la mise en place d’un réseau permettant aux libraires d’être livrés en quelques heures sans avoir à accueillir la machine dans leurs locaux.
Michel Choueiri, l’un des administrateurs de l’Association internationale des libraires francophones (AILF) et qui dirige la librairie el-Bourj, située dans le centre de Beyrouth, tempère, lui, les prouesses attribuées à la machine, estimant qu’il n’existe « pas assez de titres disponibles pour justifier un tel investissement ».
Le succès de cette invention dépendra en effet de l’accueil que lui réserveront les maisons d’édition, partenaires indispensables en charge de fournir un catalogue à l’imprimante. « La solution qu’ils proposent se doit d’être complète. Ils proposent cette machine, mais pour imprimer quoi ? », se demande M. Choueiri, pour qui l’Expresso Book Machine n’est viable que si elle permet d’imprimer autre chose que de la presse universitaire et des auteurs qui n’ont pas trouvé d’éditeurs. « Pour l’instant, c’est de la science-fiction », assène-t-il.
Selon Frédéric Mériot, l’argument phare pour convaincre les éditeurs est l’opportunité de publier des livres dont la demande est trop basse pour qu’ils soient rentables avec le modèle d’impression traditionnel. « C’est un outil fantastique de pérennité du livre dans le temps, assure-t-il. À l’édition des Presses universitaires de France, tous les ans, nous avons entre 300 et 400 livres que nous ne publions plus. Avec cette machine, ils pourraient à nouveau être disponibles. »
Jusqu’ici, acheter un ouvrage qui n’est plus édité n’était possible que grâce aux livres numériques. « En fait, ce sont des livres numériques imprimés », constate M. Mériot. « Imaginez si le livre papier avait été inventé après le livre numérique, tout le monde aurait trouvé l’invention géniale : ça se conserve indéfiniment et ça ne doit pas être constamment rechargé. C’est la revanche du papier sur le numérique », analyse M. Mériot.
Voir par ailleurs:
Georges Méliès ou la face retrouvée de la Lune
Magie de la technologie mariée à l’amour du cinéma. Les quatorze minutes de ce qui en son temps (1902) a été le plus long film jamais réalisé jusque-là, resurgissent aujourd’hui, dans une version coloriée qu’on croyait perdue à jamais
Rocco Zacheo
Le Temps
11 février 2012
La pointe d’un obus plantée dans l’œil de la Lune. Il aura suffi de cette image pour faire du Voyage dans la Lune le film muet le plus célèbre de l’histoire du cinéma. On peut ne pas être aux faits de l’œuvre pionnière de son réalisateur, Georges Méliès. On peut aussi avoir laissé filer Hugo Cabret de Martin Scorsese, qui rend un hommage poétique à son ancêtre. Soit. Mais cet œil rendu borgne par des spationautes conquérants est inscrit dans le patrimoine collectif. Les quatorze minutes de ce qui en son temps (1902) a été le plus long film jamais réalisé jusque-là, resurgissent aujourd’hui, dans une version coloriée qu’on croyait perdue à jamais. Ce retour, visible désormais en DVD, tient du miracle. Il est en partie le fruit d’aléas qui ont révélé l’existence de la bobine, et le résultat de l’acharnement d’une poignée de passionnés têtus, qui ont travaillé pendant de longues années pour réanimer une œuvre moribonde.
Car ce voyage en couleurs, dont on ne connaît aucune autre copie, a failli s’achever très mal. Jusqu’en 1993, on le croyait même perdu. Il y a dix-huit ans, donc, le film refait surface grâce à un conservateur de la Cinémathèque de Barcelone (Cineteca de Catalunya), où l’œuvre venait d’être déposée. Le donateur du film demeure introuvable. Il s’avérera plus tard qu’il est décédé. L’institution espagnole, elle, se rend vite à l’évidence: l’état pitoyable de la bobine ne permet aucune intervention de sauvetage. La restauration paraît impossible. L’histoire aurait pu s’arrêter là, dans une impasse infranchissable, si la Cineteca n’avait pas proposé un échange à Lobster Films, société française qui collecte, restaure et diffuse des films perdus. Un vieux film catalan détenu par les Français contre le bijou abîmé de Georges Méliès: voilà les termes du marchandage. L’accord est vite trouvé, Méliès retourne en France en 1999.
Serge Bromberg est un des artisans de l’échange. Avec Eric Lange, il partage une passion pour le cinéma des origines, au point d’en avoir fait son métier en fondant Lobster Films. Quand il n’est pas accaparé par la direction artistique du Festival international du film d’animation d’Annecy, il scrute, soigne et diffuse des œuvres d’un autre temps. Son investissement pour sauver Le Voyage dans la Lune est, de son propre aveu, un grand fait d’armes dont il tire fierté.
Son chemin a été long. Pendant trois ans, il a soumis la bobine retrouvée à un traitement chimique très agressif, qui a permis de la décoller petits bouts par petits bouts. «Il faut savoir que pendant les soixante premières années du cinéma, un âge qu’on qualifie de «ciné-nitrate», les pellicules avaient deux caractéristiques ennuyeuses, explique le collectionneur. Elles étaient tout d’abord hautement inflammables. Des films comme Inglourious Basterds de Quentin Tarantino ou Cinema Paradiso de Giuseppe Tornatore ont fait de cette dangereuse propriété un filon narratif. L’autre problème vient de l’instabilité chimique des pellicules. En règle générale, il suffit de quelques dizaines d’années pour que les pellicules se détériorent et se transforment en une sorte de pâte colleuse.»
Le processus de délitement est connu. Mais son action inéluctable est plus ou moins agressive selon la qualité des bobines et l’état de leur conservation. La plupart des œuvres des frères Lumière, par exemple, celles réalisées entre 1895 et 1900, résistent au temps. Par contre, le négatif original des Enfants du paradis, tourné en 1945 par Marcel Carné, est presque entièrement décomposé aujourd’hui. Et Le Voyage dans la Lune? Il a réservé une surprise de taille. «Ce qui, en regardant les bords de la bobine, semblait être une copie totalement perdue, était à notre grand étonnement en bon état pour un peu plus que 90%», s’exclame Serge Bromberg.
La véritable restauration demeure pourtant une chimère. En 2002, Lobster Films doit se contenter de photographier, image après image, tout le négatif du film. La société pérennise ainsi un support voué à l’autodestruction lente, mais elle ne dispose pas d’outils technologiques pour recomposer en temps raisonnable la totalité de l’œuvre. Serge Bromberg: «Début 2003, nous avions réuni les pièces d’un grand puzzle. Il faut penser qu’à cette même époque il fallait entre 15 et 20 minutes pour saisir avec précision chaque image. Le Voyage dans la Lune en compte 13 795. A ce rythme, il nous aurait fallu dix ans pour venir à bout de la restauration.» Alors, en attendant des temps plus propices et des moyens appropriés, l’opération est mise en jachère. Elle est définitivement relancée en 2010, sept ans plus tard. De nouveaux logiciels ont fait leur apparition entre-temps. Les ingénieurs en audiovisuel peuvent donc se pencher sur le cas Méliès.
Une équipe de cinq spécialistes s’attelle dès lors à la réanimation du film. Des laboratoires en France et aux Etats-Unis recomposent les morceaux du puzzle. Les parties trop abîmées sont remplacées par le noir et blanc, qui sera à son tour colorié. Deux institutions actives dans la conservation du patrimoine (la Fondation Groupama Gan pour le cinéma et la Fondation Technicolor) rejoignent la troupe en apportant un soutien crucial dans la promotion et le financement de la restauration. Il y a enfin le groupe Air pour apporter son savoir-faire musical. Le duo versaillais est choisi pour imaginer une bande originale du film*.
En 2011, le nouveau Voyage dans la Lune est enfin prêt. Son retour est triomphal: 150 ans après sa naissance, Méliès part à la conquête du Festival du film de Cannes, en ouvrant la manifestation. Une parenthèse rétro qui a marqué Serge Bromberg, présent à la projection: «Les équipes de Cannes et le ministre de la Culture Frédéric Mitterrand ont voulu affirmer très fort l’aura du 7e art en France, l’importance de son histoire. La projection du Voyage rappelle un fait important: il n’y a pas de vieux films et des nouveaux. Il n’y a que deux sortes de films: les bons et les autres.»
L’ultime étape de la restauration, celle décisive, a entraîné des coûts que Serge Bromberg chiffre à environ 500 000 euros. «Il faut encore ajouter tout le travail en aval, réalisé depuis 1999. Il n’a comporté aucun échange d’argent. Tout a été fait à l’énergie, dans un élan passionné. Mais on peut estimer le budget de l’opération à 1 million d’euros.»
Avec Hugo Cabret de Scorsese, le Voyage dans la Lune a donné à Georges Méliès une nouvelle jeunesse. Son 150e anniversaire est une aubaine pour le collectionneur Serge Bromberg: «Le film de Scorsese, dans son ambition artistique et dans sa volonté de toucher un public large, a fait découvrir Méliès à une quantité innombrable de gens. De notre côté, nous avons réalisé un rêve: après avoir touché aux œuvres de Chaplin, d’Henri-Georges Clouzot et d’autres grands artistes, nous pouvons partager avec des cinéphiles du monde entier le premier chef-d’œuvre du cinéma de science-fiction.»
«Le Voyage dans la Lune» bio d’un film
1er septembre 1902 Le film de Georges Méliès sort en salles. Sa trame s’inspire de Jules Vernes (De la Terre à la Lune) et de H. G. Wells (Les Premiers Hommes dans la Lune). Il est projeté partout dans le monde et connaît un succès retentissant.
1993 Une copie coloriée du film est déposée par un anonyme à la Cinémathèque de Barcelone.
1999-2002 Première phase de la restauration de la bobine: décollement de la pellicule et saisie des images.
2010-2011 Seconde phase de la restauration. Composition de la BO par Air.
Mai 2011 «Le Voyage dans la Lune» ouvre le 47e Festival du film de Cannes.
Sergio Canavero Ce savant promet une greffe de tête dans deux ans
Sur cette image réalisée pour notre sujet, le neurologue a préféré ne pas divulguer certains de ses instruments « secrets », ne dévoilant ici qu’un conducteur servant à modifier les champs électriques du cerveau.
Sophie de Bellemanière
Paris match
27 février 2015
Il pourrait être un savant fou. Mais Sergio Canavero est neurochirurgien à l’université de Turin, spécialiste de la stimulation cérébrale. Son projet est pourtant incroyable : transplanter la tête d’un homme sur le corps d’un autre ! « Une folie qui permettrait aux tétraplégiques de marcher, dit-il, et aux cerveaux les plus brillants de ne jamais disparaître… »
Paris Match. Comment allez-vous greffer une tête humaine sur un corps sain sans que ce dernier soit paralysé ou décède ?
Sergio Canavero. Je pratiquerai une découpe de la moelle épinière particulièrement nette, à l’aide de lames beaucoup plus tranchantes et précises que celles utilisées auparavant. Ensuite, pour que le sujet greffé puisse retrouver toutes ses facultés motrices, nous appliquerons du PEG-chitosane sur les extrémités de la moelle, restaurant ainsi 30 % à 60 % des fibres. C’est suffisant pour la motricité.
Quels seraient les candidats ?
Des personnes souffrant de graves dysfonctionnements neuromusculaires ou des malades au stade initial d’Alzheimer. Cette opération leur serait utile car il semble que les tissus neufs du corps peuvent avoir un effet rajeunissant sur ceux de la tête par le simple biais de la circulation sanguine.
Quand appliquerez-vous la technique sur des humains ?
Il me faut deux ans pour coordonner une équipe d’environ 100 à 150 chirurgiens, anesthésiologistes, techniciens et infirmières. J’évalue une transplantation de tête à 10 millions d’euros. Une somme considérable que gagnent chaque année certains footballeurs…
Votre initiative est très critiquée. Que répondez-vous à vos détracteurs ?
Mes recherches pourraient sauver des personnes. Et notre expérience ouvre la possibilité de la vie éternelle. La vraie question éthique serait plutôt : à qui donner accès à cette vie éternelle ? Que se passerait-il si un vieux milliardaire réclamait un nouveau corps ? Les médecins se serviraient-ils dans les prisons, comme c’est déjà le cas pour certains organes ? Des questions qu’il vaut mieux poser dès à présent.
La conscience suivra-t-elle la tête pour s’installer dans le nouveau corps ?
Nombreux sont les neurologues qui pensent, comme moi, que le cerveau n’est qu’un filtre, que la conscience est générée ailleurs. Des transferts de souvenirs ont été observés à l’occasion d’une greffe de cœur !
Interview Sophie de Bellemanière
L’opération en 4 étapes
1-Deux équipes travaillent en parallèle sur un receveur tétraplégique et un donneur en état de mort cérébrale. La première refroidit la tête du receveur à 15 degrés (hypothermie), ralentissant le métabolisme du cerveau pour qu’il ne subisse pas de dégâts durant la période où il ne sera pas irrigué.
2-On dégage les muscles et les vaisseaux sanguins du cou, la trachée et l’œsophage. La thyroïde est conservée. Puis c’est l’incision simultanée des moelles épinières à l’aide d’une lame ultrafine.
3-La tête du receveur est transférée sur le corps du donneur et, immédiatement, les axones de la moelle épinière (10 % seulement sur des milliers mais suffisamment pour retrouver une motricité, affirme Canavero) sont reconnectés, grâce au mélange PEG-chitosane, ainsi que toutes les parties sectionnées. Un traitement immunosuppresseur est mis en place.
4-Un nouvel homme est né. S’il survit et souhaite avoir des enfants, sa descendance sera en réalité celle du donneur mort…
Dès le début du XXe siècle, les savants avaient l’idée… en tête
1908
Le professeur américain Charles Guthrie juxtapose la tête d’un chiot à celle d’un chien adulte. Les deux « animaux » partagent le même corps pendant huit jours.
1954
Le professeur soviétique Vladimir Demikhov transplante plusieurs têtes de chien. Une seule survit 29 jours.
1970
Le neurochirurgien américain Robert J. White réalise l’opération avec des singes. Pendant une semaine, la tête « vit » mais le singe est tétraplégique.
Interview du Dr Sorin Aldea
Neurochirurgien à l’hôpital Foch de Suresnes« Techniquement, c’est faisable, mais éthiquement, ce projet me paraît difficile. »
Que pensez-vous de l’idée du Dr Sergio Canavero ?
Dr Sorin Aldea. Techniquement, c’est faisable. Mis à part le rétablissement de la continuité de la moelle épinière sectionnée. Mais éthiquement, ce projet me paraît difficile. On est dans le même domaine que pour la greffe du visage. Ce n’est pas une transplantation d’un rein ou du pancréas. On touche ici à des choses qui définissent la personne humaine.
Les questions éthiques et scientifiques sont-elles indissociables ?
Le questionnement éthique doit venir avant la démarche technique. Au moins aller de pair. La science qui avance sans éthique relève du fascisme.
Donc, vous êtes contre ce projet ?
Je n’y ai pas réfléchi profondément mais cela pousse la science très loin. A force de se prendre pour Dieu, on finit par créer des monstres. Je ne pense pas que l’on soit censé vivre indéfiniment. C’est mon point de vue d’homme. Sur le plan médical, c’est probablement faisable. Avec le bémol de la repousse de la moelle, l’hypothèse de Canavero, encore
jamais prouvée sur l’homme, ne sera pas possible avant 20-30 ans.
Interview Romain Clergeat
Plantées sur les pics d’une clôture, les têtes de soldats syriens sont exhibées en plein centre-ville. Des badauds, téléphones portables à la main, immortalisent cette macabre exposition, pendant qu’un autre se bouche le nez. La scène, filmée par une équipe de Vice News et mise en ligne le 7 août, se passe à Racca (Syrie), capitale de l’Etat islamique (EI). Une photo, peut-être prise au même endroit, montre un jeune enfant brandissant la tête d’un soldat syrien.
Ces images témoignent une énième fois des atrocités commises par ce groupe qui contrôle une partie de la Syrie et de l’Irak. Ils ne sont bien sûr pas les premiers à couper des têtes. De la Rome antique à la guerre civile algérienne, en passant par la Révolution française ou le Japon de la deuxième guerre mondiale, le vainqueur a souvent coupé la tête du vaincu. Mais ce procédé reste la marque d’une barbarie d’autant plus glaçante qu’elle est ici volontairement exposée et médiatisée.
Pourquoi les jihadistes y ont-ils recours ? Quelles sont les motivations de ces mises en scène ? Francetv info a posé la question à des spécialistes du mouvement jihadiste.
Pour terroriser l’ennemi et les populations
Depuis le début de leur offensive en Irak, les combattants de l’Etat islamique « ne font pas de prisonniers », constate Alain Rodier, directeur de recherche au Centre français de recherche sur le renseignement, contacté par francetv info. Mais le souci d’éviter une gestion « coûteuse et compliquée » des prisonniers n’explique pas les décapitations : les victimes sont en effet essentiellement exécutées par balles. La décapitation, parfois post mortem, toujours mise en scène (exhibitions, vidéos sur internet), obéit à un autre objectif : gagner la bataille psychologique.
« Ces décapitations sèment la terreur chez l’ennemi et le poussent à s’enfuir sans combattre, analyse Antoine Basbous, fondateur de l’Observatoire des pays arabes, un cabinet de conseil. Cela permet de compenser le manque d’hommes dans les rangs de l’Etat islamique. C’est ‘moins de forces, plus d’effets’. » Cette terreur, combinée à la désorganisation de l’armée irakienne, explique le succès de l’EI. « Cette arme fonctionne très bien en Irak : avant leur arrivée, on entend parler d’eux », abonde Hasni Abidi, directeur du Centre d’études et de recherche sur le monde arabe et méditerranéen.
Cette arme n’est pas seulement destinée aux ennemis de l’extérieur. Elle permet de soumettre à l’Etat islamique les populations des zones qu’il contrôle. En Syrie, dans la région de Deir Ezzor, l’EI a exposé début août les têtes de trois membres d’une tribu rivale dans le village d’Al-Jurdi, rapporte l’Observatoire syrien des droits de l’homme (en anglais). « Quand vous êtes un villageois et que vous voyez ça, vous vous dites : ‘je serai peut-être le suivant si je ne me soumets pas' », résume Antoine Basbous.
Pour écraser la concurrence
Cette violence permet à l’EI d’affirmer sa suprématie sur les autres groupes jihadistes qui pullulent en Syrie. « C’est une carte de visite dans la compétition entre les mouvements radicaux. Celui qui est le plus brutal est probablement celui qui a la plus grande force d’attraction », estime Hasni Abidi. « Il y a une surenchère dans l’horreur, constate Myriam Benraad, spécialiste de l’Irak au Centre d’études et de recherches internationales (Ceri). Ils procèdent à des actes barbares pour s’imposer comme le groupe jihadiste le plus dur. »
Rester sur la première marche du podium facilite en effet le recrutement de combattants pour l’Etat islamique. Le groupe, qui s’appelait auparavant l’Etat islamique en Irak et au Levant (EIIL), est l’un des rares à accueillir à bras ouverts les combattants venus du monde entier. La plupart des Français partis combattre en Syrie, comme Mounir, Tewffik, Nicolas et Jean-Daniel, l’ont d’ailleurs fait sous la bannière de l’EIIL.
Parce qu’ils interprètent le Coran « à leur sauce »
L’Etat islamique n’est pas le premier groupe jihadiste coupeur de têtes. Son ancêtre, Al-Qaïda en Irak, a décapité de nombreux otages dans les années 2000, tout comme le Groupe islamique armé (GIA) algérien dans les années 1990. Outre l’objectif d’inspirer la terreur par un acte barbare, la décapitation a des motivations historiques et religieuses. Comme l’expliquait Jeune Afrique en 2004, elle fait partie de l’histoire de l’islam, avec notamment plusieurs intellectuels décapités au Xe siècle. On trouve également sa trace dans deux sourates du Coran (8, verset 12 et 47, verset 4) où il est conseillé de frapper ses adversaires au cou.
Ces éléments permettent aux jihadistes de justifier leur barbarie par la religion. « Chacun interprète les écrits à sa sauce. Il y a ceux qui vont sortir du Coran les versets qui appellent à la tolérance religieuse, d’autres vont au contraire mettre en avant les versets belliqueux qui appellent à contraindre les non-croyants », explique Antoine Basbous. « Le contexte du début de l’islam, caractérisé par des conquêtes, n’est pas le même, rappelle Myriam Benraad. Il y a une dérive dans l’interprétation de ces textes pour justifier tout et n’importe quoi. »
Des membres du groupe djihadiste Etat islamique (EI) vendent des enfants irakiens comme esclaves sexuels et en tuent d’autres en les crucifiant ou en les enterrant vivants, a dénoncé l’ONU, mercredi 4 février.
Le Comité des droits de l’enfant des Nations unies (CRC), affirme dans un rapport que l’Etat islamique recrute « un grand nombre d’enfants » en Irak, y compris handicapés, pour en faire des combattants et des kamikazes, jouer le rôle d’informateurs, en faire des boucliers humains pour protéger des installations des bombardements, mais aussi pour leur faire subir des sévices sexuels et d’autres tortures.
Nous sommes vraiment très préoccupés par la torture et le meurtre de ces enfants, en particulier ceux qui appartiennent à des minorités, mais pas seulement », a déclaré Renate Winter, l’un des 18 experts indépendants membres du CRC. Des enfants appartenant à la communauté Yazidi ou à la communauté chrétienne font partie des victimes.
« Nous avons des informations selon lesquelles des enfants, en particulier des enfants déficients mentaux, sont utilisés comme kamikazes, très probablement sans qu’ils s’en rendent compte », a-elle dit. « Une vidéo diffusée [sur internet] montre de très jeunes enfants, d’environ huit ans et moins, qui sont entraînés pour devenir des enfants soldats. »
« C’est un énorme problème », a asséné Renate Winter. Le comité a exhorté Bagdad à explicitement criminaliser le recrutement d’une personne de moins de 18 ans dans les conflits armés.
« Des décapitations et des crucifixions »
Le CRC a en outre dénoncé les nombreux cas d’enfants, notamment appartenant à des minorités, auxquels l’Etat islamique a fait subir des violences sexuelles et d’autres tortures ou qu’il a purement et simplement assassinés. Le CRC rapporte « plusieurs cas d’exécutions de masse de garçons, ainsi que des décapitations, des crucifixions et des ensevelissements d’enfants vivants ».
Les enfants de minorités ont été capturés dans nombre d’endroits, vendus sur des marchés avec sur eux des étiquettes portant des prix, ils ont été vendus comme esclaves », poursuit le rapport du CRC.
Les dix-huit experts demandent aux autorités irakiennes de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour protéger les enfants qui vivent sous le joug de Deach et de poursuivre en justice les auteurs de ces crimes.
Mais, bien que le gouvernement irakien soit tenu pour responsable de la protection de ses administrés, Renate Winter a reconnu qu’il était actuellement difficile de poursuivre les membres des « groupes armés non étatiques » pour de tels actes.
Le comité a toutefois souligné que certaines violations des droits des enfants ne pouvaient être attribuées aux seuls djihadistes. De précédents rapports relevaient ainsi que des mineurs étaient obligés d’être de faction à des postes de contrôle tenus par les forces gouvernementales ou que des enfants étaient emprisonnés dans des conditions difficiles à la suite d’accusations de terrorisme, et dénonçaient également des mariages forcés de fillettes de 11 ans.
Une loi permettant aux violeurs d’éviter toute poursuite judiciaire à condition de se marier avec leurs victimes s’est particulièrement attirée les foudres du CRC, qui a rejeté l’argument des autorités de Bagdad selon lesquelles c’était « le seul moyen de protéger la victime des représailles de sa famille ».
Vous aimerez l’étranger, car vous avez été étrangers dans le pays d’Égypte. Deutéronome 10: 19
Et je leur donnerai dans ma maison et dans mes murs une place et un nom (…) qui ne seront pas effacés. Esaïe 56: 5
« Requiem pour six millions d’âmes Qui n’ont pas leur mausolée de marbre Et qui malgré le sable infâme Ont fait pousser six millions d’arbres … Salvatore Adamo (Inch’ Allah, version 1967)
Requiem pour LES millions d’âmes de ces enfants, ces femmes, ces hommes, tombés DES DEUX CÔTÉS du drame… Assez de sang, Salam, Shalom… Salvatore Adamo (Inch’ Allah, version 1993)
Aujourd’hui, les gens redécouvrent les chansons des années soixante où on pouvait afficher de bons sentiments, sans engendrer l’ironie. Ce qui n’empêchait pas de chanter des choses plus graves. Je pense à Inch’Allah, que j’ai écrite en octobre 1966. C’était bien la preuve qu’on pouvait être fleur bleue et s’intéresser aux malheurs du monde. Cette chanson, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de l’enlever de mon répertoire, parce qu’elle est toujours d’actualité. À tel point que j’ai dû la nuancer au gré des quelques espoirs de paix. J’ai changé quelques strophes, mais je me suis rendu compte que je n’allais pas jusqu’au bout du message. J’ai ainsi réécrit une autre chanson dans l’album Zanzibar sur le problème du Moyen-Orient, Mon douloureux Orient, où je fais allusion à la souffrance du côté palestinien. Une chanson qui dit : quelles qu’aient été les raisons de cette haine ancestrale, il faut l’oublier pour vivre l’un à côté de l’autre.Salvatore Adamo
Au sommet de sa gloire avec huit chansons au hit-parade en un an, Salvatore Adamo ne s’arrête pas là et continu de travailler. Préoccupé par les problèmes du monde, il écrit et enregistre Inch’Allah. Elle lui a été inspirée par sa vision d’une Jérusalem meurtrie par la guerre des six jours. A sa sortie, en 1967, la plupart des pays arabes condamnent cette chanson à connotation pro-israélienne, et la censure pendant dix ans. En dépit d’un titre et d’un refrain arabo-musulman, cette chanson, à tous point exceptionnelle, racontait Israël et Jérusalem, tels qu’ils pouvaient alors apparaître à un jeune visiteur européen : un pays fragilisé par la guerre. Une ville divisée entre l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament. On ne saurait exagérer l’impact que cette chanson eut sur les esprits, en France, et dans le monde en général. Si les opinions publiques européennes furent massivement du côté d’Israël quelques mois plus tard, pendant la guerre de juin 1967, cela fut en partie à cause d’elle. Et les juifs de France mêlèrent spontanément, au lendemain de l’épreuve et de la victoire, les paroles si vraies d’Adamo avec un nouveau refrain qui venait cette fois d’Israël et qu’une toute petite jeune fille, Shuli Nathan, chantait en hébreu : Yerushalayyim shel Zahav, Jérusalem, la Ville d’Or…Sixties story
Sa chanson Inch’Allah, écrite avant la Guerre des Six-Jours, est interdite dans la plupart des pays arabes, car elle associe un texte pro-israélien à une mélopée et un titre arabo-musulman. L’artiste affirme que sa chanson est une chanson de paix, et veut le prouver en en publiant, en 1993, un texte modifié, dans laquelle les références négatives, aux ennemis d’Israël sont estompées. La strophe conclusive, qui était un « requiem pour six millions d’âmes (…) qui malgré le sable infâme, ont fait pousser six millions d’arbres », devient un « requiem aux millions d’âmes (…) tombées des deux côtés du drame. Assez de sang. Salam, Shalom ». Wikipedia
Au cours de la « Grande soirée du Télévie 2015 », le chanteur-vedette Salvatore Adamo (71 ans) a interprété, en duo avec Julie Zenatti, sa célèbre chanson « Inch’Allah », dans la version revue et corrigée par ses soins en 1993 pour la rendre plus géopolitiquement correcte. Cette ré-audition m’a rappelé la mise au point sévère que j’avais publiée, en avril 2008, sur un site juif. J’y donnais suite à l’interpellation d’un internaute qui rappelait amèrement que le chanteur avait rédigé, en 1993, une deuxième version de son ‘tube’, expurgée du parti pris pro-israélien que lui reprochaient ses détracteurs (…) « Cette chanson, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de l’enlever de mon répertoire, parce qu’elle est toujours d’actualité… j’ai dû la nuancer… ». Qu’avons-nous besoin d’un autre aveu. Le message du boycott arabe, vous l’avez reçu 5 sur 5, Monsieur Adamo. Personnellement, j’eusse préféré que vous supprimiez carrément cette chanson de votre répertoire, plutôt que de vous voir la profaner de votre propre initiative. D’autant que le résultat, permettez-moi de vous le dire, sent le labeur et non l’inspiration, et en tout cas, pas la sincérité. (…) Monsieur Salvatore Adamo s’est fait, de longue date, une réputation de « gentil garçon ». Ses manières gauches et timides (spontanées ou étudiées? nul ne le sait…), sa simplicité, sa discrétion, sa pudeur et sa modestie (même remarque), ont fait de lui une star très populaire. Et chacun sait que les stars font souvent la pluie et le beau temps en matière d’opinion. Alors, malheur à celui ou celle (personne privée, institution ou nation), que la vedette fustige, ou simplement à qui il fait les gros yeux ! Malheur, donc, à Israël, qui a eu la malchance de se voir supplanté, dans l’estime d’Adamo, par les « gentils » Palestiniens. Du coup, oubliés, les enfants d’Israël qui tremblent, disparu, le Requiem, éludés, les Six Millions de Juifs, submergés, les mausolées de marbre, passés sous silence, les Six Millions d’arbres… Menahem Macina
Mahomet s’est établi en tuant ; Jésus-Christ en faisant tuer les siens. Mahomet en défendant de lire; Jésus-Christ en ordonnant de lire. Enfin cela est si contraire, que si Mahomet a pris la voie de réussir humainement, Jésus-Christ a pris celle de périr humainement. Et au lieu de conclure, que puisque Mahomet a réussi, Jésus-Christ a bien pu réussir ; il faut dire, que puisque Mahomet a réussi, le Christianisme devait périr, s’il n’eût été soutenu par une force toute divine. Pascal
Depuis que l’ordre religieux est ébranlé – comme le christianisme le fut sous la Réforme – les vices ne sont pas seuls à se trouver libérés. Certes les vices sont libérés et ils errent à l’aventure et ils font des ravages. Mais les vertus aussi sont libérées et elles errent, plus farouches encore, et elles font des ravages plus terribles encore. Le monde moderne est envahi des veilles vertus chrétiennes devenues folles. Les vertus sont devenues folles pour avoir été isolées les unes des autres, contraintes à errer chacune en sa solitude. G.K. Chesterton
C’était une cité fortement convoitée par les ennemis de la foi et c’est pourquoi, par une sorte de syndrome mimétique, elle devint chère également au cœur des Musulmans.Emmanuel Sivan
Le point intéressant est l’attitude des Palestiniens. Il me semble que ceux-ci sont attirés par deux attitudes extrêmes: l’une est la négation pure et simple de la Shoah, dont il y a divers exemples dans la littérature palestinienne ; l’autre est l’identification de leur propre destin à celui du peuple juif. Tout le monde a pu remarquer, par exemple, que la Déclaration d’indépendance des Palestiniens en novembre 1988 était calquée sur la Déclaration d’indépendance d’Israël en 1948. C’est dans cet esprit qu’il arrive aux dirigeants palestiniens de dire que la Shoah, ils savent ce que c’est, puisque c’est ce qu’ils subissent au quotidien. J’ai entendu M. Arafat dire cela, en 1989, à un groupe d’intellectuels, dont je faisais partie. Pierre Vidal-Naquet (Jérusalem, 1992)
Imaginons deux enfants dans une pièce pleine de jouets identiques. Le premier prend un jouet, mais il ne semble pas fort intéressé par l’objet. Le second l’observe et essaie d’arracher le jouet à son petit camarade. Celui-là n’était pas fort captivé par la babiole, mais – soudain – parce que l’autre est intéressé cela change et il ne veut plus le lâcher. Des larmes, des frustrations et de la violence s’ensuivent. Dans un laps de temps très court un objet pour lequel aucun des deux n’avait un intérêt particulier est devenu l’enjeu d’une rivalité obstinée. René Girard
On admet généralement que toutes les civilisations ou cultures devraient être traitées comme si elles étaient identiques. Dans le même sens, il s’agirait de nier des choses qui paraissent pourtant évidentes dans la supériorité du judaïque et du chrétien sur le plan de la victime. Mais c’est dans la loi juive qu’il est dit: tu accueilleras l’étranger car tu as été toi-même exilé, humilié, etc. Et ça, c’est unique. Je pense qu’on n’en trouvera jamais l’équivalent mythique. On a donc le droit de dire qu’il apparaît là une attitude nouvelle qui est une réflexion sur soi. On est alors quand même très loin des peuples pour qui les limites de l’humanité s’arrêtent aux limites de la tribu. (…) Mais il faut distinguer deux choses. Il y a d’abord le texte chrétien qui pénètre lentement dans la conscience des hommes. Et puis il y a la façon dont les hommes l’interprètent. De ce point de vue, il est évident que le Moyen Age n’interprétait pas le christianisme comme nous. Mais nous ne pouvons pas leur en faire le reproche. Pas plus que nous pouvons faire le reproche aux Polynésiens d’avoir été cannibales. Parce que cela fait partie d’un développement historique. (…) Il faut commencer par se souvenir que le nazisme s’est lui-même présenté comme une lutte contre la violence: c’est en se posant en victime du traité de Versailles que Hitler a gagné son pouvoir. Et le communisme lui aussi s’est présenté comme une défense des victimes. Désormais, c’est donc seulement au nom de la lutte contre la violence qu’on peut commettre la violence. Autrement dit, la problématique judaïque et chrétienne est toujours incorporée à nos déviations. (…) Et notre souci des victimes, pris dans son ensemble comme réalité, n’a pas d’équivalent dans l’histoire des sociétés humaines. (…) Le souci des victimes a (…) unifié le monde. René Girard
La condition préalable à tout dialogue est que chacun soit honnête avec sa tradition. (…) les chrétiens ont repris tel quel le corpus de la Bible hébraïque. Saint Paul parle de » greffe » du christianisme sur le judaïsme, ce qui est une façon de ne pas nier celui-ci . (…) Dans l’islam, le corpus biblique est, au contraire, totalement remanié pour lui faire dire tout autre chose que son sens initial (…) La récupération sous forme de torsion ne respecte pas le texte originel sur lequel, malgré tout, le Coran s’appuie. René Girard
Dans la foi musulmane, il y a un aspect simple, brut, pratique qui a facilité sa diffusion et transformé la vie d’un grand nombre de peuples à l’état tribal en les ouvrant au monothéisme juif modifié par le christianisme. Mais il lui manque l’essentiel du christianisme : la croix. Comme le christianisme, l’islam réhabilite la victime innocente, mais il le fait de manière guerrière. La croix, c’est le contraire, c’est la fin des mythes violents et archaïques.René Girard
L’existence d’Israël pose le problème du droit de vivre en sujets libre et souverains des nations non musulmanes dans l’aire musulmane. L’extermination des Arméniens, d’abord par l’empire ottoman, puis par le nouvel Etat turc a représenté la première répression d’une population dhimmie en quête d’indépendance nationale. Il n’y a quasiment plus de Juifs aujourd’hui dans le monde arabo-islamique et les chrétiens y sont en voie de disparition. Shmuel Trigano
En 1453, immédiatement après la prise de Constantinople, la basilique fut convertie en mosquée, conservant le même nom, Ayasofya, comme symbole de la conquête. À cette époque, le bâtiment était très délabré : plusieurs de ses portes ne tenaient plus. (…) Le sultan Mehmed II ordonna le nettoyage immédiat de l’église et sa conversion en une mosquée. Contrairement aux autres mosaïques et peintures murales des églises de la ville, la mosaïque de Marie dans l’abside de Sainte-Sophie ne fut pas, pour des raisons obscures, recouverte de lait de chaux par ordre de Mehmed II[. Pendant cent ans, elle fut couverte d’un voile puis eut le même traitement que les autres.Wikipedia
En 2004, la Commission islamique d’Espagne, soutenue par le parti socialiste espagnol, réclame officiellement au Vatican le droit pour les musulmans de prier au sein de la mosquée-cathédrale. Le Saint-Siège oppose un refus catégorique. En 2006, l’archevêque de Cordoue ne change pas de position. Il assure que «l’utilisation partagée de la cathédrale par les catholiques et par les musulmans ne contribuerait en rien à la coexistence pacifique des différentes confessions religieuses». En octobre 2007, c’est la Ligue arabe qui revendique ce droit à la conférence de l’OSCE, avant que la Commission Islamique d’Espagne n’appelle en novembre 2008, l’UNESCO à se prononcer, toujours sans succès.Le Figaro (29.04.10)
Des responsables de l’Eglise grecque orthodoxe qui essaient de reconstruire la seule église détruite dans les attentats du 11/9 ont exprimé leur consternation cette semaine en apprenant par Fox News que des officiels du gouvernement avait enterré un projet de reconstruire l’église un peu plus loin. Fox News
Personne n’a rien contre les centres culturels japonais, mais en construire un à Pearl Harbor serait une offense. (…) Le lieu choisi a son importance. (…) Pas de passerelle pour les touristes au-dessus de Gettysburg, pas de couvent à Auschwitz – et pas de mosquée à Ground Zero.Charles Krauthammer
Il n’y a aucune différence entre les Jordaniens, les “Palestiniens”, les Syriens et les Libanais. Nous faisons tous partie de la même nation. C’est seulement pour des raisons politiques que nous soulignons soigneusement notre identité “palestinienne”. L’existence d’une identité “palestinienne” distincte sert seulement un objectif tactique. La création d’un état “palestinien” est un nouvel outil dans la bataille continue contre Israël et pour l’unité arabe.Zuheir Muhsin (interview au Pakistan, 2006?)
Le peuple palestinien n’existe pas. La création d’un État palestinien n’est qu’un moyen pour continuer la lutte contre l’Etat d’Israël afin de créer l’unité arabe. En réalité, aujourd’hui, il n’y a aucune différence entre les Jordaniens, les Palestiniens, les Syriens et les Libanais. C’est uniquement pour des raisons politiques et tactiques, que nous parlons aujourd’hui de l’existence d’un peuple palestinien, étant donné que les intérêts arabes demandent que nous établissions l’existence d’un peuple palestinien distinct, afin d’opposer le sionisme. Pour des raisons tactiques, la Jordanie qui est un Etat souverain avec des frontières bien définies, ne peut pas présenter de demande sur Haifa et Jaffa, tandis qu’en tant que palestinien, je peux sans aucun doute réclamer Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba et Jérusalem. Toutefois, le moment où nous réclamerons notre droit sur l’ensemble de la Palestine, nous n’attendrons pas même une minute pour unir la Palestine à la Jordanie.Zahir Muhsein (membre du comité exécutif de l’OLP, proche de la Syrie, « Trouw », 31.03. 77)
Il n’y a pas de preuve tangible qu’il y ait la moindre trace ou le moindre vestige juif que ce soit dans la vieille ville de Jérusalem ou dans le voisinage immédiat. Communiqué du ministère palestinien de l’Information (10 décembre 1997)
Abraham n’était pas juif, pas plus que c’était un Hébreu, mais il était tout simplement irakien. Les Juifs n’ont aucun droit de prétendre disposer d’une synagogue dans la tombe des patriarches à Hébron, lieu où est inhumé Abraham. Le bâtiment tout entier devrait être une mosquée. Yasser Arafat (Jerusalem Report, 26 décembre 1996)
[La Shoah] est un mensonge des Sionistes concernant de soi-disant massacres perpétrés contre les Juifs.Al Hayat Al Jadeeda ( journal de l’Autorité palestinienne, 3 septembre 1997)
[Notre but est] d’éliminer l’Etat d’Israël et d’établir un Etat qui soit entièrement palestinien. Yasser Arafat (session privée avec des diplomates arabes en Europe, 30 janvier 1996)
La lutte contre l’ennemi sioniste n’est pas une question de frontières, mais touche à l’existence même de l’entité sioniste.Bassam-abou-Sharif (porte-parole de l’OLP, Kuwait News Agency – Agence de presse koweïtienne, 31 mai 1996)
A document found in the Cairo Geniza describes the way in which Umar I brought a group of Jews to the site of the Temple in order to clean it. The Jewish elders were asked to identify the stone known as the Foundation Stone. When it was found and identified, Umar ordered « a sanctuary to be built and a dome to be erected over the stone and overlaid with gold. » As a reward, Umar permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem and establish the Jewish Quarter. Reuven Hammer
Le choix du lieu lui-même est extrêmement symbolique : lieu sacré juif, où restent encore des ruines des temples hérodiens, laissé à l’abandon par les chrétiens pour marquer leur triomphe sur cette religion, il est à nouveau utilisé sous l’Islam, marquant alors la victoire sur les Chrétiens et, éventuellement, une continuité avec le judaïsme. (…) Enfin, l’historien Al-Maqdisi, au Xe siècle, écrit que le dôme a été réalisé dans la but de dépasser le Saint-Sépulcre, d’où un plan similaire, mais magnifié. De cette analyse on a pu conclure que le dôme du Rocher peut être considéré comme un message de l’Islam et des Umayyades en direction des chrétiens, des Juifs, mais également des musulmans récemment convertis (attirés par les déploiements de luxe des églises chrétiennes) pour marquer le triomphe de l’Islam.Wikipedia
Pourquoi pas un gel des constructions arabes? Pourquoi est-ce que les 21 pays arabes qui possèdent plus de 800 fois de terres sont-ils si obsédés par Israël? (…) le brouhaha que suscite la construction de 1.600 nouveaux logements à Jérusalem défie toute explication rationnelle. Parmi les enfants d’Abraham, les descendants d’Ismaël occupent actuellement au moins 800 fois plus de terres que les descendants d’Isaac. (…) Qui plus est les pays arabes ont bénéficié de manière disproportionnée de l’échange de populations entre Juifs et Arabes consécutif aux guerres arabes contre Israël. Depuis 1948, plus de 800.000 Juifs ont abandonné leurs maisons et perdirent leurs biens en Egypte, en Irak, au Maroc et au Yémen. Sans compter des actifs évalués à des centaines de milliards de dollars, les titres de propriété des Juifs des pays arabes est estimé à une superficie totale de 100.000 miles carrées, soit cinq fois la taille de l’État d’Israël, et davantage même si on ajoutait tous les territoires disputés de Cisjordanie. Ces disparités absurdes sont le résultat de cultures politiques opposées. La Ligue arabe a été créée en même temps qu’Israël dans le but explicite de mettre fin à l’existence de l’Etat juif. Bien qu’il y ait eu de profondes transformations au cours des décennies qui s’ensuivirent, l’opposition à l’Etat juif reste le meilleur outil fédérateur de la politique inter-arabe et arabo-musulmane. (…) Il est regrettable que les Arabes soient obsédés par la construction de logements en Israël plutôt que de s’attacher au développement de leurs propres terres qu’ils possèdent en surabondance. Mais pourquoi donc l’Amérique devrait-elle encourager leurs ambitions hégémoniques? En décembre de la Maison Blanche a publié une déclaration où elle s’opposait « aux nouvelles constructions à Jérusalem-Est », sans préciser où et ce qu’elle est. (…) Le point de départ de toute solution pacifique du conflit du Moyen-Orient impliquera un regard sans complaisance de la carte de la région où 21 pays qui disposent de 800 fois plus de terres sont obsédés par la croissance naturelle de leurs voisins juifs. Ruth R. Wisse
Je n’arrive pas à imaginer que les musulmans veuillent réellement une mosquée à cet endroit particulier, parce que ce deviendra une arène pour les promoteurs de la haine et un monument à ceux qui ont commis ce crime. D’ailleurs, il n’y a pas de fidèles musulmans dans le quartier qui aient besoin d’un lieu de culte parce que c’est une zone commerciale. (…) Ce que les Américains n’arrivent pas à comprendre, c’est que la bataille contre les terroristes du 11/9 n’est pas leur bataille. C’est une bataille de musulmans – une bataille dont les flammes continuent à faire rage dans plus de 20 pays musulmans… Je ne pense pas que la majorité des musulmans veuillent bâtir un monument ou un lieu de culte qui demain peut devenir source de fierté pour les terroristes et leurs disciples musulmans, ni qu’ils veulent une mosquée qui deviendra un lieu de pèlerinage pour ceux qui haïssent l’islam… Ceci a déjà commencé à se produire: ils prétendent qu’une mosquée va être construite au-dessus des cadavres des 3 000 Américains qui furent enterrés vivants par des personnes criant Allah akbar’ – le même appel qu’on entendra dans la mosquée… Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed (PDG d’Al-Arabiya)
Je n’aimerais pas entendre Obama dire quelque chose comme ça, et je ne m’y attends pas de toute façon. Pour la Turquie, la position américaine est très claire, elle est contre » la reconnaissance du génocide. (…) Tout au long de ces six années depuis qu’il est président, nous avons longuement parlé de cette question et convenu qu’elle devait être laissée aux historiens, pas aux dirigeants politiques (…) Ils vont parler, parler et insulter la Turquie. Nous serons à Canakkale ce jour-là, mais l’Arménie n’est pas à notre programme.Recep Tayyip Erdogan (conférence de presse avec le président irakien Fouad Massoum, 2015)
Nous soutenons la Turquie contre la campagne de propagande à laquelle elle fait face au sujet du prétendu génocide arménien. Ismail Haniyeh (chef du Hamas, 24.04.15)
Nobody wants to be killed, maimed or persecuted, of course. But in the Mideast there’s a perception that victims reap political rewards. (…)Jews and Arabs debate who is suffering most. Israelis talk about the « incremental massacre » of 35 Israelis in attacks since the signing of the preliminary peace accord in September. Palestinians counter that 69 of their brethren have been killed since the Hebron bloodbath. Both sides had new bodies to count last week. Israeli soldiers killed three armed Arab guerrillas in Hebron; during the siege a pregnant woman was killed by stray fire. A Jewish settler later shot dead an Arab truckdriver praying at roadside. Arab attackers struck their own blows, killing one Israeli and wounding several others in the occupied territories. Yet the bloodshed didn’t begin yesterday or even a few decades ago. Arabs date their suffering to the first influx of Zionist immigrants to Palestine around the turn of the century. Some militant Jewish settlers describe their struggle in Holocaust terms, saying the government wants to make Biblical lands Judenrein (empty of Jews). Other right-wingers invoke more ancient images, like Masada, the Dead Sea fortress where Jews committed mass suicide in A.D. 73 rather than bow to a Roman siege. Palestinians have new battles to prepare for. Moderates in Gaza, aware that they’ll soon be policing their own streets, are opening modest sports clubs to give young toughs something to do other than throw stones. « All these kids have seen blood, » says Hamed al-Kuren, 22, who spent three years in jail for throwing a Molotov cocktail at soldiers and other resistance activities. « We want to explain how they will live in peace. » Kuren tells the youths that « Jewish children were victims in the past just like you were victims. » Here, that’s still a hard sell.Newsweek
The enormity of the Holocaust ought to have eradicated anti-Semitism for all time. Shamefully, it did not. In much of the world, hatred of Jews thrives. In particular, newspapers and broadcasters across most of the Arab world deal routinely in repellent expressions of loathing of Jews and their faith. Elsewhere in the world—in Europe and, it should not be forgotten, also in the United States—anti-Semitism also survives, most visibly in a fringe of neo-Nazis and other despised outcasts, but also, and somewhat more widely, in milder forms of prejudice and suspicion. Still, impossible as it may be to measure people’s private feelings, the great majority of Europeans, it seems to us, harbour no suppressed anti-Semitic hatred. On the contrary, they sincerely deplore anti-Semitism, so much so that Mr Krauthammer’s portrait of Europe’s secret heart will strike many as a shocking insult. In most of Europe, to call somebody anti-Semitic is one of the worst accusations you can make. It is not one to be made lightly. But recent events in Europe—the attacks on synagogues, the success of Mr Le Pen—give the lie to that reply, do they not? Alarming and deplorable as they are, the answer is no. These events do not show that anti-Semitism is broadening its base (…). Anti-Semitism has lately been more apparent in France than elsewhere in Europe: even there, Mr Le Pen found it opportune this time to soft-pedal the anti-Jewish prejudice, calculating that it made better sense to denounce attacks on Jews in order to stir up hatred of Muslim immigrants. It suited Mr Le Pen in this election actually to pose as a defender of French Jews against their Muslim enemies and against immigrants in general—an odd way to call on brimming reserves of anti-Jewish hatred, waiting these past 60 years to overflow? It is important to understand that in most of Europe—as in America—anti-Semitism is a prejudice of a small minority, not the mainstream. A quite separate point is that criticism of Israel, let alone criticism of its government, need not be motivated by hatred of Jews. In their support for Ariel Sharon, Americans have often seemed more united than Israelis. Israelis who feel that Mr Sharon is wrong to resist a settlement with the Palestinians are presumably not guided in that belief by anti-Semitism, not even of the disguised or pent-up kind. This is not to deny that some outside criticism of Israel and its policies is indeed partly fuelled by anti-Semitism. (Where that is true, as in the claims of many Arab governments and commentators, and in many of Europe’s Muslim communities, it should be recognised and repudiated.) It is only to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: that it is not anti-Semitic per se to criticise Mr Sharon. Europeans have in fact become readier to criticise Israeli policies in recent years. The guilt that people who lived through the 1930s and 1940s felt about their failure to prevent the Holocaust is not felt to the same degree by the post-war generation. The goodwill that attended the birth and early years of Israel, which extended to admiration and active support during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (so much for Europe’s loathing of Jews who stick up for themselves) has since waned. Criticism of Israel that would once have been bitten back is now being freely expressed. In the same way, and this is to be regretted, the zeal of Europe’s rejection of Jewish hatred—its anti-anti-Semitism—may have faded somewhat too, especially on the left. In both these ways, Mr Krauthammer’s point about declining Holocaust shame has a semblance of validity. These developments are new, as he says—but they are not the same thing as a resurgence of anti-Semitism. The Economist
This year we mark the centennial of the Meds Yeghern, the first mass atrocity of the 20th Century. Beginning in 1915, the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths. Their culture and heritage in their ancient homeland were erased. Amid horrific violence that saw suffering on all sides, one and a half million Armenians perished. As the horrors of 1915 unfolded, U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr. sounded the alarm inside the U.S. government and confronted Ottoman leaders. Because of efforts like his, the truth of the Meds Yeghern emerged and came to influence the later work of human rights champions like Raphael Lemkin, who helped bring about the first United Nations human rights treaty. Against this backdrop of terrible carnage, the American and Armenian peoples came together in a bond of common humanity. Ordinary American citizens raised millions of dollars to support suffering Armenian children, and the U.S. Congress chartered the Near East Relief organization, a pioneer in the field of international humanitarian relief. Thousands of Armenian refugees began new lives in the United States, where they formed a strong and vibrant community and became pillars of American society. Rising to great distinction as businesspeople, doctors, scholars, artists, and athletes, they made immeasurable contributions to their new home. This centennial is a solemn moment. It calls on us to reflect on the importance of historical remembrance, and the difficult but necessary work of reckoning with the past. I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed. A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interests. Peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past. We welcome the expression of views by Pope Francis, Turkish and Armenian historians, and the many others who have sought to shed light on this dark chapter of history. On this solemn centennial, we stand with the Armenian people in remembering that which was lost. We pledge that those who suffered will not be forgotten. And we commit ourselves to learn from this painful legacy, so that future generations may not repeat it.Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day
Nassar, a former Arab American Institute intern, grew up near the outskirts of Bethlehem under the Israeli occupation with the constant threat of displacement from his family’s historic land. Despite his circumstances, he always wanted to be a peace builder and came to embrace non-violent methods to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Nassar recounts the first hand impact of the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic, referring to the 1948 war) in the refugee camp near his home which he frequently visited. “I saw what it was like to be a refugee and what I saw was that the Nakba did not just happen in 1948, but is happening today.” When Nassar met Sam Feigenbaum, an American Jew, at the Tent of Nations farm in Palestine his ambition to open the Nakba museum became a reality. (…) After discussing ideas and strategies they realized that they could make their idea a digital project. Nassar would help gather the stories and artwork for the museum and Feigenbaum would do the graphic design and post the content on the newly fashioned website. They hope that the museum will serve as a safe space to start deep conversations about the impact the Nakba has had on millions of people. Nassar and Feigenbaum plan to move the museum to a permanent space in the future, and they’ve set up an IndieGoGo campaign to support their vision. The opening exhibit will be hosted on June 12-27th at the Festival Center in Washington, D.C. The opening exhibit will feature photos and prints of the Nakba as well as video interviews with refugees. Arab American institute
For the sake of clarity and decency, one must delineate between (a) genocides (documented attempts to wipe off a race or a nation); (b) non-genocidal mass murders; (c) enslavement of large numbers of people; (d) planned dispossession and expulsion of large numbers of people; and (e) secondary effects of wars and other crises. In that order. The Holocaust qualifies under point (a). So does the starvation program against the Hereros (in German Southwest Africa shortly before WW1), and the further genocidal operations against the Armenians, the Iraqi Chaldeans, the black minority in the Dominican Republic, the Roma/Sinti in Europe, and the Tutsis in Rwanda. The « Nakba » does not compare to most other collective tragedies in the last century. The Soviet, Red Chinese, and Khmer Rouge domestic massacres qualify under point (b), as well as the Nazi treatment of European nations (like the Poles), the Japanese atrocities in China, and many further ethnic and religious massacres in the Balkans, South Asia, and Africa. The African slave trade and the slavery regimes in both Islamic countries and the Christian colonies in the Americas and elsewhere qualify under point (c). So do massive slave work programs in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, in Maoist China, and in present-day North Korea. Qualifying under point (d): The U.S. treatment of many Native Americans in the 19th century; the French treatment of Kabyles in Algeria in 1871; the alternate expulsion of Turks, Greeks, and Turks again between 1912 and 1923; the expulsion of Poles and French from areas slated for German colonization during WW2; the expulsion of ethnic Germans from East Prussia, Transoderian Germany, and Czechoslovakia in 1945; the mass anti-Christian pogroms in Turkey in 1955; the expulsion of Christians and Jews from Arab or Islamic countries from 1956 on (Egypt, North Africa, the Middle East); and the expulsion of ethnic Greeks from Northern Cyprus. UNRWA has evolved from a temporary relief and works program into a broad social welfare organization. The Nakba should be chiefly considered under point (e): the mass flight of Arab Palestinians was a collateral outcome of the first Arab-Israeli war, which was initiated by the Arab Palestinian leadership of the day and six Arab nations. Even so, Arab Palestinian refugees, while often unwelcome in neighboring Arab countries, were given a privileged status by the United Nations and have been able to retain it on a hereditary basis to this day. As an average, UNRWA — the United Nations agency that deals exclusively with Palestinian refugees — has been getting one third of the global United Nations budget for refugees over a period of almost seventy years. It is noteworthy that most Muslim victims come also under point (e), whereas Muslim powers acted criminally in many instances under points (a), (c) and (d). Likewise, it should be stressed that throughout the 1915-2015 period, Christians have been the largest victim group in the Middle East under points (a), (d) and (e), followed by Jews under points (d) and (e). Again, comparison of the Nakba with the Holocaust or with much of the above criminality of the past 100 years is parody rooted in anti-Israeli sentiment. Michel Gurfinkiel
Bible falsifiée, mosquées-coucou sur l’esplanade du Temple, « Palestine » terre du « peuple palestinien », « diaspora », contre-sionisme, « exode », « exil », « droit du retour », Jésus « premier résistant palestinien qui voulait chasser l’occupant » , « Jérusalem perle du monde arabe et « sommet de toutes ses joies », Gaza « camp de concentration à ciel ouvert », « génocide de Gaza », « Jour de la Nakba » avec minute de silence et sirènes …
Où, lieux de culte et génocide compris, chacun revendique son droit à la victimisation …
En ce lendemain du centenaire du génocide des chrétiens turcs dit génocide arménien …
Où, fidèle à lui-même après Auschwitz et Paris, le Golfeur en chef de la Maison Blanche a à nouveau brillé par son absence et sa casuistique …
Et où, sentant le vent tourner, même nos chanteurs « fleur bleue » recyclent leurs vieux tubes à la sauce géopolitiquement correcte …
Alors qu’à Gallipoli aux côtés du Négationniste en chef d’Ankara, le prince Charles et les premiers ministres australien, néo-zélandais et irlandais se prêtaient à la pire des mascarades …
Pendant que sur les lieux mêmes du génocide des chrétiens de l’Empire ottoman ou sur les plages ou au large des côtes libyennes et à coup de sacrifices humains aux couteau de boucher ou au vieux rafiot pourri abandonné en pleine mer, nos amis musulmans s’évertuent et se tuent littéralement à nous ouvrir les yeux sur la réalité de la Religion de paix …
Et qu’entre Téhéran et Washington, on prépare l’Arme de la Solution finale …
Comment ne pas voir …
Avec le projet, comme le rappelle Michel Gurfinkiel, d’un Holocaust Memorial Museum palestinien (pardon: un « Nabka Memorial Museum » !) à Washington …
Le véritable moteur de toute l’entreprise de désinformation palestinienne en particulier et de l’islam en général …
1915-2015 : A Century Of Barbarity
In the Middle East, the main victims were Christians and Jews.
Michel Gurfinkiel
PJMedia
April 24 2015
Bshara Nassar – a self-described « peacebuilder and social entrepreneur, a graduate of Bethlehem University, Palestine », with « a master’s degree in Conflict Transformation from Eastern Mennonite University » – leads a campaign for a « Nakba Museum Project of Memory and Hope » in order to « bring the Palestinian refugee story to Washington, DC ».
The campaign, supported by Nonviolence International With Nakba Museum and Indiegogo, a crowd-funding organization, was launched in 2014 and seems to enjoy
Crime, including political crime and politically or militarily motivated mass murder, is usually a mean to achieve some higher purpose or to bring about some practical benefit. For instance, the Ottoman rationale in 1915 was to « remove » the Armenian minority from Turkish Anatolia, in order to prevent a pro-Russian Armenian uprising and to achieve geostrategic cohesion. They had no further « racial » or metaphysical concern : the few Armenians who converted to islam were spared ; many Armenian orphans were adopted by Turkish families and raised as Turks.
As far as the Holocaust was concerned, however, crime was an end unto itself. No Jew, under the Nazi genocidal project, was allowed to survive, neither by renouncing Judaism nor even as a pariah or a slave ; and in fact, very few Jews, in the Nazi-controled areas, managed to survive. Moreover, the annihilation of the Jews was to take precedence over Germany’s strategic considerations, and did actually divert and waste throughout WW2 crucial resources in manpower, energy and transportation needed by German forces. Finally, the Jews were not just to be murdered : they had to be murdered in the most gruesome and sadistic way, not just with physical crualty but with moral or mental cruelty as well.
This is why the memory of the Holocaust – and knowledge of the Holocaust – is so important today ; why so many nations, including present day Germany, devote so much attention to it ; and why there is an U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The more one remembers such an ultimate tragedy and crime, the more one remembers – and understands – other tragedies and other crimes.
Pope Francis rightly marked, on April 12, the one hundredth anniversary of the Armenian genocide. So did, on April 15, the European Parliament. The Armenian tragedy was however almost forgotten or ignored for decades, even among European Christians : it took the new context shaped by the Holocaust memorial effort to bring it back to full exposure. In fact, Holocaust Memorial Museums all over the world tend by now to educate the public about all genocides. An exhibition about the Armenians was just inaugurated at the French National Shoah Museum in Paris.
Indeed, Arab Palestinians underwent tremendous ordeals in the 20th century. Still, the Nakba was not the Holocaust. It does not even compare to most other collective tragedies in the 20th and early 21st centuries.
For the sake of clarity and decency, one must delineate between : (a) genocides (documented attempts to wipe off a race or a nation) ; (b) non-genocidal mass murders ; (c) enslavement of large numbers of people ; (d) planned dispossession and expulsion of large numbers of people ; (e) secondary effects of wars and other crisis. In that order.
The Holocaust qualifies under point (a). So do the starvation program against the Hereros (in German South West Africa shortly before WW1), and the further genocidal operations against the Armenians, the Iraqi Chaldeans, the Black minority in the Dominican Republic, the Roma/Sinti in Europe, the Tutsis in Rwanda.
The Soviet, Red Chinese and Khmer Rouge domestic massacres qualify under point (b), as well as the Nazi treatment of « inferior » European nations (like the Poles), the Japanese atrocities in China, and many further ethnic and religious massacres in the Balkans, South Asia and Africa.
The African trade slave and the slavery regimes in both the Islamic countries and the Christian colonies in the Americas and elsewhere qualify under point (c). So do massive slave work programs in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, in Maoist China and in present day North Korea.
The US treatment of many Native Americans in the 19th century, the French treatment of Kabyles in Algeria in 1871, the alternate expulsion of Turks, Greeks and Turks again between 1912 and 1923, the expulsion of Poles and French from areas slated for German colonization during WW2, the expulsion of ethnic Germans from East Prussia, Transoderian Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1945, the mass anti-Christian pogroms in Turkey in 1955, the expulsion of Christians and Jews from Arab or Islamic countries from 1956 on (Egypt, North Africa, the Middle East), the expulsion of ethnic Greeks from Northern Cyprus, qualify under point (d).
The Nakba should be chiefly considered under point (e) : the mass flight of Arab Palestinians was a collateral outcome of the first Arab-Israeli war, which was initiated by the Arab Palestinian leadership of the day and six Arab nations. Even so, Arab Palestinian refugees, while often unwelcome in neighboring Arab countries, were given a privileged status by the United Nations and have been able to retain it on an hereditary basis to this day. As an average, UNRWA, the United Nations agency that deals exclusively with Palestinian refugees, has been getting one third of the global United Nations budgets for refugees over a period of almost seventy years.
It is noteworthy that most Muslim victims come also under point (e), whereas Muslim powers acted criminally in many instances under points (a), (c) and (d). Likewise, it should be stressed that, throughout the 1915-2015 period, Christians have been the largest victim group in the Middle East under points (a), (d) and (e), followed by Jews under points (d) and (e).
Michel Gurfinkiel is the Founder and President of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, a conservative think-thank in France, and a Shillman/Ginsburg Fellow at Middle East Forum.
In 2011, Bshara Nassar participated in a New Story Leadership program that brought together young Israelis and Palestinians in a powerful learning experience. The program took 10 participants to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which certainly seemed like an appropriate site for reflection. However, he realized that there was not a museum dedicated to showing the suffering of the Palestinian people. Although the program aspired to fairly expose participants to the historical underpinnings of the Israeli and Palestinian narratives on modern history and conflict, Nassar realized that it was missing a key element of the Palestinian experience – which inspired him to launch the Nakba Museum, which is live online and will open its first physical exhibit in Washington, D.C. this June.
Nassar, a former Arab American Institute intern, grew up near the outskirts of Bethlehem under the Israeli occupation with the constant threat of displacement from his family’s historic land. Despite his circumstances, he always wanted to be a peace builder and came to embrace non-violent methods to protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Nassar recounts the first hand impact of the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic, referring to the 1948 war) in the refugee camp near his home which he frequently visited. “I saw what it was like to be a refugee and what I saw was that the Nakba did not just happen in 1948, but is happening today.”
When Nassar met Sam Feigenbaum, an American Jew, at the Tent of Nations farm in Palestine his ambition to open the Nakba museum became a reality. Both Nassar and Feigenbaum studied conflict resolution and whole heartedly endorse the motto made famous by Nassar’s family farm, “We refuse to be enemies,” and have made it their mission to share stories of the Nakba that have been silenced. Both Nassar and Feigenbaum are not interested in creating competing narratives, but they both hope that this museum will focus on the human suffering caused by the events of 1948. Nassar commented that “There is no political agenda here, we just want to tell the story”.
After discussing ideas and strategies they realized that they could make their idea a digital project. Nassar would help gather the stories and artwork for the museum and Feigenbaum would do the graphic design and post the content on the newly fashioned website. They hope that the museum will serve as a safe space to start deep conversations about the impact the Nakba has had on millions of people. Nassar and Feigenbaum plan to move the museum to a permanent space in the future, and they’ve set up an IndieGoGo campaign to support their vision.
The opening exhibit will be hosted on June 12-27th at the Festival Center in Washington, D.C. The opening exhibit will feature photos and prints of the Nakba as well as video interviews with refugees.
Au cours de la « Grande soirée du Télévie 2015 », Le chanteur-vedette Salvatore Adamo (71 ans) a interprété, en duo avec Julie Zenatti, sa célèbre chanson « Inch’Allah », dans la version revue et corrigée par ses soins en 1993 pour la rendre plus géopolitiquement correcte.
Cette ré-audition m’a rappelé la mise au point sévère que j’avais publiée, en avril 2008, sur un site juif. J’y donnais suite à l’interpellation d’un internaute qui rappelait amèrement que le chanteur avait rédigé, en 1993, une deuxième version de son ‘tube’, expurgée du parti pris pro-israélien que lui reprochaient ses détracteurs [1].
Deux explications principales de ce revirement ont été données par les critiques. La plus positive (c’est la version du chanteur lui-même), les accords d’Oslo avaient changé la donne ; l’espoir d’une paix prochaine et donc de la cessation du conflit palestino-israélien méritait une illustration poétique, et plutôt que d’écrire une nouvelle chanson sur ce thème, pourquoi ne pas transformer l’originale par quelques touches littéraires bien venues?
Les tenants de l’explication négative, eux, ricanaient en faisant remarquer que, sur le plan de l’image de marque du chanteur et du marketing de son ‘tube’, c’était une bonne affaire, puisque – ô miracle ! – après ce rafistolage, « Inch’Allah » devenait arabo-correcte et valait à la vedette des concerts dans tout le Proche-Orient (à l’exception du Liban).
Je donnerai mon avis sur la question dans la dernière partie du présent billet. En attendant, pour permettre à qui le souhaite de se faire une religion, voici une brève leçon de texte. Ne pouvant, en raison des contraintes éditoriales de ce Blog, disposer les deux versions en synopse pour permettre la visualisation immédiate des différences entre les deux textes, je me limiterai à quelques remarques et commentaires successifs.
Le fait le plus massif est la disparition pure et simple, dans la version recyclée, des strophes 7 à 9, dont voici le texte :
« Dieu de l’enfer ou Dieu du ciel
Toi qui te trouves où bon te semble
Sur cette terre d’Israël
Il y a des enfants qui tremblent…»
« Les femmes tombent sous l’orage
Demain le sang sera lavé
La route est faite de courage
Une femme pour un pavé… »
« Mais oui j’ai vu Jérusalem
Coquelicot sur un rocher
J’entends toujours ce Requiem
Lorsque sur lui je suis penché… »
Intéressant également est le remaniement de la strophe 4 :
« Le chemin mène à la fontaine
Tu voudrais bien remplir ton seau
Arrête-toi Marie-Madeleine
Pour eux ton corps ne vaut pas l’eau… »
Qui devient :
« Mais voici qu’après tant de haine
Fils d’Ismaël et fils d’Israël
Libèrent d’une main sereine
Une colombe dans le ciel… »
Mais le plus choquant, semble-t-il, ce sont les « SIX millions d’âmes » (juives) du texte original, diluées’ (à parts égales ?) dans la strophe 10 de la version amendée :
Requiem pour LES millions d’âmes
de ces enfants, ces femmes, ces hommes,
tombés DES DEUX CÔTÉS du drame…
Assez de sang, Salam, Shalom…
Des deux côtés? Attendez ! Je croyais savoir compter…
Où sont les MILLIONS de Palestiniens « tombés »?…
Cette strophe 10 est la dernière de la version rédimée et en constitue le bouquet final.
Mon avis, à présent, sur cette opération « chanson propre ».
Monsieur Salvatore Adamo s’est fait, de longue date, une réputation de «gentil garçon»
Ses manières gauches et timides (spontanées ou étudiées? nul ne le sait…), sa simplicité, sa discrétion, sa pudeur et sa modestie (même remarque), ont fait de lui une star très populaire.
Et chacun sait que les stars font souvent la pluie et le beau temps en matière d’opinion. Alors, malheur à celui ou celle (personne privée, institution ou nation), que la vedette fustige, ou simplement à qui elle fait les gros yeux!
Du coup,
oubliés, les « enfants d’Israël qui tremblent »…
disparu, le « Requiem »…
éludés, les « Six Millions d’âmes » (juives)…
submergés, les « mausolées de marbre »…
passés sous silence, les « Six Millions d’arbres »…
Après cet exercice, Adamo pourrait, sans problème, pasticher les «Trompettes de la renommée» de Brassens. Cela donnerait à peu près ceci :
« Les gens de bon conseil ont su me faire comprendre
qu’à l’homme de la rue [arabe] j’avais des comptes à rendre, et que, sous peine de choir dans un oubli complet, j’devais mettre au rancart mes sionistes couplets ! »
Pauvre Adamo! Il faut le comprendre. Il nous l’a expliqué lui-même: «On m’a reproché d’avoir choisi mon camp» – entendez : Israël. Pas très politiquement correct, il est vrai…
Alors, tant pis pour le peuple aux Six Millions de victimes : intimidé, honteux de sa partialité, Adamo le doux (non, je n’ai pas dit « le mou »!), incapable de peiner le dernier interlocuteur qui le remet en cause, s’est remis au travail… Vous avez lu, plus haut, ce que cela a donné. C’est médiocre, poussif, absolument pas convaincant.
Moi, à la place des Arabes et des Palestiniens (victimes eux aussi, ne l’oubliez pas… (Quoi, Six Millions?… Lâchez-nous les baskets avec vos «Six Millions»! Vous n’avez donc que «ça» à la bouche !?)… Donc, à la place des Arabes et des Palestiniens, je serais horriblement vexé…
Alors, ma conclusion personnelle? Après les analyses qui précèdent, elles ne font certainement plus de doute pour vous :
Malgré l’affirmation contraire de Monsieur Adamo, la cure d’amaigrissement et la ’révision’ qu’il a infligées à sa chanson de 1966, n’ont rien d’un «rééquilibrage», comme on l’a écrit. C’est du pur recyclage révisionniste, après les titillements d’une conscience mal éclairée.
Résultat recherché: l’équivalence morale [2] ! La tarte à la crème des «belles âmes» qui veulent être du bon côté du manche. Selon cette morale de chapon, (ou, si vous préférez, émasculée), une partie qui a raison et l’autre qui a tort, ça n’existe pas, alors, partageons les torts.
Il faut savoir que ceux qui pratiquent ce genre de ‘philosophie’ « droit-de-l’hommiste » s’estiment moraux, parce que non-partisans. On a vu ce que cela a donné au cours des décennies écoulées :
Loi du retour pour les Juifs = Droit au retour en Israël pour les Palestiniens ;
Implantations sur le sol de l’antique patrie des Juifs = Grand Israël, colonisation, occupation ;
Barrière de sécurité = Apartheid ;
Autodéfense armée = Réaction disproportionnée ;
État Juif = Racisme et Théocratie;
Holocauste = Nakba, etc.
Il y a beau temps que j’ai ôté le « gentil» Adamo de mes podcasts préférés. Si quelqu’un cherche une chanson sioniste équivalente de l’ »Inchallah » première époque, j’ai une bonne nouvelle : il existe un « tube » bien meilleur que celui d’Adamo, et surtout plus sincère.
Il s’appelle « Terre promise ». Les paroles, simplissimes et percutantes, sont de Pierre Delanoé. La musique est une adaptation du « tube » populaire international du groupe The Mamas & Papas, intitulé « California Dreamin’ », et il est interprété par la belle voix, chaude, rythmée, et bien timbrée, du regretté Richard Anthony, récemment décédé.
Cette chanson date de 1966 (tiens, la date où Adamo créait « Inch’Allah » première mouture !). Contrairement à celle d’Adamo, elle n’a pas eu besoin de recyclage. Hélas, il n’y a pas eu non plus de vedette pour la reprendre, faisant chaud au cœur à qui veut l’entendre ou la ré-entendre.
Vous la trouverez ICI.
Enfin – pardonnez ce jeu de mots facile – :
aucun Adamo au monde ne nous séparera de notre Adamah, notre terre à nous, Eretz Israel !
———————————————————————————————-
[1] Titre de l’article, que j’ai repris sur mon site personnel debriefing : « L’ »Inch’Allah » d’Adamo (1966-1993): rééquilibrage ou recyclage islamiquement correct ? »
[2] «Concrètement, l’équivalence morale signifie une culpabilité également partagée, une mauvaise foi également répartie, une intransigeance également intraitable. Vous voyez le topo: Israéliens et Palestiniens, tous dans le même sac! Ils sont tous fautifs, pleins de haine. C’est là, reconnaissez-le, une posture facile et combien rassurante puisque ça vous dispense de prendre parti. C’est cependant une attitude parfaitement odieuse et méprisable.» (D’après Jacques Brassard, «L’équivalence morale, ou l’hypocrisie occidentale».
Un internaute rappelle ce que les observateurs avertis savent depuis longtemps, mais dont ils évitent de parler afin de ne pas passer pour des paranoïaques, à savoir qu’il y a deux versions de la chanson de Salvatore Adamo, « Inch’Allah ». Notre correspondant précise que, dans la version de 1993, « les strophes évoquant les enfants tremblants de Jérusalem et les six millions d’âmes sont parties en …fumée ». Il intitule amèrement la mise au point qu’il nous adresse : « La version de 1993 et le politiquement correct (un gilet pare-balles, en quelque sorte) ». Il joint ensuite les deux versions de cette célèbre chanson. Avant de les mettre, à mon tour, sous les yeux de nos internautes, j’ai tenu à vérifier soigneusement l’une et l’autre et à resituer les choses dans leur contexte. (Menahem Macina).
06/04/08
Avant d’examiner si l’accusation ou le soupçon qu’évoque mon titre, sont fondés ou non, j’ai reproduit, en synopse, les deux versions que séparent 27 années… En rouge, les différences.
On remarquera que les strophes 7 à 9 ont disparu de la version ’recyclée’. J’en ignore la cause.
Mais le plus choquant, à mes yeux, ce sont les « SIX millions d’âmes » (juives), ’diluées’ (à parts égales ?) dans LES millions « de ces enfants, ces femmes, ces hommes, tombés DES DEUX CÔTES du drame »…
Deux côtés? Attendez, je croyais savoir compter… Où sont les millions de Palestiniens « tombés »…
« On était en plein processus d’Oslo » (voir 4ème strophe), me dira-t-on sans doute, « tout le monde (ou presque), y compris en Israël, planait sur son petit nuage »… Peut-être, mais examinez bien les changements, mis en rouge (modifications effectuées pour ’coller’ au ’rêve’ d’Oslo), et en MAJUSCULES (ce qui ne pouvait pas être conservé dans la nouvelle version, parce que trop marqué Juif et Israélien, donc potentiellement blessant ou frustrant pour le « partenaire de paix »). Puis, lisez les deux extraits d’interviews d’Adamo, qui suivent. Vous serez alors en mesure de vous forger une opinion, avant de lire la mienne, à la fin du présent article
1. Aperçu synoptique des deux versions et des modifications du texte de l’original
Version originale (1966) Version recyclée (1993)
J’ai vu l’Orient dans son écrin J’ai vu l’Orient dans son écrin
Avec la lune pour bannière Avec la lune pour bannière
Et je comptais en un quatrain Et je comptais en un quatrain
Chanter au monde sa lumière Chanter au monde sa lumière
Mais quand j’ai vu Jérusalem Mais quand j’ai vu Jérusalem
Coquelicot sur un rocher Coquelicot sur un rocher
J’ai entendu un Requiem J’ai entendu un Requiem
Quand sur lui je me suis penché Quand sur lui je me suis penché
Ne vois-tu pas, humble Chapelle Ne vois-tu pas humble Chapelle
Toi qui murmures paix sur la terre Toi qui murmures paix sur la terre
Que les oiseaux cachent de leurs ailes Que les oiseaux cachent de leurs ailes
Ces lettres de feu: « Danger frontière » Ces lettres de feu: « Danger frontière »
Le chemin mène à la fontaine Mais voici qu’après tant de haine
Tu voudrais bien remplir ton seau Fils d’Ismaël et fils d’Israël
Arrête-toi Marie-Madeleine Libèrent d’une main sereine
Pour eux ton corps ne vaut pas l’eau Une colombe dans le ciel
Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah
Et l’olivier pleure son ombre Et l’olivier retrouve son ombre
Sa tendre épouse son amie Sa tendre épouse son amie
Qui repose sur les décombres Qui reposait sur les décombres
Prisonnière en terre ennemie Prisonnière en terre ennemie
Sur une épine de barbelés Et par dessus les barbelés
Le papillon guette la rose Le papillon vole vers la rose
Les gens sont si écervelés Hier on l’aurait répudié
Qu’ils me répudieront si j’ose Mais aujourd’hui, enfin il ose
Dieu de l’enfer ou Dieu du ciel
Toi qui te trouves où bon te semble
SUR CETTE TERRE D’ISRAËL
IL Y A DES ENFANTS QUI TREMBLENT
Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah
Les femmes tombent sous l’orage
Demain le sang sera lavé
La route est faite de courage
Une femme pour un pavé
Mais oui j’ai vu Jérusalem
Coquelicot sur un rocher
J’ENTENDS TOUJOURS CE REQUIEM
Lorsque sur lui je suis penché
Requiem pour SIX millions d’âmes Requiem pour LES millions d’âmes
QUI N’ONT PAS LEUR MAUSOLEE DE MARBRE De ces enfants, ces femmes, ces hommes
Et qui malgré le sable infâme Tombés DES DEUX CÔTES du drame
ONT FAIT POUSSER SIX MILLIONS D’ARBRES Assez de sang, Salam, Shalom
Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah, Inch’Allah
2. Le témoignage du recycleur/rééquilibreur lui-même
(1) « Je revendique mon côté fleur bleue », entretien avec S. Adamo, L’Humanité, 16 février 2007
Q. – Vous venez de fêter vos soixante-trois ans. Quel regard portez-vous sur votre parcours ?
Adamo – « …Aujourd’hui, les gens redécouvrent les chansons des années soixante où on pouvait afficher de bons sentiments, sans engendrer l’ironie. Ce qui n’empêchait pas de chanter des choses plus graves. Je pense à Inch’Allah, que j’ai écrite en octobre 1966. C’était bien la preuve qu’on pouvait être fleur bleue et s’intéresser aux malheurs du monde. Cette chanson, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de l’enlever de mon répertoire, parce qu’elle est toujours d’actualité. À tel point que j’ai dû la nuancer au gré des quelques espoirs de paix. J’ai changé quelques strophes, mais je me suis rendu compte que je n’allais pas jusqu’au bout du message. J’ai ainsi réécrit une autre chanson dans l’album Zanzibar sur le problème du Moyen-Orient, « Mon douloureux Orient », où je fais allusion à la souffrance du côté palestinien. Une chanson qui dit : quelles qu’aient été les raisons de cette haine ancestrale, il faut l’oublier pour vivre l’un à côté de l’autre. »
Mon commentaire
« Cette chanson, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de l’enlever de mon répertoire, parce qu’elle est toujours d’actualité… j’ai dû la nuancer… ». Qu’avons-nous besoin d’un autre aveu. Le message du boycott arabe, vous l’avez reçu 5 sur 5, Monsieur Adamo. Personnellement, j’eusse préféré que vous supprimiez carrément cette chanson de votre répertoire, plutôt que de vous voir la profaner de votre propre initiative. D’autant que le résultat, permettez-moi de vous le dire, sent le labeur et non l’inspiration, et en tout cas, pas la sincérité.
(2) « Adamo, un sentimental engagé », Sur le site RFI/Musique (6 novembre 2003)
Q. – On remarque aussi, sur votre nouvel album, trente-sept ans après Inch Allah, une nouvelle chanson sur les drames d’Israël, Mon douloureux Orient…
Adamo – « On peut se demander pourquoi, moi qui suis catholique d’éducation, je suis resté fidèle à une émotion de 1966, que j’ai traduite d’une façon qui a été malheureusement mal interprétée dans pas mal de pays arabes où j’ai été interdit. Cet été, le 15 août [2003], pour la première fois depuis cette époque, j’ai pu chanter dans un pays arabe, en Tunisie. J’ai chanté Mon douloureux Orient et les gens applaudissaient à certains mots pendant la chanson. J’ai voulu dire qu’il est temps que ces deux peuples vivent en paix. On ne leur demande pas de s’aimer, mais d’arrêter de s’entretuer. Avec le recul, je me suis rendu compte de quelle strophe avait valu [sic] mon interdiction: « Sur cette terre d’Israël/J’ai vu des enfants qui tremblent ». On m’a dit que c’était choisir un camp. Mais je voulais parler de la terre biblique tout entière, Israël et Palestine ensemble. Je n’ai pas fait cette nouvelle chanson pour «rattraper» quoi que ce soit, mais pour avoir la conscience en paix. »
Mon commentaire :
« Israël et Palestine ensemble ! » Monsieur Adamo, soit vous nous prenez pour des bœufs, soit vous êtes un ignare. En 1966, les Arabes d’Israël n’avaient pas conscience de former un peuple, il n’y avait pas encore d’Autorité Palestinienne, la Guerre des Six Jours n’avait pas eu lieu, le monde arabe constituait bien une menace, mais pas pour « la Palestine ». A l’époque et dans les années qui suivirent, les seuls enfants qui tremblaient étaient Israéliens. Bien avant que vous ne procédiez au recyclage de votre chanson et que vous en effaciez, purement et simplement, la phrase que l’on vous reprochait (« Sur cette terre d’Israël, il y a des enfants qui tremblent »), elle s’est malheureusement avérée prophétique. En effet, le 11 avril 1974, sept mois après la Guerre de Kippour, des terroristes s’infiltrent du Liban à Maalot, ville du nord d’Israël. Ils pénètrent dans la maison de la famille Cohen, tuent le mari, la femme et leur fils de quatre ans. Ils prennent ensuite le contrôle de l’école Nativ Méir. 105 élèves sont retenus en otage. Finalement devant l’intransigeance des terroristes et après que des rafales d’armes automatiques aient été entendues à l’intérieur de l’école, les forces de sécurité donnent l’assaut. Au total, vingt-deux adolescents et cinq adultes trouveront la mort dans cette tragédie.
Conclusion
Monsieur Salvatore Adamo s’est fait, de longue date, une réputation de « gentil garçon ». Ses manières gauches et timides (spontanées ou étudiées? nul ne le sait…), sa simplicité, sa discrétion, sa pudeur et sa modestie (même remarque), ont fait de lui une star très populaire. Et chacun sait que les stars font souvent la pluie et le beau temps en matière d’opinion. Alors, malheur à celui ou celle (personne privée, institution ou nation), que la vedette fustige, ou simplement à qui il fait les gros yeux ! Malheur, donc, à Israël, qui a eu la malchance de se voir supplanté, dans l’estime d’Adamo, par les « gentils » Palestiniens. Du coup,
oubliés, les enfants d’Israël qui tremblent,
disparu, le Requiem,
éludés, les Six Millions de Juifs,
submergés, les mausolées de marbre,
passés sous silence, les Six Millions d’arbres…
Après cet exercice, Adamo pourrait bien pasticher les « Trompettes de la renommée » de Brassens. Cela donnerait à peu près cela :
» Les gens de bon conseil ont su me faire comprendre
qu’à l’homme de la rue [arabe] j’avais des comptes à rendre,
et que sous peine de choir dans un oubli complet,
j’devais mettre au rancart mes sionistes couplets ! »
Pauvre Adamo, il faut le comprendre. Il nous l’a expliqué lui-même : « On m’a reproché d’avoir choisi mon camp » – entendez : Israël. Pas très politiquement correct, n’est-ce pas?… Alors, tant pis pour le peuple aux Six Millions de victimes : intimidé, honteux de sa partialité, Adamo le doux (non, je n’ai pas dit « le mou »!), incapable de peiner le dernier interlocuteur qui le remet en cause, s’est mis au travail… Vous avez lu, plus haut, ce que cela a donné. C’est médiocre, poussif, absolument pas convaincant. Moi, à la place des Arabes et des Palestiniens (victimes eux aussi, ne l’oubliez pas… Quoi Six Millions? Oh! lâchez-nous les baskets avec vos « Six Millions »! Vous n’avez donc que « ça » à la bouche !?), donc, moi, à la place des Arabes et des Palestiniens, je serais horriblement vexé…
Alors, ma conclusion personnelle? Après les analyses qui précèdent, elles ne font certainement plus de doute pour vous :
Malgré l’affirmation contraire de Monsieur Adamo, la cure d’amaigrissement et la ’révision’ qu’il a infligées à sa chanson de 1966, n’a rien d’un « rééquilibrage ». C’est du pur recyclage révisionniste, après titillage d’une conscience mal éclairée. Résultat recherché: l’équivalence morale * ! La tarte à la crème des « belles âmes » qui veulent être du bon côté du manche. Selon cette morale de chapon, (ou, si vous préférez, émasculée), une partie qui a raison et l’autre qui a tort, ça n’existe pas, alors, partageons les torts. Et ceux qui pratiquent ce genre de ’philosophie’ « droit de l’hommiste » s’estiment moraux, non partisans. On a vu ce que cela a donné au cours des deux décennies écoulées :
Loi du retour pour les Juifs = Droit au retour en Israël pour les Palestiniens;
Implantations sur le sol de l’antique patrie des Juifs = Grand Israël, colonisation, occupation;
Barrière de sécurité = Apartheid;
Autodéfense armée = Réaction disproportionnée;
Etat Juif = Racisme et Théocratie;
Holocauste = Nakba, etc.
Il y a beau temps que j’ai ôté le « gentil » Adamo de mes podcasts préférés. Si vous cherchez une chanson sioniste équivalente, amis internautes, j’ai une bonne nouvelle pour ceux qui l’ignorent : il existe un « tube » bien meilleur que celui d’Adamo, et surtout plus sincère. Il s’appelle « Terre promise » : les paroles, simplissimes, sont de Pierre Delanoé. La musique est une adaptation du « tube » populaire international du groupe The Mamas & Papas, intitulé « California Dreamin’ », et il est interprété par la belle voix, chaude, rythmée, et bien timbrée, de Richard Anthony. Cette chanson date de 1966 (tiens, la date où Adamo créait « Inch’Allah », première mouture – sincère !), mais, croyez-moi, elle n’a pas pris une ride et cela fait chaud au cœur de l’entendre. Vous la trouverez ici, et ici.
Et puis – pardonnez ce jeu de mots facile -,
aucun Adamo au monde ne nous séparera de notre Adamah, notre terre à nous, Eretz Israel !
* Note sur l’équivalence morale.
Voir, entre autres, Yossi Alpher, « Gaza : le dilemme d’Israël ». Extrait :
» La plupart des Israéliens… croient qu’il n’existe pas d’équivalence morale entre des civils israéliens délibérément visés par des terroristes palestiniens et des civils palestiniens tués par inadvertance lors d’attaques ripostant au terrorisme…. Je crois que l’argument israélien de l’équivalence morale est un argument fort : les terroristes visent délibérément des civils ; nous pas. Lorsque nous nous protégeons nous-mêmes, nous hésitons longuement avant de toucher des civils. Il y a un élément du « choc des civilisations » dans cette équation. Nous pourrions avoir à l’invoquer pour expliquer au monde les représailles massives des F.D.I. [Tsahal] contre le Hamas et les autres groupes terroristes à Gaza. «
Chanson . À soixante-trois ans, Salvatore Adamo sort la Part de l’ange. Un album aux arrangements élégants dans lequel il privilégie le sentiment amoureux.
D’un naturel timide, Salvatore Adamo n’a jamais aimé faire parler de lui. Cela ne l’empêche pas d’être dans le coeur de tous les Français grâce aux inoubliables chansons que sont Vous permettez monsieur,Tombe la neige ou encore Inch’Allah. On le trouve fleur bleue. Il est surtout un chanteur romantique qui ne craint pas d’afficher ses sentiments pour mieux se jouer de la laideur du monde. Après Zanzibar, il revient avec la Part de l’ange, album aux arrangements élégants signés Fabrice-Ravel-Chapuis et édith Fambuena. Un enregistrement teinté de mélancolie où l’on croise la voix acidulée de la piquante Olivia Ruiz, à l’occasion d’un duo (Ce Georges) plein d’humour, faisant allusion à Georges Clooney. Depuis plus de quarante ans, le chanteur belge va où son coeur le porte, offrant le meilleur d’un répertoire qui a bien peu d’équivalent émotionnel. En 1963, il avait vingt ans et sortait son premier disque. À soixante-trois ans, il signe son 20e album, enregistré après son accident cérébral.
On sent que vous aimez privilégier l’émotion…
Salvatore Adamo. Je voulais éviter les fioritures de style et laisser l’âme s’exprimer. C’est un disque que j’ai eu le temps de préparer, après ma convalescence. Dès que j’ai senti que l’envie d’écrire se réveillait en moi, ça a été comme une renaissance. J’avais des doutes après mon accident cérébral. J’avais le cerveau en désordre. Étant à Bruxelles, je prétendais être dans le midi de la France. J’avais oublié beaucoup de choses, les numéros de téléphone… D’ailleurs, dans la première chanson, les Anges de l’ombre, que j’ai réécrite, et que je n’ai pas voulu enregistrer pour l’album, je m’adresse au corps médical, pour le remercier de m’avoir sauvé.
Comment se sent-on après un tel accident ?
Salvatore Adamo. En phase avec la vie. J’ai vécu ces quelques mois en planant un peu. Les premiers mois après l’accident, je pensais des choses absurdes. Petit à petit les boulons se sont resserrés, j’ai repris goût à l’existence. J’étais heureux de faire ce que j’ai toujours fait parce que sans écrire de chansons, je n’existe pas tout à fait.
D’où vient ce titre la Part de l’ange?
Salvatore Adamo. À l’origine, c’est une expression viticole. C’est la part du vin qui s’évapore des fûts. Moi, je considère que c’est la part de magie qu’il ne faut pas laisser filer dans un couple. C’est la faculté de s’étonner l’un l’autre pour ne pas laisser la routine s’installer. C’est respecter les jardins secrets de l’autre, ne pas vouloir imposer ses rêves. C’est un peu ce que je dis dans le Féminin sacré où l’homme pense toujours qu’il faut qu’il épate et qu’il décroche la lune pour sa compagne, alors qu’elle ne demande pas tout cela. Elle veut, peut-être, plus simplement un peu de tendresse, un petit rêve à deux.
Toujours aussi fleur bleue ?
Salvatore Adamo. Je le revendique. J’ai d’ailleurs voulu commencer par une chanson Fleur, car c’est désuet de chanter les fleurs aujourd’hui. Pendant des années, au vu de mon image fleur bleue, j’avais presque un complexe. Dans la Part de l’ange, il y a un message ou deux pour montrer que je suis quand même concerné par ce qui se passe sur terre, mais je suis revenu à ce que j’aime, à des chansons d’amour, tout simplement. À dix-huit ans, j’ai écrit Tombe la neige, à cet âge, on a toujours tendance à faire un drame de tout, dès qu’il y en a un qui ne vient pas au rendez-vous. À mon âge, je chante un amour serein, un amour trouvé en quelque sorte.
Vous venez de fêter vos soixante-trois ans. Quel regard portez-vous sur votre parcours ?
Salvatore Adamo. J’ai eu cet immense privilège de pouvoir vivre en faisant ce que j’aime. Cette voie, que j’ai suivie, je n’aurais pas osé la rêver. Adolescent, je jouais au football, mon rêve était de faire se lever un stade en marquant un but. La musique, c’était vraiment dans l’air que l’on respire. Mon père adorait la musique. J’ai été ballotté entre la chanson italienne, napolitaine et la chanson française que j’entendais à la radio. Aujourd’hui, les gens redécouvrent les chansons des années soixante où on pouvait afficher de bons sentiments, sans engendrer l’ironie. Ce qui n’empêchait pas de chanter des choses plus graves. Je pense à Inch’Allah, que j’ai écrite en octobre 1966. C’était bien la preuve qu’on pouvait être fleur bleue et s’intéresser aux malheurs du monde. Cette chanson, je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de l’enlever de mon répertoire, parce qu’elle est toujours d’actualité. À tel point que j’ai dû la nuancer au gré des quelques espoirs de paix. J’ai changé quelques strophes, mais je me suis rendu compte que je n’allais pas jusqu’au bout du message. J’ai ainsi réécrit une autre chanson dans l’album Zanzibar sur le problème du Moyen-Orient, Mon douloureux Orient, où je fais allusion à la souffrance du côté palestinien. Une chanson qui dit : quelles qu’aient été les raisons de cette haine ancestrale, il faut l’oublier pour vivre l’un à côté de l’autre. J’ai aussi écrit une chanson contre le franquisme qui s’appelle Manuel. Je suis toujours redescendu de mon nuage !
Pourquoi pas un gel des constructions arabes? Pourquoi est-ce que les 21 pays arabes qui possèdent plus de 800 fois de terres sont-ils si obsédés par Israël?
Quand ma petite-fille de deux ans assiste à toute cette agitation qu’elle ne peut pas comprendre, elle se tourne vers moi dans l’expectative d’un éclaircissement : « De quoi parlent-ils, Bubbe? ». À l’heure actuelle, il faudrait que je lui avoue que le brouhaha que suscite la construction de 1.600 nouveaux logements à Jérusalem défie toute explication rationnelle.
Parmi les enfants d’Abraham, les descendants d’Ismaël occupent actuellement au moins 800 fois plus de terres que les descendants d’Isaac. Les 21 Etats de la Ligue arabe annoncent régulièrement des projets de nouvelles constructions. L’Arabie saoudite estime que 555.000 logements ont été construits au cours des dernières années. Le Premier ministre irakien Nouri al-Maliki a annoncé l’année dernière lors d’une réunion à Bagdad que « Quelque 10.000 logements d’une surface de 100 m2 seront construits dans chaque province [d’Irak] » pour accueillir les citoyens dont les besoins en logement n’ont pas été satisfaits depuis longtemps. L’Egypte a créé 10 nouvelles villes depuis 1996. Ce sont Tenth of Ramadan, Six of October, Al Sadate, Shurouq Al, Al Obour, New Damietta, New Beni Souef, New Assiout, New Luxor et New Cairo.
En 2006, le Premier ministre syrien, Mohammad Naji Atri, a annoncé un nouveau plan quinquennal de développement qui visait à construire 687.000 unités de logement. Le Koweït s’attend à une demande d’environ 100.000 unités de logements privés en 2010. L’année dernière, le roi Abdullah de Jordanie a lancé une initiative nationale en faveur de l’habitation. Celle-ci vise à construire 120.000 logements pour les Jordaniens à faible revenu.
Les populations arabes croissent. Et les quartiers s’aggrandissent pour les accueillir. Qui plus est les pays arabes ont bénéficié de manière disproportionnée de l’échange de populations entre Juifs et Arabes consécutif aux guerres arabes contre Israël. Depuis 1948, plus de 800.000 Juifs ont abandonné leurs maisons et perdirent leurs biens en Egypte, en Irak, au Maroc et au Yémen. Sans compter des actifs évalués à des centaines de milliards de dollars, les titres de propriété des Juifs des pays arabes est estimé à une superficie totale de 100.000 miles carrées, soit cinq fois la taille de l’État d’Israël, et davantage même si on ajoutait tous les territoires disputés de Cisjordanie.
Ces disparités absurdes sont le résultat de cultures politiques opposées. La Ligue arabe a été créée en même temps qu’Israël dans le but explicite de mettre fin à l’existence de l’Etat juif. Bien qu’il y ait eu de profondes transformations au cours des décennies qui s’ensuivirent, l’opposition à l’Etat juif reste le meilleur outil fédérateur de la politique inter-arabe et arabo-musulmane. Or aucune nation n’a jamais gagné du fait d’avoir essayé d’éliminer les Juifs plutôt que de rivaliser avec eux.
Il est regrettable que les Arabes soient obsédés par la construction de logements en Israël plutôt que de s’attacher au développement de leurs propres terres qu’ils possèdent en surabondance. Mais pourquoi donc l’Amérique devrait-elle encourager leurs ambitions hégémoniques? En décembre de la Maison Blanche a publié une déclaration où elle s’opposait « aux nouvelles constructions à Jérusalem-Est », sans préciser où et ce qu’elle est.
Ramat Shlomo, le quartier au centre de la controverse actuelle, se situe en fait au nord de Jérusalem, à l’ouest des quartiers juifs de Ramot, qui abrite 40.000 résidents juifs. Pourquoi la Maison Blanche est-elle en désaccord avec la construction de logements pour des citoyens juifs dans les limites géographiques de leur propre pays? La même Maison Blanche n’a soulevé aucune objection lorsque la Jordanie a récemment commencé systématiquement à priver de leur citoyenneté des milliers de ses citoyens palestiniens, plutôt que de leur fournir de nouveaux logements dans un pays beaucoup plus vaste qu’Israël.
Il se peut qu’Israël ait commis une faute du fait de ne pas avoir insisté avec obstination que son existence souveraine soit acceptée inconditionnellement, et de ne pas avoir exigé que les dirigeants arabes se conforment à la Charte des Nations Unies qui garantit « l’égalité des droits… des nations, grandes et petites. » Même si ça sembe absurde aux Israéliens, peut-être auraient-ils dû appeler à un gel de la colonisation arabe proportionnel aux exigences déraisonnables que les Arabes exigent des Israéliens.
Le point de départ de toute solution pacifique du conflit du Moyen-Orient impliquera un regard sans complaisance de la carte de la région où 21 pays qui disposent de 800 fois plus de terres sont obsédés par la croissance naturelle de leurs voisins juifs. »
A BEAMING YASIR ARAFAT, DRAWN IN ugly disproportion, places a flower on the grave of Baruch Goldstein, the Israeli settler who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslims at prayer last month. The Palestine Liberation Organization chief thanks Goldstein-for the U.N. resolution condemning the atrocity, for foreign troops that will be sent to help protect Palestinians « and for everything to come. » The crude cartoon, which appeared last week in The ‘Jerusalem Post, captures the frustration of many on the Israeli right: that Palestinians are profiting as victims of the Hebron massacre. It’s a role that many Jewish settlers insist on for themselves. « We must be the victims, » insists Noam Arnon, spokesman for 415 Jews living among 110,000 Arabs in Hebron. « We are the victims. »
Nobody wants to be killed, maimed or persecuted, of course. But in the Mideast there’s a perception that victims reap political rewards. in the wake of the massacre, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators last week moved toward agreement on new security arrangements for Hebron. Israel tentatively agreed to allow Palestinian police and lightly armed international observers into Hebron. Full-fledged talks on withdrawal from most of Gaza and the West Bank town of Jericho were expected to resume this week. Although dismantling Jewish settlements was not negotiated, Israeli officials hint that they may take steps to move Jews from Hebron as a « security measure. »
Meanwhile, Jews and Arabs debate who is suffering most. Israelis talk about the « incremental massacre » of 35 Israelis in attacks since the signing of the preliminary peace accord in September. Palestinians counter that 69 of their brethren have been killed since the Hebron bloodbath. Both sides had new bodies to count last week. Israeli soldiers killed three armed Arab guerrillas in Hebron; during the siege a pregnant woman was killed by stray fire. A Jewish settler later shot dead an Arab truckdriver praying at roadside. Arab attackers struck their own blows, killing one Israeli and wounding several others in the occupied territories. Yet the bloodshed didn’t begin yesterday or even a few decades ago. Arabs date their suffering to the first influx of Zionist immigrants to Palestine around the turn of the century. Some militant Jewish settlers describe their struggle in Holocaust terms, saying the government wants to make Biblical lands Judenrein (empty of Jews). Other right-wingers invoke more ancient images, like Masada, the Dead Sea fortress where Jews committed mass suicide in A.D. 73 rather than bow to a Roman siege.
Palestinians have new battles to prepare for. Moderates in Gaza, aware that they’ll soon be policing their own streets, are opening modest sports clubs to give young toughs something to do other than throw stones. « All these kids have seen blood, » says Hamed al-Kuren, 22, who spent three years in jail for throwing a Molotov cocktail at soldiers and other resistance activities. « We want to explain how they will live in peace. » Kuren tells the youths that « Jewish children were victims in the past just like you were victims. » Here, that’s still a hard sell.
IN THE months since September 11th, Europe has seen an increase in attacks on synagogues and other Jewish centres, a rise in threats and intimidation directed at individual Jews, and an increase in anti-Jewish propaganda of one sort or another. On April 21st, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the blithely anti-Semitic leader of the far-right National Front, gained second place in the first round of the French presidential election—a remarkable victory, however bad a drubbing he gets in Sunday’s second round. In Germany armed police guard Jewish schools, and Jews are advised not to wear visible signs of their faith. In Britain, often praised for its tolerance, a synagogue was attacked and desecrated this very week.
This great new surge of European anti-Semitism—if that is what these events signify—solves a puzzle that has been taxing a lot of Americans. Israel is a victim of terrorism, much as America was a victim of terrorism in September. Israel is defending itself against pitiless murderers with all available means, much as America is defending itself. Right and wrong in the matter, or so most Americans believe, could hardly be clearer. Why, then, Americans ask, is Europe taking the side of Palestine’s suicide bombers, passing lightly over their crimes, while vilifying Israel’s government for its restrained (under the circumstances) assault on the terrorist infrastructure of the West Bank? These perverted sympathies seem quite inexplicable—unless the answer, albeit painful to contemplate, is obvious. Anti-Semitism, it is argued, explains it all.
This account of European attitudes seems to be catching on in the United States. In a not unrepresentative column in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer, one of the Post‘s most distinguished political commentators, wrote this:
“What we are seeing [in Europe] is pent-up anti-Semitism, the release–with Israel as the trigger–of a millennium-old urge that powerfully infected and shaped European history. What is odd is not the anti-Semitism of today but its relative absence during the past half-century. That was the historical anomaly. Holocaust shame kept the demon corked for that half-century. But now the atonement is passed. The genie is out again.
This time, however, it is more sophisticated. It is not a blanket hatred of Jews. Jews can be tolerated, even accepted, but they must know their place. Jews are fine so long as they are powerless, passive and picturesque. What is intolerable is Jewish assertiveness, the Jewish refusal to accept victimhood. And nothing so embodies that as the Jewish state.”
Is the supposed release of Europe’s loathing of the assertive Jew a good explanation, in fact, of the gulf over Israel that divides the United States from its European allies? Sadly, recent events have lent the idea plausibility. It is nonetheless wrong—a gross distortion and a terrible slander.
Is the supposed release of Europe’s loathing of the assertive Jew a good explanation of the gulf over Israel that divides the United States from its European allies? It is not
The enormity of the Holocaust ought to have eradicated anti-Semitism for all time. Shamefully, it did not. In much of the world, hatred of Jews thrives. In particular, newspapers and broadcasters across most of the Arab world deal routinely in repellent expressions of loathing of Jews and their faith. Elsewhere in the world—in Europe and, it should not be forgotten, also in the United States—anti-Semitism also survives, most visibly in a fringe of neo-Nazis and other despised outcasts, but also, and somewhat more widely, in milder forms of prejudice and suspicion. Still, impossible as it may be to measure people’s private feelings, the great majority of Europeans, it seems to us, harbour no suppressed anti-Semitic hatred. On the contrary, they sincerely deplore anti-Semitism, so much so that Mr Krauthammer’s portrait of Europe’s secret heart will strike many as a shocking insult. In most of Europe, to call somebody anti-Semitic is one of the worst accusations you can make. It is not one to be made lightly.
But recent events in Europe—the attacks on synagogues, the success of Mr Le Pen—give the lie to that reply, do they not? Alarming and deplorable as they are, the answer is no. These events do not show that anti-Semitism is broadening its base (see article). Anti-Semitism has lately been more apparent in France than elsewhere in Europe: even there, Mr Le Pen found it opportune this time to soft-pedal the anti-Jewish prejudice, calculating that it made better sense to denounce attacks on Jews in order to stir up hatred of Muslim immigrants. It suited Mr Le Pen in this election actually to pose as a defender of French Jews against their Muslim enemies and against immigrants in general—an odd way to call on brimming reserves of anti-Jewish hatred, waiting these past 60 years to overflow.
An Israel beyond criticism?
It is important to understand that in most of Europe—as in America—anti-Semitism is a prejudice of a small minority, not the mainstream. A quite separate point is that criticism of Israel, let alone criticism of its government, need not be motivated by hatred of Jews. In their support for Ariel Sharon, Americans have often seemed more united than Israelis. Israelis who feel that Mr Sharon is wrong to resist a settlement with the Palestinians are presumably not guided in that belief by anti-Semitism, not even of the disguised or pent-up kind. This is not to deny that some outside criticism of Israel and its policies is indeed partly fuelled by anti-Semitism. (Where that is true, as in the claims of many Arab governments and commentators, and in many of Europe’s Muslim communities, it should be recognised and repudiated.) It is only to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: that it is not anti-Semitic per se to criticise Mr Sharon.
Europeans have in fact become readier to criticise Israeli policies in recent years. The guilt that people who lived through the 1930s and 1940s felt about their failure to prevent the Holocaust is not felt to the same degree by the post-war generation. The goodwill that attended the birth and early years of Israel, which extended to admiration and active support during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (so much for Europe’s loathing of Jews who stick up for themselves) has since waned. Criticism of Israel that would once have been bitten back is now being freely expressed. In the same way, and this is to be regretted, the zeal of Europe’s rejection of Jewish hatred—its anti-anti-Semitism—may have faded somewhat too, especially on the left. In both these ways, Mr Krauthammer’s point about declining Holocaust shame has a semblance of validity. These developments are new, as he says—but they are not the same thing as a resurgence of anti-Semitism.
Whether Europe’s objections to Mr Sharon’s policies are sound is another question altogether. In recent weeks we have discussed this at length, agreeing with his critics in some respects, disagreeing with them in others (notably, by affirming Israel’s right to defend itself against murderous terrorists). A more strongly critical line than the one we have taken on Mr Sharon would be mistaken, in our view; but it could very easily be wrong, or foolish, or cowardly, or immoral, without being anti-Semitic. For the sake of clearer thinking about the Middle East—and in the interests of a close Atlantic alliance, which, for all its difficulties, is worth defending (see leader)—Mr Krauthammer and those who agree with him need to understand this.
Le tournant opéré par l’OLP pendant l’hiver 1988-1989, accentué encore par les propos qu’a tenus M. Yasser Arafat à Paris, est décisif. De cela, nul esprit honnête ne disconviendra. A une tragédie de guerre a succédé une stratégie de paix, avec comme objectif la création d’un Etat palestinien, vivant en paix avec son puissant voisin, Israël. Ceux qui, comme l’auteur de ces lignes, ont, dès le mois de juin 1967, écrit que là était le seul avenir envisageable ne peuvent que s’en réjouir à l’infini.
J’étais présent à l’Institut du monde arabe, le 2 mai, lorsque M. Arafat a exposé, devant une centaine d’intellectuels, la façon dont il concevait la Palestine future, et a répondu à quelques questions. De cette présence, je ne tire ni gloire ni honte : j’étais venu pour écouter et pour apprendre, et je ne le regrette pas. Je le répète, sur des points essentiels, M. Arafat nous a convaincus qu’il voulait la paix et qu’il n’existait pas d’autre solution sérieuse.
Il s’est déclaré prêt à rencontrer n’importe quel dirigeant israélien, y compris le général Sharon. Il a manifesté son souci de l’avenir des enfants israéliens, aussi bien que des enfants palestiniens. Ce sont là des affirmations essentielles et qu’il faut évidemment prendre au mot, avec espoir. On attend maintenant la réponse des Israéliens, auxquels M. Arafat s’est adressé explicitement et fermement, en comptant sur le mouvement de leur opinion publique. Il n’est pas interdit de penser qu’elle viendra un jour.
Cela dit, M. Arafat a tenu aussi quelques propos qui appellent, de la part d’un historien, un certain nombre de rectifications. Ce n’est pas que je me fasse des illusions sur le rapport à l’Histoire des leaders politiques quels qu’ils soient. Tout mouvement idéologique, particulièrement lorsqu’il prend la forme d’une guerre _ et M. Arafat est toujours le leader d’un peuple en guerre, _ charrie sa part de mythes, plus ou moins mobilisateurs. Les Israéliens ont les leurs, qui sont souvent gros comme des montagnes et ceux qui affirment, par exemple, que M. Arafat ne fait que continuer la politique de Hitler n’ont, certes, de leçons à donner à personne. Il en est de même, trop souvent, des dirigeants de la communauté juive française, qui continuent à asséner régulièrement des contre-vérités dont les historiens ont fait justice depuis longtemps.
Cependant, ce n’est pas d’Israël qu’il s’agit ici, mais d’un dirigeant palestinien qui, à travers lui, s’adressait, comme il l’a dit, à ceux des amis d’Israël qui se trouvaient dans la salle et qu’il s’efforçait de convaincre.
Voici trois affirmations qu’il me parait devoir relever et corriger.
M. Arafat a affirmé que pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, le peuple arabe du Moyen-Orient, qui ne portait aucune responsabilité dans la persécution hitlérienne, a porté aide et secours aux Juifs persécutés, comme l’ont fait, par exemple, les Etats-Unis. Le caractère énorme de cette affirmation ne peut qu’être souligné. Chacun sait que, de secours, il ne vint point. On peut, certes, comprendre que des dirigeants arabes aient, à l’instar du grand mufti de Jérusalem, choisi le camp de l’Axe contre les empires occidentaux. Cela fut vrai aussi en Afrique du Nord, et l’attitude de Habib Bourguiba et du sultan du Maroc fut l’exception, plutôt que la règle. Mais on ne peut nier les faits. Ceux qui sont parvenus alors à se réfugier en Palestine et qui furent peu nombreux n’ont pas trouvé le salut par la grâce de leurs voisins arabes. Le contraire aurait été surprenant.
Intifada et holocauste
M. Arafat a exprimé sa compassion pour les victimes de la persécution hitlérienne et de la seconde guerre mondiale, qu’elles soient juives, chrétiennes, musulmanes ou même bouddhistes. C’est là, une fois de plus, comparer ce qui n’est pas comparable. La destruction systématique des Juifs d’Europe peut se comparer à la destruction des Tsiganes, ou à celle des Arméniens en 1915, voire, dans certaines limites, au massacre du « nouveau peuple » par les hommes de Pol Pot, non aux autres crimes de guerre. Des femmes déportées ont été tuées dans la chambre à gaz de Ravensbrück. C’était la même mort qui était infligée à des millions d’êtres humains juifs ou tsiganes à Auschwitz ou à Treblinka, ou encore à tant de prisonniers soviétiques, mais le crime n’était pas à la même échelle.
Encore une fois, ce crime n’est pas unique : nous en avons d’autres dans le passé de notre Occident, ne serait-ce que la destruction, même si elle n’a pas été tout à fait voulue, des Indiens d’Amérique au seizième siècle. On peut tenir à des Juifs des propos durs : on peut leur rappeler, parce que c’est la vérité, que la création d’Israël n’a pas été une idylle, mais une conquête fondée sur l’expulsion d’un autre peuple. Mais on ne peut pas, on ne doit pas leur dire des contre vérités.
C’est encore une contre vérité que d’affirmer que les Palestiniens de l’Intifada sont victimes d’un « holocauste au quotidien ». Les Palestiniens sont victimes d’une authentique tragédie, et M. Arafat a su trouver des mots émouvants pour décrire ce qu’est leur exil : il leur est même difficile, nous a-t-il expliqué, de trouver un coin de terre pour enterrer leurs morts. Les Palestiniens des territoires occupés se trouvent hors la loi dans leur propre pays. C’est là une honte et un scandale, contre lequel doit lutter tout homme de coeur, et d’abord tous ceux qui ont le souvenir de la persécution. Mais il ne sert à rien d’employer des mots excessifs. Seule une vraie histoire pourra un jour fonder un vrai dialogue.
Après tout, qui parle encore aujourd’hui de l’annihilation des Arméniens?Hitler (le 22 août 1939)
Je n’aimerais pas entendre Obama dire quelque chose comme ça, et je ne m’y attends pas de toute façon. Pour la Turquie, la position américaine est très claire, elle est contre » la reconnaissance du génocide. (…) Tout au long de ces six années depuis qu’il est président, nous avons longuement parlé de cette question et convenu qu’elle devait être laissée aux historiens, pas aux dirigeants politiques (…) Ils vont parler, parler et insulter la Turquie. Nous serons à Canakkale ce jour-là, mais l’Arménie n’est pas à notre programme.Recep Tayyip Erdogan (conférence de presse avec le président irakien Fouad Massoum, 2015)
Nous soutenons la Turquie contre la campagne de propagande à laquelle elle fait face au sujet du prétendu génocide arménien. Ismail Haniyeh (chef du Hamas, 24.04.15)
Il y a deux ans, j’ai critiqué la secrétaire d’état pour le renvoi de l’ambassadeur des États-Unis en Arménie John Evans, après qu’il a correctement employé le terme de « génocide » pour décrire le massacre par la Turquie de milliers d’Arméniens à partir de 1915. Je partageais avec la secrétaire d’Etat Rice ma conviction fermement tenue que le génocide arménien n’est pas une allégation, une opinion personnelle, ou un point de vue, mais un fait largement documenté et appuyé par un irréfutable faisceau de preuves historiques. Les faits sont indéniables. Une politique officielle qui contraint les diplomates à tordre les faits historiques n’est pas une politique viable. En tant que sénateur, je soutiens fortement le passage de la résolution du génocide arménien et en tant que président je reconnaitrai le génocide arménien. (…) L’Amérique mérite un dirigeant qui parle avec véracité du génocide arménien et qui condamne fermement tous les génocides. J’ai l’intention d’être ce président.Candidat Obama (janvier 2008)
Nous exprimerons notre appréciation profonde de la foi musulmane qui a tant fait au long des siècles pour améliorer le monde, y compris mon propre pays.Barack Hussein Obama (Ankara, avril 2009)
Bien que les mesures globales contre les Arméniens aient été déjà en cours de mise en œuvre à la fin avril, le début symbolique du génocide arménien est daté du soir du 24 avril 1925. Cette nuit-là, les hommes de lettres les plus doués, les juristes les plus réputés, les éducateurs les plus respectés et bien d’autres, y compris des membres du clergé de haut rang, furent sommairement arrêtés à Constantinople, la capitale de l’Empire ottoman, et envoyés à l’intérieur – dont beaucoup ne reviendront plus jamais.Rouben Paul Adalian (2013)
This year we mark the centennial of the Meds Yeghern, the first mass atrocity of the 20th Century. Beginning in 1915, the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths. Their culture and heritage in their ancient homeland were erased. Amid horrific violence that saw suffering on all sides, one and a half million Armenians perished. As the horrors of 1915 unfolded, U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr. sounded the alarm inside the U.S. government and confronted Ottoman leaders. Because of efforts like his, the truth of the Meds Yeghern emerged and came to influence the later work of human rights champions like Raphael Lemkin, who helped bring about the first United Nations human rights treaty. Against this backdrop of terrible carnage, the American and Armenian peoples came together in a bond of common humanity. Ordinary American citizens raised millions of dollars to support suffering Armenian children, and the U.S. Congress chartered the Near East Relief organization, a pioneer in the field of international humanitarian relief. Thousands of Armenian refugees began new lives in the United States, where they formed a strong and vibrant community and became pillars of American society. Rising to great distinction as businesspeople, doctors, scholars, artists, and athletes, they made immeasurable contributions to their new home. This centennial is a solemn moment. It calls on us to reflect on the importance of historical remembrance, and the difficult but necessary work of reckoning with the past. I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed. A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interests. Peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past. We welcome the expression of views by Pope Francis, Turkish and Armenian historians, and the many others who have sought to shed light on this dark chapter of history. On this solemn centennial, we stand with the Armenian people in remembering that which was lost. We pledge that those who suffered will not be forgotten. And we commit ourselves to learn from this painful legacy, so that future generations may not repeat it.Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day
In the government’s opinion, this is a historical question that should be left up to the historians.Per Stig Moeller (Danish Foreign Minister, 01.12.08)
Ces actes de reconnaissance sont très divers: parmi les 24 Etats, seuls quatre -la France, l’Uruguay, l’Argentine et Chypre- ont promulgué des lois en ce sens. La plupart du temps, il s’agit de résolutions adoptées par le Parlement ou une des chambres du Parlement. Les termes employés dans les déclarations ne sont pas toujours les mêmes: 22 pays nomment bien un « génocide » -contrairement à l’Uruguay, placé dans la catégorie « reconnaissance partielle » de la carte. En Allemagne, le texte adopté par le Parlement en 2005 n’emploie pas le terme mais le président Joachim Gauck l’a prononcé jeudi 23 avril, reconnaissant dans la foulée une « coresponsabilité » de son pays dans les massacres. Des variations existent aussi sur l’identification de la responsabilité du génocide. Tous les pays n’évoquent pas la Turquie. Ainsi, la France et le Vatican ne mentionnent pas du tout Ankara, quand la Belgique, l’Italie, la Suisse, le Liban, la Syrie ou le Chili parlent de « l’Empire ottoman ».L’Express
Nous n’avons pas l’intention de faire de ces manifestations une sorte d’hystérie anti-turque. L’un de nos objectifs est de faire un appel à l’humanité toute entière pour lutter contre les génocides. Nous voudrions commémorer le génocide arménien en commun avec le peuple turc. C’est cet objectif qui était à la base des protocoles signés en 2009 pour le rétablissement des relations. Un objectif que je visais aussi avec mon invitation à la Turquie de se rendre au Mémorial en Arménie, le 24 avril. Malheureusement, nous nous sommes heurtés à une démarche négationniste qui a trouvé – pardon de le dire ainsi – une expression particulièrement cynique cette année. La bataille de Gallipoli n’a pas commencé et s’est encore moins achevée le 24 avril. C’est une sorte de blessure adressée au peuple arménien. En même temps, il est évident que c’est une démarche qui vise à créer des obstacles à la commémoration du génocide arménien. Serge Sarkissian (président arménien, 23.03.15)
Cette année, nous allons commémorer le centième anniversaire des batailles des Dardanelles. Nous n’allions pas demander la permission à l’Arménie. La date est établie. Nous connaissons la date. C’est le centième anniversaire de ces batailles des Dardanelles. Et il n’y a aucun rapport de près ou de loin avec les cérémonies qui vont être organisées en Arménie. Au contraire, je pense que c’est eux qui ont fait une indexation sur notre date à nous. (…) Le 24 avril, nous allons essayer d’apporter une contribution à la paix mondiale. Le 18 et le 24 avril, nous allons organiser ces cérémonies (…) Et le 25 avril, nos invités vont participer aux cérémonies de l’Aurore. Erdogan (27.03.15)
This is a very indecent political manoeuvre. It’s cheap politics to try to dissolve the pressure on Turkey in the year of the centennial by organising this event. Everybody knows that the two memorials around Gallipoli have been held on 18 March and 25 April every year. Ohannes Kılıçdağı (Agos, Armenian weekly)
Winston Churchill described it as « an administrative holocaust . . . there is no reasonable doubt that this crime was executed for political reasons. New statesman
HMG is open to criticism in terms of the ethical dimension, but given the importance of our relations (political, strategic and commercial) with Turkey . . . the current line is the only feasible option. British internal memorandum to ministers (Joyce Quin and Baroness Symons)
Vous voulez dire reconnaître la version arménienne de cette histoire ? Il y avait un problème arménien pour les Turcs, à cause de l’avance des Russes et d’une population anti-ottomane en Turquie, qui cherchait l’indépendance et qui sympathisait ouvertement avec les Russes venus du Caucase. Il y avait aussi des bandes arméniennes – les Arméniens se vantent des exploits héroïques de la résistance -, et les Turcs avaient certainement des problèmes de maintien de l’ordre en état de guerre. Pour les Turcs, il s’agissait de prendre des mesures punitives et préventives contre une population peu sûre dans une région menacée par une invasion étrangère. Pour les Arméniens, il s’agissait de libérer leur pays. Mais les deux camps s’accordent à reconnaître que la répression fut limitée géographiquement. Par exemple, elle n’affecta guère les Arméniens vivant ailleurs dans l’Empire ottoman. » Nul doute que des choses terribles ont eu lieu, que de nombreux Arméniens – et aussi des Turcs – ont péri. Mais on ne connaîtra sans doute jamais les circonstances précises et les bilans des victimes. Songez à la difficulté que l’on a de rétablir les faits et les responsabilités à propos de la guerre du Liban, qui s’est pourtant déroulée il y a peu de temps et sous les yeux du monde ! Pendant leur déportation vers la Syrie, des centaines de milliers d’Arméniens sont morts de faim, de froid… Mais si l’on parle de génocide, cela implique qu’il y ait eu politique délibérée, une décision d’anéantir systématiquement la nation arménienne. Cela est fort douteux. Des documents turcs prouvent une volonté de déportation, pas d’extermination.Bernard Lewis
Nous avons été consternés de découvrir, au milieu de l’entretien érudit et pertinent sur le fondamentalisme islamique que Bernard Lewis a accordé au Monde du 16 novembre, des jugements d’une teneur bien différente au sujet du génocide arménien de 1915. Qualifier ces massacres de génocide, c’est-à-dire de politique délibérée de destruction d’une population, c’est, dit-il, la » version arménienne de l’Histoire « . Bernard Lewis ne peut ignorer que, dès le 24 mai 1915, les gouvernements alliés, russe mais aussi français et britannique, ont fait savoir publiquement à la Sublime Porte qu’ils tiendraient pour personnellement responsables tous les membres du gouvernement ottoman et leurs agents impliqués dans ce » crime de lèse-humanité « . Que les diplomates allemands et autrichiens, alliés de la Turquie et présents sur les lieux, ainsi que les diplomates américains neutres, ont envoyé des dizaines de télégrammes dénonçant la » campagne d’extermination » menée par le gouvernement jeune-turc pour » liquider définitivement » la question arménienne, en se servant, déjà, de la guerre comme prétexte. Ceux-là mêmes qui ne veulent tenir compte que des documents turcs ne peuvent passer sous silence le procès mené en 1919 par le gouvernement libéral de Constantinople, qui a établi les responsabilités des ministres, du parti au pouvoir et des bandes d’assassins qu’ils avaient spécialement recrutés dans les prisons. L’historien ne peut récuser les témoignages convergents des survivants, à qui on ne saurait dénier le droit de dire leur souffrance. Les preuves abondent aussi bien du massacre sur place d’une partie de la population que des multiples formes de tueries qui ont accompagné la déportation des autres. Les victimes ont été livrées à toutes les morts, sauf celle, que cite Bernard Lewis, par le froid puisque la déportation a eu lieu à la saison chaude. Loin d’être limitée géographiquement, l’éradication de la présence arménienne s’est étendue à l’ouest jusqu’à Bursa, au sud jusqu’à Alep, à 800 kilomètres du front russe. Elle a été conduite par un gouvernement contre une partie de ses sujets, un groupe défini religieusement et ethniquement, et détruit comme tel. Ces actes caractérisent un génocide. Et c’est précisément parce qu’il est dangereux d’abuser du terme qu’il est important de reconnaître le génocide quand il ne fait pas de doute. C’est d’ailleurs l’entreprise de destruction des Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman qui a servi de référence aux juristes des années 30 alarmés par la montée du nazisme, comme le Polonais Lemkin, pour fixer le concept de génocide. Toute tentative de comparaison entre cette extermination planifiée et la guerre civile libanaise, où tout Etat avait disparu, est dénuée de fondement. Nier les faits, effacer le crime, c’est à quoi s’emploient les gouvernements turcs depuis Mustafa Kemal. Qu’un savant de l’autorité de Bernard Lewis accrédite cette thèse officielle, qui réitère elle-même le mensonge des criminels d’hier, rien ne le justifie. Autant il est légitime de soutenir la laïcité contre l’intégrisme, autant il importe de ne pas dissimuler des responsabilités connues de tous.Déclaration collective de trente universitaires et intellectuels (dont André Chouraqui, Jacques Ellul, Alain Finkielkraut, André Kaspi, Yves Ternon et Jean-Pierre Vernant, Le Monde, 27 novembre 1993)
Comparer, c’est différencier. (…) Selon moi, le génocide caractérise un processus spécifique de destruction qui vise à l’éradication totale d’une collectivité. (…) Dans un nettoyage ethnique, on tue les gens en partie, mais on leur dit : par ici la sortie. Dans un génocide, on ferme toutes les portes.Jacques Sémelin
There are few genocides more clearly established than that suffered by the Armenians in 1915-16, when half the race was extinguished in massacres and deportations directed by the Young Turk government. Today you can be prosecuted in France and other European countries for denying the slaughter. But the world’s most influential genocide denier – other than Turkey itself – is the British government, which has repeatedly asserted that there is insufficient evidence that what it terms a « tragedy » amounted to genocide. Now, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we learn that (in the words of Foreign Office memos) commercial and political relations with Turkey have required abandoning « the ethical dimension ». The Armenian Centre in London obtained hundreds of pages of hitherto secret memorandums, bearing the astonishing admission that there was no « evidence » that had ever been looked at and there had never been a « judgment » at all. Parliament had been misinformed: as the Foreign Office now admits, « there is no collection of documents, publications and reports by historians, held on the relevant files, or any evidence that a series of documents were submitted to ministers for consideration ». In any case, ministers repeatedly asserted that, « in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915-16 as genocide ». That was the answer given by the government during the House of Lords debate on the subject in 1999. (…) The other routine excuse for denying the genocide has been that « it is for historians, not governments, to interpret the past ». This « line » was described in 1999 as « long-standing ». But genocide is a matter for legal judgment, not a matter for historians, and there is no dispute about the Armenian genocide among legal scholars. Yet Foreign Office ministers insist that the « interpretation of events is still the subject of genuine debate among historians ». This « line » was stoutly maintained until last year, when it was placed on the Downing Street website in response to an e-petition and provoked angry replies from the public. The minister, by now Jim Murphy, was displeased, and became the first to demand to know just what evidence the Foreign Office had looked at. The Eastern Department had looked at no evidence at all. In great haste, it came up with three historians – Bernard Lewis (who had been prosecuted in France for denying the genocide, but then told Le Monde that he did not dispute that hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died), Justin McCarthy (a Kentucky professor whose pro-Turkish work was sent to Keith Vaz, then a minister at the Foreign Office, by the Turkish ambassador) and Heath Lowry, who, although he does not put his own name to denials of the genocide, provoked dispute at Princeton after it accepted funds from the Turkish government to endow his « Atatürk Chair » and he was then exposed as having helped draft a letter in which the Turkish ambassador denounced a scholar for writing about the genocide. It is astonishing, given the number of British historians, from Arnold Toynbee onwards, who have no doubts on the subject, that the Foreign Office should grasp at the straw of three controversial Americans. (…) In August 1939, Adolf Hitler exhorted his generals to show no mercy to the Polish people they were preparing to blitzkrieg because, « After all, who now remembers the annihilation of the Armenians? » If the ethics-free zone in the Foreign Office has its way, nobody in the UK will remember them either. Geoffrey Robertson
Les propos tenus par Bernard Lewis ont provoqué une émotion extrêmement forte dans les communautés arméniennes et parfois au-delà. M. Lewis est un chercheur très connu sur le plan international. En 1961, dans la première édition de son ouvrage Islam et Laïcité, il parlait, à propos des événements de 1915 dans l’Empire ottoman de l’holocauste d’un million et demi d’Arméniens. Cependant, dans la traduction française de ce livre, publiée en 1968, le mot « holocauste » a disparu… Voilà une inquiétante évolution qui s’est malheureusement confirmée au cours de l’entretien accordé au Monde par M. Lewis en 1993 ! (…) On peut surtout penser que M. Lewis a été sensible à la littérature publiée en Turquie par des Turcs, en particulier depuis les années 70-80 ; ce sont des ouvrages tendant à démontrer non seulement qu’il n’y a pas eu holocauste, pas eu génocide, mais que tout ce qui s’est passé en 1915 dans l’Empire ottoman était essentiellement dû à la trahison des Arméniens. (…) Egorgés, fusillés ou éventrés, tombés d’inanition ou sous les coups le long des chemins de la déportation, la moitié des Arméniens de l’aire ottomane, généralement estimés à deux millions, ont disparu entre 1915 et 1922, sans compter les victimes des tueries opérées en 1894-1896 et en 1909. La position exprimée par Bernard Lewis est nulle du point de vue de l’historien. C’est une simple répétition de la propagande turque… Il affirme que les déportations d’Arméniens n’ont affecté que les zones de combats proches des Russes… C’est faux ! Le meilleur exemple est celui de la Cilicie, sur la Méditerranée, où il y avait une forte population arménienne, qui a également subi le génocide alors qu’il n’y avait là aucun danger russe. Lewis prétend en outre que les Arméniens de Constantinople n’ont jamais été menacés : c’est oublier la date symbole du 24 avril 1915, avec l’arrestation puis l’assassinat de centaines d’intellectuels, cadres et notables arméniens. (…) Les massacres d’Arméniens en 1894-1896, presque oubliés, mobilisèrent pourtant Jean Jaurès, Charles Péguy et Rosa Luxembourg. Le génocide arménien, en effet, ce n’est pas seulement les événements de 1915, c’est un processus qui va de l’époque du sultan-calife Abdulhamid II avec les tueries de 1894-1896, qui se poursuit sous les Jeunes-Turcs avec le massacre d’Adana en 1909 on pense qu’il y a eu 300 000 morts en 1894-1896 et 30 000 en 1909 et qui culmine avec l’énorme épisode allant de 1915 à 1922.En 1915, on a commencé par exécuter les Arméniens mâles de plus de douze ans. Le dernier acte a eu lieu sous les yeux des marins français et britanniques, lors de l’incendie de Smyrne et du massacre d’Arméniens et de Grecs au moment de l’entrée des kémalistes dans la ville, en 1922. Trois régimes, l’impérial, celui des Jeunes-Turcs et celui des kémalistes ont donc contribué à éliminer les Arméniens de l’Asie mineure. Déjà à l’époque d’Abdulhamid II, des responsables turcs envisageaient de transformer la mosaïque anatolienne en territoire uniquement musulman… Il reste, au moment ou nous parlons, moins de 40 000 Arméniens en Turquie. (…) Jusqu’en 1909, les minorités non islamiques n’avaient pas le droit de porter les armes. Les Arméniens étaient des dhimmi, c’est-à-dire une minorité au statut inférieur, comme les Juifs, les Grecs, les Assyro-Chaldéens, tous les non-musulmans. Ce fut pour eux une victoire que l’accès au service militaire en 1909. Dans l’armée en campagne, on ne sait pas, personne ne sait combien il y avait de soldats arméniens, mais on constate que, dès le début de la guerre, ils ont été désarmés. Il y a eu aussi des déserteurs arméniens, comme des déserteurs musulmans, mais à l’époque déserter voulait dire revenir au village. En outre, pendant l’hiver 1914-1915, au Caucase, se sont constitués des groupes de volontaires arméniens. Ces 5 000 à 6 000 supplétifs étaient soit des sujets du tsar, soit des Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman déjà émigrés aux Etats-Unis ou dans le Caucase russe. Toute la thèse de la » trahison » est fondée sur cet aspect très marginal de la situation. Au même moment, la Turquie avait constitué une légion de Géorgiens musulmans, sur son propre territoire, pour lutter contre les forces tsaristes. Pour autant les Russes n’ont pas massacré la population géorgienne islamisée… (…) En 1915, on a commencé par exécuter les Arméniens mâles de plus de douze ans avant de déporter le reste des familles arméniennes. Les femmes et les filles, quand elles ne sont pas mortes d’inanition ou de sévices au bord de la route, pendant la déportation ou la fuite, ont été violées ou enlevées. Certaines familles turques ou kurdes ont » adopté » des jeunes Arméniens. Lorsque l’armée russe a occupé la Turquie orientale, on a racheté ces enfants, une pièce d’or pour les filles, deux pour les garçons… Dans le traité de Sèvres, en 1920, le gouvernement ottoman s’engageait même à faire rendre les enfants restants. (…) Le mot même de » génocide » est en général récusé par les Turcs, y compris par les intellectuels » indépendants « . En 1931, Ataturk crée une Société turque d’histoire pour mettre en place une » histoire officielle » non seulement sur l’affaire arménienne, mais sur tout le passé de la Turquie. A notre connaissance, un seul historien turc, Taner Akçal, a publié récemment deux ouvrages en turc témoignant d’une vision critique de l’histoire de la Turquie au cours de ce siècle. Cependant la dénégation subsiste. A Istanbul même, sur la colline dite des Martyrs, parmi les mausolées il y a celui de Talaat-Pacha (ministre de l’intérieur en 1915, il a été assassiné en 1921 à Berlin par un Arménien qui fut acquitté), c’est-à-dire du principal artisan du génocide. Ce mausolée est une insulte à l’humanité. Les enjeux politiques sont évidents car une éventuelle reconnaissance du génocide pourrait entraîner des demandes de réparation. (…) Il y a quelques années, un jeune intellectuel kurde d’Irak a obtenu à Paris un diplôme à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales sur le Sang versé des Arméniens. C’est une sorte d’autocritique sur la participation des Kurdes à l’éradication des Arméniens. Si vous faites parler des Arméniens qui avaient six ou sept ans au moment du génocide, ils se souviennent tous des Kurdes hommes de main, mais cela ne diminue en rien la responsabilité de l’Etat turc. (…) le génocide fut d’abord, pour utiliser un mot appliqué à présent à l’ancienne Yougoslavie, un » nettoyage ethnique « . Cela a été une constante de la politique turque au vingtième siècle. Le génocide fut d’abord, fut avant tout, un » nettoyage ethnique » mené au nom du nationalisme territorial. Un nationalisme visant au premier chef les autochtones chrétiens, présents en Asie mineure depuis la nuit des temps. Les Turcs ne sont arrivés qu’au onzième siècle… Assyro-Chaldéens et Syriaques ont été éliminés, souvent en même temps que les Arméniens. Ces communautés, peu nombreuses et sans appui, n’ont pas eu à l’extérieur les mêmes moyens que les Arméniens pour défendre leur cause. Il y a des génocides niés, il y en a d’autres oubliés. (…) Le mot » génocide » a été forgé en 1944 pour définir l’élimination ou la tentative d’élimination d’un peuple. La définition reprise par la convention des Nations unies sur la prévention et la punition du crime de génocide, en 1948, s’applique à ce qu’ont vécu les Arméniens d’Anatolie, les Juifs ashkénazes et les Tziganes d’Europe centrale. La spécificité du génocide arménien, c’est qu’il s’est étalé sous trois régimes turcs différents. C’est toutefois seulement dans la période de modernisation de la Turquie, et en temps de guerre, que l’extermination est devenue méthodique, avec cartes, itinéraires de déportation, ordres aux fonctionnaires de tuer à tout prix. On a d’innombrables témoignages, y compris d’alliés des Turcs (Allemands, Autrichiens, etc.) ou de neutres (Américains, etc.), et il ne faut pas oublier non plus les procès qui ont eu lieu en 1919 à Constantinople. Etait en place un gouvernement ottoman, que l’Etat turc actuel considère comme fantoche, mais il n’empêche que, devant leurs juges, des fonctionnaires turcs sont venus témoigner des ordres d’extermination visant les Arméniens qu’ils avaient reçus de leurs supérieurs. (…) Jusqu’en 1918, la création, ou la re-création de l’Etat arménien disparu depuis six siècles, n’était pas à l’ordre du jour. Les Républiques caucasiennes ont été créées avec l’accord de l’Empire ottoman, qui voyait surtout dans une Arménie indépendante, plus petite d’ailleurs que l’actuelle environ 10 000 kilomètres carrés contre 29 700 kilomètres carrés de nos jours, un territoire où refouler les Arméniens survivants. (…) C’est que la situation internationale a complètement changé. L’Arménie est invitée à la conférence de la paix à Paris et va, suite à la défaite ottomane, pouvoir s’agrandir jusqu’à englober en tout 40 000 kilomètres carrés, en partie cette fois sur d’anciens territoires russes conquis par les Turcs, tels Kars et Ardahan. La Turquie a alors contribué, de connivence avec les bolcheviks, à la disparition de l’Arménie indépendante, comme à celle des deux autres Républiques transcaucasiennes. Yves Ternon
Ce n’est pas pour condamner la Turquie moderne, pas plus qu’à Nuremberg on a voulu condamner l’Allemagne qui naîtrait des ruines du IIIe Reich. D’ailleurs, l’Allemagne fédérale dès sa naissance, la République démocratique allemande peu avant sa chute et l’Allemagne enfin réunifiée ont reconnu le génocide commis par l’Allemagne hitlérienne et, en en assumant les conséquences sur tous les plans, ont libéré le peuple allemand d’une partie de son fardeau moral. Les dirigeants de la Turquie doivent suivre cet exemple. Tant qu’ils nieront la vérité historique, tant qu’ils essaieront d’échapper à leurs responsabilités et qu’ils continueront à prétendre que les Arméniens les ont trahis pendant la première guerre mondiale et qu’eux ont seulement riposté, ils seront tenus à l’écart par la communauté internationale, et en priorité par l’Union européenne. Tant qu’Israël ne reconnaîtra pas le génocide arménien, la Turquie se refusera à le faire. L’Etat juif sait que les nazis ont pu se risquer à commettre au XXe siècle un second génocide parce que les auteurs du premier n’avaient pas été punis. Serge et Arno Klarsfeld
L’un des documents des archives des essais de Nurenberg révèle que l’apathie de la communauté internationale, l’oubli du massacre des Arméniens par les Turcs pendant la Première Guerre mondiale et l’absence de réponse appropriée ont encouragé Adolf Hitler à conquérir des territoires et à anéantir les Juifs d’Europe. « Qui se souvient de ces Arméniens? », a déclaré Hitler à son personnel, pour les informer de sa décision d’envahir la Pologne, ajoutant qu’ils ne devaient pas craindre une réaction internationale, en utilisant le massacre des Arméniens comme preuve. (…) Aujourd’hui, lorsque le président turc, qui a été Premier ministre pendant une décennie, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, maintient une ligne anti-israélienne et antisémite claire, le ministère des Affaires étrangères continue d’ignorer l’holocauste arménien et de maintenir vcette basse politique sur la base de mauvaises considérations. Il y a une justification morale et historique à reconnaître la genocide arménien. L’holocauste arménien doit être enseigné dans les écoles. Dans un mois, le 24 avril 2015 nous allons commémorer les 100 ans de l’assassinat de 1,5 million d’Arméniens. Edy Cohen
For years, close ties between Israel and Turkey were understood to be the reason Jerusalem has avoided the repeated requests of Armenians for the international community to recognize the genocide their community suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I. (…) Given the deterioration of its relationship with Turkey, this occasion would seem to provide Israel with a golden opportunity to respond to the moral claim that it recognize the Armenian genocide, just as Pope Francis recently did, followed by the European Parliament. In fact, dozens of prominent Israeli artists and academics recently signed a petition calling on the Israeli government and Knesset to recognize the Armenian genocide. Nevertheless, officially, Israel continues to squirm. The Foreign Ministry recommends showing greater empathy to the Armenian issue, and this will be the first year that Israel will send an official delegation to participate in the memorial ceremony to take place in Yerevan. It will, however, be a low-ranking delegation, made up of Knesset members. (…) A few senior Israeli officials dealing with the issue spoke to Al-Monitor about it on condition of anonymity. They emphasized that this doesn’t just involve susceptibility toward Turkish sensitivities, but also sensitivity that Israel wants to show toward Azerbaijan, which is a neighbor of both Turkey and Armenia. Since the Soviet Union’s collapse, the borders in the Caucasus region have been redefined. One consequence is a continuing state of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the pillars of Azerbaijan’s new national narrative is the “Khojaly massacre,” which refers to a battle in the village of Khojaly, located in the disputed Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, on Feb. 26, 1992. According to the Azeri narrative, Armenian forces killed 600 Azeri civilians there, including 169 women and children. In this instance, the Armenians deny responsibility for the massacre of civilians, just as they do for a long list of atrocities that the Azeris have blamed on them since WWI. (…) Gallia Lindenstrauss of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies says that Azerbaijan is the Muslim country with which Israel currently has the closest ties. Trade between Israel and Azerbaijan is estimated at over $5 billion. Israel imports some 40% of its oil from there, and exports mainly weapons and sophisticated defense systems to it. In 2012, when talk of an Israel strike against Iran was at its peak, Foreign Policy quoted a senior US official as saying (apparently with considerable hyperbole), “The Israelis have bought an airfield … and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.” (…) Azerbaijan, like the Israeli government, considers Iran’s nuclear capacity to be an existential threat. Azerbaijan’s border with Iran stretches for 611 kilometers (380 miles), making it longer even than Turkey’s border with Iran, which is 499 kilometers (310 miles) long. Meanwhile, Armenia’s border with Iran stretches for just 35 kilometers (22 miles). If the length of their borders can be used to determine the importance of relations with those countries, then Armenia is the least important of all of them. And in general, it is considered an ally of the country that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compares to Hitler’s Germany. Coming back to the official position presented by the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, it would seem that the call to the international community “to prevent humanitarian tragedies in the future” might not refer only to the incidents of mass murder committed daily by the Islamic State against anyone who is not one of them — Yazidis, Christians or Alawites. It is mainly directed against Iran’s “explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state,” as Netanyahu reiterated April 16 at Yad Vashem during a memorial service for the victims of the Holocaust. Herein lies the real reason for Israel’s policy concerning whether it will recognize the Armenia genocide. The reason isn’t Turkey; it’s Iran. Arad Nir
The first world war operations in Gallipoli – Çanakkale in Turkish – began on 18 March 1915 with the British naval bombardment of the peninsula. Turks have used that date to celebrate their victory against the Allied attack and mourn the soldiers who died in battle. The naval landings on the shores of Gallipoli ended in devastating defeat and are remembered by Australians and New Zealanders on 25 April, known as Anzac Day. After Ankara’s announcement to shift all official commemorations of Gallipoli to 24 April, critics were quick to point out that no significant military event took place at Gallipoli that day and that Armenians had greater claim to it because 24 April 1915 was when Ottoman authorities started to arrest Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul. Guardian
When world leaders, including Prince Charles and the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers, gather at Gallipoli to commemorate the First World War battle at the invitation of the Turkish government in April, the ghosts of one and half million slaughtered Christian Armenians will march with them. For in an unprecedented act of diplomatic folly, Turkey is planning to use the 100th anniversary of the Allied attempt to invade Turkey in 1915 to smother memory of its own mass killing of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, the 20th century’s first semi-industrial holocaust. The Turks have already sent invitations to 102 nations to attend the Gallipoli anniversary on 24th April — on the very day when Armenia always honours its own genocide victims at the hands of Ottoman Turkey. (…) The irony of history has now bequeathed these very same killing fields to the victorious forces of the ‘genocidal’ Islamist ISIS army, which has even destroyed the Armenian church commemorating the genocide in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zour. Armenians chose 24th April to remember their genocide victims because this was the day on which Turkish police rounded up the first Armenian academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers and journalists in Constantinople. (…) Armenians hold their commemorations on April 24th – when nothing happened at Gallipoli – because this was the day on which the Armenian intellectuals were rounded up and jailed in the basement of Constantinople’s police headquarters prior to their deportation and — in some cases — execution. These were the first ‘martyrs’ of the Armenian genocide. By another cruel twist of history, the place of their incarceration is now the Museum of Islamic Arts – a tourist location to which Prince Charles and other dignitaries will presumably not be taken on 24th April. These killings marked the start of the Armenian people’s persecution and exile to the four corners of the earth. (…) The Turkish hero of Gallipoli, of course, was Lieutenant Colonel Mustapha Kemal – later Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state – and his own 19th Division at Gallipoli was known as the ‘Aleppo Division’ because of the number of Arabs serving in it. Ataturk did not participate in the mass killings of Armenians in 1915, but some of his associates were implicated – which still casts a shadow over the history of the Turkish state. The bloody Allied defeat at Gallipoli was to cast a shadow over the rest of Winston Churchill’s career, a fact well known to the tens of thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who plan to come to the old battlefield this April. How much they will know about an even more horrific anniversary on April 24th is another matter. Liveleak
Attention: un déni peut en cacher bien d’autres !
Etats-Unis, Royaume-Uni, Irlande, Australie, Nouvelle Zélande, Danemark,Espagne …
En ces temps étranges où, triste ironie de l’histoire, les djiahdistes de l’Etat islamique terminent sur les mêmes territoires le travailcommencé il y a cent ans par leurs prédécesseurs de l’Etat turc …
Et que fidèle à ses habitudes, le Golfeur-en-chef de la Maison Blanche a non seulement encore laissé dans sa poche les promesses répétées, vote arménien oblige, sur la question …
Mais après Paris et Auschwitz, ajouté Erevan à la longue liste de ses absences remarquées …
Pendant qu’avec le refroidissement de ses relations avec une Turquie qui cache de moins en moins son antisémitisme, la prochaine victime sur la liste des génocidaires se voit seulesommer, pour une reconnaissance largement parlementaire et notoirement à géométrie variable voire inexistante selon les termes utilisés et les pays ou même les régions, y compris au sein de l’Etat juif lui-même et dans la France donneuse de leçons en chef et maitresse es lois liberticides, de sacrifier son dernier soutien dans le monde musulman …
Comment s’étonner encore …
Au nom de leur intérêt bien compris et aux côtés du maitre-négationniste d’Ankara …
De l’incroyable contribution des princes Charles et Harry comme des premiers ministres irlandais, australien et néo-zélandais …
A non seulement la célébration du héros génocidaire d’une des plus tragiques défaites de l’Empire britannique …
Mais via la date complètement fictive du 24 avril, les dates officielles turque et britannique étant respectivement les 18 et 25 avril …
A rien de moins qu’une énième répétition du premier déni d’un génocide …
ANKARA (AFP) – Le président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan s’est ostensiblement réjoui mercredi de la volonté des Etats-Unis de ne pas qualifier de génocide les massacres d’Arméniens perpétrés en 1915, assurant avoir le plein « soutien » de son homologue Barack Obama.
« Je n’aimerais pas entendre Obama dire quelque chose comme ça, et je ne m’y attends pas de toute façon. Pour la Turquie, la position américaine est très claire, elle est contre » la reconnaissance du génocide, a déclaré M. Erdogan lors d’une conférence de presse avec le président irakien Fouad Massoum.
La Maison Blanche a appelé mardi à une reconnaissance « pleine, franche et juste » des massacres de centaines de milliers d’Arméniens perpétrés par l’Empire ottoman à partir de 1915, mais elle a comme toujours évité d’utiliser le mot « génocide ».
« Tout au long de ces six années depuis qu’il (M. Obama) est président, nous avons longuement parlé de cette question et convenu qu’elle devait être laissée aux historiens, pas aux dirigeants politiques », a poursuivi M. Erdogan.
La Turquie nie catégoriquement que l’Empire ottoman ait organisé le massacre systématique de sa population arménienne pendant la Première guerre mondiale et récuse le terme de « génocide » repris par l’Arménie, de nombreux historiens et une vingtaine de pays dont la France, l’Italie et la Russie.
Le président turc a aussi dénoncé les commémorations organisées en Arménie le 24 avril pour commémorer le « génocide ». « Ils vont parler, parler et insulter la Turquie. Nous serons à Canakkale (sur les rives du détroit des Dardanelles: ndlr) ce jour-là, mais l’Arménie n’est pas à notre programme », a-t-il ajouté.
La Turquie célèbre vendredi en grande pompe le 100e anniversaire de la meurtrière bataille de Gallipoli, ou des Dardanelles, qui a opposé d’avril 1915 à janvier 1916 les troupes de l’Empire ottoman à celles de l’Empire britannique et de la France.
Dans une interview exclusive accordée à France 24, le président arménien Serge Sarkissian a regretté le choix de son homologue turc de commémorer la bataille de Gallipoli le jour des cérémonies entourant le 100e anniversaire du génocide arménien.
À un mois des commémorations du 100e anniversaire du génocide arménien de 1915, le président Serge Sarkissian a dénoncé le « négationnisme » du president turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan, dans une interview exclusive à France 24. Il affirme que la décision d’Erdogan d’organiser en Turquie des commémorations de la bataille de Gallipoli, le jour même des commémorations du génocide, est une « provocation ».
« Nous n’avons pas l’intention de faire de ces manifestations une sorte d’hystérie anti-turque. L’un de nos objectifs est de faire un appel à l’humanité toute entière pour lutter contre les génocides », a affirmé le président arménien. « Nous voudrions commémorer le génocide arménien en commun avec le peuple turc. C’est cet objectif qui était à la base des protocoles signés en 2009 pour le rétablissement des relations. Un objectif que je visais aussi avec mon invitation à la Turquie de se rendre au Mémorial en Arménie, le 24 avril. Malheureusement, nous nous sommes heurtés à une démarche négationniste qui a trouvé – pardon de le dire ainsi – une expression particulièrement cynique cette année. La bataille de Gallipoli n’a pas commencé et s’est encore moins achevée le 24 avril. C’est une sorte de blessure adressée au peuple arménien. En même temps, il est évident que c’est une démarche qui vise à créer des obstacles à la commémoration du génocide arménien », a-t-il regretté.
Les cérémonies du 24 avril en Arménie, auxquelles assisteront François Hollande et Vladimir Poutine notamment, doivent être l’occasion de dire non aux crimes contre l’humanité. Le président Sarkissian regrette que la Turquie préfére « saboter » ce moment de solidarité plutôt que de s’y joindre.
Le chef d’État arménien a également souligné « avoir peur » d’une nouvelle guerre contre l’Azerbaïdjan à propos de la région disputée du Haut-Karabakh, où les tensions se sont accentuées ces derniers mois. Mais il a affirmé que l’Arménie était « prête a se battre » s’il le fallait.
Enfin, le président Sarkissian a dit craindre une « nouvelle guerre froide » entre la Russie et l’Occident, tout en affirmant avoir de « très bonnes relations » avec Vladimir Poutine. Le chef d’État arménien a souligné ne pas craindre que son homologue russe ait des vues sur les ex-républiques soviétiques comme l’Arménie.
Change of date by Ankara, which leads to a clash of commemoration ceremonies, condemned as ‘indecent manoeuvre’
Constanze Letsch in Istanbul
The Guardian
16 April 2015
Turkey has been accused of belittling the imminent centenary of the Armenian genocide by advancing its Gallipoli commemorations to the same day.
The anniversary of the 1915 military operations on the Gallipoli peninsula has always been marked on 25 April, the day after commemorations of the massacre of more than 1 million Armenians in the Ottoman empire. This year, however, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has invited state leaders to join him in Gallipoli on 24 April.
“This is a very indecent political manoeuvre,” said Ohannes Kılıçdağı, a researcher and writer for Agos, an Armenian weekly. “It’s cheap politics to try to dissolve the pressure on Turkey in the year of the centennial by organising this event.
“Everybody knows that the two memorials around Gallipoli have been held on 18 March and 25 April every year.”
Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Tony Abbott, the Australian prime minister, and John Key, New Zealand’s prime minister, have confirmed they will attend events at Gallipoli. As part of the programme on 24 April, services will be held at several military cemeteries. A Foreign Office spokesman said annual Gallipoli commemorations had taken place on both 24 and 25 April “for a number of years”.
Advertisement
At the same time, hundreds will gather on Istanbul’s Taksim Square, where a commemoration of the Armenian genocide has been held since 2010. Another rally will be held in the eastern city of Diyarbakır, an important centre from where the state governor oversaw the mass killings in 1915. The main event will be held in Yerevan, capital of Armenia, with a number of foreign dignitaries from Russia, France, the UK and elsewhere.
The Turkish government’s efforts to divert international attention from the commemoration of the massacre have been called “disgraceful” by Armenians.
“It’s not just Gallipoli,” said Nazar Büyüm, an Armenian columnist and writer. “Someone also had the audacity to suggest the organisation of a Gallipoli memorial concert in an Armenian church in Istanbul for 24 April. The government does everything to overshadow the centennial of the genocide this year.”
Turkey refuses to accept responsibility for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the Ottoman empire. In recent days, senior officials have lashed out at the pope and the EU for labelling the events of 1915 a genocide.
The plot thickened on Thursday when it was announced that a senior Turkish government adviser, Etyen Mahçupyan, had stepped down just months after he took on the job – and days after he too used the word “genocide”. Officials said he had retired because he had turned 65.
There are as many as 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey today, but many are too wary of local hostilities to openly project their ethnicity, still less confess their Christian faith.
Professor Ayhan Aktar of Bilgi University in Istanbul, who has long researched the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey, was not surprised by the government’s decision to move the date of the Gallipoli events.
“Turkey has been putting forward the Turks dying on world war one battlefields for 97 years, arguing that, yes, Armenians might have died, but so did our ancestors,” he said. “This move just continues this line of defence. It’s indecent, and a disgrace.”
While the Armenian state leader and many Armenians abroad expressed outrage at Turkey’s diplomatic gamble, the reaction in Turkey has been rather mute. Part of the reason, Kılıçdağı says, is the persistent fear of violence against the Armenian community in Turkey.
“Even though the situation has somewhat improved, and even though solidarity with the Armenian community has increased, many have learned to live with the constant fear,” he said. “It has become almost a reflex. Armenians are still a vulnerable group in Turkey.”
The first world war operations in Gallipoli – Çanakkale in Turkish – began on 18 March 1915 with the British naval bombardment of the peninsula. Turks have used that date to celebrate their victory against the Allied attack and mourn the soldiers who died in battle. The naval landings on the shores of Gallipoli ended in devastating defeat and are remembered by Australians and New Zealanders on 25 April, known as Anzac Day.
After Ankara’s announcement to shift all official commemorations of Gallipoli to 24 April, critics were quick to point out that no significant military event took place at Gallipoli that day and that Armenians had greater claim to it because 24 April 1915 was when Ottoman authorities started to arrest Armenian intellectuals in Istanbul.
Hopes of an Armenian-Turkish thaw were raised last year, when Erdogan extended condolences to the grandchildren of all killed Armenians. But this year’s actions have alienated the 100,000-strong Armenian community in Turkey.
“After Erdoğan’s words last year, this was a big disappointment,” said Nayat Karaköse, programme coordinator at the Hrant Dink Foundation, an Istanbul organisation named after an Armenian-Turkish journalist murdered in 2007, which promotes Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, research and culture.
“We expected a more positive step than to try and shift the international focus away from Armenia’s effort to raise awareness about the genocide.”
Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a Turkish journalist and human rights activist, said the forthcoming parliamentary elections made any meaningful concessions by the ruling Justice and Development party impossible.
“They are trying to rally more nationalist votes. Erdoğan is a very pragmatic politician, who is very conscious of political advantages he can gain by any move he makes,” Cengiz said. “But the Armenian issue is a matter of conscience and of morality, which is why Erdoğan is not the leader who will solve it.”
When world leaders, including Prince Charles and the Australian and New Zealand prime ministers, gather at Gallipoli to commemorate the First World War battle at the invitation of the Turkish government in April, the ghosts of one and half million slaughtered Christian Armenians will march with them.
For in an unprecedented act of diplomatic folly, Turkey is planning to use the 100th anniversary of the Allied attempt to invade Turkey in 1915 to smother memory of its own mass killing of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, the 20th century’s first semi-industrial holocaust. The Turks have already sent invitations to 102 nations to attend the Gallipoli anniversary on 24th April — on the very day when Armenia always honours its own genocide victims at the hands of Ottoman Turkey.
In an initiative which he must have known would be rejected, Turkish President Recep Erdogan even invited the Armenian President, Serge Sarkissian, to attend the Gallipoli anniversary after himself receiving an earlier request from President Sarkissian to attend ceremonies marking the Armenian genocide on the same day.
This is not just diplomatic mischief. The Turks are well aware that the Allied landings at Gallipoli began on 25th April – the day after Armenians mark the start of their genocide, which was ordered by the Turkish government of the time – and that Australia and New Zealand mark Anzac Day on the 25th. Only two years ago, then-president Abdullah Gul of Turkey marked the 98th anniversary of the Great War battle on 18th March 2013 — the day on which the British naval bombardment of the Dardanelles Peninsular began on the instructions of British First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. At the time, no-one in Turkey suggested that Gallipoli – Canakkale in Turkish — should be remembered on 24th April.
The Turks, of course, are fearful that 1915 should be remembered as the anniversary of their country’s frightful crimes against humanity committed during the Armenian extermination, in which tens of thousands of men were executed with guns and knives, their womenfolk raped and then starved with their children on death marches into what was then Mesopotamia. The irony of history has now bequeathed these very same killing fields to the victorious forces of the ‘genocidal’ Islamist ISIS army, which has even destroyed the Armenian church commemorating the genocide in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zour. Armenians chose 24th April to remember their genocide victims because this was the day on which Turkish police rounded up the first Armenian academics, lawyers, doctors, teachers and journalists in Constantinople.
Like Germany’s right wing and revisionist historians who deny the Jewish Holocaust, Turkey has always refused to accept the Ottoman Turkish Empire’s responsibility for the greatest crime against humanity of the 1914-18 war, a bloodletting which at the time upset even Turkey’s German allies. Armenia’s own 1915 Holocaust – which lasted into 1917 — has been acknowledged by hundreds of international scholars, including many Jewish and Israeli historians, and has since been recognized by many European states. Only Tony Blair’s government tried to diminish the suffering of the Armenians when it refused to regard the outrages as an act of genocide and tried to exclude survivors from commemorating their dead during Holocaust ceremonies in London. Turkey’s claim – that the Armenians were unfortunate victims of the social upheavals of the war – has long been discredited.
Several brave Turkish scholars – denounced for their honesty by their fellow countrymen – have researched Ottoman documents and proved that instructions were sent out from Constantinople (now Istanbul) to regional officials to destroy their Armenian communities. Professor Ayhan Aktar of Istanbul Bilgi University, for example, has written extensively about the courage of Armenians who themselves fought in uniform for Turkey at Gallipoli, and has publicised the life of Captain Sarkis Torossian, an Armenian officer who was decorated by the Ottoman state for his bravery but whose parents and sister were done to death in the genocide. Professor Aktar was condemned by Turkish army officers and some academics who claimed that Armenians did not even fight on the Turkish side. Turkish generals officially denied – against every proof to the contrary, including Torossian’s photograph in Ottoman uniform — that the Armenian soldier existed.
But now Turkey has changed its story. Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently acknowledged that other ethnic groups – including many Arabs as well as Armenians – also fought at Gallipoli. “We [Turks and Armenians] fought together at Gallipoli,” he said. “That’s why we have extended the invitation to President Sarkissian as well.” The Armenian president’s reply to Erdogan’s invitation even mentioned Captain Torossian – although he sadly claimed that the soldier was also killed in the genocide when he in fact died in New York in 1954 after writing his memoirs – and reminded the Turkish president that “peace and friendship must first be hinged on the courage to confront one’s own past, historical justice and universal memory… Each of us has a duty to transmit the real story to future generations and prevent the repetition of crimes… and prepare the ground for rapprochement and future cooperation between peoples, especially neighbouring peoples.”
Armenians hold their commemorations on April 24th – when nothing happened at Gallipoli – because this was the day on which the Armenian intellectuals were rounded up and jailed in the basement of Constantinople’s police headquarters prior to their deportation and — in some cases — execution. These were the first ‘martyrs’ of the Armenian genocide. By another cruel twist of history, the place of their incarceration is now the Museum of Islamic Arts – a tourist location to which Prince Charles and other dignitaries will presumably not be taken on 24th April. These killings marked the start of the Armenian people’s persecution and exile to the four corners of the earth.
Professor Aktar’s contribution – along with that of historian Taner Akcam in the US — to the truth of Turkish-Armenian history is almost unique. They alone, through their academic research and under enormous political pressure to remain silent, forced thousands of Turks to debate the terrible events of 1915. Many Turks have since discovered Armenian grandmothers who were ‘Islamised’ or seized by Turkish militiamen or soldiers when they were young women. Aktar also points out that other Armenian soldiers – a First Lieutenant Surmenian, whose own memoirs were published in Beirut 13 years after Torossian’s death – fought in the Turkish army.
He has little time, however, for either the Turkish government or Armenian president Sarkissian. “If you want to honour the Armenian officers and soldiers who… died for the fatherland (Turkey) in 1915, then you should invite the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul,” Aktar told me. “Why do (they) invite President Sarkissian? His ancestors were probably fighting in the Russian Imperial Army in 1915. He is from Karabagh [Armenian-held territory that is part of Turkish Azerbaijan] as far as I know! This is a show of an ‘indecent proposal’ towards President Sarkissian… it is rather insulting!”
Many Armenians might share the same view. For several months, Sarkissian was prepared to sign a treaty with Turkey to open the Armenian-Turkish frontier in return for a mere formal investigation by scholars of the genocide. Then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported him, along with sundry politicians and some Western journalists based in Turkey. But the Armenian diaspora responded in fury, asking how Jews would feel if friendship with Germany was contingent upon an enquiry to discover if the Jewish Holocaust had ever occurred. In the First World War, American and European newspapers gave massive publicity to the savagery visited upon the Armenians, and the British Foreign Office published a ‘black book’ on the crimes against Armenians of the Turkish army. The very word ‘genocide’ was coined about the Armenian holocaust by Raphael Lemkin, an American lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent. Israelis use the word ‘Shoah’ – ‘Holocaust’ — when they refer to the suffering of the Armenians.
The Turkish hero of Gallipoli, of course, was Lieutenant Colonel Mustapha Kemal – later Ataturk, founder of the modern Turkish state – and his own 19th Division at Gallipoli was known as the ‘Aleppo Division’ because of the number of Arabs serving in it. Ataturk did not participate in the mass killings of Armenians in 1915, but some of his associates were implicated – which still casts a shadow over the history of the Turkish state. The bloody Allied defeat at Gallipoli was to cast a shadow over the rest of Winston Churchill’s career, a fact well known to the tens of thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who plan to come to the old battlefield this April. How much they will know about an even more horrific anniversary on April 24th is another matter.
Denmark does not officially recognize that Ottoman-era killings of Armenians during World War I constitute genocide, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said Thursday.
« In the government’s opinion, this is a historical question that should be left up to the historians, » Moeller said in a written parliamentary answer, indicating that Denmark would not follow the lead of some 20 other countries, including France, that have labeled the killings genocide. Moeller’s note came in response to a question from parliamentary member, Morten Messerchmidt, of the far-right Danish People’s Party, on whether « Denmark had officially recognized this genocide. » « It is unfortunate that the Danish government refuses to join other countries in recognizing this genocide, » Messerschmidt told Agence France Presse. « It is as if they fear Turkey’s reactions, » he said. Copenhagen’s decision « to not recognize this genocide shows that the government indirectly supports Turkey’s cowardly refusal to take responsibility for its history the way the Germans did after World War II, » he said. The mass killing of Armenians is considered genocide by Armenians but not by Turkey, which rejects the term. According to the Armenian claims, 1.5 million of their kinsmen were killed from 1915 to 1917 under an Ottoman Empire campaign of deportation and murder. Rejecting the genocide label, Turkey states that 250,000 to 500,000 Armenians and at least as many Turks died in civil strife when Armenians took up arms for independence in eastern Anatolia during World War I. A number of countries and official bodies, notably the European parliament, France, Canada and now a United States House of Representatives committee, have labeled the killings genocide.
« Je veux redire à nouveau au nom de tous, devant la mémoire des centaines de milliers de jeunes qui reposent dans cette petite péninsule, notre détermination à assurer la paix et la prospérité dans le monde », a-t-il promis dans son discours. Entouré d’une vingtaine de dirigeants du monde entier réunis sur les rives du détroit des Dardanelles, le chef de l’État turc a honoré la mémoire des soldats de l’Empire ottoman et du corps expéditionnaire franco-britannique tombés pendant cet épisode meurtrier de la Première Guerre mondiale, et a prêché pour la paix.
« Un remède contre le terrorisme »
« J’espère que Canakkale (Dardanelles) servira d’exemple au monde entier et à toutes les communautés pour transformer notre peine commune en un outil de promotion de la fraternité, de l’amour et de la paix », a-t-il insisté, « un remède contre le terrorisme, le racisme, l’islamophobie et la haine ». « Nous devons honorer l’héroïsme des combattants de Gallipoli dans les deux camps », a renchéri sur le même ton le prince Charles, héritier de la couronne britannique. Malgré ce ton très oecuménique, le message délivré par l’homme fort de Turquie est resté largement brouillé par la polémique sur le génocide arménien. D’autres chefs d’État et de gouvernement, dont les présidents russe Vladimir Poutine et français François Hollande, ont ainsi boudé l’invitation de Gallipoli et préféré rendre vendredi hommage à Erevan aux centaines de milliers d’Arméniens massacrés par l’Empire ottoman à partir du 24 avril 1915.
Ces derniers jours, les Turcs ont vigoureusement dénoncé toutes les déclarations, du pape François au président allemand Joachim Gauck, les pressant de reconnaître un « génocide » arménien, et ont dénoncé une « campagne de dénigrement ». Pour la première fois cependant, un ministre turc a assisté vendredi à Istanbul à une messe en l’honneur des victimes arméniennes de 1915. « Nos coeurs sont ouverts aux descendants des Arméniens ottomans de par le monde », a déclaré M. Erdogan dans un message lu pendant cet office en leur renouvelant ses condoléances. Mais le chef de l’État turc n’est pas allé plus loin. Après la cérémonie internationale de Gallipoli, les anciens belligérants de 1915 ont commencé vendredi à honorer leurs morts dans des rendez-vous « nationaux ».
400 000 morts ou blessés dans les deux camps
Le plus célèbre, le fameux « service de l’aube » organisé par l’Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande, se déroulera samedi au petit matin, à l’heure précise du débarquement des premières troupes alliées sur les plages turques. La bataille des Dardanelles a commencé en février 1915 par la tentative d’une flottille franco-britannique de forcer le détroit pour s’emparer d’Istanbul, capitale de l’Empire ottoman. Repoussés, les Alliés ont débarqué le 25 avril à Gallipoli mais ont été contraints à une humiliante retraite après neuf fois d’une guerre de tranchées qui a fait plus de 400 000 morts ou blessés dans les deux camps. Malgré la défaite, l’héroïsme des jeunes soldats australiens et néo-zélandais, dont c’était le baptême du feu, contribuera à former l’identité nationale des deux pays. « Leur persévérance, leur dévouement, leur courage et leur compassion nous ont définis en tant que nation », a déclaré le chef du gouvernement australien Tony Abbott.
Comme chaque année, de nombreux touristes ont fait le pèlerinage de Gallipoli depuis l’autre côté de la planète. « Il est très important de revenir ici pour leur rendre l’hommage qu’ils méritent », a déclaré Marjorie Stevens, 87 ans, venue d’Adelaïde (Australie). L’Empire ottoman a fini la guerre dans le camp des perdants et a été démantelé. Mais la bataille de Gallipoli est devenue un symbole de la résistance qui a abouti à l’avènement de la République turque moderne en 1923. À la tête d’un régiment, son père-fondateur Mustafa Kemal y a forgé sa légende de héros national. À un mois des élections législatives turques du 7 juin, M. Erdogan n’a pas manqué de faire vibrer la fibre patriotique nationale. « Nous avons payé un prix élevé pour la victoire de Gallipoli. Il ne faut pas oublier que nous devons à cet esprit et à cette persévérance notre indépendance d’aujourd’hui », a-t-il dit.
Voir de plus:
A genocide denied
Newly uncovered Foreign Office memos show how New Labour has played politics with the massacre of th
Geoffrey Robertson
New Statesman
10 December, 2009
There are few genocides more clearly established than that suffered by the Armenians in 1915-16, when half the race was extinguished in massacres and deportations directed by the Young Turk government. Today you can be prosecuted in France and other European countries for denying the slaughter. But the world’s most influential genocide denier – other than Turkey itself – is the British government, which has
repeatedly asserted that there is insufficient evidence that what it terms a « tragedy » amounted to genocide. Now, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we learn that (in the words of Foreign Office memos) commercial and political relations with Turkey have required abandoning « the ethical dimension ».
For the past ten years, various Foreign Office ministers, from Geoff Hoon to Mark Malloch Brown, have told parliament that « neither this government nor previous governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide, as defined by the 1948 convention ». This would have come as a shock to the architects of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (for whom the Armenian genocide was second only to the Holocaust), as well as to the wartime British government, which accused the Turks of proceeding « systematically to exterminate a whole race out of their domain ». (Winston Churchill described it as « an administrative holocaust . . . there is no reasonable doubt that this crime was executed for political reasons ».)
What does the Foreign Office know that eluded our government at the time as well as the drafters of the Genocide Convention, not to mention the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the US House committee on foreign affairs and at least nine other European governments? The Freedom of Information Act has now unravelled this mystery.
The Armenian Centre in London obtained hundreds of pages of hitherto secret memorandums, bearing the astonishing admission that there was no « evidence » that had ever been looked at and there had never been a « judgment » at all. Parliament had been misinformed: as the Foreign Office now admits, « there is no collection of documents, publications and reports by historians, held on the relevant files, or any evidence that a series of documents were submitted to ministers for consideration ». In any case, ministers repeatedly asserted that, « in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915-16 as genocide ».
That was the answer given by the government during the House of Lords debate on the subject in 1999. The thinking behind the genocide denial is revealed in an internal memorandum to ministers (Joyce Quin and Baroness Symons) before the debate: « HMG is open to criticism in terms of the ethical dimension, but given the importance of our relations (political, strategic and commercial) with Turkey . . . the current line is the only feasible option. »
An inconvenient truth
Nobody noticed that this « current line » was a legal nonsense. To prove genocide, you do not need unequivocal evidence of a specific government decision to eliminate a race – neither the Nazis nor the Hutu government in Rwanda ever voted to do so or recorded any such decision. Genocidal intentions are inferred from what governments do and from what they knew at the time they did it; and it was obvious to everyone in Armenia (including diplomats and missionaries from Germany, then allied to Turkey, and to neutral US ambassadors) that the deportations had turned into death marches, and the massacres were influenced by race hatred fanned by the government’s « Turkification » campaign. The internal documents show that the Foreign Office has never had the slightest interest in the law of genocide: its stance throughout is that the UK cannot recognise this particular genocide, not because it had not taken place, but because realpolitik makes it inconvenient.
There is no suggestion in these documents that expert legal advice was ever sought before ministers were wrongly briefed on the law of genocide. The definition of the crime includes « deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part » – a precise description of the Ottoman government’s orders to deport two million Armenians to the Syrian Desert, in the course of which hundreds of thousands were murdered or died of starvation. Courts in The Hague have actively developed the law relating to genocide in recent years, but the Foreign Office memos make no reference to this – its only concern is that ministers should say nothing which might discomfort a Turkish government that it describes as « neuralgic » about its accountability.
The documents show how Foreign Office officials have discouraged ministers from attending memorial services for Armenian victims and from including any reference to this genocide at Holocaust Memorial Day. They advised Margaret Beckett, Geoff Hoon and Kim Howells to absent themselves from the Armenian genocide memorial day in 2007. It is no business of the Foreign Office to discourage ministers from attending memorial services for victims of crimes against humanity.Notable in these hitherto secret documents is how government ministers parrot their Foreign Office briefs in parliament word for word and never challenge the advice provided by diplomats. None of them has ever pointed out, for example, that the « not sufficiently unequivocal » test is oxymoronic – evidence is either equivocal or it is not. It cannot be a little bit unequivocal.
The other routine excuse for denying the genocide has been that « it is for historians, not governments, to interpret the past ». This « line » was described in 1999 as « long-standing ». But genocide is a matter for legal judgment, not a matter for historians, and there is no dispute about the Armenian genocide among legal scholars. Yet Foreign Office ministers insist that the « interpretation of events is still the subject of genuine debate among historians ». This « line » was stoutly maintained until last year, when it was placed on the Downing Street website in response to an e-petition and provoked angry replies from the public. The minister, by now Jim Murphy, was displeased, and became the first to demand to know just what evidence the Foreign Office had looked at.
The Eastern Department had looked at no evidence at all. In great haste, it came up with three historians – Bernard Lewis (who had been prosecuted in France for denying the genocide, but then told Le Monde that he did not dispute that hundreds of thousands of Armenians had died), Justin McCarthy (a Kentucky professor whose pro-Turkish work was sent to Keith Vaz, then a minister at the Foreign Office, by the Turkish ambassador) and Heath Lowry, who, although he does not put his own name to denials of the genocide, provoked dispute at Princeton after it accepted funds from the Turkish government to endow his « Atatürk Chair » and he was then exposed as having helped draft a letter in which the Turkish ambassador denounced a scholar for writing about the genocide. It is astonishing, given the number of British historians, from Arnold Toynbee onwards, who have no doubts on the subject, that the Foreign Office should grasp at the straw of three controversial Americans.
Will we remember?
The head of the department later told Murphy that it had stopped « deploying this line » because « we found that references to historians tended to raise further questions ». Malloch Brown proceeded to read out the old mantra that « neither this government nor previous governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal » on his behalf, even though no government had actually « judged » or received any evidence at all.Parliament has been routinely misinformed by ministers who have recited Foreign Office briefs without questioning their accuracy. The government’s only policy has been to evade giving any truthful answer about the Armenian genocide, because it has abandoned « the ethical dimension » in the interests of relations with a Turkish government that it acknowledges to be unbalanced in its attitude to this issue.
In August 1939, Adolf Hitler exhorted his generals to show no mercy to the Polish people they were preparing to blitzkrieg because, « After all, who now remembers the annihilation of the Armenians? » If the ethics-free zone in the Foreign Office has its way, nobody in the UK will remember them either.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC is the author of « Crimes Against Humanity: the Struggle for Global Justice » (Penguin, £14.99)
His full opinion on the Armenian genocide and the Foreign Office documents can be obtained for free from j.flint@doughtystreet.co.uk
Il est temps pour les autorités les plus représentatives d’Israël, son président, le chef de son gouvernement, la Knesset, de reconnaître le génocide dont ont été victimes les Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman.
Dans moins de vingt-cinq ans, ce sera au tour du centenaire du génocide des juifs d’être célébré dans le monde entier, et – nous l’espérons – y compris dans le monde musulman. Comment cultiver cette espérance d’unanimité si l’Etat des juifs se refuse encore à cette reconnaissance formelle pour ne pas indisposer son puissant voisin turc ?
Le génocide arménien a été reconnu par de nombreux pays, et le président de la République, François Hollande, s’est engagé à ce qu’une loi sanctionne la négation du génocide arménien comme la loi Gayssot sanctionne depuis un quart de siècle la négation du génocide juif.
En un temps ou les massacres des chrétiens d’Orient se multiplient, la voix du pape s’est fait entendre pour le déplorer et pour, enfin, proclamer que les Arméniens ont été victimes d’un génocide.
Suivre l’exemple allemand
Ce n’est pas pour condamner la Turquie moderne, pas plus qu’à Nuremberg on a voulu condamner l’Allemagne qui naîtrait des ruines du IIIe Reich. D’ailleurs, l’Allemagne fédérale dès sa naissance, la République démocratique allemande peu avant sa chute et l’Allemagne enfin réunifiée ont reconnu le génocide commis par l’Allemagne hitlérienne et, en en assumant les conséquences sur tous les plans, ont libéré le peuple allemand d’une partie de son fardeau moral.
Les dirigeants de la Turquie doivent suivre cet exemple. Tant qu’ils nieront la vérité historique, tant qu’ils essaieront d’échapper à leurs responsabilités et qu’ils continueront à prétendre que les Arméniens les ont trahis pendant la première guerre mondiale et qu’eux ont seulement riposté, ils seront tenus à l’écart par la communauté internationale, et en priorité par l’Union européenne. Tant qu’Israël ne reconnaîtra pas le génocide arménien, la Turquie se refusera à le faire.
L’Etat juif sait que les nazis ont pu se risquer à commettre au XXe siècle un second génocide parce que les auteurs du premier n’avaient pas été punis. Aucun argument ne peut s’opposer valablement à la reconnaissance que nous demandons à Israël en ces jours ou nous commémorons Yom HaShoah (la Journée du souvenir de l’Holocauste en Israël).
Serge Klarsfeld préside Fils et filles des déportés juifs de France.
Arno Klarsfeld est l’ancien avocat des Fils et filles des déportés juifs de France.
44 membres du Congrès américain ont récemment présenté un projet de loi demandant à l’administration Obama de reconnaître l’holocauste arménien comme un « génocide ». On ne sait pas quand la proposition sera soumise au vote, mais il semble que les États-Unis pourraient très bientôt rejoindre la liste des 21 pays qui ont formellement reconnu le premier génocide du 21ème siècle.
Lorsque la Première Guerre mondiale a éclaté, l’Empire ottoman a déclaré la guerre à la Russie. Les Arméniens, qui cherchaient à réaliser leurs aspirations nationales et établir une autonomie arménienne dans l’Empire, ont été perçus comme des traîtres qui collaboraient avec les Russes. Les « Jeunes Turcs », le parti nationaliste turc qui a déposé le sultan Abdul Hamid II, avaient d’autres plans concernant les Arméniens sur son territoire. Le parti a « turquifié” les territoires sous son contrôle en menant un nettoyage ethnique contre la minorité chrétienne.
Les responsables du génocide arménien étaient les hauts gradés des Jeunes Turcs, soit le ministre de l’Intérieur Talaat Pacha et le ministre de la Guerre, Enver Pacha. Ces hauts responsables ont ordonné la création d’une organisation paramilitaire, l’ »Organisation spéciale » (Techkilat-i Mahsoussé), afin de résoudre le « problème arménien ». La mission confiée à l’organisation était de bannir et de détruire le peuple arménien. Des criminels et les détenus libérés ont été engagés spécialement pour exécuter le plan.
Dans la nuit du 23 au 24 avril 1915, l’armée turque est entrée dans les maisons des dirigeants de la minorité arménienne et a cruellement tué des centaines de personnes.
Par conséquent, le 24 avril symbolise le début du génocide arménien et a été fixé comme journée officielle du souvenir. Les enquêteurs ont estimé que, entre 1914 et 1918 entre 1 et 1.5 million d’Arméniens, hommes, femmes et enfants ont été cruellement et systématiquement assassinés. La Turquie moderne refuse avec véhémence d’admettre son implication historique dans l’assassinat du peuple arménien et investit beaucoup dans la propagande de négation de l’holocauste arménien.
L’un des documents des archives des essais de Nurenberg révèle que l’apathie de la communauté internationale, l’oubli du massacre des Arméniens par les Turcs pendant la Première Guerre mondiale et l’absence de réponse appropriée ont encouragé Adolf Hitler à conquérir des territoires et à anéantir les Juifs dans Europe. « Qui se souvient de ces Arméniens? », a déclaré Hitler à son personnel, pour les informer de sa décision d’envahir la Pologne, ajoutant qu’ils ne devaient pas craindre une réaction internationale, en utilisant le massacre des Arméniens comme preuve.
Israël n’a jamais formellement reconnu le génocide arménien. La politique du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères a toujours été de « ne pas perturber » les Turcs. La presse a fait en sorte de ne pas publier des articles sur le sujet, les éditeurs craignaient d’affronter le ministère des Affaires étrangères et ont sciemment dissumulé au public israélien le droit de savoir et de se familiariser avec la tragédie arménienne. Une grande partie de la population israélienne n’est pas consciente de la question malgré son importance et son influence sur l’histoire juive.
Tout Israël et le peuple juif en particulier, ont le devoir moral de reconnaître le génocide arménien. Un peuple qui a perdu un tiers de ses membres dans la Shoah ne peut pas nier le génocide d’un autre peuple qui avaient perdu les deux tiers de son numéro. Toutes les tentatives faites ces dernières années pour reconnaître le génocide arménien ont échoué en raison des considérations étrangères et des raisons politiques, la plupart du temps sur l’insistance du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères et de la peur de la réponse turque.
Aujourd’hui, lorsque le président turc, qui a été Premier ministre pendant une décennie, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, maintient une ligne anti-israélienne et antisémite claire, le ministère des Affaires étrangères continue d’ignorer l’holocauste arménien et de maintenircette basse politique sur la base de mauvaises considérations. Il y a une justification morale et historique à reconnaître la genocide arménien. L’holocauste arménien doit être enseigné dans les écoles. Dans un mois, le 24 avril 2015 nous allons commémorer les 100 ans de l’assassinat de 1,5 million d’Arméniens.
A cette occasion, en plus de la page Facebook que j’avais créé – « Reconnaître le génocide arménien » – La parole est au président d’Israël Reuven Rivlin, le Premier ministre Benyamin Netanyahou et le ministre des Affaires étrangères à venir devront prendre immédiatement des mesures pour reconnaître le génocide qui a eu lieu il y a 100 ans et a été ignoré par l’ensemble de leurs prédécesseurs.
Edy Cohen est chercheur au département d’études du Moyen-Orient de l’université de Bar-Ilan
Israel has not joined the EU Parliament and the pope in officially recognizing the Armenian genocide, partly because of its strategic alliance with Azerbaijan against Iran.
Arad Nir
Al Monitor
April 22, 2015
Translator Danny Wool
For years, close ties between Israel and Turkey were understood to be the reason Jerusalem has avoided the repeated requests of Armenians for the international community to recognize the genocide their community suffered at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I. Not only has Israel refused to recognize that the massacre was premeditated and planned by the Ottoman government in Istanbul, it has also exerted its influence in Washington to prevent the United States from recognizing the genocide. This alone was a good enough reason for the various Turkish governments to maintain close ties with Israel. Ankara believed that Israel had almost mystical powers of influence over the White House and Capitol Hill.
Diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey have been foundering for over half a decade. During most of that time, there has been no Turkish ambassador to Israel, while the Israeli ambassador to Turkey was expelled from Ankara in disgrace. Pro-Israel lobbyists no longer meet with the Turkish ambassador in Washington, and the Israel Defense Forces have found apt and even successful alternatives to cooperation with the Turkish military, at least as far as Israel is concerned.
This year, Armenians are marking the centennial of the genocide. Given the deterioration of its relationship with Turkey, this occasion would seem to provide Israel with a golden opportunity to respond to the moral claim that it recognize the Armenian genocide, just as Pope Francis recently did, followed by the European Parliament. In fact, dozens of prominent Israeli artists and academics recently signed a petition calling on the Israeli government and Knesset to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Nevertheless, officially, Israel continues to squirm. The Foreign Ministry recommends showing greater empathy to the Armenian issue, and this will be the first year that Israel will send an official delegation to participate in the memorial ceremony to take place in Yerevan. It will, however, be a low-ranking delegation, made up of Knesset members. Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon presented Israel’s official position to Al-Monitor, saying: “Israel’s position has not changed. We are sensitive and attentive to the terrible tragedy of the Armenian people during the First World War, and express our empathy and solidarity. Most of the international community’s efforts must be focused on preventing humanitarian tragedies in the future.”
A few senior Israeli officials dealing with the issue spoke to Al-Monitor about it on condition of anonymity. They emphasized that this doesn’t just involve susceptibility toward Turkish sensitivities, but also sensitivity that Israel wants to show toward Azerbaijan, which is a neighbor of both Turkey and Armenia. Since the Soviet Union’s collapse, the borders in the Caucasus region have been redefined. One consequence is a continuing state of war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the pillars of Azerbaijan’s new national narrative is the “Khojaly massacre,” which refers to a battle in the village of Khojaly, located in the disputed Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, on Feb. 26, 1992. According to the Azeri narrative, Armenian forces killed 600 Azeri civilians there, including 169 women and children.
In this instance, the Armenians deny responsibility for the massacre of civilians, just as they do for a long list of atrocities that the Azeris have blamed on them since WWI. Given this relationship, it’s no wonder that the Azeris describe Armenian claims of genocide as fabricated. Last week’s decision by the European Parliament to use the term “Armenian genocide” was described by a spokesman for the Azeri Foreign Ministry as “an attempt to falsify the history [and] its interpretation for political purposes” stemming from the parliament’s succumbing to Armenian pressure.
Gallia Lindenstrauss of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies says that Azerbaijan is the Muslim country with which Israel currently has the closest ties. Trade between Israel and Azerbaijan is estimated at over $5 billion. Israel imports some 40% of its oil from there, and exports mainly weapons and sophisticated defense systems to it. In 2012, when talk of an Israel strike against Iran was at its peak, Foreign Policy quoted a senior US official as saying (apparently with considerable hyperbole), “The Israelis have bought an airfield … and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”
About six months ago, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon paid his first public visit to Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman has visited Baku, the capital, on several occasions. While there, both of them heard from their hosts that Azerbaijan, like the Israeli government, considers Iran’s nuclear capacity to be an existential threat.
Azerbaijan’s border with Iran stretches for 611 kilometers (380 miles), making it longer even than Turkey’s border with Iran, which is 499 kilometers (310 miles) long. Meanwhile, Armenia’s border with Iran stretches for just 35 kilometers (22 miles). If the length of their borders can be used to determine the importance of relations with those countries, then Armenia is the least important of all of them. And in general, it is considered an ally of the country that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compares to Hitler’s Germany.
Coming back to the official position presented by the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, it would seem that the call to the international community “to prevent humanitarian tragedies in the future” might not refer only to the incidents of mass murder committed daily by the Islamic State against anyone who is not one of them — Yazidis, Christians or Alawites. It is mainly directed against Iran’s “explicit intent of obliterating the Jewish state,” as Netanyahu reiterated April 16 at Yad Vashem during a memorial service for the victims of the Holocaust. Herein lies the real reason for Israel’s policy concerning whether it will recognize the Armenia genocide. The reason isn’t Turkey; it’s Iran.
Arad Nir
Contributor, Israel Pulse
Arad Nir Is the head of the foreign news desk and international commentator for Channel 2 News, the largest news provider in Israel. Arad has covered international politics and diplomacy, ethnic conflicts around the world and interviewed various world leaders, decision-makers and opinion leaders. He teaches TV journalism at the IDC Herzliya and Netanya Academic College.
Original Al-Monitor Translations
L’Etat hébreu, soucieux de ne pas froisser la Turquie et l’Azerbaïdjan, s’est toujours refusé à qualifier ainsi les massacres survenus en 1915. Mais une partie de l’opinion israélienne réclame la remise en cause de cette posture.
Correspondant à Jérusalem
L’Etat hébreu, qui a toujours refusé de reconnaître le génocide arménien, ne sera pas pour autant absent des cérémonies organisées à Erevan pour en commémorer le centenaire. Sous pression d’une partie de son opinion publique, le gouvernement a décidé de s’y faire représenter par une délégation parlementaire. «Cette démarche reflète la sympathie et la solidarité que nous éprouvons vis-à-vis du peuple arménien», explique Emmanuel Nahshon, le porte-parole du ministère des Affaires étrangères, tout en soulignant qu’il n’est pas question, à ce stade, de remettre en cause la position israélienne. «Nous continuons d’évoquer une tragédie, et non pas un génocide, pour désigner les événements survenus en 1915», rappelle-t-il.
Avant de s’envoler pour Erevan, le député Nachman Shai (Union sioniste) et sa collègue Anat Berko (Likoud) ont ainsi été priés par les diplomates israéliens de choisir avec soin les mots qu’ils emploieront durant leur mission. Pas question, les a-t-on mis en garde, d’afficher des positions qui risqueraient de froisser la Turquie ou l’Azerbaïdjan. Mais la participation de ces deux parlementaires aux cérémonies d’Erevan laisse penser que la position israélienne n’est pas gravée dans le marbre. «Israël doit se demander si l’heure n’est pas venue de reconnaître qu’un génocide s’est déroulé en Arménie», explique Nachman Shai, qui, à titre personnel, parle d’un «holocauste arménien». «En tant que Juifs, nous avons la responsabilité de franchir ce pas, ajoute-t-il. Notre participation à ces commémorations traduit un engagement fort et clair de la Knesset, qui a régulièrement commémoré le souvenir des victimes, à réexaminer cette question.»
Une pétition pour la reconnaissance du génocide
Le gouvernement, soulignant que seuls une vingtaine de pays ont à ce jour reconnu le génocide arménien, considère qu’une telle démarche irait à l’encontre de ses intérêts stratégiques. Elle risquerait d’aggraver encore la brouille avec Ankara, l’un des rares alliés qu’Israël compte dans la région, avec lequel les relations sont des plus fraîches depuis l’assaut mortel contre le navire Mavi Marmara (2010). Elle ne manquerait pas, en outre, de froisser l’Azerbaïdjan. Or l’Etat hébreu entretient depuis les années 1990 un lien étroit avec Bakou, qui lui apporte une aide discrète mais essentielle dans ses efforts pour surveiller le programme nucléaire iranien. La relation entre les deux pays est «semblable à un iceberg», aurait jadis confié le président Ilham Aliyev, qui précisait alors: «Elles se déroulent à 90% sous la surface…»
Cent ans après le génocide arménien, de nombreuses voix appellent cependant les autorités israéliennes à ne pas sacrifier leurs principes à ces considérations géopolitiques. «En tant que descendants d’un peuple qui a connu l’Holocauste et qui se bat encore contre sa négation, il nous incombe de montrer une sensibilité particulière aux désastres subis par d’autres peuples», affirme une pétition récemment signée par une groupe d’universitaires, d’artistes, d’ex-officiers généraux et de responsables politiques israéliens. Le président Reuven Rivlin, élu au printemps 2014, est lui-même un partisan notoire de la reconnaissance du génocide arménien. Au nom de la raison d’Etat, il a récemment mis ce point de vue en sourdine. «Rouvrir ce débat au moment du centenaire n’a pas paru opportun, décrypte un responsable israélien, mais il ne serait pas surprenant qu’il revienne sur la table une fois les commémorations achevées…»
» Il y a des génocides niés, il y en a d’autres oubliés »‘
Jean-Pierre Langellier et Jean-Pierre Hugoz-Peroncel
Le Monde
Estimez-vous justifiée la réprobation soulevée par les propos de Bernard Lewis au sujet du génocide arménien ?
Certainement. Les propos tenus par Bernard Lewis ont provoqué une émotion extrêmement forte dans les communautés arméniennes et parfois au-delà. M. Lewis est un chercheur très connu sur le plan international. En 1961, dans la première édition de son ouvrage Islam et Laïcité, il parlait, à propos des événements de 1915 dans l’Empire ottoman. Cependant, dans la traduction française de ce livre, publiée en 1968, le mot « » a disparu… Voilà une inquiétante évolution qui s’est malheureusement confirmée au cours de l’entretien accordé au Monde par M. Lewis en 1993 ! holocauste d’un million et demi d’Arméniens holocauste
Peut-on expliquer cette évolution par la recherche historique ?
On peut surtout penser que M. Lewis a été sensible à la littérature publiée en Turquie par des Turcs, en particulier depuis les années 70-80 ; ce sont des ouvrages tendant à démontrer non seulement qu’il n’y a pas eu holocauste, pas eu génocide, mais que tout ce qui s’est passé en 1915 dans l’Empire ottoman était essentiellement dû à la trahison des Arméniens.
En tenant compte des connaissances occidentales actuelles sur 1915, quelle est, selon vous, la bonne version des faits ?
Egorgés, fusillés ou éventrés, tombés d’inanition ou sous les coups le long des chemins de la déportation, la moitié des Arméniens de l’aire ottomane, généralement estimés à deux millions, ont disparu entre 1915 et 1922, sans compter les victimes des tueries opérées en 1894-1896 et en 1909. La position exprimée par Bernard Lewis est nulle du point de vue de l’historien. C’est une simple répétition de la propagande turque… Il affirme que les déportations d’Arméniens n’ont affecté que les zones de combats proches des Russes… C’est faux ! Le meilleur exemple est celui de la Cilicie, sur la Méditerranée, où il y avait une forte population arménienne, qui a également subi le génocide alors qu’il n’y avait là aucun danger russe. Lewis prétend en outre que les Arméniens de Constantinople n’ont jamais été menacés : c’est oublier la date symbole du 24 avril 1915, avec l’arrestation puis l’assassinat de centaines d’intellectuels, cadres et notables arméniens.
Beaucoup d’Arméniens soutiennent que le génocide a commencé dès 1894 et s’est poursuivi jusqu’en 1922…
Les massacres d’Arméniens en 1894-1896, presque oubliés, mobilisèrent pourtant Jean Jaurès, Charles Péguy et Rosa Luxembourg. Le génocide arménien, en effet, ce n’est pas seulement les événements de 1915, c’est un processus qui va de l’époque du sultan-calife Abdulhamid II avec les tueries de 1894-1896, qui se poursuit sous les Jeunes-Turcs avec le massacre d’Adana en 1909 on pense qu’il y a eu 300 000 morts en 1894-1896 et 30 000 en 1909 et qui culmine avec l’énorme épisode allant de 1915 à 1922.En 1915, on a commencé par exécuter les Arméniens mâles de plus de douze ans
Le dernier acte a eu lieu sous les yeux des marins français et britanniques, lors de l’incendie de Smyrne et du massacre d’Arméniens et de Grecs au moment de l’entrée des kémalistes dans la ville, en 1922. Trois régimes, l’impérial, celui des Jeunes-Turcs et celui des kémalistes ont donc contribué à éliminer les Arméniens de l’Asie mineure. Déjà à l’époque d’Abdulhamid II, des responsables turcs envisageaient de transformer la mosaïque anatolienne en territoire uniquement musulman… Il reste, au moment ou nous parlons, moins de 40 000 Arméniens en Turquie.
Que vaut l’argument militaire utilisé par les Turcs contre les Arméniens ?
Jusqu’en 1909, les minorités non islamiques n’avaient pas le droit de porter les armes. Les Arméniens étaient des dhimmi, c’est-à-dire une minorité au statut inférieur, comme les Juifs, les Grecs, les Assyro-Chaldéens, tous les non-musulmans. Ce fut pour eux une victoire que l’accès au service militaire en 1909. Dans l’armée en campagne, on ne sait pas, personne ne sait combien il y avait de soldats arméniens, mais on constate que, dès le début de la guerre, ils ont été désarmés. Il y a eu aussi des déserteurs arméniens, comme des déserteurs musulmans, mais à l’époque déserter voulait dire revenir au village.
En outre, pendant l’hiver 1914-1915, au Caucase, se sont constitués des groupes de volontaires arméniens. Ces 5 000 à 6 000 supplétifs étaient soit des sujets du tsar, soit des Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman déjà émigrés aux Etats-Unis ou dans le Caucase russe. Toute la thèse de la » trahison » est fondée sur cet aspect très marginal de la situation. Au même moment, la Turquie avait constitué une légion de Géorgiens musulmans, sur son propre territoire, pour lutter contre les forces tsaristes. Pour autant les Russes n’ont pas massacré la population géorgienne islamisée…
A-t-on pu évaluer le nombre de jeunes Arméniennes de l’Empire ottoman qui ont été enlevées et épousées de force ?
On n’a pas pu l’évaluer, mais même en temps de paix c’était un procédé courant. L’enlèvement de jeunes filles chrétiennes par les Turcs ou les Kurdes constituait un problème relationnel grave pour les villageois arméniens d’Anatolie comme il en constitue un encore maintenant, parfois, pour les derniers habitants chrétiens, non arméniens, de la Turquie de l’Est.
En 1915, on a commencé par exécuter les Arméniens mâles de plus de douze ans avant de déporter le reste des familles arméniennes. Les femmes et les filles, quand elles ne sont pas mortes d’inanition ou de sévices au bord de la route, pendant la déportation ou la fuite, ont été violées ou enlevées. Certaines familles turques ou kurdes ont » adopté » des jeunes Arméniens. Lorsque l’armée russe a occupé la Turquie orientale, on a racheté ces enfants, une pièce d’or pour les filles, deux pour les garçons… Dans le traité de Sèvres, en 1920, le gouvernement ottoman s’engageait même à faire rendre les enfants restants.
Est-ce que, parmi les historiens turcs, il y en a qui ont reconnu le génocide arménien ?
Le mot même de » génocide » est en général récusé par les Turcs, y compris par les intellectuels » indépendants « . En 1931, Ataturk crée une Société turque d’histoire pour mettre en place une » histoire officielle » non seulement sur l’affaire arménienne, mais sur tout le passé de la Turquie. A notre connaissance, un seul historien turc, Taner Akçal, a publié récemment deux ouvrages en turc témoignant d’une vision critique de l’histoire de la Turquie au cours de ce siècle.
Cependant la dénégation subsiste. A Istanbul même, sur la colline dite des Martyrs, parmi les mausolées il y a celui de Talaat-Pacha (ministre de l’intérieur en 1915, il a été assassiné en 1921 à Berlin par un Arménien qui fut acquitté), c’est-à-dire du principal artisan du génocide. Ce mausolée est une insulte à l’humanité.
Les enjeux politiques sont évidents car une éventuelle reconnaissance du génocide pourrait entraîner des demandes de réparation. Néanmoins l’Etat arménien, de nouveau indépendant depuis 1991, après l’éclatement de l’Union soviétique, insiste d’abord, selon la déclaration du président Ter-Petrossian, lui-même historien, sur la nécessité de développer des liens normaux entre l’Arménie et son voisin la Turquie, même si » la nation arménienne ne peut oublier le génocide perpétré contre elle durant la Grande Guerre dans l’Empire ottoman et en Arménie occidentale . « La revendication arménienne de reconnaissance du génocide par la communauté internationale est juste et attendue, ajoutait-il. Cependant il n’existe pas de considérations politiques liées à cette reconnaissance. «
Cela dit, les deux Etats arménien et turc ne se reconnaissent pas mutuellement…
Ils se sont reconnus, mais il n’y a pas de relations diplomatiques.
Que penser de ce texte kurde le Sang versé des Arméniens, qui conforte la position arménienne ?
Il y a quelques années, un jeune intellectuel kurde d’Irak a obtenu à Paris un diplôme à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales sur le Sang versé des Arméniens. C’est une sorte d’autocritique sur la participation des Kurdes à l’éradication des Arméniens. Si vous faites parler des Arméniens qui avaient six ou sept ans au moment du génocide, ils se souviennent tous des Kurdes hommes de main, mais cela ne diminue en rien la responsabilité de l’Etat turc.
» IL Y A DES GÉNOCIDES NIÉS, IL Y EN A D’AUTRES OUBLIÉS « En même temps que les Arméniens, d’autres chrétiens n’ont-ils pas aussi payé un lourd tribut ?
Oui, car le génocide fut d’abord, pour utiliser un mot appliqué à présent à l’ancienne Yougoslavie, un » nettoyage ethnique « . Cela a été une constante de la politique turque au vingtième siècle. Le génocide fut d’abord, fut avant tout, un » nettoyage ethnique » mené au nom du nationalisme territorial. Un nationalisme visant au premier chef les autochtones chrétiens, présents en Asie mineure depuis la nuit des temps. Les Turcs ne sont arrivés qu’au onzième siècle… Assyro-Chaldéens et Syriaques ont été éliminés, souvent en même temps que les Arméniens. Ces communautés, peu nombreuses et sans appui, n’ont pas eu à l’extérieur les mêmes moyens que les Arméniens pour défendre leur cause. Il y a des génocides niés, il y en a d’autres oubliés.
Etabliriez-vous un parallèle entre le génocide arménien et celui des Juifs et des Tziganes sous le nazisme ?
Le mot » génocide » a été forgé en 1944 pour définir l’élimination ou la tentative d’élimination d’un peuple. La définition reprise par la convention des Nations unies sur la prévention et la punition du crime de génocide, en 1948, s’applique à ce qu’ont vécu les Arméniens d’Anatolie, les Juifs ashkénazes et les Tziganes d’Europe centrale.
La spécificité du génocide arménien, c’est qu’il s’est étalé sous trois régimes turcs différents. C’est toutefois seulement dans la période de modernisation de la Turquie, et en temps de guerre, que l’extermination est devenue méthodique, avec cartes, itinéraires de déportation, ordres aux fonctionnaires de tuer à tout prix.
A-t-on des documents sur ces ordres-là ?
On a d’innombrables témoignages, y compris d’alliés des Turcs (Allemands, Autrichiens, etc.) ou de neutres (Américains, etc.), et il ne faut pas oublier non plus les procès qui ont eu lieu en 1919 à Constantinople. Etait en place un gouvernement ottoman, que l’Etat turc actuel considère comme fantoche, mais il n’empêche que, devant leurs juges, des fonctionnaires turcs sont venus témoigner des ordres d’extermination visant les Arméniens qu’ils avaient reçus de leurs supérieurs.
Est-ce dans cette période que surgit l’idée d’un Etat arménien indépendant ?
Ce n’est pas seulement l’Arménie qui ressuscite en 1918, mais trois nations caucasiennes dont on parle d’ailleurs pas mal aujourd’hui : Géorgie, Arménie et Azerbaïdjan. Elles apparaissent sur les décombres de l’empire des Romanov et non pas en territoire ottoman.
Jusqu’en 1918, la création, ou la re-création de l’Etat arménien disparu depuis six siècles, n’était pas à l’ordre du jour. Les Républiques caucasiennes ont été créées avec l’accord de l’Empire ottoman, qui voyait surtout dans une Arménie indépendante, plus petite d’ailleurs que l’actuelle environ 10 000 kilomètres carrés contre 29 700 kilomètres carrés de nos jours , un territoire où refouler les Arméniens survivants.
Comment expliquer que les Turcs, qui ont donc favorisé la renaissance d’une Arménie, contribuent très largement à sa disparition deux ans après ?
C’est que la situation internationale a complètement changé. L’Arménie est invitée à la conférence de la paix à Paris et va, suite à la défaite ottomane, pouvoir s’agrandir jusqu’à englober en tout 40 000 kilomètres carrés, en partie cette fois sur d’anciens territoires russes conquis par les Turcs, tels Kars et Ardahan. La Turquie a alors contribué, de connivence avec les bolcheviks, à la disparition de l’Arménie indépendante, comme à celle des deux autres Républiques transcaucasiennes.
Pour l’ensemble des revendications arméniennes, qu’est-ce que cela change qu’il y ait de nouveau aujourd’hui un Etat d’Arménie souverain ?
Cette Arménie, où la population est à 98 % arménienne, est établie sur le seul territoire de l’ancien Empire russe. Cette population est constituée pour moitié environ de descendants des rescapés qui suivent de près les étapes vers la reconnaissance internationale du génocide : ainsi, le 6 janvier 1984, date de la Noël arménienne, le président François Mitterrand, à Vienne, près de Lyon, a reconnu le fait historique du génocide arménien.
Ensuite, en août 1985, la sous-commission des droits de l’homme de l’ONU, à Genève, a réintroduit la mention « » dans un rapport d’où elle avait été retirée en 1973 à la suite d’une intervention du gouvernement turc. En juin 1987, il y a eu enfin la résolution du Parlement de Strasbourg disant que la Turquie ne pourra entrer dans la Communauté européenne que si elle reconnaît le génocide. génocide arménien
Le terrorisme arménien a-t-il fait avancer le dossier de la reconnaissance du génocide ?
On ne peut pas le nier. Il suffit de regarder les dates : entre 1975 et 1985, il y a eu, hélas ! à travers le monde, des dizaines de victimes dont des diplomates turcs. Les gestes français et internationaux entre 1984 et 1987 ont calmé le jeu. Le terrorisme arménien semble donc maintenant fini.
La principale question qui se pose aujourd’hui aux Arméniens outre celle d’une véritable reconnaissance de leur génocide par l’ensemble de la collectivité internationale, Turquie comprise est le conflit du Karabakh. Cette République de 4 400 kilomètres carrés et d’une centaine de milliers d’âmes, autoproclamée indépendante en décembre 1991, a toujours été une terre peuplée très majoritairement d’Arméniens, traditionnellement rebelles à toute autorité extérieure et qui n’ont jamais admis leur rattachement à l’Azerbaïdjan accompli en 1921 sous le régime communiste.
Cette permanente et grave question du Karabakh a été à notre époque exacerbée par le pogrom des Arméniens de Soumgaït en février 1988 et par d’autres atrocités perpétrées contre des civils arméniens, à Bakou et à Kirovabad notamment, qui ont réveillé le terrifiant spectre des années 1894-1922. Le Karabakh, du point de vue des Arméniens, est hautement symbolique, puisque la renaissance arménienne commence au dix-septième siècle dans ces montagnes isolées où subsistaient des princes nationaux semi-indépendants, les mélik, alors que, partout ailleurs, le pouvoir politique arménien avait complètement disparu. Il y a une seule terre dont les Arméniens n’ont jamais été chassés, c’est le Karabakh. D’où cet attachement à un » territoire fondamental « , dont la possession est aussi importante aux yeux des Arméniens que la reconnaissance internationale du genocide. »
Vient de paraître, aux éditions Complexe, un ouvrage très attendu, la Province de la mort. Archives américaines concernant le génocide des Arméniens (1915) de Leslie Davies, consul des Etats-Unis à Kharpout de 1914 à 1917. Traduit de l’anglais par Catherine Ter-Sarkissian et précédé d’une Lettre à Bernard Lewis et quelques autres de l’arménologue Yves Ternon, (242 p., 100 francs).
Quelques jours avant la commémoration du centenaire des massacres, le Parlement autrichien et le Pape François ont reconnu publiquement le terme « génocide » que la Turquie nie catégoriquement.
Alors que l’Arménie commémore ce vendredi le centenaire des massacres perpétrés contre les Arméniens de Turquie au cours de la Première Guerre mondiale, 24 pays dans le monde reconnaissent actuellement le génocide arménien. Le Parlement européen et l’ONU qualifient aussi ces événements de « génocide ».
Ces actes de reconnaissance sont très divers: parmi les 24 Etats, seuls quatre -la France, l’Uruguay, l’Argentine et Chypre- ont promulgué des lois en ce sens. La plupart du temps, il s’agit de résolutions adoptées par le Parlement ou une des chambres du Parlement.
Les termes employés dans les déclarations ne sont pas toujours les mêmes: 22 pays nomment bien un « génocide » -contrairement à l’Uruguay, placé dans la catégorie « reconnaissance partielle » de la carte. En Allemagne, le texte adopté par le Parlement en 2005 n’emploie pas le terme mais le président Joachim Gauck l’a prononcé jeudi 23 avril, reconnaissant dans la foulée une « coresponsabilité » de son pays dans les massacres.
Des variations existent aussi sur l’identification de la responsabilité du génocide. Tous les pays n’évoquent pas la Turquie. Ainsi, la France et le Vatican ne mentionnent pas du tout Ankara, quand la Belgique, l’Italie, la Suisse, le Liban, la Syrie ou le Chili parlent de « l’Empire ottoman ».
La reconnaissance du génocide donne lieu à des tensions diplomatiques. Ainsi, la Turquie a rappelé son ambassadeur en Autriche cette semaine, après que Vienne a reconnu les massacres. Pour ne pas froisser la Turquie, Israël ne reconnaît toujours pas le génocide, mais évoque une « tragédie », et la Knesset n’a pas adopté de résolution. C’est également un des sujets qui ont pu freiner les discussions entre l’Union européenne et la Turquie, en vue d’une adhésion.
Notre contrat devient pire, à chaque instant. Lando Carlissian (murmurant entre ses dents)
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. President Clinton (February 1998)
[La mission des forces armées américaines et britanniques est d’]attaquer les programmes d’armement nucléaires, chimiques et biologiques de l’Irak et sa capacité militaire à menacer ses voisins (…) On ne peut laisser Saddam Hussein menacer ses voisins ou le monde avec des armements nucléaires, des gaz toxiques, ou des armes biologiques. » (…) Il y a six semaines, Saddam Hussein avait annoncé qu’il ne coopérerait plus avec l’Unscom [la commission chargée du désarmement en Irak (…). D’autres pays [que l’Irak possèdent des armements de destruction massive et des missiles balistiques. Avec Saddam, il y a une différence majeure : il les a utilisés. Pas une fois, mais de manière répétée (…). Confronté au dernier acte de défiance de Saddam, fin octobre, nous avons mené une intense campagne diplomatique contre l’Irak, appuyée par une imposante force militaire dans la région (…). J’avais alors décidé d’annuler l’attaque de nos avions (…) parce que Saddam avait accepté nos exigences. J’avais conclu que la meilleure chose à faire était de donner à Saddam une dernière chance (…). Les inspecteurs en désarmement de l’ONU ont testé la volonté de coopération irakienne (…). Hier soir, le chef de l’Unscom, Richard Butler, a rendu son rapport au secrétaire général de l’ONU [Kofi Annan. Les conclusions sont brutales, claires et profondément inquiétantes. Dans quatre domaines sur cinq, l’Irak n’a pas coopéré. En fait, il a même imposé de nouvelles restrictions au travail des inspecteurs (…). Nous devions agir et agir immédiatement (…). J’espère que Saddam va maintenant finalement coopérer avec les inspecteurs et respecter les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité. Mais nous devons nous préparer à ce qu’il ne le fasse pas et nous devons faire face au danger très réel qu’il représente. Nous allons donc poursuivre une stratégie à long terme pour contenir l’Irak et ses armes de destruction massive et travailler jusqu’au jour où l’Irak aura un gouvernement digne de sa population (…). La dure réalité est qu’aussi longtemps que Saddam reste au pouvoir il menace le bien-être de sa population, la paix de la région et la sécurité du monde. La meilleure façon de mettre un terme définitif à cette menace est la constitution d’un nouveau gouvernement, un gouvernement prêt à vivre en paix avec ses voisins, un gouvernement qui respecte les droits de sa population.Bill Clinton (16.12.98)
Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia. Don Rumsfeld (2005)
They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’, we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.General Abizaid (2005)
The word getting the workout from the nation’s top guns these days is « caliphate » – the term for the seventh-century Islamic empire that spanned the Middle East, spread to Southwest Asia, North Africa and Spain, then ended with the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. The term can also refer to other caliphates, including the one declared by the Ottoman Turks that ended in 1924. (…) A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq. In the view of John L. Esposito, an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University, there is a difference between the ability of small bands of terrorists to commit attacks across the world and achieving global conquest. « It is certainly correct to say that these people have a global design, but the administration ought to frame it realistically, » said Mr. Esposito, the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. « Otherwise they can actually be playing into the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world because they raise this to a threat that is exponentially beyond anything that Osama bin Laden can deliver. » Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, said Al Qaeda was not leading a movement that threatened to mobilize the vast majority of Muslims. A recent poll Mr. Telhami conducted with Zogby International of 3,900 people in six countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon – found that only 6 percent sympathized with Al Qaeda’s goal of seeking an Islamic state. The notion that Al Qaeda could create a new caliphate, he said, is simply wrong. « There’s no chance in the world that they’ll succeed, » he said. « It’s a silly threat. » (On the other hand, more than 30 percent in Mr. Telhami’s poll said they sympathized with Al Qaeda, because the group stood up to America.) The term « caliphate » has been used internally by policy hawks in the Pentagon since the planning stages for the war in Iraq, but the administration’s public use of the word has increased this summer and fall, around the time that American forces obtained a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 leader in Al Qaeda, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The 6,000-word letter, dated early in July, called for the establishment of a militant Islamic caliphate across Iraq before Al Qaeda’s moving on to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and then a battle against Israel. In recent weeks, the administration’s use of « caliphate » has only intensified, as Mr. Bush has begun a campaign of speeches to try to regain support for the war. He himself has never publicly used the term, although he has repeatedly described the caliphate, as he did in a speech last week when he said that the terrorists want to try to establish « a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. » Six days earlier, Mr. Edelman, the under secretary of defense, made it clear. « Iraq’s future will either embolden terrorists and expand their reach and ability to re-establish a caliphate, or it will deal them a crippling blow, » he said. « For us, failure in Iraq is just not an option. »NYT (2005)
They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations. Tony Blair (2005)
I remember having a conversation with one of the colonels out in the field, and although he did not believe that a rapid unilateral withdrawal would actually be helpful, there was no doubt that the US occupation in Iraq was becoming an increasing source of irritation. And that one of the things that we’re going to need to do – and to do sooner rather than later – is to transition our troops out of the day-to-day operations in Iraq and to have a much lower profile and a smaller footprint in the country over the coming year. On the other hand, I did also ask some people who were not particularly sympathetic to the initial war, but were now trying to make things work in Iraq – what they thought would be the result of a total withdrawal and I think the general view was that we were in such a delicate situation right now and that there was so little institutional capacity on the part of the Iraqi government, that a full military withdrawal at this point would probably result in significant civil war and potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. This by the way was a message that was delivered also by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, who I’ve been meeting with while here in Amman, Jordan. The sense, I think, throughout the entire region among those who opposed the US invasion, that now that we’re there it’s important that we don’t act equally precipitously in our approach to withdrawal, but that we actually stabilize the situation and allow time for the new Iraqi government to develop some sort of capacity. Barack Obama (January 9, 2006)
Having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them. It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis. We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way. Barack Obama (June 21, 2006)
To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. George Bush (2007)
Sénateur Obama, je ne suis pas le président Bush. Si vous vouliez vous présenter contre le président Bush, il aurait fallu faire campagne il y a quatre ans. John McCain (2008)
The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That’s the decision of the next president of the United States. Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations. But yet, after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today. Incredibly, incredibly Senator Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with General Petraeus.(…) I’m afraid Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. (…) And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq. (…) They just passed an electoral (…) law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity. (…) And that same strategy will be employed in Afghanistan by this great general. And Senator Obama, who after promising not to vote to cut off funds for the troops, did the incredible thing of voting to cut off the funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (…) Now General Petraeus has praised the successes, but he said those successes are fragile and if we set a specific date for withdrawal — and by the way, Senator Obama’s original plan, they would have been out last spring before the surge ever had a chance to succeed.(…) But if we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and adopt Senator Obama’s plan, then we will have a wider war and it will make things more complicated throughout the region, including in Afghanistan. (…) I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region. And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaida, and a lot of the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history. (…) My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well. (…) What I’d also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative. John McCain (26.09.08)
Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran. And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon. So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East. (…) We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon. But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.Barack Obama (26.09.08)
Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene (…) who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior. (…) Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.John McCain (26.09.08)
J’espère que j’ai tort et que le président a raison, mais j’ai bien peur que cette décision provoque des situations qui vont revenir hanter notre pays. Lindsey Graham
L’Irak (…) pourrait être l’un des grands succès de cette administration. Joe Biden (10.02.10)
Nous laissons derrière nous un État souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec un gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille finale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour (…) C’est une réussite extraordinaire, qui a pris neuf ans (…)
Nous ne connaissons que trop bien le prix élevé de cette guerre. Plus de 1,5 million d’Américains ont servi en Irak. Plus de 30 000 Américains ont été blessés, et ce sont seulement les blessés dont les blessures sont visibles (…) les dirigeants et les historiens continueront à analyser les leçons stratégiques de l’Irak». «Et nos commandants prendront en compte des leçons durement apprises lors de campagnes militaires à l’avenir (…) Mais la leçon la plus importante que vous nous apprenez n’est pas une leçon en stratégie militaire, c’est une leçon sur le caractère de notre pays», car «malgré toutes les difficultés auxquelles notre pays fait face, vous nous rappelez que rien n’est impossible pour les Américains lorsqu’ils sont solidaires. Obama (14.12.11)
We think a successful, democratic Iraq can be a model for the entire region. Obama (12.12.11)
Nous laissons derrière nous un Etat souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec une gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille filnale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour. C’est une réussite extraordinaire, qui a pris presque neuf ans. Et aujourd’hui nous nous souvenons de tout ce que vous avez fait pour le rendre possible. (…) Dur travail et sacrifice. Ces mots décrivent à peine le prix de cette guerre, et le courage des hommes et des femmes qui l’ont menée. Nous ne connaissons que trop bien le prix élevé de cette guerre. Plus d’1,5 million d’Américains ont servi en Irak. Plus de 30.000 Américains ont été blessés, et ce sont seulement les blessés dont les blessures sont visibles. Près de 4.500 Américains ont perdu la vie, dont 202 héros tombés au champ d’honneur venus d’ici, Fort Bragg. (…) Les dirigeants et les historiens continueront à analyser les leçons stratégiques de l’Irak. Et nos commandants prendront en compte des leçons durement apprises lors de campagnes militaires à l’avenir. Mais la leçon la plus importante que vous nous apprenez n’est pas une leçon en stratégie militaire, c’est une leçon sur le caractère de notre pays, car malgré toutes les difficultés auxquelles notre pays fait face, vous nous rappelez que rien n’est impossible pour les Américains lorsqu’ils sont solidaires.Obama (14.12.11)
Vous devez vous montrer clair, à la fois pour nos alliés et nos ennemis. Vous avez fait un discours il y a quelques semaines au cours duquel vous avez déclaré que vous pensiez que nous devrions avoir encore des soldats en Irak. Ce n’est pas vraiment la bonne façon d’affronter les enjeux de la région. Il est évident que nous ne pouvons pas affronter tous les enjeux de façon militaire. Et ce que j’ai fait pendant ma présidence et continuerai à faire, c’est d’abord m’assurer que ces pays soutiennent nos efforts contre le terrorisme ; qu’ils veillent à notre intérêt pour la sécurité d’Israël, car c’est notre plus fidèle allié dans la région ; qu’ils protègent les minorités religieuses et les femmes, car ces pays ne peuvent se développer si seulement une moitié de la population y contribue ; que nous développions leurs économies. Mais nous devons reconnaître que nous ne pouvons plus faire de construction nationale dans ces régions. Une partie du leadership américain est de veiller à ce que nous construisions d’abord notre pays. Cela nous aidera à garder le type de leadership dont nous avons besoin.Obama (23.10.2012)
What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Barack Hussein Obama (09.08.14)
If only Obama had paid attention to Iraq … But his only interest in Iraq was in ending the war. (…) Iran’s goal was to ensure that Iraq was not integrated into the Arab world, instead becoming a close ally of Iran. Emma Sky
The surge did really work. It was a complicated series of events that led to the surge’s ultimate success, but one of the empirical metrics we can look to is that violence was reduced by 90% from pre-surge highs. Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus had a theory, which proved absolutely correct, that by reducing the sectarian violence what you would get is more room for politicians in Baghdad to have more flexibility to reach compromises, and that would in turn build upon itself in the form of political cooperation that would lead to further reduction of violence; and that’s what happened. From 2007 through 2010, we really saw the violence coming down as Sunni Arabs were reintegrating into Iraqi politics after being purged in a wholesale manner following the invasion of 2003. The Sunnis came back into the political process and fought al-Qaeda and formed the Iraqiya coalition that eventually won in the 2010 elections. It became the primary driver for the reduction in violence from the Sunni side and that was reciprocated by a reduction of violence by Shia Islamist militias that had been backed by Iran in coordination with Hezbollah and to some extent Assad. Unfortunately, what happened later, for reasons that I cannot even begin to understand, Washington betrayed the promises that the U.S. government had made to the Sunni tribal leaders, the same leaders that had fought al-Qaeda throughout the “Awakening.” With Nouri al Maliki’s sectarian rule, Iraq’s path toward civil war was really inevitable. There was a direct line from Maliki when he returned to power in December 2010 to consolidate his personal control over the organs of the state and steer it toward a very pro-Iranian and sectarian agenda, which inevitably disillusioned and disenfranchised Sunni Arabs for a second time. Then given Maliki’s misrule in Iraq and Assad’s misrule in Syria and their cooperation along with the Iranians and Hezbollah to wage a campaign of genocide, led to a region-wide sectarian war while the United States under President Obama stood back and watched and did nothing as the violence spiraled further and further out of control. (…) Iraq’s unraveling was essentially cemented on March 20th 2003 when the first bombs were dropped on Dora farms and on April 9th when Baghdad fell. Essentially, when Saddam’s regime was blown away, Iraq was blown away too. Saddam had hollowed out the state, similar to Qaddafi in Libya, Saleh in Yemen, and Assad in Syria – the state had become a cult of personality built around one man with no real capacity and no real institutions. When we bombed Saddam’s palaces, the military and intelligence services, and when we watched the Iraqi population rise up to burn and loot the ministries, there was nothing left of the country and nothing left of the state. Therefore, Bremer’s decision to disband the army and create the DeBaathification Commission ensured that the chaos that followed was inevitable. These decisions displaced hundreds of thousands of members of the Iraqi security services, who were trained and disciplined and knew how to use weapons and where weapons caches were. When they were told that they had no future in the New Iraq, a violent insurgency was born. So one bad decision was followed by another bad decision, and we ended up with an absolute perfect storm, which led to the chaos that we’ve seen since 2003. Ali Khedery
Dans l’immédiat, notre attention doit se porter en priorité sur les domaines biologique et chimique. C’est là que nos présomptions vis-à-vis de l’Iraq sont les plus significatives : sur le chimique, nous avons des indices d’une capacité de production de VX et d’ypérite ; sur le biologique, nos indices portent sur la détention possible de stocks significatifs de bacille du charbon et de toxine botulique, et une éventuelle capacité de production. Dominique De Villepin
Even when viewed through a post-war lens, documentary evidence of messages are consistent with the Iraqi Survey Group’s conclusion that Saddam was at least keeping a WMD program primed for a quick re-start the moment the UN Security Council lifted sanctions. Iraqi Perpectives Project (March 2006)
Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a de facto link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.Iraqi Perspectives Project (Saddam and Terrorism, Nov. 2007, released Mar. 2008)
Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 « good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm » in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting « Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, ‘the Gulf,’ and Syria. » It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were « sacrificing for the cause » went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the « Heroes Attack. » This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to « obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province. »Study (Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia)
There is no question that the United States was divided going into that war. But I think the United States is united coming out of that war. We all recognize the tremendous price that has been paid in lives, in blood. And yet I think we also recognize that those lives were not lost in vain. (…) As difficult as [the Iraq war] was, and the cost in both American and Iraqi lives, I think the price has been worth it, to establish a stable government in a very important region of the world.Leon Panetta (secrétaire américain à la Défense)
Who Lost Iraq? You know who. (…) The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan, and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead a level of 3,000 to 5,000 troops. A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself — the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment — with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes (as we have successfully done, for example, between local Arabs and Kurds), operate surveillance and special-ops bases, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances. The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence, now unopposed and potentially lethal. (…) The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as a success, the fulfillment of a campaign promise. Charles Krauthammer
En dernière analyse, ce que nous laisserons et comment nous partirons sera plus important que la manière dont nous sommes venus.Ryan Crocker (ex-ambassadeur américain en Irak)
Nous devons également reconnaître que le choix auquel nous sommes confrontés en Irak n’est pas entre le gouvernement irakien actuel et un gouvernement irakien parfait. Il s’agit plutôt d’un choix entre une démocratie jeune, imparfaite et à la peine que nous avons laborieusement amenée à l’existence, et les kamikazés fanatiques d’Al Qaeda et les terroristes commandités par l’Iran qui essayent de la détruire. Si les politiciens de Washington réussissent à imposer un retrait prématuré de nos troupes en Irak, le résultat sera un monde plus dangereux et l’encouragement de nos ennemis. Comme le président iranien s’en est récemment vanté, » bientôt, nous verrons apparaître un grand vide de pouvoir dans la région. . . [ et ] nous sommes prêts à combler ce vide. » Quelque soient les imperfections de nos amis irakiens, elles ne sont aucunement une excuse pour que nous battions en retraite devant nos ennemis comme Al Qaeda et l’Iran, qui constituent une menace mortelle pour nos intérêts nationaux essentiels. Nous devons comprendre qu’aujourd’hui en Irak nous combattons et sommes en train de vaincre le même réseau terroriste qui nous a attaqués le 11/9. John McCain et Joe Lieberman
La vérité est que c’est les Sunnites qui ont lancé cette guerre il y a quatre ans et qu’ils l’ont perdue. Les tribus ne gagnent jamais les guerres, elles ne font que rejoindre le camp des vainqueurs.Un Irakien
A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq. NYT (2005)
To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready … would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. George Bush (2007)
More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. (…) The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH’S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka’ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies. (…) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. Osama Bin Laden (1996)
Le peuple comprend maintenant les discours des oulémas dans les mosquées, selon lesquels notre pays est devenu une colonie de l’empire américain. Il agit avec détermination pour chasser les Américains d’Arabie saoudite. […] La solution à cette crise est le retrait des troupes américaines. Leur présence militaire est une insulte au peuple saoudien. Ben Laden
27 août 1992 : les Etats-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne et la France mettent en place une autre zone d’exclusion aérienne, au sud du 32eme parallèle, avec l’objectif d’observer les violations de droits de l’homme à l’encontre de la population chiite.
3 septembre 1996 : en représailles à un déploiement de troupes irakiennes dans la zone nord, les Etats-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ripostent militairement dans le sud et étendent la zone d’exclusion aérienne sud, qui passe du 32eme au 33eme parallèle. La France refuse cette extension, mais continue à effectuer des missions de surveillance aérienne au sud du 32ème parallèle..
27 décembre 1996 : Jacques Chirac décide de retirer la France du contrôle de la zone d’exclusion aérienne nord. Il justifie cette décision par le fait que le dispositif a changé de nature avec les bombardements de septembre, et que le volet humanitaire initialement prévu n’y est plus inclus. La France proteste par ailleurs contre la décision unilatérale des Etats-Unis et de la Turquie (avec l’acceptation de la Grande-Bretagne) d’augmenter la zone d’exclusion aérienne sud. Michel Wéry
Les Etats-Unis n’ont pas envahi l’Irak mais sont intervenus dans un conflit déjà en cours. Kiron Skinner (conseillère à la sécurité du président Bush)
Since a wounded Saddam could not be left unattended and an oil-rich Saudi Arabia could not be left unprotected, U.S. troops took up long-term residence in the Saudi kingdom, a fateful decision that started the clock ticking toward 9/11. As bin Laden himself explained in his oft-quoted 1996 fatwa, his central aim was “to expel the occupying enemy from the country of the two Holy places.”… Put another way, bin Laden’s casus belli was an unintended and unforeseen byproduct of what Saddam Hussein had done in 1990. The presence of U.S. troops in the land of Mecca and Medina had galvanized al-Qaeda, which carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which triggered America’s global war on terror, which inevitably led back to Iraq, which is where America finds itself today. In a sense, occupation was inevitable after Desert Storm; perhaps the United States ended up occupying the wrong country. … If the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia sparked bin Laden’s global guerrilla war, America’s low threshold for casualties would serve as the fuel to keep it raging. … From bin Laden’s vantage point, America’s retreats from Beirut in the 1980s, Mogadishu in the 1990s and Yemen in 2000 were evidence of weakness. “When tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you,” he recalled. “The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu.” … Hence, quitting Iraq could have dramatic and disastrous consequences – something like the fall of Saigon, Desert One, and the Beirut and Mogadishu pullouts all rolled into one giant propaganda victory for the enemy. Not only would it leave a nascent democracy unprotected from bin Laden’s henchmen, it would serve to confirm their perception that America is a paper tiger lacking the will to fight or to stand with those who are willing to fight. Who would count on America the next time? For that matter, on whom would America be able to count as the wars of 9/11 continue? … Finally, retreat also would re-energize the enemy and pave the way toward his ultimate goal. Imagine Iraq spawning a Balkan-style ethno-religious war while serving as a Taliban-style springboard for terror. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s top terrorist in Iraq, already has said, “We fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the land of the two Holy Places, and after there the West.”Alan W. Dowd
De même que les progressistes européens et américains doutaient des menaces de Hitler et de Staline, les Occidentaux éclairés sont aujourd’hui en danger de manquer l’urgence des idéologies violentes issues du monde musulman. Les socialistes français des années 30 (…) ont voulu éviter un retour de la première guerre mondiale; ils ont refusé de croire que les millions de personnes en Allemagne avaient perdu la tête et avaient soutenu le mouvement nazi. Ils n’ont pas voulu croire qu’un mouvement pathologique de masse avait pris le pouvoir en Allemagne, ils ont voulu rester ouverts à ce que les Allemands disaient et aux revendiquations allemandes de la première guerre mondiale. Et les socialistes français, dans leur effort pour être ouverts et chaleureux afin d’éviter à tout prix le retour d’une guerre comme la première guerre mondiale, ont fait tout leur possible pour essayer de trouver ce qui était raisonnable et plausible dans les arguments d’Hitler. Ils ont vraiment fini par croire que le plus grand danger pour la paix du monde n’était pas posé par Hitler mais par les faucons de leur propre société, en France. Ces gesn-là étaient les socialistes pacifistes de la France, c’était des gens biens. Pourtant, de fil en aiguille, ils se sont opposés à l’armée française contre Hitler, et bon nombre d’entre eux ont fini par soutenir le régime de Vichy et elles ont fini comme fascistes! Ils ont même dérapé vers l’anti-sémitisme pur, et personne ne peut douter qu’une partie de cela s’est reproduit récemment dans le mouvement pacifiste aux Etats-Unis et surtout en Europe. Un des scandales est que nous avons eu des millions de personnes dans la rue protestant contre la guerre en Irak, mais pas pour réclamer la liberté en Irak. Personne n’a marché dans les rues au nom des libertés kurdes. Les intérêts des dissidents libéraux de l’Irak et les démocrates kurdes sont en fait également nos intérêts. Plus ces personnes prospèrent, plus grande sera notre sécurité. C’est un moment où ce qui devrait être nos idéaux — les idéaux de la démocratie libérale et de la solidarité sociale — sont également objectivement notre intérêt. Bush n’a pas réussi à l’expliquer clairement, et une grande partie de la gauche ne l’a même pas perçu. Paul Berman
Avec Assad, on voit justement ce qui arrive quand on laisse un dictateur en place. Les problèmes ne disparaissent pas tout seuls.Tony Blair
L’un des arguments des adversaires de l’intervention de 2003 est de dire que, puisque Saddam Hussein ne possédait aucune arme de destruction massive, l’invasion de l’Irak était injustifiée. D’après les rapports des inspecteurs internationaux, nous savons que, même si Saddam s’était débarrassé de ses armes chimiques, il avait conservé l’expertise et les capacités d’en produire. En 2011, si nous avions laissé Saddam au pouvoir, l’Irak aurait été lui aussi emporté par la vague des révolutions arabes. En tant que sunnite, Saddam aurait tout fait pour préserver son régime face à la révolte de la majorité chiite du pays. Pendant ce temps, de l’autre côté de la frontière, en Syrie, une minorité bénéficiant de l’appui des chiites s’accrocherait au pouvoir et tenterait de résister à la révolte de la majorité sunnite. Le risque aurait donc été grand de voir la région sombrer dans une conflagration confessionnelle généralisée dans laquelle les Etats ne se seraient pas affrontés par procuration, mais directement, avec leurs armées nationales. Tout le Moyen-Orient est en réalité engagé dans une longue et douloureuse transition. Nous devons nous débarrasser de l’idée que » nous » avons provoqué cette situation. Ce n’est pas vrai. (…) Nous avons aujourd’hui trois exemples de politique occidentale en matière de changement de régime dans la région. En Irak, nous avons appelé à un changement de régime, renversé la dictature et déployé des troupes pour aider à la reconstruction du pays. Mais l’intervention s’est révélée extrêmement ardue, et aujourd’hui le pays est à nouveau en danger. En Libye, nous avons appelé au changement de régime, chassé Kadhafi grâce à des frappes aériennes mais refusé d’envoyer des troupes au sol. Aujourd’hui, la Libye, ravagée par la violence, a exporté le désordre et de vastes quantités d’armes à travers l’Afrique du Nord et jusqu’en Afrique subsaharienne. En Syrie, nous avons appelé au changement de régime mais n’avons rien fait, et c’est le pays qui se trouve dans la situation la pire. (…) Il n’est pas raisonnable pour l’Occident d’adopter une politique d’indifférence. Car il s’agit, que nous le voulions ou pas, d’un problème qui nous concerne. Les agences de sécurité européennes estiment que la principale menace pour l’avenir proviendra des combattants revenant de Syrie. Le danger est réel de voir le pays devenir pour les terroristes un sanctuaire plus redoutable encore que ne l’était l’Afghanistan dans les années 1990. Mais n’oublions pas non plus les risques que fait peser la guerre civile syrienne sur le Liban et la Jordanie. Il était impossible que cet embrasement reste confiné à l’intérieur des frontières syriennes .Je comprends les raisons pour lesquelles, après l’Afghanistan et l’Irak, l’opinion publique est si hostile à une intervention militaire. Mais une intervention en Syrie n’était pas et n’est pas nécessairement obligée de prendre les formes qu’elle a prises dans ces deux pays. Et, chaque fois que nous renonçons à agir, les mesures que nous serons fatalement amenés à prendre par la suite devront être plus violente. (…) Nous devons prendre conscience que le défi s’étend bien au-delà du Moyen-Orient. L’Afrique, comme le montrent les tragiques événements au Nigeria, y est elle aussi confrontée. L’Extrême-Orient et l’Asie centrale également.L’Irak n’est qu’une facette d’une situation plus générale. Tous les choix qui s’offrent à nous sont inquiétants. Mais, depuis trois ans, nous regardons la Syrie s’enfoncer dans l’abîme et, pendant qu’elle sombre, elle nous enserre lentement et sûrement dans ses rets et nous entraîne avec elle. C’est pourquoi nous devons oublier les différends du passé et agir maintenant pour préserver l’avenir.Tony Blair
Ce n’est pas parce qu’une équipe de juniors porte le maillot des Lakers que cela en fait des Kobe Bryant. Je pense qu’il y a une différence entre les moyens et la portée d’un Ben Laden, d’un réseau qui planifie activement des attaques terroristes de grande envergure contre notre territoire, et ceux de jihadistes impliqués dans des luttes de pouvoir locales, souvent de nature ethnique.Barack Obama (janvier 2014)
The prospect of Iraq’s disintegration is already being spun by the Administration and its media friends as the fault of George W. Bush and Mr. Maliki. So it’s worth understanding how we got here. Iraq was largely at peace when Mr. Obama came to office in 2009. Reporters who had known Baghdad during the worst days of the insurgency in 2006 marveled at how peaceful the city had become thanks to the U.S. military surge and counterinsurgency. In 2012 Anthony Blinken, then Mr. Biden’s top security adviser, boasted that, « What’s beyond debate » is that « Iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous. And the United States is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history. » Mr. Obama employed the same breezy confidence in a speech last year at the National Defense University, saying that « the core of al Qaeda » was on a « path to defeat, » and that the « future of terrorism » came from « less capable » terrorist groups that mainly threatened « diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. » Mr. Obama concluded his remarks by calling on Congress to repeal its 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against al Qaeda. If the war on terror was over, ISIS didn’t get the message. The group, known as Tawhid al-Jihad when it was led a decade ago by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was all but defeated by 2009 but revived as U.S. troops withdrew and especially after the uprising in Syria spiraled into chaos. It now controls territory from the outskirts of Aleppo in northwestern Syria to Fallujah in central Iraq. The possibility that a long civil war in Syria would become an incubator for terrorism and destabilize the region was predictable, and we predicted it. « Now the jihadists have descended by the thousands on Syria, » we noted last May. « They are also moving men and weapons to and from Iraq, which is increasingly sinking back into Sunni-Shiite civil war. . . . If Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki feels threatened by al Qaeda and a Sunni rebellion, he will increasingly look to Iran to help him stay in power. » We don’t quote ourselves to boast of prescience but to wonder why the Administration did nothing to avert the clearly looming disaster. Contrary to what Mr. Blinken claimed in 2012, the « diplomatic surge » the Administration promised for Iraq never arrived, nor did U.S. weapons. « The Americans have really deeply disappointed us by not supplying the Iraqi army with the weapons and support it needs to fight terrorism, » the Journal quoted one Iraqi general based in Kirkuk. That might strike some readers as rich coming from the commander of a collapsing army, but it’s a reminder of the price Iraqis and Americans are now paying for Mr. Obama’s failure to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement with Baghdad that would have maintained a meaningful U.S. military presence. A squadron of Apache attack helicopters, Predator drones and A-10 attack planes based in Iraq might be able to turn back ISIS’s march on Baghdad. WSJ
The president is in fact implementing the policy he promised. It was retrenchment by one word, retreat by another.[Obama’s policy is also what the American public showed in polls that it wants right now] ”It wants it, at least until it gets queasy by looking at the pictures they’ve been seeing tonight. George Will
Affirmer, au bout de onze ans, que ce à quoi on assiste actuellement est le résultat de ce qui s’est produit à l’époque est aussi simpliste qu’insultant. Dans ce qui s’assimile à une perspective néocolonialiste postmoderne, ceci revient à suggérer que les Irakiens ne sont toujours pas en mesure d’assumer la responsabilité de leur propre pays. Abstraction faite de toutes les autres conséquences, l’invasion de 2003 n’en a pas moins donné aux Irakiens une possibilité d’autodétermination démocratique qu’ils n’auraient jamais eue sous Saddam Hussein. C’est cette démocratie imparfaite qui est menacée ; il faut à présent la conserver et l’améliorer. The Observer
Mosul’s fall matters for what it reveals about a terrorism whose threat Mr. Obama claims he has minimized. For starters, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) isn’t a bunch of bug-eyed « Mad Max » guys running around firing Kalashnikovs. ISIS is now a trained and organized army. The seizures of Mosul and Tikrit this week revealed high-level operational skills. ISIS is using vehicles and equipment seized from Iraqi military bases. Normally an army on the move would slow down to establish protective garrisons in towns it takes, but ISIS is doing the opposite, by replenishing itself with fighters from liberated prisons. An astonishing read about this group is on the website of the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. It is an analysis of a 400-page report, « al-Naba, » published by ISIS in March. This is literally a terrorist organization’s annual report for 2013. It even includes « metrics, » detailed graphs of its operations in Iraq as well as in Syria. One might ask: Didn’t U.S. intelligence know something like Mosul could happen? They did. The February 2014 « Threat Assessment » by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency virtually predicted it: « AQI/ISIL [aka ISIS] probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria . . . as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah. » AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq), the report says, is exploiting the weak security environment « since the departure of U.S. forces at the end of 2011. » But to have suggested any mitigating steps to this White House would have been pointless. It won’t listen. In March, Gen. James Mattis, then head of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress he recommended the U.S. keep 13,600 support troops in Afghanistan; he was known not to want an announced final withdrawal date. On May 27, President Obama said it would be 9,800 troops—for just one year. Which guarantees that the taking of Mosul will be replayed in Afghanistan. Let us repeat the most quoted passage in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s memoir, « Duty. » It describes the March 2011 meeting with Mr. Obama about Afghanistan in the situation room. « As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his, » Mr. Gates wrote. « For him, it’s all about getting out. » Daniel Henninger
My greatest fear is that we stabilize Iraq, then hand it over to the Iranians in our rush to the exit. I’ve invested too much here to simply walk away and let that happen. General Raymond Odierno (commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, 2010)
Where is the U.S.? Does the U.S. have no interest in protecting the democratic process? Does the U.S. not care what sort of government is put together? Qasim Suleimani is very active putting together the Shia coalition. Does the U.S. not understand what impact this will have on the region—and on internal stability in Iraq? Is the U.S. not worried about Iranian influence in Iraq? Rafi Issawi (Iraqi, deputy prime minister)
I had arrived ready to apologise to every Iraqi for the war. Instead I had listened to a litany of suffering and pain under Saddam for which I was quite unprepared. The mass graves, the details of torture, the bureaucratisation of abuse. The pure banality of evil. But the Iraqis also had huge expectations of the US. After every war Saddam rebuilt the country in six months, so their attitude was, ‘imagine what the US can do after six months. America can put a man on the moon … you wait’. Emma Sky
Nothing that happened in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was pre-ordained; different futures than the one unfolding today were possible. Recall that violence declined drastically during the 2007 U.S. troop surge, and that for the next couple of years both Iraq and the West felt that the country was going in the right direction. But the seeds of Iraq’s unravelling were sown in 2010, when the United States did not uphold the election results and failed to broker the formation of a new Iraqi government. As an adviser to the top U.S. general in Iraq, I was a witness. (…)The national elections took place on March 7, 2010, and went more smoothly than we had dared hope. After a month of competitive campaigning across the country and wide media coverage of the different candidates and parties, 62 percent of eligible Iraqis turned out to vote. (…) We had not expected Iraqiya—a coalition headed by the secular Shia Ayad Allawi and leaders of the Sunni community, and running on a non-sectarian platform—to do so well. The coalition had won 91 seats—two more than the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition. (…) Even though there was no evidence of fraud to justify a recount, the Iraqi electoral commission and the international community agreed to one, fearful of a repeat of the election fiasco in 2009 in Afghanistan, which had tarnished the credibility of elections there. In the meantime, Maliki’s advisers told us he needed two extra seats, either from the recount or through arbitrary de-Ba’athification that could disqualify Iraqiya candidates. Otherwise, he would be blamed for losing Iraq for the Shia, who make up some two-thirds of the population. (…) General O and I did not think that the Iraqiya candidate, Allawi, would be able to put a government together with himself as prime minister. But we thought he had the right as the winner of the election to have first go—and that this could lead to a political compromise among the leaders, with either Allawi and Maliki agreeing to share power between them or a third person chosen to be prime minister. But … Hill, General O strode down the embassy corridor looking visibly upset. “He told me that Iraq is not ready for democracy, that Iraq needs a Shia strongman,” the general said, “and Maliki is our man.” Odierno had objected that that was not what the Iraqis wanted. They were rid of one dictator, Hussein, and did not want to create another. (…) Sami al-Askari, a Shia politician close to Maliki who believed that an agreement between State of Law and Iraqiya was the best way forward (…) also told me that everyone except the Americans realized that the formation of the government was perceived as a battle between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq. The Iranians were active, while the U.S. embassy did nothing. Qasim Suleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s al-Quds Force, continued to summon Iraqis to Iran in order to put together a pan-Shia coalition. The Iranians, al-Askari said, intended to drag out government formation until after August 31, when all U.S. combat forces were due to leave, in order to score a “victory” over the United States. (…) In the Arabic media, there was confusion as to why the United States and Iran should both choose Maliki as prime minister, and this fuelled conspiracy theories about a secret deal between those two countries. (…) The Obama administration wanted to see an Iraqi government in place before the U.S. mid-term elections in November. Biden believed the quickest way to form a government was to keep Maliki as prime minister, and to cajole other Iraqis into accepting this. (…) I tried to explain the struggle between secularists and Islamists, and how many Iraqis wanted to move beyond sectarianism. But Biden could not fathom this. For him, Iraq was simply about Sunnis, Shia and Kurds.(…) If only President Obama had paid attention to Iraq. He, more than anyone, would understand the complexity of identities, I thought—and that people can change. But his only interest in Iraq, it appeared, was in ending the war. (…)In July 2014, I visited Erbil, Iraq, shortly after the Islamic State had taken control of a third of the country and the Iraqi Army had disintegrated. I met up with Rafi Issawi. (…) Rafi listed for me the Sunni grievances that had steadily simmered since I’d left—until they had finally boiled over. Maliki had detained thousands of Sunnis without trial, pushed leading Sunnis, including Rafi, out of the political process by accusing them of terrorism and reneged on payments and pledges to the Iraqi tribes who had bravely fought Al Qaeda in Iraq. Year-long Sunni protests demanding an end to discrimination were met by violence, with dozens of unarmed protesters killed by Iraqi security forces. Maliki had completely subverted the judiciary to his will, so that Sunnis felt unable to achieve justice. The Islamic State, Rafi explained to me, was able to take advantage of this situation, publicly claiming to be the defenders of the Sunnis against the Iranian-backed Maliki government. The downward spiral, Rafi told me not surprisingly, had begun in 2010—when Iraqiya was not given the first chance to try to form the government. “We might not have succeeded,” he admitted, “but the process itself would have been important in building trust in Iraq’s young institutions.” Emma Sky
A l’heure où, dénoncé presque immédiatement par les intéressés, le prétendu accord « historique » avec Téhéran tourne à la bérézina diplomatique …
Et où la poignée prétendument « historique » avec un Cuba tout aussi inflexible est bien prête de retomber comme le soufflé qu’elle n’a jamais cessé d’être …
Pendant qu’ayant fait main basse sur quatre capitales arabes …
Et se voyant légitimés dans leur quête d’une arme nucléaire …
Les mollahs sont en train de faire basculer, de l’Arabie saoudite à la Turquie l’ensemble de la région dans une course aux armements nucléaires …
Déjà dénoncé prophétiquement dès 2007 par l’ancien président Bush comme un an plus tard par le sénateur McCain ?
Qui se rappelle …
Comme le confirme, nouvelle Gertrude Bell de l’Irak, l’ancienne conseillère britannique des troupes américaines dans un nouveau livre …
La véritable trahison, par l’Administration Obama, des sunnites qui avaient permis l’élimination d’Al Qaeda en Irak …
Comme l’abandon militaire du pays en refusant d’y laisser assez de troupes …
Pour le plus grand profit non seulement des islamistes que l’on doit combattre à nouveau …
Mais surtout des Iraniens que l’on courtise aujourd’hui ?
How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq
Bush’s mistake was invading the country. His successor’s was leaving it to a strongman.
Emma Sky
Politico
April 07, 2015
When trying to explain the current unrest in the Middle East, from Iraq to Syria to Yemen, American officials often resort to platitudes about Sunni and Shia Muslims fighting each other for “centuries” due to “ancient hatreds.” Not only is this claim historically inaccurate, but it also ignores the unintended consequences that the Iraq War more recently leashed on the region. That war—and the manner in which the United States left it behind in 2011—shifted the balance of power in the region in Iran’s favor. Regional competition, of which Iran’s tension with Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension, exacerbated existing fault-lines, with support for extreme sectarian actors, including the Islamic State, turning local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars.
Nothing that happened in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was pre-ordained; different futures than the one unfolding today were possible. Recall that violence declined drastically during the 2007 U.S. troop surge, and that for the next couple of years both Iraq and the West felt that the country was going in the right direction. But the seeds of Iraq’s unravelling were sown in 2010, when the United States did not uphold the election results and failed to broker the formation of a new Iraqi government. As an adviser to the top U.S. general in Iraq, I was a witness.
***
“My greatest fear,” General Raymond Odierno, the then commanding general of U.S. forces in Iraq, told me in early 2010, “is that we stabilize Iraq, then hand it over to the Iranians in our rush to the exit.”
General O (as he is known), had recently watched the 2007 movie Charlie Wilson’s War, which recounts how U.S. interest in Afghanistan ceased once the mujahedeen defeated the Soviet Army in 1989 and drove them out. Now, he had a premonition that the same could happen in Iraq. “I’ve invested too much here,” he said, “to simply walk away and let that happen.”
I had first met Odierno in 2003, when he was the commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division responsible for the provinces of Salah al-Din, Diyala and Kirkuk in the early days of the Iraq War; I had been the representative in Kirkuk of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American-led transitional government that controlled Iraq after Hussein’s fall. Now, as his political adviser, I was helping General O ensure that the United States kept its focus on the mission in Iraq while drawing down U.S. forces.
Odierno wanted U.S. engagement with Iraq to continue for years to come, but led by U.S. civilians, not the military. He believed that, in order to train Iraqi security forces and provide the psychological support needed to maintain a level of stability, 20,000 or so U.S. troops needed to stay in Iraq beyond 2011, when all American troops were scheduled to be withdrawn. But the real engagement, General O believed, should be from the other instruments of national power, led by the U.S. embassy.
Every time a congressional delegation visited us in Baghdad, General O put up a slide showing why the United States should continue to invest in Iraq through the Strategic Framework Agreement that the two countries had signed in 2008. General O knew that for the mission to succeed, there needed to be a political agreement between Iraqi leaders. Otherwise, all the security gains that the American troops had fought so hard for would not be sustainable. He took every opportunity to educate and communicate these complexities to the new Obama administration.
For six months, General O had tried hard to support the leadership of Chris Hill, the new American ambassador who had taken up his post in April 2009. But Odierno had begun to despair. It was clear that Hill, though a career diplomat, lacked regional experience and was miscast in the role in Baghdad. In fact, he had not wanted the job, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had persuaded him to take it; she admitted as much to General O, he told me, when he met her in early 2010 in Washington to discuss the dysfunction at the embassy. General O complained that Hill did not engage with Iraqis or with others in the diplomatic community—his only focus appeared to be monitoring the activities of the U.S. military.
It was frightening how a person could so poison a place. Hill brought with him a small cabal who were new to Iraq and marginalized all those with experience in the country. The highly knowledgeable and well-regarded Arabist Robert Ford had cut short his tour as ambassador to Algeria to return to Iraq for a third tour and turned down another ambassadorship to stay on in Iraq and serve as Hill’s deputy. But Hill appeared not to want Ford’s advice on political issues and pressured him to depart the post early in 2010. In his staff meetings, Hill made clear how much he disliked Iraq and Iraqis. Instead, he was focused on making the embassy “normal” like other U.S. embassies. That apparently meant having grass within the embassy compound. The initial attempts to plant seed had failed when birds ate it all, but eventually, great rolls of lawn turf were brought in—I had no idea from where—and took root. By the end of his tenure, there was grass on which the ambassador could play lacrosse.
***
The national elections took place on March 7, 2010, and went more smoothly than we had dared hope. After a month of competitive campaigning across the country and wide media coverage of the different candidates and parties, 62 percent of eligible Iraqis turned out to vote.
The author and Gen. Raymond Odiero in Iraq. | Courtesy of Emma Sky
The European Union and others had fielded hundreds of international poll-watchers alongside thousands of trained Iraqi election observers, while the United Nations provided the Iraqis with advice on technical matters related to elections. All this helped to sustain the credibility of the process. Insurgents sought to create a climate of fear by planting bombs in water bottles and blowing up a house, but the Iraqi security forces stood up to the test.
“We won the elections!” Rafi Issawi, the deputy prime minister, shouted excitedly to me on the phone. I could hear celebratory gunfire in the background. We had not expected Iraqiya—a coalition headed by the secular Shia Ayad Allawi and leaders of the Sunni community, and running on a non-sectarian platform—to do so well. The coalition had won 91 seats—two more than the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition.
I accompanied General O and Hill to a meeting with Maliki the next day. Maliki, a Shia, had been prime minister since 2006. Americans and Iraqis alike initially viewed him as weak, but his reputation grew after he ordered military operations against Shia militias. Since then, Iraqi politicians had become increasingly fearful of his authoritarian tendencies. He had insisted on running separately in the election—as State of Law rather than joining a united Shia coalition as had happened in 2005—in large part because the Shia parties would not agree on him to lead the list. Nobody wanted a second Maliki premiership.
When Hill asked Maliki that day about his retirement plans, it was immediately apparent that he was not contemplating stepping down. Instead, he claimed there had been massive election fraud and that the Mujahideen al-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group locked away in eastern Iraq’s Diyala province, had used satellites to tamper with the computers used to tally the voting results—even though the computers were not connected to the Internet and thousands of election observers had monitored the voting. But Maliki’s advisers had told him he would win big with more than a hundred seats, so he demanded a recount. Maliki was becoming scary.
Even though there was no evidence of fraud to justify a recount, the Iraqi electoral commission and the international community agreed to one, fearful of a repeat of the election fiasco in 2009 in Afghanistan, which had tarnished the credibility of elections there. In the meantime, Maliki’s advisers told us he needed two extra seats, either from the recount or through arbitrary de-Ba’athification that could disqualify Iraqiya candidates. Otherwise, he would be blamed for losing Iraq for the Shia, who make up some two-thirds of the population.
In parliamentary systems, the winning bloc is, by definition, the one that wins the most seats in the election and thus gets to have the first go at trying to form a government. This was certainly the intent of those who had drafted the Iraqi Constitution in 2005. But Maliki sought to challenge this basic notion, pressing Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud, Iraq’s chief justice, for his interpretation of the “winning bloc.” Medhat, continually under pressure from Maliki, returned an ambiguous ruling, saying it could mean either the bloc that receives the most seats in the election or the largest coalition formed after the election, within parliament. This would be Maliki’s escape clause.
General O urged that we should protect the process. He said the United States should not pick winners. It never worked out well. General O and I did not think that the Iraqiya candidate, Allawi, would be able to put a government together with himself as prime minister. But we thought he had the right as the winner of the election to have first go—and that this could lead to a political compromise among the leaders, with either Allawi and Maliki agreeing to share power between them or a third person chosen to be prime minister.
But after one meeting with Hill, General O strode down the embassy corridor looking visibly upset. “He told me that Iraq is not ready for democracy, that Iraq needs a Shia strongman,” the general said, “and Maliki is our man.” Odierno had objected that that was not what the Iraqis wanted. They were rid of one dictator, Hussein, and did not want to create another.
As the embassy did not want to do anything to help the Iraqis form a new government, General O instructed me to try to broker a meeting between Iraqiya and State of Law. They were the two largest blocs, and we saw an agreement between them as the most stable solution—and the one that would also best serve U.S. interests.
***
Finally, in June 2010, three months after the elections, State of Law and Iraqiya, the two largest blocs, headed into negotiations. But there was little trust between the two. State of Law continued to insist on Maliki as prime minister, and Iraqiya on Allawi.
I met up with Sami al-Askari, a Shia politician close to Maliki who believed that an agreement between State of Law and Iraqiya was the best way forward. But he also told me that everyone except the Americans realized that the formation of the government was perceived as a battle between Iran and the United States for influence in Iraq. The Iranians were active, while the U.S. embassy did nothing. Qasim Suleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s al-Quds Force, continued to summon Iraqis to Iran in order to put together a pan-Shia coalition. The Iranians, al-Askari said, intended to drag out government formation until after August 31, when all U.S. combat forces were due to leave, in order to score a “victory” over the United States.
The Iranians had indeed not been idle. They were pressuring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to drop his support for Allawi and agree to another Maliki term. For years, the Baathist regime in Syria had allowed jihadi foreign fighters to use their country as a launching pad for horrific attacks in Iraq. In August 2009, coordinated attacks targeted the foreign ministry and the finance ministry in Baghdad, killing around a hundred Iraqis. Maliki had blamed Assad himself for the murders.
The Iranians also were putting huge pressure on the Supreme Council, a Shia party headed by Amar Hakim, to agree a second Maliki premiership. And Iran was seeking to persuade the Sadrists, a Shia party led by Muqtada al-Sadr, through intermediaries from Lebanese Hezbollah, that Maliki would ensure there was no U.S. military presence of any sort in Iraq after 2011, and that the Sadrists would get key posts in the new government. Iran’s goal was to ensure that Iraq was not integrated into the Arab world, instead becoming a close ally of Iran. Maliki would be able to achieve this because all the neighboring Sunni countries hated him. As for Jalal Talabani, Iraq’s Kurdish president, Suleimani was determined to keep him in the role. Their relationship went back decades.
I went to see Rafi, the deputy prime minister. “Where is the U.S.?” he asked. He described how previous U.S. ambassadors had helped to bring Iraqis together. “Does the U.S. have no interest in protecting the democratic process? Does the U.S. not care what sort of government is put together? Qasim Suleimani is very active putting together the Shia coalition. Does the U.S. not understand what impact this will have on the region—and on internal stability in Iraq? Is the U.S. not worried about Iranian influence in Iraq?”
In July, Maliki’s fortunes appeared to take a decisive turn for the worse: The Shia coalition sent him a letter requesting that he withdraw his candidature for prime minister; Iraqiya made it clear that they would offer him the speakership of the parliament or the presidency, but not the premiership, and the Kurds explained that they really did not want to see him as prime minister for another four years.
General O and Hill met Maliki and told him frankly that he had little support from other groups, so it would be very hard for him to remain as prime minister. Maliki continued to insist that only he could do the job, only he could save Iraq. “I dream I am on a boat,” he said. “I keep trying to pull Iraqis out of the water to save them.”
The embassy informed the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, Allawi and other Iraqi leaders that Maliki had no chance of being prime minister.
***
General O went back to Washington in mid-July for more meetings. He phoned to tell me that Vice President Joe Biden had agreed to give Maliki and Allawi a deadline. If they could not reach an agreement within two weeks on how to form the government, they should both step aside and let others have a shot at it.
However, when Biden phoned up the two leaders that week, he did not stick to the agreed line. Instead, he told Maliki that the United States would support him remaining as prime minister, and he told Allawi that he should accept Maliki as PM. In the Arabic media, there was confusion as to why the United States and Iran should both choose Maliki as prime minister, and this fuelled conspiracy theories about a secret deal between those two countries.
When I met Rafi, he was incredulous: “How come one week the U.S. was telling everyone that Maliki should step down and the next week telling Maliki he should be PM?” He went on: “Why is the U.S. picking the prime minister? This is Iraq. This is our country. We have to live here. And we care passionately about building a future for our children.” He was deeply upset.
Biden visited Iraq at the end of August 2010. By then, Hill had been replaced as ambassador by Jim Jeffrey. In internal meetings, one U.S. adviser argued that Maliki was “our man”: He would give us a follow-on Status of Forces Agreement to keep a small contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq after 2011; he was a nationalist; and he would fight the Sadrists. Furthermore, the official claimed that Maliki had promised him that he would not seek a third term. “Maliki is not our friend,” replied another official, Jeff Feltman, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, exasperated at the delusional nature of the discussion. But Biden had been persuaded by the arguments that there was no one but Maliki who could be prime minister and that he would sign a new security agreement with the United States. The Obama administration wanted to see an Iraqi government in place before the U.S. mid-term elections in November. Biden believed the quickest way to form a government was to keep Maliki as prime minister, and to cajole other Iraqis into accepting this.
“Iraqiya genuinely fear Maliki,” General O explained. They were scared that he would accuse them of being terrorists or bring charges of corruption against them, and would arrest them. Maliki had accused Rafi of being the leader of a terrorist group, for instance—allegations that were totally unfounded. General O described how Maliki had changed so much over the past six months. He had become more sectarian and authoritarian. Iraqis had reason to fear him.
I tried to explain the struggle between secularists and Islamists, and how many Iraqis wanted to move beyond sectarianism. But Biden could not fathom this. For him, Iraq was simply about Sunnis, Shia and Kurds.
I tried another tack: “It is important to build belief in the democratic process by showing people that change can come about through elections—rather than violence. The peaceful transfer of power is key—it has never happened in the Arab World.” At the very least, either Maliki or Talabani needed to give up his seat; otherwise, they would both think they owned the seats. Biden did not agree. He responded that there were often elections in the United States that did not bring about any change.
Biden’s easy smile had evaporated. He was clearly irritated by me. “Look, I know these people,” he went on. “My grandfather was Irish and hated the British. It’s like in the Balkans. They all grow up hating each other.”
The conversation ended, as we had to head over to the meeting with Iraqiya members. Some were in suits, others were wearing their finest traditional robes. There were Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Turkmen Shia, Kurds and a Christian. The full tapestry of Iraqi society was sitting facing us—distinguishable only by their dress, clearly showing us the sort of Iraq they wanted to live in.
Biden started off smiling: “I know you people. My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.” Everyone turned toward me, the Brit. The Iraqis were grinning, expecting there was going to be a good spat between Brits and Americans. How could I stop Biden making a totally inappropriate comment about them all being Sunnis and hating Shia? Thinking on my feet, I said, “Don’t look at me, Mr. Vice President, I am not the only Brit in the room.” One of the Iraqis piped up: “I have a British passport.”
Biden lost his train of thought and moved on. He said that one of his predecessors, Al Gore, had technically won more votes in the 2000 presidential election, but for the good of America had stepped back rather than keep the country in limbo while fighting over the disputed vote-count.
Allawi pretended not to understand that Biden was suggesting he give up his claim to have first go at trying to form the government, letting Maliki remain as prime minister. The meeting finished. After we left, I was sure the Iraqis would be wondering why on earth Biden had mentioned his Irish grandfather and Al Gore. If only President Obama had paid attention to Iraq. He, more than anyone, would understand the complexity of identities, I thought—and that people can change. But his only interest in Iraq, it appeared, was in ending the war.
***
In July 2014, I visited Erbil, Iraq, shortly after the Islamic State had taken control of a third of the country and the Iraqi Army had disintegrated. I met up with Rafi Issawi. So much had happened since General O and I had left Iraq at the end of August 2010. Iran had succeeded in pressuring Muqtada al-Sadr to accept a second Maliki term as prime minister and hence ensured that there would be no follow-on security agreement for a post-2011 U.S. troop presence. The United States had helped to hammer out a power-sharing agreement of sorts in Erbil, but it had never been implemented.
Rafi listed for me the Sunni grievances that had steadily simmered since I’d left—until they had finally boiled over. Maliki had detained thousands of Sunnis without trial, pushed leading Sunnis, including Rafi, out of the political process by accusing them of terrorism and reneged on payments and pledges to the Iraqi tribes who had bravely fought Al Qaeda in Iraq. Year-long Sunni protests demanding an end to discrimination were met by violence, with dozens of unarmed protesters killed by Iraqi security forces. Maliki had completely subverted the judiciary to his will, so that Sunnis felt unable to achieve justice. The Islamic State, Rafi explained to me, was able to take advantage of this situation, publicly claiming to be the defenders of the Sunnis against the Iranian-backed Maliki government.
The downward spiral, Rafi told me not surprisingly, had begun in 2010—when Iraqiya was not given the first chance to try to form the government. “We might not have succeeded,” he admitted, “but the process itself would have been important in building trust in Iraq’s young institutions.”
Emma Sky, senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute, is author of The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq, from which this article is adapted.
A former British diplomat has accused Hillary Clinton of contributing to Iraq’s disastrous meltdown during her four years as Barack Obama’s foreign policy chief.
Emma Sky, who served as an adviser to one of the top US commanders in Iraq, claims in a new book that Mrs Clinton operated a “dysfunctional” diplomatic mission to Baghdad that allowed a lapse back into sectarian warfare after elections in 2010.
At that time Mrs Clinton was mid-way through her four-year stint as Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, the equivalent position to Foreign Secretary in Britain.
The criticisms, which come as Mrs Clinton announces her presidential bid, are contained in a book that Ms Sky, an Oxford-educated Middle East expert, is to publish next month about the seven years she spent in Iraq.
Entitled The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq, it paints an unflattering picture of the Obama administration as it tried to extricate itself from the country as hastily as possible.
While the demand for a speedy drawdown from Iraq was driven primarily by Mr Obama himself, Mrs Clinton is accused of appointing an incompetent US ambassador to Baghdad, Chris Hill, who had little experience of the region and held its people in contempt.
That then paved the way for Washington to be outmanoeuvred by Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who was able to grab a second term in office despite fears that he was a sectarian dictator in the making.
The book also claims that the US-vice president, Joe Biden, showed little interest in Iraq’s political complexities, making oafish comparisons between its sectarian civil war and Britain’s historic tensions with Ireland.
Thanks to Mr Obama’s hasty pull-out at the end of 2011, Ms Sky says, hard-won opportunities for a lasting peace in Iraq after the war to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003 were squandered.
“That war – and the manner in which the United States left it behind in 2011 – shifted the balance of power in the region in Iran’s favour,” she writes. “Regional competition… exacerbated existing fault-lines, with support for extreme sectarian actors, including the Islamic State, turning local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars.”
Ms Sky, who is now an academic at Yale University, first went to work in Iraq in 2003 after a spell as a development expert for the British Council in the Palestinian territories. Although a self-described “tree hugger”, her expertise in Arab affairs saw her appointed as coalition governor of the northern city of Kirkuk, where she then impressed General Ray Odierno, whom she advised during the US troop “surge” that curbed Iraq’s 2006-7 Sunni-Shia civil war.
However, by 2010, Gen Odierno was becoming increasingly concerned that Washington was likely to destabilise Iraq in the “rush to the exit”. He had already “begun to despair”, Ms Sky says, of Mr Hill, who was appointed the year before despite concerns about his lack of Middle East experience.
Lifting the lid on behind the scenes intrigues in Baghdad’s heavily guarded “Green Zone”, Ms Sky writes: “It was clear that Hill, though a career diplomat, lacked regional experience and was miscast in the role in Baghdad. In fact, he had not wanted the job, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had persuaded him to take it; she admitted as much to General Odierno, he told me, when he met her in early 2010 in Washington to discuss the dysfunction at the embassy.”
She adds that “in his staff meetings, Hill made clear how much he disliked Iraq and Iraqis”. His main priority, she said, was getting the embassy to look like a “normal” US mission, which included importing rolls of turf “on which the ambassador could play lacrosse”.
Worse was to come when Mr Biden visited Baghdad. He made clear his impatience when Ms Sky tried to explain about Iraq’s myriad political landscape of secularists, Islamists, and moderates who wanted to move beyond sectarianism. Mr Biden “could not fathom this”, she said, telling her: “My grandfather was Irish and hated the British. It’s like in the Balkans. They all grow up hating each other.”
He repeated the simplistic observation at a meeting with the Iraqiya bloc, a religiously mixed, secular movement, only to be embarrassed when one of the Iraqi politicians told him that he had a British passport.
Ms Sky makes her accusations in an article adapted from her book in Politico magazine, titled “How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq”.
She says the lack of foreign policy focus from Washington ultimately allowed the White House to back Mr Maliki for a second term when he tied in 2010’s elections with Ayad Allawi, the secular, pro-Western leader of the Iraqiya bloc. Mr Hill, she says, told a distraught Gen Odierno “that Iraq is not ready for democracy, that Iraq needs a Shia strongman, and Maliki is our man”.
Her revelations come as Haider al-Abadi, Iraq’s prime minister, met Mr Obama on Tuesday to ask for more arms to defeat Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). Recent gains against the group in Tikrit have been undermined by Isil counter-attacks in the western province of Anbar.
Voir également:
Bookshelf Iraq’s Unlikely Eulogist
There was no more improbable duo than Odierno, the hulking general with a shaved head, and his petite English adviser.
Max Boot
The Wall Street journal
April 13, 2015
The British Empire, which at one time dominated the lands stretching from Egypt to Persia, produced a long line of distinguished if often eccentric Arabists —Richard Francis Burton, Gertrude Bell, St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence, Freya Stark, Wilfred Thesiger and more.
The deepening American involvement in the Middle East over the past decade has inspired its own crop of ardent experts. Some have been Foreign Service officers, such as Robert Ford and Ryan Crocker. Others military officers like Rick Welch, Derek Harvey and Joel Rayburn. Still others—perhaps the largest share—have been temporary recruits, helping the U.S. government understand the “human terrain” and filling gaps left by insufficient State Department resources. This group includes Ali Khedery, a young Arab-American who served as an aide to U.S. ambassadors in Baghdad; Matt Sherman, currently serving as political adviser to the U.S. commander in Kabul after previous stints in both Iraq and Afghanistan; and Carter Malkasian, who advised Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The new generation of American Arabists, busy in the field trying to help win two wars, has not yet produced the outpouring of writing that characterized their British predecessors, but they are starting to catch up. Mr. Malkasian penned a first-rate account of his experiences in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, “War Comes to Garmser” (2013), and, last year, Col. Rayburn published a wise book on “Iraq After America.” And now Emma Sky, dubbed “Our Miss Bell” by Iraqi interlocutors, has produced a radiant and beautifully written account, at turns funny and sad, of her service in Iraq.
There could have been few more unlikely candidates to advise U.S. military commanders. British-born and Oxford-educated, Ms. Sky is the kind of “progressive” who imagines that Texas is “a State of cowboys, electric chairs and right-wing zealots who spend their weekends down by the border shooting Mexicans who tried to cross illegally.” She welcomed Barack Obama’s victory in 2008, writing, “After the crazy era of the neoconservatives, the US was now led by a man whose worldview I believed I shared.”
The Unraveling
By Emma Sky
PublicAffairs, 382 pages, $28.99
She had come to assist the American war effort in Iraq by chance in 2003 after having spent a decade as a humanitarian worker in the Middle East. Employed by the British Council, a cultural organization sponsored by the Foreign Office, she received an email asking for volunteers to help the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Single and 30-something, she raised her hand and wound up in Kirkuk, where she became political adviser to Col. William Mayville, commander of the U.S. Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade.
Ms. Sky had no experience of the military and was “wary” of her new colleagues. Upon first meeting Col. Mayville, she threatened to haul him to The Hague if he did anything that violated the Geneva Convention: “I took my brown Filofax with me everywhere,” she writes, “and began documenting everything Colonel Mayville said and did.” Before long, however, she realized that behind his “bravado was a deep intellect—and a wicked sense of humor.” She developed such admiration and affection for the soldiers of the brigade that when they rotated home in early 2004 she “sobbed inconsolably all afternoon.”
She returned home herself in June 2004 but “could not settle back” into her humdrum job. She spent nine months in Jerusalem advising the U.S. military mission monitoring Israel’s disengagement from Gaza and then did a tour in Afghanistan for Britain’s Department for International Development. In 2006, Gen. Raymond Odierno, who had been Col. Mayville’s division commander, invited her to become his political adviser when he was appointed the deputy American commander in Iraq.
There was no more unlikely duo than the hulking, 6-foot-5 former football player with the shaved head and his petite English adviser. To add to the incongruity, Ms. Sky needled Gen. Odierno relentlessly in a way that no one else would have dared—and he returned the favor. On a helicopter ride after “General O” comments that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer, she replies, “We still don’t know who killed more Iraqis: you or Saddam, sir.” This was greeted by total silence among the general’s aides, but he jocularly shouted, “Open the door, pilots. Throw her out!”
It is part of Gen. Odierno’s greatness as a commander that he realized he needed the independent viewpoint that Ms. Sky could provide to avoid the groupthink that so often characterizes military command. He made her his indispensable aide, and she stayed by his side not only during his tour as the deputy commander in Iraq in 2006-08 but also when he was the top commander, from 2008 to 2010.
Along the way, she helped the U.S. military drag Iraq back from the brink of the abyss—only to see all of their achievements squandered. In Ms. Sky’s telling, the turning point was the failure to allow the secular Shiite Ayad Allawi a chance to form a government after his party had emerged as the top vote-getter in the 2010 election. Ambassador Christopher Hill and Vice President Joe Biden, the architects of the Obama administration’s Iraq policy in spite of their invincible ignorance of the country, threw U.S. influence behind the sitting prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who had refused to accept his electoral defeat. In his second term, he pursued the sectarian agenda that drove many Sunnis into the arms of Islamic State.
Ms. Sky ended up disenchanted with the administration she had once supported: “Biden was a nice man, but he simply had the wrong instincts on Iraq. If only Obama had paid attention to Iraq. . . . But his only interest in Iraq was in ending the war.” By contrast, her respect for the whole U.S. military and in particular for Gen. Odierno—who warned the administration of Mr. Maliki’s authoritarian tendencies—was never higher. He told her, “I gave my best military advice.” She laments: “But he had been ignored.” That is as good an epitaph as any for the American misadventure in Mesopotamia.
Mr. Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
‘Iraq Is Finished’
Tribal leaders reflect on the enemy destroying their country from within.
Emma Sky
The Atlantic
Apr 8 2015
One afternoon this March, during a visit to Jordan, I sat on the banks of the Dead Sea with my Iraqi friend, Azzam Alwash. As we stared across the salt lake and watched the sun disappear behind the rocky crags of Israel, I recounted a trip I had taken to Jordan 20 years earlier to conduct field research on Palestinian refugees, as part of a Middle East peace effort designed to ensure that within a decade nobody in the region considered himself a refugee.
No one had an inkling back then that the numbers of refugees in the region would increase exponentially, with millions of Iraqis and Syrians displaced from their homes by international intervention and civil war. Nor had I imagined at the time that I would find myself in Iraq after the invasion of 2003, initially as a British representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority—the international transitional government that ran the country for about a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein—and then as the political advisor to U.S. Army General Raymond Odierno when he commanded U.S. forces in the country.
A number of the Iraqis I had gotten to know over the last decade had relocated to Jordan. I had gone there to see them and better understand events in the region—and the conditions that had led to the rise of the Islamic State.
* * *
The evening following our Dead Sea visit, Azzam and I went out for Italian food in Amman with a diverse group of our Iraqi friends, Sunni and Shiite, Kurd and Arab. It was a reunion of sorts; some of us had gone white-water rafting down the Little Zaab river in northern Iraq a few years ago. Azzam was an experienced rafter, but even the danger of the rapids had not pressured the group to trust his leadership and work together. There was a lot of shouting and we all got soaked, but somehow we had survived the trip. This, to me, represented Iraq writ large.
The conversation soon turned to Daesh (known as ISIS in the West), and how the group had formed. A common view I’ve heard in the region, propagated by Sunni and Shiite alike, is that Daesh is the creation of the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq or Islamic State before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Therefore, so the twisted reasoning goes, the United States must have deliberately created the group in order to make Sunnis and Shiites fight each other, thereby allowing the U.S to continue dominating the region. Local media had reported on alleged U.S. airdrops to Daesh. Some outlets even referred to Daesh’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an Israeli-trained Mossad agent.
One of my dining companions asked me where I thought the group came from. I responded that Daesh was a symptom of a much larger problem. Regional sectarian conflict was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War and the manner in which the United States had left the country, both of which had empowered Iran and changed the balance of power in the Middle East. In my view, regional competition—of which Iran versus Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension—exacerbated existing fault lines. Those countries’ support for extreme sectarian actors in different countries had now turned local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars. Iran was funding and training Shiite militias, as well as advising regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. Gulf financing had flowed to Sunni fighters, including the ones that ultimately became Daesh. At the same time, there was a symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites in Iraq and terrorists—they justified each other’s existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
Azzam offered another perspective. Daesh, he said, were Muslims, and fundamentalist Salafi Islam was to blame for their existence. The problem, he said, was the literal interpretation of the Quran, which, for example, spelled out harsh criminal punishments reflective of seventh-century practices. Other religions had moved forward and reformed because adherents were willing to interpret texts for their own time. A heated argument broke out as others at the table defended Islam and accused Azzam of being brainwashed by the West. « If we Muslim intellectuals are not self-critical, if we refuse to take responsibility to address the issues, » he responded, « what hope is there for the Middle East? »
* * *
Azzam’s was only one of numerous explanations of Daesh’s origins and power that I heard from Iraqis during my visit to Jordan. All of these explanations contained some truth: There was no one simple reason, but rather a complex set of factors, that had enabled the group to take control of so much of Iraq.
Another explanation came from Sheikh Abdullah al-Yawar, the paramount sheikh of the Shammar tribe, which has around 5 million members in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Last summer, in the wake of the Daesh takeover of Mosul, his mother and brother managed to escape just hours before their palatial 27-room house near Rabiah—northwest of Mosul on the Syrian border—was blown up, his photos and carpets destroyed, his horses scattered to the wilds. It was a house that I knew well and had visited many times. From 2003 onward, Abdullah had decided that he and his family would cooperate with international coalition forces to secure their area, rather than fight against them.
Daesh did not suddenly take control of Mosul last summer, Abdullah told me over dinner with his family at his house in Amman. For years, there had been so much corruption in local government that Daesh had been able to buy influence and supporters. Government in Iraq, he said, was a business—a family business in which politicians in Baghdad and Mosul had stolen millions of dollars worth of the country’s wealth. Daesh had then been able to exploit this situation to take control, presenting itself as a better alternative to corrupt local government.
In Iraq, corrupt elites and terrorists justified each other’s existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
But I had a more basic question: « Who are Daesh? » Many, he told me, had come out of the town of Tal Afar, where there had been bitter fighting between the Sunni and Shiite populations during the civil war. They were former Baathists, members of Saddam Hussein’s party who had been purged from Iraq’s government following the international intervention to oust Hussein. Then, after 2003, some became al-Qaeda, and now they were Daesh. They felt excluded and marginalized. Daesh gave them a sense of empowerment and let them present themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis against Shiites, Iran, and the United States.
In northern Iraq last summer, I had met men with large mustaches—the Baathists’ signature facial hair—who claimed to be spokesmen for insurgent groups and said they were leading a Sunni uprising against then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. I asked Abdullah what had happened to them. He responded that they had been all talk. Some had grown the beards mandated by fundamentalists and joined Daesh. Others had done nothing.
Abdullah and his wife provided me quotation after quotation from the Quran to prove that Daesh violated the tenets of Islam. Personally, I told them, I judge people by how they behave. « When I think of a Muslim, I think of the hospitality shown to me, a foreigner, whenever I travel in the Arab world. » I went on, « Sadly, when I now tell people in the U.S. that I am off on holiday to the Middle East, they worry that I will be kidnapped and have my head chopped off. » I had finished the vine leaves and tabbouleh salad we had been eating, and kebab and chicken were now heaped on my plate. I told them I thought I faced a greater risk of death from overeating.
Abdullah turned serious. « We need more help from America, » he said. « Look at what Iran is doing. Iran is now in Tikrit.” (Iranian military officers were highly visible as advisors to Shiite militias seeking to retake the city.) He went on: « This is a huge humiliation for the Sunnis. This is not the way to destroy Daesh. It will cause a worse reaction in the future. »
* * *
A few days later, Sheikh Ghassan al-Assi of the Obeidi tribe, which has around 700,000 members in Iraq, both Sunni and Shiite, took me to a restaurant in Amman that he said was owned by Christians from Baghdad. When the waiter came to take our order, Ghassan said, with an acerbic wit that I was by now long familiar with: « The Americans and British destroyed our country—but we still invite them to lunch! » He would later pick out the best parts of the barbecued fish and put them on my plate.
I had first met Ghassan in 2003, when he had been highly critical of coalition forces in Iraq. Even so, we had remained friends. He had fled to Amman last summer in the wake of the Daesh blitzkrieg. According to Ghassan, the group had blown up the grave of his father, the paramount sheikh of the Obeidis, and had destroyed the houses of his uncles because they collaborated with Maliki. He had hoped that his house would be left alone, since he had not worked with the United States or the Iraqi government. But the week prior to my visit, Daesh had turned up with C4 explosives and blown the home up. He did not know why. He took out his iPhone. « Bastards, bastards, bastards,” he muttered as he flicked through the photos.
« There is no state left. It is a state of militias. »
Over a cup of tea, Ghassan showed me photos of one of his sons, who was wearing a red-and-white checked scarf, with a goatee, and was posing for the camera like a male model. I was surprised; I had never expected a boy born and bred in Hawija—a rough provincial town—to turn out looking like this. Even in Hawija, it seemed, there were people who just wanted to lead normal lives, to wear the latest fashion. It was Dubai, not Daesh, that represented the sort of society they wanted to live in.
Sheikh Ghassan laughed at my astonishment. « Miss Emma,” he asked me somewhat cryptically, “what is life without love? »
* * *
On my last day in Jordan, Jaber al-Jaberi, another tribal leader who had served Iraq as a member of parliament and had once been a candidate for minister of defense, drove me to Jerash, an ancient city outside Amman. With Daesh destroying Iraq’s archaeological sites, we both wanted to go and see Jordan’s. Jaber, too, had been forced to leave his home in Anbar amid the Daesh advance.
« The Sunnis of Iraq are like the Palestinians, » Jaber said. « We’ve been displaced from our land. » Sunnis had been cleansed from Diyala and areas surrounding Baghdad by Shiite militias, and many more had fled from the provinces of Anbar, Nineva, and Salah al-Din because of Daesh. Jaber himself had given up politics and was now spending his days trying to get food and assistance to tribesmen living in terrible conditions in makeshift accommodation in the desert. The Sunnis, he said, had no real leaders, and the Shiite militias were more powerful than the Iraqi security forces.
« Iraq is finished, » he lamented to me. « There is no state left. It is a state of militias.”
The state of Iraq has indeed failed. It no longer has the legitimacy or the power to extend control over its whole territory, and the power vacuum is being filled by a multitude of non-state actors, increasingly extreme and sectarian, who will likely continue to fight each other for years to come, supported by regional powers. Whether a new kind of order will finally emerge, with more local legitimacy, remains to be seen. And for now those who are displaced are left wondering how long it will be until they are able to return home—and to what.
Still, I refused to believe that terrorists could erase Iraq’s past, and I told Jaber so. The past would survive in archives, in exhibits in the British Museum, on the walls of art galleries in Amman, in poems recited around the world. We were in the land where humans had first experimented with settled agriculture, where the Babylonian king Hammurabi gave some of the first written laws, where Jews had written the Talmud. Jaber, I saw, had tears in his eyes. « Nothing can take this away, Jaber,” I told him. “Nothing. Not these terrible terrorists, not these militias, not these awful politicians. A new generation will come one day that can build on this. The hope is the youth who just want to live their lives. »
EMMA SKY is a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. From 2007 to 2010, she was the political adviser to Ray Odierno (then the commanding general of U.S. Forces in Iraq).Republicans and Democrats each share some of the blame for the situation in Iraq — the former for the way in which the United States entered the country and the latter for the way in which it left. It was only between 2007 and 2009 that the United States had a coherent strategy in Iraq, matched with the right leadership and the necessary resources. The current turmoil dates back to just after that period, to 2010, after Iraq’s second post-Saddam national election.
Republicans and Democrats each share some of the blame for the situation in Iraq — the former for the way in which the United States entered the country and the latter for the way in which it left. It was only between 2007 and 2009 that the United States had a coherent strategy in Iraq, matched with the right leadership and the necessary resources. The current turmoil dates back to just after that period, to 2010, after Iraq’s second post-Saddam national election.
At that time, some senior officials argued that the United States should uphold the constitutionally mandated right of the winning bloc, Iraqiya, headed by Ayad Allawi, to have the first go at trying to form a government. They maintained that the United States should actively help broker an agreement among Iraqi elites to form the new government and warned of the already apparent autocratic tendencies of Nouri al-Maliki, the incumbent prime minister.
Other officials argued that Maliki, despite his narrow electoral defeat, was the only conceivable Shia leader who could hold the position. He was also, they said, a friend of the United States who would agree to allow the United States to maintain a small contingent of forces in Iraq after 2011, when the existing agreement between the two countries expired. In the end, it was Iran that stepped in and, by pressuring the Sadrists to support Maliki, secured him a second premiership. The price Iran extracted from Maliki was his support for the removal of all U.S. forces.
Since 2010, Maliki has consolidated his power by targeting his political rivals, subverting the judiciary and independent government commissions, reneging on his promises to the Sunni tribal leaders who had helped him fight al Qaeda, and politicizing the security forces that the United States invested so much in training. He also mishandled the yearlong protests against his government that erupted in Sunni areas at the end of 2012, following the souring of relations between him and Rafi al-Issawi, the highly respected minister of finance. His forces attacked protesters in Hawija, killing 50. Then, in December 2013, he sent troops into western Anbar to attack the desert camps of a Sunni radical group, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Following the death of the Iraqi general leading the operation, Maliki ordered his troops into the cities of Anbar province to close down all protest sites.
Maliki’s moves seemed to be tactical successes in that they strengthened his regime. But they have been revealed to be strategic disasters, since they provoked a backlash that weakened the state. With the ISIS takeover of cities in the provinces of Anbar, Ninewa, and Salah al-Din, that reality has been made clear. Iraqi security forces, which outnumber ISIS by around a hundred to one, deserted and fled their positions as ISIS advanced; soldiers’ morale was low and a number of senior officers owed their positions to bribes and political affiliation rather than to competence. Sunni tribes, which previously had turned against the forerunner of ISIS, al Qaeda in Iraq, have this time either fled, remained neutral, or backed the militants. Given their sense of disenfranchisement, they do not trust Maliki’s government to provide for them or to protect them. Some have concluded that ISIS is the lesser of two evils. Sunni clerics in Iraq, along with regional media, are now referring to the Sunni « revolt » against Maliki’s government.
ISIS’ victories are a result of internal divides, rising sectarianism, state failure, and geopolitical competition in two neighboring countries. In one of his recent speeches, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, called on Sunni Muslims to join his organization to fight the Shia and establish a caliphate, which would remove the borders between Muslim lands that were demarcated by colonial powers. “Give up corrupt nationalism,” he urged, “and join the nation of Islam.”
But it is not the borders that are the root of the problems of these countries. It is the political leadership, which has failed to develop inclusive and robust states. Grievances against the governments of Maliki and Bashar al-Assad in Syria have created the environment in which ISIS can prosper. And, ironically, although the ISIS has railed against national divisions, the tensions between its international jihadist agenda and the nationalist agendas of most Sunni groups will inevitably create friction and infighting. For now, though, ISIS will find plenty of Sunnis willing to join the fray.
Meanwhile, facing the shock caused by the collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul, Shia have turned to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for guidance. Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to join the security forces in the fight against ISIS. Despite Sistani’s statement that the fatwa was intended for Sunni and Shia civilians alike, Shia militias are using it as an occasion for sectarian mobilization.
In the ongoing turmoil, the Kurds have taken the contested city of Kirkuk and see independence in their sights. U.S. forces invested considerable time and resources in mediating between the different parties in these disputed territories. Without such a neutral third party, the likelihood of Arab-Kurdish conflict is increasing, with ISIS gaining the opportunity to present itself as the protector of the Sunnis against Iranian-backed Shia but also against what they perceive as Kurdish expansionism.
So what can and should the United States do? It is positive that the United States no longer views the violence in Iraq as separate from the bloodshed in Syria and Lebanon. The region has become one battlefield — and U.S. policy must reflect that. It was the 1979 Iranian Revolution that set off the modern-day struggle between Iran and the Sunni powers. And it was the 2003 war in Iraq that led to sectarianization of regional politics. Then it was the 2011 U.S. departure from Iraq that left the impression in the region that Iran had defeated the United States. The United States needs to pursue policies that lessen sectarian tensions and support moderates. The majority of those living in Iraq and Syria yearn to live in peace with just, effective, and transparent governments. The choice before them cannot simply be Iranian-backed exclusionary regimes or al Qaeda–linked affiliates.
Although the United States and Iran face a common threat in ISIS, the United States should cooperate with Iran only if it leads to major reform of Iraq’s political system so as to overcome sectarian divisions. If not, the specter of a perceived alignment between the United States and Iran could worsen sectarianism and push more Sunnis toward ISIS.
The main political tensions in Iraq today are between Maliki’s drive to centralize power, the Kurds’ desire to maximize their autonomy, and the increasing Sunni awareness of themselves as a distinct community. The fall of Mosul and events that followed are indications that these tensions have come to a head and that it is time for Maliki to admit his failures and open the way for a more competent Shia leader to start a new approach. Although Maliki did head the winning bloc in the most recent elections, those opposed to him have enough votes to replace him if they can agree on an alternative. Iraq’s political elites, in particular the Shia parties, need to select a new prime minister who is acceptable to them and to other communities, and is supported by Iran and Turkey as well as the United States.
In his June 19 statement, U.S. President Barack Obama said, « Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future. Shia, Sunni, Kurds — all Iraqis — must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.” Obama is right to pressure Iraqi politicians to form a new government, rather than insisting that they support Maliki. He correctly recognized that any military options would be effective only if they were in support of an overall political strategy that a new broad-based government agreed to. The United States has a key role to play in helping broker a new deal among the elites that creates a better balance among Iraq’s communities. A new broad-based Iraqi government will need to win back the support of Sunnis against ISIS — and the Obama administration should be prepared to respond positively to requests for assistance to do so.
Iraqi Sunnistan?
Why Separatism Could Rip the Country Apart—Again
Emma Sky and Harith al-Qarawee
Foreign Affairs
January 23, 2013
EMMA SKY is a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. From 2007 to 2010, she was the political adviser to Ray Odierno (then the commanding general of U.S. Forces in Iraq). HARITH AL-QARAWEE is an Iraqi political scientist and the author of Imagining the Nation: Nationalism, Sectarianism and Socio-political Conflict in Iraq.
It’s not easy being a prominent Sunni in Iraq these days. This past December, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the arrest of several bodyguards of Rafi al-Issawi, the minister of finance and one of the most influential and respected Sunni leaders in Iraq. In response, tens of thousands of Sunnis took to the streets of Anbar, Mosul, and other predominantly Sunni cities, demanding the end of what they consider government persecution. Issawi has accused Maliki of targeting him as part of a systematic campaign against Sunni leaders, which includes the 2011 indictment of Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni, on terrorism charges. This is not the first time that Maliki has gone after Issawi, either. In 2010, during tense negotiations over the makeup of the government, Maliki accused Issawi of leading a terrorist group — a claim that the U.S. military investigated and found baseless. Not coincidentally, this most recent incident occurred days after President Jalal Talabani, always a dependable moderator in Iraqi politics, was incapacitated by a stroke.
The scale of the ongoing demonstrations reveals the widespread sense of alienation that Sunnis feel in the new Iraq. Prior to 2003, Sunnis rarely identified as members of a religious sect and instead called themselves Iraqi or Arab nationalists. It was the country’s Shia population that claimed to be victims, on account of their persecution by Saddam Hussein.
Today, the roles are reversed. Shia Islamists consolidated power in Baghdad after the toppling of Saddam’s regime, and some — particularly those who were exiled during Baathist rule — now view all Sunnis with suspicion. In turn, many Sunnis take issue with the new political system, which was largely shaped by Shia and Kurdish parties. Today, the Sunni population is mobilizing against the status quo and making sect-specific demands, such as the release of Sunni detainees, an end to the torture of Sunni suspects, and humane treatment of Sunni women in jails. Moreover, demonstrators are calling for the overthrow of the regime, using slogans made popular during the Arab Spring.
Meanwhile, Kurdish leaders identify Maliki as the main problem facing Iraq, and some delegations of Kurds and Shia have travelled to Issawi’s native province of Anbar to express their own distrust of the regime. The top Iraqi Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, has voiced disappointment with Maliki’s government and has called for it to respond to the concerns of the protestors. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of Iraq’s most authentic grassroots Shia movement, the Sadrist Trend, has accused Maliki of provoking the current discontent. Although fear of Maliki’s creeping authoritarianism is pushing his rivals together, growing sectarian tensions may yet rip Iraq apart.
As with other protests in the Arab world, which were initially driven by legitimate local grievances, there is a risk that the current movement will become increasingly sectarian. At political events, some Iraqi Sunni clerics use conciliatory language and emphasize Iraqi fraternity. Others, however, speak passionately about the suffering of the Sunni community at the hands of Maliki’s Shia administration and condemn his ties with Iran.
Since 2008, when Maliki led a harsh crackdown on the Mahdi Army, a Shia militia, the prime minister has tried to present himself as a nationalist leader seeking to unify his country and evenly enforce the rule of law. The rise of Maliki and the popularity he gained with Shia, however, reveal the flaws of Iraq’s new political system, which made state institutions fiefdoms of patronage for sectarian political parties rather than channels for delivering public services. Maliki tried to earn legitimacy beyond just the Shia community, in particular seeking the support of Sunni voters. His confrontation with Massoud Barzani, the president of the semi-independent Iraqi Kurdistan region, over security issues along the disputed border was primarily a move to win the support of the Sunni population there, which is resentful of Kurdish encroachment.
But Maliki has squandered his ability to appeal to the country’s other sects and communities because of his paranoia and ideological bias as a leader of Dawa, the Shia Islamist party. He blames external interference for the current tensions, exploiting images of divisive symbols such as flags of the Saddam era, the Free Syrian Army, and Kurdistan, as well as photos of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And Maliki’s record — his targeting of Sunni politicians, his selective use of law, his influence over the judiciary to ensure rulings in his favor, and his close ties with Iran — confirms that he is prepared to use all means necessary to consolidate power.
Maliki could cling to power by presenting himself as the defender of the Shia in an increasingly tumultuous environment, turning his fear of a regional sectarian conflict into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaeda attacks in Iraq are on the rise, provoked by discontent with Maliki and inspired by the Syrian civil war next door. So far this month, al-Qaeda has killed Shia pilgrims in Karbala, a Sunni lawmaker in Anbar, and Kurds in Kirkuk. Meanwhile, other leaders are struggling to remain relevant. The credibility of Sunni government officials is declining, due to their inability to prevent discrimination against their constituents while participating in a system that brings them personal benefits. In the Shia camp, Sadr is moving to the center, positioning himself as a nationalist leader. If Sadr is able to create an alliance with anti-Maliki Sunnis and Kurds — presenting a credible and unifying alternative government — sectarianism could be curbed. However, Maliki might be provoked by such a challenge and clamp down on his rivals even more aggressively.
Politics in Iraq and the surrounding region are increasingly sectarian. Inspired by the rebellion in Syria and supported by the Sunni leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, Iraq’s Sunnis may seek greater autonomy from the Shia-dominated central government in years to come. This need not be the case: in the 2010 national elections, most Sunnis voted for the Iraqiya electoral list, a coalition that defined itself as nonsectarian and was led by a secular Shia politician. But, given the sectarian turn of Iraqi politics, Sunni leaders seem likely to run on one list with a platform built around Sunni grievances in the 2014 national elections. In addition, more hardline Sunni leaders may emerge if the current politicians prove unable to achieve meaningful gains for their communities. Sunni leaders may also, if they manage to overcome their internal divisions, propose an independent Sunni region, similar to the one enjoyed by the Kurds. This would mark the end of Iraqi nationalism and put the survival of the state in question.
Maliki’s efforts to destroy his rivals have drawn him closer to Shia Iran, which has in turn affected regional power dynamics. To counter Iran’s influence, Turkey is now posing as the defender not only of Iraq’s Sunnis but also of its Kurds, even though Turkey has long feared Kurdish nationalism within its own borders. Saudi Arabia, despite its usual counterrevolutionary attitude, is supporting the rebels in Syria in hopes of replacing the Shia-Alawite regime with a Sunni government and undoing the pro-Shia axis that now runs through Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
It is up to Iraq’s politicians, then, to overcome their differences and construct a national platform that addresses the country’s challenges. Any such settlement will require making concessions regarding regional autonomy, internal border disputes, the management and distribution of oil profits, and Baghdad’s foreign policy orientation. Unfortunately, given mutual distrust, the personalization of disputes, and the upcoming electoral season, such compromises do not seem likely — particularly if Maliki insists on remaining in power indefinitely.
The American public is no doubt fatigued by the recent decades of involvement in the country and the region. But to avoid disaster, the United States urgently needs to review its Iraq policy. Washington needs to show the Iraqi people that its intent is not to divide Iraq and keep it weak — even if that appears to have been a main outcome of the U.S. intervention. U.S. President Barack Obama succeeded in keeping his campaign promise of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. In its second term, the Obama administration should stop supporting a status quo that is driving Iraq toward both authoritarianism and fragmentation. The United States should make clear that it neither condones nor supports the prime minister’s consolidation of power and blatant use of the Iraqi Security Forces — which the United States helped train and equip — to crack down on political opposition. Washington should make its aid to Maliki — or any other Iraqi leader — conditional on his behaving within democratic norms.
In addition, Washington should support Iraqi Shia’s attempts to select a new prime minister and should help facilitate a pact among the country’s elites in order to turn Iraq into a buffer rather than a battlefield state in the volatile region. U.S. engagement in the Middle East should seek to restrain external actors from interfering in Iraq and waging a proxy war there. Washington needs to contain Iran, but should make clear that it is not aligned with Sunnis in a regional sectarian war against Shia. This will require pushing back on Iranian influence in Iraq and simultaneously putting greater pressure on Sunni allies in the region to respect and protect their Shia populations. The United States has invested too much in Iraq to simply ignore these warning signs. Washington should use its diplomatic clout to help prevent further bloodshed.
UPDATE 1-Saudi Arabia, South Korea sign MOU on nuclear power
(Reuters) – Saudi Arabia and South Korea have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to cooperate on the development of nuclear energy, Saudi state news agency SPA said, building on a deal signed in 2011.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye met with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Tuesday in Riyadh during an official visit, SPA said.
The MOU calls for South Korean firms to help build at least two small-to-medium sized nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia, the South Korean presidential office said in a statement.
« If the two units go ahead, the cost of the contract will be (near) $2 billion, » the statement said.
Saudi Arabia aims to build 17 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power by 2032 as well as around 41 GW of solar capacity. The oil exporter currently has no nuclear power.
Those plans are likely to take until 2040, the head of the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (K.A.CARE), in charge of overseeing such projects, said in January.
On Tuesday, K.A.Care said in a statement: « The two sides will discuss the current mutual activities and ways and means of future collaboration, building on the bilateral agreement already signed between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of South Korea in 2011 with a view to develop and apply nuclear energy for peaceful uses. »
That agreement called for cooperation in research and development, as well as in construction and training.
Separately, Saudi Electricity signed four energy-related agreements on Tuesday with U.S. company General Electric as well as South Korea’s Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) , Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction and Eximbank.
The KEPCO agreement calls for cooperation in development of nuclear and renewable energy.
Al Hassan Ghazi Ibrahim Shaker Co. also signed a non-binding MOU with South Korea’s LG Electronics on cooperation in cooling systems for nuclear reactors.
The United Arab Emirates was the first Gulf Arab state to start building a nuclear power plant. In December 2009, the UAE awarded a group led by KEPCO a contract to build four 1,400 MW nuclear reactors to meet surging demand for electricity.
(Reporting by Reem Shamseddine and Brian Kim; editing by Rania El Gamal and Jason Neely)
Turkey held a ground-breaking ceremony for the construction of parts of its first nuclear reactor, sparking an angry protest by activists.
Activists say Tuesday’s ceremony came despite ongoing court cases against the nuclear plant being built by Russia in Akkuyu, in the Mediterranean coastal province of Mersin.
Protesters blocked a gate leading to the ceremony area, briefly preventing officials from leaving the site. Security forces pushed the activists back with water cannons.
Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said the plant was designed to withstand powerful earthquakes, adding: « There cannot be a developed Turkey without nuclear energy. »
Turkey has chosen a French-Japanese consortium to build the country’s second nuclear plant on the Black Sea coast and also has plans to build a third to reduce the nation’s energy dependence.
The British woman who became adviser to America’s most senior general in Iraq has given an insider’s account of the way the US radically changed tactics to try to stem the violence from 2007 and why military commanders started dealing with insurgents who « had blood on their hands ».
Emma Sky, 44, said she feared Iraq was in danger of becoming « the biggest strategic failure in the history of the US ». She also worried the « surge » strategy, which involved another 20,000 US troops being sent to Baghdad, might make the situation worse.
« There was so much violence that it was almost too big to comprehend. Everything had just escalated and escalated. There were occasions when I doubted whether we were ever going to break the back of it, and whether we should call it quits, » she said.
Speaking in detail for the first time about this most turbulent of periods, Sky also describes how:
• Barack Obama’s first trip to Iraq in 2009 almost turned into a diplomatic fiasco.
• She went on secret night trips into some of Baghdad’s most dangerous areas to try to gather information about the strength of the insurgency.
• She became a hostage negotiator to stop a spate of kidnaps escalating into an international crisis involving the Kurds.
Advertisement
Sky was political adviser to General Ray Odierno, who was commander of all US forces in Iraq, and was also in charge of implementing the overarching « surge » strategy devised by General David Petraeus.
A British liberal who had been against the war in Iraq, she was taken on by the Americans because they respected her judgment and advice, even when it ran directly counter to their own.
Sky spent more than four years in Iraq, and was recruited by Odierno to help him implement the « surge » in 2007. She said the military realised it could not win with might alone, and had to start reaching out to groups that had been waging violence against it.
« I had confidence in our analysis. But I was not sure the strategy would work. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because I worried the situation in Iraq was so out of control our extra forces might only exacerbate the violence, not lessen it, » she said.
« There was so much violence that it was almost too big to comprehend. The military has a language that is not accidental, it is used to quarantine emotion. Every day we would hear reports that another 60 or 70 bodies had turned up, heads chopped off or drilled through. It was absolutely horrific. We could tell which groups had been behind the attacks by the way the victims had been killed. »
In the face of this, Sky said, Odierno challenged his soldiers to « understand the causes of instability, to understand the ‘why’ not just describe the ‘what’.
« It meant we would have to start dealing with people we had been fighting and for any commander that is a very difficult thing to do. We couldn’t afford to say: ‘We’ll only deal with people as long as they haven’t got blood on their hands.’ We’ve all got blood on our hands. »
Six months into the campaign, Sky said, things began to change.
« By July we started to feel things were changing. We heard it first from the battalions who described how more and more Iraqis were coming forward to give information about ‘bad guys’, and how insurgents were reaching out to do deals. There were ceasefires everywhere, local agreements, because more and more Iraqis were coming forward wanting to work with us. The intelligence we were getting improved, and the number of Iraqi casualties started to go down. »
When Obama made his first visit to Iraq, a scheduled meeting with the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, had to be abandoned because White House security staff refused to let the president fly from the American base outside Baghdad to the Green Zone because of bad weather.
Senior Iraqi politicians had always avoided the US base, called Camp Victory, because it was regarded as the seat of the occupation.
With a diplomatic standoff looming, Sky was sent to the Green Zone to see if Maliki could be persuaded to travel by car to meet Obama at the US headquarters.
Maliki was asleep when she arrived.
« So I go over to see the prime minister, who is having his afternoon siesta. I had to wake him up. I said: ‘I am terribly sorry but President Obama cannot come to Green Zone because of the weather and I hate, hate to ask of you, is there any chance you can come to Camp Victory?’ Obama was new. Everyone was excited about him, and Maliki agreed. And if Maliki agreed, then the others would probably come too. »
On the face of it, Emma Sky was not an obvious candidate to send to Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the war. She had never been to the country before, and had opposed the coalition’s invasion. She had only been to the US once and was instinctively suspicious of the military, perhaps especially the US military.
Yet on Friday, 20 June 2003 , two months after the war began, Sky boarded a flight from RAF Brize Norton, the only woman among 200 soldiers, and headed into the 50C heat and post-conflict chaos of Basra, the city in the south where the British were based.
Two weeks earlier she had been working as an international development adviser for the British Council in Manchester; now she found herself in charge of one of the most volatile regions in Iraq. The journey from north-west England to north-east Iraq owed a lot to fortune, her determination, and some barely scriptable coincidences. But Sky is the first to concede the random nature of her appointment reflected much broader failures in planning and strategy that would ultimately draw the country into a civil war.
Into the breach
Nobody’s ingenue, Sky was certainly used to operating in difficult environments; an Arabist, she had spent 10 years working in Gaza and the West Bank before returning to the UK with the British Council to advise countries in Africa, Asia and south America, on issues such as human rights and governance. When the Foreign Office asked for volunteers to go to Iraq to help with the reconstruction effort, a friend in the civil service prompted Sky to apply.
« I was against the war and I had this idea that I was going to go out to Iraq and apologise to the Iraqis for the invasion, and everything they had experienced, and I would do whatever I could to help them get back on their feet. » A few days and one short phone call later, Sky was told to report to the military air base in Oxfordshire. The Foreign Office did not give her a formal interview or briefing before she left, and she was given no detailed instructions about what to do when she landed. « I had a phone call from someone in the Foreign Office. It wasn’t a long conversation. They said ‘you’ve spent a lot of time in the Middle East, you’ll be fine’. I was told that there would be someone at the airport waiting for me, carrying a card with my name. When I got to Basra, there was nobody there, and nobody seemed to know I was coming. »
After a sleepless night on the floor in a corridor at Basra airport, Sky hitched a lift on a US Hercules transport plane to Baghdad, and then a military bus into the Republican Palace in the Green Zone. This had become the headquarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) which was supposed to be restoring order to the country.
She tracked down and introduced herself to Sir John Sawers, who was the UK’s special envoy to Iraq, (and is now head of MI6) and spent a week helping out until a proper role was found for her. Life inside the palace was bizarre. « Stately rooms had become dormitories reminiscent of wartime hospitals. At times we showered in mineral water and some days even the floors were washed with mineral water. »
Their dirty laundry was flown to Kuwait for cleaning, and engineers spent days trying to decapitate the four giant heads of Saddam Hussein, which leered from the palace ceilings. Sky says she adapted more easily than most, thanks to her « years at an all boys’ English boarding school that had honed a wide range of survival instincts which proved most useful in the jungle ».
A few days after arriving, she decided to escape into downtown Baghdad on her own – the kind of trip that was already strictly forbidden. She found herself chatting to a man selling cigarettes from a trolley. « I talked to him, he was in his 50s. He said to me ‘it’s a Hobbesian world’. And I was thinking, how does he know about Hobbes? He was referring to all the looting. Iraqis were taking revenge on the state that had controlled their lives for so long. » From the start nothing was quite as it seemed.
Under the leadership of the US diplomat Paul Bremer, the CPA was tasked with reforming and reconstructing the country; but it was always going to struggle, especially in the regions away from Baghdad, where it had fewer people.
Sky was told to fly to northern Iraq because the CPA was short of staff in Erbil, but when she arrived, the posts were already filled, and she was directed to Kirkuk. « They said, ‘we’ve nobody in Kirkuk, so go there’. »
On the border of the autonomous Kurdish area, and 150 miles north of Baghdad, Kirkuk is an ancient, oil-rich city, with tribal rivalries that date back to the Ottoman Empire.
And so this 35-year-old Oxford graduate who had almost fallen out of the Black Hawk helicopter that took her to the city for the first time (« I couldn’t get my harness on and I couldn’t understand why they’d left the door open ») became the governate co-ordinator of this restive area. She reported directly to ambassador Bremer.
In the days before she took up her new post, he invited her to join him on a short tour of the north, which included dinner with the Kurdish leader, Masoud Barzani, in the town of Sari Rash. During the meal, Bremer spoke about America’s 4 July Independence Day, which was the next day, and then he turned to Sky for a comment. « I managed to say something about wishing all our former colonies the same success as America. I wondered, how on Earth have I got here? How on Earth had someone like me, a British liberal, become part of a US-led invasion that I had opposed? »
Welcome to Kirkuk
From the airport in Kirkuk, Sky was taken to modern villa near the centre of the city, a base she was supposed to share with a group of American contractors and engineers. But within days, this idea looked a trifle optimistic, as did any notion that a new Iraq would emerge easily from the shadow of the old.
« We received intelligence that the house might be targeted, » said Sky. « We had to turn the lights out at dusk and we slept fully clothed away from the windows. On my fifth night, five mortars were fired at the house. The noise was deafening and seemed to be coming from all sides. We were under attack. I struggled into my body armour and ran down to the safest part of the building where the others were already huddled. We sat in the darkness for what seemed like hours. »
Most of the staff abandoned the villa the following day, but Sky decided to stay. Two nights later, the house was attacked again by gunmen who appeared determined to storm the building. « I woke to the sound of automatic gunfire followed by massive explosions. Dust poured in through the sandbags. I curled up in a ball in bed with my hands over my ears, paralysed by the sound. The attack lasted half an hour … it was only when it was over that I discovered that four rocket propelled grenades had been fired at the house, and one had entered a couple of metres from my bed. »
The private security guards who tried to defend the house believed it was too vulnerable, so Sky accepted the offer of a bunk on the airfield in a US airforce tent, which she shared with seven men. This required her to become expert in the military’s « three-minute showers (30 seconds to soap, two and a half minutes to rinse).
Narrowly avoiding death within her first week was an inauspicious start to her governorship, and the task ahead remained unclear. This was underlined to her a few days later when Sawers arrived in Kirkuk on his farewell tour of the country. He invited Sky to join his entourage, and during the trip, she sought his advice. « His parting advice to me was to become a trusted partner to all groups and to get to know the Turkmen, » she said. « And that, in essence, was as far as guidance from CPA went in the early months. »
With few staff of her own, no orders from Baghdad, and reliant on the US military for protection, Sky concluded there was only one way to get anything done. She would have to work with the 3,500 soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade who were based on the outskirts of the city.
« I was a British civilian volunteer who had arrived accidentally in Kirkuk. I looked around and decided to work closely with the military. They were the ones with the power, with the resources, with the bureaucracy. I could spend all my time watching what they do and reporting back on all their mistakes, or I could look at how to work with them. So I rolled up my sleeves, knuckled down. I learned the rank structure, the handshakes, the jokes, the code. »
Sky did this with some trepidation – she had never worked with the military before – and some of those she spoke to at first did their best to confirm her fears. One American officer told her working in Iraq was « like being on Planet of the Apes ». And she heard soldiers referring to Iraqis as « haji », which is an honorific in Arabic, but was being used in a derogatory way, as a racial slur. Some mocked the Iraqi people for living in mud huts, wearing « man dresses » and giving « man kisses ».
« They had come into contact with an ancient civilisation with people who knew their lineage back through centuries, who had survived under the harshest of dictatorships. They did not understand the people they were dealing with. » Sometimes offence was caused unwittingly. In one effort to foster relations with community leaders, the US air force invited a group of dignitaries to a military entertainment show. The « tops and stripes » evening included a mildly racy dance involving women flipping up their skirts. The guests walked out, quickly followed by Sky, who assured them that no offence had been intended.
Abu Ghraib
Iraqi inmates line up for a body search in Abu Ghraib prison: the detention of young men and evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib radicalised many Iraqis. Photograph: John Moore/AP
Sky set about learning the history of Kirkuk and ventured out into the city, in her soft-topped car, to speak to people about their problems. The military seemed genuinely perplexed that Iraqis seemed so hostile. « The brigade viewed themselves as liberators and were angry that Iraqis were not more grateful. One of the questions put to me was, ‘what do we need to do to be loved?’ I told them that people who invaded other peoples’ countries, and killed people who were no threat to them, would never be loved. I said that after the first Gulf war which killed 100,000 Iraqis, a decade of sanctions with the devastating effects on health, education and economy, and the humiliating defeat of the second Gulf war, I could well understand why Iraqis were shooting at us. »
Sky found an unlikely kindred spirit in Colonel William Mayville, the brigade commander with a cowboy swagger. They shared the same goal – to help Kirkuk get on its feet so the military could withdraw. And he also believed – wrongly – her presence heralded the arrival of an army of civilians that would enable his brigade to go home. One of the US military’s rising stars, Mayville loved listening to opera and had a team of highly educated officers – all of which came as a surprise to Sky. As did their willingness to listen to this opinionated Englishwoman who had appeared in their midst.
The restless natives
Sky was included in all classified « battle update briefs » about security operations, and discussions about what the military should be doing next. When she arrived in Kirkuk, the military was running everything in the city. But that was part of the problem. Sky said success should be defined as Kirkukis running their own affairs: the job of the coalition was not to do it for them, but to help them do it themselves.
She and Mayville formed « team government » – a military and civilian partnership, developing ideas that were later reflected in America’s new counter-insurgency strategy. They established the Kirkuk Development Commission to kickstart the local economy. And they also encouraged Iraqis to register any complaints they had about the coalition, including damage done to property during raids.
The two shared an office on the first floor of an old government building in the city centre. « Every day, there were long queues outside our door, with Kirkukis wanting to tell us about weapons of mass destruction or sightings of Saddam. Others were asking for jobs or complaining about services. It was madness, » said Sky.
Among the myriad issues were two that were intertwined; the property claims of 250,000 Kurds who had been expelled from their homes in the city during the 1970s – when Saddam Hussein set out to « arabise » Kirkuk by moving hundreds of families there from the south. The second issue was whether Kirkuk should secede from Iraq and become part of the Kurdish enclave in the north.
Sky urged the CPA to give Kirkuk special status because of its unique make-up; she met the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, and the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, when they made flying visits to the city. She argued Kirkuk needed to be exempted from the rush to Iraqi governance the CPA was demanding in other areas. On 19 September 2003, Sky was summoned to a meeting in Baghdad with Bremer and his deputy, the British diplomat Sir Jeremy Greenstock.
Her idea, she says, « was torpedoed » because of concerns that a precedent might be set. Bremer promised Sky that Kirkuk would be treated as a priority – but it wasn’t, because there were so many other priorities.
Sky didn’t find any mourning for Saddam, but she sensed growing anger about decisions taken in Baghdad that had dire consequences on the ground. « I had arrived ready to apologise to every Iraqi for the war. Instead I had listened to a litany of suffering and pain under Saddam for which I was quite unprepared. The mass graves, the details of torture, the bureaucratisation of abuse. The pure banality of evil. But the Iraqis also had huge expectations of the US. After every war Saddam rebuilt the country in six months, so their attitude was, ‘imagine what the US can do after six months. America can put a man on the moon … you wait’. »
Sky admits the CPA simply could not meet these expectations and no amount of hard work from many experienced British and American volunteers could make up for the lack of planning before the invasion. It left the CPA – which was assembled in haste and from scratch – attempting to restore public services, disband the security forces and build new ones, as well as introduce a free market and democracy. « No organisation would have been able to implement such an agenda, particularly without the consent of the population. Those in Baghdad struggled to cope with the daily crises, whilst those in the provinces were often left to their own devices. Some Americans believed Iraq could become a democracy that would serve as a model for the region. Most Iraqis had not consented to this experiment, or to being occupied by foreign forces. »
Driven on by « zealous Iraqi exiles who had no proper constituency », Sky says some senior members of the CPA and the US government seemed to see Iraq as « an experiment, an incubator for bringing in democracy ».
One of the most contentious CPA orders involved the « de-Ba’athification » of society. This demanded that any member of Saddam’s Ba’ath party at grade four level and above should be dismissed, regardless of whether there was any evidence of actual complicity in crimes. Thousands of professional people in Kirkuk lost their jobs at a stroke – including teachers and doctors.
« Demonising the Ba’ath party to this degree was dangerous, » said Sky. « The whole process hit us very, very hard. It did not affect all communities evenly. Some Sunni areas ended up with no doctors in their hospitals and no teachers in their schools. What did the coalition really know about Iraq? Nothing. De-Ba’athification was based on de-Nazification. It didn’t bring catharsis, or justice. It became highly politicised and brought more and more anger. Everybody who had stayed in Iraq had, in order to survive, become complicit to some way with the regime. But instead of saying we have all suffered, and let’s talk about how we deal with the past, this pitted people against each other. De-Ba’athification became a witch-hunt. I don’t think any society could have withstood what we did to it in terms of disbanding the security forces and sacking its civil servants. »
Sky said the brigade started to become « contemptuous of the CPA and its lack of clear policies and obstruction of their work. Their experiences of Iraq led the military to regard most civilians and their agencies as largely incompetent and impotent ».
A fresh insurgency
Sky realised many local Sunni Arabs were joining an emerging insurgency because they felt excluded from the Shia-led Iraq. « Iraqis felt humiliated by the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Right from the outset, there was resistance from former regime members as well as foreign fighters who entered the country to fight jihad. But it was the de-Ba’athication and dissolving of the military that led many Sunnis to believe that there was no future for them and to oppose the coalition as well as the Iraqi leaders they had put in power. »
The US commander in overall charge of the Kirkuk region, Major General Ray Odierno, issued an amnesty to teachers and doctors caught up in de-Ba’athification in an attempt to defuse the issue. But Baghdad controlled the payroll and cut them off.
A mix of resentments and fears fuelled violence to a level nobody had foreseen. « The US military was not trained or prepared to deal with such a situation and they met violence with violence. There were continuous raids and mass round-ups of military-aged males. There were no suitable facilities to hold the detainees, nor systems to process them, and many became radicalised in detention. » Worst of all, she says, was the evidence that US soldiers were abusing detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
Kirkuk did not escape the bloodshed, and its victims included community leaders Sky had encouraged to help her shape the city’s new landscape. « I had worked in places overseas for a long time, but I had not worked with people who had been killed, or had been killed because of their relationship with me. I spent a lot of time with the provincial council and about a quarter of the people on council were killed. There was always that sense that we had come into their lives and said, ‘who is going to stand up and serve their province?’, and they had come forward, and some of them had been killed. If we had never come into their lives that would never have happened. Some were killed because they stood forward to join the council, some were killed because they were seen as close to the coalition. I can still see their faces, I remember going to their funerals, speaking to their kids. »
By February 2004, Sky had returned to work at the CPA’s headquarters in Baghdad, where life had become even more stressful for its staff. The number of attacks on the Green Zone had reached such a level that people had stopped running to the shelters when the siren sounded – and the siren didn’t always sound.
Beyond the wire and thick bomb-resistant walls, fliers were appearing all over the capital denouncing the occupation. « Everyone was working incredibly hard but I wasn’t convinced we knew who we were fighting, or why they were fighting. » One man who knew that Sky brought a different perspective on Iraq was Odierno, who had a fearsome reputation as an « old school » soldier.
He had watched Sky reaching out to people in Kirkuk and liked the way she worked with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. In almost all respects, Sky and Odierno were different; she is diminutive, precise and controlled. Shaven-headed and muscular, Odierno is a giant, whose military call sign was Iron Horse. He and Sky developed a rapport that became as important as it was unlikely. « Odierno never questioned why one of his commanders had brought in a British civilian woman into an American brigade. I found him honest, straightforward and direct. Whenever he arrived in Kirkuk, we felt a huge sense of relief. He always gave us support and asked how he could help. And he always asked my opinion about why the violence was happening. I think he recognised the solutions were not simply military ones. »
When Odierno returned to Iraq two and a half years later to lead US forces during « the surge », the general decided he needed more than military might to stop Iraq’s vicious civil war. He asked Sky to join his team.
Emma Sky was at her home in Wandsworth, south-west London in September 2006, when she received an email from a friend in the US. At first she tried to ignore it. But Sky knew she wouldn’t refuse him his unusual request.
The author was General Raymond T Odierno, one of the US army’s most senior officers. He was about to return to Iraq to head « Phantom Corps » in a last ditch attempt to stop violence tearing the country apart.
And he wanted Sky to go with him as his political adviser.
« I hadn’t been in Iraq for two years and had just done a six-month tour in Afghanistan, so the email came as something of a surprise. When he asked me to return I was flattered. I also felt that if anyone could make a difference in Iraq it was Odierno. The general is a good listener, he doesn’t think he knows the whole truth, he is intellectually curious. He is prepared to take in ideas, and then make decisions. That’s why I was prepared to return at the worst of times. »
The presence of a British woman at his side would prove controversial and unpopular in some quarters, particularly at the US state department, but the stakes were high and Odierno was evidently prepared to take a risk.
The general had been criticised for his aggressive approach to security in the months after the invasion, though Sky says he took the blame for circumstances beyond his control, and she did not find him to be « some brutal unthinking monster who suddenly had a complete change of personality ».
Sky believed he wanted her to help challenge the army’s punch first instincts, raise with him things he might not want to hear, as well as offer advice he couldn’t get « in-house ». « He didn’t want me to comply and he didn’t pigeonhole me. »
The situation in Iraq at the time was desperate. The violence in Iraq had morphed from an insurgency into sectarian conflict. The al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had provoked a civil war between Sunni and Shias that would take the country close to collapse.
In 2006, 16,564 Iraqi civilians died, including 3,389 in September, the highest amount for any month during the conflict. Coalition casualties were also high; 873 troops were killed that year, 823 of them American. Inevitably, political support for continuing the military campaign was ebbing away in Washington and London.
Nevertheless, the US president George Bush was poised to disregard the advice of some of his closest advisers – and most commentators too – to announce he was sending an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq, most of them into the cauldron of Baghdad.
The surge was a gamble. It seemed then, and with hindsight remains, an astonishing risk taken by a president who had stopped believing those people who said the violence was being provoked solely by the presence of US forces.
With thousands of extra troops heading for Iraq, Odierno set up headquarters in the vast US military base outside Baghdad near the airport, the unfortunately named Camp Victory.
Sky was given her own basic accommodation and was expected to accompany the general everywhere he went.
Emma Sky became a core member of General Odierno’s team and went everywhere he went. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian Linda Nylind/Guardian
She became a core member of Odierno’s handpicked team, which included of some of the best officers in the military, all of them Iraq veterans.
Specifically, Odierno wanted Sky to help him work out an operational plan. A process, she said, that could only begin with a brutal acknowledgment of previous tactics.
« During one of our first discussions, I told him that the situation in Iraq was a disaster and perhaps the biggest strategic failure in the history of the US, » said Sky.
« His response was, ‘what are we going to do about it? We cannot leave it like this’. There was no denial about the extent of the problem. »
« We spent many hours discussing the depth of the problem and what needed to be done. Sometimes it was just me and him, at the end of the day, sitting at Camp Victory on his balcony, and he’s smoking cigars. Sometimes we are at his office and he’s brought in a small team of people. But every day we would be up late talking about why people are using violence. »
« There was a power struggle going on at every level, a communal struggle for power and resources. I knew from my time in Kirkuk that politics drives this kind of instability, and that politics needs to be managed to bring down violence. I believed Iraqis were using violence to achieve political goals. We had to stop stigmatising these people. We had to stop calling these people the enemy. We needed to identify all the different the groups and ask, ‘why are they fighting? What are the drivers of instability?' »
Implementing Fardh al-Qanoon
The overall strategy was masterminded by General David Petraeus, who had spent months in the US developing a new counter-insurgency doctrine.
In February 2007, he arrived in Baghdad to assume command of all coalition forces in Iraq, and reviewed the plans drawn up by Odierno’s team about where and how the extra troops should be deployed.
« The operational details for the surge were left to General Odierno, » said Sky.
An important part of the new campaign involved separating the people who might be persuaded to abandon violence, the so-called « reconcilables », from those who were not. The former would not be targeted by Special Forces operations, the latter could be.
The men in charge of this were General Petraeus’ deputy, Graeme Lamb, a former director of UK special forces, and the American General Stanley McChrystal.
« The irreconcilables were those people who essentially believed that you have to destroy the nation-state to build the caliphate. But you have to be really careful deciding who can be won over, and who can’t. It meant we would have to start dealing with people we had been fighting and for any commander that is a very difficult thing to do. We couldn’t afford to say ‘we’ll only deal with people as long as they haven’t got blood on their hands’. We’ve all got blood on our hands, » Sky says.
Referring to where he was going to put the « wedge », and who could be put in his « squeeze box », Lamb drew up « Restricted Target Lists » – the names and details of those Iraqis that could not be targeted in operations because they were talking to the military. McChrystal dealt with those who refused to compromise.
Once Odierno’s plans had been endorsed by Petraeus, he and Sergeant Major Neil Ciotola travelled the length and breadth of Iraq to visit the troops and explain the new tactics. Sky was always at Odierno’s side.
The campaign was given an Arabic name, Fardh al-Qanoon – imposing the law. As an important first step, US troops began to move out of their bases to live among the local population.
And they had to do two things which were fundamentally counter-intuitive; prioritise protecting the population rather than trying to defeat the enemy; secondly, reach out to the armed groups which were killing civilians and soldiers.
« The general challenged his soldiers to understand the causes of instability, to understand the ‘why’ not just describe the ‘what’. » He would tell the soldiers, ‘the average Iraqi is just like you and me, they want to have their breakfast, take their kids to school and go to work. They are good people they are not our enemy’. People were using violence to achieve political objectives, so we had to create a process where they could achieve their objectives without violence. I had confidence in our analysis. But I was not sure the strategy would work. Not because I thought it was wrong, but because I worried the situation in Iraq was so out of control our extra forces might only exacerbate the violence, not lessen it. »
In those first months, there were few signs of progress and there was violence everywhere they went.
« You can hear it, you can smell it, it is all around. We would go to the hospitals to visit the wounded. We would attend memorial and ramp services for the dead. Every day, the general would be slipped a note with details of casualties which went up and up. We lost over a hundred soldiers a month in April, May and June 2007. In the past, I had been a spectator, an observer. I had never been involved in the decision-making to send our soldiers somewhere. It’s not like being a politician sitting in London. We were living among these men. People I knew died out there, and I am asking myself, ‘what have we sent them out to die for?’
« For weeks and weeks this went on. And every day, the general would talk to commanders and troops, explain the strategy, listen to their concerns, boost their morale. He would tell them that he knew it was so tough in this gruelling heat to put on body armour and go out day after day on raids. And the general continued telling them that they were making a difference, and all the little tactical successes were helping the strategy. »
Sky said she never felt in danger herself, though with hindsight, she accepts her confidence may have been misplaced.
« We were on our way to Mosul when our plane got shot at and we started to take evasive action. Then the door at the back of the plane fell open and we had to get it closed, and on the ground there was shooting, and when we got in a vehicle and it was hit by an IED. But I never had a sense that I was going to die, and I was sure the General could not die. I thought, this is not where the story ends. »
Sky said she found many of the daily security briefings distressing.
« We’d have power point presentations with pictures of men who’ve had half their brains blown out. Some things you never forget … the smell of burning bodies. I didn’t want to learn to cope with these images. The military talk about KIAs (killed in action). That’s how they cope. They don’t say, the victims were women and children. There was so much violence that it was almost too big to comprehend. The military has a language that is not accidental, it is used to quarantine emotion. Everyday we would hear reports that another 60 or 70 bodies had turned up, heads chopped off or drilled through. It was absolutely horrific. We could tell which groups had been behind the attacks by the way the victims had been killed. »
« It can be very lonely being in command and the general appreciated having a confidante. As commander you have to show leadership, you can’t show you have doubts, you have to be strong. But I was a civilian outside the chain of command who could say ‘how are you feeling, are you alright, has it been a bad day? We were not peers and he was always in charge. But I could be more of a friend to him. »
The awakening
Within two months of the launch of the new campaign, al-Qaida militants had claimed responsibility for an audacious suicide bomb attack on the Iraqi parliament in the heart of the fortified Green Zone; two of the bridges in the capital were also hit by truck bombs. These « spectaculars » inevitably raised further doubts about the surge among Iraqi politicians and, privately, among military commanders.
But these incidents proved to be the high-water mark. « When the insurgents blew up the parliament, everyone in Iraq was probably thinking ‘this isn’t going to work’. Of course there were nights when I thought, we are bringing more violence and it is causing more violence, but is it actually going to break the violence. Everything had just escalated and escalated … there were occasions when I doubted whether we were ever going to break the back of it, and whether we should call it quits.
« But by July we started to feel things were changing. We heard it first from the battalions who described how more and more Iraqis were coming forward to give information about ‘bad guys’, and how insurgents were reaching out to do deals. There were ceasefires everywhere, local agreements, because more and more Iraqis were coming forward wanting to work with us. The intelligence we were getting improved, and the number of Iraqi casualties started to go down. »
Separately, the « awakening » in Anbar, which had begun a year earlier, began to have its own important effect. Anbar had been the most violent of all Iraq’s provinces, a place where Sunni tribal leaders had joined forces with al-Qaida to fight American forces. That was until those same tribal chiefs began to see al-Qaida as a greater threat to them, and turned to the US military for help to drive the insurgents out of the region.
This process had begun before the surge, but the Fardh al-Qanoon programme put the US in a better position to work with, and build trust between, sheiks who had spent the previous four years waging vicious conflict against American forces.
« The Sunnis could see we were trying to push back on the Shia extremists, and I think that had a huge affect, » said Sky. « With the awakening happening and spreading, it created the environment for the Sunnis to come back into society. This started before the surge when the Anbaris became sick of al-Qaida. In that wonderful way people in the region can switch alliances, they just changed side. One minute they are wearing al-Qaida patches on their sleeves, and the next they are taking them off and calling themselves ‘Sahwa’ (Awakening). They saw they could get American help, and they regarded Iran, and the Shia militias it supported, as the bigger threat, and decided to align with the US to fight them. »
Talking to Bassima
While tentative progress was being made out on the ground by the military, Sky was tasked with talking to the Iraqi government and assuaging some of their fears.
One unexpected consequence of the campaign was that Shia leaders had begun to worry that through the ever-increasing awakening the US was creating a Sunni army that would eventually overthrow them.
Sky decided to approach Dr Bassima al-Jaidri, the military adviser of the Shia prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Al-Jaidra was remarkable in many ways. She was a young Shia, in her late 30s. She had been a rocket engineer. And she was tough. Sky admits that some in the military suspected she was a « leader of the Shia death squads across Baghdad ». Such criticism didn’t seem to faze her at all.
When she was denounced by the US for her unwillingness to include Sunnis in the higher echelons of the new Iraqi security forces, she said: « I have had a long struggle with men … I can handle the American officers. »
Over the summer and autumn, Sky made regular helicopter trips into the Green Zone to speak to Al-Jaidra, who was known for wearing the striking combination of stiletto heels and a veil.
The meetings would take place in her office which was part of the prime minister’s office.
« I thought, I cannot go to speak to Maliki directly, so the best way to influence him is through Bassima. I think it would be fair to say she is not an easy woman. I would try to explain to her what we were doing and why.
« The Iraqi government could not accept some of the people we were doing deals with. To them they were bad Ba’athists, terrorists, and the awakening was creating a militia which could be a danger to the state.
« They were so suspicious of our motives … and they could not believe that the US had gone into Iraq without a grand plan. They assumed that this was all part of a conspiracy by the US to purposefully destroy Iraq, keep it weak and humiliate its people. I tried to get her to understand our position and how we had got there, and vice-versa. »
To encourage Iraqi government support for the awakening, Odierno had been relaying to the prime minister « good news » stories he had received from his commanders about the Sons of Iraq, the term the US used to described the awakening.
« But Maliki was only hearing bad news from his people on the ground. He therefore assumed the US was plotting a coup against him using the Sons of Iraq! When you ask your commanders for good news, you get good news. If you ask for bad news, you get bad news. »
Sky said it took « weeks and weeks » to earn Al-Jaidra’s trust. It helped that they were women in similar positions. « We were both working for big men. We were the same age, and neither of us had married. And we were both trying to bring our bosses closer together.
Sky persuaded Al-Jaidra that it would be better, and safer, for the government to integrate the new groups emerging around the country into the Iraqi security forces, rather than ostracise them.
In December 2007, Odierno and Maliki were at a meeting of the National Security Conference in Baghdad. When Odierno set out why the awakening needed to be integrated into Iraq’s security and the plan to do so, Maliki commented: « I agree with the general 100%. »
« Some people in the room gasped, » said Sky. « It was a hugely important moment. That year we went from being in hell to bringing the violence down. »
Iraq Inquiry opens in London
Tony Blair in Iraq in May 2007: when the prime minister met Emma Sky he asked if she really was British and why she was working with the US military. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/EPA
In 2007, 15,960 Iraqi civilians were killed in violence. In 2008, the number had come down to 4,859. US casualties went from 904 in 2007 to 314 in 2008.
The British
Sky was at the heart of the US military machine and her advice was being sought at the top of the political pyramid. But she says she only ever met British diplomats when she accompanied Odierno to embassy meetings.
When Tony Blair made his last visit to Iraq in May 2007, Sky was introduced to him by Petraeus and Odierno. They told the prime minister their senior adviser was from the UK.
He said: « Are you really British? I assured him that I was British born and bred. He then asked, ‘so how come you are working with the US military?’ I replied, ‘Stockholm Syndrome’. »
To end any suspicions, Sky says she was not and never has worked for MI6.
Sky saw what the British were doing from the US side of the fence. More than 40,000 British troops took part in the 2003 invasion but, by 2007, it seemed the UK was losing control of the south to the Iran-backed Shia militias of the cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr.
And there was little political appetite to win back this territory. The early confidence that led senior members of the British military to boast to the Americans about their experience in counter-insurgency had evaporated.
« This was a time when the British were saying, ‘the problem in Basra is the British presence’, so the Brits were intending to pull out. » Sky remembers one conversation with an American general. « He said to me, ‘we are surging and the Brits are de-surging’. He didn’t know the opposite of surge. »
Sky added: « The British public support for this war was always very low. In America they are much more supportive of the military and even though you saw public opinion turning against the Iraq war, it wasn’t to the level that it was in Britain. Of course the Americans wished the British forces were bigger and had more resources, but to be perfectly honest, the British think far more about what the Americans think of them than the Americans think about them. » At the end of the day, the Americans were grateful to have the British as a close ally.
In March 2008, 30,000 troops from the Iraqi army surged into Basra to clear the city of Shia militias; the operation was called the Charge of the Knights. The British were peripherally involved, mostly giving medical and logistical help.
Brigadier Julian Free, commander of British troops in Basra at the time, admitted the UK could do little more. « We didn’t have enough capacity in the air and we didn’t have enough capability on the ground. »
David Petraeus , Ray Odierno,
General Petraeus contacted Sky to ask how they could persuade General Odierno to replace him as commanding general of all coalition forces in Iraq. Photograph: Dusan Vranic/AP
All of which meant the British inevitably left Iraq under a cloud. « The Sadrists will always claim that they are the ones who won in the south, and pushed the British out, » said Sky. « And I think the Iraqi government will claim that the British didn’t stand there and fight. »
With the British hamstrung by lack of numbers, and with Prime Minister Maliki overestimating the capabilities of his own forces, the US had to intervene to stop the Charge of the Knights turning into another disaster.
« The risk of failing in Basra would have been catastrophic for the country, » Sky said.
The end game
AT the end of 2007, Sky left Iraq for what she thought was the last time.
But three months later there was an unexpected reshuffle at the top of the US military. The officer in charge of US Central Command (Centcom), Admiral William Fallon, was forced to resign after an article in Esquire magazine, written with his cooperation, claimed he was opposed to President Bush’s approach to Iran. In the rearrangement, Petraeus was to leave Iraq to take command from Centcom and Odierno was asked to return to replace him as the commanding general of all coalition forces in Iraq.
« I was walking in the hills in France when I got this email from Gen Petraeus saying, how can we persuade Odierno to accept to come back to replace me in Iraq. General Odierno had been separated from his family for so long and had been so looking forward to going home. Within months, he was told he was being sent back to Iraq. For senior commanders, they get little choice. The poor guy, I felt so sorry for him. But General Odierno was going to go regardless. For him it was duty. And if he goes, and he wants my help, I go. That’s a given. »
Sky spent two months working for Petraeus in Baghdad in May and June, and then returned to Iraq as Odierno’s adviser shortly before he arrived in September. This time, with broader responsibilities, she was based in the US embassy in Baghdad, but still accompanied Odierno to all his meetings.
Not everyone was pleased.
« One of the general’s staff told me that everybody hated me. Someone else said to me ‘if you send anymore emails to the general we will destroy you, get rid of you’. Staff like to feel they are controlling the general and they did not like him getting different ideas from me. It was upsetting, but I felt the mission was important. If I’d thought the general didn’t value me there is no way I would have put up with that shit. I didn’t tell the general about it. He had enough things going on. You certainly need thick skin to work with some in the military. »
But such incidents were isolated, and most of Odierno’s staff accepted her.
The key initial task was on negotiating a status of forces agreement, the legal basis that allowed the US to remain in the country, and for how long. Sky, the Englishwoman, was asked to represent the US military during the talks.
With a UN resolution due to expire, getting an agreement was essential before the end of 2008. « I was on of a small team under the US ambassador Ryan Crocker. If we didn’t get it, the US would have to withdraw 150,000 troops within two or three months, they’d have to pack up and go home. And if the US went home, the Iraqis wouldn’t get their help anymore. »
« There were times when I really thought this isn’t going to happen, it really came down to the wire. Some of the Iraqis were scared the agreement made the prime minister too strong and wanted reassurances. We had already done a contingency plan on the basis we’d have to leave. But, at the last moment, an agreement was signed. It specified that the military had to be out of the cities by the end of June 2009, and out of Iraq completely by 2011. »
After so many years of fighting in Iraq, it was natural the military would find it difficult to let go.
« General Odierno would go out visiting troops and they would always say, ‘security isn’t good enough, there is still a risk, we cannot leave’. But by letting go, our relationship with Iraqis would improve. So the general had to get them to understand that success was something different now. We were shifting from counter-insurgency to stability, and putting Iraqis in the lead was the priority. When you do counter-insurgency the focus is protecting the people. In stabilisation, the priority is building up the institutions. »
As the change in military posture and preparations for withdrawal continued, Sky remembers tensions between the military and the state department. Some of the embassy officials were on their first tours to Iraq and didn’t seem as committed as their predecessors or the soldiers.
« One of the diplomats told me it was like being handed a bus with no wheels on, and I said, at least you recognise it as a bus. In the last few years you couldn’t even recognise it as a bus. »
Secret trips into Baghdad
Because Sky wasn’t in the military chain of command, and because she wasn’t an American, nobody could actually stop her leaving the confines of the Green Zone to get out among Iraqis.
These trips gave Sky a chance to speak to Iraqis and see places for herself, picking up valuable on-the-ground understanding she could feed back to the general and his staff.
« Everyone was under all these regulations. I was supposed to be as well, but being a non-American, and not coming under the British either, I was in a unique situation and Odierno trusted my judgment. I would travel at night around Baghdad to get a sense of what it was like so I could report back on different areas. I was going out with and among Iraqis. I could see if the Iraqis were working the checkpoints properly, if the electricity was on. Things like that can help give commanders the confidence to let go.
« In some places, I’d get people from the area to take me around. I was going in and out of Sadr city (a district of Baghdad), which the Americans regarded as one of the most dangerous places on earth at the time. »
The year before, Sky had helped work on the ceasefire of Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM), an Iraqi paramilitary group created by Al-Sadr, so she already knew some of its members.
« I knew some of them, and I had built up a relationship with them. They had their own lives and their own motivations. Iraqis are the most extraordinary people, they might distrust each other but they can be remarkably open to an outsider. »
Sky said she did not feel in danger – the people she relied upon to keep her safe on her trips into the city’s underworld were taking high risks too.
« I think they felt responsible for me. I was a woman on my own, and they took good care of me. The people who would have done me harm, would have done them harm too. So if the security was good enough for them, it was good enough for me. Although the risk of kidnapping was real, I was not worried that I would be taken. I trusted the Iraqis with my life, I trusted them completely. »
Sky would travel from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. « In some areas there was still something sinister, completely dark. And in others, you didn’t get that at all. You could see areas coming back to life. When women and children are in the streets you know they must feel safe. Even Sadr city started to buzz, and that was very exciting. »
During the day, Sky would occasionally have meetings with Iraqis at the Rashid Hotel in the Green Zone. One meeting made a particular impression. « I thought this man was just an angry Sunni, and we were trying to find common ground. We had tea together. A little later I discovered he had been arrested and was the al-Qaida emir for northern Iraq. I don’t know how he managed to get into the Green Zone. »
Sky still keeps in touch with some of the Iraqis she knew then, including one member of JAM, who sends her a Valentine’s card every year.
Obama’s first Iraqi trip
When Obama was unable to go to the Green Zone to meet Maliki, Sky played a key role in getting the Iraqi prime minister to go to Camp Victory to meet the US president. Photograph: the Guardian The Guardian
The election of Barack Obama didn’t change US plans to pull back from Iraq according to the timetable set by George Bush.
But Obama-mania was still very much alive when he made his first visit to Baghdad in April, 2009. He was mobbed by US troops, and Iraq’s senior politicians and tribal leaders were enthusiastic to meet him too.
Though not reported at the time, Sky says the trip so nearly ended in acute embarrassment for all sides.
The problem was something even the leader of the free world could not control; the weather.
« Obama was supposed to land at Camp Victory and then go by helicopter to the Green Zone to meet the Iraqi prime minister and other Iraqi politicians. But the weather was so bad the helicopters couldn’t fly. The president’s security people were saying there’s no way he will travel by road to the ceremony, and the US embassy was saying there’s no way the Iraqi politicians will come to Camp Victory, the seat of the occupation. And I am saying, there’s no way the president can come to Iraq and not see Iraqis. It is their country, he has to meet them. It would be a disaster if he didn’t. » Odierno told Sky to try to persuade Prime Minister Maliki to drive to Camp Victory.
« So I go over to see the prime minister, who is having his afternoon siesta. I had to wake him up. I said ‘I am terribly sorry but President Obama cannot come to the Green Zone because of the weather and I hate, hate to ask of you, is there any chance you can come to Camp Victory?’ Obama was new. Everyone was excited about him, and Maliki agreed. And if Maliki agreed, then the others would probably come too. »
In the Green Zone, nobody else knew about the looming crisis. « President Talabani had got the band playing and was waiting for Obama to arrive, and I am trying to focus on getting Maliki to Camp Victory. You have to remember that a lot of these politicians don’t get on at all, and we still had to decide the order of who sees Obama, when and where. »
Odierno’s residence in Camp Victory became the emergency reception area and Sky travelled with the prime minister’s convoy on the way out to the base. There were myriad security check-points along the route and Sky knew the prime minister would take umbrage if he was stopped anywhere along the drive, and U-turn back to the Green Zone.
« I was in the first car, sending messages to the military to open the checkpoint gates. At every one I jumped out, waved my military badge and shouted. ‘Prime Minister of Iraq, open the gate’. It was a miracle that we got him in without a major diplomatic incident. » President Talabani arrived soon after, but there was nowhere for him to wait before his audience with Obama. « We ended up putting him the bedroom of Odierno’s bodyguard. There was laundry all over the bed. »
Sky attended all the meetings between the Iraqis and Obama, and Odierno introduced them. Despite the chaos, and the opportunities for bruised egos, the visit ended without any major diplomatic incidents.
To Sky’s surprise, Maliki was so impressed with his tour around Camp Victory that he thought it would make a good site to hold the Arab Summit in 2010.
« The next day in our staff meeting General Odierno told his chief of staff to come up with a feasibility study to get all US soldiers out of Camp Victory in 2010 just in case the prime minister asked about it again. The chief of staff almost had a heart attack. »
Hostages
Although the ceasefires between Sunnis and Shia were holding, tensions in the north had increased between Kurds and Arabs.
The president of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region, Massoud Barzani, and Iraq’s Shia prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, did not get on well, which didn’t help matters when, as Sky put it, « things began to get a bit dodgy in the north » – Kurdish peshmerga forces were squaring up to Iraqi security forces.
One episode reflected the difficulties; there had been a spate of bomb attacks close to the town of Hawija, just south of Kirkuk, which had been blamed on al-Qaida. Sky suspected it wasn’t insurgents, but local Arabs fearful that their town was about to be overrun by the Kurdish peshmerga.
« I was sitting in the office in Baghdad when someone showed me a map of where all the different forces were due to be stationed, including peshmerga south of Kirkuk. I thought this upsurge in violence isn’t al-Qaida, it is the Hawija Arabs. They are angry. So Gen Odierno told me to accompany one of his generals to speak to the sheiks.
« The sheikhs are not an easy lot but I had known them since 2003. I told them the peshmerga would not be positioned south of Kirkuk. And they said, ‘thank God, we had to put plant all these road side bombs because we were worried you were letting them in’. This is how they saw things so they took their own defensive action. »
Matters came to a head in Nineveh in February 2010, when the province’s new Arab governor, Atheel Najafi, decided he was going to test his freedom of movement by taking a trip into an area of his province which was predominantly Kurdish.
« The governor is supposed to have freedom of movement, but the Kurds said he can’t go in there. The Americans said he could, as part of an agreement that we had brokered.
« So the Americans escort the governor and the Kurds send reinforcements and things begin to escalate, and then shots are fired at the governor.
« The US brought tanks to a Kurdish village, and are flying F16 fighters overhead to try to calm the situation. And then the Iraqi security forces arrested some Kurds for trying to assassinate the governor. »
It was not an end to the affair.
« I was woken up at 2am by the Turkish ambassador in Baghdad, who had received a report from Ankara that the Kurds had invaded Mosul. I didn’t know what he was talking about and was desperate to find out what was going on.
« This was really very bad, definitely up there in the list of the most stressful events I have ever had to deal with. There hadn’t been an invasion, but the Kurds had kidnapped a number of Arabs in Nineveh in response to the arrests. So we had a group of Kurds detained in Mosul, and an group of Arabs had been taken in retaliation. »
Sky said the US embassy insisted that men accused of attempting to assassinate the governor should be put on trial, in accordance with the rule of law.
« When I mentioned this to the Kurds, they screamed at me ‘there is no rule of law in Iraq’. Every time Barzani turned on his TV, they were showing the American tanks and the F16s. He was furious… »
Odierno told Sky to find a pragmatic solution to the crisis; realistically, it could only be solved one way – an exchange of hostages.
« I tried to organise a deal to swap the detained Kurds with the Arabs. But to do this, I needed to get proof of life of the Arab detainees. So I had to fly up to Kurdistan on the general’s plane. The weather was absolutely terrible. There was thick fog, the airport was closed and the pilots couldn’t see the runway. But they were determined to get me to my meeting and managed to land on the second attempt. The Kurds were amazed I’d manage to fly in.
The Kurds took Sky to a presidential guest house, but before addressing the critical security situation, her hosts said she had another appointment – with a beautician.
« They got a young Kurdish girl to look after me. I had my hair cut and my legs waxed. It was quite nice but rather bizarre. Then they said they wanted to take me to a new mall. They love their malls. »
This was partly a deception; on the way, Sky was diverted to meet members of the Asayesh, the Kurdish intelligence service.
« They were holding three of the Arab hostages. I saw they were alive and well. So I called the deputy prime minister (Rafi al-Issawi) and told him I had proof of life. »
Sky flew down to Baghdad to pick up Issawi and his adviser, Jaber al Jaberi, and then they all flew back to Mosul to seal the deal.
There was a further twist; the three Kurds suspected of attempting to assassinate the governor had to be taken before a court so an Iraqi judge could formally release them from custody.
The Kurds were suspicious.
« So we are sitting at the airport trying to do the deal. The Kurds have informers everywhere and there was no way they wanted the prisoners taken before a judge without having some way of ensuring they came back again.
« So we had to give up Jaber as a hostage to the Kurds. He wasn’t very pleased about that! »
Two American military helicopters went to pick up the 15 kidnapped Arabs.
« The Kurdish negotiation side wouldn’t let the Arabs get off the helicopters until the Kurds were back from the judge. All this time they were saying, we are going to call off the deal, we are going to call off the deal. This went on for about four or five hours … it was incredibly stressful. The mobile reception was terrible. It was on, then off, then on then off. » Eventually, the Kurds and the Arabs were released.
« Issawi hugged them and gave them each some money. The Arabs had had no idea why they had been detained. Then we held a press conference in which Issawi went on about national reconciliation and on the flight back to Baghdad he was saying how great it was to do something that made all sides happy. »
Conclusion
Emma Sky left Iraq, along with Odierno in September 2010, at the end of combat operations. In total, she had been in the country for 50 months, completing more tours than most military commanders.
By nature she was suspicious of armed forces, and she was no supporter of America either. So Sky was probably the last person US commanders wanted at their side pointing out where they were going wrong. Which is one of the reasons she came to like and respect them. They were brave enough to take her in, and braver still to listen to what she was saying. The British would not have dared be so bold.
Sky has thought long and hard about what went wrong in those early days, and whether enough was done in the later years to give Iraq a chance for stability.
She is angry that no one has been held accountable for a war fought over false claims of WMD which had such high costs; more than 100,000 Iraqis were killed, along with 4,486 US soldiers and 179 British soldiers.
She believes the surge helped reduce the violence and allowed US forces to withdraw in 2011 with dignity – something that would have been inconceivable years earlier.
Sky says it is probably too early to judge whether Iraq can evolve into a democracy and become a force for regional stability: « People tend to be critical of the military, but the criticism needs to be more focused on the politicians and civilian leaders who failed to set an overall strategy. No one has been held accountable. They do not understand what the military is capable of, what it can and cannot do. Success in Iraq was always going to be defined by politics. We needed a political solution, a pact, a peace. The military had been asked to fight the war and then to deal with the consequences of it, without anyone in political authority having a plan or understanding Iraq well enough to appreciate the consequences of some of their decisions.
« I don’t want to live in a world where we see the killing of innocent civilians and don’t yearn to stop it. However, the Iraq war should have taught us, if nothing else, about the limitations of our own power. »
She is also unashamed of her conversion regarding the US military. As a self-confessed Guardian reader, she had prejudices that were challenged, and ultimately reshaped, by her experiences.
« They made me feel part of the team, and were as driven as I was to find a way of improving the situation in Iraq. I went on patrol with them, and spent hours in humvees and helicopters. I built up a camaraderie with soldiers that only people who go to war experience. Some of them remain close friends. » Odierno was the best of the lot, she says.
« I would have followed him anywhere. »
Sky still keeps in touch with many Iraqis – including a few who were once insurgents.
« If I had never volunteered and stepped on that plane in 2003 I would never have known that Iraq is such an amazing society. I think Iraqis are some of the most warm, generous, kind and funny people. »
« Nothing in my life will ever compare to the experience I had in Iraq. I had a real sense of purpose and I don’t regret going there for a single moment. People sometimes ask me, why did you go to Iraq, and I respond, why wouldn’t you go? » It was the best decision of my life. »
A British woman who worked at the top of the US military during the most troubled periods of the Iraq war has said she fears the west has yet to see how some Muslims brought up in the last decade will seek revenge for the « war on terror ».
Speaking for the first time about her experiences, Emma Sky also questioned why no officials on either side of the Atlantic have been held to account for the failures in planning before the invasion.
Sky, 44, was political adviser to America’s most senior general in Iraq, and was part of the team that implemented the counterinsurgency strategy that helped to control the civil war that erupted in the country. The appointment of an English woman at the heart of the US military was a bold and unprecedented move, and it gave her unique access and insights into the conduct of one of the most controversial campaigns in modern history.
In all, the Oxford graduate spent more than four years in Iraq, including a spell as civilian governor of one of its most complex regions. She met Tony Blair and Barack Obama in Baghdad and earned the trust of senior Iraqi officials, as well as many of the country’s leading politicians and community leaders, some of whom remain her friends.
Now back in London, Sky has been reflecting on her time in Iraq in a series of interviews with the Guardian. She expressed concern about the effects this period has had on the Arab world, and how some of the mistakes made in Iraq appear to have been repeated in Afghanistan.
But Sky also defended the military and the senior commanders she worked with, who, she said, did everything they could to retrieve the situation.
She argued politicians and government officials on both sides of the Atlantic should have been held responsible for the decision to go to war, and the lack of strategy and planning for its aftermath – the consequences of which are still being felt.
A lack of understanding of the Arab world also meant the west struggled to grasp why it had provoked so much violence, and who was responsible for it.
« We’ve been fighting the war on terror for 10 years » said Sky. « At times it seems we have been fighting demons. We behaved as if there were a finite number of people in the world who had to be killed or captured. And we were slow to realise that our actions were creating more enemies.
« It has been seen by many Muslims as a war on Islam. Now, we are saying, ‘We’ve pulled out of Iraq, we are pulling out of Afghanistan, and it’s all over now.’ It may be over for the politicians. But it is not over for the Muslim world. Well over 100,000 Muslims have been killed since 9/11 following our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly by other Muslims.
« We have to ask ourselves, what do we think this has done to their world? And how will they avenge these deaths in years to come? It is not over for the soldiers who have physical injuries and mental scars, nor the families who have lost loved ones. »
She added: « The world is better off without Saddam. But nobody has been held accountable for what happened in Iraq, and there is a danger that we won’t learn the right lessons, particularly related to the limitations of our power.
« Politicians can still claim that Iraq was a violent society, or that Iraqis went into civil war because of ancient hatreds, or the violence was the inevitable result of the removal of Saddam, or that al-Qaida and Iran caused the problems. They distract from our own responsibility for causing some of the problems by our presence and the policies we pursued. »
She said the focus on building up local security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan was not the right priority.
« We think it is about us, and it is about our security. But in the end, it is about their politics … success in Iraq was always going to be defined by politics. We needed a political solution, a pact, a peace. »
Sky was one of the British volunteers who went to Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion to help the reconstruction effort being led by the Coalition Provisional Authority.
She was appointed civilian governor of Kirkuk, the oil-rich city in the north of the country, and impressed US commanders with the way she worked with an American brigade to bring stability to the region.
Her frankness about the problems facing the country, and the coalition’s difficulties in dealing with them, did not deter the American military from recruiting her in 2007. She was made political adviser to General Ray Odierno, the US commander sent to Iraq to oversee the military « surge » – which involved 20,000 extra troops being sent to the country to stem the violence.
In 2008, Odierno succeeded General David Petraeus as overall commander of forces in Iraq. He asked Sky to return with him in the same advisory role. Odierno is now chief of staff of the US army and Petraeus is director of the CIA.
As a civilian member of Odierno’s team, Sky accompanied him everywhere, and was given responsibilities that seem remarkable for a « foreigner ». She witnessed some of the horrific violence that led to tens of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of coalition troops, being killed. A number of people she considered friends – Iraqi and American – died in the fighting.
An Arabist who spent 10 years working in Jerusalem, Sky said: « I had worked in places overseas for a long time, but I had not worked with people who were then killed – sometimes due to their association with me. That first year in Kirkuk, I spent a lot of time with the provincial council and about a quarter of the people on the council were killed.
« There was always that sense that we had come into their lives and said, ‘Who is going to stand up and serve their province?’ and they had come forward, and some of them had been killed. If we had never come into their lives that might never have happened. »
[1]Former President George W. Bush is remaining mum on the tragedy unfolding in Iraq. But as an army of bloodthirsty Islamists rampages across Iraq with the goal [2] of establishing a 7th century religious tyranny — a caliphate — it’s worth recalling who years ago had predicted this would happen if the Democrats got their way.
It was President George W. Bush and his top officials.
They warned early on that Iraq was ripe for the rise of an Islamic caliphate — either in a failed state created by Saddam Hussein or, they later contended, if the U.S.-led coalition bugged out without leaving behind a stable Iraq. Two years into the U.S.-led occupation, in 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that a premature withdrawal would be disastrous — and he foresaw what has in fact happened. He explained, “Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia.”
Vice President Dick Cheney also warned of the rise of a caliphate if the U.S. withdrew before Iraq was capable of governing and defending itself. “They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate” to be “governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran,” he said.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, then America’s top commander in the Middle East, also offered prescient testimony in 2005 to the House Armed Services Committee, forseeing what the terror masters would do in a weak Iraqi state. “They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world. Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’ we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words.”
Liberals jeered such dire predictions — and especially at the repeated use of the word “caliphate.”
The New York Times, for instance, ran a piece [3]on December 12, 2005, that mocked the forgoing Bush-administration officials for their warnings of a “caliphate” — portraying them as foreign-policy amateurs peddling an alarmist view of the Middle East. Wrote reporter Elisabeth Bumiller:
A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.
Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, obviously don’t believe what’s printed in The New York Times. ISIS, incidentally, has reportedly been preparing to make its move for several years — right under the radar of the Obama administration. Were they emboldened by President Obama’s endless apologies to the Muslim world? Or the deadlines he’d set for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably all of the above. But what no doubt really energized them was President Obama’s failure to negotiate a deal with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that would have left sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq.
President Bush, for his part, issued a prophetic warning [4]in 2007 when vetoing a Democratic bill that would have withdrawn U.S. troops. “To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” he said.
It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
A little history is worth recalling. Saddam’s failure to account for his weapons of mass destruction, including remnants of his toxic arsenal (some of which was in fact found [5]), gave the Bush administration legal cover for going into Iraq. But only a fool would believe weapons of mass destruction were the only reason for the war. The U.S.-led invasion, or liberation, was in fact part of a vision to remake the Middle East: a long-term project to liberate millions in Iraq; nudge the region toward modernity; and above all make America safer in a post-9/11 world — all by correctly defining who the enemy was and taking the war on terror to them.
The Bush administration certainly encountered setbacks in Iraq and made mistakes; the fog of war invariably upsets the best-laid plans of politicians and generals. But Iraq only plunged into utter chaos after President Obama brought home U.S. troops, despite warnings that Iraq was not ready to govern or defend itself. The blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq has been squandered.
The terror masters were energized in Syria, thanks to the Obama administration’s tepid support [6]of moderate rebels there. Now they are on the march, just as President Bush and his top officials had predicted. After they establish their regional caliphate in Iraq and Syria, expect them to next turn their attention toward their real enemies: America, Israel, and the West. Oil prices are bound to go through the roof, sending the global economy into a tailspin.
President Obama and his foreign-policy advisors have blood on their hands. But if Obama remains in character, he’ll do what he usually does — blame it all on George Bush.
In July 2005, I wrote an article titled « What Do the Terrorists Want? [A Caliphate], » pointing out how discussion of the goal of our Islamist enemy is almost non-existent. Today, Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times points out in « 21st-Century Warnings of a Threat Rooted in the 7th » that the Bush administration has come around to my way of thinking – namely that the Islamist goal is a caliphate (a single, global state, ruled by the Shari’a)..
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said it in a speech last Monday in Washington and again on Thursday on PBS. Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense for policy, said it the week before in a round table at the Council on Foreign Relations. Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said it in October in speeches in New York and Los Angeles. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, said it in September in hearings on Capitol Hill.
Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the first members of the Bush administration to say it, at a campaign stop in Lake Elmo, Minn., in September 2004. … As Mr. Cheney put it in Lake Elmo, referring to Osama bin Laden and his followers: « They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate » to be « governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran. »
Or as Mr. Rumsfeld put it on Monday: « Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia. »
General Abizaid was dire, too. « They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world, » he told the House Armed Services Committee in September, adding that the caliphate’s goals would include the destruction of Israel. « Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,' » General Abizaid said, « we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words. »
Of course, Bumiller goes on to quote such heavyweight analysts as Kenneth M. Pollack, John L. Esposito, and Shibley Telhami to explain why these top administration figures are wrong to refer to the caliphate. But, as I showed in my article, talking about the caliphate only reflects what the terrorists themselves are saying. (And here’s an update: on about September 23, Al-Qaeda started a radio station called Sawt al-Khalifa, or « Voice of the Caliphate. ») The Bush administration, in other words, is doing precisely the right thing in raising the specter of the caliphate. (December 12, 2005)
Dec. 17, 2005 update: Another heavyweight, this time investigative journalist Robert Dreyfuss, tells us what he thinks of the aspiration to a caliphate:
Dreyfuss described as « idiotic » the notion that Islamist forces wished to establish a Caliphate from North Africa to Southeast Asia. This was utter nonsense, he said. What was happening was that those in the administration who made such declarations based them on what they read on Al Qaeda and other jihadi websites. He reminded his audience of the 1974 Patty Hearst case – the American newspaper heiress who joined a terrorist outfit – where the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army planned to overthrow the US government. Such threats, he added, were in the nature of fantasies and should be treated as such.
Comment: I believe in treating the enemy’s goals with deadly seriousness, and not dismissing them as « fantasies. » As Theodore Dalrymple explains, « impossible goals have had at least as great an effect on human existence as more limited and possible ones. »
Jan. 4, 2006 update: Yet another deep thinker doth protest. James Reston Jr., with the coarseness that so often characterizes the Bush administration’s critics, used his commentary on (taxpayer subsidized) National Public Radio to attack the « denseness » of American politicians’ frequent misuse of the word caliphate. Reston assured his listeners that the prospect of a caliphate stretching across the Muslim world « is nonsense. » (On which, see my response at the Dec. 17, 2005 update.)
He also ascribed « scary images of bloodthirsty Oriental despots in black turbans and silk caftans » to the word caliphate. Pointing to the fact that the historic caliphates represented « the height of Arab and Islamic achievement, » he concluded that American officials using this term is « yet another slur on Arab history. »
Comments: (1) The administration, in fact, is merely repeating a term that Islamists make common reference to; I quoted a number of instances of this in my initial article on this topic. (2) Reston is the one who raised « scary images » – no one in government did so. (3) One wonders what Reston wants Washington to do – avoid any term, no matter how often used by the enemy, if Reston supposes it conjures negative images in Americans’ minds? (4) It’s this kind of objection that makes one despair of the left ever understanding that the country is at war, for sensitivity is its watchword and highest priority, with security and victory relegated to low priority.
Jan. 14, 2006 update: The Washington Post‘s Karl Vick has an interesting piece today on the popularity of the caliphate, which he finds is « esteemed by many ordinary Muslims. » He cites various pieces of evidence.
Al Qaeda thrived in Afghanistan when the Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar, was called « Commander of the Faithful, » a caliphic title. In his book published online shortly after Sept. 11, bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, declared that terror attacks would « be nothing more than disturbing acts, regardless of their magnitude » unless they led to a caliphate in the « heart of the Islamic world. »
The American-led invasion of Iraq provided an opportunity to do just that, Zawahiri apparently wrote last year to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who heads the insurgent group al Qaeda in Iraq. In the version of the letter posted on a U.S. government Web site, Zawahiri said only the presence of foreign occupiers had stirred « the Muslim masses » to action. He advised Zarqawi to use Iraq’s Sunni areas as the base for « an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate. »
Vicks then focuses on Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization founded in 1953 with what he calls « a bookish set of beliefs describing its utopian vision for a future caliphate, » which will be revived « after national governments are subverted by Hizb ut-Tahrir members working in their highest levels. » Vicks notes that Hizb ut-Tahrir members have been charged with planning to carry out coups d’état in Jordan and Egypt. The group also has a following in the West. If membership is up—and an imam in Copenhagen, Fatih Alev, and others say they keep seeing new faces—Hizb ut-Tahrir organizers say it is because more Muslims see events unfolding as the groups predicted.
« Bush is saying they would establish a caliphate from Spain to Indonesia, » said Abdullatif, the group’s spokesman in Copenhagen. « The establishment of the caliphate will come by those who work hard. » … As the Hizb ut-Tahrir meeting in Copenhagen broke for evening prayers, Muziz Abdullah, an affable native of Lebanon, surveyed a hall still with standing-room only. « Ten years ago, when I started, it was totally unrealistic to think there could be a caliphate, » he said. « But now, people believe it could happen in a few years. »
In Turkey, where the last gasp of the caliphate was extinguished in 1924, interest in the institution endures. Vicks mentions a Turkish plot in 1998 to fly a hijacked plane into the Atatürk mausoleum in Ankara: « the ill-prepared Turkish plotters told investigators they aimed to do was strike a dramatic blow toward reviving Islam’s caliphate. » But the caliphate’s appeal goes far beyond such extremists. Vicks states that his interviews indicate that « the caliph is cherished both as memory and ideal. »
« Why do you keep invading Muslim countries? » asked Kerem Acar, a tailor in central Istanbul. « I won’t live to see it, and my children won’t, but one day maybe my children’s children will see someone declare himself the caliph, like the pope, and have an impact. » … « I wish there was a caliphate again, because if there was a caliphate all the Muslims would unite, » said Ertuğul Orel, in a sweater and tie at the sidewalk cafe he owns outside Istanbul’s vast Hagia Sophia, an iconic building to both Christians and Muslims. « There would be one voice. But I know neither the American nor the Europeans will ever allow it. » From the next chair, gift shop owner Atacan Cinar added, « Before the end of the Ottoman Empire, there was no problem in the Islamic countries. » …
« The concept of the caliphate is very much alive in the collective memory of society, » said Ali Bulaç, a columnist and author of several books on Islam and Turkey. « There is absolutely nothing to keep Muslim society together at the moment. » Fatih Alev, imam of a moderate mosque in Copenhagen, said Hizb ut-Tahrir was « very unwise » to say that no other Muslim groups were working toward a caliphate. « As of now, the caliphate is totally irrelevant. As of tomorrow, it could be relevant. I would not exclude it. »
Feb. 4, 2006 update: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in a speech today pointed to the global nature of the caliphate, saying that Islamists « seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent. They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire. » Note the part about « every continent. »
Feb. 28, 2006 update: John D. Negroponte testified today that the U.S. government knows « a great deal about al Qa’ida’s vision. [Ayman al-]Zawahiri, al Qa’ida’s number two, is candid in his July 2005 letter to [Abu Mus’ab al-]Zarqawi. He portrays the jihad in Iraq as a stepping-stone in the march toward a global caliphate, with the focus on Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Israel. »
Mar. 6, 2006 update: The Jan. 14, 2006 update above mentions Hizb ut-Tahrir members charged with planning to carry out coups d’état in Jordan and Egypt; today’s Daily Star tells about Hizb ut-Tahrir activities in Lebanon.
Posters with big, bright-red lettering calling for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in Lebanon can now be seen around many streets in Sidon, pasted up by members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a party banned by Lebanese authorities. On Saturday, citizens in Sidon were surprised to see the posters – especially in areas such as Riad al-Solh street, Sit Nafisa street and Mufti Mohammed Salim Jalaleddine street. The posters call for « reviving an Islamic Caliphate state after the enemies in the malicious and colonial West underestimated our spiritual force. We will only come out strong with an Islamic state. » The posters further called for all Muslims to « be loyal to God and His prophets, » adding that « loyalty to the Western countries, their rulers or agents is a treason to God and His prophets. » …
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s media spokesperson Ayman Kadri said: « The posters were stuck on the walls on the occasion of March 3, 1924, to commemorate the fall of the Islamic Caliphate [and decline of the Ottoman Empire]. » He added that « the posters are to remind people of this date and to highlight the importance of reuniting the Islamic nation in one country. »
April 6, 2006 update: MEMRI makes available today an interview in Norway’s Dagbladet on Mar. 13, 2006 with Najm Al-Din Faraj Ahmad, the Iraqi Kurdish Islamist who goes by « Mullah Krekar, »
Interviewer: « Is the goal to re-establish the Caliphate – the Islamic rule that was established by the Prophet? »
Krekar: « Yes. Our Caliph is dead and we are orphans. Therefore we are fighting, like the Jews fought under David Ben-Gurion, for our own state, a state ruled by a true Islamic ruler. »
Interviewer: « What borders should the Caliphate have? »
Krekar: « It doesn’t matter. Things are born, and then they grow bigger. The essential thing is Islamic rule. That was why the West destroyed the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan. They feared the Islamic state. »
Interviewer: « Who should rule the new Caliphate? »
Krekar: « It doesn’t have to be a cleric. A good human being is enough. »
Interviewer: « Is bin Laden such a person? »
Krekar: « Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri are among several good people. Weren’t Jewish leaders also terrorists before they had their own state? »
Hizb ut-Tahrir says that Muslims should abolish national boundaries within the Islamic world and return to a single Islamic state, known as « the Caliphate, » that would stretch from Indonesia to Morocco and contain more than 1.5 billion people. It’s a simple and seductive idea that analysts believe may someday allow the group to rival existing Islamic movements, topple the rulers of Middle Eastern nations, and undermine those seeking to reconcile democracy and Islam and build bridges between East and West.
« A few years ago people laughed at them, » says Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the leading expert on Hizb ut-Tahrir. « But now that [Osama] bin Laden, [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, and other Islamic groups are saying they want to recreate the Caliphate, people are taking them seriously. »
Even more moderate Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt pay lip-service to the ideal of reestablishing the Caliphate, leaving less ideological space for Muslims who want to move toward Western models of democracy. « The Caliphate is a rallying point between the radicals and the more moderate Islamists, » says Stephen Ulph, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation. « The idea of a government based on the Caliphate has a historical pedigree and Islamic legitimacy that Western systems of government by their very nature do not have. »
But unlike Al Qaeda, Hizb ut-Tahrir believes it can recreate the Caliphate peacefully. Its activists aim to persuade Muslim political and military leaders that reestablishing the Caliphate is their Islamic duty. Once these leaders invite Hizb ut-Tahrir to take power – effectively staging a military coup – the party would then repeat the process in other countries before linking them up to form a revived Caliphate. …
Hizb ut-Tahrir promises that a revived Caliphate will end corruption and bring prosperity – though the group doesn’t say how. It will let Muslims challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West, its followers say. « The Muslim world has resources like oil but it lacks the leadership that will rule us by Islamic law and make this jihad that the whole world is afraid of, » says [Abdullah] Shakr, a Jordanian member of the group, who says the success of the Caliphate will also encourage more converts to Islam – eventually making the whole world Islamic. …
« Islam obliges Muslims to possess power so that they can intimidate – I would not say terrorize – the enemies of Islam, » says Abu Mohammed, a Hizb ut-Tahrir activist. « In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn’t initiate jihad. »
« But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world, » says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. « And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we’ll ask them to be ruled by Islam. » And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying. « And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam, » he says, smiling. « This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light. »
Que veulent les terroristes? La réponse devrait être évidente. Pourtant, elle ne l’est pas.
Les terroristes de la génération précédente exprimaient clairement leur volonté. Lors du détournement de trois avions de ligne en septembre 1970, par exemple, le Front populaire de libération de la Palestine exigea et obtint la mise en liberté de terroristes arabes détenus en Grande-Bretagne, en Suisse et en Allemagne de l’ouest. Lors de l’attaque du siège du B’nai B’rith et de deux autres immeubles de Washington, D.C., en 1977, un groupe musulman hanafite exigea l’interdiction d’un film, «Le Message» (VO: Mohammad, Messenger of God), 750 dollars (au titre de remboursement d’une amende), la remise des cinq hommes qui avaient massacré la famille du leader hanafite et le meurtrier de Malcolm X.
Ces «exigences non négociables» liées à des prises d’otages provoquèrent des drames déchirants et autant de dilemmes politiques. «Nous ne négocierons jamais avec des terroristes», déclarèrent les responsables politiques. «Donnez-leur Hawaii mais rendez-moi mon mari», suppliaient les épouses des otages.
Ces temps sont si lointains et leur terminologie est à tel point oubliée que même le président Bush parle aujourd’hui d’«exigences non négociables» (en l’occurrence en matière de dignité humaine), oubliant l’origine sinistre de cette expression.
La plupart des attentats terroristes perpétrés de nos jours ne sont accompagnés d’aucune exigence. Des bombes explosent, des avions sont détournés et s’écrasent sur des immeubles, des hôtels s’effondrent. Les morts sont comptés. Les enquêteurs établissent l’identité des auteurs. De vagues sites web émettent après coup des revendications non authentifiées.
Mais les raisons de la violence ne sont pas explicitées. Les analystes, y compris votre serviteur, doivent donc spéculer sur les motifs. Ceux-ci peuvent être liés aux ressentiments personnels des terroristes, basés sur la pauvreté, des préjudices ou des sentiments d’aliénation culturelle. Par ailleurs, on peut discerner une intention d’influer sur la politique internationale:
«frapper» à Madrid pour obtenir que les gouvernements retirent leurs troupes d’Irak.
Convaincre les Américains de quitter l’Arabie Saoudite.
Faire cesser l’aide américaine à Israël.
Faire pression sur New Dehli pour qu’elle abandonne tout contrôle sur le Cachemire.
Tout cela pourrait avoir contribué à motiver les violences. Pour reprendre les termes du Daily Telegraph de Londres, les problèmes en Irak et en Afghanistan ajoutèrent à chaque fois «une nouvelle pierre à la montagne de rancunes érigée par des militants fanatiques». Mais aucun de ces éléments n’est décisif dans le choix de sacrifier sa vie pour tuer d’autres gens.
Dans presque tous les cas, les terroristes djihadistes nourrissent une ambition manifeste, celle d’établir un règne mondial dominé par les Musulmans, l’Islam et la loi islamique, la charia. Ou, pour citer une nouvelle fois le Daily Telegraph, leur «projet réel est l’extension du territoire islamique sur l’ensemble du globe et l’instauration d’un califat mondial basé sur la charia».
Les terroristes affichent cet objectif ouvertement. Les islamistes qui assassinèrent Anouar El-Sadate en 1991 décorèrent leurs cages de banderoles proclamant «Le califat ou la mort». Dans une biographie, l’un des penseurs islamistes les plus influents, et qui a inspiré Oussama Ben Laden, Abdullah Azzam, déclare que sa vie «s’articula autour d’un seul but, celui d’instaurer le règne d’Allah sur la Terre» et de restaurer le califat.
Ben Laden lui-même parla de veiller à ce que «le pieux califat prenne son essor depuis l’Afghanistan». Son principal adjoint, Ayman al-Zawahiri, rêvait aussi de rétablir le califat lorsqu’il écrivit «l’histoire, si Dieu le veut, va prendre un grand tournant dans la direction opposée, contre l’empire des États-Unis et le gouvernement juif mondial.» Un autre leader d’Al-Qaida, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publie un magazine qui déclara: «Grâce à la bénédiction du djihad, le compte-à-rebours a commencé pour l’Amérique. Elle sera déclarée vaincue très bientôt», puis le califat sera mis en place.
Ou, comme l’écrivait Mohammed Bouyeri dans la note qu’il fixa sur la dépouille de Theo van Gogh, le cinéaste hollandais qu’il venait d’assassiner, «l’Islam vaincra grâce au sang des martyres qui répandent sa lumière dans chaque recoin de cette terre».
Il est intéressant de relever que l’assassin de van Gogh se montra contrarié par les motifs erronés qui lui furent attribués. Lors de son procès, il insista sur ce point: «J’ai fait ce que j’ai fait par pure foi. Je veux que vous sachiez que j’ai agi par conviction et que je ne l’ai pas tué parce qu’il était hollandais ou que j’étais marocain et que je me sentais offensé.»
Bien que les terroristes déclarent haut et fort leurs motivations djihadistes, les Occidentaux comme les Musulmans, trop souvent, ne les entendent pas. Comme l’observe l’auteure canadienne Irshad Manji, les organisations islamiques prétendent que «l’Islam est un spectateur innocent du terrorisme actuel».
Ce que veulent les terroristes est extrêmement clair. Et il faut fournir un effort monumental de dénégation pour ne pas le reconnaître, mais nous autres Occidentaux semblons bien en être capables.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said it in a speech last Monday in Washington and again on Thursday on PBS. Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense for policy, said it the week before in a round table at the Council on Foreign Relations. Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said it in October in speeches in New York and Los Angeles. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, said it in September in hearings on Capitol Hill.
Vice President Dick Cheney was one of the first members of the Bush administration to say it, at a campaign stop in Lake Elmo, Minn., in September 2004.
The word getting the workout from the nation’s top guns these days is « caliphate » – the term for the seventh-century Islamic empire that spanned the Middle East, spread to Southwest Asia, North Africa and Spain, then ended with the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. The term can also refer to other caliphates, including the one declared by the Ottoman Turks that ended in 1924.
Specialists on Islam say the word is a mysterious and ominous one for many Americans, and that the administration knows it. « They recognize that there’s a lot of resonance when they use the term ‘caliphate,’ » said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst and now a scholar at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said that the word had an « almost instinctive fearful impact. »
So now, Mr. Cheney and others warn, Al Qaeda’s ultimate goal is the re-establishment of the caliphate, with calamitous consequences for the United States. As Mr. Cheney put it in Lake Elmo, referring to Osama bin Laden and his followers: « They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the seventh-century caliphate » to be « governed by Sharia law, the most rigid interpretation of the Koran. »
Or as Mr. Rumsfeld put it on Monday: « Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia. »
General Abizaid was dire, too. « They will try to re-establish a caliphate throughout the entire Muslim world, » he told the House Armed Services Committee in September, adding that the caliphate’s goals would include the destruction of Israel. « Just as we had the opportunity to learn what the Nazis were going to do, from Hitler’s world in ‘Mein Kampf,’ » General Abizaid said, « we need to learn what these people intend to do from their own words. »
A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration’s warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda’s statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.
In the view of John L. Esposito, an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University, there is a difference between the ability of small bands of terrorists to commit attacks across the world and achieving global conquest.
« It is certainly correct to say that these people have a global design, but the administration ought to frame it realistically, » said Mr. Esposito, the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. « Otherwise they can actually be playing into the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world because they raise this to a threat that is exponentially beyond anything that Osama bin Laden can deliver. »
Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, said Al Qaeda was not leading a movement that threatened to mobilize the vast majority of Muslims. A recent poll Mr. Telhami conducted with Zogby International of 3,900 people in six countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon – found that only 6 percent sympathized with Al Qaeda’s goal of seeking an Islamic state.
The notion that Al Qaeda could create a new caliphate, he said, is simply wrong. « There’s no chance in the world that they’ll succeed, » he said. « It’s a silly threat. » (On the other hand, more than 30 percent in Mr. Telhami’s poll said they sympathized with Al Qaeda, because the group stood up to America.)
The term « caliphate » has been used internally by policy hawks in the Pentagon since the planning stages for the war in Iraq, but the administration’s public use of the word has increased this summer and fall, around the time that American forces obtained a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 leader in Al Qaeda, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The 6,000-word letter, dated early in July, called for the establishment of a militant Islamic caliphate across Iraq before Al Qaeda’s moving on to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and then a battle against Israel.
In recent weeks, the administration’s use of « caliphate » has only intensified, as Mr. Bush has begun a campaign of speeches to try to regain support for the war. He himself has never publicly used the term, although he has repeatedly described the caliphate, as he did in a speech last week when he said that the terrorists want to try to establish « a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. »
Six days earlier, Mr. Edelman, the under secretary of defense, made it clear. « Iraq’s future will either embolden terrorists and expand their reach and ability to re-establish a caliphate, or it will deal them a crippling blow, » he said. « For us, failure in Iraq is just not an option. »
When President George W. Bush starts using fifty-cent words in press conferences, one has to wonder why, and on Wednesday, during his Rose Garden appearance, he used the word “caliphate” four times. The enemy, he said—by which he clearly meant the Islamic terrorist enemy—wants to “extend the caliphate,” “establish a caliphate,” and “spread their caliphate.” Caliphate? Really? Many people live long, fruitful lives without once using the word caliphate. Almost no one, with the exception of our president and some of his advisers, uses it as a pejorative.
As NEWSWEEK reported last month, the president and the people who prep him are still clearly casting about for the right phrase to pin on America’s elusive enemy . “Axis of evil” is outdated by now. “Islamist,” the preferred choice of scholars, has been deemed too jargony and academic. “Islamofascist” is a recent favorite, and in a speech last month the president used it as punctuation in a litany of other tags, notably “Islamic radicalism” and “militant jihadism.” The beauty of “caliphate” is that no one but students of Islamic history have much more than a vague idea of what it means. “Bush has been successful in defining terms in his own way,” said Steve Ebbins, a former Democratic speechwriter. “[The Bush administration] has captured the language. If you control the language, you control the message and are able to sway people’s attitude toward your policy. It’s a policy-endorsing mechanism.” Until last January, the president rarely used it, if ever. Since then, he’s used it more than 15 times.
A caliphate , according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, is the “office or dominion of a caliph”; a caliph is “a successor of Muhammad … [the] spiritual head of Islam.” Simply put, the caliph is Islam’s deputy to the world. After the Prophet Muhammad died in 632 A.D., his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, became the first caliph. (At the heart of the schism between Sunni and Shia Muslims, even today, is the question of succession: who has the right to become Islam’s caliph?) From the time of the Prophet’s death until the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, caliphs ruled over Muslims and presided over the Muslim expansion throughout the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe. These were the caliphates; some beneficent, some warmongering, in concept not unlike any other empire or dynasty.
In fairness, Bush isn’t the first person in recent history to appropriate the word caliphate and use it as a weapon. Osama bin Laden did it himself, most notably three years ago, in his statement to the United Sates via Al-Jazeera. “Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate, will not fall to you, God willing,” he said, “and we will fight you as long as we carry our guns.” Bin Laden’s rhetoric evoked, as it often does, an earlier, golden era of Islam, one that exists more in his imagination than in the lawless, crumbling city of Baghdad today. Backers of the war in Iraq—Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, not to mention hawks like Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania—jumped on the word and used it in speeches dozens of times.
Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American Islamic Relations, says bin Laden’s word choices distort Islam for the world, and he wishes the president would take more care. When Ahmed heard “caliphate” Wednesday morning, he thought of the way Bush used the word “crusade” after September 11. “There’s a fundamental misunderstanding with the president and his advisers on core Islamic issues,” Ahmed said. “He’s getting bad advice, they’re misinformed on Islamic terminology.” Either that, or he’s making a strategic rhetorical choice.
Voir enfin:
Full text: Blair speech on terror
Mr Blair said ‘evil ideology’ motivated the London bombers
The following is the full text of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech on the London bombings, delivered at the Labour Party national conference on Saturday. The greatest danger is that we fail to face up to the nature of the threat we are dealing with. What we witnessed in London last Thursday week was not an aberrant act.
It was not random. It was not a product of particular local circumstances in West Yorkshire.
Senseless though any such horrible murder is, it was not without sense for its organisers. It had a purpose. It was done according to a plan. It was meant.
What we are confronting here is an evil ideology.
It is not a clash of civilisations – all civilised people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it. But it is a global struggle and it is a battle of ideas, hearts and minds, both within Islam and outside it.
This is the battle that must be won, a battle not just about the terrorist methods but their views. Not just their barbaric acts, but their barbaric ideas. Not only what they do but what they think and the thinking they would impose on others.
Religious ideology
This ideology and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy. Over the past 12 years, Al-Qaeda and its associates have attacked 26 countries, killed thousands of people, many of them Muslims.
They have networks in virtually every major country and thousands of fellow travellers. They are well-financed. Look at their websites.
They aren’t unsophisticated in their propaganda. They recruit however and whoever they can and with success.
Neither is it true that they have no demands. They do. It is just that no sane person would negotiate on them.
This is a religious ideology… Those who kill in its name believe genuinely that in doing it, they do God’s work; they go to paradise.
They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.
We don’t have to wonder what type of country those states would be. Afghanistan was such a state. Girls put out of school.
Women denied even rudimentary rights. People living in abject poverty and oppression. All of it justified by reference to religious faith.
The 20th century showed how powerful political ideologies could be. This is a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam, as far removed from its essential decency and truth as Protestant gunmen who kill Catholics or vice versa, are from Christianity. But do not let us underestimate it or dismiss it.
Those who kill in its name believe genuinely that in doing it, they do God’s work; they go to paradise.
‘Legitimate targets’
From the mid 1990s onwards, statements from Al-Qaeda, gave very clear expression to this ideology: « Every Muslim, the minute he can start differentiating, carries hatred towards the Americans, Jews and Christians. This is part of our ideology. The creation of Israel is a crime and it has to be erased.
« You should know that targeting Americans and Jews and killing them anywhere you find them on the earth is one of the greatest duties and one of the best acts of piety you can offer to God Almighty. Just as great is their hatred for so-called apostate governments in Muslim countries. This is why mainstream Muslims are also regarded as legitimate targets ».
Mr Blair said the « devilish logic » of their claims must be exposed.
At last year’s (Labour) party conference, I talked about this ideology in these terms.
Its roots are not superficial, but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.
This is what we are up against. It cannot be beaten except by confronting it, symptoms and causes, head-on. Without compromise and without delusion.
The extremist propaganda is cleverly aimed at their target audience. It plays on our tolerance and good nature.
It exploits the tendency to guilt of the developed world, as if it is our behaviour that should change, that if we only tried to work out and act on their grievances, we could lift this evil, that if we changed our behaviour, they would change theirs. This is a misunderstanding of a catastrophic order.
Their cause is not founded on an injustice. It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such it can’t be moderated. It can’t be remedied. It has to be stood up to.
And, of course, they will use any issue that is a matter of dissent within our democracy. But we should lay bare the almost-devilish logic behind such manipulation.
‘Callous indifference’
If it is the plight of the Palestinians that drives them, why, every time it looks as if Israel and Palestine are making progress, does the same ideology perpetrate an outrage that turns hope back into despair?
If it is Afghanistan that motivates them, why blow up innocent Afghans on their way to their first ever election? If it is Iraq that motivates them, why is the same ideology killing Iraqis by terror in defiance of an elected Iraqi government?
What was September 11, 2001 the reprisal for? Why even after the first Madrid bomb (in March 2004) and the election of a new Spanish government, were they planning another atrocity when caught?
In the end, it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.
Why if it is the cause of Muslims that concerns them, do they kill so many with such callous indifference?
We must pull this up by its roots. Within Britain, we must join up with our Muslims community to take on the extremists. Worldwide, we should confront it everywhere it exists.
Next week I and other party leaders will meet key members of the Muslim community. Out of it I hope we can get agreed action to take this common fight forward. I want also to work with other nations to promote the true face of Islam worldwide.
Round the world, there are conferences already being held, numerous inter-faith dialogues in place but we need to bring all of these activities together and give them focus.
Defeating the threat
We must be clear about how we win this struggle. We should take what security measures we can. But let us not kid ourselves.
In the end, it is by the power of argument, debate, true religious faith and true legitimate politics that we will defeat this threat.
That means not just arguing against their terrorism, but their politics and their perversion of religious faith. It means exposing as the rubbish it is, the propaganda about America and its allies wanting to punish Muslims or eradicate Islam.
It means championing our values of freedom, tolerance and respect for others. It means explaining why the suppression of women and the disdain for democracy are wrong.
The idea that elected governments are the preserve of those of any other faith or culture is insulting and wrong. Muslims believe in democracy just as much as any other faith and, given the chance, show it.
We must step up the urgency of our efforts. Here and abroad, the times the terrorists have succeeded are all too well known.
Less known are the times they have been foiled. The human life destroyed we can see. The billions of dollars every nation now spends is huge and growing. And they kill without limit.
They murdered over 50 innocent people (in London) last week. But it could have been over 500. And had it been, they would have rejoiced.
The spirit of our age is one in which the prejudices of the past are put behind us, where our diversity is our strength. It is this which is under attack. Moderates are not moderate through weakness but through strength. Now is the time to show it in defence of our common values. »
TOPIC: Iraq
January 9, 2006
From the Road: Speaking with American Troops in Iraq
Complete Text
PODCAST TRANSCRIPT: Hello, this is Senator Barack Obama, and I am resuming my podcasts after a couple weeks Christmas Break. And I am calling from a cell phone at a hotel overlooking the hills of Amman, Jordan. It’s actually a beautiful city, Jordan. The sun is setting and I am just come back from my first trip into Iraq.
You know, obviously Iraq has dominated our foreign policy for the last several years. Listeners to my regular podcasts or those who followed my campaign, I think, are aware of the fact that I have been deeply skeptical about the administration’s policy towards Iraq and the initial invasion. I felt it was important for me to visit Iraq myself and get some sort of first hand report about what was happening there.
So, I started the trip actually from Kuwait, where the US maintains several bases that are used to provide logistical support for what’s happening in Iraq. I met with troops as well as some of the generals who are in charge of logistical support. They talked about the enormous efforts that are required to maintain our presence in Iraq. There are about 20,000 troops in this base in Kuwait and they typically provide initial training for troops before they deploy into Iraq as well as providing water and fuel and are used as a launching site for operations in Iraq.
I had the opportunity to meet with a number of troops from Illinois as well as play a little basketball with some of the troops in the gymnasium there. And so I had a chance to talk to them about their feelings about what was happening. I think it’s fair to say that morale among almost every US troop that I met was high. I think everybody is very proud of the work that they’re doing and understandably so. Because regardless of how you feel about the war, what’s astonishing is just the pride that our men and women in uniform take about accomplishing the tasks before them. The effort in Iraq is just an unbelievable logistical task.
We flew into Baghdad and then I was helicoptered into the Green Zone. And when you visit the Green Zone, which is several miles wide and long in the center of Baghdad, you really get a sense that US military operations have built an entire city within a city. There are thousands of US military personnel and coalition forces – everything from embassy personnel to logistical support to troops that are about to be deployed into other areas of the country.
It’s an impressive achievement and in conversations with US personnel there all of them felt a genuine sense of progress after this most recent election. The feeling was that there was a great opportunity for the first time in sometime to create a national unity government that actually had some claim of legitimacy with the Iraqi people.
I had a meeting then with Ambassador Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, who discussed the meaning of the most recent election. His belief is that there is an opportunity to create a government that unifies Shiite, Sunni and Kurd, but that it’s not going to be easy. That the election in and of itself doesn’t create that unity. In fact the election was largely along sectarian lines. But that hopefully there is a recognition on the part of the leadership in all these various factions that recognizes a unified Iraq is better than the alternative, regardless of how difficult it is. And overall I was impressed with the work that he was doing.
Later that evening I had dinner with the President or Iraq, President Talabani as well as a number of ministers in the current Iraqi government, representing various factions. And the general impression was that they recognized the need to arrive at accommodations; and that was a cause for some small optimism.
The next day we took Blackhawk helicopters and went out to Fallujah, which is the site of some of the worst violence in Iraq. I did not travel through the city proper but rather flew into the primary US military base out there, and had a briefing from both their general as well as the colonels who were in charge of troops out there. As we arrived we learned that just a day earlier five marines had been killed, and obviously people were pretty somber about that. It’s still very dangerous work to be done.
And in discussions with our military, one message that came across repeatedly was that there is not going to be a military solution to the problem of Iraq; that only political accommodations can solve some of these problems. One of the colonels that we met in Fallujah, who is in charge of intelligence, pointed out that you’ve got 50% unemployment rates in many of the western portions of Iraq. And what that means is that the insurgency is going to continually grow unless the central government pays attention to the concrete needs of the people in that area. It also means that despite the work of the US military in apprehending the leaders of the insurgency in that area, there are always young men who are willing to fill the shoes of those who are apprehended. And as a consequence, the insurgency and the dangers posed by the explosive devices that they are setting throughout the country will continue, as well as the suicide bombings. This colonel really felt very strongly that the problem we faced was not a matter of foreign fighters, but rather a combination of foreign Jihadists and, more importantly, the homegrown support that continues to be generated.
We went to Kirkuk in northern Iraq where the situation is a little bit more stable, although there is significant tension there. Kirkuk is the site of a lot of oil wealth that the Kurdish want to incorporate into their regional government and is being resisted by Shiite and Sunni alike. And so a very complicated political process is taking place in that region.
You know, as you fly from Baghdad airport to the Green Zone and then out to places like Fallujah and you look down on the countryside and over the city, you realize how devastating this war has been for the country. It still looks shell-shocked. The land is muddy and fallow and strewn with skeletons of old trucks and cars and the imprints of buildings that are now reduced to rubble. There is very little traffic on the streets; a few people are on foot. It reminds you of how devastating war is.
The conversations that I had with troops who had lost friends and colleagues reminded me of how personally devastating war is to soldiers and their families.
And I think generally it emphasizes, in my mind at least, how our foreign policy has to be tough but it has to also be smart; and that we have to possess some element of humility about our capacity to remake other countries and other cultures.
I think there are several things that I at least learned from the trip, some of which reinforced some of my previous thoughts and some thoughts that are new:
Number one, we have probably a six-month window in which to create the sort of national unity government that can actually deliver a basic government to the Iraqi people and deliver the sort of political accommodations that are the necessary precursor for any solution to the violence in Iraq. Whether that’s going to happen or not will depend on the degree to which the Shiite majority shows restraint and recognizes the need to bring Sunnis into all levels of government, particularly the security forces. It’s also going to depend on the degree that the Sunnis are willing to recognize that they are never going to have the same degree of power given their numbers as they did under Saddam Hussein.
The second thing that’s going to need to happen if there is going to be any modicum of success in Iraq is that the security forces themselves have to be representative of all portions of Iraqi society. Right now the security forces are dominated by Shiite. There have been some disturbing reports about the Ministry of the Interior and the police being used as a vendetta force against Sunnis. That obviously helps to fan the insurgency, which raises a broader point.
And that is that it’s going to be important for whatever government that is elected to actually start building institutional capacity.
We met with some of the officials that are in charge of reconstruction over there; and it’s clear that the basic structure of civil service – a non-corrupt, technocratic approach to solving problems and delivering services is not deeply imbedded there and has to be developed. And changing that culture is going to take time but it’s going to have to start. And whatever else the national unity government accomplishes it’s got to recognize that it needs a basic structure of service delivery to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people.
Finally, and I think most importantly, what’s clear is that there is not going to be a military solution to this problem. I heard this repeatedly, not just from civilians or observers, but from the military – our military – the recognition that the insurgency cannot be defeated by armed might alone. And it is absolutely critical that our policies recognize that.
I remember having a conversation with one of the colonels out in the field, and although he did not believe that a rapid unilateral withdrawal would actually be helpful, there was no doubt that the US occupation in Iraq was becoming an increasing source of irritation. And that one of the things that we’re going to need to do – and to do sooner rather than later – is to transition our troops out of the day-to-day operations in Iraq and to have a much lower profile and a smaller footprint in the country over the coming year.
On the other hand, I did also ask some people who were not particularly sympathetic to the initial war, but were now trying to make things work in Iraq – what they thought would be the result of a total withdrawal and I think the general view was that we were in such a delicate situation right now and that there was so little institutional capacity on the part of the Iraqi government, that a full military withdrawal at this point would probably result in significant civil war and potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths. This by the way was a message that was delivered also by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, who I’ve been meeting with while here in Amman, Jordan.
The sense, I think, throughout the entire region among those who opposed the US invasion, that now that we’re there it’s important that we don’t act equally precipitously in our approach to withdrawal, but that we actually stabilize the situation and allow time for the new Iraqi government to develop some sort of capacity.
I guess the final point I just want to make is how proud I am of the US troops there. One of the things that I continually emphasized to them was that regardless of how any of us feel about the administration’s decision to go into Iraq, all of us are extraordinarily proud of the work that they’re doing. What the US military accomplishes on a day-to-day basis, in just setting up and rebuilding portions of the country that have been destroyed and in carrying out extraordinarily difficult tasks on a day-to-day basis is amazing.
And particularly when I was talking to the Illinois troops many of them are guardsmen and reservists – some of them on their second or third rotation – it was important for me to emphasize to them that the folks back home fully support them even as we have, I think, a very legitimate debate back in Washington about what we’re doing there.
The fact is that our US military is probably the most capable institution on the planet in terms of carrying out extraordinarily difficult assignments. But it’s incumbent on our civilian leadership in Washington to make sure that we don’t provide them with assignments that are impossible to accomplish. And I continue to be concerned that we have set out for ourselves just an enormous task of rebuilding an extremely volatile and large country, and the military is not going to be able to do it alone so we’re going to have to have some good policies from Washington to move it forward.
Anyway, I hope everybody had a wonderful holiday. I will be returning to Washington after several days in Israel and the Palestinian territories. It’s obviously a difficult time there, given the grave illness that Ariel Sharon is suffering. It’s thrown the entire Middle East into tumult and I may have some more to say about that when I get back. So hopefully I’ll be able to deliver a podcast next week and look forward to being back home to see my wife and kids next week as well.
Aujourd’hui, tout le Moyen-Orient est en guerre. L’incohérence stratégique de l’administration Obama n’aura fait que précipiter la région dans le chaos.
Si le chaos généralisé que connaît aujourd’hui le Moyen-Orient n’est pas entièrement imputable à l’administration Obama, reste que sa politique étrangère dans la région est un échec complet.
Irak, Syrie, Libye, Yémen…
Aujourd’hui, le capharnaüm en est à un niveau littéralement inédit. Pour la première fois depuis les deux Guerres mondiales, quasiment tous les pays allant de la Libye à l’Afghanistan sont impliqués dans un conflit armé (avec le sultanat d’Oman comme notable exception). Le chaos, l’incertitude et la complexité que connaissent la versatilité et bien souvent l’incohérence des alliances et des inimitiés en présence a de quoi donner le vertige.
En Irak et en Syrie, les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés combattent aux côtés de l’Iran pour défaire l’Etat islamique (EI), mais au Yémen, les Etats-Unis et bon nombre ces mêmes partenaires régionaux collaborent pour repousser les forces houthies soutenues par l’Iran.
Face à l’Iran, Israël et l’Arabie saoudite sont plutôt sur la même longueur d’onde, mais le reste de leurs anciennes et profondes divisions sont toujours d’actualité.
En Syrie, l’Iran soutient Bachar el-Assad; les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés occidentaux déplorent son action, mais tolèrent sa présence, tandis que certaines factions rebelles soutenues par les Etats-Unis dans leur combat contre l’EI cherchent (et depuis longtemps) à le destituer. Les Etats-Unis voudraient que les pays de la région défendent leurs propres intérêts –et pas seulement en Libye, ni pour court-circuiter l’Amérique.
Nous sommes donc face à un ensemble d’opérations aux conséquences totalement désastreuses ou, pour emprunter aux militaires américains un terme technique adéquat, un clusterfuck –à peu près traduisible par «tas de merde» ou «bordel sans nom» (pour gagner en politesse, on parle de charlie foxtrot, selon les règles de l’alphabet phonétique). Pas étonnant donc que tant d’Américains veuillent se désinvestir de cette région le plus vite possible. Selon eux, l’incendie qui embrase le Moyen-Orient est bien au-delà des capacités de contrôle de leur pays, les animosités locales servant de combustible sont anciennes et la plupart des conflits actuels sans grande importance pour leur vie quotidienne.
Il est vrai que le schisme entre sunnites et chiites, vieux d’un millénaire, joue un rôle certain (quoique peut-être surestimé) dans le morcellement du Yémen ou dans les divisions qui ont pu participer à la faillite de l’Etat irakien et à l’essor de l’EI. En outre, il est indéniable que bon nombre des soulèvements actuels s’ancrent dans les abus d’Etats autocratiques, voleurs des peuples et inaptes aux moindres rudiments de gouvernance. Un nombre considérable de ces problèmes actuels remontent aussi aux errements des dirigeants de l’Empire britannique (qui, avec le recul, n’étaient pas vraiment dotés de cette habilité quasi-divine à créer des nations dont ils pouvaient se targuer). D’autres conflits sont la résultante de stratégies de stabilisation régionale –tels les accords Sykes-Picot– devenues caduques après près d’un siècle d’existence. Il va sans dire que l’invasion de l’Irak par George W. Bush n’aura pas non plus amélioré les choses. Sans oublier, bien évidemment, Benjamin Netanyahou, qui n’aura jamais cessé d’être un connard.
En sus, avancent les partisans du désengagement, l’Amérique a du pétrole. Nous avons du gaz. Nous n’avons plus autant besoin du Moyen-Orient qu’avant. Et, soit dit en passant, nous avons aussi prouvé combien nous étions nuls en interventions militaires et en édification nationale (au Moyen-Orient et ailleurs).
Obama avait bien dit qu’il se désengageait, non?
Ainsi, pourquoi ne pas reprendre tout simplement nos billes et laisser ce feu s’éteindre de lui-même? D’ailleurs, quand on y pense, n’était-ce pas là notre plan? La raison de l’élection de Barack Obama?
Oui, mais non. Concernant ce dernier point, Obama a sans doute été élu pour mettre fin aux guerres en Irak et en Afghanistan, mais reste que la sécurité de l’Amérique face aux potentielles menaces émanant de cette région demeure toujours de sa responsabilité. Et, en tant que président, il lui incombe la responsabilité encore plus générale de défendre nos intérêts nationaux dans le monde entier.
Des intérêts qui exigent que nous restions engagés au Moyen-Orient. Sur le plan de l’énergie, si nous avons nos propres réserves en quantités suffisantes, les prix de l’énergie sont fixés sur un marché mondialisé, ce qui signifie que toute fluctuation d’envergure, que cette fluctuation soit liée aux réserves disponibles ou à l’évaluation des risques, aura toujours un impact sur nous.
En outre, si le conflit régional en vient à s’aggraver, il pourrait avoir de très graves conséquences mondiales. La guerre entre sunnites et chiites pourrait se propager. L’EI, infiltré dans toute la région, pourrait tirer parti de ce chaos, à l’instar d’al-Qaida, du Front al-Nosra en Syrie, de l’Aube de la Libye, voire du Hamas. La Libye pourrait très facilement devenir le prochain Yémen, ce qui provoquerait très certainement une intervention régionale comme celle que mène actuellement l’Arabie saoudite (si les Egyptiens ont accepté de participer à cette intervention, c’est aussi parce qu’ils auront inévitablement à mener toute action lancée contre leur voisin occidental).
Le morcellement de pays comme l’Irak, la Syrie, le Yémen ou la Libye modifiera très certainement l’équilibre régional des pouvoirs –surtout si cela génère la création d’un Etat (ou d’Etats) comme celui que veut voir advenir l’EI en Irak et en Syrie, voire d’une région entièrement défaillante sur le plan de la gouvernance et qui deviendra un terreau d’autant plus fertile pour l’extrémisme.
Les leçons du passé
Comme le 11-Septembre nous l’a appris –et comme l’ont démontré les récents événements en Europe, en Afrique, au Canada et aux Etats-Unis– dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, des problèmes qui pourraient sembler lointains peuvent très bien et très vite se faufiler dans nos rues ou dans celles de nos alliés.
Nous avons assisté à l’essor d’al-Qaida dans la péninsule arabique et en Afrique du Nord. Aujourd’hui, l’EI déborde en Afghanistan et, au Nigeria, Boko Haram a prêté allégeance à ce tout nouveau et dynamique acteur du secteur terroriste. Les combattants de l’EI ont trouvé des recrues en Europe ou aux Etats-Unis (cf. le très récent cas des deux membres de la Garde nationale arrêtés dans l’Illinois) qui reviendront certainement chez eux pour propager le chaos si jamais la menace qu’ils représentent n’est pas étouffée sur les champs de bataille du Moyen-Orient. Qui plus est, nos alliés essentiels que sont Israël et la Jordanie risquent aussi gros face à cette agitation. Si leurs positions en viennent à être fragilisées, les Etats-Unis seront obligés de s’investir encore davantage dans la région, et pour un coût encore plus élevé.
D’énormes facteurs géopolitiques sont aussi en jeu. Oui, un chaos prolongé et des gouvernements affaiblis rendront encore plus difficiles le contrôle et la gestion des menaces produites dans la région.
Mais, en dernier ressort, quand ces guerres finiront, de nouveaux gouvernements nationaux émergeront et l’influence que l’Amérique pourra avoir sur eux dépendra directement de la manière dont notre soutien et notre rôle dans leur construction auront été perçus. Parallèlement, si nous nous désengageons ou si nous en venons à n’avoir plus aucune capacité d’action, notre influence sur la nature de ces gouvernement en sera d’autant diminuée, si ce n’est réduite à néant. Et si notre influence diminue, d’autres pays verront la leur augmenter (comme c’est d’ores et déjà le cas). Aujourd’hui, cela pourrait sembler secondaire, mais avec la cristallisation de nouvelles rivalités et de nouveaux problèmes au cours du XXIe siècle, faire une croix sur notre influence dans une région du monde aussi stratégique –et laisser la place à d’autres– pourrait avoir de bien malheureuses ramifications.
La responsabilité de la Maison Blanche
Dès lors, si l’administration Obama n’est évidemment pas responsable de la plupart des racines, ni des nombreuses causes aggravantes de la mêlée actuelle au Moyen-Orient, il est aussi vrai qu’elle ne peut se permettre de tourner le dos à ces soulèvements/conflits, de prendre des mesures à moitié pensées, ni de faire le choix d’actions principalement réactives et largement improvisées en l’absence de toute stratégie globale.
Malheureusement pour les Américains, pour nos alliés, pour la région et pour le monde, voici trois des principales méthodes mises en œuvre par l’actuelle Maison Blanche.
Autant de façons de faire qui auront matériellement contribué à la situation que nous connaissons aujourd’hui.
En Irak, au cours des deux dernières années de l’administration Bush, la situation était à la stabilisation et à l’amélioration, notamment grâce au renfort de troupes de 2007, à davantage d’attention accordée aux sunnites et à l’implication active et continuelle du président et des responsables du gouvernement afin de trouver des solutions précises à un problème –non, soyons clairs, à une catastrophe– dont ils avaient été les auteurs. Notamment, il s’agissait de de gérer leur très mauvais choix de Premier ministre, Nouri al-Maliki. L’Irak était encore loin du pays de cocagne, mais, en tendance, les choses allaient dans la bonne direction. La décision d’Obama d’accélérer le départ des troupes américaines (d’une manière qui n’allait pas vraiment faire le nécessaire pour produire le type de Status of Forces Agreement qu’une présence prolongée aurait permis) a tout détricoté. Son inattention à la mauvaise gouvernance de Maliki et au soulèvement d’une partie des sunnites, puis à l’essor de l’EI, allait encore aggraver la situation.
Evidemment, le fiasco présidentiel fait d’indécision, de décisions incohérentes et de sourde oreille aux recommandations de son équipe quant à l’agitation grandissante en Syrie est aussi un facteur d’envergure. Une réaction paresseuse et confuse au Printemps arabe allait être redoublée par une très mauvaise gestion et un dangereux affaiblissement de la relation vitale qu’entretenaient les Etats-Unis avec l’Egypte.
L’ambivalence d’Obama face à l’action, et aux mesures nécessaires à une sortie de crise en Libye est un autre exemple de ces erreurs de jugement qui ont créé davantage de problèmes qu’elles n’en ont résolus.
Le poids de l’Iran
Voilà l’ironie des années Obama qui, malgré l’espoir d’une nouvelle ère et d’une amélioration des relations régionales incarné dans un discours prononcé au cœur du monde arabe, verront en fin de compte un changement «pour le mieux» se faire non pas avec les arabes, mais avec les perses.
Durant le premier mandat, la sévérité de l’administration quant aux sanctions infligées à l’Iran sur la question du nucléaire aura précédé un second mandat tellement assoiffé d’un accord nucléaire que tout le monde, de Téhéran au fin fond de l’Ohio, estime que les Etats-Unis désirent plus ardemment cet accord que les Iraniens et qu’ils ont ainsi perdu tout levier dans les négociations. Cette évolution, qui n’aura pas été accompagnée d’une coordination suffisante avec nos principaux alliés de la région, d’Israël aux monarchies du Golfe, capable d’apaiser leurs tourments vis-à-vis du rapprochement entre les Etats-Unis et l’Iran, n’a eu de cesse de préoccuper ces alliés (et leurs apprentis dans la région), à mesure que l’Iran se révélait comme le seul pays du Moyen-Orient susceptible de tirer parti de la propagation du chaos.
Cela a été le cas au Yémen, avec ses liens toujours plus resserrés avec Bagdad et un gouvernement irakien toujours plus dépendant de ses soldats, de ses armes et de ses conseillers pour combattre l’EI, et en Syrie (où Assad semble bien parti pour être toujours au pouvoir après le départ d’Obama de la Maison Blanche).
L’indignation du général américain Lloyd Austin à l’idée de commander des troupes combattant aux côtés de milices chiites, après le sort que ces dernières ont pu réserver aux soldats américains durant la Guerre d’Irak, aura été émouvante. Mais elle pourrait sonner creux, vu qu’elle repose sur une tromperie sémantique.
Le monde sait qu’en Irak, l’Amérique fournit un soutien aérien aux milices chiites menées et financées par l’Iran pour combattre l’EI.
Le monde sait que s’il est question de coalition américaine, c’est l’Iran qui gagne aujourd’hui le plus en influence, car il est disposé à envoyer des soldats au sol.
Voilà pourquoi ce n’est pas Austin, mais Qassem Suleimani le commandant de la Force Al-Qods qui est portée aux nues en Irak, dans toutes les régions chiites et même kurdes.
Ne pensez pas qu’une telle réalité, déni mis à part, n’a pas joué de rôle dans la méfiance grandissante que suscite l’administration Obama chez nos alliés les plus essentiels du Golfe, d’Egypte et d’ailleurs. Ne pensez que cela ne les a pas poussés à penser qu’ils allaient devoir agir par eux-mêmes au Yémen afin de contre-balancer les gains iraniens.
«Laissez les gars du cru se démerder» n’est pas plus une stratégie de politique étrangère américaine que le «ne faites pas de conneries»
Les Etats-Unis ont voulu tirer un trait sur cette interprétation en arguant que Washington soutenait à la fois le combat contre les Houthis au Yémen et ne travaille pas vraiment main dans la main avec les Iraniens en Irak (la récente retraite des milices chiites, soi-disant parce qu’elles ont trop de mal à œuvrer aux côtés des Etats-Unis, me semble suspecte et bien trop savamment orchestrée. Peut-être que nous ne sommes pas en «coordination» avec les Iraniens, mais nous avons su jouer du téléphone avec eux via nos interlocuteurs irakiens… à tout le moins).
Pendant ce temps, les négociations sur le nucléaire iranien n’ont fait que détériorer un peu plus notre relation avec Israël. Comme mentionné précédemment, avoir Benjamin Netanyahou comme partenaire n’a rien d’une partie de plaisir. Mais il est aussi indéniable que la Maison Blanche a versé de l’huile sur le feu et a réduit en cendres les fondations traditionnelles de cette relation. Qu’importe ce que nous apporteront ces 21 prochains mois –et voir cette relation se détériorer encore davantage est tout à fait probable– il n’y a rien d’exagéré à dire que la relation entre les dirigeants américains et israéliens est au plus bas de toute leur histoire.
En réalité, vous pouvez dire ce que vous voulez sur les origines du bordel actuel au Moyen-Orient, mais le fait que les relations de l’Amérique et de chacun des pays les plus essentiels de la région –sauf l’Iran– soient au plus bas de leur histoire est tout à fait significatif.
Des mauvais choix, une mauvaise gestion et une diplomatie défectueuse ne sont pas les causes principales des problèmes que l’Amérique s’est créés dans la région.
Le plus gros coupable est à chercher du côté de son incohérence stratégique. Visiblement, nous ne savons pas vraiment quels sont nos intérêts, ni n’avons de vision claire pour l’avenir dans la région, telle que pourrait le permettre une collaboration avec nos alliés d’ici et d’ailleurs.
Ne pas faire preuve de naïveté
«Laissez les gars du cru se démerder» n’est pas plus une stratégie de politique étrangère américaine que le «ne faites pas de conneries». Au mieux, il ne s’agit que d’une modalité de cette stratégie et, en réalité, nous avons affaire à une abrogation de responsabilité face à des relations porteuses d’éléments économiques, commerciaux, politiques ou encore militaires cruciaux pour l’influence et les intérêts des Etats-Unis.
De même, nos relations avec d’autres puissances majeures devraient nous offrir ce genre d’outils si, au moins, nous nous donnions la peine de nous occuper du gros du boulot diplomatique (et prétendre que c’est ce que nous faisons avec l’Iran n’est pas convaincant, vu que nous ne le faisons pas en fonction des autres et nombreux problèmes de la région, et vu les désastres que nous avons pu causer en Libye ou en Syrie).
Pour le président, il serait facile de dire:
«Je cherche la stabilité au Moyen-Orient. Je cherche à préserver les intérêts américains, de la sécurité de nos alliés à la sécurité de notre territoire, des liens commerciaux aux préoccupations économiques mondiales. Je cherche à réussir ce projet en établissant de nouvelles alliances avec nos alliés traditionnels qui nous aideront à garantir la stabilité qui leur est nécessaire pour se reconstruire et pour se préserver d’éventuels errements d’autres acteurs régionaux, comme l’Iran. Si nous pouvons obtenir des progrès en contenant la menace nucléaire iranienne et en mettant en œuvre un meilleur dialogue avec ce pays, cela sera pour le mieux. Mais nous savons aussi que l’Iran représente toujours de nombreux risques, que ce soit parce que ce pays soutient des organisations terroristes comme le Hezbollah et le Hamas, ou parce qu’il coordonne des cyberattaques contre des cibles américaines. Ce n’est qu’en cessant de telles activités et en faisant disparaître de telles menaces que l’Iran pourra gagner en statut. Et rien ne nous fera dévier de notre objectif premier, à savoir le rétablissement de l’équilibre au Moyen-Orient.»
Mais, seuls, ces mots ne suffiront pas. Il faudra les compléter d’actions, et d’actions significatives. Il ne faudra pas faire preuve de naïveté.
Il faut éloigner de notre esprit l’idée que l’Iran pourrait un jour devenir notre ami. La menace nucléaire n’est qu’une des nombreuses menaces que représente ce pays, et elle n’est même pas la plus grave.
Géopolitiquement parlant, nos échecs et notre inaction aura poussé les pays de la région à chercher le soutien d’autres grandes puissances. De l’Egypte à Israël, en passant par les pays du Golfe, toute la région pivote (quelle ironie) vers l’Asie –vers l’Inde et la Chine et, où cela est possible, vers le Japon et l’Asie du Sud-Est. La Russie, aussi, gagne en influence au Caire, à Tel Aviv et à Téhéran.
Répartir les charges ne pose aucun problème. Voir notre influence fondre comme neige au soleil, si.
Dans la région, renouer d’anciennes alliances signifiera accorder davantage d’attention aux besoins de nos partenaires, et ce grâce à des actions, pas des mots, en les écoutant, et pas en leur plaquant des discours tous faits. En outre, il faut admettre que, dans certains conflits, si nous ne sommes pas disposés à envoyer des soldats au sol (et la guerre contre l’EI est de ces conflits), nous ne serons pas considérés comme menant réellement la danse, ni comme étant réellement investis, et d’autres pays disposés à faire un tel investissement (comme l’Iran) en sortiront vainqueurs.
Devrions-nous gagner en agressivité pour chercher des solutions diplomatiques aux problèmes de la Syrie, de la Libye, du Yémen et de l’Irak? La réponse est oui. Mais pour réussir, il faudra que nos adversaires sachent qu’ils paieront le prix cher, infligé par une coalition dévouée et incluant les ressources et l’engagement véritable des dirigeants d’une des nations les plus riches et les plus puissantes du monde, aux côtés de puissances locales en qui elle a réellement confiance et à qui elle offre suffisamment d’autonomie pour leur laisser les coudées franches dans la région. Et les négociations ne seront un succès que si nous mettons en œuvre une diplomatie qui n’est pas entravée par des dates-limites artificielles, ou dépréciée par des messages laissant entendre que nous avons davantage besoin d’un accord que nos interlocuteurs.
Dès lors, il nous faut reconnaître les origines complexes de la crise actuelle. Mais ne minimisons pas le fait qu’en ne réussissant pas à y faire face, nous allons très certainement aux devants de pertes majeures pour les intérêts américains dans la région.
Qui plus est, nous sommes à un moment qui requiert une grande vigilance, et qui devrait se traduire par davantage d’action multilatérale de la part des Etats-Unis et de ses alliés au sein de l’ONU.
Que tous les pays de la région soient en guerre a autant de chances de mener à une situation qui dégénère qu’à des solutions. Nous ne sommes pas loin d’assister à une conflagration que nous n’avons plus connue depuis août 1945.
Et même si cela ne se produit pas, un chaos durable au Moyen-Orient ne fera qu’alimenter la propagation de l’extrémisme en Afrique et en Asie, et la propagation du terrorisme en Europe et en Amérique du Nord.
Les enjeux ne pourraient pas être plus élevés. Et il est évident que, même en admettant que l’Amérique n’a qu’une capacité limitée à influer sur ce qui se passe au sol, nous avons l’urgente obligation d’essayer, et d’essayer sans répéter les erreurs du passé. Parce que ce que nous avons fait depuis six ans ne fonctionne tout simplement pas et, en réalité, cela ne fait qu’aggraver l’une des plus graves situations que le monde connaît aujourd’hui.
Le président Barack Obama a salué hier la «réussite extraordinaire» des États-Unis en Irak, mais a appelé à tirer des leçons de ce conflit, en rendant hommage aux soldats quelques jours avant la fin du retrait prévu de l’armée américaine de ce pays. «Nous laissons derrière nous un État souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec un gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille finale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour», a dit le président.<br />
Photo: Agence France-Presse (photo) Le président Barack Obama a salué hier la «réussite extraordinaire» des États-Unis en Irak, mais a appelé à tirer des leçons de ce conflit, en rendant hommage aux soldats quelques jours avant la fin du retrait prévu de l’armée américaine de ce pays. «Nous laissons derrière nous un État souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec un gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille finale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour», a dit le président.
Fort Bragg — Le président Barack Obama a salué hier la «réussite extraordinaire» des États-Unis en Irak, mais a appelé à tirer des leçons de ce conflit, en rendant hommage aux soldats quelques jours avant la fin du retrait prévu de l’armée américaine de ce pays.
Lors d’un discours devant des soldats à Fort Bragg, en Caroline du Nord, M. Obama a aussi évoqué le «prix élevé» de cette guerre de près de neuf ans à laquelle il s’était opposé quand il n’était pas encore à la tête des États-Unis.
«Nous laissons derrière nous un État souverain, stable, autosuffisant, avec un gouvernement représentatif qui a été élu par son peuple. Nous bâtissons un nouveau partenariat entre nos pays. Et nous terminons une guerre non avec une bataille finale, mais avec une dernière marche du retour», a lancé le président.
Accompagné de son épouse Michelle, M. Obama s’exprimait devant 3000 militaires rassemblés à Fort Bragg où sont basées plusieurs unités des forces spéciales ainsi que la 82e division d’infanterie aéroportée, déployée à de multiples reprises en Irak depuis l’invasion de mars 2003.
«C’est une réussite extraordinaire, qui a pris neuf ans», a-t-il dit, en reconnaissant «le dur travail et le sacrifice» qui ont été nécessaires.
«Nous ne connaissons que trop bien le prix élevé de cette guerre. Plus de 1,5 million d’Américains ont servi en Irak. Plus de 30 000 Américains ont été blessés, et ce sont seulement les blessés dont les blessures sont visibles», a-t-il ajouté, en allusion aux séquelles psychologiques dont souffrent certains anciens combattants.
Quatre mille cinq cents soldats américains et au moins 60 000 Irakiens ont péri durant le conflit depuis l’invasion de mars-avril 2003. Tout compris, la guerre d’Irak aura coûté plus de 1000 milliards de dollars, a dit mardi le président Obama.
M. Obama avait beaucoup évoqué lors de sa campagne présidentielle victorieuse de 2008 son opposition initiale à la guerre en Irak, en 2002 et 2003 lorsqu’il n’était encore qu’élu local.
Le dirigeant démocrate avait en effet durement critiqué l’administration de son prédécesseur républicain George W. Bush pour avoir lancé cette guerre, selon lui à mauvais escient. Mais il a dû gérer les conséquences de ce conflit tant en politique étrangère que sur le plan intérieur.
La guerre a constitué «une source de grande controverse ici», a rappelé M. Obama, qui avait estimé lundi, en recevant le premier ministre irakien, Nouri al-Maliki, à la Maison-Blanche, que «l’histoire jugera[it]» la décision d’ouvrir les hostilités.
Même s’il a noté qu’il était «plus difficile de mettre fin à une guerre que de l’entamer», il a une nouvelle fois évité la polémique hier en soulignant que «les dirigeants et les historiens continueront à analyser les leçons stratégiques de l’Irak». «Et nos commandants prendront en compte des leçons durement apprises lors de campagnes militaires à l’avenir», a-t-il indiqué.
«Mais la leçon la plus importante que vous nous apprenez n’est pas une leçon en stratégie militaire, c’est une leçon sur le caractère de notre pays», car «malgré toutes les difficultés auxquelles notre pays fait face, vous nous rappelez que rien n’est impossible pour les Américains lorsqu’ils sont solidaires», a assuré aux soldats M. Obama, candidat à sa réélection en novembre 2012 et confronté à l’hostilité de ses adversaires républicains en position de force au Congrès.
Seuls quelques milliers de soldats américains restent en Irak à l’approche de la date-butoir du 31 décembre après laquelle ils devront avoir quitté le pays.
il y aura de grands tremblements de terre, et, en divers lieux, des pestes et des famines; il y aura des phénomènes terribles, et de grands signes dans le ciel. (…) Il y aura des signes dans le soleil, dans la lune et dans les étoiles. Et sur la terre, il y aura de l’angoisse chez les nations qui ne sauront que faire, au bruit de la mer et des flots. Jésus (Luc 21: 10-25)
Comment avons-nous pu vider la mer? (…) Quelles solennités expiatoires, quels jeux sacrés nous faudra-t-il inventer?Nietzsche
Ce sont les enjeux ! Pour faire un monde où chaque enfant de Dieu puisse vivre, ou entrer dans l’obscurité, nous devons soit nous aimer l’un l’autre, soit mourir. Lyndon Johnson (1964)
Dans « Je t’aime moi non plus » , la phrase importante est « L’amour physique est sans issue » C’est une phrase que je trouve très morale . « Je t »aime » , dit la fille dans un élan de passion et le garçon qui est beaucoup plus rigoureux dit , ne le croyant pas : » moi non plus » . Parce que l’amour physique ne suffisant point aux passions, il faut s’en référer a d’autres arguments. C’est la chanson la plus morale que j’ai jamais écrite.Serge Gainsbourg
Rive Gauche à Paris … Elle va mourir quoi qu’on en dise … On dirait Jane et Serge sur le pont des Arts … Alain Souchon (2003)
Il y a le Paris de Paramount et le Paris de la MGM, et bien sûr le vrai Paris. Celui de Paramount est le plus parisien de tous.Ernst Lubitsch
Ce point du monde où l’on embrasse à la fois (…) l’Institut, le Louvre, la Cité et les quais aux bouquins, les Tuileries, la butte latine jusqu’au Panthéon, la Seine jusqu’à la Concorde. Vercors
Je suis sur le pont des Arts à Paris. D’un côté de la Seine on voit la façade harmonieuse et sobre de l’Institut, bâti vers 1670 pour être un collège. Sur l’autre rive, le Louvre, construit depuis le Moyen Âge jusqu’au dix-neuvième siècle : un sommet de l’architecture classique, splendide et équilibré. En amont on voit le haut de Notre-Dame qui n’est peut-être pas la cathédrale la plus attirante, mais sûrement la façade la plus rigoureusement intellectuelle de tout l’art gothique. Les maisons qui longent les quais du fleuve montrent aussi de façon rationnelle et humaine ce que devrait être l’architecture des villes. En face de ces maisons, sous les arbres, s’alignent les boîtes des bouquinistes où des générations d’amateurs ont donné libre cours à ce passe-temps d’homme cultivé : collectionner les livres. Depuis cent cinquante ans, les élèves des Beaux-Arts passent sur ce pont pour aller étudier les chefs-d’œuvres du Louvre ; de retour dans leurs ateliers, ils discutent et rêvent de faire quelque chose qui soit digne de la grande tradition. Et sur ce pont, depuis Henry James, combien de pèlerins venus d’Amérique se sont-ils arrêtés pour respirer le parfum d’une culture aux racines lointaines, conscients de se sentir au centre même de la civilisation. Kenneth Clark (1969)
Behind this, one can glimpse a concept of Kyoto as not a public space, but simply a vast collection of private places. Given this attitude, the Pont des Arts cas was an ideal target since the bridge stood on everyone’s land or – spanning a river – on no land at all.Christoph Brumann (University of Cologne)
De nombreuses explications pour l’origine de cette coutume existent. En Europe de l’ouest, les cadenas apparaissent dans les années 2000. À Rome, la mode des cadenas sur le Pont Milvius a été décrite en 1992 par l’écrivain Federico Moccia dans son roman Trois mètres au-dessus du ciel, devenu très populaire en 2004 et adapté au cinéma la même année. La mode apparaît clairement à partir de la sortie de la suite du roman, Ho voglia di te, et de son adaptation au cinéma, tous deux en 2006. Pour certains, les cadenas d’amour remontent aux années 1980 : à Pécs en Hongrie, sur une grille en fer forgé reliant la mosquée et la cathédrale. Une autre hypothèse en ferait une tradition plus ancienne provenant de Cologne, en Allemagne, où des cadenas sont accrochés à la grille du pont Hohenzollern près de la gare, les amoureux jetant la clef du cadenas dans le Rhin enjambé par le pont. En Serbie, cette tradition existe sur le pont Most Ljubavi depuis la Première Guerre mondiale. Elle est restée peu connue jusqu’à sa description dans le poème Molitva za ljubav (prière pour l’amour) de la célèbre poétesse serbe Desanka Maksimovic pendant la deuxième moitié du XXe siècle.Wikipedia
It is a precise sign of our times – there is a lack of dreaming in Italy. We only hear bad news. There is no longer the smile of who we see from afar or near the dream. And that gesture of the lock on the bridge, of the feeling of the iron closing, it’s a promise. It’s beautiful.Federico Moccia
Love, in all its splendor and mess, found a fit expression on Rome’s oldest bridge last year. Inspired by a best-selling book, then the movie version, young couples wrote their names on a padlock. They chained it around a lamppost on Ponte Milvio. Then they symbolically cut off escape by tossing the key into the wine-dark Tiber below. But reality quickly set in, as it often does after passion. Thousands of locks and chains piled up. The lamps atop two lightposts crumbled under the weight. Neighbors complained of vandalism. Politicians who tried to solve the problem were accused – and this is bad in Italy – of being anti-love. Late last month, a solution was finally put into place. City officials created official spots for the locks – six sets of steel posts with chains on the bridge – so now lovers can declare themselves without damage to the infrastructure. And so this city of monuments has just created another one, if at a cost: Tossing a key off Ponte Milvio, some Italians complain, may soon be as touristy and routine as flipping a coin into the Trevi Fountain. (…) But still, as Rome’s distinctly lovely light faded into evening, they did it. And in the few days since the new posts and chains went up, dozens of new love locks have been sealed shut on Ponte Milvio, in a perfect world, forever (though in practice, the city will periodically prune the locks just as they sweep the coins from the Trevi Fountain). The story of how Ponte Milvio, at the north of Rome’s center, became the city’s symbol of love follows a particularly Italian script, a perfectly balanced mix of history, myth, truly ludicrous political posturing and the unexpected. First built in 206 B.C., the bridge attracted lovers long ago: Tacitus, the first century Roman historian and statesman, reported that even in his time it was « famous for its nocturnal attractions. » The Emperor Nero, Tacitus said, visited there « for his debaucheries. » (It is also the place where in 312, Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius. He became the first emperor to convert to Christianity, which to many Italians still stands against the sort of love often found on Ponte Milvio.) Last year, a novelist and screen writer, Federico Moccia, wrote the second installment of a story of young Romans called, in English, « I Want You. » Like many affairs, his hero’s starts with a lie: He convinces a potential girlfriend of an invented legend, in which lovers wrap a chain around the third lamppost on the bridge’s northern side, lock it and throw the key into the Tiber. « And then? » the girl asks. « We’ll never leave each other, » he says, with no shame. Moccia, 44, says he just dreamed up the ritual. « I liked the idea of tying locks to love because it is more solid, tangible, » he said. The book sold 1.1 million copies, the movie version came out – and soon life began imitating art. Moccia said he was stunned when locks and chains appeared on the bridge, though he tied the craze to a lingering malaise in Italy, which is growing old, producing fewer babies, suffering from an economy that often keeps young people unemployed and at home with their parents into their 30s. (…) Soon beauty turned to menace. Lovers came from all over Italy, joined by some tourists. The ancient bridge, which also attracts not only lovers but drinkers and no small number of pot smokers, began to be covered in lovers’ graffiti, along with the overwhelming number of chains. (…) They complain that it has become just another tourist attraction, complete with two vendors selling locks on the spot for €5, or $6.90, €3 or €1 for the smallest. Families pose for cell-phone photos there.NYT
L’avenir de la biodiversité pour les dix prochains millions d’années sera certainement déterminé dans les cinquante à cent ans à venir par l’activité d’une seule espèce, Homo sapiens, vieille de seulement 200 000 ans. Paul Ehrlich et Robert Pringle
We have on the one side Ukraine, whose situation is not improving; in Israel and Palestine things are getting worse; the disaster the Americans left in Iraq, the atrocities of Islamic state and the problem of Syria. There is war everywhere; we run the risk of committing the same mistakes as before; so without realising it we can get into a world war as if we were sleepwalking. (…) As the years went by I realised that we have the possibility to autodestruct, something that did not exist before: it was said that Nature caused famine, droughts, the responsibility lay elsewhere. For the first time we are responsible, we have the possibility and the capacity to auto-destroy ourselves and we don’t do anything to eliminate this danger. All of this together makes me realise that things are finite, that we don’t have an indefinite amount of time. If we take into account the existence of our planet, we have to recognise that we are guests that spend a short and very determined period in this world and all we leave behind is nuclear waste. Gunter Grass
Les événements qui se déroulent sous nos yeux sont à la fois naturels et culturels, c’est-à-dire qu’ils sont apocalyptiques. Jusqu’à présent, les textes de l’Apocalypse faisaient rire. Tout l’effort de la pensée moderne a été de séparer le culturel du naturel. La science consiste à montrer que les phénomènes culturels ne sont pas naturels et qu’on se trompe forcément si on mélange les tremblements de terre et les rumeurs de guerre, comme le fait le texte de l’Apocalypse. Mais, tout à coup, la science prend conscience que les activités de l’homme sont en train de détruire la nature. C’est la science qui revient à l’Apocalypse. René Girard
Oui, pour moi l’Apocalypse c’est la fin de l’histoire. (…) L’Apocalypse, c’est l’arrivée du royaume de Dieu. Mais on peut penser qu’il y a des « petites ou des demi-apocalypses » ou des crises c’est-à-dire des périodes intermédiaires… (…) Il faut prendre très au sérieux les textes apocalyptiques. Nous ne savons pas si nous sommes à la fin du monde, mais nous sommes dans une période-charnière. Je pense que toutes les grandes expériences chrétiennes des époques-charnières sont inévitablement apocalyptiques dans la mesure où elles rencontrent l’incompréhension des hommes et le fait que cette incompréhension d’une certaine manière est toujours fatale. Je dis qu’elle est toujours fatale, mais en même temps elle ne l’est jamais parce que Dieu reprend toujours les choses et toujours pardonne. (…) Nous sommes encore proches de cette période des grandes expositions internationales qui regardait de façon utopique la mondialisation comme l’Exposition de Londres – la « Fameuse » dont parle Dostoievski, les expositions de Paris… Plus on s’approche de la vraie mondialisation plus on s’aperçoit que la non-différence ce n’est pas du tout la paix parmi les hommes mais ce peut être la rivalité mimétique la plus extravagante. On était encore dans cette idée selon laquelle on vivait dans le même monde : on n’est plus séparé par rien de ce qui séparait les hommes auparavant donc c’est forcément le paradis. Ce que voulait la Révolution française. Après la nuit du 4 août, plus de problème ! René Girard
Le phénomène est déjà fabuleux en soi. Imaginez un peu : il suffit que vous me regardiez faire une série de gestes simples – remplir un verre d’eau, le porter à mes lèvres, boire -, pour que dans votre cerveau les mêmes zones s’allument, de la même façon que dans mon cerveau à moi, qui accomplis réellement l’action. C’est d’une importance fondamentale pour la psychologie. D’abord, cela rend compte du fait que vous m’avez identifié comme un être humain : si un bras de levier mécanique avait soulevé le verre, votre cerveau n’aurait pas bougé. Il a reflété ce que j’étais en train de faire uniquement parce que je suis humain. Ensuite, cela explique l’empathie. Comme vous comprenez ce que je fais, vous pouvez entrer en empathie avec moi. Vous vous dites : « S’il se sert de l’eau et qu’il boit, c’est qu’il a soif. » Vous comprenez mon intention, donc mon désir. Plus encore : que vous le vouliez ou pas, votre cerveau se met en état de vous faire faire la même chose, de vous donner la même envie. Si je baille, il est très probable que vos neurones miroir vont vous faire bailler – parce que ça n’entraîne aucune conséquence – et que vous allez rire avec moi si je ris, parce que l’empathie va vous y pousser. Cette disposition du cerveau à imiter ce qu’il voit faire explique ainsi l’apprentissage. Mais aussi… la rivalité. Car si ce qu’il voit faire consiste à s’approprier un objet, il souhaite immédiatement faire la même chose, et donc, il devient rival de celui qui s’est approprié l’objet avant lui ! (…) C’est la vérification expérimentale de la théorie du « désir mimétique » de René Girard ! Voilà une théorie basée au départ sur l’analyse de grands textes romanesques, émise par un chercheur en littérature comparée, qui trouve une confirmation neuroscientifique parfaitement objective, du vivant même de celui qui l’a conçue. Un cas unique dans l’histoire des sciences ! (…) Notre désir est toujours mimétique, c’est-à-dire inspiré par, ou copié sur, le désir de l’autre. L’autre me désigne l’objet de mon désir, il devient donc à la fois mon modèle et mon rival. De cette rivalité naît la violence, évacuée collectivement dans le sacré, par le biais de la victime émissaire. (…) On comprend que la théorie du désir mimétique ait suscité de nombreux détracteurs : difficile d’accepter que notre désir ne soit pas original, mais copié sur celui d’un autre.Pr Jean-Michel Oughourlian
Les neurones miroirs sont des neurones qui s’activent, non seulement lorsqu’un individu exécute lui-même une action, mais aussi lorsqu’il regarde un congénère exécuter la même action. On peut dire en quelque sorte que les neurones dans le cerveau de celui/celle qui observe imitent les neurones de la personne observée; de là le qualitatif ‘miroir’ (mirror neurons). C’est un groupe de neurologues italiens, sous la direction de Giacomo Rizzolati (1996), qui a fait cette découverte sur des macaques. Les chercheurs ont remarqué – par hasard – que des neurones (dans la zone F5 du cortex prémoteur) qui étaient activés quand un singe effectuait un mouvement avec but précis (par exemple: saisir un objet) étaient aussi activés quand le même singe observait simplement ce mouvement chez un autre singe ou chez le chercheur, qui donnait l’exemple. Il existe donc dans le cerveau des primates un lien direct entre action et observation. Cette découverte s’est faite d’abord chez des singes, mais l’existence et l’importance des neurones miroirs pour les humains a été confirmée. Dans une recherche toute récente supervisé par Hugo Théoret (Université de Montréal), Shirley Fecteau a montré que le mécanisme des neurones miroirs est actif dans le cerveau immature des petits enfants et que les réseaux de neurones miroirs continuent de se développer dans les stades ultérieurs de l’enfance. Il faut ajouter ici que les savants s’accordent pour dire que ces réseaux sont non seulement plus développés chez les adultes (comparé aux enfants), mais qu’ils sont considérablement plus évolués chez les hommes en général comparé aux autres primates.Simon De Keukelaere
Revenons pour ce faire à notre précédent exemple du cri chez le bébé et observons tout d’abord que sa persistance dans le temps aura d’autant plus de chance de se produire que d’autres bébés se trouveront à proximité. C’est le phénomène bien connu de contagion du cri qui s’observe régulièrement lorsque plusieurs bébés sont rassemblés dans un même espace : pouponnière, crèche, etc. Dans un tel cadre, la hantise des soignants ou des éducateurs est que par ses cris, un bébé mette en émoi tout le groupe car le concert de cris peut alors durer de longues heures avant que la fatigue ne reprenne le dessus et permette un retour au calme toujours précaire. Remarquons que la hantise des responsables de ces tout petits hommes est exactement la même que celle de nos responsables politiques. Depuis la Révolution, ceux-ci ont bien compris que leur pire ennemi étaient les foules humaines solidarisées (prises en masse) dans un même élan acquis par imitation réciproque. Au XIXe siècle, les premières psychologies sociales (cf. Tarde, Le Bon, Sighele, Baldwin, etc.) répondent avant tout au besoin de comprendre (et de contrôler) ces « foules délinquantes » qui renversent l’ordre établi et font les révolutions. Toutes vont converger vers cet aspect fondamental de la psyché humaine qu’est l’imitation. Au XXe siècle, les mouvements fascistes en tireront d’ailleurs de très puissantes stratégies de manipulation des masses. (…) Tels des bébés qui, portés par l’imitation réciproque, se solidarisent dans un cri unanime et se canalisent donc les uns les autres vers une même activité à laquelle ils s’adonnent avec frénésie, de tout leur être, nous sommes dans quasiment tous les aspects de nos vies des êtres soumis aux normes des groupes et des communautés auxquels nous pensons appartenir, en particulier, celles de la société occidentale individualiste qui nous formate à l’idée que nous sommes des êtres rationnels, indépendants, autonomes, doués de libre-arbitre et donc rebelles à toutes les formes d’influence sociale. (…) Les meilleurs amis du monde sont souvent ceux qui, au travers d’un progressif « accordage » de leurs représentations, de leurs goûts et de leurs affects en viennent à être des « alter ego » l’un pour l’autre. Bien sûr, aucun ne cessera de voir ce qui le différencie de l’autre, mais leur proximité, et plus exactement leur similitude sur un grand nombre de points n’échappera pas à l’observateur extérieur. Cette logique d’accrochage automatique des cycles de l’habitude permet de comprendre l’omniprésence des phénomènes du genre il bâille, je bâille, il tousse, je tousse, il boit, j’ai soif, il mange, ça me donne faim, il regarde ici ou là, je regarde ici et là, il a peur, j’angoisse, il est serein, je suis rassuré, etc. (…) Que les choses soient claires : la soumission aux normes n’est jamais qu’un panurgisme, une imitation de la dynamique du troupeau auquel nous pensons appartenir. Manipulations et propagandes n’existent que parce que nous sommes toujours-déjà portés à l’imitation et au suivisme. Luc-Laurent Salvador
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. (…) Rational behavior at the individual level leads to tragic consequences for the community as a whole. Garrett Hardin
Mimétisme, quand tu nous tiens …
Prolifération de cadenas, grillages déchirés, plaques de contre-plaqué, plaques de plexiglass, taguages, risques de chute sur les bateaux-mouches en dessous …
Semble prêt, pour couronner la dernière année de son mandat, à mettre le feu nucléaire partout …
Et un an après la rumeur suite au remplacement d’une de ses grilles …
Du risque d’effondrement d’un des fleurons du Paris romantique …
Sous le poids des cadenas censés sceller l’union de toujours plus d’amoureux du monde (700 000 pour l’ensemble des ponts parisiens et quelque 93 tonnes pour le seul Pont des arts en à peine six ans !) …
Inspirés, comme il se doit, du Pont Milvio de Rome des héros d’un roman et film italiens …
Comment ne pas voir …
La dimension proprement épidémique de pont en pont à travers l’Europe et bientôt la planète entière …
Qu’est en train de prendre, amour compris, la moindre de nos conduites ?
Mais aussi derrière cette illustration de ce que pionnier de l’écologie moderne …
Quelques cadenas d’amour sur le Pont des Arts, c’est charmant, beaucoup de cadenas, c’est pas mal mais une colonisation totale du pont, c’est trop. Le poids des cadenas décolle les grilles qui risquent de tomber sur les bateaux. La mairie de Paris a réagi en enlevant des grilles surchargées et en les remplaçant. Tel le tonneau des Danaïdes, le pont se couvre de nouveau lovelocks. Des plaques de contreplaqué posées sur les cadenas empêchent d’en accrocher de nouveau. Peine perdue, il y a toujours un bout de grillage qui dépasse.
La mairie a alors remplacé les grilles par du plexiglas: le plexiglas se couvre de tags et de gribouillis. Actuellement le pont a perdu tout son charme. D’affreuses plaques barbouillés de tags recouvrent les rambardes. On se croirait sur un site abandonné, voué à la destruction où les tagueurs viennent s’exercer loin des regards. Loin des regards? Non. Le pont des Arts est un site touristique très fréquenté, considéré comme romantique par les amoureux poseurs de cadenas qui, par leur nombre, détruisent ce qu’ils aiment.
La destruction esthétique du Pont des Arts pourrait être une illustration de la Tragédie des biens communs: Quand une ressource est accessible à tous, ici l’espace et la vue, elle est vite surexploitée. L’intérêt individuel (moi je veux accrocher mon cadenas) multiplié par des centaines d’amoureux met en danger le bien de tous.
La tragédie des biens communs s’applique plus aux ressources naturelles (pâture, océan) dans un éco-système limité mais ici nous avons un espace limité en libre-accès et un nombre toujours croissant d’utilisateurs.
En ce mois de décembre 2014, le Pont des Arts, en plein centre de Paris, a le charme d’un terrain vague bordé de palissades couvertes de tags peu inspirés. Quelle solution va trouver la Mairie de Paris pour arrêter ce désastre visuel?
Comment dissuader des amoureux venus spécialement pour accrocher leur cadenas et jeter la clé dans la Seine de ne pas le faire. Depuis 2008, ce rite magique s’est répandu sur tous les ponts de Paris et dans beaucoup de capitales à travers le monde. Un tag aujourd’hui disparu disait: « Make love, not lovelocks ». Une bonne idée mais faire l’amour sur le pont au mois de décembre, c’est un peu frisquet. Et la police interviendrait.
La Mairie conseille aux amoureux de faire des selfies devant le pont mais ça ne leur suffit pas. De toute façon le pont est devenu très laid alors des selfies devant du contre-plaqué! Il n’y a de la place que sur les grilles des rampes d’accès au pont. Déjà envahie de cadenas d’amour, elles ne tiendront pas longtemps.
Quant aux vendeurs de cadenas installés sur le pont depuis deux trois ans, ils font grise mine. Encore un petit métier qui se perd. Certains se reconvertissent en vendeurs de marker pour griffonner le bois.
RÉCIT Le remplacement d’une des grilles de l’édifice a fait naître la rumeur. Les «love locks» qui ont envahi le pont ne sont pas sans poser de problèmes.
La rumeur voudrait que le pont des Arts, trait d’union de bois et de métal entre les Ier et VIe arrondissements de Paris, risque de s’écrouler sous le poids de l’amour. Ou, en d’autres termes, moins poétiques, sous celui des cadenas qui le symbolisent et que les couples accrochent aux rambardes. D’où l’émotion sur les réseaux sociaux suscitée par le retrait d’une des grilles du célèbre pont, jeudi 10 avril.
Une photo du remplacement d’une balustrade aura suffi pour que l’hypothèse d’un retrait de tous les «love locks» du pont des Arts circule sur Twitter.
Rumeur aussitôt démentie par la pose d’un nouveau grillage − déjà assailli par de nouveaux cadenas − ainsi que par la mairie : «A l’heure actuelle, le pont des Arts ne risque pas de s’écrouler. Ce risque ne concerne que les balustrades qui l’entourent.» Chaque grillage mesure environ deux mètres de long. Celui que la mairie a fait retirer la semaine dernière pesait 520 kg.
Mais la balustrade a bel et bien disparu. Et les cadenas avec. Selon la mairie, il s’agit simplement d’un entretien régulier et obligatoire du pont, dont les grilles se déchirent sous le poids des cadenas. «C’est quelque chose qu’on fait tous les ans, explique un employé de la mairie. On vérifie régulièrement que le grillage ne s’arrache pas, ce qui est dangereux pour les yeux des enfants. Cette année, on a déjà remplacé trois ou quatre balustrades.» Au total, 700 000 cadenas auraient envahi les ponts de Paris en seulement six ans. Sur le pont des Arts, leur poids serait de quarante tonnes. Mais que les touristes adeptes des balades en bateau se rassurent, les grilles ne risquent pas de leur dégringoler sur la tête ! «La structure, une croix de Saint-André, empêche le grillage de tomber côté Seine».
Que deviennent les cadenas d’amour ?
Plusieurs centaines de cadenas retirés d’un coup, ça interroge. Surtout lorsqu’il est question de savoir où ils vont atterrir. Et pour découvrir leur nouvel emplacement, c’est un véritable parcours du combattant. Baladés de services en services à la mairie de Paris sans obtenir de réponse précise, nous finirons par comprendre que le sujet est tabou. Ou presque. «On les garde entiers, avant de les stocker dans des entrepôts de la voirie, finit par lâcher un employé. Mais il commence à y en avoir beaucoup. On attend donc qu’une décision soit prise.»
Si la mairie ne semble pas encline à dénuder le pont des Arts, l’attraction touristique ne plaît pas à tous. Un mois avant la Saint-Valentin, deux jeunes New-Yorkaises qui résident à Paris ont mené campagne pour rappeler que cette mode des cadenas, apparue à Paris en 2008, était en train de détruire le caractère historique du pont des Arts. Dans une lettre publiée sur leur blog «No Love Locks», elles ont appelé les candidats à la mairie de Paris à prendre des mesures pour stopper la pose de cadenas. On peut également y trouver une pétition, déjà signée par près de 5 000 personnes.
Les demoiselles new-yorkaises ne sont d’ailleurs pas les seules à avoir tenté de délivrer le pont des Arts de ses cadenas. En 2010 déjà, un étudiant des Beaux-Arts avait pris d’assaut le pont durant la nuit du 11 au 12 mai pour le dénuder. Seule une quarantaine de cadenas était alors parvenue à résister aux lames acérées de ses tenailles. A l’époque, les médias s’interrogeaient. Qu’était-il arrivé aux cadenas ? Ce n’est que quelques mois plus tard, lors d’une exposition aux Beaux-Arts, qu’ils ont découvert la solution de l’énigme : parmi les œuvres exposées, une étrange sculpture rassemblait des centaines de cadenas. Deux ans après les faits, un autre artiste, le plasticien français Loris Gréaud, décide de prendre en otage 130 kg de cadenas. Une fois dérobés, il les fait fondre pour en créer une série de sculptures, Tainted Love. Mais les artistes ne sont pas les seuls à avoir tenté de vider le pont des Arts de ses cadenas. En 2013, de fausses affichettes reproduisant le logo de la mairie de Paris avaient été collées autour du pont. Elles interdisaient la pose de «love lock», sous peine d’une amende de vingt euros.
Des arbres métalliques, la solution de Moscou
Paris n’est pas la seule ville victime du succès de ces cadenas. Florence, Rome, Liverpool ou encore Moscou ont aussi leur lot de «love locks» à gérer. Face au poids de ces messages d’amour, certaines ont même trouvé des solutions ingénieuses pour éviter à leurs ponts ou lampadaires de s’écrouler. C’est le cas de la capitale russe, qui a installé des arbres en métal sur le pont Luzhkov afin d’éviter aux balustrades de s’abîmer.
De leur côté, Rome et Florence ont préféré interdire leur pose, sous peine d’amende. Un exemple vers lequel Paris ne semble pas s’orienter pour le moment. Reste à savoir ce qu’il adviendra des clés de cadenas. Jetées par-dessus le pont des Arts, elles sont de plus en plus nombreuses à tapisser les profondeurs de la Seine.
Le jour de la Saint-Valentin, ils sont des centaines à sceller leur amour d’un cadenas sur un pont de la capitale. Un acte « romantique » qui commence à poser des problèmes de sécurité.
A la Saint-Valentin, des couples se sont acheté des fleurs. D’autres se sont offert un « cadenas de l’amour » et l’ont accroché à un pont de Paris – de préférence le pont des Arts, celui de l’Archevêché ou encore la passerelle Léopold-Sédar-Senghor – avant de jeter la clé dans la Seine. Nombre de bouquinistes et de vendeurs à la sauvette profitent de ce nouveau marché où les cadenas se monnaient de 3 à 7 euros.
Mais cette démonstration urbaine de l’amour, qui a investi la capitale à partir de 2008, a pris des proportions telles que les pouvoirs publics s’inquiètent. Accrochés par grappes entières, les cadenas – il y en aurait près de 700 000 sur les ponts, mais aussi sur les lampadaires de la capitale – sont impossibles à déverrouiller. « Le phénomène des cadenas de l’amour a pris de l’ampleur, constate-t-on à l’Hôtel de Ville. Aujourd’hui, quand on considère que le risque est trop important pour la sécurité comme pour la préservation du patrimoine, on fait intervenir les services de la voirie. »
Au pont des Arts, il a ainsi fallu installer des planches en attendant le remplacement d’une grille métallique endommagée par des grappes de cadenas. Ce qui n’est pas surprenant. Ces petits symboles à clé pèseraient plus de 300 kilos par mètre. Ce qui, quand on sait que le pont de l’Archevêché, pris d’assaut par les touristes, mesure 68 mètres, n’est pas anodin. Les services municipaux organisent donc des rondes pour vérifier la sécurité des garde-corps, quand ce ne sont pas des riverains inquiets qui les sollicitent directement.
SECRET-DÉFENSE
Lorsqu’il faut intervenir, les « love locks » sont enlevés d’un bloc, tient à préciser la Mairie, « sans jamais être descellés du grillage » afin – délicate attention – de ne pas rompre le serment des amoureux. La ferraille est ensuite transportée dans un entrepôt de la direction de la voirie et des déplacements, sans que personne sache très bien quoi en faire.
L’opposition dit s’inquiéter des risques accrus que le phénomène fait peser sur la sécurité des Parisiens, et estime que cette accumulation est de plus en plus inesthétique. Il faudrait donc faire place nette. Pour l’instant, cette requête est restée lettre morte. « Il y a une sorte de secret-défense sur ce sujet », déplore Jean-François Legaret, président du groupe UMP au Conseil de Paris. Florence Berthout, candidate UMP dans le 5e arrondissement, propose qu’un lieu aménagé par un artiste soit réservé à ces cadenas. A l’Hôtel de Ville, on préfère laisser le dossier à la prochaine maire.
La chute d’un morceau de garde-corps de la passerelle des Arts sous le poids des «cadenas d’amour» a déclenché, chez les autorités municipales, l’envoi d’une équipe pour poser un contreplaqué. Après quoi, Anne Hidalgo, maire de Paris, a dit en substance qu’elle allait étudier avec son premier adjoint Bruno Julliard, la façon d’amener les amoureux de la planète à aller s’accrocher ailleurs.
L’idée de décrocher les cadenas à coup de pince, de le faire régulièrement, et de protéger l’esthétique et la sécurité de la passerelle, voire celle des visiteurs qui passent dessous en bateau, ne semble effleurer personne. Il faut dire que les cadenas sont posés par des touristes. Et que le touriste est devenu l’enfant chéri de Paris. Tels des parents gâteux trouvant délicieuses les sottises de leurs bambins, les élus parisiens regardent les touristes transformer l’élégante passerelle en amas de ferraille. Et constatent avec embarras que les lois de la physique sont plus fortes que le romantisme.
Cet épisode est assez révélateur d’une tournure que prend Paris. Longtemps assez imprévisibles dans leurs qualités d’accueil, les acteurs de l’économie parisienne (commerçants, hôteliers, musées, RATP…) se sont aperçus que le tourisme était un pan majeur de leur économie. Beaucoup de revêches sont devenus aimables. Parfait.
Mais sournoisement, le tourisme n’est plus un aspect de Paris parmi d’autres, c’est son aspect central. On remarquera au passage qu’un vaste espace de l’Hôtel de ville vient d’être transformé en boutique de souvenirs. Il faut croire qu’on en manquait. Mais il faut décrypter d’autres signes.
Prenons l’exemple du Vélib’. Dans son excellent livre, intitulé Le pouvoir de la pédale, mon confrère Olivier Razemon s’interroge sur le coût du Vélib’ pour la puissance publique. Il est considérable. Peut-être sommes-nous, nous Parisiens, trop mal élevés, trop vandales, trop voleurs… Toujours est-il que le remplacement des Vélib’ est un puits sans fond. Rassurons-nous sur notre psychologie: l’échec a été constaté ailleurs, comme à Londres où Barclays ne veut plus payer pour ces pertes.
Face à cet état de fait, la municipalité pourrait engager un débat public sur une réorientation de la politique cyclable, comme un élément d’une politique de déplacements, avec peut-être d’autres systèmes de mise à disposition de vélos. Un truc pour habitants et usagers de Paris. Or, c’est impossible. Le Vélib’, son image, ses produits dérivés, sont présentés comme un élément de l’attractivité de Paris. Indéboulonnable.
Plus généralement, c’est toute la ville qui glisse doucement vers un destin de station balnéaire. Le patron des Galeries Lafayette a beau avoir déclaré qu’il était important que les touristes puissent voir des Parisiennes dans son magasin, l’orientation plein luxe de ses concurrents Le Printemps et le Bon Marché risque d’en attirer de moins en moins. Un grand magasin était un endroit où l’on allait acheter un imperméable parce qu’il y avait un rayon imperméables. Terminé. Il y a un corner Burberry’s. Les grands-mères du VIIe arrondissement allaient au rayon mercerie du Bon Marché. Fini, mamie, débrouille-toi autrement…
Le plus déprimant dans tout ça, c’est que Paris est devenu si attirant que les propriétaires d’appartements préfèrent louer leurs biens à prix d’or aux visiteurs qui ne restent qu’une semaine plutôt que moins cher aux habitants qui resteront toute leur vie. Les élus se sont aperçus avec effroi de cette situation qui leur avait totalement échappé. Depuis, deux ou trois ans, ils agitent la réglementation comme une pauvre menace. Mais la messe est dite. Derrière les cadenas d’amour, la crise du logement. De quoi rester songeur…
ROME — Love, in all its splendor and mess, found a fit expression on Rome’s oldest bridge last year. Inspired by a best-selling book, then the movie version, young couples wrote their names on a padlock. They chained it around a lamppost on Ponte Milvio. Then they symbolically cut off escape by tossing the key into the wine-dark Tiber below.
But reality quickly set in, as it often does after passion. Thousands of locks and chains piled up. The lamps atop two lightposts crumbled under the weight. Neighbors complained of vandalism. Politicians who tried to solve the problem were accused – and this is bad in Italy – of being anti-love.
Late last month, a solution was finally put into place. City officials created official spots for the locks – six sets of steel posts with chains on the bridge – so now lovers can declare themselves without damage to the infrastructure. And so this city of monuments has just created another one, if at a cost: Tossing a key off Ponte Milvio, some Italians complain, may soon be as touristy and routine as flipping a coin into the Trevi Fountain.
« It’s less romantic, » said Costantino Boccuni, a 28-year-old soldier who had just affixed a lock to one of the new city-approved spots to declare his love for his wife of six years, Daniela, 26. « It was more beautiful before. It was more original.
« Now it’s more like a fashion, » he said.
But still, as Rome’s distinctly lovely light faded into evening, they did it. And in the few days since the new posts and chains went up, dozens of new love locks have been sealed shut on Ponte Milvio, in a perfect world, forever (though in practice, the city will periodically prune the locks just as they sweep the coins from the Trevi Fountain).
The story of how Ponte Milvio, at the north of Rome’s center, became the city’s symbol of love follows a particularly Italian script, a perfectly balanced mix of history, myth, truly ludicrous political posturing and the unexpected.
First built in 206 B.C., the bridge attracted lovers long ago: Tacitus, the first century Roman historian and statesman, reported that even in his time it was « famous for its nocturnal attractions. » The Emperor Nero, Tacitus said, visited there « for his debaucheries. » (It is also the place where in 312, Constantine defeated his rival Maxentius. He became the first emperor to convert to Christianity, which to many Italians still stands against the sort of love often found on Ponte Milvio.)
Last year, a novelist and screen writer, Federico Moccia, wrote the second installment of a story of young Romans called, in English, « I Want You. » Like many affairs, his hero’s starts with a lie: He convinces a potential girlfriend of an invented legend, in which lovers wrap a chain around the third lamppost on the bridge’s northern side, lock it and throw the key into the Tiber.
« And then? » the girl asks.
« We’ll never leave each other, » he says, with no shame.
Moccia, 44, says he just dreamed up the ritual. « I liked the idea of tying locks to love because it is more solid, tangible, » he said. The book sold 1.1 million copies, the movie version came out – and soon life began imitating art.
Moccia said he was stunned when locks and chains appeared on the bridge, though he tied the craze to a lingering malaise in Italy, which is growing old, producing fewer babies, suffering from an economy that often keeps young people unemployed and at home with their parents into their 30s.
« It is a precise sign of our times – there is a lack of dreaming in Italy, » he said. « We only hear bad news. There is no longer the smile of who we see from afar or near the dream. And that gesture of the lock on the bridge, of the feeling of the iron closing, it’s a promise. It’s beautiful. »
Soon beauty turned to menace. Lovers came from all over Italy, joined by some tourists. The ancient bridge, which also attracts not only lovers but drinkers and no small number of pot smokers, began to be covered in lovers’ graffiti, along with the overwhelming number of chains.
This spring, the city cracked down.
Inevitably, politics intruded: In this nation’s long battle between left and right, right-wing parties accused the leftist mayor, Walter Veltroni, who may some day become prime minister, with a crime far worse than corruption.
« The left is against lovers, » one rightist city official, Marco Clarke, charged in February.
Fighting words: An artful compromise clearly needed finding. Thus the posts and chains.
Lovers can affix their locks directly to them (which seemed to be the case in two recent, very pleasant evenings on the bridge). Or if they insist on chaining them to the lampposts, the locks will periodically be transferred down to the posts and chains.
« We have used good sense, meaning we realize that it is about a primary and innocent feeling, » said Silvio Di Francia, a city official responsible for solving the problem. « However if all the historic bridges had locks we would have a problem with the maintenance. »
So the tradition continues, if with some reservations about compromising on love. And some young Roman said that even before the new official posts, the tradition had lost its edge.
They complain that it has become just another tourist attraction, complete with two vendors selling locks on the spot for €5, or $6.90, €3 or €1 for the smallest. Families pose for cell-phone photos there.
« I would be embarrassed, » said Michael P., a 22-year-old photographer’s assistant who would not give his last name because he was smoking marijuana. « It’s a question of dignity. If I want to express love, I will express it in my way. »
But Gianluca and Federica recently marked their love with a lock, as did Ricky and Francy, Piti and Piti, several Mirkoses with suspiciously similar handwriting. Anna and Philip Colletti, from Montreal, marked their 25th anniversary with a lock. Their children told them about it.
« Twenty-five years of marriage – it might freak out these young couples, » Colletti said.
Citing public safety concerns, the NCA on Monday announced plans to clear the so-called love locks, from the footbridge connecting Aspen Island, home to Canberra’s National Carillon, to the northern shore of Lake Burley Griffin.
The authority will begin removing locks on Friday and will conduct inspections to make sure no other locks are placed in the future.
Said to have originated in Serbia, love locks are a world-wide phenomenon that can be found on bridges throughout Australia, Europe and the world.
One of the most famous sites is on the Pont Des Arts, outside the Louvre in Paris.
According to tradition, couples engrave their names on a padlock and then attach it to a bridge, before throwing the keys into the water below.
NCA executive director Helen Badger conceded the locks did not pose a public safety risk at the moment, but said the authority had decided to remove them before they became a threat to the structural integrity of the bridge.
« The love locks at the moment don’t cause a problem because of their weight. (But) there is the example in Paris where a bridge has been overweighted by the locks. So for the future, the more locks that are added will add weight to the bridge, » she told 666 ABC Canberra.
« The other problem that we have, is that all the locks are made of different types of metals. The metals cause corrosion on the railings and that then can interfere with the structure of the bridge. »
Authority acknowledges love locks ‘a sensitive issue’
Ms Badger said there were more than 200 love locks at sites across the ACT and that padlocks at other sites under the National Capital Authority’s jurisdiction would also be removed.
Adding a sense of irony to the announcement, the NCA are currently running an unrelated social media campaign titled Love Lake Burley Griffin, encouraging Canberrans to share tips on protecting ACT’s waterways online.
« It’s been a very tough decision but the NCA has had to consider the impact that the locks have on the bridges now and into the future. We haven’t made the decision lightly, » Ms Badger said.
The reaction from Canberrans on social media today was mixed – some were angry and some were ambivalent, while others made light of the news.
Ms Badger said the authority had turned over the idea of offering alternative site for love locks, but no suitable structures had been found.
« If that’s something that is very important to everybody in the future, then maybe that’s something we can look at. But in the short term, that’s not something we’ve considered, » she said.
« We do understand that its a very emotive issue, but we do need to look at the bigger picture. »
Ms Badger said in the future, she hoped love struck Canberrans would their celebrate their relationships by enjoying National Carillon recitals on Aspen Island, instead placing a love lock.
A love lock, sometimes known as a love padlock, is a padlock which couples lock to a public object, most often a bridge, to symbolize their love. After the padlock is locked, the key is thrown away, most often to a river or a lake, to symbolize their unbreakable love. Love locks have become more and more popular over the last 20 years and are often treated by the authorities as litter or even vandalism due to the damage they can cause and the cost of removing them
1. Pont des Arts Bridge, Paris, France – The most famous love locks location in the world is located on this pedestrian bridge in Paris, over the river Seine. It is estimated that the weight of the locks on this bridge may reach 93 metric tons! In June 2014, part of the parapet that carries the padlocks collapsed under the weight
Awesome Love Locks Locations: Pont des Arts Bridge, Paris
Awesome Love Locks Locations: Pont des Arts Bridge, Paris
2. Hohenzollern Bridge, Cologne, Germany – Love locks started appearing on this bridge over the river Rhine in Cologne, in the year 2009
3. N Seoul Tower, Seoul, South Korea – Seven artificial “love trees” were put on the terraces of this tower in Seoul by the tower’s operators. Those artificial trees are capable of holding great weight, especially designed with the padlocks weight on mind. The tower’s operators also provided a “key bin” for the keys, so those won’t be thrown from the tower. The regular fences were also replaced by glass fences so that padlocks couldn’t be locked on the fence itself
4. Vodootvodny Canal, Moscow, Russia – Another artificial “love tree”, this time on a bridge across the Vodootvodny Canal in Moscow. This is just one of many such iron trees
5. Mount Huang, China – The fences on Mount Huang in China are packed with love locks. Sweethearts lock their soul together on one of the fences and throw away the key to the valleys below
6. Most Ljubavi, Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia – Most Ljubavi, meaning “Bridge of Love”, is one of 15 bridges in the town of Vrnjačka Banja, in Serbia. The bridge is a major destination for love padlocks
7. Malá Strana district, Prague, Czech Republic – Love padlocks can be found on a pedestrian bridge in the Malá Strana district
8. Ponte Milvio Bridge, Rome, Italy – Love locks are gaining more and more momentum in Italy, and it all started in the Ponte Milvio bridge in Rome. The ritual in Italy is inspired greatly by a fictional event in the popular book “I Want You” by the Italian author Federico Moccia
Awesome Love Locks Locations: Ponte Milvio Bridge, Rome
9. Butchers’ Bridge, Ljubljana, Slovenia – This new pedestrians bridge has started collecting its share of love locks in 2010. The bridge crosses the Ljubljanica river
10. Brooklyn Bridge, NYC, New York, United States – Many love locks were locked to the Brooklyn Bridge, but they are now being removed due to safety concerns
The author is professor of biology, University of California, Santa Barbara. This article is based on a presidential address presented before the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at Utah State University, Logan, 25 June 1968.
Abstract
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.
At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, Wiesner and York (1) concluded that: « Both sides in the arms race are …confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation. »
I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem. An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.
In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome. Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to assert that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York exhibited this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the solution to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They cautiously qualified their statement with the phrase, « It is our considered professional judgment… . » Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the present article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a class of human problems which can be called « no technical solution problems, » and, more specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these.
It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the game of tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, « How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe? » It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no « technical solution » to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word « win. » I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can drug him; or I can falsify the records. Every way in which I « win » involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, of course, openly abandon the game–refuse to play it. This is what most adults do.)
The class of « No technical solution problems » has members. My thesis is that the « population problem, » as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem–technologically. I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe.
What Shall We Maximize?
Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow « geometrically, » or, as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world’s goods must steadily decrease. Is ours a finite world?
A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite; or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. « Space » is no escape (2).
A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. (The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed.) When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, can Bentham’s goal of « the greatest good for the greatest number » be realized?
No–for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a theoretical one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) variables at the same time. This was clearly stated by von Neumann and Morgenstern (3), but the principle is implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to D’Alembert (1717-1783).
The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, any organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man, maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day (« maintenance calories »). Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by « work calories » which he takes in. Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art. … I think that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham’s goal is impossible.
In reaching this conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it is the acquisition of energy that is the problem. The appearance of atomic energy has led some to question this assumption. However, given an infinite source of energy, population growth still produces an inescapable problem. The problem of the acquisition of energy is replaced by the problem of its dissipation, as J. H. Fremlin has so wittily shown (4). The arithmetic signs in the analysis are, as it were, reversed; but Bentham’s goal is still unobtainable.
The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. The difficulty of defining the optimum is enormous; so far as I know, no one has seriously tackled this problem. Reaching an acceptable and stable solution will surely require more than one generation of hard analytical work–and much persuasion.
We want the maximum good per person; but what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another it is factory land. Comparing one good with another is, we usually say, impossible because goods are incommensurable. Incommensurables cannot be compared.
Theoretically this may be true; but in real life incommensurables are commensurable. Only a criterion of judgment and a system of weighting are needed. In nature the criterion is survival. Is it better for a species to be small and hideable, or large and powerful? Natural selection commensurates the incommensurables. The compromise achieved depends on a natural weighting of the values of the variables.
Man must imitate this process. There is no doubt that in fact he already does, but unconsciously. It is when the hidden decisions are made explicit that the arguments begin. The problem for the years ahead is to work out an acceptable theory of weighting. Synergistic effects, nonlinear variation, and difficulties in discounting the future make the intellectual problem difficult, but not (in principle) insoluble.
Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level? One simple fact proves that none has: there is no prosperous population in the world today that has, and has had for some time, a growth rate of zero. Any people that has intuitively identified its optimum point will soon reach it, after which its growth rate becomes and remains zero.
Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a population is below its optimum. However, by any reasonable standards, the most rapidly growing populations on earth today are (in general) the most miserable. This association (which need not be invariable) casts doubt on the optimistic assumption that the positive growth rate of a population is evidence that it has yet to reach its optimum.
We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size until we explicitly exorcize the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of practical demography. In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations (1776) popularized the « invisible hand, » the idea that an individual who « intends only his own gain, » is, as it were, « led by an invisible hand to promote . . . the public interest » (5). Adam Smith did not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. If this assumption is correct it justifies the continuance of our present policy of laissez-faire in reproduction. If it is correct we can assume that men will control their individual fecundity so as to produce the optimum population. If the assumption is not correct, we need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are defensible.
Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known pamphlet (6) in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). We may well call it « the tragedy of the commons, » using the word « tragedy » as the philosopher Whitehead used it (7): « The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things. » He then goes on to say, « This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama. »
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, « What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd? » This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of −1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another… But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit–in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial (8). The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.
Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.
A simple incident that occurred a few years ago in Leominster, Massachusetts, shows how perishable the knowledge is. During the Christmas shopping season the parking meters downtown were covered with plastic bags that bore tags reading: « Do not open until after Christmas. Free parking courtesy of the mayor and city council. » In other words, facing the prospect of an increased demand for already scarce space. the city fathers reinstituted the system of the commons. (Cynically, we suspect that they gained more votes than they lost by this retrogressive act.)
In an approximate way, the logic of the commons has been understood for a long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of private property in real estate. But it is understood mostly only in special cases which are not sufficiently generalized. Even at this late date, cattlemen leasing national land on the western ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent understanding, in constantly pressuring federal authorities to increase the head count to the point where overgrazing produces erosion and weed-dominance. Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the « freedom of the seas. » Professing to believe in the « inexhaustible resources of the oceans, » they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction (9).
The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent–there is only one Yosemite Valley–whereas population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will be of no value to anyone.
What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as private property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, first-served basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose–or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks.
Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in–sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of « fouling our own nest, » so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream–whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.
The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. « Flowing water purifies itself every 10 miles, » my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.
How To Legislate Temperance?
Analysis of the pollution problem as a function of population density uncovers a not generally recognized principle of morality, namely: the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed (10). Using the commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier conditions, because there is no public, the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable. A hundred and fifty years ago a plainsman could kill an American bison, cut out only the tongue for his dinner, and discard the rest of the animal. He was not in any important sense being wasteful. Today, with only a few thousand bison left, we would be appalled at such behavior.
In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. « One picture is worth a thousand words, » said an ancient Chinese; but it may take 10,000 words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essense of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally–in words.
That morality is system-sensitive escaped the attention of most codifiers of ethics in the past. « Thou shalt not . . . » is the form of traditional ethical directives which make no allowance for particular circumstances. The laws of our society follow the pattern of ancient ethics, and therefore are poorly suited to governing a complex, crowded, changeable world. Our epicyclic solution is to augment statutory law with administrative law. Since it is practically impossible to spell out all the conditions under which it is safe to burn trash in the back yard or to run an automobile without smog-control, by law we delegate the details to bureaus. The result is administrative law, which is rightly feared for an ancient reason–Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?–« Who shall watch the watchers themselves? » John Adams said that we must have « a government of laws and not men. » Bureau administrators, trying to evaluate the morality of acts in the total system, are singularly liable to corruption, producing a government by men, not laws.
Prohibition is easy to legislate (though not necessarily to enforce); but how do we legislate temperance? Experience indicates that it can be accomplished best through the mediation of administrative law. We limit possibilities unnecessarily if we suppose that the sentiment of Quis custodiet denies us the use of administrative law. We should rather retain the phrase as a perpetual reminder of fearful dangers we cannot avoid. The great challenge facing us now is to invent the corrective feedbacks that are needed to keep custodians honest. We must find ways to legitimate the needed authority of both the custodians and the corrective feedbacks.
Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable
The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way. In a world governed solely by the principle of « dog eat dog »–if indeed there ever was such a world–how many children a family had would not be a matter of public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer descendants, not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their children. David Lack and others have found that such a negative feedback demonstrably controls the fecundity of birds (11). But men are not birds, and have not acted like them for millenniums, at least.
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own « punishment » to the germ line–then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state (12), and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14): The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.
It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this right; denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witches in the 17th century. At the present time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is « our last and best hope, » that we shouldn’t find fault with it; we shouldn’t play into the hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert Louis Stevenson said: « The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy. » If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the United Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis (15) in attempting to get Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in embracing the same tragic ideal.
Conscience Is Self-Eliminating
It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience. Charles Galton Darwin made this point when he spoke on the centennial of the publication of his grandfather’s great book. The argument is straightforward and Darwinian.
People vary. Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences. The difference will be accentuated, generation by generation.
In C. G. Darwin’s words: « It may well be that it would take hundreds of generations for the progenitive instinct to develop in this way, but if it should do so, nature would have taken her revenge, and the variety Homo contracipiens would become extinct and would be replaced by the variety Homo progenitivus » (16).
The argument assumes that conscience or the desire for children (no matter which) is hereditary–but hereditary only in the most general formal sense. The result will be the same whether the attitude is transmitted through germ cells, or exosomatically, to use A. J. Lotka’s term. (If one denies the latter possibility as well as the former, then what’s the point of education?) The argument has here been stated in the context of the population problem, but it applies equally well to any instance in which society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good–by means of his conscience. To make such an appeal is to set up a selective system that works toward the elimination of conscience from the race.
Pathogenic Effects of Conscience
The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be enough to condemn it; but has serious short-term disadvantages as well. If we ask a man who is exploiting a commons to desist « in the name of conscience, » what are we saying to him? What does he hear? –not only at the moment but also in the wee small hours of the night when, half asleep, he remembers not merely the words we used but also the nonverbal communication cues we gave him unawares? Sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously, he senses that he has received two communications, and that they are contradictory: (i) (intended communication) « If you don’t do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a responsible citizen »; (ii) (the unintended communication) « If you do behave as we ask, we will secretly condemn you for a simpleton who can be shamed into standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons. »
Everyman then is caught in what Bateson has called a « double bind. » Bateson and his co-workers have made a plausible case for viewing the double bind as an important causative factor in the genesis of schizophrenia (17). The double bind may not always be so damaging, but it always endangers the mental health of anyone to whom it is applied. « A bad conscience, » said Nietzsche, « is a kind of illness. »
To conjure up a conscience in others is tempting to anyone who wishes to extend his control beyond the legal limits. Leaders at the highest level succumb to this temptation. Has any President during the past generation failed to call on labor unions to moderate voluntarily their demands for higher wages, or to steel companies to honor voluntary guidelines on prices? I can recall none. The rhetoric used on such occasions is designed to produce feelings of guilt in noncooperators.
For centuries it was assumed without proof that guilt was a valuable, perhaps even an indispensable, ingredient of the civilized life. Now, in this post-Freudian world, we doubt it.
Paul Goodman speaks from the modern point of view when he says: « No good has ever come from feeling guilty, neither intelligence, policy, nor compassion. The guilty do not pay attention to the object but only to themselves, and not even to their own interests, which might make sense, but to their anxieties » (18).
One does not have to be a professional psychiatrist to see the consequences of anxiety. We in the Western world are just emerging from a dreadful two-centuries-long Dark Ages of Eros that was sustained partly by prohibition laws, but perhaps more effectively by the anxiety-generating mechanism of education. Alex Comfort has told the story well in The Anxiety Makers (19); it is not a pretty one.
Since proof is difficult, we may even concede that the results of anxiety may sometimes, from certain points of view, be desirable. The larger question we should ask is whether, as a matter of policy, we should ever encourage the use of a technique the tendency (if not the intention) of which is psychologically pathogenic. We hear much talk these days of responsible parenthood; the coupled words are incorporated into the titles of some organizations devoted to birth control. Some people have proposed massive propaganda campaigns to instill responsibility into the nation’s (or the world’s) breeders. But what is the meaning of the word responsibility in this context? Is it not merely a synonym for the word conscience? When we use the word responsibility in the absence of substantial sanctions are we not trying to browbeat a free man in a commons into acting against his own interest? Responsibility is a verbal counterfeit for a substantial quid pro quo. It is an attempt to get something for nothing.
If the word responsibility is to be used at all, I suggest that it be in the sense Charles Frankel uses it (20). « Responsibility, » says this philosopher, « is the product of definite social arrangements. » Notice that Frankel calls for social arrangements–not propaganda.
Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed upon
The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort. Consider bank-robbing. The man who takes money from a bank acts as if the bank were a commons. How do we prevent such action? Certainly not by trying to control his behavior solely by a verbal appeal to his sense of responsibility. Rather than rely on propaganda we follow Frankel’s lead and insist that a bank is not a commons; we seek the definite social arrangements that will keep it from becoming a commons. That we thereby infringe on the freedom of would-be robbers we neither deny nor regret.
The morality of bank-robbing is particularly easy to understand because we accept complete prohibition of this activity. We are willing to say « Thou shalt not rob banks, » without providing for exceptions. But temperance also can be created by coercion. Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown shoppers temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for short periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid a citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it increasingly expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased options are what we offer him. A Madison Avenue man might call this persuasion; I prefer the greater candor of the word coercion.
Coercion is a dirty word to most liberals now, but it need not forever be so. As with the four-letter words, its dirtiness can be cleansed away by exposure to the light, by saying it over and over without apology or embarrassment. To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.
To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it. Who enjoys taxes? We all grumble about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that voluntary taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) support taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons.
An alternative to the commons need not be perfectly just to be preferable. With real estate and other material goods, the alternative we have chosen is the institution of private property coupled with legal inheritance. Is this system perfectly just? As a genetically trained biologist I deny that it is. It seems to me that, if there are to be differences in individual inheritance, legal possession should be perfectly correlated with biological inheritance–that those who are biologically more fit to be the custodians of property and power should legally inherit more. But genetic recombination continually makes a mockery of the doctrine of « like father, like son » implicit in our laws of legal inheritance. An idiot can inherit millions, and a trust fund can keep his estate intact. We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust–but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.
It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the status quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard. Whenever a reform measure is proposed it is often defeated when its opponents triumphantly discover a flaw in it. As Kingsley Davis has pointed out (21), worshippers of the status quo sometimes imply that no reform is possible without unanimous agreement, an implication contrary to historical fact. As nearly as I can make out, automatic rejection of proposed reforms is based on one of two unconscious assumptions: (i) that the status quo is perfect; or (ii) that the choice we face is between reform and no action; if the proposed reform is imperfect, we presumably should take no action at all, while we wait for a perfect proposal.
But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of years is also action. It also produces evils. Once we are aware that the status quo is action, we can then compare its discoverable advantages and disadvantages with the predicted advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reform, discounting as best we can for our lack of experience. On the basis of such a comparison, we can make a rational decision which will not involve the unworkable assumption that only perfect systems are tolerable.
Recognition of Necessity
Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man’s population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another.
First we abandoned the commons in food gathering, enclosing farm land and restricting pastures and hunting and fishing areas. These restrictions are still not complete throughout the world.
Somewhat later we saw that the commons as a place for waste disposal would also have to be abandoned. Restrictions on the disposal of domestic sewage are widely accepted in the Western world; we are still struggling to close the commons to pollution by automobiles, factories, insecticide sprayers, fertilizing operations, and atomic energy installations.
In a still more embryonic state is our recognition of the evils of the commons in matters of pleasure. There is almost no restriction on the propagation of sound waves in the public medium. The shopping public is assaulted with mindless music, without its consent. Our government is paying out billions of dollars to create supersonic transport which will disturb 50,000 people for every one person who is whisked from coast to coast 3 hours faster. Advertisers muddy the airwaves of radio and television and pollute the view of travelers. We are a long way from outlawing the commons in matters of pleasure. Is this because our Puritan inheritance makes us view pleasure as something of a sin, and pain (that is, the pollution of advertising) as the sign of virtue?
Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of somebody’s personal liberty. Infringements made in the distant past are accepted because no contemporary complains of a loss. It is the newly proposed infringements that we vigorously oppose; cries of « rights » and « freedom » fill the air. But what does « freedom » mean? When men mutually agreed to pass laws against robbing, mankind became more free, not less so. Individuals locked into the logic of the commons are free only to bring on universal ruin once they see the necessity of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals. I believe it was Hegel who said, « Freedom is the recognition of necessity. »
The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short.
The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. « Freedom is the recognition of necessity »–and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.
References
↵J. B. Wiesner and H. F. York. National Security and the Nuclear-Test Ban, Sci. Amer. 211 (No. 4: 27 (1964).
↵G. Hardin, J. Hered. 50: 68 (1959).
FREE Full Text
s. Von Hoerner, General Limits of Space Travel, Science 137: 18 (1962).
FREE Full Text
↵J. Von Neumann, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1947) (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. (p. 11).
↵Fremlin, J.H., New Sci. 285 (1964).
↵Smith, A, The Wealth of Nations 423 (1937).
W. F. Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to Population (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England, 1833), reprinted (in part) in Population, Evolution, and Birth Control, G. Hardin, Ed. (Freeman, San Francisco, 1964), p. 37.
↵A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World 17 (1948).
↵G. Hardin, Population, Evolution, and Birth Control (Freeman, San Francisco) (1964) p. 54.
↵K. Davis, Science 158 730 (1967).
FREE Full Text
↵S. Tax, Evolution After Darwin (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960), vol. 2, 469.
↵G. Bateson, D. D. Jackson, J. Haley, J. Weakland, Behav. Sci. 1 251 (1956).
Web of Science
↵P. Goodman, New York Rev. Books 10(8) 22 (23 May 1968).
↵A. Comfort, The Anxiety Makers (Nelson, London, 1967).
↵C. Frankel, The Case for Modern Man (Harper, New York, 1955), p. 203.
↵J. D. Roslansky, Genetics and the Future of Man 177 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966).
Garrett James Hardin: Ecologist, Educator, Ethicist and Environmentalist
Tribute to Garrett Hardin
Carl Jay Bajerna, Grand Valley State University
Originally published in Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Garrett Hardin
Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Volume 12, Number 3, Spring 1991
Copyright 1991 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
« The population problem has no technical solution: It requires a fundamental extension in morality”-Garrett Hardin
This is the conclusion that Professor Hardin reached in his now classic 1968 « Tragedy of the Commons » presidential address at the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. What led Dr. Hardin to reject the traditional scientific belief that the population problem, like all problems, has a strictly technical solution?
What is it about political systems for distributing the benefits and costs of using resources that can and frequently has led to ecological and thus human tragedy? What extension in morality does Garrett Hardin consider to be necessary if we are to minimize such tragic outcomes in the future?
It is appropriate that we honor Garrett James Hardin on his 75th birthday by reviewing the ecological problems with which he has grappled over so much of his lifetime. We will spend some time analyzing the important intellectual journey that led him to develop and advocate the logic he used in his 1968 paper, « Tragedy of the Commons, » continuing unto his subsequent efforts to more completely develop the logic for the ecological ethics that we human beings need if we are to « survive with dignity. »
GROWING UP IN THE MIDWEST
Garrett James Hardin was born April 21, 1915 in Dallas, TX. Looking back, Garrett viewed frequent family moves within the midwest and summers on his grandfather’s Missouri farm as an advantage, as he « grew up an unconscious and natural anthropologist in my own culture » (Hardin, 1989).
Garrett contracted polio at age four, which left him a shortened and weakened right leg and ruled out three occupations he seriously considered entering while growing up–those of salesman, actor, and field geologist. Through reading Popular Science he developed an interest in science which withstood a close-to-disastrous experience with classroom science (Hardin, 1982b). During high school he enjoyed public speaking, drama and math.
STUDYING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Garrett Hardin was a bright student, earning three college scholarships. In the fall of 1932 he began attending two colleges-the University of Chicago in the daytime and the drama program at Chicago Musical College during the evening. The demands of being a good student at the University of Chicago soon led him to give up the night classes and his ambition of becoming a drama director.
Following his older brother’s advice, « If you hear a good teacher, take his course or sit in on it, no matter what the subject, » Garrett took a course from J. Harland Bretz, a geology professor who taught by the Socratic method. Garrett Hardin would have become a geologist if it had not required so much hiking. Fortunately, his freshman biology also was well taught and by the end of his sophomore year he decided to major in biology (Hardin, 1982a, p. 2-9).
The ecologist W. C. Allee became Hardin’s faculty advisor and introduced him to concepts of population growth and its ecological limits. A course in evolution taught by Sewall Wright emphasized the interaction of chance effects and selection. Population growth experiments involving protozoa and especially Raymond Pearl’s studies of the effect of culture medium on population growth led, after graduation in 1936, to a research assistantship at Stanford University for graduate work on the microbial ecology of single-celled protozoans.
LIFE AT STANFORD AND THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION
Two individuals played an important role in Garrett Hardin’s graduate education at Stanford University. Garrett took George Beadle’s course in genetics, becoming his teaching assistant, and C. V. Van Niels’ course at the marine biology station. Van Niel used the Socratic method, which influenced Garrett’s own later teaching style.
Garrett Hardin received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1942. He then accepted a position at the Carnegie Institution where his knowledge of microbial ecology was applied to culturing algae for food. Garrett worked at the Carnegie Institution for four years but his heart was not in the business of trying to just temporarily solve population problems by increasing supplies. Garrett had learned Malthusian population theory from W. C. Allee: the ultimate solution has to involve decreasing the demand on supplies (Hardin, 19821)).
LIFE AS AN EDUCATOR
Dr. Hardin joined the biology department at the new University of California at Santa Barbara in 1946. There, he abandoned his research with protozoan cultures in the face of the heavy teaching load and lack of any research space, writing instead an introductory college biology textbook for W. H. Freeman & Co.
The first edition of Hardin’s classic text, Biology: Its Principles and Implication (1952; 1961; 1966) was published in 1949 under the original title, Biology: It’s Human Implication. The text broke new ground by presenting biology through the teaching of the scientific method, i.e. the process by which theories are constructed, scientifically tested and evaluated. In Philosophy of Teaching, John Passmore (1980, p. 99, 106) referred to this textbook as exemplifying the ideal of teaching science as a process rather than an encyclopedic collection of facts.
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) was organized in 1960 to improve science education in biology at the secondary level, and Dr. Hardin became a member of its Board of Directors. In 1989 Joseph McInerney, then President of the National Association of Biology Teachers and current Executive Director of the BSCS, in accepting the Association’s award for distinguished service, acknowledged Garrett Hardin as one of those scientists who greatly influenced him.
Soon after coming to Santa Barbara, Hardin happened on the works of linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf’s work on the ambiguity of language played a decisive role in Garrett’s intellectual journey to becoming a critical thinker and a writer whose goal was « to make the ideas of others clear, both to students and to the general public » (Hardin, 1973, p. x).
Dr. Hardin has become one of the leading popularizers of the modern scientific understanding of biology and its scientific and moral implications for human beings. Through his lectures and writings, Garrett has forced more people to think about taboo subjects in biology than any other living biologist. Professor Garrett Hardin deserves to be honored if for no other reason than accomplishing this difficult task.
Filters Against Folly, Dr. Hardin’s most recent book, contains his proposals for developing critical thinking skills that will enable us to survive « despite economists, ecologists and the merely eloquent. » Professor Hardin identifies three major filters against folly that can be used to guard against the blindness, short-sightedness, or sheer idiocy that so often comes disguised as eloquence or expertise.
The literacy filter, « the ability to understand what words really mean, » can be used to understand how language is used not only to promote thought but to prevent it. While his discussion of the « verbal diarrhea » or the merely eloquent and the misuse of poetic license is fascinating, it is Hardin’s discussion of the use of such discussion-stoppers as « infinite, » « inexhaustible, » « non-negotiable, » « self-evident, » « must » and « imperative » to preempt analysis that is most revealing. Hardin also asks why talk is always about shortages of supply rather than longages of demand or of people. He concludes that it is in large part due to the fact that virtually no one individually profits from supplying less.
In a moment of frustration Mark Twain is reported to have shouted, « There are lies, damned lies and statistics! » In a world where people are very numerous and where many people use numbers to convince others to behave in certain ways, a responsible citizen has no choice but to become numerate as well as literate. The numeracy filter involves the ability to measure and interpret quantities, proportions and rates. Hardin points out that human beings have all too often learned how to use the resources of literacy to hide numbers and the need for numerate analyses. He draws attention to the problems created by always thinking solely in terms of dichotomies (safe vs. unsafe, pure vs. unpure) rather than in terms of relative risks and benefits. Quantities, ratios, rates and duration of time all matter. Professor Hardin also discusses the limitations of numeracy: an accurate mathematical analysis does not compensate for flawed premises.
Professor Hardin is at his best discussing the ecolacy filter because he has spent the last forty years studying ecology and evolution and their bioethical dimensions. A more comprehensive development of « ecolacy » – the ability to pursue the question AND THEN WHAT? so that the effects of interactions of systems over time can be taken into account-is necessary if we are not to fall victim to the forces we unleash and are unwilling or unable to control. Engineering mentality which too often thinks in terms of a single cause and a single effect needs to be replaced by the ecolacy filter, which takes into account real interactions including effects that affect their causes (feedback loops).
In this age of increasing concern over how to better develop critical thinking skills, one must go beyond the three R’s. We need the skills to use effectively the three intellectual filters of literacy, numeracy and ecolacy. There is no better place to start than the paperback edition of Professor Hardin’s book Filters Against Folly.
POPULARIZING ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION BY SELECTION THEORY
Professor Hardin’s major contribution to human ecology has been application of the Darwinian theory of selection to ongoing human genetic and cultural evolution. Hardin has worked hard at persuading fellow humans that evolution by selection is unavoidable, and that the implications for human interactions with each other and with the rest of the environment should be explored.
Nature and Man’s Fate. Dr. Hardin’s first major attempt to bring the reading public abreast of current thought in evolutionary theory and to show them its implications for the future was published as Nature and Man’s Fate (Hardin, 1959). Here he wrestled with Malthusian population theory and Darwinian selection theory, expanding on ideas initially learned from the ecologist W. C. Allee and the evolutionary biologist Sewall Wright.
Professor Hardin wrote in the Prologue to Nature and Man’s Fate that:
It doesn’t much matter whether you think man was created out of the dust six thousand years ago or came from the apes a million years earlier; whether the story of Noah’s Ark is true, or dinosaurs once lived. Believe what you will of evolution in the past; but you had jolly well better believe it will take place in the future if you hope to make political decisions that will give your descendants a reasonable chance to exist. The principles of evolution are inescapably relevant to the analysis of man’s predicament (pp, vii-viii).
He continued:
To understand the present we must know the past. With John Maynard Keynes I believe that a « study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind » (p. ix).
Nature and Man’s Fate draws attention to the important fact that progress in science is in large part a process of error and detection of error. The book focuses on the inescapability of competition-driven selection – the foundation of the modern evolutionary synthesis and of Hardin’s analysis of evolution and its implications for human beings.
Essays such as « In Praise of Waste, » « Liberalism and the Spectre of Competition, » and « Eugenics: Is Man Part of Nature? » carefully address numerous taboo subjects within the framework of the impotence principles of evolutionary science; that is, the psychological need, or wish, for the world to be unbounded is challenged by:
-the impotence of Lamarckian beliefs in the face of Mendelian genetics;
-the impotence of Liberal beliefs in egalitarian results in the face of the inescapableness of biological competition in a world with limited resources and mates;
-the impotence of those who seek to eliminate all waste in the face of the success of Darwinian selection operating on genetic/cultural wastewhat is usually called variation (pp. 306-310).
The discussion of competition is classic in that it is uncompromisingly grounded in science yet Hardin points out how one can make competition more humane: competition « cannot be escaped; it can only be altered in the form it takes » (p. 252). He does not commit the « naturalistic fallacy » of arguing from « is » to « ought. » While « we can never eliminate competition, » Garrett states that we can change the rules somewhat and the pay-off:
Competition is to be found in the subdued and pious Quaker meeting just as surely as it is on the bloodiest of battlefields. The device of love may be found in its arsenal side by side with weapons of steel. Our problem is not to avoid the unavoidable-competition-but to choose our weapons. In seeking the means that are most commensurate with human comfort, pleasure and dignity we cannot necessarily trust first impressions or traditional moral standards. We will need the deepest insights of psychology and anthropology to enable us to choose well (p. 255).
Competition for resources can take many forms. Consequently Professor Hardin pointed out:
The elimination of warfare by military means is tolerable only in a world that has outlawed reproductive warfare. The competitive use of human gonads in a pacificistic world is every bit as vicious and productive of suffering as is the militaristic use of atomic bombs (p. 322).
The generation and testing of new variations is important with respect to both genes and ideas. Hardin stresses the importance of free speech within a community and the freedom to err (p. 323) as they are the ultimate source of new ideas and combinations of ideas upon which selection can operate to produce progress. Progress in science and technology can be used to improve the human condition.
Hardin concludes with asking, « How is man to control his own evolution? » The difficulty is the greater because too many individuals deny the reality of human evolution occurring through natural, or Darwinian, selection. Hardin points out that the reality and importance of selection « is temporarily obscured by the increasing of the size of the feast world fisheries and agricultural yield through technological advances, but the increase is only a passing phase which must soon come to an end » (pp. 337-338).
While many of us appreciated the critical scientific thinking that is the hallmark of Nature and Man’s Fate, the book was not that well received by the academic community. Garrett Hardin has always been guilty of the crime of being a critical thinker who can express ideas far more clearly than most. But he was also guilty of another, emotionally more important, error: discussion of too many socially taboo subjects at one time-all in one book!! Fortunately Nature and Man’s Fate was liked well enough that it was republished in a paperback edition.
Garrett now became an active stalker of those taboos he had discussed in Nature and Man’s Fate. One strategy that he employed was to locate and reprint numerous important writings in Population, Evolution and Birth Control: A Collage of Controversial Readings, which first appeared in 1964. Many of the writings that were to play so important a role in the intellectual development of Hardin’s 1968 essay « The Tragedy of the Commons » were collected here.
For example, Garrett gave new life to Kenneth Boulding’s summary of the dismal and utterly dismal theorems of economics, which point out that technology cannot provide more than just a temporary solution for population/resources/environment problems:
. . . the famous dismal theorem of economics . . . if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then no matter how favorable the environment or how advanced the technology the population will grow until it is miserable and starves. The theorem, indeed, has a worse corollary which has been described as the utterly dismal theorem. This is the proposition that if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then any technological improvement will have the ultimate effect of increasing the sum of human misery, as it permits a larger population to live in precisely the same state of misery and starvation as before the change . . . (Boulding, 1956 in Hardin, 1969, p. t31).
The passages from William Lloyd’s discussion of the problems of resource management on the English commons and from Charles Galton Darwin’s summary of how the use of contraceptives by some of the population generates selection for homo progenetivictus replacing homo contraceptiens are also reprinted in Population, Evolution and Birth Control (Hardin, 1964, 1969).
C. G. Darwin’s analysis provided inspiration for Garrett’s (1963a) thoughts concerning « A Second Sermon of the Mount, » in which he enunciated the principle « Blessed are the women that are irregular, for their daughters shall inherit the earth. » Professor Hardin pointed out that the rhythm method of birth control is self-defeating: « If there is even a tiny hereditary element in their irregularity (as there surely must be), natural selection would then ultimately produce a world populated only by irregular women. Tidings of Darwin should be carried to Rome » (Hardin, 1963a, p. 371). Garrett, armed with selection theory, has been more than just a taboo stalker. He is one of the best scientific slayers of poorly thought-out political/theological ideas our generation has produced.
GARRETT HARDIN BECOMES AN ACTIVIST
Abortion Reform
James Newman’s book review of Abortion in the United States published in the January 1959 issue of Scientific American greatly affected Dr. Hardin’s professional and personal life (Hardin, 1973). His interest in birth control made the abortion taboo a natural subject.
The autumn 1963 day after Garrett delivered his first public lecture on abortion-an analysis and recommendations for abortion reform-in a
University of California (Santa Barbara-UCSB) lecture attended by more than 900 persons, Garrett began receiving telephone calls from women seeking help in obtaining a safe abortion. Garrett became an agent in the underground railroad for women seeking safe abortions. He also became a member of the board of National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, which was instrumental in bringing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case which made anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Looking back in 1983, Garrett noted that, « Abortion sure altered my life, because I’d never intended to be an activist » (Hardin, 1982, pp. 5-11).
Garrett became the intellectual spokesman for the abortion reform movement as the result of his UCSB « Abortion and Human Dignity » lecture. It was reprinted by the Society for Humane Abortion after he gave essentially the same lecture at the University of California (Berkeley UCB) in 1964. Garrett wrote other papers advocating abortion reform (Hardin, 1967, 1968a) as well as the book Mandatory Motherhood: The True Meaning of « Right to Life » (I 974b).
One question asked over and over again was, « When does life begin? » Garrett would reply that biologists think that life began more than two billion years ago; but now life is merely passed on from one cell to another. The question we should ask and answer is, « When do we want to call it a human life? » Human personhood is more than just life. Garrett drew an analogy between an architect’s blueprints and the information contained in DNA.
Dr. Hardin published his most recent views on the subject of abortion in 1982. He also was a supporter of the amicus curiae brief filed in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services by Population-Environment balance and seven other environmental groups (Lassow, 1989). In this 1989 case, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Missouri law restricting access to abortion.
Tragedy of the Commons
The Centennial celebration of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1959 led Charles’ grandson, Charles Galton Darwin (1960), to apply his grandfather’s theory of adaptive evolution by selection to predict that voluntary population control policies select for their own failure. Garrett Hardin, impressed with both the scientific logic and the political implications of C. G. Darwin’s insight, developed a more general ecological version of these principles in a paper entitled « The Tragedy of the Commons » (Hardin, 1968b).
It has been said that the road to confusion is paved with metaphors.
Nonetheless, short pithy phrases can dramatize problems and focus attention on the costs and benefits of proposed solutions. Professor Hardin invented the metaphoric tragedy of the commons in an attempt to communicate the need to modify the ethical basis of our decision-making if we are to adequately cope with our population/resources/pollution problems.
Dr. Hardin used the tragedy of the commons metaphor to describe the human misery that is predicted to ultimately occur whenever the right of a person or group to use a resource held in common is not matched by an operational responsibility to care for the resource (or the consequences of using the resources). The commons owned by English villages and available for all citizens to graze their cattle was proposed as the classic example of a commons. For the purposes of metaphor, rules governing the use of this commons were stated as: first, each herdsman may pasture as many cattle as he wishes on the commons; and second, the benefit from the growth of the cattle goes to the individual owners of the cattle.
In such an unmanaged commons, one or more herdsmen seek to maximize their private gain by adding cows to the herd. Ultimately this causes the herd to reach the population size at which the carrying capacity of the pasture is damaged by overgrazing and the resulting environmental deterioration brings ruin to all. Thus rational behavior at the individual level leads to tragic consequences for the community as a whole.
Professor Hardin (1977) points out that the unmanaged commons is but one of four political systems for distributing the costs and benefits of using environmental resources. He compares consequences of the unmanaged or poorly managed commons with the outcomes of privatism (where individually/corporately produced costs such as ecologically damaging wastes cannot be socialized), socialism (defined by Hardin as an adequately managed commons) and altruism (which is interesting but unworkable as long as there are individuals in the population working in their own self interest). The unmanaged or poorly managed commons enables individuals or groups to privatize the benefits while socializing the costs of using finite resources. It is a selective system that rewards the very persons or groups that increase the rate at which they (and/or their descendants) use commonly held resources.
Consequently the rate at which a finite resource is used increases and ultimately becomes so great that it approaches and soon exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, i.e., the maximum population size that the environment can sustain over extended time. The carrying capacity can be decreased by human behaviors that result in soil erosion or pollution (acid rain for example). An illusion that the carrying capacity of our environments have permanently increased is created when fixed supplies of fossil fuels are depleted and renewable biological resources are harvested at a rate faster than they are being regenerated-as is presently occurring.
Crowding sets the stage for the tragedy of the commons to occur. Growth in our numbers or growth in our affluent lifestyles or some combination of both generate environmental stress which exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, causing a deterioration in the future carrying capacity.
One need only assume that at least some human beings are egotists operating in their own self-interest for cultural selection to produce tragedy in an unmanaged commons. Selfish behavior in such a system is rewarded with benefits. The unmanaged commons establishes a social system that selects for its own failure, that is, for the adoption by other individuals of very selfish behavior that ultimately brings about tragedy.
Societies that try to regulate the use of resources in a commons by appealing to conscience (« voluntarism » or « jawbone responsibility ») merely generate selection favoring people who either do not have a social conscience or have consciences that tell them to do otherwise-individuals who, to use the words of Henry David Thoreau, march to a different drummer. In other words, appeals to conscience in a commons sets up a selective system that favors the reproduction of the ideas and genes of those individuals who reject society’s pleas to voluntarily control the rate at which they (and their descendants) use resources held in common. The tragic effects of cultural selection for individual behaviors that abuse the environment become so great that the question is not whether society should abandon the commons political system but rather when and how. Professor Hardin concludes that the poorly managed/unmanaged commons must be abandoned in favor either of privatism or socialism where the commons is managed in ecologically sustainable ways.
One of the most controversial of Dr. Hardin’s conclusions deals with human reproduction. Since the effect of coupling « the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons » locks « the world into a tragic course of action, » Hardin contends that the commons system with respect to childbearing has to be abandoned also (Hardin, 1972, pp. 188-189).
The private enterprise system of childbearing and childbearing generates so much misery among innocent children that Professor Hardin does not consider it to be an ethically acceptable option for modern societies. Consequently, he contends that a society which has been guaranteeing the survival, health and education of children must also have the power to decide how many children shall be born. In others words, societies will ultimately have to adopt coercive policies if they are to succeed in producing individual reproductive responsibility. The kind of coercion Hardin envisions is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected (Hardin, 1968b, 1972, 1977, 1985).
Just how successful has Professor Hardin been in breaking the social taboo on publicly applying selection theory to human problems? If one measures success by the number of times the « Tragedy of the Commons » has been cited (Anonymous, 1979), the number of times it has been reprinted in anthologies, or that in 1971 the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study made it into an educational movie starring Garrett, or that it has made Garrett famous, the answer is very successful.
When one measures Dr. Hardin’s success by the extent to which other scholars have been motivated to apply Darwinian selectionist logic to human problems of resource use, the answer is that few have been willing to publicly apply it. Study of the cultural evolution of ideas and/or genetic evolution of DNA is not taboo, but application to carrying capacity problems is. Sociobiologists who specialize in applying selection theory to the evolution of behavior rarely, if ever, mention Charles Calton Darwin’s application of selection theory nor Garrett Hardin’s more popular and more general « Tragedy of the Commons » version. Only one author (Bajema, 1978), in the three volume Encyclopedia of Bioethics, discusses the tragedy of the commons selectionist logic and its implications for policies that rely on voluntarism.
The tragedy of the commons selectionist logic has been most frequently applied to the management of such natural resources as fisheries, forests and pollutable reservoirs such as air and water (Baden and Stroup, 1977; Clark, 1973; McCay & Acheson, 1987; Repetto & Gillis, 1989). Professors John Baden and Garrett Hardin teamed up to edit Managing the Commons (1977), a book which draws attention to ecological and political consequences of cultural selection for the particular resource-using behaviors which are generated by particular political systems.
Professor Hardin, through his numerous lectures, essays and books (Hardin, 1972, 1973, 1977,1978, 1985; Hardin and Baden, 1977), has had and will continue to have a major impact on analysis of political problems. For example, Professor Hardin (1963, p. 80) replaced the rather naive ecological statement that « everything is connected to everything else » with one sentence that virtually demands that one search any action or inaction for its unintended effects. This sentence, « WE CAN NEVER DO MERELY ONE THING, » is so powerful a stimulus to ecologically important thinking that the editors of Fortune Magazine wrote:
If a prize were to be awarded for the most illuminating single sentence authored in the past ten years, one of the candidates would surely be Hardin’s Law … It says, with deceptive simplicity, « You can never do merely one thing. » This is something like a very clean glass door-you’re not sure at first glance whether anything is there. But those seven seemingly casual words express a profound truth about human affairs (Editors, 1974, p. 56).
Since « we can never do merely one thing, » Dr. Hardin contends that we need to be asking the question « AND THEN WHAT? » over and over again to more accurately estimate the consequences-intended and other-of what we do. The question « AND THEN WHAT » highlights the value of selectionist theory for evaluating the results of managing renewable and nonrenewable resources under alternate political systems.
Scholars have an obligation to summarize and evaluate the current version of a theory that a scientist is advocating. Garrett Hardin incorporated the fact that there are two kinds of commons-a « managed commons », a form of socialism where resources either can be managed in an ecologically sustainable way or ecologically mismanaged, and an « unmanaged commons », a form of socialism which selects the very behavior that leads to tragic outcomes-into his theory more than ten years ago (Hardin, 1977, Hardin and Baden, 1977). Yet scholars persist in criticizing outdated, or their own misinterpretations of Hardin’s application of selectionist logic (Cox, 1985; McCay & Acheson, 1987; Reader, 1988). One misconception is that selection will operate to bring tragedy only if every individual is an egotist operating in his own self-interest. Not so; but such behavior does quickly spread because selection in voluntarist systems favors « cheaters. » (:heaters are rewarded with resources. Consequently, more and more individuals in a society adopt the ecologically unsustainable cheater behavior and the tragedy results.
Those wishing to evaluate Professor Hardin’s use of selectionist logic to predict how a particular political system will affect human behavior and use of resources should consult his 1985 book Filters Against Folly. There, for example, they will read about the DOUBLE C-DOUBLE P game, the tragic distribution system that couples commonized costs with privatized profits and thus generates selection for its own failure.
DEVELOPING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY BASED HUMANIST ETHIC
Garrett Hardin has gone far beyond linking major political systems to the selective multiplication of resource-using behaviors which undermine the carrying capacity of the environment and thus the subsistence base of future generations. He proposes that we adopt a humanist environmental ethic based on comparing the consequences of a proposed action or inaction with the results from what currently is being done.
« In Praise of Waste, » the concluding chapter of Nature and Man’s Fate (1959), contains Professor Hardin’s first major discussion of an ideal humanist ethic. It is founded upon freedom of speech because this, among its other benefits, generates new ideas and combinations of ideas on which cultural selection can operate to bring about scientific and technological progress. The following passage, an echo of the conclusion of Darwin’s Origin of Species, concludes Nature and Man’s Fate:
We know now that a completely planned heaven is either impossible or unbearable. We know that it is not true that design can come only out of planning. Out of luxuriant waste, winnowed by selection, come designs more beautiful and in greater variety than ever man could plan. This is the lesson of Nature that Darwin has spelled out for us. Man, now that he makes himself, cannot do better than to emulate Nature’s example in allowing for waste and encouraging novelty. There is grandeur in this view of life as a complex of cybernetic systems that produce adaptedness without foresight, design without planning, and progress without dictation. From the simplest means, man, now master of his own fate, may evolve societies of a variety and novelty-yes, and even of a beauty-that no man living can now forsee (p. 346).
The failure of both laissez faire capitalism and classic Marxism in avoiding ecological degradation and resulting tragic consequences for future generations of humans beings led Professor Hardin to propose a fundamental extension in morality. In « The Tragedy of the Commons, » he developed a secular ethics that takes into account that at least some individuals operate in their own self-interest (exactly what one would expect on the basis of Darwinian adaptive evolution by selection theory) and that places the actions of individuals in an ecological context. The ecological ethic Hardin champions is system-sensitive to the state of the environment at the time the moral value of any particular action/inaction is determined. Professor Hardin expanded the situation-based humanist ethics developed by the theologian Joseph Fletcher to include ecological effects on individuals in the future-other individuals in present and future generations. Hardin’s ecologically based consequentialist ethic uses the following rule: action/inaction is determined to be moral or immoral on the basis of its consequences not merely for the current participants but for individuals in the future.
Garrett Hardin expanded, revised and updated his ideas concerning ethics in Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle (1972x), where he inserted scientific logic within the framework of a science-fiction parable to help his fellow citizens understand the momentous questions that are involved in population control, a problem that he contends can be solved only by restricting some human freedoms in order to preserve others.
The short time span and selfish dimensions of much of traditional ethics led Professor Hardin (1974c) to add a phrase to the theologian Martin Buber’s classic « I-Thou » frame of reference. The ethical frame of reference that Dr. Hardin champions is « I-Thou AND THIN WHAT? » Garrett Hardin applied the « tough love » logic of triage to foreign aid in his 1974 essay on « Lifeboat Ethics, » to which the editor of Psychology Today added the subtitle « The Case Against Helping the Poor » without consulting Dr. Hardin (1978,* p. 242). Professor Hardin is not opposed to providing the poor or anyone else with information that they can use to improve their situation. What Dr. Hardin realizes and his critics do not is that one cannot cure a cancer (overpopulation) by feeding it (foreign aid) or transporting some of its cells elsewhere (emigration).
Dr. Hardin had summarized the logic of his position fifteen years earlier, writing:
In the realm of inter-community affairs an analogous moral principle must be espoused-freedom to err. Within a single community there cannot be freedom of action for individual members. It will not do, for example, for a community that disapproves of murder, to wink at murder by individuals who want to be free. But, as between communities, there must be freedom for each community to determine its own moral principles. Other communities must be free not only to live morally (by our standards) but also to live immorally (again by our standards). Put bluntly, every community must be free to go to hell in its own way, so long as its action does not endanger the continued existence of other communities. A community must, for instance, enjoy the freedom to breed itself into a state of starvation, if it so wishes, without a finger being lifted elsewhere to interfere with its stupidity. To interfere, to save it from the consequences of its own immorality is but to postpone and aggravate the problem, and to spread the moral infection. By not interfering, however, we make it more probable that a community will see its error in time, will see that a moral principle of unlimited reproduction is incompatible with the principle of unlimited use of medicine in the prevention of crowd diseases. If we have any responsibility at all with respect to other communities, it is only because we ourselves failed in the past to see the cultural incompatibility of the above-mentioned principles and freely gave of our medicine without at the same time seeing to it that gift was coupled with the principle of birth limitation (1959, pp. 323-324).
*Second edition of Stalking the Wild Taboo
On numerous occasions Professor Hardin (1979, p. 1; 1981, p. 45,) has contended that what we need are « thinking rather than bleeding hearts, » and that each nation has the moral obligation to become selfreliant. (Note, Dr. Hardin did not say « self-sufficient »). Hardin encourages ecologically comprehensive thought by championing the « sanctity of the carrying capacity of the environment » as an ethical concept which is more humane in its consequences for human life than « sanctity of the individual » (Hardin, 1977; 1985).
In his 1982 essay « Ending the Squanderarchy, » Professor Hardin outlines some of the important ethical changes that a squanderarchy like the United States will have to make in order to become an ecologically sustainable conservationist society. Rather than expect the transition to come directly, Hardin is a « trend » pessimist: for the U.S. and other squanderarchies, the probable pathway to a conservationist society is through a dark age-a period of poverty and chaos before the more humane, ecologically sustainable state is reached.
Garrett Hardin’s efforts to find the most humane solution to the human ecological predicament led the American Humanist Association to choose him as recipient of the 1989 Humanist Distinguished Service Award.
CONCLUSION
We temporary fellow travelers on the Planet Earth are fortunate to have in our midst Garrett Hardin, a scholar who has spent most of his life helping citizens gain a better understanding of the implications that evolutionary processes have for their fate.
There are those shallow thinking optimists who merely extrapolate desirable trends (making some trends desirable by choosing the « appropriate » time frame) or contend that since humans have time and again proven their resourcefulness, they have the capacity to produce a technical fix that will solve every human problem.* In contrast, Dr. Hardin has developed a well-tested theory-driven humanist ethic that takes real world constraints into account. There are ecological limits to growth in the use of resources and pollution of the environment. The real world is inhabited by people who evolve under conditions which favor ideas and individuals that privatize profits and commonize costs. Consequently, political systems that attempt to regulate the use of resources by appeals to simple conscience produce tragic ecological consequences for human beings. Professor Hardin has not only drawn our attention to these problems but also has evaluated alternate ways for solving the ecological problems we face.
*See also critiques by Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1982; and Daly, 1982 and in this volume.
If we human beings succeed in resolving our population/resources/ environment problems, it will be in large part because of having finally learned to use the ecological logic that Garrett Hardin has so ably championed. Only by asking and scientifically answering the question « And Then What? » can we meaningfully evaluate the consequences of choices that will determine if we are to survive with dignity on this planet_ In « The Tragedy of the Commons, » « Lifeboat Ethics, » « Do Trees Have Legal Standing?, » « Limits to Altruism, » « Carrying Capacity as an Ethical Concept, » « Squanderarchy » and other numerous essays Dr. Hardin has drawn our attention to the consequentialist, humanist dimensions of our population/ resources/environment crunch. His analysis of alternate ethical systems gives due weight to the rights of future generations.
It is appropriate that we honor Garrett Hardin for his contribution to the quality of human life on this planet in addition to celebrating with him his 75th birthday. His professional life has been a full one, enriched by his wife Jane, who also has served as an involved participant with whom Garrett « field tested » many of his thoughts. We honor Dr. Garrett Hardin, Professor Emeritus of Human Ecology, University of California at Santa Barbara, for helping us to become more-critical thinkers and more considerate of future generations, whose claims we lay alongside those who are alive today. The Earth and all the creatures on it now and in the future are truly fortunate to have such a literate, numerate and ecolate humanist champion as Garrett James Hardin.
HONORS AND AWARDS RECEIVED BY GARRETT JAMES HARDIN
[Through 1991]
1930 Chicago Daily News essay winner
1932 Scholarship, University of Chicago
1932 Scholarship, Chicago College of Music
1952-53 Ford Fellow, California Institute of Technology
1963 Professor of Human Ecology, University of California, Santa Barbara
1964 Visiting Professor, University of California, Berkeley
1964 Remson Bird Lecturer, Occidental College
1966 Faculty Research Lecturer, University of California, Santa Barbara
1970 Visiting professor, University of Chicago
1970 Nieuwland Lecturer, University of Notre Dame
1970-71 National Visiting Lecturer, Phi Beta Kappa
1972 Messenger Lecturer, Cornell University
1972-73 National Lecturer, Sigma Xi
1973 Hall of Fame Award, Friends of the Earth
1973 Elected Member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences
1974 Elected Member of American Philosophical Society
1974 Aquinas Foundation Lecture, Drew University
1974 Tracey I. Storer Lecturer, University of California, Davis
1975 Elected Honorary Member, National Association of Biology Teachers
1975 Honorary Doctor of Humanities Degree, University of Puget Sound
1975-76 Member, Advisory Committee of Ethical and Human Value Implications of Science and Technology, National Endowment for the Humanities/National Science Foundation
1976 Patten Foundation Lecturer, Indiana University
1977 Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Northland College
1978 Lecturer, Dartmouth College (chosen by students)
1979 Jesse and John Danz Lecturer, University of Washington 1980 Margaret Sanger Award, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
1986 Distinguished Service Award, American Institute of Biological Sciences
1987 Mack Lipkin Lecturer, American Museum of Natural History 1989 Humanist Distinguished Service Award, American Humanist Association
1990 Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform Award
1990 Population-Environment BALANCE Carrying Capacity Award
REFERENCES
Anonymous. (1979). This week’s citation classic: The tragedy of the commons. Current (ontents, Social & Behavioral Sciences, 1 1 (20), 22.
Bajema, C. 1. (1978). Population policies: Genetic implications. In W. Reich (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Bioethics: Vol. 3, 1,307-4311. NY: Free Press.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). The image. Ann Arbor: U. of Michigan Press. In G. H. Hardin (Ed.). Population, evolution and birth control. San Francis(o: W. H. Freeman, Co. (1969). Caldwell, I. C. & Caldwell, P. (1990, May). High fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Scientific American, 262 (5), 118-125.
Clark, C. (1981). Bioeconomics of the ocean. BioScience, 31, 231-237. Cox, S. (1985). No tragedy on the common, Environmental Ethics, 7, 49-61. Daly, I1. (1977). Steady state economics: The economics of biophysical equilibrium and moral growth. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Daly, H. (1982, January). Review of 1-he Ultimate Resource by Julian Simon. Bull. of Atomic Scientists.
D,Irwin, C. G. (1960). Can Man Control tlis Numbers? In S. Tax, (Ed.). Evolution after Darwin: Vol. 2, I he evolution of man (pp. 463-473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Editors. (1974, February). Editorial: Why government often makes matters worse. Fortune, 89 (2), 56.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1978, Mar(h) Review of Limits to Altruism by Garrett Hardin. Human Nature, I B-21.
Ehrlich, P. R., and Ehrlich, A. (1982). Space age cargo cult. Defenders of Wildlife, 57, (1 Feb), 57-59.
flardin, G. (1952, 1966, 1961) & Bajema, C. 1. (1978). Biology: Its Principles and implications. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Hardin, G. (1959). Nature and man’s fate. NY: Rinehart.
Hardin, G. (1963.). A second sermon on the mount. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 6, (3), 366-371.
Hardin, C1. (19636). The cybernetics of competition. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 7 (1): 58-84.
Hardin, G. !1964). Abortion and human dignity. Reprinted in A. F. Guttmacher (Ed.). (1967). The Case for Legalized Abortion Now. Berkeley, CA: Diablo Press.
Hardin, G. I. (Ed.). (1964, 1969). Population, evolution and birth control: A collage of controversial ideas. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Hardin, G. (1967). Blueprints, DNA, and abortion: A scientific and ethical analysis. Medical Opinion and Review, 3, (2), 74-85.
Hardin, (.. (1968.)_ Abortion–or compulsory pregnancy? I- Marriage and the family, 30 (2), 146-251 .
Hardin, G. (Ed.). (I 908b). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248_
Hardin, C’. (1972). Exploring New Ethics For Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship Beagle. NY: Viking Press.
flardin, G. (1972). Ambivalent aspects of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, (1), 15-19.
Hardin, (~. (1973, 1978). Stalking the Wild Taboo. Los Altos, CA: Writ Kaufmann.
Hardin G. (1974x, winter). The rational foundation of conservation. The North American Review, pp. 14-17.
Hardin, G. (19746). Mandatory motherhood: /he true meaning of « Right to life. » Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hardin, G. (1974(, September). Lifeboat ethics. Psychology Today, 8 (4), 38-43. Expanded (O(t. 1974). Living in a lifeboat. Bioscience, 24 (10), 561-568.
Hardin, G. (1977). The limits to Altrusim: An ecologist’s view of survival. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hardin, G. (B July, 1979). We need thinking rather than bleeding hearts. Los Angeles Times, Part V, pp. 1, 3.
Hardin, G. (October 26, 1981). The toughlove solution. Newsweek, p. 45.
Hardin, G (1981). Ending the squanderarchy. In H. E. Daly, & A. F. Umana, (Eds.). (1982). Energy, Economics and the Environment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hardin, G. (1982a). Naked emperors: Essays of a taboo-stalker. Los Altos, CA: Wm Kaufmann.
Hardin, G. (1982b). Interview of Garrett Hardin by Russell. Transcripts of five audiotapes. Archives, University of California at Santa Barbara.
Hardin, G. (1985). filters against Folly: Flow to survive despite economists, ecologists, and the merely eloquent. NY: Viking Press. (1986, paperback edition by Penguin).
Hardin, G. (1989). Personal communication. Santa Barbara, CA.
Hardin, G. & Baden, J. (Eds.). (1977). Managing the commons. San Francisco, CA: 294 pp. Lassow, D. R. (1989). Amicus brief, excerpts. Population and Environment, 1 1 (2), 141-152. McCay, B. I., & Acheson, J. M. (Eds.). (1987). The question of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Newman, J. (1959, January). Review of Abortion in the United States by M. Calderone (Ed.). (1958). Scientific American, 200, (1), 149-154.
Ophuls, W. (1977). Ecology and the politics of scarcity: Prologue to a political theory of the steady state. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Reader, J. (1988, September 8). Human ecology: How land shapes ecology. New Scientist, 51-55.
Repetto, R. & Gillis, M. (Eds.). (1989). Public policies and the misuse of forest resources. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ce qui se vit aujourd’hui est une forme de rivalité mimétique à l’échelle planétaire. Lorsque j’ai lu les premiers documents de Ben Laden, constaté ses allusions aux bombes américaines tombées sur le Japon, je me suis senti d’emblée à un niveau qui est au-delà de l’islam, celui de la planète entière. Sous l’étiquette de l’islam, on trouve une volonté de rallier et de mobiliser tout un tiers-monde de frustrés et de victimes dans leurs rapports de rivalité mimétique avec l’Occident. René Girard
One can’t think that in order to improve and normalize relations with the U.S., Cuba has to give up the principles it believes in. Changes in Cuba aren’t negotiable. Josefina Vidal (Cuba’s top diplomat for U.S. affairs, 25.01.15)
Although Cuba no longer actively supports armed struggle in Latin America and other parts of the world, the Cuban government continued to provide safe haven to several terrorists. Members of ETA, the FARC, and the ELN remained in Cuba during 2008, some having arrived in Cuba in connection with peace negotiations with the governments of Spain and Colombia. Cuban authorities continued to publicly defend the FARC. However, on July 6, 2008, former Cuban President Fidel Castro called on the FARC to release the hostages they were holding without preconditions. He has also condemned the FARC’s mistreatment of captives and of their abduction of civilian politicians who had no role in the armed conflict. The United States has no evidence of terrorist-related money laundering or terrorist financing activities in Cuba, although Cuba has one of the world’s most secretive and non-transparent national banking systems. Cuba has no financial intelligence unit. Cuba’s Law 93 Against Acts of Terrorism provides the government authority to track, block, or seize terrorist assets. The Cuban government continued to permit some U.S. fugitives—including members of U.S. militant groups such as the Boricua Popular, or Macheteros, and the Black Liberation Army to live legally in Cuba. In keeping with its public declaration, the government has not provided safe haven to any new U.S. fugitives wanted for terrorism since 2006. US Department of state
Imagine there’s no Israel, It’s easy if you try, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace You may say that I’m a dreamer, But I’m not the only one, I hope someday you’ll join us And the world will be as one … (à fredonner sur un air connu)
Il a fallu s’y atteler et dans ces lieux, on peut rendre hommage aux Cubains, issus de la Révolution qui se sont résolus à tenir tête aux États-Unis, leurs plus proches voisins. Les Cubains, les Cubains de Cuba, fiers de leur révolution sociale, savent qu’ils ne sont plus seuls. En revendiquant leur dignité, ils s’associent aux revendications de tous les peuples opprimés et, de ce fait, ils rejoignent les bâtisseurs du monde de demain.Danielle Mitterrand (Porto Alegre, février 2003)
L’Amérique est toujours le tueur numéro 1 dans le monde. . . Nous sommes profondément impliqués dans l’importation de la drogue, l’exportation d’armes et la formation de tueurs professionnels. . . Nous avons bombardé le Cambodge, l’Irak et le Nicaragua, tuant les femmes et les enfants tout en essayant de monter l’opinion publique contre Castro et Khaddafi. . . Nous avons mis Mandela en prison et soutenu la ségrégation pendant 27 ans. Nous croyons en la suprématie blanche et l’infériorité noire et y croyons davantage qu’en Dieu. … Nous avons soutenu le sionisme sans scrupule tout en ignorant les Palestiniens et stigmatisé quiconque le dénonçait comme anti-sémite. . . Nous ne nous inquiétons en rien de la vie humaine si la fin justifie les moyens. . . Nous avons lancé le virus du SIDA. . . Nous ne pouvons maintenir notre niveau de vie qu’en nous assurant que les personnes du tiers monde vivent dans la pauvreté la plus abjecte. Rev. Jeremiah Wright (le 15 janvier 2006)
L’audace de l’espoir. Voilà le meilleur de l’esprit américain ; avoir l’audace de croire, malgré toutes les indications contraires, que nous pouvions restaurer un sens de la communauté au sein d’une nation déchirée ; l’audace de croire que malgré des revers personnels, la perte d’un emploi, un malade dans la famille ou une famille empêtrée dans la pauvreté, nous avions quelque emprise- et par conséquent une responsabilité sur notre propre destin. Barack Hussein Obama
Je veux aussi, une fois élu, organiser un sommet dans le monde musulman, avec tous les chefs d’Etat, pour discuter franchement sur la façon de contenir le fossé qui s’agrandit chaque jour entre les musulmans et l’Occident. Je veux leur demander de rejoindre notre combat contre le terrorisme. Nous devons aussi écouter leurs préoccupations. (…) Je veux dialoguer directement avec l’Iran et la Syrie. Nous ne stabiliserons pas la région si nous ne parlons pas à nos ennemis. Lorsqu’on est en désaccord profond avec quelqu’un, il faut lui parler directement.Barack Obama (Paris Match, le 31 janvier 2008)
Il n’y a aucune raison que nous ne puissions restaurer le respect dont jouissait l’Amérique et le partenariat qu’elle avait avec le monde musulman voilà 20 ou 30 ans de cela. (…) J’ai déclaré durant la campagne qu’il est très important pour nous de faire en sorte que nous utilisions tous les outils de la puissance américaine, y compris la diplomatie, dans nos relations avec l’Iran. Barack Hussein Obama
We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand. You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.” The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?Barack Hussein Obama
It’s the dreamers — no matter how humble or poor or seemingly powerless — that are able to change the course of human events. We saw it in South Africa, where citizens stood up to the scourge of apartheid. We saw it in Europe, where Poles marched in Solidarity to help bring down the Iron Curtain. In Argentina, where mothers of the disappeared spoke out against the Dirty War. It’s the story of my country, where citizens worked to abolish slavery, and establish women’s rights and workers’ rights, and rights for gays and lesbians. It’s not to say that my country is perfect — we are not. And that’s the point. We always have to have citizens who are willing to question and push our government, and identify injustice. We have to wrestle with our own challenges — from issues of race to policing to inequality. But what makes me most proud about the extraordinary example of the United States is not that we’re perfect, but that we struggle with it, and we have this open space in which society can continually try to make us a more perfect union. (…) As the United States begins a new chapter in our relationship with Cuba, we hope it will create an environment that improves the lives of the Cuban people -– not because it’s imposed by us, the United States, but through the talent and ingenuity and aspirations, and the conversation among Cubans from all walks of life so they can decide what the best course is for their prosperity. As we move toward the process of normalization, we’ll have our differences, government to government, with Cuba on many issues — just as we differ at times with other nations within the Americas; just as we differ with our closest allies. There’s nothing wrong with that. (…) And whether it’s crackdowns on free expression in Russia or China, or restrictions on freedom of association and assembly in Egypt, or prison camps run by the North Korean regime — human rights and fundamental freedoms are still at risk around the world. And when that happens, we believe we have a moral obligation to speak out. (…) As you work for change, the United States will stand up alongside you every step of the way. We are respectful of the difference among our countries. The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past. (…) We have a debt to pay, because the voices of ordinary people have made us better. That’s a debt that I want to make sure we repay in this hemisphere and around the world. (…) God bless you. Barack Hussein Obama (Sommet des Amériques, Panama city, April 10, 2015)
Les frères Jonas sont ici ; ils sont là quelque part. Sasha et Malia sont de grandes fans. Mais les gars, allez pas vous faire des idées. J’ai deux mots pour vous: « predator drone ». Vous les verrez même pas venir. Vous croyez que je plaisante, hein ? Barack Hussein Obama
I, and most of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful. Not only was one cartoonist gunned down, but riots erupted around the world, resulting in the deaths of scores. No one could say toward what positive social end, yet free speech absolutists were unchastened. Using judgment and common sense in expressing oneself were denounced as antithetical to freedom of speech. And now we are adrift in an even wider sea of pain. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo, which always maintained it was attacking Islamic fanatics, not the general population, has succeeded in provoking many Muslims throughout France to make common cause with its most violent outliers. This is a bitter harvest. Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean. By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks. The White House took a lot of hits for not sending a high-level representative to the pro-Charlie solidarity march, but that oversight is now starting to look smart. The French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another. What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism. I’m aware that I make these observations from a special position, one of safety. In America, no one goes into cartooning for the adrenaline. As Jon Stewart said in the aftermath of the killings, comedy in a free society shouldn’t take courage. Writing satire is a privilege I’ve never taken lightly. And I’m still trying to get it right. Doonesbury remains a work in progress, an imperfect chronicle of human imperfection. It is work, though, that only exists because of the remarkable license that commentators enjoy in this country. That license has been stretched beyond recognition in the digital age. It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it.Garry Trudeau
Si à Poitiers Charles Martel avait été battu, le monde aurait changé de face. Puisque le monde était déjà condamné à l’influence judaïque (et son sous-produit le christianisme est une chose si insipide !), il aurait mieux valu que l’islam triomphe. Cette religion récompense l’héroïsme, promet au guerrier les joies du septième ciel… Animé d’un esprit semblable, les Germains auraient conquis le monde. Ils en ont été empêchés par le christianisme.Hitler (1942)
Après tout, qui parle encore aujourd’hui de l’annihilation des Arméniens?Hitler (22 août 1939)
Nous ne savons pas si Hitler est sur le point de fonder un nouvel islam. Il est d’ores et déjà sur la voie; il ressemble à Mahomet. L’émotion en Allemagne est islamique, guerrière et islamique. Ils sont tous ivres d’un dieu farouche. Jung (1939)
Mein Kamp (…) Tel était le nouveau Coran de la foi et de la guerre: emphatique, fastidieux, sans forme, mais empli de son propre message.Churchill
Si le Reich allemand s’impose comme protecteur de tous ceux dont le sang allemand coule dans les veines, et bien la foi musulmane impose à chaque Musulman de se considérer comme protecteur de toute personne ayant été imprégnée de l’apprentissage coranique.Hassan el Banna (fondateur des Frères musulmans et grand-père de Tariq et Hani Ramadan)
J’annonce au monde entier que si les infidèles font obstacle à notre religion, nous nous opposerons au monde entier et nous ne cesserons pas avant leur anéantissement, nous en sortirons tous libérés ou nous obtiendrons une plus grande liberté qui est le martyr. Soit nous nous serrerons les uns aux autres pour célébrer la victoire de l’islam sur le monde ou bien nous aurons tous la vie éternelle grâce au martyr. Dans les deux cas, la victoire et le succès seront à nous.Khomeiny
Beaucoup de déçus dans la lutte entre le monde islamique et les infidèles ont essayé de rejeter la responsabilité en annonçant qu’il n’est pas possible d’avoir un monde sans les États-Unis et le sionisme. Mais vous savez que ce sont un but et un slogan réalisables. Pour étayer ses propos, le président se réfère à la chute, dans l’histoire récente, de plusieurs régimes que personne ne voyait sombrer. Lorsque notre cher imam (Khomeiny) a annoncé que le régime (du Shah) devait être supprimé, beaucoup de ceux qui prétendaient être politiquement bien informés ont déclaré que ce n’était pas possible. Qui pouvait penser qu’un jour, nous pourrions être témoins de l’effondrement de l’empire de l’Est (Union soviétique) ? L’Imam a annoncé que Saddam devait s’en aller puis a ajouté qu’il s’affaiblirait plus vite que personne ne l’imagine. L’Imam (Khomeiny) a annoncé que le régime occupant Jérusalem devait disparaître de la page du temps. Ahmadinejad (Conférence du monde sans sionisme, 25 octobre 2005)
Mort à l’Amérique, parce que l’Amérique est la source d’origine de cette pression. Ils insistent à mettre la pression sur l’économie de nos chères personnes. Quel est leur objectif ? Leur objectif est de monter les gens contre le système. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (20.03.15)
Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy; this too is jihad. Hassan Rouhani
La situation est tragique mais les forces en présence au Moyen-Orient font qu’au long terme, Israël, comme autrefois les Royaumes francs, finira par disparaître. Cette région a toujours rejeté les corps étrangers.Dominique de Villepin (Paris, automne 2001)
Nul ne peut ne pas rêver de la destruction de n’importe quelle puissance devenue à ce point hégémonique (…) A la limite, c’est eux qui l’ont fait, mais c’est nous qui l’avons voulu. Jean Baudrillard (novembre 2001)
En des occasions diverses j’ai défini cette époque comme un temps de guerre, une troisième guerre mondiale « par morceaux », où nous assistons quotidiennement à des crimes atroces, à des massacres sanglants, et à la folie de la destruction. Malheureusement, encore aujourd’hui, nous entendons le cri étouffé et négligé de beaucoup de nos frères et sœurs sans défense, qui, à cause de leur foi au Christ ou de leur appartenance ethnique, sont publiquement et atrocement tués – décapités, crucifiés, brulés vifs –, ou bien contraints d’abandonner leur terre. Aujourd’hui encore nous sommes en train de vivre une sorte de génocide causé par l’indifférence générale et collective, par le silence complice de Caïn qui s’exclame : « Que m’importe ? », « Suis-je le gardien de mon frère ? » (…) Notre humanité a vécu, le siècle dernier, trois grandes tragédies inouïes : la première est celle qui est généralement considérée comme « le premier génocide du XXème siècle » ; elle a frappé votre peuple arménien – première nation chrétienne –, avec les Syriens catholiques et orthodoxes, les Assyriens, les Chaldéens et les Grecs. Des évêques, des prêtres, des religieux, des femmes, des hommes, des personnes âgées et même des enfants et des malades sans défense ont été tués. Les deux autres ont été perpétrées par la nazisme et par le stalinisme. Et, plus récemment, d’autres exterminations de masse, comme celles au Cambodge, au Rwanda, au Burundi, en Bosnie. Cependant, il semble que l’humanité ne réussisse pas à cesser de verser le sang innocent. Il semble que l’enthousiasme qui est apparu à la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale soit en train de disparaître et de se dissoudre. Il semble que la famille humaine refuse d’apprendre de ses propres erreurs causées par la loi de la terreur ; et ainsi, encore aujourd’hui, il y en a qui cherchent à éliminer leurs semblables, avec l’aide des uns et le silence complice des autres qui restent spectateurs. (…) Se souvenir d’eux est nécessaire, plus encore c’est un devoir, parce que là où il n’y a plus de mémoire, cela signifie que le mal tient encore la blessure ouverte ; cacher ou nier le mal c’est comme laisser une blessure continuer à saigner sans la panser ! Pape François
Les « pacifistes » croient donner une chance à la paix. En fait, s’ils donnent une chance, c’est à l’aveuglement et à lui seul. Les manifestations de samedi dernier c’est l’union sacrée de John Lennon et de Neville Chamberlain. Une naïveté poussée jusqu’à l’absence complète de discernement le dispute au mépris de la réalité. Il n’y a rien à attendre d’une telle alliance. Laurent Murawiec
Obama demande pardon pour les faits et gestes de l’Amérique, son passé, son présent et le reste, il s’excuse de tout. Les relations dégradées avec la Russie, le manque de respect pour l’Islam, les mauvais rapports avec l’Iran, les bisbilles avec l’Europe, le manque d’adulation pour Fidel Castro, tout lui est bon pour battre la coulpe de l’Amérique. (…) Mais où Obama a-t-il donc appris ces inepties ? D’où vient cet amoncellement de mécomptes du monde, d’idées fausses et difformes? D’où provient ce prurit du je-vous-demande pardon ? On est habitué au Jimmycartérisme, qui se mettait à quatre pattes devant Khomeiny (« un saint »), l’URSS, Cuba, le tiers monde, le terrorisme musulman. D’où vient qu’Obama ait – dirigeant d’une république – courbé la tête devant le roi d’Arabie ? C’est là qu’il convient de se souvenir de l’homme qui fut son pasteur pendant vingt ans, ce qui est très long quand on n’en a pas encore cinquante : le pasteur Jeremy Wright, de l’Eglise de la Trinité à Chicago, dont Obama ne se sépara que contraint et forcé, pour cause de déclarations insupportablement anti-américaines et antioccidentales, délirantes et conspirationnistes, et qui « passaient mal» dans la campagne.(…) C’est Wright qui fait du diplômé de Harvard qui est maintenant un agitateur local (community organizer), un politicien en vue à Chicago. N’oublions pas que la carrière politique locale d’Obama est lancée par les fanatiques de la haine de l’Amérique, les ultragauchistes terroristes des Weathermen, à Chicago, qui répètent et confirment la même antienne idéologique. Tous les aquariums où a nagé le têtard avaient la même eau. Obama est la version manucurée de Wright : il est allé à Harvard. Il n’éructe pas, il ne bave pas, il ne montre pas le poing. Il n’émet pas de gros mots à jet continu comme le fait son gourou. Elégant, Il est tout miel – mais les dragées, même recouvertes de sucre, n’en sont pas moins au poivre. Le fond est identique. Wright insulte l’Amérique, Obama demande pardon : dans les deux cas, elle est coupable. Wright est pasteur, Obama est président. Plus encore, cette déplorable Amérique a semé le désordre et le mal partout dans le monde. Au lieu de collaborer multilatéralement avec tous, d’œuvrer au bien commun avec Poutine, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Bachir al-Assad, et Cie, l’insupportable Bush en a fait des ennemis. Quelle honte ! Il faut réparer les torts commis. L’Amérique ne trouvera sa rédemption que dans le retrait, la pénitence, la contrition, et une forme de disparition. (…) Il faut, à tout prix, trouver des terrains d’entente avec tous. Il faut aller loin, très loin, dans les concessions : l’autre côté finira bien par comprendre. Kim Jong-Il, Hugo Chavez, l’ayatollah Khamenei, Assad, le Hamas, on trouvera les compromis nécessaires à un deal avec les avocats des partie adverses. Sans entente, on retombe dans les errements de l’Amérique honnie. L’Amérique, quelle horreur, se laisse aller à défendre ses alliés contre ses ennemis. On se bat au Vietnam et en Corée contre le communisme agresseur. On se bat contre le Communisme soviétique. Que croyez-vous que l’Obama de la campagne électorale ait signifié à Berlin, en disant, non sans délire, que le monde avait gagné la Guerre froide « en s’unissant » comme s’il n’y avait un qu’un seul camp dans cette guerre ! L’Amérique doit être réduite dans ses prétentions et dans sa puissance. Le monde doit être réduit à un seul camp, celui des faiseurs de paix, avec lesquels l’entente est toujours trouvable. Il n’y a pas d’ennemis, il n’y a que des malentendus. Il ne peut y avoir d’affrontements, seulement des clarifications. (…) Notons à propos que la mêlée des «réalistes»de la politique étrangère, qui préconise justement de se débarrasser des alliés afin de s´arranger avec les méchants, est aux anges, et participe à la mise en oeuvre de l´obamisterie. Ah! finalement, on ne s´embarrasse plus d´autre chose que la «stabilité» à court terme. (…) Obama ne sépare ni le blanc du noir, ni l´ami de l´ennemi. Il a gratuitement offensé les Anglais en méprisant la «relation spéciale». Il a offensé le Japon, en ne se souciant pas de lui ni du survol de son territoire par le missile nord-coréen. Il n´a pas eu un mot pour l´allié taïwanais. Il prépare avec acharnement une crise avec Israel. Il a montré à la Tchéquie et à la Pologne, sur l´affaire de la défense anti- missiles, qu´il ne faut pas compter sur Washington et qu´ils seront sacrifiés sur l´autel du «nouveau départ» avec Moscou. Pour tous, la leçon est brutale: à l´ère d´Obama, mieux vaut être un ennemi qu´un ami: ami, on vous jettera aux orties. Ennemi, on fera tout pour vous plaire.Laurent Murawiec
Quand l’Autriche se moque de vous, c’est que ce n’est pas votre semaine. Pourtant qui peut blâmer Madame Fekter, vu le dédain qu’Obama a montré pour son propre pays à l’étranger, jouant au philosophe-roi au-dessus de la mêlée qui négocie entre sa patrie renégate et un monde par ailleurs chaleureux et accueillant ? (…) Il est particulièrement étrange de voir un leader mondial célébrer le déclin de son propre pays. Encore quelques tournées mondiales comme celle-ci et Obama aura beaucoup plus de déclin à célébrer.Charles Krauthammer
Bref, nous assistons au retour de l’idéalisme postnational d’un Carter mais avec cette fois le charisme d’un Reagan. Pendant 40 ans nos écoles ont enseigné l’équivalence morale, le pacifisme utopique et le multiculturalisme bien intentionné et nous apprenons maintenant que tout ceci n’était pas que de la thérapie mais est insidieusement devenu notre évangile national.Victor Davis Hanson
Le problème n’est pas la sécurité d’Israël, la souveraineté du Liban ou les ingérences de la Syrie ou du Hezbollah : Le problème est centré sur l’effort de l’Iran à obtenir le Droit d’Abolir l’Exclusivité de la Dissuasion. La prolifération sauvage, le concept de «tous nucléaires» sera la fin de la Guerre Froide et le retour à la période précédant la Dissuasion. Les mollahs et leurs alliés, le Venezuela, l’Algérie, la Syrie, la Corée du Nord et la Russie…, se militarisent à une très grande échelle sachant qu’ils vont bientôt neutraliser le parapluie protecteur de la dissuasion et alors ils pourront faire parler la poudre. Chacun visera à dominer sa région et sans que les affrontements se déroulent en Europe, l’Europe sera dépouillée de ses intérêts en Afrique ou en Amérique du Sud et sans combattre, elle devra déposer les armes. Ce qui est incroyable c’est la myopie de la diplomatie française et de ses experts. (…) Aucun d’entre eux ne se doute que la république islamique a des alliés qui ont un objectif commun: mettre un terme à une discrimination qui dure depuis 50 ans, la dissuasion nucléaire ! Cette discrimination assure à la France une position que beaucoup d’états lui envient. Ils attendent avec impatience de pouvoir se mesurer avec cette ancienne puissance coloniale que beaucoup jugent arrogante, suffisante et gourmande. Iran-Resist
En tant que défenseur de la rue arabe, [l’Iran] ne peut pas avoir un dialogue apaisé avec les Etats-Unis, dialogue au cours duquel il accepterait les demandes de cet Etat qui est le protecteur par excellence d’Israël. Téhéran a le soutien de la rue arabe, talon d’Achille des Alliés Arabes des Etats-Unis, car justement il refuse tout compromis et laisse entendre qu’il pourra un jour lui offrir une bombe nucléaire qui neutralisera la dissuasion israélienne. Pour préserver cette promesse utile, Téhéran doit sans cesse exagérer ses capacités militaires ou nucléaires et des slogans anti-israéliens. Il faut cependant préciser que sur un plan concret, les actions médiatiques de Téhéran ne visent pas la sécurité d’Israël, mais celle des Alliés arabes des Etats-Unis, Etats dont les dirigeants ne peuvent satisfaire les attentes belliqueuses de la rue arabe. Ainsi Téhéran a un levier de pression extraordinaire sur Washington. Comme toute forme de dissuasion, ce système exige un entretien permanent. Téhéran doit sans cesse fouetter la colère et les frustrations de la rue arabe ! Il doit aussi garder ses milices actives, de chaînes de propagande en effervescence et son programme nucléaire le plus opaque possible, sinon il ne serait pas menaçant. C’est pourquoi, il ne peut pas accepter des compensations purement économiques offertes par les Six en échange d’un apaisement ou une suspension de ses activités nucléaires. Ce refus permanent de compromis est vital pour le régime. (…) Il n’y a rien qui fasse plus peur aux mollahs qu’un réchauffement avec les Etats-Unis : ils risquent d’y perdre la rue arabe, puis le pouvoir. C’est pourquoi, le 9 septembre, quand Téhéran a accepté une rencontre pour désactiver les sanctions promises en juillet, il s’est aussitôt mis en action pour faire capoter ce projet de dialogue apaisé qui est un véritable danger pour sa survie. Iran Resist
La gauche a beaucoup de chance. Des historiens et des politologues complaisants veulent toujours voir dans les turbulences qui l’agitent le fruit de divergences idéologiques, de visions du monde opposées comme l’on disait autrefois. Ainsi, on opposera une gauche girondine à une gauche jacobine, une première gauche à une seconde etc… On remarquera que pour beaucoup ces fractures internes sont issues de la révolution française. Curieusement, une période de la révolution est toujours oubliée. Si l’on excepte de rares occasions, on parle peu de la gauche thermidorienne et pourtant, pensons nous, cette période est capitale pour comprendre ce qu’est devenue, aujourd’hui, la gauche française. La période thermidorienne débute avec la chute de Robespierre le 9 thermidor (27 juillet 1794) et finit avec le coup d’Etat de Bonaparte, le 18 brumaire (9 novembre1799). Elle culminera avec le Directoire. La coalition qui mettra fin à la dictature robespierriste est, dans sa composition, assez hétéroclite. Elle va d’ex-conventionnels terroristes aux anciens girondins en passant par le centre mou de la révolution : le fameux marais. En apparence, sauf l’hostilité à Robespierre, pour des raisons diverses d’ailleurs, ils ne sont d’accord sur rien. En apparence seulement. Car comme le soulignent Furet et Richet dans leur livre La révolution française, ce qui les réunit c’est la poursuite d’un double objectif : celui de la conquête et de l’intérêt. Il ne s’agit plus de créer l’homme vertueux mais de profiter (au sens plein du terme) des acquis de la révolution. Les thermidoriens les plus célèbres, dont le fameux Barras, seront des jouisseurs. Ils aiment l’argent et la jouissance dans tous ses aspects. De ce point de vue, la gauche Canal+ vient de loin, elle n’est pas née avec le mitterrandisme, ni avec 1968. La république spartiate rêvée par Robespierre et Saint-Just fait désormais place à la République des palais et des costumes extravagants. (…) Enfin, dernier legs de Thermidor : l’institutionnalisation du pouvoir intellectuel. C’est dans cette période que va, en effet, s’institutionnaliser le pouvoir intellectuel en France avec la création de l’Institut et la domination des fameux idéologues tant raillés par Bonaparte puis Napoléon. Dès lors, l’intellectuel français va adopter des caractéristiques qui ne le quitteront plus. Il sera philosophiquement progressiste, socialement bourgeois, très souvent anticlérical ou athée, profondément élitiste (même s’il proclame le contraire) et très souvent fâché avec le monde réel. Et conclurons-nous très proche des pouvoirs établis ! L’intellectuel de gauche n’est pas né avec l’affaire Dreyfus, il est un enfant de Thermidor. (…) Pourtant, lorsque l’on examine avec attention cette période on se rend compte que toutes les contradictions de la gauche et toutes ses évolutions futures s’y trouvent contenues. La phase thermidorienne de la révolution française est en quelque sorte le laboratoire historique de la gauche contemporaine. Le cynisme, le sociétalisme des oligarques socialistes ne sont pas des accidents de l’histoire, ils sont ancrés en elle. L’argent roi et le progressisme fou sont des vieux compagnons de route de la gauche française ! Jean-Claude Pacitto
Les drones américains ont liquidé plus de monde que le nombre total des détenus de Guantanamo. Pouvons nous être certains qu’il n’y avait parmi eux aucun cas d’erreurs sur la personne ou de morts innocentes ? Les prisonniers de Guantanamo avaient au moins une chance d’établir leur identité, d’être examinés par un Comité de surveillance et, dans la plupart des cas, d’être relâchés. Ceux qui restent à Guantanamo ont été contrôlés et, finalement, devront faire face à une forme quelconque de procédure judiciaire. Ceux qui ont été tués par des frappes de drones, quels qu’ils aient été, ont disparu. Un point c’est tout.Kurt Volker
Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means. The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts. Henry Kissinger and George Schultz
Obama rencontre Castro, mais a refusé de rencontrer Netanyahu. Pourquoi légitimer le dictateur cruel d’un régime répressif ?Jeb Bush
Nous assistons au retour de l’idéalisme postnational d’un Carter mais avec cette fois le charisme d’un Reagan. Pendant 40 ans nos écoles ont enseigné l’équivalence morale, le pacifisme utopique et le multiculturalisme bien intentionné et nous apprenons maintenant que tout ceci n’était pas que de la thérapie mais est insidieusement devenu notre évangile national.Victor Davis Hanson
De l’Iran au Venezuela et à Cuba, du Myanmar à la Corée du Nord et à la Chine, du Soudan à l’Afghanistan et à l’Irak, de la Russie à la Syrie et à l’Arabie Saoudite, l’administration Obama a systématiquement enlevé les droits de l’homme et la promotion de la démocratie de l’ordre du jour de l’Amérique. A leur place, elle a préconisé l’amélioration de l’image de l’Amérique, le multilatéralisme et un relativisme moral qui soit ne voit aucune distinction entre les dictateurs et leurs victimes soit considère les distinctions peu importantes à l’avancement des intérêts américains.Caroline Glick
The steady aim of this nation, as of all enlightened nations should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. …Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. …The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. … The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right cannot be divorced. Theodore Roosevelt (Dec. 4, 1904)
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants … and that is the force of human freedom…. The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. … America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one... « America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one … From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. George W. Bush
On the day in November 1961, when the Air Force achieved the first successful silo launching of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the SM-80, the Western Hemisphere part of the Monroe Doctrine ceased to mean anything at all – while the ideas behind it began to mean everything in the world. At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM’s – soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs – shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush’s Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with – what? – nothing but a single sphere … which is to say, the entire world. For the mission – the messianic mission! – has never shrunk in the slightest (…) David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that « Americanism » is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a « shining city upon a hill. » God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush – and Theodore Roosevelt – that it is America’s destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.Tom Wolfe
If Iran is able to successfully evade addressing the IAEA’s concerns now, when biting sanctions are in place, why would it address them later when these sanctions are lifted, regardless of anything it may pledge today?David Albright
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium. Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz. Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war? It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war. It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy. (…) Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program. Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.Charles Krauthammer
You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon. Charles Krauthammer
Obama’s decision to literally extend a hand of friendship toward a Castro represents the abandonment of decades of cherished Democratic foreign affairs doctrine. (…) By contrast, Obama has stood by and watched as the world’s most brutal regimes oversaw the reclamation of their power. Obama turned a blind eye toward the crushing of the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, and today strengthens the Mullah’s domestic authority by inking dubious deals with Tehran that will allegedly yield great rewards for the Islamic Republic’s ruling class. In Iran, Obama is rightly seen as no friend to the friendless, and he has greatly strengthened the hand of the system’s stakeholders. The same could be said of Venezuela, where bloody anti-government riots broke out in 2014 and were subsequently crushed by Caracas. Though the global left and Nicolas Maduro’s government saw the riots as an extension of America’s desire to oust his regime from power, Obama made no statements to that effect at the rebellion’s zenith. Only over a year after the fighting in the streets had been quelled did the administration name a handful of Maduro regime officials as threats to American national security in order to target them with sanctions. Perhaps the president wanted to avoid a repeat of his galling refusal to follow up on his 2011 insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go. That feel-good statement was not met with action. Quite the contrary; the president stood back and allowed the regime to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents with conventional and chemical weapons before tepidly committing to take action. But even that reluctant acknowledgment of the president’s responsibility to posterity was not met with engagement. Only when the situation became untenable, the terrorist threat to Western security grew imminent, and the attacks on human decency in the Middle East became truly unprecedented did the United States finally begin to address them. In Moscow, where Obama’s pledge to have more flexibility with the Putin regime in his second term was taken quite literally, the Soviet approach to information management and the suppression of domestic criticism is back in vogue. Journalists who dare to censure the regime again fear for their lives and livelihoods. The institutions of civil society that the Clinton administration invested time and energy, not to mention millions of dollars, trying to build up are now being eagerly destroyed by a Russia that sees more value in repression and revanchism than openness. Once an administration success story, a modest loosening of restrictions on freedoms in Burma has been completely reversed by the military junta in Naypyidaw. (…) In China, an economic powerhouse that nevertheless remains a one-party communist autocracy, America has tacitly consented to supporting the regime’s increased interest in total command and control. (…) Even within the NATO alliance, repression is on the rise. In Turkey, the secularism Kemal Ataturk regarded as a basic value has been de-emphasized. (…) The U.S. has joined other United Nations member in expressing concern over Turkey’s authoritarian drift, but human rights groups have called Obama’s silence on this matter “deafening.” In fact, about the only nation in which Obama pursued what he claimed was a purely humanitarian foreign policy was his decision to lead from behind while Europe toppled Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. There, the West’s attempt to stave off a humanitarian crisis yielded an even greater one. Not only is Libya a failed state today, but it serves as an incubator for fundamentalist Islamic terror groups. Obama surely hopes historians will define his legacy as one of nobly sloughing off the burdens of the past, and opening America up to a brave new dawn in which multilateral talk shops become powerful forces for good. But Obama confuses the people of the world for their governments – a distinction that his Democratic predecessors understood and frequently made. While Obama pursues what he considers a pragmatic approach to international relations, the tide of freedoms that characterized the end of the last century is waning. When the need to protect Obama’s image for the sake of the left’s sense of self-validation subsides, it will become clear that the president’s true legacy was one of accommodation toward international community’s most repressive elements purely for the sake of convenience and fleeting domestic political gain.Noah Rothman
It was U.S. policy that caused the destruction of the Libyan state, such as it was. U.S. policy, from starting a war to failing to plan for its Phase 4 post-combat aftermath, explains not only the god-awful mess that Libya has become, but also what happened to Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. (…) Like Libya, Iraq was a nasty, authoritarian hellhole before U.S. policy made it even worse. We may blame that on the Bush Administration for mis-starting a war that had not been properly planned, but Iraq would not be quite the mess it is today had the Obama Administration not mis-ended it by yanking our presence out without a SOFA agreement. (…) Did Syria’s troubles fall out of the sky, too? Here U.S. policy is mostly guilty of sins of omission rather than sins of commission, some of them circling back to our hands-off-Iran supinity, but it is guilty all the same. As we have said here at TAI many times over the past three years, a judicious early use of U.S. power and leadership well short of kinetic action—difficult though it always was, true—could have averted the still evolving worst-case calamity that Syria has become. Syria is well on its way to complete Somalization. Far be it for me to advocate the use of U.S. force in any of these places. We cannot put these states back together at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure. As I have stressed in earlier posts (for example, here), what is happening, at base, is historio-structural in nature and no mere policy nipping and tucking can restore the status quo ante. I am no more in a mood to move chess pieces around on a table than the President is, especially if I have to do it with bombers, APCs, and Aegis cruisers loaded up with SLCMs. But to pontificate about the need for Arab self-help in these three cases, as though U.S. policy had nothing whatsoever to do with their present plights, very nearly surpasses credulity. It reminds me of a three-year old not yet well experienced at hide-and-go-seek who covers his face and thereby imagines that others cannot see him. Who in the region does the President think he’s fooling?Adam Garfinkle
The pattern of which I speak, conceived by the historian Walter A. McDougall, consists of four phases that tend to repeat in cycles. First, there is a shock to the system, usually in the form of a surprise attack: the shot fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861, the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898, the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, Pearl Harbour in 1941, and September 11 in 2001. In the phase directly after the shock, the leader of the day—Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, George W. Bush—vows to resurrect the status quo ante and punish the evildoers. That corresponds to Lincoln’s vow to save the Union, Wilson’s vow to defend the right of American free passage on the high seas, and Bush’s vow to find and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks so that America’s minimally acceptable standard of near perfect security could be restored. But third, in the course of mobilising the national effort to achieve the limited goals set after the shock, the transcendent God-talk begins and the effort soon becomes enmeshed in the sacred narrative of American exceptionalism. This leads to a distension of goals and expectations, to geopolitical amnesia, and to what cognitive psychologists call a dominant strategy that is impervious to negative feedback and logical contradiction. And so, in the September 11 decade, we chose a war that thoughtlessly destroyed the regional balance against Iranian hegemonism without even stopping to ask about the broader implications of a Shi’a government in Baghdad. One does not, apparently, descend to the smarminess of geopolitical analysis when one is doing the Lord’s work. So, too, did we turn what could and should have remained a punitive military operation in Afghanistan into a quixotic, distracted, underfunded nation- and state-building campaign. And so, too, did we conflate all our adversaries into one monolithic demon—typical of eschatological thinking. The administration conflated secular, Ba’athi Iraq with the apocalyptical Muslim fanatics of al-Qaeda, and so went to war against a country uninvolved in 9/11 whose threat to America was not, as is commonly claimed, zero, but which hardly justified, or excused, the haste and threadbare planning with which the war was launched and conducted. Then, in the fourth phase, overreach leads to setbacks (the Korean War, for example, and the Iraq insurgency) and regrets (like the Vietnam War), ultimately resulting in at least temporary retrenchment … until the cycle starts all over again. This four-phase model fits the September 11 decade to a tee. The attack itself is of course phase 1; the Bush doctrine version 1.0 represents phase 2; the Second Inaugural signals the full efflorescence of phase 3; and the election of Barack Obama marks the consolidation of phase 4. It matters in all this, however, whether the ideological vehicle that propels phase 3 forward even remotely reflects or aligns with reality. When it does, as it did during and after World War II, no one pays attention since things tend then to turn out well. In the case of the September 11 decade, unfortunately, it did not. There have been basically two problems with it. First, the « forward strategy » for freedom’s ascription of causality for Islamist terrorism is mistaken. Second, even if it were not mistaken, the timetables in which democracy promotion was seen as a solution for mass-casualty terrorism do not even begin to match. The reason is that despite President Bush’s assertion that democracy promotion is « the work of generations » and that democracy is about more than elections, that is not the basis upon which the administration actually behaved. It rushed into premature elections in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, with troublesome and still open-ended consequences for Iraq and disastrous ones for Lebanon and Gaza. After September 11, as Americans searched for analogies that might help them understand the motivations for the attacks, most found themselves with very shallow reservoirs of historical analogies. Indeed, Americans tended almost exclusively to choose Cold War metaphors to explain September 11. Liberal idealists took their characteristic meliorist approach: It was poverty and injustice that motivated the attacks, and American policies that determined the target. There were dozens of calls for a « Marshall Plan for the Middle East », and hundreds of pleas to concentrate more than ever on solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, as if that were somehow a magic bullet that could fix all problems. Conservative idealists, as already noted, took the democracy-promotion approach, arguing that the motivation was not economic but political. Both were wrong; Islamist radicalism, in truth, is a form of chiliastic violence that has taken many forms in many cultures over the past two millennia, from the Jewish zealots of the First Century of the Common Era, to the 16th-century Peasants’ Revolt in Germany, to the 19th-century « ghost dances » of American Indians. But the obvious weaknesses of the meliorist approach encouraged conservative idealists in their conviction that their own view, therefore, must be right. (Manichean-minded Americans have real problems when any potential set of choices exceeds two.) The administration’s rhetoric went even further, however, suggesting that US policy was largely responsible for the debased condition of Arab political cultures. When Bush famously said in November 2003: « Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty », he argued in essence that it was US policy, not the long incubated political culture of the region, that accounted for Arab autocracy. The Bush White House, in essence, adopted the wrongheaded left-wing side of an old debate over « friendly tyrants » as lesser evils and what to do with and about them, a very strange position for an avowedly conservative administration to take. The President also seemed to be saying, in a locution repeated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Cairo in June 2005 and many times thereafter, that US Cold War policy in the region was unsuccessful on its own terms, that it did not provide safety and stability. Adam Garfinkle
The United States is the world’s pre-eminent if not hegemonic power. Since World War II it has set the normative standards and both formed and guarded the security and economic structures of the world. In that capacity it has provided for a relatively secure and prosperous global commons, a mission nicely convergent with the maturing American self-image as an exceptionalist nation. To do this, however, the United States has had to maintain a global military presence as a token of its commitment to the mission and as a means of reassurance to those far and wide with a stake in it. This has required a global network of alliances and bases, the cost of which is not small and the maintenance of which, in both diplomatic and other terms, is a full-time job. Against this definition of strategic mission there have always been those in the United States who have dissented, holding that we do, ask and expect much too much, and get into gratuitous trouble as a result. Some have preferred outright isolationism, but most serious skeptics of the status quo have preferred a posture of ‘offshore balancing’. Remove the bases and end the alliances, they have argued, and the US government will be better able, at less risk and far less cost to the nation, to balance against threatening developments abroad, much as America’s strategic mentor, Great Britain, did throughout most of the 19th century. This is the core conversation Americans have been having about the US global role since at least 1945. To one side we recall George McGovern’s 1972 ‘Come Home, America’ campaign plank, the Mansfield Amendment that would have removed US troops from Europe in mid-Cold War, and the early Carter administration’s proposal to remove US troops from South Korea spoken in rhythm to speeches decrying an “inordinate fear of communism”. To the other side has been almost everyone and everything else, so that the offshore approach has always been turned back, at least until now. Where is the Obama administration in this great debate? We don’t really know; the evidence, once again, suggests ambivalence. President Obama has rejected American exceptionalism as no American president before him ever has; he did so in London on 29 April 2009, when he answered a question as follows: “I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” By relativizing what has always been an absolute, Obama showed how profoundly his image of America has been influenced by the received truths of the Vietnam anti-war movement and counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. If he has a theory of American exceptionalism, it is a far subtler, humbler and more historically contingent one than the secular messianist, attenuated Protestant version that has been common to American history. The President also believes that downward pressure on the defense budget is warranted; his projected budgets show as much, though the prospective cuts are not draconian. But in this he joins a large, politically ecumenical contingent, so his views do not imply opposition to the forward-presence approach to grand strategy. And the fact that US relations with many of its allies, notably in Europe, have worsened during Obama’s tenure is more likely a consequence of the President being distracted than it is of any active dislike for either specific allies or alliances in general. Nor does his candid view that fighting in Afghanistan for another decade and spending $1 trillion doing so is not in America’s best national interest, mean that he is reticent about using force on behalf of strategic aims when it is in America’s interest to do so. Perhaps Obama accepts the forward strategy but will end up starving it of resources to the point that it will shockingly fail some crucial test—perhaps the worst outcome of all. Taken together, then, the administration’s track record, encompassing the whole spectrum from discrete policy arenas to the lofty heights of grand strategy, suggests the foreign policy equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot. Observers can see in it what they have wanted to see. Some have tagged the Obama administration a re-run of the Carter administration, but the fit is obviously imperfect; it’s very hard to see Carter during his first or second year in office ordering those Predator strikes, even harder to imagine him holding his tongue on human rights. Some have seen a replay of Nixon and Kissinger: Realpolitik hiding behind feel-good talk about allies and peace and the rest, trying simultaneously to play an inherited weak hand and set the stage for a grand bargain—this time with Iran instead of China. Still others think they are witness to the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: a shrewd opportunist who knows the limits set by domestic constraints, and whose main concern is national economic stabilization and social strengthening against the day when American power must meet a true test of destiny. The name game can go on because, while no great successes have sprouted forth from the Obama foreign policy, no great debacles have emerged either. (…) Read any serious history of American diplomacy and it becomes readily apparent how central the character of the president is to it. One of the great mysteries of understanding US foreign policy today in its essence is that, more than any other occupant of the Oval Office, Americans and foreigners alike simply do not have a good feel for who Barack Obama really is. Aside from being relatively young and recent upon the national political scene, he doesn’t fit into any category with which we are accustomed to understand intellectual and temperamental origins. More importantly, Obama’s ‘mentality’ is not only hard for outsiders to read, he is, thanks to the facts of his nativity and life circumstances, an unusually self-constructed personality. He is black in an obvious physical way but culturally not black in any significant way. He is a person who, finding himself naturally belonging nowhere, has striven to shape himself into a person who belongs everywhere. As his books suggest, he is a man who has put himself through more reconstructive psychological surgery than any American politician in memory. A few of the resultant characteristics are critically important for understanding how he serves as both president and commander-in-chief. Obama has understood above all that he must keep his cool. His cultivated aloofness is absolutely necessary to his successful political personality, for he cannot allow himself to exude emotion lest he raise the politically fatal specter of ‘the emotional black man’. His analytical mien, however, has made it hard for him to bond with foreign heads of state and even with some members of his own staff. His relationship with General Jones, for example, lacked rapport to the point that it seems to be a major reason for Jones resigning his position. But Obama’s ‘cool’ does not imply a stunted capacity for emotional intelligence. To the contrary: he knows unerringly where the emotional balance of a conversation needs to be, and it is for this reason that Obama’s self-confidence is so imperturbable. He knows he can read other people without letting them read him. And this is why, in parallel with the complex of his racial identity, he never defers to others psychologically or emotionally, not towards individuals and not, as with the US military, towards any group. The combination of ‘cool’ and empathetic control helps explain Obama’s character as commander-in-chief. He is respected in the ranks for sacking General Stanley McChrystal after the latter’s inexcusable act of disrespect and insubordination. That was control at work. But US troops do not feel that Obama has their back. He thinks of them as victims, not warriors, and one does not defer to victims. His ‘cool’, as well as his having had no prior contact with the professional military ethos at work, enjoins a distance that diminishes his effectiveness as commander-in-chief. Obama’s mastery at projecting himself as self-confident, empathetic and imperturbable has also compensated for his lack of original policy ideas. Whether in law school, on the streets of Chicago, in the US Senate or in the race for the White House, he has commanded respect by being the master orchestrator of the ideas, talents and ambitions of others. Many claim that his personality archetype is that of the ‘professor’, but this is not so; it is that of the judge. It is the judge who sits above others; they defer to him, not he to them. It is the judge who bids others speak while he holds his peace and shows no telling emotion. It is the judge who settles disputes and orders fair and just resolution. It is the judge whose presumed intelligence trumps all others. This kind of personality archetype can succeed well within American politics. In this sense it is precisely Charles Evans Hughes, a former chief justice of the US Supreme Court, not Carter, Wilson, Niebuhr, Nixon or FDR who stands as the true forebear of Barack Obama. But in the international arena even the American president cannot pull off a judge act and get away with it. Wilson tried and failed (or was that a prophet act?). The American president among his international peers is but one of many, perhaps primus inter pares but certainly without a mandate to act like it. Obama cum ‘judge’ has not impressed these peers: not among our European allies, who are ill at ease with his aloofness; not among Arabs and Muslims, who think him ill-mannered for bad-mouthing his predecessors while being hosted in foreign lands; not among Russians and Chinese, who think him gullible and guileless. Obama may still be popular on the ‘streets’ of the world because of the color of his skin, the contrast he draws to his predecessor, the general hope for renewal he symbolizes, and his willingness to play to chauvinist sentiment abroad by apologizing for supposed past American sins; but this matters not at all in the palaces where decisions are made. As his novelty has worn off, he impresses less and less. One reason President Obama does not impress the foreigners who matter is that he looks to be a figure in political distress at home. They know, as does the President, that his legacy will be forged in the context of the American domestic moment. Success at home can empower him abroad, but the opposite is not the case. That is why it is impossible to assess the Obama foreign policy bereft of its domestic political context. (…) If we now try to put all the foregoing factors together, what do we find assembled? We find a president in a tough spot who most likely does not know if he is inspired more by Wilson or Niebuhr, because reality thus far has not forced him to choose. We don’t know if he is resigned to a strategy of forward deployment or desirous of an offshore alternative because he likely doesn’t know either, having never been posed the question in so many words. We find a man whose inexperience leaves him with an incomplete grasp of what he gives up by asserting such close control over foreign policy from the White House. We see a man whose personality does not function abroad as successfully as it has at home, and so cannot with brilliant speeches alone dissolve the conflicting interests that define the cauldron of international politics into a comforting pot of warm milk. We see a man commanding a decision system untested by crisis, and one whose core issues remain unfocused for all the distractions of other challenges in his path. We see, lastly but not least, a man whose political instincts are no more detachable from him than his own shadow. From all these sources, bumping against and mixing with one another, comes the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Where the man will lead that policy, or the policy lead the man (the rest of us in tow), is now driven by the fact that the President is adrift conceptually since his initial engagement strategies did not succeed. Obama now awaits the crisis that will forge his legacy, but what that crisis will be, and whether the president will meet it with the American national interest or his personal political concerns foremost in mind, no one knows. No one can possibly know. Adam Garfinkle
Je ne pense donc pas que le Président ait une théorie stratégique explicite sur le dossier du Proche-Orient. Je n’entends tourner aucun des mécanismes de Kissinger. Ses orientations à l’égard de la région ressemblent plus à celles de George H. W. Bush : il a des intuitions, des instincts. Et ceux-ci lui soufflent qu’obtenir ce qu’on veut dans cette partie du monde est très difficile et le devient de plus en plus, dans la mesure où la possibilité d’avoir un interlocuteur unique – dont nous « jouissions » en ayant pour alliés des régimes arabes autoritaires et stables – n’est plus ce qu’elle était. (…) Si j’ai raison de soutenir que le Président Obama a des instincts et des intuitions, mais pas de grande et ambitieuse stratégie pour le Proche-Orient, a-t-il néanmoins quelque chose de plus précis à l’esprit, replaçant le Proche-Orient dans un cadre global plus vaste ? La réponse à cette question est la même : le Président n’est pas, je pense, un homme qui a confiance dans l’exercice d’une stratégie formelle, mais il ne fonctionne pas non plus complètement au cas par cas. Il croit probablement que les États-Unis sont effectivement trop investis au Proche-Orient et pas assez en Asie. D’où l’idée du pivot et peu importe qu’on l’ait sabotée en la présentant comme une proposition alternative. Selon toute vraisemblance, il s’est un jour demandé quel était le pire scénario pour le Proche-Orient. Ce qui se passerait si tout allait mal. En quoi cela affecterait vraiment les intérêts vitaux de l’Amérique. Non ses engagements traditionnels, non sa réputation, non ses obligations découlant de l’habitude et pas d’une approche nouvelle – mais ses authentiques intérêts vitaux. Et sa réponse a probablement été que, sauf réaction en chaîne en matière de prolifération d’ADM, les conséquences seraient minimes. Une fois encore, je doute qu’Obama déploie consciemment ici une logique stratégique explicite ou formalisée ou qu’il accepte les théories universitaires du réalisme bienveillant ou de l’équilibre naturel. Mais je pense qu’il se rend compte qu’après le relatif immobilisme de la Guerre froide, le monde est devenu globalement plus confus ; que le degré de contrôle que peuvent donner les relations interétatiques traditionnelles sur une zone aux enjeux importants a baissé à mesure que, grâce aux nouvelles cyber-technologies, les mobilisations populaires et populistes se sont accrues aux niveaux à la fois sous-étatique et trans-étatique. Le Proche-Orient est certainement bien plus compliqué et confus, même si ce n’est pas, ou pas encore, le cas du reste du monde. À mon avis, cette intuition a eu pour effet de rendre le Président Obama encore plus hostile au risque de manière générale et en particulier dans une région où il manque à tout le moins d’expérience et en son for intérieur d’assurance. Il est visiblement mal à l’aise lorsque ses conseillers sont divisés. Comme un juge, il essaie de trouver un dénominateur commun entre eux, ce qui est une bonne chose dans un travail de militant associatif, mais pas nécessairement en politique étrangère. Lorsque ses conseillers se livrent à une pensée de groupe, ce qu’ils font de plus en plus depuis le départ de Gates et de Donilon, ou lorsque aucun d’eux ne fait d’objections sérieuses à quelque chose (par exemple à la lubie de Kerry sur la paix israélo-palestinienne), il est satisfait de s’investir dans la gestion de son image – la twitterisation de la politique étrangère américaine en quelque sorte – parce qu’il sait qu’il ne peut tout simplement pas ignorer toutes ces choses. La sensibilité du Président aux limites a également tendance à rendre sa politique réactive et ses objectifs réels modestes. Aussi, dans la confusion qu’est le Proche-Orient aujourd’hui, il veut que l’Irak soit gouverné de manière plus inclusive. Il veut que la Syrie et la Libye soient gouvernées, point. Il veut que l’Égypte soit stable et il n’est pas très regardant sur la manière dont cela peut se faire. Il veut que l’Iran n’ait pas d’armes nucléaires et il est prêt à beaucoup de choses pour l’empêcher par la diplomatie car il pense probablement que les dirigeants iraniens ne peuvent pas aujourd’hui exercer leur volonté au-delà de leurs frontières avec plus de réel succès que nous. Il ne semble avoir d’idées précises et ne souhaiter agir préventivement que pour empêcher que des attaques terroristes tuent des citoyens américains, en particulier sur le sol des États-Unis. D’où son goût pour les attaques de drones, sa tolérance à l’égard de Guantánamo, son refus d’émasculer une série de programmes de la NSA, sauf à la marge, et son soutien généreux à l’ouverture discrète dans le monde entier de bases petites, mais puissantes, pour les forces spéciales. Cet ensemble de positions n’est ni de l’apaisement ni de l’isolationnisme. Ce n’est manifestement pas non plus du maximalisme stratégique. C’est quelque chose d’intermédiaire et dans cet entre-deux, suspendu entre des attentes héritées du passé et des hésitations dues au flou de l’avenir, les choses deviennent parfois étranges ou pénibles lorsqu’il faut prendre un nombre sans précédent de décisions. Étrange, comme Genève II.Adam Garfinkle
Pour Obama, le terrorisme est, à la racine, un produit de la désintégration sociale. La guerre est peut-être nécessaire pour contenir l’avancée de l’Etat islamique, mais seulement une réforme sociale peut vraiment s’en débarrasser. Ajoutez à cette vision le vécu d’un parfait ‘outsider’, moitié blanc et moitié noir avec une enfance et une famille dispersée autour du monde, et on commence à voir le profil d’un homme avec une empathie automatique pour les marginaux et un sens presque instinctif que les plus importants problèmes du monde sont enracinés, non pas dans l’idéologie, mais dans des structures sociales et économiques oppressives qui renforcent la marginalisation. Cette sensibilité est plus large que n’importe quelle orthodoxie économique, et elle est enracinée dans la dure expérience du Sud de Chicago. Après avoir pris la tête de la plus importante superpuissance du monde en janvier 2009, ce travailleur social s’est mis à construire une politique étrangère qui traduisait ses impressions en actions géopolitiques.(…) Le monde était un énorme Chicago, ses problèmes essentiels pas totalement différents de ceux des Noirs du Sud de Chicago, et les solutions à ces problèmes étaient enracinées dans la même capacité humaine à surpasser les divisions sociales et les inégalités. Voilà en quoi consistait le « provincialisme » d’Obama, sa vision d’un monde qui favorisait les désavantagés et les opprimés, qui percevait les conflits idéologiques et politiques entre les gouvernements comme secondaires par rapport à des crises plus universelles et en fin de compte sociales qui troublaient un monde déjà tumultueux. (…) L’aversion du président Obama pour Netanyahu est intense et … Il y a peu de doute que cette hostilité soit devenue personnelle – un dirigeant juif américain a affirmé que c’est le président Obama lui-même qui a donné l’interview à The Atlantic, dans laquelle un responsable anonyme s’est moqué de Netanyahu en le qualifiant de « chickenshit » [poule mouillée] – mais ses origines sont plus profondes qu’une antipathie personnelle. (…) Lorsque Netanyahu insiste pour parler de l’histoire juive à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, tout en refusant d’aborder la dépossession palestinienne, quand il rejette d’emblée et à plusieurs reprises l’idée qu’une éventuelle réadaptation de l’Iran pourrait être plus souhaitable qu’une confrontation permanente, Obama entend des échos de ces militants de Chicago dont le chauvinisme a fait plus de mal que de bien à leurs communautés. (…) Pour les deux hommes, l’écart est plus profond que la fracture démocrates-républicains, plus profond que la question palestinienne, plus profond encore que la bataille sur l’Iran. Obama a cherché à introduire une nouvelle conscience dans les affaires mondiales, une conscience qui a défini son identité politique. Netanyahu défend les anciennes méthodes – dont dépendent, selon lui, la sécurité nationale.Haviv Rettig Gur
Iran must be taken seriously when it says it sees this negotiation as part of a struggle with an enemy. Liberal American diplomats often delude themselves that foreigners prefer them to conservative hardliners. They think that American adversaries like the Castro brothers or the Iranians will want to work cooperatively with liberals here, and help the American liberals stay in power in order to advance a mutually beneficial, win-win agenda. Thus liberals think they can get better deals from U.S. opponents than hardliners who, as liberals see it, are so harsh and crude in their foreign policy that they force otherwise neutral or even pro-American states into opposition. What liberal statesmen often miss is that for many of these leaders it is the American system and American civilization that is seen as the enemy. It is capitalism, for example, that the communists opposed, and they saw liberal capitalism as simply one of the masks that the heartless capitalist system could wear. For the Iranians, it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and military power that they see as the core threatFor the Iranians, it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and military power that they see as the core threat. Obama’s ideas from this point of view are if anything less sympathetic to Iranian theocrats than those of, say, American evangelicals who aren’t running around supporting gay marriage, transgender rights and an industrial strength feminism that conservative Iranian mullahs see as blasphemy made flesh. The mullahs in other words, don’t see blue America as an ally against red America. It is America, blue and red, that they hate and want to bring down. And while, like the Soviets during the Cold War, they may be willing to sign specific agreements where their interests and ours coincide on some particular issue, they do not look to end the rivalry by reaching agreements. The Iranians are as likely to use negotiations to trip up and humiliate Obama as they were willing to doublecross Jimmy Carter and to drag out hostage negotiations as a way of making him look weak in the eyes of the world. American power is what they hope to break, and they don’t like it more or trust it more when a liberal Democrat stands at the head of our system. The Iranians appear to believe that Obama desperately needs an agreement with Iran, and are using the leverage they think this gives them to tease and torment the president while they push for more concessions. (…) Given that the Iranians, as much as the communists before them, believe that the conflict between them and the United States is a conflict arising from the differences between the two country’s systems rather than from personality clashes or minor and adjustable conflicts of interest, the mullahs would by their own lights be foolish indeed if they didn’t do everything possible to push their advantages in Geneva and elsewhere. Walter Russell Mead
Attention: une guerre sainte peut en cacher une autre !
En ce 100e anniversaire du premier génocide du XXe siècle …
Et modèle et début, entre nazisme, communisme et à nouveau aujourd’hui islam comme l’a rappelé le pape, d’une longue liste de violences génocidaires …
Où après la reconnaissance du droit à l’arme nucléaire d’un pays appelant explicitement à l’annihilation de l’Etat hébreu …
Et après son refus de rencontrer le dirigeant sortant de l’unique véritable démocratie du Moyen-Orient …
Ou même de se déplacer pour le 70e anniversaire de la libération d’Auschwitz ou, défendu par ses belles âmes, la Marche de Paris pour la liberté d’expression …
L’actuel chef du Monde libre et discret Predator in chief n’a rien trouvé de mieux que de célébrer les prétendument historiques retrouvailles avec l’un des derniers dictateurs stalinistes de la planète …
Comment ne pas voir avec le politologue américain Walter Russell Mead …
Derrière l’impressionnante liste de mauvaises causes que le président Obama aura épousées …
Et sous couvert, au niveau intérieur et sociétal comme dans la France socialiste, de la non moins impressionnante liste de prétendues bonnes causes et d’intérêts bien compris …
The Supreme Leader’s Speech and Liberal Delusions Walter Russell MeadWhat liberal statesmen often miss is that for many of America’s adversaries, it is the American system and American civilization that are the enemies.
Iran’s Supreme Leader gave a speech yesterday regarding the nuclear framework agreement, and what he said cannot have been comforting to the Obama Administration. Khamenei made two unequivocal demands: 1) sanctions must be lifted as soon as a final deal is signed, and 2) there will be no inspections of Iranian military sites. These stand in sharp contrast to the framework agreement as it has been repeatedly described by Western leaders ever since they announced it more than a week ago.
Careful observers should not be terribly surprised—at least not by the first demand. None other than Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Secretary John Kerry’s direct interlocutor at the talks in Lausanne, immediately tweeted after the announcement that in his understanding the sanctions would be lifted immediately upon signing—not gradually.
As to the question of inspections of Iranian military sites, that too was a contentious area of discussion carefully sidestepped during the framework negotiations. Leaks preceding the announcement of the agreement indicated that the talks nearly broke down due to Iran refusing to disclose what military nuclear research it had already undertaken.
It’s hard to predict how events will play out, but the Obama Administration should have no illusions on one count: Iran must be taken seriously when it says it sees this negotiation as part of a struggle with an enemy. Liberal American diplomats often delude themselves that foreigners prefer them to conservative hardliners. They think that American adversaries like the Castro brothers or the Iranians will want to work cooperatively with liberals here, and help the American liberals stay in power in order to advance a mutually beneficial, win-win agenda. Thus liberals think they can get better deals from U.S. opponents than hardliners who, as liberals see it, are so harsh and crude in their foreign policy that they force otherwise neutral or even pro-American states into opposition.
What liberal statesmen often miss is that for many of these leaders it is the American system and American civilization that is seen as the enemy. It is capitalism, for example, that the communists opposed, and they saw liberal capitalism as simply one of the masks that the heartless capitalist system could wear. For the Iranians, it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and military power that they see as the core threatFor the Iranians, it is our secular, godless culture combined with our economic and military power that they see as the core threat. Obama’s ideas from this point of view are if anything less sympathetic to Iranian theocrats than those of, say, American evangelicals who aren’t running around supporting gay marriage, transgender rights and an industrial strength feminism that conservative Iranian mullahs see as blasphemy made flesh.
The mullahs in other words, don’t see blue America as an ally against red America. It is America, blue and red, that they hate and want to bring down. And while, like the Soviets during the Cold War, they may be willing to sign specific agreements where their interests and ours coincide on some particular issue, they do not look to end the rivalry by reaching agreements.
The Iranians are as likely to use negotiations to trip up and humiliate Obama as they were willing to doublecross Jimmy Carter and to drag out hostage negotiations as a way of making him look weak in the eyes of the world. American power is what they hope to break, and they don’t like it more or trust it more when a liberal Democrat stands at the head of our system.
The Iranians appear to believe that Obama desperately needs an agreement with Iran, and are using the leverage they think this gives them to tease and torment the president while they push for more concessions. They think, for example, that his reluctance to intervene in the Middle East reflects his desperate hunger for a deal—and so they are doubling down on that by stepping up support for the Houthis in Yemen. With the announcement of the framework agreement and their subsequent pullback, they seem to be playing him exactly the way Lucy plays Charlie Brown: the goal is to snatch the football away after Charlie Brown is committed to kicking it.
Will Iran walk away from a deal, or will it sign? Ultimately, nobody except the Supreme Leader knows, and he may not have made up his mind quite yet. Whatever else Iran is doing, it is clearly try its best to push the final negotiations in a more favorable direction—waiting to see what else he can get before acting decisively.
Given that the Iranians, as much as the communists before, them believe that the conflict between them and the United States is a conflict arising from the differences between the two country’s systems rather than from personality clashes or minor and adjustable conflicts of interest, the mullahs would by their own lights be foolish indeed if they didn’t do everything possible to push their advantages in Geneva and elsewhere. Iran may in the end be willing to give Obama the deal he so badly wants, but the mullahs aim to make him pay the highest possible price for the smallest possible gain that they can. From what we have seen in the days since the framework agreement was announced, Iran doesn’t think the squeezing process is over, and it thinks that the Obama administration can and will end up paying more to get less.
Voir aussi:
Iranian President: Diplomacy With U.S. is an Active ‘Jihad’
Diplomacy just as significant as new weapons, missiles
Adam Kredo
March 12, 2015
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described his country’s diplomacy with the United States as an active “jihad” that is just as significant to Tehran’s advancement as the slew of new weapons and missiles showcased by the Islamic Republic’s military.
Rouhani praised the country’s military leaders for standing “against the enemy on the battlefield” and said as president, he would carry out this “jihad” on the diplomatic front.
Rouhani’s comments echo those of foreign minister and lead nuclear negotiator Javad Zarif, who said Tuesday that Iran has emerged as “the winner” in talks with Western powers. Like Zarif, Rouhani boasted that Iran’s years-long diplomacy with Western nations over its nuclear program established the Islamic Republic as a global power.
Iran has made headway in convincing the U.S. to allow it to maintain much of its core infrastructure through diplomatic talks that Rouhani said are viewed as a “jihad.”
“Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride,” Rouhani said earlier this week. “Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”
“Our power is growing each day, but we don’t intend to be aggressive toward anyone. However, we will certainly defend our country, nation, independence, and honor wholeheartedly.”
Iran stands “10 times more powerful” than it was during the time of the Iran-Iraq War, Rouhani said, which “reflects a serious deterrence to the enemies’ threats.”
Iranian leaders view the ongoing talks with the United States and other nations as a source of global legitimacy.
Rouhani’s remarks have “significant domestic implications,” according to an analysis published by the American Enterprise Institute.
“Iran’s negotiations team to the status of Iran-Iraq War commanders, who are traditionally revered by the regime as upholders of Islamic Revolutionary values, could potentially lead to rhetorical backlash from regime hardliners opposed to the nuclear negotiations,” AEI wrote.
Matan Shamir, director of research at United Against Nuclear Iran, said Rouhani’s latest comments show he is not a moderate leader.
“While Rouhani talks about a ‘win-win’ nuclear deal to global audiences, his comments make clear that he continues to view the U.S. an antagonistic global oppressor that must be triumphed over, in this case by a diplomatic ‘jihad,’” Shamir said. “This is clearly not the language of a moderate or of a regime with which rapprochement is at all realistic.”
Zarif said Tuesday that a final nuclear deal with the United States is meaningless at this point.
“We are the winner whether the [nuclear] negotiations yield results or not,” Zarif was quoted as saying by the Tasnim News Agency. “The capital we have obtained over the years is dignity and self-esteem, a capital that could not be retaken.”
As Rouhani and Zarif grandstand on the nuclear front, Iranian military leaders have begun to unveil a host of new missiles and sea-based weapons.
General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a leader in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Iran’s defensive capabilities “are non-negotiable in the nuclear talks,” AEI reported.
The comments came the same day Iran paraded its new cruise missiles.
Hajizadeh also dismissed economic sanctions on Iran, saying that “his is a message which should be understood by the bullying powers which raise excessive demands.”
On Wednesday, the State Department said any final deal with Iran was “nonbinding,” meaning that neither party would be legally obliged to uphold the agreement.
Marco Rubio couldn’t have asked for a better foil than a president in the White House who eagerly shakes the hand of a Castro in the pursuit of a “legacy issue.” When he launches his presidential campaign on Monday, it’s fair to expect the Florida senator to dwell on the matter of Obama’s crass disrespect for the oppressed Cuban people. The president has said he wants to break the “shackles” that constrain his freedom of action overseas. The “shackles” he derides were those foreign policy precepts that once rendered America the shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom, and a champion of fundamental human aspiration for the better part of a century.
If he is so inclined, Rubio might also make note of the fact that Raul Castro doesn’t seem interested in playing the docile and repentant dictator in order to help Obama recast the communists in Havana as responsible international actors. In what CNN’s Jim Acosta called “a borderline rant,” Castro’s speech at the Summit of the Americas was apparently loaded with a fair amount of good, old-fashioned America bashing.
“Castro, in a meandering, nearly hour-long speech to the Summit of the Americas, ran through an exhaustive history of perceived Cuban grievances against the U.S. dating back more than a century—a vivid display of how raw passions remain over American attempts to undermine Cuba’s government,” Time Magazine reported.
Eventually, Castro said he had become “emotional” and apologized to Obama personally “because he had no responsibility for this.” What Castro refers to as “this” is, in fact, 200 years of American policy toward the Western Hemisphere – a source of much consternation for the revolutionary left. “In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man,” Castro glowed.
Having successfully courted the communist dictator, Obama and Castro proceeded to have what the administration apparently considered a historic, if not fruitful, bilateral meeting. “In a later news conference, Obama said that he was ‘optimistic that we’ll continue to make progress, and that this can indeed be a turning point,’” a Washington Post dispatch read.
A realist might look upon Obama’s approach to thawing relations with Cuba and smile. The United States has long regarded this region as pivotal, and Washington has warily eyed Beijing’s efforts to supplant U.S. influence in South and Central America and the Caribbean for years. But Cuba has counted itself a member of any foreign camp dedicated to balancing against U.S. power for decades, and the United States has somehow soldiered on without the complicity of a placid regime in Havana.
What’s more, Obama’s decision to literally extend a hand of friendship toward a Castro represents the abandonment of decades of cherished Democratic foreign affairs doctrine. One of the precious few lasting achievements secured by Jimmy Carter’s administration was to ensure that the concept of human rights served a pillar of U.S. foreign policy. In principle if not always in practice, respect for human rights became the sine qua non for friendly bilateral relations with the United States after 1977. That has remained the case through both Democratic and Republican administrations ever since. Many on the left would argue that this focus forced more than a handful of repressive regimes to extend to their domestic dissident elements the deference they needed in order to ultimately topple the governments they opposed.
By contrast, Obama has stood by and watched as the world’s most brutal regimes oversaw the reclamation of their power.
Obama turned a blind eye toward the crushing of the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, and today strengthens the Mullah’s domestic authority by inking dubious deals with Tehran that will allegedly yield great rewards for the Islamic Republic’s ruling class. In Iran, Obama is rightly seen as no friend to the friendless, and he has greatly strengthened the hand of the system’s stakeholders.
The same could be said of Venezuela, where bloody anti-government riots broke out in 2014 and were subsequently crushed by Caracas. Though the global left and Nicolas Maduro’s government saw the riots as an extension of America’s desire to oust his regime from power, Obama made no statements to that effect at the rebellion’s zenith. Only over a year after the fighting in the streets had been quelled did the administration name a handful of Maduro regime officials as threats to American national security in order to target them with sanctions.
Perhaps the president wanted to avoid a repeat of his galling refusal to follow up on his 2011 insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go. That feel-good statement was not met with action. Quite the contrary; the president stood back and allowed the regime to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents with conventional and chemical weapons before tepidly committing to take action. But even that reluctant acknowledgment of the president’s responsibility to posterity was not met with engagement. Only when the situation became untenable, the terrorist threat to Western security grew imminent, and the attacks on human decency in the Middle East became truly unprecedented did the United States finally begin to address them.
In Moscow, where Obama’s pledge to have more flexibility with the Putin regime in his second term was taken quite literally, the Soviet approach to information management and the suppression of domestic criticism is back in vogue. Journalists who dare to censure the regime again fear for their lives and livelihoods. The institutions of civil society that the Clinton administration invested time and energy, not to mention millions of dollars, trying to build up are now being eagerly destroyed by a Russia that sees more value in repression and revanchism than openness.
Once an administration success story, a modest loosening of restrictions on freedoms in Burma has been completely reversed by the military junta in Naypyidaw. In January, Human Rights Watch called on the government to “stop arresting peaceful protesters and immediately and unconditionally free those imprisoned.” It is a call you will not here echoed in Washington too loudly, lest the political class recall that the crowning achievement of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as America’s chief diplomat was to secure the illusory opening of Burma and to finally guarantee Aung San Suu Kyi’s pathway to power.
In China, an economic powerhouse that nevertheless remains a one-party communist autocracy, America has tacitly consented to supporting the regime’s increased interest in total command and control. A series of moves to roll back nascent freedoms of speech, religion, and expression in China in 2014 following the rise of President Xi Jinping has led many to wonder if information technology and free trade truly have the power to compel openness in closed societies. “China’s repression of political activists, writers, independent journalists, artists and religious groups who potentially challenge the party’s monopoly of power has intensified since Xi took office nearly two years ago,” The Guardian’s Simon Tisdall reported in December.
Even within the NATO alliance, repression is on the rise. In Turkey, the secularism Kemal Ataturk regarded as a basic value has been de-emphasized. As Ankara has grown friendlier toward Islamism, so has it embraced anti-democratic policies toward journalists and regime critics alike. “We feel the pressure every day,” one unnamed Turkish journalist told Haaretz in December. “We go over our articles with extreme care and remove anything that could give Erdogan’s dogs a pretext for going after us.” The U.S. has joined other United Nations member in expressing concern over Turkey’s authoritarian drift, but human rights groups have called Obama’s silence on this matter “deafening.”
In fact, about the only nation in which Obama pursued what he claimed was a purely humanitarian foreign policy was his decision to lead from behind while Europe toppled Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. There, the West’s attempt to stave off a humanitarian crisis yielded an even greater one. Not only is Libya a failed state today, but it serves as an incubator for fundamentalist Islamic terror groups.
Obama surely hopes historians will define his legacy as one of nobly sloughing off the burdens of the past, and opening America up to a brave new dawn in which multilateral talk shops become powerful forces for good. But Obama confuses the people of the world for their governments – a distinction that his Democratic predecessors understood and frequently made. While Obama pursues what he considers a pragmatic approach to international relations, the tide of freedoms that characterized the end of the last century is waning. When the need to protect Obama’s image for the sake of the left’s sense of self-validation subsides, it will become clear that the president’s true legacy was one of accommodation toward international community’s most repressive elements purely for the sake of convenience and fleeting domestic political gain.
Les « experts » autoproclamés du Proche-Orient ont longtemps déploré l’instabilité de la région. C’est qu’ils ne savaient rien de la véritable instabilité.
Imaginez-vous en train d’essayer de suivre un match capital de base-ball ou de football – par exemple la finale de la Série mondiale de base-ball ou un Super Bowl – sans pouvoir y assister, ni même le regarder à la télévision, sans savoir quels joueurs ont été sélectionnés à ce moment-là et sans même avoir de commentaire en direct par la radio ou Internet. Vous ne disposez en tout et pour tout que de comptes rendus de seconde ou troisième main, dont on ne peut être certain qu’ils sont fiables et impartiaux et, pire, dont on a des raisons de supposer qu’ils brouillent ou déforment les faits. C’est un peu comme essayer de suivre aujourd’hui la politique étrangère américaine, en particulier sa politique au Proche-Orient. Il se passe des choses, alors même qu’on est en plein débat intérieur et qu’il y a des désaccords. On procède à des estimations et on prend des décisions, or ces expertises, importantes ou non, emportent des conséquences. Pour ceux qui ne sont pas sur le terrain et qui sont même dans l’impossibilité de suivre le match en temps réel, il est frustrant d’essayer d’imaginer ce qui est en train de se passer, car ce que nous savons du processus de décision pourrait s’expliquer de plusieurs manières.
Il est certain que la métaphore sportive connaît des limites. La politique étrangère américaine n’est pas un jeu. Elle ne peut se mesurer par un score chiffré. Il y a plus de deux équipes. Le nombre des joueurs de part et d’autre n’est ni le même ni fixe. On ne distingue pas nettement l’offensive de la défensive. La compétition ne s’arrête jamais tout à fait. Les règles sont floues. Il n’y a pas d’arbitre, à part peut-être la logique implacable de l’interaction stratégique. Vous avez néanmoins compris l’idée de base : il se passe des choses importantes, mais nous, qui ne sommes pas dans le secret des dieux, ne pouvons que faire des hypothèses sur ce dont il s’agit. Or c’est un « grand jeu ». L’instabilité sans précédent du Proche-Orient, quels qu’en soient les autres effets, va obliger les responsables américains à prendre un nombre sans précédent de décisions qui en engendreront d’autres, créant des réalités en fonction de la réponse apportée, avec lesquelles nous devrons vivre pendant des décennies. C’est une époque de remise à plat, c’est pourquoi il est tellement nécessaire (ou il devrait l’être) de prendre de bonnes décisions.
Nous connaissons la plupart des questions qui se posent : que faire s’agissant de la guerre civile en Syrie ? Quel est le meilleur moyen d’arrêter ou de limiter le programme nucléaire militaire de l’Iran ? Que faire face à la nouvelle fragmentation de l’Irak ? Comment faire pour que la situation en Syrie et en Irak ne se propage pas en Jordanie et au Liban ? Comment traiter le problème majeur que pose la Turquie, c’est-à-dire la question kurde en Syrie et en Irak, alors que ce pays est en pleine crise politique et que celle-ci pourrait être très grave ? Jusqu’où et de quelle manière pousser des négociations de paix israélo-palestiniennes et quelle priorité leur donner ? Comment influencer l’évolution politique du « printemps arabe » en Égypte, en Tunisie, en Libye, à Bahreïn et ailleurs ? Comment envisager les clivages confessionnels en formation dans la région et propres à certains pays ? En quoi le dossier de non prolifération est-il lié aux autres défis de la région ? Comment repenser le rôle des services de renseignement antiterroristes américains, compte tenu du retrait de tant de programmes et de personnel d’Irak et bientôt d’Afghanistan ?
Ce qui est frappant dans ces questions est qu’un grand nombre d’entre elles exigent une réponse immédiate alors qu’elles ont tendance à être très diverses, très difficiles et très imbriquées. Ce qui est inhabituel. À son tour, cette observation amène à d’autres questions : l’Administration Obama a-t-elle une théorie stratégique sur ce dossier régional, susceptible d’intégrer tous ces éléments dans un cadre logique global ? Et cette théorie sur le dossier du Proche-Orient, si elle existe, est-elle consciemment liée à des objectifs stratégiques globaux ? Si c’est le cas, d’où vient cette théorie ? Du Président ? Du secrétaire d’État ? De quelqu’un d’autre ? Les dirigeants se sont-ils, ou non, mis d’accord sur une partie de cette théorie, sa plus grande partie, sa totalité ?
Ce ne sont pas des questions simples car les différents présidents et dirigeants ont manifestement des manières différentes d’établir un lien entre les abstractions stratégiques et leur comportement politique. Certains ont bel et bien des théories explicites sur le dossier et s’efforcent avec cohérence de faire coïncider leur comportement et leur stratégie. Le mandat Nixon-Kissinger était la quintessence de ce genre d’approche ; instruits par la Seconde Guerre mondiale et disciplinés par la Guerre froide, les Administrations Eisenhower et Kennedy-Johnson s’en rapprochaient elles aussi.
Certaines Administrations ont eu des théories extrêmement abstraites, souvent intensément moralistes, sur ce dossier ; mais elles étaient trop abstraites pour rester cohérentes dans le processus politique. Elles ont souvent obligé ses subordonnés à deviner et à défendre ce que voulait le Président. Ce fut le cas des présidences Reagan et George W. Bush et, dans une certaine mesure, aussi celle de Carter.
Certains présidents et leurs conseillers les plus proches ont eu beaucoup recours aux intuitions en matière politique et n’ont pas été très enclins à formaliser l’exercice stratégique ou à expliciter leurs stratégies. L’équipe Bush-Scowcroft-Baker en est un exemple, de même que celle de Truman-Acheson. Un président peut être porté à la stratégie sans avoir de stratégie formalisée et, en période de calme, c’est ce qu’il peut faire de mieux. En effet, au moment où le président doit prendre des décisions, il n’a plus un très grand nombre d’options à sa disposition. Son instinct peut l’amener à regrouper d’une certaine manière les questions à trancher, même s’il ne peut expliquer totalement, ou de manière cohérente, pourquoi la décision qu’il a prise était de nature à satisfaire un Kissinger, un Brzezinski, un Acheson ou même un Scowcroft.
Certains présidents semblent ne pas avoir besoin de stratégie, n’être ni portés à penser en ces termes ni à l’aise avec cette méthode. Ils ont donc tendance à traiter au cas par cas les questions qui ne peuvent manquer de se poser en politique étrangère. La période Clinton-Christopher en est une illustration.
Et Barack Obama ? La politique étrangère de cette Administration se contente-t-elle d’improviser, comme l’affirment beaucoup et comme le laissent penser certains éléments du processus de décision ? Ou bien, quoi qu’on en pense, cette Administration a-t-elle, comme d’autres l’affirment, une théorie stratégique explicite sur ce dossier, intégrant le Proche-Orient dans une vision globale ? Ou encore, comme l’Administration de George H. W. Bush, a-t-elle des instincts très intelligents (ou très malencontreux) n’allant pas jusqu’à une stratégie explicite et formalisée, mais n’en conduisant pas moins, peu à peu, la politique dans une direction particulière ? Laquelle ? Comment le sait-on ? Quelles en sont les preuves ?
Une situation nouvelle
C’est à ces questions que je vais tenter de répondre. Mais, pour qu’une réponse ait du sens, il faut d’abord mieux comprendre en quoi un Proche-Orient totalement déstabilisé est une chose nouvelle et comment il en est arrivé là. On examinera ensuite brièvement quelques-unes des diverses décisions à prendre au Proche-Orient (Syrie, Iran et Irak), dans l’espoir de faire émerger un modèle caractérisant le processus de décision dans l’Administration Obama. Peut-être pourra-t-on alors définir l’approche de cette Administration, afin de se prononcer sur son degré de discernement et son cap probable.
Au cours des soixante-dix dernières années s’est développée une sorte de tic intellectuel chez les observateurs occidentaux occasionnels du « Proche-Orient » consistant à considérer la région comme « instable ». (J’ai prudemment mis Proche-Orient entre guillemets pour suggérer que les susdits observateurs occasionnels définissent sans grande rigueur la région dont ils parlent.) Or, comme beaucoup de choses, une zone n’est stable ou instable que par comparaison avec un autre endroit ou avec le même endroit à une autre époque. C’est pourquoi la manière de définir la zone dont on parle affecte nécessairement les comparaisons.
Par conséquent, si ces observateurs occasionnels occidentaux entendaient par « Proche-Orient » uniquement la zone du conflit « arabo-israélien » (et ce fut souvent le cas), alors les guerres de 1948-1949, 1956, 1967, 1970-1971, 1973, 1982, etc., les périodes de « paix », truffées d’actes de terrorisme, de représailles, de raids, d’assassinats et autres, justifient probablement de considérer cette zone comme extrêmement instable par comparaison avec l’Europe, l’Amérique du Sud et la plus grande partie de l’Asie durant la Guerre froide. Si ces observateurs entendaient parler du Levant ou des pays du Golfe, ou de l’Afrique du Nord ou, plus largement, du « monde arabe », ou encore plus largement, du « monde musulman », l’étiquette « instabilité » convient beaucoup moins. Certes, il y a eu des révolutions de palais, des assassinats et des interventions de militaires en politique, plus quelques insurrections, guerres civiles et autres épisodes de violences politiques de masse dans des pays de toutes ces zones. Mais il n’y a eu en réalité qu’une seule véritable guerre interétatique, dans laquelle Israël n’ait pas été impliqué, et aucune qui ait opposé des États arabes directement l’un à l’autre.
Il y a eu aussi des régimes extrêmement stables, qui ont duré très longtemps : Kadhafi en Libye, de septembre 1969 à octobre 2011 ; les Assad en Syrie, de novembre 1970 à ce jour ; Moubarak en Égypte, d’octobre 1981 à février 2012 ; le Baath en Irak, essentiellement sous Saddam Hussein, de juillet 1968 à mars 2003, et on pourrait continuer ainsi. Bien sûr, les cimetières sont stables eux aussi, c’est pourquoi la stabilité n’est pas, contrairement à ce que croient la plupart d’entre nous, toujours une bonne chose pour des sociétés civiles saines. Mais j’emploie le mot « stabilité » dans une acception descriptive, celle des sciences sociales – ni plus ni moins.
On peut se faire une idée de la relative stabilité qu’a connue le Proche-Orient pendant la plus grande partie de ces soixante à soixante-dix dernières années, jusqu’avant la fin de l’année 2010, en la comparant à ce qui s’y passe maintenant. À présent, la région dans son ensemble – quasiment sa totalité, quelle que soit la manière de la définir – est instable. Réellement instable. Cela pourrait même s’aggraver encore et c’est probablement ce qui se passera. C’est cela l’instabilité : toute une région engagée dans l’équivalent politique d’un derby de démolition, sauf que personne ne semble beaucoup s’amuser.
À l’heure actuelle, s’il n’y a pas de guerres conventionnelles entre pays voisins, ce qui se passe dans la région est de nature à produire un cocktail d’instabilité. Guerres civiles et insurrections actives majeures ? Voyez par vous-même : Syrie, Irak, Yémen, Afghanistan et Somalie (les deux derniers si l’on inclut des pays non arabes). Violence politique n’allant pas jusqu’à des insurrections organisées ? Libye, Égypte, Bahreïn, Liban et, sans doute, Algérie. Gouvernements simplement effrayés ou plus ou moins faibles ? Jordanie, Tunisie, Arabie Saoudite, Maroc, Soudan et tout à la fois le Hamas à Gaza et l’Autorité palestinienne en Cisjordanie. Gouvernements ayant en temps normal de bonnes institutions, mais aujourd’hui en crise politique et ne contrôlant pas la totalité de leur territoire national ? Turquie. Les deux seuls grands pays de la région (j’exclus les trois familles ou groupes de familles du Golfe à la tête de leur pays : Oman, Qatar et les Émirats arabes unis) qui contrôlent leur territoire national et qui, selon leurs propres estimations, ne sont pas au bord d’une débâcle intérieure, sont l’Iran et Israël. Or ces deux pays pourraient bien entrer en guerre avant même que le reste de la région ne se remette.
De plus, comme beaucoup d’observateurs l’ont fait remarquer, nous ne sommes pas confrontés seulement à deux douzaines de pays faisant face à des problèmes, mais à quelques pays dont l’existence même, en tant qu’entités politiques, est menacée. C’est sûrement le cas de la Syrie et probablement de l’Irak. Il n’est pas davantage certain que l’intégrité territoriale de la Libye, du Liban, du Yémen et du Soudan puisse être longtemps préservée. La perspective d’un soulèvement contre le régime (non pour faire tomber le gouvernement, mais pour changer vraiment de régime) dans les monarchies du Bahreïn, d’Arabie Saoudite, de Jordanie et du Maroc est loin d’être nulle. La montée du nationalisme pankurde aura des effets sur la configuration territoriale de l’Iran et de la Turquie ainsi que sur celle de l’Irak et de la Syrie. La « Palestine », qui est moins qu’une entité politique, mais plus qu’un produit de l’imagination politique, a longtemps été dans les limbes et, malgré les négociations actuelles, y restera probablement encore un certain temps. On ne parle donc pas seulement de la somme des problèmes de chaque pays, mais de tout un sous-système étatique régional, qui ondule et se désintègre sous l’effet de la décomposition de certaines de ses unités et de la faiblesse et de l’imprévisibilité croissantes des autres.
Qui blâmer ?
De même que les observateurs occidentaux occasionnels sont prompts à gloser sur l’instabilité du Proche-Orient, ils étaient, et sont toujours, déterminés à en faire porter la responsabilité à quelqu’un. La majorité de la presse américaine fonctionne sur l’analyse biographique : qui sont les étoiles montantes, qui voit son étoile pâlir ; qui est has been et qui ne l’est pas (encore). Cela épargne aux journalistes et aux rédacteurs en chef d’avoir à comprendre vraiment les problèmes ; en outre, ils ont probablement raison de penser que c’est ce qu’attendent la plupart de leurs lecteurs. Les potins de haute volée l’emportent très largement sur l’analyse de fond.
Ce qui a pour résultat qu’en fonction de leurs opinions politiques, certains attribuent au président Obama la responsabilité de la confusion actuelle au Proche-Orient. Il aurait dû intervenir très tôt en Syrie, déclarent-ils d’un air supérieur. Il aurait dû soutenir la révolution verte iranienne en 2009. Il aurait dû défendre Moubarak, même si les propres collègues de Moubarak étaient en train de le renverser. S’il avait fait tout cela, plus une liste interminable de choses qu’il aurait dû faire, mais n’a pas faites, ou qu’il a faites, mais n’aurait pas dû faire, tout irait bien aujourd’hui.
D’autres préfèrent blâmer George W. Bush et les neocons. C’est la guerre en Irak qui a tout provoqué. Je ne plaisante pas ; dans un bref article intitulé « What the War in Iraq Wrought », paru dans le New Yorker du 15 janvier 2014, un journaliste, nommé John Lee Anderson, attribue tout ce qui va mal dans la région, et même, par voie de conséquence, ce qui se passe en Égypte, à la guerre en Irak parce que c’est elle qui aurait créé le démon sectaire lâché aujourd’hui au Proche-Orient.
Certains sont plus œcuméniques dans leur révisionnisme : ce sont les États-Unis et toutes leurs Administrations, aussi loin qu’on puisse remonter, qui sont à l’origine de tous ces problèmes. À moins que ce ne soient les Britanniques ou les Français, ou l’Occident générique, ou les Russes ou (bien sûr, ne les oublions pas) les Juifs. Il semble rarement venir à l’esprit que les peuples de cette région pourraient avoir une certaine responsabilité dans leur situation actuelle. Et l’on ne pense presque jamais que chercher un bouc émissaire n’est peut-être pas le meilleur moyen de comprendre les réalités régionales.
Il est particulièrement agaçant d’entendre des gens, qui devraient être plus avisés, tenir ce genre de discours, plus encore lorsqu’ils les tiennent sur le mode du mea culpa. J’ai été stupéfait en entendant le Président Bush dire en 2003 : « Pendant soixante ans, les États-Unis ont recherché la stabilité au Proche-Orient au détriment de la démocratie et n’ont obtenu ni l’une ni l’autre », déclaration que Condoleezza Rice a souvent répétée lorsqu’elle était secrétaire d’État (ce qui, plus que toute autre chose, m’a amené à cesser de travailler pour elle). En d’autres termes, la raison pour laquelle les pays arabes n’étaient pas des démocraties et produisaient donc des terroristes ne tenait pas aux milliers d’années de leur propre expérience historique et culturelle, mais aux décisions de politique étrangère prises par les États-Unis au cours des six précédentes décennies. Tel était le raisonnement de ceux qui, à gauche, critiquaient le soutien des États-Unis aux régimes autoritaires dans le contexte de la Guerre froide. Que des Républicains ouvertement conservateurs se mettent à le reprendre avait de quoi vous couper le souffle, notamment parce que, quel que soit celui qui le tient, ce raisonnement est absurde.
Nous avons assuré la stabilité pendant ces soixante années. Quel que soit le critère retenu, la politique américaine au Proche-Orient pendant la Guerre froide a été un succès. Bien plus important, pour revenir à la question, il n’a jamais été en notre pouvoir de transformer les États arabes en démocraties. C’est une chose qu’aujourd’hui George W. Bush (je l’espère) a apprise à ses dépens ainsi que le docteur Rice. Il est stupéfiant que, même lorsque nous nous critiquons nous-mêmes, nous le fassions avec une dose d’hubris himalayesque : tout tourne toujours autour de nous. Sauf que c’est faux. Les États-Unis ne sont pas, et n’ont jamais été, le facteur déterminant de tout ce qui se passe au Proche-Orient, ni ailleurs non plus du reste (sauf peut-être à Panama à une époque). Redescendons sur terre.
Ce qui ne signifie pas pour autant que les décisions des présidents restent totalement sans effet. Pour le meilleur ou pour le pire, une partie de ce que font les États-Unis ne reste pas, la plupart du temps, sans conséquences ou a beaucoup de répercussions, de temps en temps au moins. La guerre en Irak s’est révélée peu judicieuse : à coup sûr la manière de la mener, voire la décision même de l’entreprendre. La manière dont nous avons décidé d’opérer en Afghanistan, après la chute du régime des Talibans, était également une erreur, bien qu’il ait fallu plus de temps à la plupart des observateurs pour s’en rendre compte. Rater ces deux guerres équivalait à une défaite stratégique américaine dans l’ensemble de la région ; tous les alliés et partenaires des États-Unis en ont donc pâti, de même que tous ses adversaires et rivaux l’ont emporté d’une manière ou d’une autre.
Ayant hérité de cette défaite, l’Administration Obama a décidé de réduire les pertes américaines et de voir ensuite si cette action aggravait ou non les choses. Il est certain que l’oscillation entre interventionnisme militant et repli américain sous Obama a elle aussi désorienté les esprits. S’agissant des vastes répercussions des récentes politiques américaines, la guerre en Irak a certes attisé les charbons ardents des dissensions confessionnelles, mais ce n’est pas elle qui les a créées. La recrudescence des violences entre sunnites et chiites remonte approximativement à 1973-1974, année où le quadruplement des prix du pétrole a tout à la fois préparé le terrain de l’effondrement du régime des Pahlavi en Iran et financé le wahhabisme saoudien, laissant présager une collision future entre les clergés extrémistes sunnite et chiite. (Non que, dans l’Islam, le conflit confessionnel soit exclusivement de nature théologique, il ne l’est pas plus que ne l’étaient les guerres de religion au xvie siècle en Europe.) Si l’Administration Obama avait rapidement et efficacement jugulé la situation en Syrie, elle aurait pu retarder l’affrontement confessionnel dans la région – mais probablement pas de beaucoup, puisque le démon avait déjà brisé ses chaînes en Irak et fait des apparitions mortelles dans un pays aussi éloigné que le Pakistan.
Des facteurs inhérents à la région expliquent une grande partie de ce qui se passe aujourd’hui. À quelques exceptions près, leurs sociétés tribales et leurs identités religieuses affaiblissent les États arabes. Ces États faibles, dont la plupart sont hétérogènes ethniquement ou religieusement, ont été incapables de créer des loyautés réelles ou d’obtenir, au fil des ans, une croissance économique forte ou une plus grande justice sociale. Beaucoup d’entre eux ont été fossilisés par la malédiction des ressources. Les tendances très patriarcales et autoritaires de ces sociétés les ont empêchées de s’adapter à nombre d’aspects de la modernité ; elles ont notamment été incapables de remplacer par une économie de marché la patrimonialisation des ressources opérée par une élite vivant de la rente qui caractérise tous les pays arabes, républiques ou monarchies, depuis le début de l’époque de l’indépendance.
Malgré toutes ces insuffisances, les élites des États arabes ont préféré blâmer l’Occident, les États-Unis et spécialement Israël ; et, plus bizarre encore, elles ont réussi à en persuader de nombreux Occidentaux. Il est certain que le caractère artificiel de nombre d’États territoriaux, créés dans le sillage de la Première Guerre mondiale, n’a pas arrangé les choses. Mais, dans la plupart des cas, après tant d’années, ce n’est ni le seul ni le principal obstacle ; et on ne peut certainement pas en attribuer la responsabilité au Président Bush, au Président Obama ou aux États-Unis en général.
Bref, les désordres du type de ceux que nous observons aujourd’hui au Proche-Orient ont de nombreuses causes, certaines très anciennes, d’autres plus récentes. Elles sont difficiles à démêler et encore plus difficiles à expliquer à des gens dès lors qu’ils n’ont pas envie de savoir si cela contredit leur quête de boucs émissaires, dans un but politique ou faute de meilleure idée. On peut améliorer la connaissance d’un militant politique, mais non le faire réfléchir.
Notre lamentable politique syrienne
Examinons à présent quelques-unes des décisions à prendre, énumérées ci-dessus, pour essayer de nous y retrouver dans l’écheveau des politiques. Même si beaucoup d’éléments de ce dossier sont interconnectés, on les étudiera les uns après les autres en les combinant au fil des besoins.
Tout d’abord la Syrie. Le meilleur moyen de comprendre la politique américaine à l’égard de la Syrie est de partir de la Libye. En mars 2011, avant que la Syrie ne se soit vraiment soulevée, le Président décida de s’associer à la Grande-Bretagne et à la France et d’entreprendre une guerre en Libye. Les conseillers de l’Administration étaient divisés face au désordre croissant en Libye. Le secrétaire à la Défense, Bob Gates, et tous les membres du Comité des chefs d’état-major étaient opposés à l’intervention. De même que le vice-Président Biden et le conseiller à la Sécurité nationale de l’époque, Tom Donilon, qui était « un homme de Biden ». C’était aussi le cas de beaucoup de gens à l’extérieur de l’Administration, dont le président du Council of Foreign Relations et votre humble serviteur.
Le Président semblait partagé. Aussi posa-t-il une série de conditions strictes pour consentir à l’intervention – dont un soutien de la Ligue arabe et une résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU sur la base de l’article 7. Toutefois, il écouta les partisans de la guerre lorsque le secrétaire d’État, Hillary Clinton, s’y rallia et que, peut-être à son grand regret et contre toute attente, les conditions qu’il avait posées se trouvèrent toutes réunies. Même s’il faut attendre des mémoires fiables pour en être certain, mon sentiment est que le Président ne tarda pas à regretter sa décision en voyant les conséquences multiples, sinistres et involontaires de l’intervention en Libye. Le défaut de planification par ses alliés de la phase de la guerre postérieure aux combats, malgré un triste précédent, a eu de sombres répercussions en Libye (qui ont conduit au raid sur Benghazi de septembre 2012), mais aussi au Mali, au nord du Nigéria et, sans doute, en Algérie.
Aussi, lorsque, quelques mois plus tard, ses conseillers se divisèrent à nouveau sur la Syrie, le Président Obama résolut de ne pas s’en mêler. Il est difficile de dire dans quelle mesure des considérations de politique politicienne entrèrent en jeu – l’élection de 2012 approchait –, mais il est probable selon moi qu’elles ont tenu une place importante (je l’ai dit à l’époque). En toute hypothèse, même sans échéance électorale pour altérer son jugement, la passivité américaine à l’égard de la Syrie était tout à fait prévisible.
Il ne fait pas de doute que, dès le début, le Président a entendu force analyses et propos amers sur la Syrie. Il est à mon avis malheureux qu’à cause de la Libye, on ait fait preuve d’une prudence excessive. Prendre rapidement le leadership, de concert avec la Turquie et avec le soutien de l’OTAN, aurait pu arrêter la violence avant qu’elle ne se soit métastasée, radicalisée entre camps religieux et étendue à d’autres pays. Il n’était pas nécessaire, ni même souhaitable, pour y parvenir, d’envoyer des troupes sur le terrain ni même d’instaurer dès le début des zones d’exclusion aérienne. Il y a des moyens d’exercer de l’influence sans pour autant mettre en danger un grand nombre de soldats américains : c’est pour cette raison que nous avons des alliés, des opérations de renseignement, des forces spéciales et tout un assortiment de cyberprocédés douteux. Mais l’Administration a découragé les Turcs et la politique de passivité qu’elle a adoptée s’est révélée être la plus coûteuse de toutes les politiques.
Pour être honnête, la Syrie a toujours constitué un problème difficile. Si la Libye est une île du point de vue militaire et un petit pays en termes démographiques, la Syrie est plus vaste, plus difficile à vaincre militairement et, comme on le sait, elle dispose de stocks d’armes chimiques, voire biologiques. Les armes à longue portée, comme les missiles de croisière, ne sont pas ce qu’il y a de mieux pour maîtriser l’espace aérien ou pour travailler en étroite coordination avec des forces rebelles sur le terrain. Le président du Comité des chefs d’états-majors interarmées, Martin Dempsey, a du reste abondam ment déclaré qu’il faudrait effectuer 700 sorties pour détruire le système de défense aérienne syrien avant que les avions américains puissent entrer en action. C’est un nombre qui paraît élevé et c’était bien l’impression que Dempsey voulait donner en le citant. Cependant, à la différence de la Libye, le dossier syrien comportait des enjeux très importants, pour la plupart liés à l’Iran. La combinaison d’enjeux d’intérêts nationaux incontestables et d’options militaires malaisées rendait donc les choses difficiles.
Le temps que l’Administration en vienne à envisager sérieusement d’armer les rebelles (elle commença par coordonner des accords avec des tiers, comme la Croatie, et par demander à la CIA de faire passer quelques stocks d’armes de Libye aux rebelles syriens), un grand nombre de jihadistes sunnites radicaux avaient fait leur apparition et fusionné dans Jabhat al-Nusra. Ce qui rendait encore plus difficile ce qu’on avait déjà du mal à entreprendre. Il était normal de s’inquiéter que des armes américaines puissent tomber entre de mauvaises mains, c’est pourquoi l’envoi de matériels non létaux devint la forme d’aide préférée. Mais l’inquiétude ne devrait pas être paralysante, à moins que l’on ne veuille précisément être paralysé et que l’on ait des raisons pour cela.
Même l’aide non létale arrivait lentement et en petite quantité, conduisant certains observateurs à soupçonner que l’Administration voulait à présent que le régime Assad survive pour faire contrepoids aux jihadistes sunnites. (Peu importait l’égarement qui lui avait fait déclarer « Assad doit partir » lorsqu’on avait l’impression que c’était ce qui allait se produire.) Du coup, certains allèrent jusqu’à affirmer que la passivité en Syrie était un élément de négociation pour amadouer les Iraniens. C’est bien possible. Maintenant que nous connaissons l’étendue et les dates des contacts secrets avec l’Iran, menés en partie par l’ambassadeur Jeffrey Feltman depuis son poste de l’ONU à New York, on peut imaginer lebody language des Américains, voire leur langage au sens propre. Ils ont effectivement pu tenir ce discours aux Iraniens : « Écoutez, faites ce que vous voulez en Syrie ; nous, Américains, n’avons pas l’intention de nous ingérer dans vos relations avec vos voisins. Nous ne cherchons même pas à renverser le régime. » Et, comme preuve de l’absence d’intentions agressives, on a très bien pu évoquer les débuts de la politique d’« engagement » de l’Administration, qui a conduit les États-Unis à adopter une attitude réservée lors du soulèvement de l’opposition verte en 2009.
On reviendra plus loin sur le dossier iranien, mais il est essentiel de comprendre que, dès le départ, l’Administration Obama a considéré la Syrie comme un sous-problème de moindre importance dans le cadre d’une politique centrée sur l’Iran. En cela, elle était dans la ligne des précédentes Administrations. Les États-Unis n’ont en fait jamais eu de politique spécifique à l’égard de la Syrie. Notre ligne vis-à-vis de celle-ci a toujours été un dérivé de politiques plus importantes – relations arabo-israéliennes, Irak, Turquie, Liban, etc. Par le passé, cette tendance a eu de très malheureuses conséquences, permettant même au régime syrien de tuer des Américains et de s’en prendre par ailleurs à des intérêts américains – comme en Irak, par exemple – sans en payer vraiment le prix. Cette fois-ci, elle paraissait au moins un peu plus logique.
On peut bien sûr soutenir qu’une politique américaine plus énergique à l’égard du régime Assad aurait assuré plus d’efficacité à sa politique iranienne, mais ce n’est pas l’approche adoptée par l’Administration Obama. Les Iraniens ne craignaient plus les programmes d’ADM irakiens, tournure des événements assez ironique compte tenu de l’attitude du Président à l’égard de la guerre en Irak. Je subodore en outre que l’Administration pensait que, si le régime iranien cessait de nous considérer comme une menace mortelle, son analyse en termes de coûts-avantages de l’acquisition d’armes nucléaires s’en trouverait modifiée. Nous pouvions en augmenter le coût par des sanctions et réduire par la diplomatie les avantages d’une politique aussi risquée – et nous pourrions peut-être traduire cette nouvelle approche iranienne par un accord officiel. Mais revenons pour l’instant à la Syrie.
Les lignes rouges
La passivité américaine face à la guerre civile syrienne se prolongeant, le cours de la bataille tourna à l’avantage du régime. Il est clair que l’une des raisons de la passivité initiale des États-Unis était l’impression, confirmée par les évaluations des services de renseignement, que les rebelles allaient gagner, avec ou sans notre aide. On en voyait la preuve dans les défections de sunnites de premier plan, tels Manaf Tlass et d’autres. Mais, comme c’est le cas depuis très longtemps en Syrie, les sunnites ne parvinrent pas à s’entendre entre eux ni à coopérer vraiment pour passer de leurs premiers succès à la phase de destruction du régime. Pendant ce temps, les Russes déversaient des armes et des conseillers, dont certains s’étaient battus en Tchétchénie, et les Iraniens, via le Hezbollah et les brigades al-Qods, commençaient à apporter une aide décisive à Assad. Le cours de la guerre se renversa. Mais l’Administration Obama n’agit pas davantage – si ce n’est que sa politique se concentra dès lors sur les armes chimiques syriennes : la Maison-Blanche traça la première des deux « lignes rouges » contre l’emploi d’armes chimiques.
J’imagine que le Président pensait que la première ligne rouge sur les armes chimiques ne l’engageait pas – c’était un moyen de paraître fort et impliqué, sans prendre le moindre risque. À ce moment-là, aucune arme chimique n’avait été utilisée pendant les combats. C’était profondément méconnaître le régime alaouite et ses dirigeants. L’Administration aurait dû faire plus attention à l’habileté que les Syriens mettaient à humilier Kofi Annan et au plaisir qu’ils en retiraient. En fait, le régime syrien n’aurait peut-être jamais utilisé d’armes chimiques si le Président Obama ne l’avait pas mis en garde contre leur emploi – en vérité, aucune raison strictement militaire ne les y obligeait. Sentant la réticence d’Obama à s’engager militairement, le régime syrien fit ce qu’il sait le mieux faire : intimider, provoquer et croiser le fer psychologiquement avec une partie moins engagée. De plus, en utilisant les armes chimiques sans avoir à en payer le prix, il narguait les rebelles en leur signalant qu’il était très vraisemblable que les Américains les laisseraient tomber.
Vint alors la seconde ligne rouge sur les armes chimiques et nous nous souvenons tous de ce qui suivit. N’ayant utilisé auparavant qu’une très petite quantité d’armes chimiques pour tester la réponse américaine (il n’y en eut pas), les Syriens les employèrent alors à grande échelle et de façon manifeste. Certains Américains crédules (dont l’éminent James Fallows) affirmèrent que l’opposition avait fait cela en catimini pour incriminer le régime, mais nefirent qu’étaler leur ignorance et leur mauvais jugement. Les Russes étaient eux aussi enclins à croire ce mensonge, mais on n’en attendait pas moins d’eux en tant que conseils d’Assad.
Au milieu de tous ces nocifs gaz virtuels, de peur d’être obligée d’agir, l’Administration s’efforça d’ignorer les preuves d’emploi réitéré d’armes chimiques. Il devint trop embarrassant de persister dans cette attitude, dans la mesure où les preuves s’accumulaient, venues de partout, y compris des services de renseignement français et britannique. Alors, l’Administration se mit soudain en colère et se prépara à agir, allant jusqu’à envoyer en Méditerranée six navires équipés de missiles de croisière. Mais, tout aussi subitement, après que les Britanniques lui eurent retiré leur soutien en raison de l’opposition imprévue de leur Parlement, Obama décida de ne pas se montrer moins démocrate que la Grande-Bretagne et de demander l’approbation du Congrès.
On ne sait toujours pas vraiment si Obama pensait obtenir cet accord ou s’il savait que ce ne serait pas le cas et qu’il pourrait ainsi blâmer le Congrès de l’empêcher de faire une chose qu’il n’avait jamais vraiment voulu faire. Quoi qu’il en soit, au cours de cet épisode, l’Administration laissa entendre qu’il s’agirait d’une attaque « très réduite » avec des armes commandées à distance – absurde et fâcheuse remarque de Kerry, destinée à tranquilliser les sceptiques au Congrès, inquiets d’un risque de dérive. Le Président se sentit obligé de le contredire en public (« l’armée américaine ne fait pas de piqûres d’épingle »). Mais le mal était fait ; la langue du secrétaire d’État avait fourché, privant une éventuelle attaque de la plus grande partie de son impact, avant qu’on ait même posé le doigt sur la gâchette. Finalement, comme on le sait, après avoir fait naître de faux espoirs, le Président prit le contre-pied de la plupart de ses assistants et renonça à l’usage de la force contre un simulacre d’accord sur les armes chimiques conclu sous l’égide des Russes.
Il n’y a rien de mal à éliminer les armes chimiques syriennes, compte tenu du risque d’effondrement de l’État syrien, mais cet accord n’élimine pas toutes les armes chimiques de Syrie. Il ne met fin qu’à celles que le régime a déclarées – et nous n’avons aucun moyen fiable de vérifier l’existence de ce qu’il a passé sous silence. Il est très probable que les armes les plus modernes et les plus létales n’ont pas été déclarées, laissant la soi-disant communauté internationale – essentiellement les États-Unis, comme c’était prévisible – jouer le rôle de ramasseur d’ordures de produits dangereux, qui plus est en prenant les frais en charge.
Il était extrêmement douloureux de voir le Président passer de ligne rouge en ligne rouge, puis au subterfuge du Congrès et enfin au gilet de sauvetage diplomatique russe (qui n’était pas aussi improvisé que l’Administration a voulu le faire croire à l’époque). Le nouveau conseiller à la Sécurité nationale, Susan Rice, s’est révélée parfaitement incompétente en présidant, ou en essayant de présider, à la recherche de l’excuse la plus embarrassante que j’aie jamais vue dans un processus de décision en politique étrangère.
Et pour quel résultat ? Premièrement, comme beaucoup de gens l’ont fait remarquer, l’accord sur les armes chimiques légitimait Assad et le transformait en partenaire pour la mise en œuvre de l’accord – en contradiction directe avec la politique du « Assad doit partir ». Le retard mis à évacuer les produits chimiques du pays a fait ressortir la même contradiction. La Syrie étant une zone de guerre, il fallait sécuriser le transport par voie de terre avant de transférer les produits chimiques vers un port. Or qui rendait le transport par voie de terre problématique ? Nos alliés putatifs, l’Armée syrienne libre (ASL) et ses associés. Nous étions donc obligés de nous plaindre que nos alliés retardaient la mise en œuvre d’un accord que nous avions conclu avec leur ennemi, qui est aussi le nôtre. En d’autres termes, nous voulions à présent que la partie, que nous souhaitions voir gagner, perde temporairement et localement pour faire progresser un accord de contrôle d’armement largement cosmétique et totalement dissocié du reste de la guerre civile. Si ce n’est pas la preuve de l’incohérence et de l’irresponsabilité de cette politique, je me demande bien ce que c’est.
Indépendamment de l’impression produite aux États-Unis, l’ASL l’a interprétée comme une trahison, de même que les Saoudiens. Le régime syrien a accéléré ses opérations militaires dans la foulée de l’accord sur les armes chimiques ; une fois Assad certain que les États-Unis n’emploieraient pas la force, il a risqué le tout pour le tout en essayant d’écraser l’opposition. Il s’est concentré sur le tissu conjonctif reliant la région de Damas à la province de Lattaquié (où la bataille pour al-Qusayr a été déterminante – il suffit de regarder une carte) et, plus au nord, pour reprendre Alep. Il a depuis bien progressé dans ces deux zones.
Genève II
Pourquoi se dépêcher ? La raison en était la conférence de Genève II, qui devait avoir lieu en mai dernier et qui a finalement eu lieu en janvier 2014.
En juin 2012, neuf nations se sont retrouvées à Genève, la majorité d’entre elles pour essayer de travailler à un régime de transition sans Assad. Mais deux d’entre elles voulaient tout le contraire : c’est-à-dire pas d’accord sur cette question. La réunion du Groupe d’Action, nom qui lui fut donné, constituait l’ultime effort de Kofi Annan, parrainé par l’ONU, pour arrêter la guerre. Comme il fallait s’y attendre, elle échoua, de même que toutes les autres tentatives d’Annan. La Russie et la Chine bloquèrent toute formule appelant au départ d’Assad. On s’entendit sur une déclaration constituant le plus petit commun dénominateur : elle mentionnait sans grande conviction la nécessité de créer un régime de transition, sans dire explicitement qu’Assad ne pourrait pas en faire partie. Elle indique en effet que ce régime « pourra comprendre des membres de l’actuel gouvernement et de l’opposition ainsi que d’autres groupes et sera formé sur la base du consentement mutuel ».
Le reste du communiqué relevait largement de l’ineptie et de l’utopie : s’agissant de chimériques cessez-le-feu, de la démocratie dans une zone qui ne l’avait jamais connue en quatre mille ans. Il comportait en outre des éléments involontairement humoristiques. Alors que des innocents étaient massacrés par milliers par leur propre gouvernement, les rédacteurs de l’ONU prirent le temps de réclamer que des femmes soient représentées à toutes les phases de la transition. Ce qui était vraiment gentil.
À l’approche de Genève II, tout se mit peu à peu à menacer de dérailler. L’irresponsabi lité et l’incohérence de cette politique apparurent de nouveau au grand jour. Dans un contexte où des groupes rebelles s’étaient lancés dans des luttes violentes et fratricides et où le régime avait pris l’avantage, notamment dans la région d’Alep, le gouvernement américain essaya d’obtenir de la coalition de l’ASL qu’elle assiste à la réunion de Genève II. Mais cette coalition compte 144 groupes et les récents combats contre l’État islamique d’Irak et du Levant (ISIS) l’avaient encore plus divisée. La plupart des groupes d’opposition ne voulaient pas y aller à moins que la conférence ne prévoie expressément le départ d’Assad. C’est pourquoi Kerry a répété avant Genève II que c’était précisément le sens que les États-Unis donnaient à cette conférence. Toutefois, la présence de certains groupes d’opposition, alors que nombre d’entre eux n’y participeraient pas, risquait d’accentuer les divisions et donc d’affaiblir la coalition militaire sur le terrain en Syrie.
Je n’arrive pas à comprendre comment le Département d’État peut faire cette lecture du communiqué du 30 juin 2012. Ce n’est pas la lettre du texte et ce n’est certainement pas la lecture qu’en font le régime syrien ou les Russes. Kerry a accusé les Syriens de « révisionnisme » dans leur interprétation du document du 30 juin 2012, mais l’accusation peut tout aussi aisément lui être retournée. C’est ainsi que le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki-Moon, a pu inviter les Iraniens à la dernière minute, invitation à laquelle le gouvernement américain s’est opposé tout en semblant l’encourager. Les dernières semaines, Kerry avait en effet paru très soucieux que les Iraniens soient associés à la conférence, mais pas en tant que participants, puisqu’ils étaient censés ne pas accepter l’interprétation américaine des termes de la conférence. Cependant, les Iraniens pouvaient approuver la lettre du communiqué du 30 juin 2012, qui ne préjugeait d’aucune manière de l’avenir d’Assad. C’est pourquoi Moon, qui sait lire, les avait invités.
Ce qui mit Kerry en colère. Aucun secrétaire d’État américain n’aime qu’un type de l’ONU vienne lui couper l’herbe sous le pied, qui plus est sans avertissement et à un moment particulièrement sensible. Le Département d’État a donc demandé à Moon de retirer l’invitation faite à l’Iran, alors même que c’était le body language américain, engageant à l’égard de l’Iran, qui l’avait probablement convaincu de la lancer. Moon s’est rapidement exécuté, mais à contrecœur. L’annulation de l’invitation a épargné au gouvernement américain de devoir se retirer de la conférence qu’il parrainait, événement dans lequel nous avions assidûment et futilement mis tant de vains et faux espoirs.
Mais cela aurait peut-être été préférable. Compte tenu de la situation sur le terrain et du refus des États-Unis de faire quoi que ce soit, même de vaguement efficace, cette conférence ne pouvait aboutir à ce que l’Administration en espérait. Les adversaires ne veulent pas démordre de leur vision d’un jeu à somme nulle et les parrains de la conférence ne sont pas d’accord sur le fond, c’est-à-dire sur ses objectifs. L’échec américain sera donc vu dans toute la région comme la confirmation de l’impuissance américaine et comme une victoire d’Assad, des Iraniens, des Russes et de la brutalité totalement impitoyable exercée contre des populations civiles. J’avoue ne pas comprendre pourquoi nous devrions avoir envie d’en être complices.
Se lamenter du peu de chances de réussite de ce round de la diplomatie de Genève, tout en soulignant que « c’est la seule chose qu’il nous reste à essayer » – des responsables américains ont bien dit en public des choses de ce genre –, montre seulement, une fois encore, que la diplomatie peut bel et bien être nocive si les dirigeants ne parviennent pas à comprendre que la force et la diplomatie sont complémentaires et non opposées. Bêler que ce n’est que le début d’un long processus ou que la conférence encouragera des défections au sein du régime ou qu’une vision alternative à la guerre est en soi utile est une pure sottise. On n’arrête pas une véritable guerre civile avec des cartes de vœux rédigées de manière bien sentie ni avec une bouillie débile sur « comment réussir une négociation ». Tout ce que cette conférence a fait, fait et fera est de multiplier encore le nombre de morts tandis que les deux parties cherchent à prendre l’avantage militaire sur le terrain.
Vous faut-il un autre exemple de la nocivité que peut avoir une diplomatie bornée ? Alors que Genève II approchait, les États-Unis se sont officiellement associés à la Russie pour tenter de persuader les deux parties de déclarer des cessez-le-feu avant la conférence, y voyant un moyen de mettre fin définitivement à la guerre. Mais il y a des preuves incontes tables sur le terrain que le régime syrien offre non des cessez-le-feu locaux, mais des conditions de reddition. En échange de doses homéopathiques de nourriture et de médicaments, le régime demande aux civils assiégés de faire flotter le drapeau syrien au-dessus de la ville ou des alentours. Mais, dès que des agents du régime entrent dans la ville, ils exigent qu’on leur dise où se trouvent les combattants rebelles, arrêtent quelques personnes et abattent purement et simplement ceux qui essaient de s’enfuir. Ce sont des « cessez-le-feu » à la mode tchétchène. John Kerry peut-il vraiment l’ignorer ? Et, s’il le sait, comment peut-il les encourager ? Est-il cynique au point d’être prêt à trahir sciemment des alliés des États-Unis pour mettre fin à la guerre ?
Quoi qu’il s’y passe, le spectacle de Genève II déshonore d’ores et déjà la grande tradition du leadership politique américain. Mieux vaudrait que cette ombre jetée sur notre politique se limite au Proche-Orient. On peut néanmoins se demander ce que, par exemple, les responsables japonais pensent au fond d’eux-mêmes en ce moment. Quant à Kerry, il se borne, apparemment, à répéter qu’il faut laisser une chance à la politique d’apaisement.
Miser sur l’Iran ?
Ce qui nous ramène à l’Iran. Les équipes techniques sont parvenues à un accord sur le nucléaire qui devrait entrer en application. Ce qui est une bonne chose, pour le moment, malgré les défauts de cet accord. La brièveté de sa durée d’application (six mois seulement) et la capitulation de l’Occident sur le principe de l’enrichissement de l’uranium rendent plus probable une éventuelle bombe iranienne, et non l’inverse. Comme j’ai déjà eu l’occasion de le dire, seule la perspective d’un changement dans les relations américano-iraniennes, indépendamment de tout accord, peut justifier que l’on prenne ce risque. Or quelle est la probabilité de ce changement ?
Elle n’est pas égale à zéro, mais elle n’est pas très élevée non plus. Si les Iraniens n’ont plus peur que les Américains tentent de renverser leur régime et s’ils croient que cette Administration-là n’est pas obsédée par l’épouvantail de l’hégémonie régionale iranienne, il est possible qu’ils se disent qu’ils n’ont pas besoin d’une capacité nucléaire complète pour nous dissuader. Ce qui résout le problème, au moins pour les trois prochaines années : l’Iran ne franchira pas le seuil nucléaire tant que persistera cet engagement diplomatique. Si les États-Unis doivent payer encore et encore pour le préserver, comme cela semble très possible, le coût ne sera pas excessif – poursuit le raisonnement – s’il s’agit d’éviter une guerre. Et ne vous trompez pas : l’Administration continue à déclarer, comme émanant d’une décision présidentielle, douloureuse et de longue haleine, mais censée être à toute épreuve, que l’objectif de cette politique est et demeure la prévention et non la dissuasion. (Nous revient alors en mémoire la remarque de Bob Gates : « La parole de cette Maison-Blanche ne signifie rien. »)
Ce type d’approche par paiement au forfait me rappelle un merveilleux passage de Mon nom est Aram de William Saroyan : « Si vous donnez à un voleur, il ne peut plus vous voler et n’est donc plus un voleur. » Je ne veux pas dire par là que la politique d’Obama vis-à-vis de l’Iran n’est que de l’apaisement. C’est une interprétation de ses motivations, mais on peut l’envisager autrement. Il faut pour cela mélanger les niveaux d’analyse en faisant preuve d’inventivité.
Il est possible, comme l’ont soutenu certains, que l’Administration Obama ait une grande théorie, une stratégie ambitieuse, considérant qu’une entente avec l’Iran est le meilleur moyen de protéger la région et le monde de la menace durable que fait peser le radicalisme des jihadistes sunnites. Il est possible que l’Administration veuille s’appuyer sur les chiites pour contrebalancer la prolifération de franchises d’Al-Qaïda dans la région et au-delà de celle-ci et qu’elle pense que le prix à payer à court terme en vaut la peine. Ce prix comporterait une grave détérioration de nos relations avec l’Arabie Saoudite, qui a déjà commencé, mais, pourraient dire ses partisans, et après ? Auprès de qui d’autre les Saoudiens iraient-ils chercher une protection ? Le prix implique aussi une tension dans nos relations avec Israël : il nous faudrait le prier de nous faire confiance, afin qu’il nous soutienne au cas où les choses tourneraient mal. Ce qui rend les Israéliens nerveux, mais n’a rien d’excentrique s’agissant d’une politique de puissance – et il est certain que les jihadistes sunnites doivent inquiéter les Israéliens autant que leurs ennemis chiites inspirés par les Iraniens.
Le complément de ce raisonnement est que la crainte de l’hégémonie iranienne est largement exagérée. L’Iran n’est pas une si grande puissance. Son budget militaire annuel n’atteint même pas les rallonges budgétaires américaines de ces dernières années de guerre. La supériorité militaire technique des États-Unis sur l’Iran est quasiment écrasante. Plus encore, que signifie vraiment l’hégémonie régionale de l’Iran ? Quelles en sont les limites probables et naturelles ?
Une puissance perse et chiite fait penser à des anticorps naturels dans une région arabe et majoritairement sunnite. L’influence iranienne pourrait faire une grande différence au Bahreïn, où un régime sunnite minoritaire gouverne et opprime une majorité chiite ; elle pourrait peut-être faire une différence dans la province Al-Hasa, en Arabie Saoudite, où se trouvent tout à la fois la majorité des chiites et du pétrole du pays. Quant à l’Irak, nous savons déjà que l’Iran peut avoir une vraie forme d’influence à Bagdad, tant que les chiites sont au pouvoir, mais cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il dicte et contrôle tout ce qui s’y passe. L’Iran peut semer la pagaille de manière peu probante au Liban, mais la politique libanaise est structurellement peu probante – il ne peut donc en attendre de bénéfices durables. Les Iraniens peuvent fournir des armes aux Houthis chiites au Yémen, comme ils le font depuis peu ; mais quel intérêt vital les États-Unis ont-ils au Yémen, si ce n’est empêcher ce pays de devenir un terreau pour Al-Qaïda ? Et, bien sûr, les Iraniens peuvent s’allier aux alaouites en Syrie, bien que les chiites duodécimains et les alaouites n’aient pas grand-chose en commun en dehors de leur antipathie pour les sunnites.
En d’autres termes, même avec les dysfonctionnement des pays arabes, l’idée que, d’une manière ou d’une autre, les Iraniens pourraient recréer un empire territorial ayant un contrôle absolu – du genre de celui des Empires achéménide, sassanide ou safavide – au Proche-Orient actuel est une vue de l’esprit. Ils peuvent provoquer des troubles dans certaines zones, mais, sans une sérieuse capacité nucléaire, l’Iran ne peut attaquer ni conquérir la Palestine ou tout autre État du Levant ou du Golfe. Dans un siècle ou deux, les arabophones seront toujours au moins 280 millions, contrairement aux persanophones. Si la politique américaine peut maintenir l’Iran au-dessous d’une sérieuse capacité nucléaire, quel danger y a-t-il donc à laisser Téhéran s’empêtrer dans d’interminables conflits débilitants avec différents pays arabes et sunnites ? Et, si les Russes veulent les y aider, ils sont en droit de venir eux aussi piétiner en vain le bac à sable. Ils finiront probablement par le regretter (amèrement).
Ne prenons pas cela trop à la légère. Il n’est certainement pas sans risques qu’après avoir fourni des équipements de sécurité à la région pendant plusieurs décennies, les États-Unis décident soudain qu’ils ont « surinvesti » dans cette région, pour reprendre l’intempestive formule de Ben Rhodes qui a fait l’objet d’une fuite. Certains de nos partenaires commencent à envisager des contre-alliances, tandis que d’autres étudient de nouvelles formes d’autodéfense. Nous n’avons pas envie que l’Arabie Saoudite obtienne une bombe nucléaire grâce au Pakistan. Pire encore, la guerre confessionnelle a tendance à multiplier les radicaux et à marginaliser (ou à éliminer) les modérés, ce qui n’est pas non plus dans l’intérêt de notre sécurité à long terme. Soutenir tacitement Assad et ses parrains iraniens, ou être seulement considérés comme le faisant, ne peut qu’encourager le radicalisme sunnite dans la région et au-delà. C’est donc une chose d’imaginer que, si nous nous désengageons du Proche-Orient et que nous laissons jouer les équilibres naturels, ceux-ci mettront entre parenthèses les dangers que court cette région, et c’en est une autre de survivre à la transition d’un type de régime de sécurité à un autre.
Boucle d’or
Je soupçonne les responsables de cette Administration de comprendre assez bien tout cela. Je doute qu’Obama et Kerry « rêvent certainement d’un coup de maître du genre de celui de Nixon en Chine » sur l’Iran et qu’ils voient « sans aucun doute l’Iran et ses alliés chiites comme des partenaires potentiels dans le combat contre le jihadisme sunnite ». Ceux qui, pendant le premier mandat, ont participé au plus haut niveau aux délibérations sur des questions de ce genre décrivent le Président comme très méfiant à l’égard des coups ambitieux et très sceptique sur les motivations des Iraniens. Des mots tels que « certainement » et « sans aucun doute » n’ont en aucun cas leur place dans un débat de ce genre. Lorsque, plus récemment, Obama n’a pas donné à l’accord nucléaire plus de 50 % de chances de réussir, il manifestait là aussi scepticisme et réserve.
Je ne pense donc pas que le Président ait une théorie stratégique explicite sur le dossier du Proche-Orient. Je n’entends tourner aucun des mécanismes de Kissinger. Ses orientations à l’égard de la région ressemblent plus à celles de George H. W. Bush : il a des intuitions, des instincts. Et ceux-ci lui soufflent qu’obtenir ce qu’on veut dans cette partie du monde est très difficile et le devient de plus en plus, dans la mesure où la possibilité d’avoir un interlocuteur unique – dont nous « jouissions » en ayant pour alliés des régimes arabes autoritaires et stables – n’est plus ce qu’elle était. Je pense que Rhodes orientait Obama à toutes fins utiles en écrivant ce qui suit à Jeffrey Goldberg :
« En politique étrangère, les États-Unis prennent des décisions fondées sur nos intérêts. Il n’est pas dans l’intérêt de l’Amérique d’avoir des troupes dans chaque conflit du Proche-Orient ou d’y être en permanence impliqués dans des guerres sans fin.
Il est de notre intérêt de déployer d’importants efforts diplomatiques – et des ressources – pour essayer de résoudre des conflits et de renforcer les capacités de nos partenaires, ce qui est exactement ce que nous faisons.
L’idée qu’il y ait eu jadis une époque où nous dictions les affaires intérieures des pays du Proche-Orient n’est pas conforme aux faits. Lorsque nous avions bien plus d’une centaine de milliers de troupes en Irak, nous n’avons pas été capables de façonner la réalité politique de ce pays ni de mettre fin à la haine religieuse.
Qui plus est, l’idée que nous soyons désengagés est fausse puisque nous sommes plus engagés dans la région que toute autre nation – pour parvenir à un accord sur le programme nucléaire iranien, faire progresser la paix entre Israël et la Palestine, détruire les réserves d’armes chimiques syriennes, contrer Al-Qaïda et ses associés, assurer la sécurité d’Israël et de nos partenaires du Golfe et soutenir la transition vers la démocratie du Yémen à la Libye. »
Rhodes écrivant à un journaliste, il y a nécessairement du baratin là-dedans – surtout vers la fin. Notre « engagement » est avant tout de la frime ; il s’agit d’en donner l’impression, parce qu’en l’absence de toute volonté de prendre des risques et de le faire durablement, il ne peut en aller autrement. Notre diplomatie vis-à-vis de la Syrie pose problème, notre diplomatie sur la question arabo-israélienne n’aboutira pas à la paix, l’accord avec l’Iran finira peut-être bien, mais peut-être pas, il n’y aura pas de transition démocratique en Libye ni au Yémen, etc. Il s’agit donc de l’une de ces nombreuses déclarations qui est vraie en paroles, mais non en intention. L’intention est de faire passer notre passivité pour autre chose que ce qu’elle est et de la faire paraître à la fois avisée et prudente.
La vérité est que nous sommes face au problème classique de Boucle d’or. Nous ne voulons pas en faire trop peu, parce que cela comporte des risques, mais nous ne voulons pas non plus en faire trop, parce que cela comporte aussi des risques. Il est difficile de trouver le « juste » degré et même les gens honnêtes et bien informés peuvent ne pas s’entendre sur ce qu’est ce « juste » degré. Je pense personnellement que le Président sous-estime les coûts et les risques cumulatifs d’en faire trop peu, qui ne se limitent pas au Proche-Orient. Mais je ne pense pas qu’il faille lui attribuer des objectifs très ambitieux et discutables. De très nombreuses « doctrines » présidentielles ont été créées par des observateurs extérieurs qui essayaient de donner plus de cohérence aux idées d’une Administration qu’elles n’en avaient vraiment. Par pitié, n’inventons pas de toutes pièces une Doctrine Obama.
Et, bien sûr, même si l’Administration Obama recherchait un grand et nouvel équilibre régional avec les mollahs perses, le Président doit savoir qu’il n’y a aucune garantie que ce nouvel ordre régional soit assez attirant pour nous dispenser d’avoir une politique. L’effondrement de la Syrie et de l’Irak en tant qu’États pose des problèmes de zone grise au contre-terrorisme ; on pourrait dire que c’est aussi ce qui risque d’arriver à la Libye et à d’autres pays. Être moins intrusifs dans la région ne ferait pas nécessairement de nous des cibles moins privilégiées. Être vus comme acoquinés à l’Iran pourrait bel et bien nous transformer en cibles encore plus privilégiées. Les équilibres locaux ne résoudront pas tous nos problèmes actuels et risquent même d’en créer.
L’Irak à nouveau en crise
Ce qui nous amène tout naturellement à l’Irak où l’enfer s’est (à nouveau) déchaîné. Sous la forme d’ISIS, Al-Qaïda est de retour et garde le contrôle de Ramadi et Falluja. Les efforts menés depuis Bagdad pour que les chefs tribaux persuadent ISIS de quitter ces villes n’ont pas réussi et ont peut-être même débouché sur un nouveau pacte sunnite dirigé contre Maliki à Bagdad. À ce jour, Al-Qaïda a aussi placé Bagdad en mode verrouillage : les démons se rapprochent. Et tout le monde en Irak croit encore en son for intérieur qu’au combat, un sunnite des tribus du désert vaut à lui seul une centaine de villageois chiites froussards. C’est la tradition, c’est la perception et, du même coup, c’est dans une certaine mesure la réalité. Une avant-garde sunnite, islamiste ou non, pourrait-elle faire peu de cas d’une armée chiite, bien plus importante sur le papier, mais en train de se désintégrer, et atteindre Bagdad ? Évidemment qu’elle le pourrait. Celui qui en doute encore n’a toujours rien compris à l’Irak.
Dans ces conditions, l’Administration Obama devrait-elle accéder à la demande de fournitures d’armes et de formations émanant du Premier ministre Maliki ? C’est tentant. N’ayant pas réussi à obtenir un accord SOFA, nous pourrions à présent garantir que la structure de commandement irakienne reste américaine pour de nombreuses années et sauver quelque chose de la relation de travail que nous envisagions avec l’Irak il y a quelques années. Si nous l’aidons, nous pourrions obtenir de lui qu’il ferme le couloir aérien entre l’Iran et la Syrie (mais voulons-nous vraiment fermer ce couloir ?). La plupart des Américains impliqués dans la politique de guerre souhaitent que nous agissions ainsi et se disent en mesure de livrer rapidement ce matériel.
Je comprends ces raisons et j’y crois jusqu’à un certain point. Maliki a besoin de nous, nous pouvons donc peut-être l’aider et le persuader ainsi de gouverner de manière plus inclusive. Pour l’instant, il s’est révélé être un crétin sectaire et maladroit. Nous avons intérêt à ce que l’Irak ne se désintègre pas complètement et, pour cela, il faut à Bagdad un gouvernement qui soit plus réellement national que d’esprit sectaire. Mais que se passera-t-il si l’on ne parvient pas à maîtriser les sunnites, quelle que soit la quantité d’armes que nous envoyons ou le nombre d’officiers irakiens que nous promettons de former ?
Que décidera le Président et quand le décidera-t-il ? S’il est d’accord avec l’idée que nous sommes trop investis dans la région et qu’il doute de la capacité de tiers à s’engager délibérément dans une région comme l’Irak, il pourrait être tenté d’ignorer Maliki. Si l’Irak se désagrège complètement, il pourra faire ce qu’il fait le mieux : en rendre George W. Bush entièrement responsable. (Ce qu’il devrait faire, si cela se produit, est se coordonner avec la Turquie pour reconnaître le Gouvernement régional kurde comme un État indépendant, mais il ne le fera pas.)
D’un autre côté, l’effondrement de l’État irakien est en soi une mauvaise chose pour nous et son effondrement ou la victoire des sunnites radicaux là-bas aggravera encore la situation en Syrie. C’est une grave décision et aucune théorie globale sur ce dossier ne peut la faciliter. Mon sentiment est qu’en définitive, c’est la politique qui l’emportera, comme c’est habituellement le cas dans cette Administration. Lorsque le Président envisage la perspective que des armes américaines et des soldats américains, fût-ce comme formateurs, retournent en Irak, il a un mouvement de recul. Je pense qu’il calera. Je me demande si les secrétaires d’État Hagel et Kerry ont une idée là-dessus et si c’est la même. Ah, pouvoir être une petite souris pendant une réunion des responsables sur cette question !
La structure mentale du Président
Si j’ai raison de soutenir que le Président Obama a des instincts et des intuitions, mais pas de grande et ambitieuse stratégie pour le Proche-Orient, a-t-il néanmoins quelque chose de plus précis à l’esprit, replaçant le Proche-Orient dans un cadre global plus vaste ?
La réponse à cette question est la même : le Président n’est pas, je pense, un homme qui a confiance dans l’exercice d’une stratégie formelle, mais il ne fonctionne pas non plus complètement au cas par cas. Il croit probablement que les États-Unis sont effectivement trop investis au Proche-Orient et pas assez en Asie. D’où l’idée du pivot et peu importe qu’on l’ait sabotée en la présentant comme une proposition alternative. Selon toute vraisemblance, il s’est un jour demandé quel était le pire scénario pour le Proche-Orient. Ce qui se passerait si tout allait mal. En quoi cela affecterait vraiment les intérêts vitaux de l’Amérique. Non ses engagements traditionnels, non sa réputation, non ses obligations découlant de l’habitude et pas d’une approche nouvelle – mais ses authentiques intérêts vitaux. Et sa réponse a probablement été que, sauf réaction en chaîne en matière de prolifération d’ADM, les conséquences seraient minimes.
Une fois encore, je doute qu’Obama déploie consciemment ici une logique stratégique explicite ou formalisée ou qu’il accepte les théories universitaires du réalisme bienveillant ou de l’équilibre naturel. Mais je pense qu’il se rend compte qu’après le relatif immobilisme de la Guerre froide, le monde est devenu globalement plus confus ; que le degré de contrôle que peuvent donner les relations interétatiques traditionnelles sur une zone aux enjeux importants a baissé à mesure que, grâce aux nouvelles cyber-technologies, les mobilisations populaires et populistes se sont accrues aux niveaux à la fois sous-étatique et trans-étatique. Le Proche-Orient est certainement bien plus compliqué et confus, même si ce n’est pas, ou pas encore, le cas du reste du monde.
À mon avis, cette intuition a eu pour effet de rendre le Président Obama encore plus hostile au risque de manière générale et en particulier dans une région où il manque à tout le moins d’expérience et en son for intérieur d’assurance. Il est visiblement mal à l’aise lorsque ses conseillers sont divisés. Comme un juge, il essaie de trouver un dénominateur commun entre eux, ce qui est une bonne chose dans un travail de militant associatif, mais pas nécessairement en politique étrangère. Lorsque ses conseillers se livrent à une pensée de groupe, ce qu’ils font de plus en plus depuis le départ de Gates et de Donilon, ou lorsque aucun d’eux ne fait d’objections sérieuses à quelque chose (par exemple à la lubie de Kerry sur la paix israélo-palestinienne), il est satisfait de s’investir dans la gestion de son image – la twitterisation de la politique étrangère américaine en quelque sorte – parce qu’il sait qu’il ne peut tout simplement pas ignorer toutes ces choses.
La sensibilité du Président aux limites a également tendance à rendre sa politique réactive et ses objectifs réels modestes. Aussi, dans la confusion qu’est le Proche-Orient aujourd’hui, il veut que l’Irak soit gouverné de manière plus inclusive. Il veut que la Syrie et la Libye soient gouvernées, point. Il veut que l’Égypte soit stable et il n’est pas très regardant sur la manière dont cela peut se faire. Il veut que l’Iran n’ait pas d’armes nucléaires et il est prêt à beaucoup de choses pour l’empêcher par la diplomatie car il pense probablement que les dirigeants iraniens ne peuvent pas aujourd’hui exercer leur volonté au-delà de leurs frontières avec plus de réel succès que nous.
Il ne semble avoir d’idées précises et ne souhaiter agir préventivement que pour empêcher que des attaques terroristes tuent des citoyens américains, en particulier sur le sol des États-Unis. D’où son goût pour les attaques de drones, sa tolérance à l’égard de Guantánamo, son refus d’émasculer une série de programmes de la NSA, sauf à la marge, et son soutien généreux à l’ouverture discrète dans le monde entier de bases petites, mais puissantes, pour les forces spéciales.
Cet ensemble de positions n’est ni de l’apaissement ni de l’isolationnisme. Ce n’est manifestement pas non plus du maximalisme stratégique. C’est quelque chose d’intermédiaire et dans cet entre-deux, suspendu entre des attentes héritées du passé et des hésitations dues au flou de l’avenir, les choses deviennent parfois étranges ou pénibles lorsqu’il faut prendre un nombre sans précédent de décisions. Étrange, comme Genève II.
Docteur (PhD) de l’université de Pennsylvanie). Fondateur et editor de la revue The American Interest. De 2002 à 2005, a été assistant du secrétaire d’État. Ancieneditor de The National Interest. A enseigné à John Hopkins University, à l’université de Pennsylvanie et à Haverford College. A été un des collaborateur du sénateur H. M. Jackson. Parmi ses livres : Jewcentricity : How the Jews Get Praised, Blamed and Used to Explain Nearly Everything (Wiley, 2009) et The Origin and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement (St. Martin’s, 1995).
Under Obama’s proposed deal, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would remain intact, with the centrifuges spinning. “Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability . . .” — Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, the Wall Street Journal, April 8
It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor, and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.
Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc, and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.
And upon the expiration of the deal, conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb will be “almost down to zero,” i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear weapons at will and without delay.
And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.
The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on eleven of twelve issues.
As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes future verification impossible — how can you determine what’s been illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there’s been no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth — at-will, unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint European-Iranian statement spoke only of “enhanced access through agreed procedures,” which doesn’t remotely suggest spot inspections. And on Thursday, Iran’s supreme leader ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”
The IAEA hasn’t been allowed to see the Parchin weaponization facility in ten years. And the massive Fordow complex was disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents.
Yet even if violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran’s lawyers. Which all would take months — after which there is no guarantee that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway.
As for the “snapback” sanctions — our last remaining bit of pressure — they are equally fantastic. There’s no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia, and the Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it doesn’t snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving, post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought every step of the way, leaving the U.S., not Iran, isolated.
Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming, and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?
An overriding objective of these negotiations, as Obama has said, is to prevent the inevitable proliferation — Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states — that would occur if Iran went nuclear. Yet the prospective agreement is so clearly a pathway to an Iranian bomb that the Saudis are signaling that the deal itself would impel them to go nuclear. You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon.
What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the elements of a “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would reenter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview in December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.
Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.
Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.
There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.
Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.
And no sunset.
That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.
For all the grand speeches, President Obama has little of substance to show on the foreign policy front.
This article originally appeared in The American Review (Sydney, Australia).
If, as Winston Churchill declared on 1 October, 1939, Russia is “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, then the foreign policy of the Obama administration is an ambivalence wrapped in a mentality inside a perplexity. The latter is not as inclined to malignity as was the former in Joseph Stalin’s time, but it is just as difficult to decipher as we approach its first term halfway mark.
The fact that it is hard to speak coherently about that which turns out to be incoherent may help to account for the fact that virtually no one has offered a full-scale synthesis of the subject. Shorter sketches on discrete issues there are. Partisan op-ed length potshots and (usually) mercifully brief blog posts written by the standard assortment of fans, fanatics and fantasists both abound. But, quite uncharacteristically, little big-picture analysis has been published. Doubtless there are several reasons for this unusual state of affairs concerning the affairs of state, but the sheer difficulty of doing the deed has to be one of them.
Why the difficulty, and what might an answer to that question tell us about the subject itself? Three reasons produced by the administration’s own choices and nature come first to mind. They have to do with the interplay of policy rhetoric and behavior, management style and the key factor of personality in presidential as opposed to Westminster forms of democracy. Three other reasons of very different sorts, and having to do with existential realities not of the administration’s making, come to mind as well. One, which complements the management piece, is the notable fact that there has yet been no significant sudden crisis to condense plans and intentions into procedural precedent—no 3 am telephone call to the White House residential quarters from the National Security Advisor. The historical record shows that the precedents which matter most, those that elevate some people and privilege certain ideas, are formed from experience, not theory. So far, that experience ‘under fire’ is absent from the Obama watch.
A second extrinsic concern is a new slipperiness of definition about the subject itself. Foreign policy has always been difficult to disentangle from national security policy. Today, however, both are entwined with the extrusions of a domestic economic crisis that is beginning to look larger and more structurally grounded than was apparent in the tumultuous autumn of 2008. Foreign policy looks different to national leaders when seen through the lens of domestic priorities, and this can disorient observers used to a more conventional setup. The third extrinsic reason is so obvious that most observers neglect it: politics. Barack Obama seeks to be re-elected president in 2012, and his statecraft can not reasonably be understood in isolation from that fact.
Let us look at these factors in turn, and then assemble them in hopes of achieving a synthetic analysis. We should not be surprised if our own hard labors at understanding parallel in some ways the difficulties confronting the still new Obama administration that is our subject.
As to the rhetoric of US foreign policy in the Obama era, the one statement that may be offered without fear of contradiction is that there has been plenty of it—much of it presidential in nature. There have been not just one but two start-of-term foundational foreign policy speeches, the purpose of which is to articulate to the world the purpose of American power. The President delivered the first on 7 July 2009 in Moscow, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered the second on 15 July in Washington. Both speeches bore the structure of a standard start-of-term foundational statement in that each stressed five principles or pillars. (The problem was that the President’s five principles and those of his Secretary of State did not match up well, a fact bearing on the question of management, to which we return below.)
We also have as of late May 2010 the obligatory annual National Security Strategy, a document that is, accurately or not, taken to bear the imprimatur of an administration at its highest level. Besides these we have the presidential foreign policy addresses delivered in Ankara and Cairo, critical war policy speeches on Afghanistan and Iraq, two major presentations to the UN General Assembly, a most unusual philosophical discourse on the occasion of the President’s acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, and more besides in the form of interviews, news conferences, official statements on the occasion of state visits, and so on. We also have, not at all incidentally, the first Obama budget, which speaks volumes in numbers. Compared to most of his post-World War II predecessors, Obama has been a veritable one-man talkfest.
And what does all this word wrangling tell us? It tells us a good deal less than one might think, not because nothing of substance has been said, but because nearly everything has been said. Usually the President has seemed to be channeling Woodrow Wilson, dismissing balance-of-power and spheres-of-influence language as ‘so 19th century’ in favor of utopianesque ventures like Global Zero in nuclear weapons and an emphasis on taming strategic competition though legal progress towards global governance. But other times he has seemed to be channeling Reinhold Niebuhr, speaking like a moral realist who recognizes the inevitability of trade-offs and the tenacity of the will to have power among people. The sum of it is a profound ambivalence.
Beneath the rhetoric, however, there have emerged certain intellectual and policy tendencies, but these have been either unclear or unstable. For example, in its not very original but understandable desire to be the un-Dubya, the Obama administration broke from the gate offering earnest engagement to nearly every American adversary it could find—Iran, Syria, North Korea, Burma and others. With an apology or two usually to hand, it trusted that more diplomacy and less prominence for the military instruments of foreign policy would unfreeze problems large and small. At the same time that it privileged an effusive and accommodating tone, its body language was that of cold-blooded tactical realism. It sought the pragmatic deal and rigorously avoided the ‘d’-word—‘democracy’ promotion—in its rhetorical ensemble.
All this suggested that, at a time of straitened economic and political circumstances at home, the administration was eager to beat the kind of tactical retreat that would simultaneously reduce US obligations while not letting things go to hell in a hand basket. This was not an unreasonable approach, particularly with regard to bringing two difficult, expensive and divisive shooting wars to an end. Nevertheless, the policy claimed more than a tactical intent: it pointed inwards to a core source of US troubles. It strongly implied that many gridlocked danger spots around the globe were caused not by genuine conflict of interests or the aggressive designs of others, but by the wayward psychology of American machismo, its preachy holier-than-thou tone, and the temper-escalated misunderstandings that arose there from to make the world more dangerous than it needed to be. A new tone, the President seemed to think, would make a huge difference; speeches could therefore be, in some cases at least, self-executing vehicles of policy.
As it happened, the administration’s early efforts to translate a new rhetoric into policy success did not fare well. Certainly, no major problem has fallen to solution just because Obama made a speech about it. Indeed, there is scant evidence that the change in tone the President did manage to bring about has sprouted any positive concrete policy consequences at all. Polls have shown that while the President is on balance more popular abroad than his predecessor, his policies really are not—not in the Middle East, not in Europe, not in Asia.
Moreover, many of the administration’s policies are not new, and this has posed other problems for the marriage of rhetoric and reality. While what has been discontinuous has not worked (at least not yet), the major areas of policy marked by continuity are understandably not among the administration’s favorite talking points. It has stunned many, including many in the United States, that Obama’s policies in a host of sensitive areas in what used to be called the ‘global war on terror’ bear a striking resemblance to those of the two Bush administrations.
Thus, candidate Obama swore to close down the Guantanamo prison; but President Obama, finding the problem more complex than he thought once in office, has failed to do so. President Obama, while jettisoning the ‘war on terror’ for the lower-case Orwellian ‘overseas contingency operations’, has nevertheless increased the use of Predator drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan, many of which have the character of targeted killings. And he has duly sent forth his lawyers to explain why such killings and attempted killings, even of some self-exiled American citizens like Sheik Anwar al-Awlaqi, do not violate US law.
Before his inauguration many believed, too, that Obama would encourage lustration deep within the Central Intelligence Agency over accusations of its having been involved in torture in secret prisons abroad. He did no such thing, choosing instead to protect the autonomy and morale of CIA operations. Indeed, from all reliable accounts, as well as from Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, his approach to national security has ramped up sharply the use of clandestine operations undertaken by the CIA and other agencies of the US government, including those engaged in warrantless wiretaps. It has to follow, whether the President yet realizes it or not, that crossing an inevitably too-inflexible legal line from time to time just goes with that territory.
The failure of the administration’s engagement initiatives to transform their targets has doubled back in certain ways on the rhetoric itself. Thus, in recent months the administration has exaggerated the success of US–Russia relations as an end in itself, when the original purpose of engaging the Russians was to gain aid for alleviating more painful pressures in Iran and Afghanistan. Some early engagement efforts, too, were counterproductive to the administration’s own aspirations. Its misguided blundering into the Israeli–Palestinian cauldron set back the re-commencement of direct Israeli–Palestinian negotiations by a year.
To his credit, the President admitted that the problem was more formidable than he had thought. But even after that bout of contrition, new mistakes along the same lines as the old ones have thrown a pall over those negotiations’ likely achievement.
Some of the administration’s engagement initiatives brought harsh criticism at home, too, and so carried political complications. This was especially true for policy towards an Iranian leadership newly challenged in the streets after its rigged June 2009 election. Even many who wished the administration well were aghast at its stony dismissal of Iranian ‘greens’ brave enough to risk their lives for freedom. Other efforts, like the outreach to Syria, simply fell flat on their faces for lack of any interest on the other side.
The attempt to truly join rhetoric and behavior into a coherent whole foundered further as the level of policy abstraction increased. Thus, in the Middle East the administration insisted that the Arab–Israeli conflict was linked to everything else that seemed to be the matter with the region (a vast exaggeration), while in relations with Russia, with its famous ‘reset’ button as another example of the belief that tone and atmospherics could trump interests in relations between major countries, it explicitly denied linkage (a sheer impossibility). It had wished to reach an understanding with Moscow on both Afghanistan and Iran without getting snared in neuralgic issues such as the Georgia–Abkhazia–South Ossetia morass. It thought to use arms control as a kind of lubricant to assuage Russian pride, a notion recommended by the fact that 95 per cent of the work on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) had already been completed during the Bush administration—but this, it insisted, was not a form of linkage.
The Russians, for their part, insisted otherwise. They demanded payment for any help they might give, as eventually manifested in the US withdrawal of certain ballistic missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, Moscow’s refusal to unequivocally rule out the supply of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, US indulgence of Russian aid for Iran’s bringing the Bushehr nuclear plant on-line, and more besides. The administration got for all this a better understanding about logistical cooperation vis-à-vis Afghanistan and a Russian vote for tougher anti-Iran sanctions that are of dubious utility in any event. And much to the administration’s consternation and surprise, Moscow slow-rolled the START talks, less to gain advantage within that agreement than to foil administration timetables at the UN and on the ground in south-west Asia. Thus the administration learned (one hopes) that linkage is a way of life, not a procedural tap one can turn on in one place or off in another at will.
Even in areas seemingly of high priority to the administration, it could not reliably connect the rhetoric-to-policy dots. On non-proliferation policy, for example, the administration belabored efforts on its Global Zero initiative, the late April 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit and the May 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference, even as policy towards Iran and North Korea lay disconnected from these affairs. It was as if administration principals thought they could move reality by pushing on the shadows it made. Meanwhile, although US policy on the Iranian nuclear program remained unchanged—an Iranian nuclear weapons capability remains ‘unacceptable’ and no option to enforce that policy will be ‘removed from the table’—authoritative voices from within the administration signaled that the use of force against Iran is for any practical purpose not on the table as long as US efforts are still surging up and struggling on in Afghanistan.
We shall see how all this shakes out in due course, but the noises coming out of the Pentagon are inherently believable because they are logical: using force against Iran while the conflict in Afghanistan persists would be the equivalent in American politics of starting a second war. Unless a clear existential threat to the United States is believed to exist, as in World War II, sane strategists don’t open a second front while a first one is already in a mess. So when the Secretary of State, amid one of her “crippling sanctions” reveries, began musing out loud about “learning to live with an Iranian bomb”, no one was particularly surprised, least of all the Iranian leadership. Yet it seems not to have occurred to administration principals that one cannot effectively raise the prospect of a new form of extended deterrence on one hand while undermining its credibility through a Global Zero initiative on the other.
Indeed, the fuzzy indeterminacy that characterizes the Obama foreign policy holds true even at the highest echelon of strategy. The United States is the world’s pre-eminent if not hegemonic power. Since World War II it has set the normative standards and both formed and guarded the security and economic structures of the world. In that capacity it has provided for a relatively secure and prosperous global commons, a mission nicely convergent with the maturing American self-image as an exceptionalist nation. To do this, however, the United States has had to maintain a global military presence as a token of its commitment to the mission and as a means of reassurance to those far and wide with a stake in it. This has required a global network of alliances and bases, the cost of which is not small and the maintenance of which, in both diplomatic and other terms, is a full-time job.
Against this definition of strategic mission there have always been those in the United States who have dissented, holding that we do, ask and expect much too much, and get into gratuitous trouble as a result. Some have preferred outright isolationism, but most serious skeptics of the status quo have preferred a posture of ‘offshore balancing’. Remove the bases and end the alliances, they have argued, and the US government will be better able, at less risk and far less cost to the nation, to balance against threatening developments abroad, much as America’s strategic mentor, Great Britain, did throughout most of the 19th century.
This is the core conversation Americans have been having about the US global role since at least 1945. To one side we recall George McGovern’s 1972 ‘Come Home, America’ campaign plank, the Mansfield Amendment that would have removed US troops from Europe in mid-Cold War, and the early Carter administration’s proposal to remove US troops from South Korea spoken in rhythm to speeches decrying an “inordinate fear of communism”. To the other side has been almost everyone and everything else, so that the offshore approach has always been turned back, at least until now. Where is the Obama administration in this great debate? We don’t really know; the evidence, once again, suggests ambivalence.
President Obama has rejected American exceptionalism as no American president before him ever has; he did so in London on 29 April 2009, when he answered a question as follows: “I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” By relativizing what has always been an absolute, Obama showed how profoundly his image of America has been influenced by the received truths of the Vietnam anti-war movement and counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s. If he has a theory of American exceptionalism, it is a far subtler, humbler and more historically contingent one than the secular messianist, attenuated Protestant version that has been common to American history.
The President also believes that downward pressure on the defense budget is warranted; his projected budgets show as much, though the prospective cuts are not draconian. But in this he joins a large, politically ecumenical contingent, so his views do not imply opposition to the forward-presence approach to grand strategy. And the fact that US relations with many of its allies, notably in Europe, have worsened during Obama’s tenure is more likely a consequence of the President being distracted than it is of any active dislike for either specific allies or alliances in general. Nor does his candid view that fighting in Afghanistan for another decade and spending $1 trillion doing so is not in America’s best national interest, mean that he is reticent about using force on behalf of strategic aims when it is in America’s interest to do so. Perhaps Obama accepts the forward strategy but will end up starving it of resources to the point that it will shockingly fail some crucial test—perhaps the worst outcome of all.
Taken together, then, the administration’s track record, encompassing the whole spectrum from discrete policy arenas to the lofty heights of grand strategy, suggests the foreign policy equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot. Observers can see in it what they have wanted to see. Some have tagged the Obama administration a re-run of the Carter administration, but the fit is obviously imperfect; it’s very hard to see Carter during his first or second year in office ordering those Predator strikes, even harder to imagine him holding his tongue on human rights. Some have seen a replay of Nixon and Kissinger: Realpolitik hiding behind feel-good talk about allies and peace and the rest, trying simultaneously to play an inherited weak hand and set the stage for a grand bargain—this time with Iran instead of China. Still others think they are witness to the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: a shrewd opportunist who knows the limits set by domestic constraints, and whose main concern is national economic stabilization and social strengthening against the day when American power must meet a true test of destiny. The name game can go on because, while no great successes have sprouted forth from the Obama foreign policy, no great debacles have emerged either.
A good deal of the seeming incoherence in any US foreign policy administration stems from management decisions made early on in a president’s tenure. How a president wishes to set up his foreign and national security policy system is a function of his personality, though, as we will see below, that hardly exhausts the ways that a president’s personality affects US foreign policy.
There are as many ways to set up the system as there are presidents, but, in general, a president will prefer either formal or informal structures, and either a big or a small tent of key advisers. The less formal and smaller, the more centered in the White House a policy system is likely to be; the more formal and larger, the less White House-centric a policy system is likely to be. Classic examples: president Eisenhower’s National Security Council was formal, systemically organized and sprawlingly large; president John F Kennedy’s was less formal and much smaller. Both models have at times worked well, and both have at times worked poorly; outcomes derive from the quality of the leaders overseeing the structure as much or more than the structure itself. But structure is not irrelevant. What a large formal system gains in coverage, the use of institutional memory, bureaucratic buy-in, and an enhanced capacity to both plan and implement it may lose in speed, flexibility and creativity. What a smaller, more informal system may gain in speed, flexibility and creativity, even to the point of enabling genuine boldness, it may lose in coverage, cross-issue coherence, bureaucratic support and the ability to implement its own directives.
President Obama has chosen the small, White House-centered model, and he has made clear that no matter how pressed he is with domestic policy issues, he and he alone commands his foreign policy system, not he together with his National Security Adviser as in most prior White House-centered systems. This is as far a cry as one can imagine from what Warren Harding declared after his inauguration in 1921, when he pointed to his secretary of state, Charles Evans Hughes, and directed all media questions about foreign relations to him. The problem is that one person, or even 35 key appointees holed up in the Old Executive Office building, cannot possibly manage the foreign/national security policy of the United States.
There are two and only two ways to handle the mismatch between a small decision system and an enormous array of decision points: prioritization and delegation. President Obama has left no doubt what he cares most about. He cares about ridding the United States of its combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan without jeopardizing rock-bottom US security equities in those countries. Now that he has seen the intelligence at a new level and in more detail, he is concerned about terrorism, which leads him to be particularly concerned about Pakistan. In turn and much related, he cares deeply about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, both to rogue states and to terrorists, understanding that either would likely be strategic game-changers. As already noted, he seems to think that the Arab–Israeli conflict, especially the Palestinian dimension of it, is more intrinsically linked to this entire problem set than it actually is, and so he has reasoned that the so-called peace process must be a high priority. In the beginning of the administration, too, Russia held a high priority because, as has already been noted, it was seen as an important tactical ally in dealing with both Iran and Afghanistan. China mattered as well, of course, but less for its growing geopolitical importance than for its role in the global economy.
For most of these priority concerns the President appointed a special envoy who reports directly to him. The envoy in effect for the wars is the Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, to whom he shrewdly delegated the gist of these policy management burdens—shrewdly because Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, gives him political cover from two directions: he blunts Republican criticism and to a point his presence distances the President symbolically from the wars themselves should things go wrong. His ‘envoy’ for all Russia/NATO issues is the Vice-President, Joe Biden, who thinks he understands them and apparently has persuaded the President as much.
This leaves nearly everything else—the care and feeding of various and sundry allies, Latin America and the Caribbean, most of Asia, all of Oceania, the Balkans, the Arctic, and a whole host of functional issues from ‘trafficking in persons’ to international religious freedom—delegated to the State Department. This puts the State Department in an even more minor position than usual, and tips its internal scales away from foreign policy to foreign relations, seemingly a subtle but really a significant difference because in a White House-centered system the State Department cannot act boldly or take major initiatives. This arrangement also delegates by default major aspects of China policy and trade policy to the Treasury and Commerce departments, respectively, and leaves a large dollop of policy towards Mexico with the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
The President’s personal style, of which more in a moment, has lent itself to this arrangement for several reasons. One is that he could place his key political operatives, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod (both now gone on to other jobs), closer to the policy action. Another, however, is concern that the inter-agency process in the Executive Branch does not work well. The subject was the focus of a major commission study before and during the transition, the Project on National Security Reform, on which several members of the incoming administration were involved—including both the President’s former national security advisor, General Jim Jones, and his first national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair. The special envoy tack comes directly from that study.
As for the politics of the thing, President Obama is not yet persuaded that Hillary Clinton’s political threat to him has ended. His decision to appoint her Secretary of State, and her decision to accept the position, were both fraught with unexpressed but well understood political calculation. Turning Ms Clinton and the State Department into relatively bit players in the policymaking process was not accidental. The lack of genuine trust in that relationship also explains why the two July 2009 foundational speeches were so uncharacteristically uncoordinated with one another.
The administration has already paid a price for the President’s management decisions. To give but one of many examples, in July 2009 the president managed to rile a valuable ally, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, through complete inadvertence. Having unilaterally blessed the expansion of the G-8 into the G-20 in the face of global economic instability, he ordered members of his administration to seek the rebalancing of voting protocols within International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so that they might better reflect contemporary (and idealized) world power distributions. As he planned his own Global Zero initiative, too, offices at the National Security Council and State Department were busy continuing their work from the transition on how to reform the UN by reshaping the Security Council.
One of their ideas was to create a single European Union seat in place of the two owned by Britain and France. As is the way of government, each of these initiatives proceeded unaware of what others were doing. And so it happened that, within the course of about a month, three core symbols of what remains of French grandeur were attacked by the US government: the status of France as a nuclear power, the status of France as a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, and the status of France as a major player in international financial affairs. It is the job, in this case, of the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to anticipate inadvertencies of this sort, and to stop a runaway policy train before it flies off the trestle. Phillip Gordon, the current Assistant Secretary, is particularly expert on France and knows Sarkozy; he even translated one of his books into English while working at the Brookings Institution. He was aware of the ‘perfect storm’ brewing in US–French relations, but whatever he tried to do to avert damage it failed to stop the French volcano from erupting—which it did when Sarkozy fumed aloud in the halls of the UN building about how the president was “living in an imaginary” as opposed to a real world. It was not easy to make the French nostalgic for the days of George W Bush, but the Obama team managed it. This is what comes from trying to run the entire foreign policy of the United States from the White House.
Read any serious history of American diplomacy and it becomes readily apparent how central the character of the president is to it. One of the great mysteries of understanding US foreign policy today in its essence is that, more than any other occupant of the Oval Office, Americans and foreigners alike simply do not have a good feel for who Barack Obama really is. Aside from being relatively young and recent upon the national political scene, he doesn’t fit into any category with which we are accustomed to understand intellectual and temperamental origins. More importantly, Obama’s ‘mentality’ is not only hard for outsiders to read, he is, thanks to the facts of his nativity and life circumstances, an unusually self-constructed personality. He is black in an obvious physical way but culturally not black in any significant way. He is a person who, finding himself naturally belonging nowhere, has striven to shape himself into a person who belongs everywhere. As his books suggest, he is a man who has put himself through more reconstructive psychological surgery than any American politician in memory. A few of the resultant characteristics are critically important for understanding how he serves as both president and commander-in-chief.
Obama has understood above all that he must keep his cool. His cultivated aloofness is absolutely necessary to his successful political personality, for he cannot allow himself to exude emotion lest he raise the politically fatal specter of ‘the emotional black man’. His analytical mien, however, has made it hard for him to bond with foreign heads of state and even with some members of his own staff. His relationship with General Jones, for example, lacked rapport to the point that it seems to be a major reason for Jones resigning his position.
But Obama’s ‘cool’ does not imply a stunted capacity for emotional intelligence. To the contrary: he knows unerringly where the emotional balance of a conversation needs to be, and it is for this reason that Obama’s self-confidence is so imperturbable. He knows he can read other people without letting them read him. And this is why, in parallel with the complex of his racial identity, he never defers to others psychologically or emotionally, not towards individuals and not, as with the US military, towards any group.
The combination of ‘cool’ and empathetic control helps explain Obama’s character as commander-in-chief. He is respected in the ranks for sacking General Stanley McChrystal after the latter’s inexcusable act of disrespect and insubordination. That was control at work. But US troops do not feel that Obama has their back. He thinks of them as victims, not warriors, and one does not defer to victims. His ‘cool’, as well as his having had no prior contact with the professional military ethos at work, enjoins a distance that diminishes his effectiveness as commander-in-chief.
Obama’s mastery at projecting himself as self-confident, empathetic and imperturbable has also compensated for his lack of original policy ideas. Whether in law school, on the streets of Chicago, in the US Senate or in the race for the White House, he has commanded respect by being the master orchestrator of the ideas, talents and ambitions of others. Many claim that his personality archetype is that of the ‘professor’, but this is not so; it is that of the judge. It is the judge who sits above others; they defer to him, not he to them. It is the judge who bids others speak while he holds his peace and shows no telling emotion. It is the judge who settles disputes and orders fair and just resolution. It is the judge whose presumed intelligence trumps all others.
This kind of personality archetype can succeed well within American politics. In this sense it is precisely Charles Evans Hughes, a former chief justice of the US Supreme Court, not Carter, Wilson, Niebuhr, Nixon or FDR who stands as the true forebear of Barack Obama. But in the international arena even the American president cannot pull off a judge act and get away with it. Wilson tried and failed (or was that a prophet act?). The American president among his international peers is but one of many, perhaps primus inter pares but certainly without a mandate to act like it. Obama cum ‘judge’ has not impressed these peers: not among our European allies, who are ill at ease with his aloofness; not among Arabs and Muslims, who think him ill-mannered for bad-mouthing his predecessors while being hosted in foreign lands; not among Russians and Chinese, who think him gullible and guileless. Obama may still be popular on the ‘streets’ of the world because of the color of his skin, the contrast he draws to his predecessor, the general hope for renewal he symbolizes, and his willingness to play to chauvinist sentiment abroad by apologizing for supposed past American sins; but this matters not at all in the palaces where decisions are made. As his novelty has worn off, he impresses less and less.
One reason President Obama does not impress the foreigners who matter is that he looks to be a figure in political distress at home. They know, as does the President, that his legacy will be forged in the context of the American domestic moment. Success at home can empower him abroad, but the opposite is not the case. That is why it is impossible to assess the Obama foreign policy bereft of its domestic political context.
When Obama entered office, the economy justifiably dominated his time and energy. Once he gained a moment to sit back and take stock, his attention flowed to what he cares most about: issues of social and economic fairness within America. Thus, even a man who has insisted on monopolizing his own foreign policy saw it ultimately as a holding action against more urgent and important domestic challenges. This explains the remark of a confidante of General Jones, that “after all that Obama had done to practically beg him to take that job… Jim had the sense that Obama didn’t really care.” Yet the decision to privilege healthcare over energy policy was a grave error, similar to the one president Clinton made in 1993 and, in reverse order of policy domains, to the one president Carter made in 1977. One does not come newly enthroned to a place like Washington and try first thing to tackle the hardest, most special-interest encrusted issue in town. That is bound to exhaust more political capital than a novice president can afford. Obama’s victory on the healthcare issue was meager on its own terms and decidedly Pyrrhic politically. It never grew the legs to burnish his image more broadly, whether at home or, except very briefly, abroad.
It soon became clear, too, that a man who bravely campaigned against the K-Street ‘transactional culture’, which he identified as the root of US political dysfunction, lacked the power once in office to do anything about it beyond decreeing a few feckless White House edicts about hiring lobbyists for executive branch jobs. When the President decided on the stimulus package, when he put together his first budget, when he needed the healthcare and then the financial reform bills drafted, what did he do? Having few ideas of his own, only the remnants of a campaign staff and, most importantly, very few close political allies, he had no choice but to turn to the Democratic leadership in Congress to commute these tasks. This, to put it mildly, is no way to fight the K-Street transactional culture. Foreign leaders saw this as well, and they saw the widespread (if largely unfair) charges of leadership forfeit over the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The conclusion they drew is that President Obama is a weak leader, a conclusion that high unemployment figures, Obama’s falling approval ratings and the results of the mid-term election have since done nothing to alter.
Clearly, this is only one way that American domestic circumstances cast their shadow on American foreign policy in the age of Obama. As foreign policy has become both inseparable from and subordinate to economic concerns, these concerns play back on foreign policy from several angles. They bring pressure for a more austere defense budget, which in turn affects key planning judgments with major strategic consequences in the future. They promote concern about trade deficits and distorted international capital flows that directly affect US policy towards China and thus, at least indirectly, towards a dozen or so important allies.
Political weakness and the subordination of foreign policy to domestic priorities also join to explain the contours of the President’s trip to the United Nations in September 2010. The President devoted his yearly General Assembly speech to a political need: rebalancing a perceived lack of commitment to democracy and human rights promotion in US policy. Though delivered before an audience of prestigious foreign diplomats and heads of state in Turtle Bay, the speech’s real audience was composed of American voters in advance of the November mid-term election. The real business of the trip, however, was transacted in a private two hour meeting with the Chinese Premier, trying to convince him to realign the value of China’s currency in the interest of greater long-term international economic stability. The Chinese military is building fast; China is asserting its sovereignty in its trans-territorial waters in ways never before seen, all as the capabilities and resources of the US Navy are shrinking. But what takes pride of place in US diplomacy towards China? Trade and money. Is this shortsighted? Perhaps, perhaps not; it is, in any case, politically unavoidable, for if Obama does not raise the specter of tariffs, the US Congress will.
So we are brought to politics. An American administration may be compared to a tea ball within a teapot. The tea ball brings name and flavor to the brew, but without the liquid surroundings and the element of heat to make the whole thing boil, nothing much would happen.
Barack Obama is a master of the political arts. To expect such a man to simply set aside that mastery once president is to expect too much. Moreover, politics provides the unifying energy that binds the various parts of a president’s obligations and aspirations together. Its sources are manifold but its consequence is seamless. Just as one rock-solid reason that Lyndon Johnson persisted as he did in the Vietnam War was to protect politically what he cared about most—his Great Society program—so Barack Obama’s decision on 1 December 2009 to juxtapose a July 2011 exit date next to his decision to “surge” 30,000 more US troops into Afghanistan turned on his need, as he reportedly expressed it to Senator Lindsay Graham, “not to lose the whole Democratic Party” before major votes on healthcare and other legislation.
Some American critics have complained precisely on this point. It is standard practice in Washington to condemn the insertion of political motives into foreign and national security policy decisions. But it is not, because it cannot be, standard practice to actually desist from it, at least much of the time—and, if anything, Thomas Donilon’s elevation to the post of National Security Advisor increases the weight of political factors in the administration’s decision-making processes.
If we now try to put all the foregoing factors together, what do we find assembled? We find a president in a tough spot who most likely does not know if he is inspired more by Wilson or Niebuhr, because reality thus far has not forced him to choose. We don’t know if he is resigned to a strategy of forward deployment or desirous of an offshore alternative because he likely doesn’t know either, having never been posed the question in so many words. We find a man whose inexperience leaves him with an incomplete grasp of what he gives up by asserting such close control over foreign policy from the White House. We see a man whose personality does not function abroad as successfully as it has at home, and so cannot with brilliant speeches alone dissolve the conflicting interests that define the cauldron of international politics into a comforting pot of warm milk. We see a man commanding a decision system untested by crisis, and one whose core issues remain unfocused for all the distractions of other challenges in his path. We see, lastly but not least, a man whose political instincts are no more detachable from him than his own shadow.
From all these sources, bumping against and mixing with one another, comes the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Where the man will lead that policy, or the policy lead the man (the rest of us in tow), is now driven by the fact that the President is adrift conceptually since his initial engagement strategies did not succeed. Obama now awaits the crisis that will forge his legacy, but what that crisis will be, and whether the president will meet it with the American national interest or his personal political concerns foremost in mind, no one knows. No one can possibly know.
Adam Garfinkle is Editor of The American Interest.
Voir de plus:
The silent death of American grand strategy
Over the past quarter century, the American political class, its leadership included, seems to have lost the ability to think strategically about the world and America’s place in it. The reinforcing reasons for this are both remote and proximate, some buried deep within American political culture and others the result of recent and, one hopes, ephemeral distractions. But whatever the reasons may be, four generic phenomena have resulted from the recent abeyance of strategic thought.
First, the error quotient of US foreign policy has risen, and even great powers ultimately have limited margins for error. Second, US policy has become largely reactive, particularly since American leaders’ quality time has been all but monopolised by the deep post-2008 economic swoon and accompanying signs of equally deep political dysfunction. Third, the US reputation for foreign policy constancy and competence has suffered, not least in encouraging revisionist actors to take advantage of the US attention deficit. And these three phenomena have together stimulated a fourth: a shift by default from the US grand strategy in place since the end of World War II to one absentmindedly bearing a different set of prospective risks and benefits.
None of this is particularly good news for American allies.
Unlike classical European and Asian statesmen, American leaders have never developed a tradition of formal grand-strategy making. There is no American version of Clausewitz or Sun Tzu, and comparatively little grand-strategy literature written by native-born intellectuals and leaders exists. This is partly because of the idealistic anti–“Old World” mercantilist bias of the Founders’ Enlightenment ideology. It is also partly because, after the first few decades of American independence and the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European imperialism away from the New World, the nation no longer found itself locked in strategic competition with proximate near-equals. The American state’s initial grand strategy, which was to acquire as much of North America as possible, arose ineluctably from the conditions in which the young nation found itself. Whether it was called Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” or “manifest destiny,” this first, developmentalist grand strategy gained nearly universal, if mostly tacit, consensus. There was no need to write formal tracts about it and argue over them in private conclave, and no one did except in rare cases such as Seward’s Folly — the US purchase of Alaska in 1867.
While this first American grand strategy was simple and hence clear, as all grand strategies worth their salt must be, it was not for the saintly or faint of heart. As Machiavelli put it just past 500 years ago, every benign political order rests on antecedent crimes. The American case is no exception: the barbarous treatment of native Americans, slavery, an early avarice directed toward Canada that led to the War of 1812, and the Mexican War, which even as unsentimental a man as Ulysses S. Grant condemned as one of the most unjust wars ever inflicted by a stronger power upon a weaker one. America’s westward expansion was also a necessary precondition for the worst calamity in American history: the Civil War. Withal, the strategy succeeded and by so doing exhausted itself. By the time Frederick Jackson Turner famously wrote about the “closing of the frontier” at the end of the 19th century, the strategy had become obsolete, notwithstanding some unrequited but on balance faint imperial yearnings directed toward the Caribbean and, of course, Hawaii.
At that moment in American history, following the Spanish–American War, several strands came together to produce the second American grand strategy. Alfred Thayer Mahan, the great American navalist, fused his grasp of the British strategic tradition with the newly developing academic notion of geopolitics and out came the template for American anti-hegemonism. Long since unworried about a peer competitor in the Western Hemisphere or the return of a European power in strength to the New World, the grand strategy of the United States as a maritime-oriented World Island would be to oppose the emergence of a hegemonic power in either peninsular Europe or East Asia.
This was not a principled anti-hegemonic stance, for Mahan and others were unperturbed about America’s own New World dominance. It rather flowed from two different principles: First, in a technologically dynamic age, the impossibility that any power at either bracket of Eurasia could amass sufficient resources to literally endanger US security could no longer be taken for granted; and second, no power should be allowed to compel the United States to undertake a level of mobilisation that would undermine the small-government, no-standing-army injunctions of the Founders.
How to implement this strategy? Through self-help and key alliances. Self-help consisted mainly of building up the US Navy to world-class scale; hence President Theodore Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet around the world in 1905; the construction of the Panama Canal, completed in 1913, needs also be seen in this light. It consisted in Asia too, many supposed, of US control of the Philippines. The alliance consisted in riding the coattails of the Royal Navy, that great fleet which bestrode the empire on which the sun never set, and aligning America’s diplomacy too, where possible, with that of Britain. Together, this maritime strategy could be aptly termed one of offshore balancing, which fairly describes the British post-Napoleonic Wars grand strategy that inspired Mahan to devise it.
American strategy also depended for its implementation on deft diplomacy to complement growing US wealth and power. For example, after World War I, Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes, beyond convening the famed Washington Naval Conference of 1922, set to clean up the imperial detritus in the Pacific occasioned by the collapse of the German Empire. A series of linked negotiations involving the United States, Britain, Japan, and France established a new multilateral security balance upon the exit of Germany from the Marshall, Caroline, and Mariana Islands, Samoa, and Shantung Province in China — which Japan had seized during the World War but, thanks to American diplomatic efforts, was returned to China in 1922.
Alas, the new Pacific order depended on all participants keeping up their insurance premiums, so to speak — but with the coming of the Great Depression America’s security investments all but ceased. American military weakness, particularly its drawdown in naval power, turned the Philippines from potential strategic asset into real strategic liability in the face of rising Japanese militarism. The result was the onset of the Pacific War in 1941, the first direct fist-on-fist test of America’s Mahanian grand strategy.
World War II supplied proper nouns to American grand strategy as World War I never had. In Europe the feared hegemon was Nazi Germany; in Asia it was Japan. America’s guiding wartime two-front tactic, as the immediate application of its larger grand strategy, was so simple that it consisted of but two words: “Europe First.” The strategy was implemented successfully and, after the war, the United States found its own military forces stationed on the brackets of Eurasia, and with both its British and French allies much weaker for war’s wear. As the names of potential hegemons changed from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia in Europe, and from Japan to Communist China in Asia, America’s two-front anti-hegemonic grand strategy changed in two ways. First, the pro-democracy ideological dimension of the Cold War, long latent in American thinking about global affairs, merged with the anti-hegemonic objectives of US grand strategy. Second, the mode of its implementation changed from offshore balancing to forward deployment. Together, these changes gave rise, in George Kennan’s famous term, to a strategy called “containment.”
Whereas in the past, the US Navy, in concert with the British Navy, was the principal military instrument of US grand strategy, after the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the outbreak of war in Korea the main instrument also came to include the US Air Force, now with nuclear weapons, deployed both at home and in bases ringing the Soviet Union and Communist China. The ongoing aim of US grand strategy now was to deter geostrategic advance by either hostile would-be hegemon, who were believed to be in league with each other for reasons of ideological affinity, but also to suppress security competitions in Europe and Asia that might provide opportunities or temptations for an adversary’s advance toward a hegemonic position.
Since US interests in both brackets of Eurasia were relatively impartial compared to those of local powers, and whereas US strength was truly unparalleled, American strategy attracted many local associates. This enabled US diplomacy to assemble a robust but flexible alliance system spanning Europe and Asia. The ideological and economic dimensions of US policy, also attractive to many abroad, became complements to this policy according to the Tocquevillian conviction that prosperous democracies make for better strategic partners. The US Navy and Air Force thus became, in effect, the ante that allowed Washington to participate in the geopolitics of the two regions, and the alliance structures, in turn, provided a politically supportable means by which US power could combine with that of others. By the advent of the Eisenhower Administration, if not a few years earlier, the grand strategy of the United States was sufficiently clear that a single sentence sufficed to express it: Prevent the emergence of a hegemon over peninsular Europe or East Asia by suppressing security competitions through the forward deployment of US forces, and through a supportive pro-democracy, pro-trade diplomacy.
Through the end of the Cold War in 1989–91, that was America’s post-World War II grand strategy. The strategy did not work perfectly, as the Vietnam War debacle illustrates. It also required some adjustment, for example to add the greater Middle East to its ambit, not mainly for its own sake, but for that region’s instrumental significance to European and Asian security in a new oil-fired age. Yet despite the tendency of the ideological aspect of the struggle to kick up much obfuscating dust, on a good day most senior American leaders, certainly those in the relevant Executive Branch offices and in the upper ranks of the military, were more or less able to articulate that single sentence.
No more. As Walter Russell Mead put it recently, “the habit of supremacy developed in the last generation” caused the “strategic dimension, in the sense of managing intractable relations with actual or potential geopolitical adversaries, [to] largely disappear … from American foreign policy debates.” That, in turn, has allowed the recurrence of those legal and moral modes of thinking about foreign and national security policy that George Kennan and many others tirelessly warned against. What passes for thought about strategic problems now transpires through what Mead calls “an uncomplicated atmosphere of Whig determinism” that manages to somehow turn Anglo-American institutions and values into supposed universal best practice.
This is not a partisan issue. Both American liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, each in their own ways, have long been bridled to Whig views of history. Both were disciplined from indulging in excessive secular messianism during the Cold War by the realism-inducing spectre of clear and present dangers. In the Cold War’s wake, however, resurgent Whiggery has trumped all — even during and just after the shock of 9/11.
The Clinton Administration acted as though the great wave of post–Cold War globalisation represented a cosmic confluence of American power, interests, and values all wonderfully woven together. Strategy was subsumed by multi-dimensional triumph, so that all foreign policy need do was remove lingering obstacles and deal with the occasional atavistic rogue-regime’s response to the galloping obsolescence of its ways of doing business. In consequence, funding for the military and foreign assistance plummeted.
The Bush 43 Administration held a similar view, except that the now obviously underestimated scale of the aforementioned atavistic reactions evoked a more muscular and ambitious promotion of presumed universal best practice. For a short time, President Bush’s “forward strategy for freedom” seemed to become the new US grand strategy. Unfortunately, the misinterpretation of the origins and nature of the 9/11 problem, as it careened through the prism of American exceptionalism, led to decisions that compounded US burdens and devalued resources, in the form of America’s alliances and its “soft power” reservoirs, that had long been vital to US grand strategy.
To take a signal example of the former, while the principal military instruments of US grand strategy are its Navy and Air Force, the doubled US defence budget in the decade after 9/11 overwhelmingly flowed to the Army and the Marines as the recapitalisation of the Navy and the Air Force languished. Had American leaders recognised and affirmed what US grand strategy actually was, launching and (mis) fighting two land wars in Asia Minor would have been the last things they would have chosen to do. By the time the second Bush term ended, the pre-9/11 strategy had not been restored, though US military and diplomatic activities remained wedded to it. But no replacement stood in its place as the 2008 economic crisis descended.
With that shock there soon came a new American administration preoccupied with domestic problems and even more prone than its post-Cold War predecessors to think in legal-moral categories rather than in strategic ones. The combination, with rare “kinetic” exceptions such as the misadventure in Libya and the failed “surge” in Afghanistan, has turned US foreign policy into an extended duck-and-cover drill. These tendencies are illustrated in the Syria and Iran policy portfolios, where a focus on non-proliferation issues has related to second tier the larger strategic stakes raised by the cases seen separately, and especially seen together. Meanwhile, the “pivot to Asia” of the first Obama term was misframed as an either-or choice, and its naval and air force components remain too resource-straitened for either adversaries or allies to yet take it very seriously.
Insofar as there is any larger thinking about strategy in the current administration, perhaps a coherent view actually does exist despite the appearance of ad hocery. That view, an optimistic or benign realism, is said to posit that the United States can withdraw from virtually all European and most Middle Eastern issues without risk because a more or less friendly post-American balance of power is latent in the structure of international affairs and will bloom forth if only America gets out of the way and lets it do so.
Such a view, identified with a neo-offshore balancing perspective, certainly exists in academic circles. Whether this view is truly characteristic of high-level Obama Administration thinking is difficult to know. The signs are ambiguous. Even outward indications of the existence of a coherent strategic view, such as the 2010 roll-out of the Navy–Air Force “Air-Sea Battle” construct — a quintessential offshore balancing proposition — sometimes turn out to be less than meets the eye. In that case, the rollout reflected less a substantive or doctrinal adjustment and more a joint attempt by two beleaguered services to advance their claims to larger defence budget shares.
Perhaps a switch from a forward-deployment method of preventing hostile hegemons in favour of an offshore-balancing one is wise. Perhaps the United States cannot afford the post–World War strategy for political reasons; perhaps, too, it runs more risks than vital US interests warrant in a post–Cold War environment. Certainly it is irresponsible to maintain commitments without willing the means to redeem them en extremis — that is the sort of derangement of ends and means that birthed the Pacific War. Perhaps the anti-hegemonic state-based objective itself is outdated, and that the threat of apocalyptical terrorism joined to weapons of mass destruction is now the principle problem to be addressed.
One would think that, under the circumstances, Americans among themselves and with allies would be discussing these issues. After all, differing means of executing an anti-hegemonic strategy demand different mixes of military-technical, intelligence, diplomatic, financial, and other skill sets. Each requires different kinds of alliances and asks different things of allies. Some regions seem more amenable to stable do-it-yourself local balances than others; but which are which? The potentially destabilising consequences of transitioning from one posture to the other, too, need to be thought through.
Unfortunately, little in the way of a strategic debate is discernible in Washington, either within the administration at high levels or among the political class at large. There is still little recognition here in Washington even of what US grand strategy has been for nearly the past seventy years, hence no basis from which to discuss alternatives. Instead, US thinking, if one can call it that, is being driven by financial strictures, some of them, like sequestration, self-inflicted beyond necessity or logic. In short, the United States is sliding toward an offshore-balancing grand strategy by default, without discussing its implications and without even calling it by its proper name.
A nation does not have a grand strategy if those responsible for devising and implementing it cannot articulate what it is. American grand strategy thus seems to have suffered a strange, silent death. One wishes to say rest in peace, as with any saddening death, but that wish may very well go unrequited. Although relatively few Americans have noticed the problem, senior figures among several allies and associates have. American commitments to allies have nowhere been formally rescinded, but the credibility of those commitments is now everywhere doubted. Even America’s larger competitors have reason to be anxious, for when the rule-maker and provider of global common security goods for more than half a century appears to suddenly abdicate much of that role, uncertainty and perhaps a bit of trouble cannot be far behind.
Voir de même:
Star-spangled anger
It was the day religion and politics collided. Ten years on, what has America done to itself?
Adam Garfinkle
American review
As with the bombing of Pearl Harbour and the assassination of President Kennedy, all adult Americans know where they were on September 11, 2001. On that Tuesday morning I was five blocks from the White House at the 5th-floor offices of National Affairs in Washington, an office that housed both The National Interest and The Public Interest magazines. The Washington Monument was in its usual place outside my south-west-facing office window as were, of course, the streets below. Once it had become clear that an attack was in progress, national and local media assumed a slightly manic tone. Most private offices reacted by letting their staff go, resulting in gridlocked mayhem throughout the city.
The headless-chicken reaction of the nation’s capital to the September 11 attacks disgusted me. Having lived in Israel, it had become second nature for me to assume a stoical mien in times like these, lest one contribute to an enemy’s designs. Just as, Eleanor Roosevelt once observed, no one can make a person feel inferior without his or her consent, no one can terrorise you unless you co-operate. I was against co-operating, so I ordered my staff to stay put, do a day’s work and go home as usual. Of course we would use the phone to assure relatives and friends that we were safe and we would monitor the news; if necessary, we would adjust to further events. We all stayed until past 5pm, emerging later for the evening commute into a virtual ghost town.
In the past decade, I have often thought of those first few hours after the attacks, and I have come to realise the basic error that US leaders made was to inadvertently co-operate with an enemy too weak to achieve its ends in any other way. To me, September 11 did not « change everything ». I thought that, whatever our private worries about the future, the public face of American leadership should radiate optimism and courage, not anger or fear.
Of course, we needed to prevent follow-on attacks. That, it seemed clear to me, meant urgently removing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that had sheltered and abetted the September 11 plotters. We also eventually needed to take out, in one way or another, those who might be planning more attacks, wherever they might be. The Bush doctrine version 1.0, rolled out in the immediate wake of the attack, which held regimes complicit with terrorism to be equally liable for American retribution, was entirely appropriate. Nor did I object to President Bush terming the situation a war, for that was necessary to tell people what was at stake, to break with the failed policies of the past, and to make available certain prudent presidential legal authorities. Still, despite the need to act, I was sure we should not take ourselves psychological hostage, as the Carter administration had allowed to occur after the US Embassy in Tehran was seized by Iranian fanatics in November 1979. We should not allow the attacks to define or monopolize US foreign policy as a whole.
Alas, that is precisely what the administration did allow. The only senior US leader who seemed to take the approach I thought best was Colin Powell, whose influence had been marginalised in the administration. He did not believe that the terrorist threat was of an existential nature that required the cashiering of American strategic principles, allies or institutions. But other administration principals thought differently, quickly accepting a theory-in-waiting, widely ascribed to so-called neo-conservatives, of why September 11 had happened: a democracy deficit in the Arab-Muslim world had forced frustrated citizens into the mosque, where they had been easy prey for religious charlatans and demagogues. The answer was to open up space for dissent, democratic debate and the social balm supposedly provided by market economics. Then these stultified societies could breathe and develop normally, and would not produce demonic mass murderers like Osama bin Laden.
Thus did fear boomerang, in the way that human emotions predictably do, to encourage a form of hubris fed from the wells of post-Cold War triumph (and triumphalism). The September 11 attacks had the effect of propelling US policy to do more at a time when its capacity to influence events had diminished thanks to the end of Cold War bipolarity and the diffusion of lethal technologies to weak state and non-state actors. It propelled the US to ramp up its metabolism and inflate its definition of vital interests rather than calmly discern distinctions among them. Unrivalled US power, pre-eminently of the military kind, would end the threat by transforming the political cultures of more than two dozen Arab and Muslim-majority countries into liberal democracies. This solution in turn depended on the validity of what was known as democratic peace theory—that democracies do not make war on other democracies—and on cherished Tocquevillian views of the pacific nature of egalitarian democratic societies.
Contrary to what many claim, this theory of the sources of September 11 existed within the administration well before the Iraq war began. It existed within Bush’s mind, encouraged by, among others, his speechwriter Michael Gerson and strategic visitors like Natan Sharansky; but it did not have the force of formal policy. The theory emerged into public view when, in February 2003, Bush gave a major speech at the American Enterprise Institute in which all the basic themes of this view found expression. That constituted the Bush doctrine version 3.0, now layered on top of version 2.0, characterised by the pre-emption plank famously inserted into the September 2002 National Security Strategy.
What became known as « the forward strategy for freedom » then found full expression from the bully pulpit in November 2003, with the President’s marquee speech at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Strategy was then canonised in his Second Inaugural of January 2005, which Thomas Wolfe aptly dubbed the globalisation of the Monroe Doctrine. The worse things got in Iraq, and the more the WMD rationale for that campaign lost persuasiveness, the higher the rhetorical bar of democracy promotion rose—a classic case of cognitive dissonance at work in what is colloquially called in American poker-speak « doubling down ».
The rush to closure over a fearful shock to US security interests, and the hubristic response to it, was part of a longstanding pattern in American foreign policy history. The Bush administration’s reactions to September 11 were not the work of any neo-con cabal. Self-avowed neo-conservatives composed a group that was always smaller, more internally diverse and less influential than is often supposed. Rather, neo-cons struck chords very familiar to American history and political culture, chords that even national interest conservatives like Vice- President Cheney and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld could harmonise with. Had there been no neo-cons, the pattern would have asserted itself anyway in some other ideological dialect.
The pattern of which I speak, conceived by the historian Walter A. McDougall, consists of four phases that tend to repeat in cycles. First, there is a shock to the system, usually in the form of a surprise attack: the shot fired at Fort Sumter in April 1861, the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbour in 1898, the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, Pearl Harbour in 1941, and September 11 in 2001. In the phase directly after the shock, the leader of the day—Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, George W. Bush—vows to resurrect the status quo ante and punish the evildoers. That corresponds to Lincoln’s vow to save the Union, Wilson’s vow to defend the right of American free passage on the high seas, and Bush’s vow to find and punish the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks so that America’s minimally acceptable standard of near perfect security could be restored.
But third, in the course of mobilising the national effort to achieve the limited goals set after the shock, the transcendent God-talk begins and the effort soon becomes enmeshed in the sacred narrative of American exceptionalism. This leads to a distension of goals and expectations, to geopolitical amnesia, and to what cognitive psychologists call a dominant strategy that is impervious to negative feedback and logical contradiction.
And so, in the September 11 decade, we chose a war that thoughtlessly destroyed the regional balance against Iranian hegemonism without even stopping to ask about the broader implications of a Shi’a government in Baghdad. One does not, apparently, descend to the smarminess of geopolitical analysis when one is doing the Lord’s work. So, too, did we turn what could and should have remained a punitive military operation in Afghanistan into a quixotic, distracted, underfunded nation- and state-building campaign. And so, too, did we conflate all our adversaries into one monolithic demon—typical of eschatological thinking. The administration conflated secular, Ba’athi Iraq with the apocalyptical Muslim fanatics of al-Qaeda, and so went to war against a country uninvolved in 9/11 whose threat to America was not, as is commonly claimed, zero, but which hardly justified, or excused, the haste and threadbare planning with which the war was launched and conducted.
Then, in the fourth phase, overreach leads to setbacks (the Korean War, for example, and the Iraq insurgency) and regrets (like the Vietnam War), ultimately resulting in at least temporary retrenchment … until the cycle starts all over again. This four-phase model fits the September 11 decade to a tee. The attack itself is of course phase 1; the Bush doctrine version 1.0 represents phase 2; the Second Inaugural signals the full efflorescence of phase 3; and the election of Barack Obama marks the consolidation of phase 4.
It matters in all this, however, whether the ideological vehicle that propels phase 3 forward even remotely reflects or aligns with reality. When it does, as it did during and after World War II, no one pays attention since things tend then to turn out well. In the case of the September 11 decade, unfortunately, it did not. There have been basically two problems with it. First, the « forward strategy » for freedom’s ascription of causality for Islamist terrorism is mistaken. Second, even if it were not mistaken, the timetables in which democracy promotion was seen as a solution for mass-casualty terrorism do not even begin to match. The reason is that despite President Bush’s assertion that democracy promotion is « the work of generations » and that democracy is about more than elections, that is not the basis upon which the administration actually behaved. It rushed into premature elections in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, with troublesome and still open-ended consequences for Iraq and disastrous ones for Lebanon and Gaza.
After September 11, as Americans searched for analogies that might help them understand the motivations for the attacks, most found themselves with very shallow reservoirs of historical analogies. Indeed, Americans tended almost exclusively to choose Cold War metaphors to explain September 11. Liberal idealists took their characteristic meliorist approach: It was poverty and injustice that motivated the attacks, and American policies that determined the target. There were dozens of calls for a « Marshall Plan for the Middle East », and hundreds of pleas to concentrate more than ever on solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, as if that were somehow a magic bullet that could fix all problems. Conservative idealists, as already noted, took the democracy-promotion approach, arguing that the motivation was not economic but political.
Both were wrong; Islamist radicalism, in truth, is a form of chiliastic violence that has taken many forms in many cultures over the past two millennia, from the Jewish zealots of the First Century of the Common Era, to the 16th-century Peasants’ Revolt in Germany, to the 19th-century « ghost dances » of American Indians. But the obvious weaknesses of the meliorist approach encouraged conservative idealists in their conviction that their own view, therefore, must be right. (Manichean-minded Americans have real problems when any potential set of choices exceeds two.)
The administration’s rhetoric went even further, however, suggesting that US policy was largely responsible for the debased condition of Arab political cultures. When Bush famously said in November 2003: « Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty », he argued in essence that it was US policy, not the long incubated political culture of the region, that accounted for Arab autocracy. The Bush White House, in essence, adopted the wrongheaded left-wing side of an old debate over « friendly tyrants » as lesser evils and what to do with and about them, a very strange position for an avowedly conservative administration to take. The President also seemed to be saying, in a locution repeated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Cairo in June 2005 and many times thereafter, that US Cold War policy in the region was unsuccessful on its own terms, that it did not provide safety and stability.
These claims are nonsensical by any realistic measure. US Cold War policy in the Middle East achieved exactly what it set out to achieve within the broad framework of containment: It kept the Soviets out, the oil flowing to the benefit of the liberal economic order over which the US stood guard, and the region’s only democracy, Israel, safe. The record was not perfect, of course, and we certainly should have rethought old habits sooner than we did after the Berlin Wall fell; but it was good enough, as we say, for government work. Certainly, too, it was never in the power of the US government to bring about democracy in the Arab world during the Cold War. Yet the Bush administration’s solution for the problem whose origins it misread was just that for the post-Cold War era: deep-rooted reform of the Middle East’s sordid collection of autocracies and tyrannies (the major differences between the two were summarily overlooked) and, absent reform from within, the policy strongly implied that pro-democracy regime change would be imposed from without.
The result was almost breathtakingly counterproductive. The more the « forward strategy » bore down on the Middle East, with guns in Iraq and with projects and programs galore practically everywhere else they could gain access, the more effectively local nativists used Western energies jujitsu-like to gain leverage over their domestic adversaries. Rapid economic growth and rapid democratisation, even had they been possible, would not have stabilised Arab societies and made them less likely to spark off political violence against the West; it would have made such violence more likely. We are fortunate, therefore, that the strategy did not « succeed » for any longer than it did.
When the Bush administration campaigned to spread democracy to the Arabs, it never occurred to most of its principals that what they saw as a secular endeavour would be interpreted in the Muslim world through a religious prism, and used accordingly in intra-Islamic civilisational disputes. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, tried to persuade Iraqis not to vote because « democracy » was a front, in essence, for Christian evangelism, a slippery slope leading down to apostasy, he spoke a language that resonated in the ears of a great many (though happily not a majority of) Iraqis and other Muslim Arabs.
As it happens, the locals were essentially correct. Americans were speaking a creedal tongue that we thought entirely separate from « religion », a word that does not exist as such in Arabic. After all, we « separate church from state ». In truth, American political culture is not as secular as most think: The contemporary American idea of democracy, seen as the pre-eminent symbol of social egalitarianism (something very different from the Founders’ view) is an attenuated expression of aspects of Anglo-American Protestant Christian tradition. Our longing to spread it to the Muslims is the 21st-century version of what was, in the 19th century, a much more honest and self-aware missionary movement. We might fool ourselves by pretending that our deepest beliefs can be neatly compartmentalised into what is « political » and what is « religious », but Middle Easterners, who possess no such compartments by dint of a history sans Renaissance or Reformation, know better. Not that theology and ideology are identical, but as creedal systems they are bound to be seen as dramatically less distinct by cultures in which political theology, to use Mark Lilla’s apt terminology, has never been vanquished or, in most countries, even seriously challenged.
Looking at US behaviour in the September 11 decade as a manifestation of a secularised political theology explains far more than the standard parsing of the usual-suspects schools of thought: conservative and liberal realists and idealists, Jacksonians and Hamiltonians and all that. Consider for example that when, only days after September 11, Susan Sontag and other members of the professional adversary culture in the United States dared to suggest—in The New Yorker in Sontag’s case—that the perpetrators of September 11 were not cowards and that Americans were not innocent victims of terrorism, but rather were suffering just revenge for selfish and abrasive American foreign policies, they were treated exactly as heretics were in the so-called age of religion. They were not engaged or debated but shunned or excoriated. Had it still been in style, they would probably have been burned as witches.
The American penchant for seeing the world, especially the world of foreign and national security policy, in transcendental terms, is not an historical constant. It tends to rise in phase 3 of the cycle, when the God-talk emerges out of post-shock mobilisation. But there is a concurrent trend of more recent vintage that may have made things more acute during the September 11 decade.
Over the past half century, America has become increasingly deculturated. As Robert Putnam put it in his Bowling Alone argument, we have suffered a deep erosion of social capital. The face-to-face glue which enables social interactions to generate and sustain a common understanding about what is and isn’t virtuous behaviour—the very heart of what ultimately makes a society prosperous and happy—has been in ever shorter supply.
The implications of de-acculturation for American politics are are manifest. The decline of social trust abets both the polarisation of politics and popular cynicism toward government. It produces a political system in which the chain of connective institutions that link family to neighbourhood to larger community to town or region and ultimately to the national level gets broken, rendering the state both alien and intrusive at the same time as it tries to compensate for a social fabric now rent and tattered. Political parties, particularly those that tend to represent class or ideological structures, flow into the spaces once occupied by a diverse array of social interaction. They become in-group/out-group oriented as well-known psychological dynamics spread the distance between them, leading to an exaggerated perception of how much they actually differ in practical terms. The result is that compromise and horse-trading become more difficult, and the insertion of « culture war » issues into this environment has served only to harden the edges of the us-versus-them distinctions that define it. Identity groups disguised as political parties do not play well together.
The implications of all this for foreign policy are obvious. Presidential judgments necessarily become politicised, and opponents invariably try to criminalise them. Every decision becomes part of the catechism to the loyal, an act of moral enormity to the opposition. That is why the acrid debates over Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and warrantless wiretaps, the Patriot Act and the reach of wartime executive authority, took on the tones they did. These arguments did not remind one of the civilities of the common law tradition; they sounded more like transcripts from the Spanish Inquisition.
The great sociologist E. Digby Baltzell, the man who coined the term WASP back in the 1950s, once said to me that the greatest tragedy of 20th-century America is that the formidable energies of religion had migrated into politics, to the detriment of both. No wiser comment has ever been made about the trajectory of American politics this past half century, and here lies, I think, the key insight for those trying to comprehend the American September 11 decade at its very core. The decade has not been about what others have done to America; it has been about what Americans have done to themselves.
Adam Garfinkle served as chief staff writer of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century (Hart-Rudman Commission), which predicted mass-casualty terrorism on American soil before September 11 and first proposed creation of a Department of Homeland Security. He then served as editor of The National Interest and as speechwriter to Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. He is founding editor of The American Interest.
Indeed, the fuzzy indeterminacy that characterizes the Obama foreign policy holds true even at the highest echelon of strategy. The United States is the world’s pre-eminent if not hegemonic power. Since World War II it has set the normative standards and both formed and guarded the security and economic structures of the world. In that capacity it has provided for a relatively secure and prosperous global commons, a mission nicely convergent with the maturing American self-image as an exceptionalist nation. To do this, however, the United States has had to maintain a global military presence as a token of its commitment to the mission and as a means of reassurance to those far and wide with a stake in it. This has required a global network of alliances and bases, the cost of which is not small and the maintenance of which, in both diplomatic and other terms, is a full-time job.*
Against this definition of strategic mission there have always been those in the United States who have dissented, holding that we do, ask and expect much too much, and get into gratuitous trouble as a result. Some have preferred outright isolationism, but most serious skeptics of the status quo have preferred a posture of ‘offshore balancing’. Remove the bases and end the alliances, they have argued, and the US government will be better able, at less risk and far less cost to the nation, to balance against threatening developments abroad, much as America’s strategic mentor, Great Britain, did throughout most of the 19th century.
This is the core conversation Americans have been having about the US global role since at least 1945. To one side we recall George McGovern’s 1972 ‘Come Home, America’ campaign plank, the Mansfield Amendment that would have removed US troops from Europe in mid-Cold War, and the early Carter administration’s proposal to remove US troops from South Korea spoken in rhythm to speeches decrying an “inordinate fear of communism”. To the other side has been almost everyone and everything else, so that the offshore approach has always been turned back, at least until now. Where is the Obama administration in this great debate? We don’t really know; the evidence, once again, suggests ambivalence. . .
Taken together, then, the administration’s track record, encompassing the whole spectrum from discrete policy arenas to the lofty heights of grand strategy, suggests the foreign policy equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot. Observers can see in it what they have wanted to see. Some have tagged the Obama administration a re-run of the Carter administration, but the fit is obviously imperfect; it’s very hard to see Carter during his first or second year in office ordering those Predator strikes, even harder to imagine him holding his tongue on human rights. Some have seen a replay of Nixon and Kissinger: Realpolitik hiding behind feel-good talk about allies and peace and the rest, trying simultaneously to play an inherited weak hand and set the stage for a grand bargain—this time with Iran instead of China. Still others think they are witness to the second coming of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: a shrewd opportunist who knows the limits set by domestic constraints, and whose main concern is national economic stabilization and social strengthening against the day when American power must meet a true test of destiny. The name game can go on because, while no great successes have sprouted forth from the Obama foreign policy, no great debacles have emerged either.
Presidential Language Be It Resolved
Adam Garfinkle
The American interest
December 30, 2014
In the course of an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep released earlier this week, President Obama tried to flatter the Supreme Leader and other assorted higher-ups in Tehran. Will it work?
NPR released yesterday a presidential interview, taped December 18, that bears on many issues, not least the Middle East. I probably should let the opportunity to comment pass, but I can’t. I probably should eat much less ice cream too, but I can’t seem to do that either. Well, more on New Year’s resolutions anon.
Two globules of presidential language in particular catch my attention, both foreshadowed by a Reuters article on December 28. Let me take the two in turn.
In the interview President Obama praises the “incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of Iran” and adds that if Iran agrees to curb its nuclear weapons ambitions Iran “would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules—and that would be good for everybody.” The President offered that Iran has “legitimate defense concerns” and “suffered from a terrible war with Iraq” in the 1980s, but he criticized it for regional “adventurism, the support of organizations like Hizballah, the threats they’ve directed at Israel.”
The Reuters story commented in demur, drive-by style that, while the President thinks an agreement is still possible and perhaps likely, Vice President Biden said earlier this month that he gives the negotiations a “less than even shot” of succeeding. POTUS can’t so easily dump Biden like he dumped Hagel, because Biden got elected—besides which, the VP’s own “can’t-help-myself” problem, which manifests itself most often in his predilection for “committing a truth” (as he sees it) in public, is under better control today than at any time since his election to the Senate in 1972. (For those unaware, just by the way, the phrase “to commit a truth” is a key element of speechwriting wit; it means that one should not say something in public just because it’s true, unless it serves a particular purpose. Political speech is not a didactic exercise; it is inherently about controlling and manipulating impressions.)
Ah, but back to that other member of the Executive Branch who got elected, the President. What to make of these, one hopes, non-scripted remarks?
It’s clear—actually a little too clear—that President Obama is trying to flatter the Supreme Leader and other assorted higher ups in Tehran. Someone no doubt explained to the President in another, earlier drive-by incident that these guys believe they deserve more respect for their sovereignty, history, and culture than they get. He wants to assure them, insofar as he can, that regime change is not high up on the U.S. want list with regard to Iran, though he cannot explicitly rule it out without cutting the knees out from future U.S. policy options. He wants to let them know he’s sensitive to how the world looks from their perspective.
All of this publicly articulated respect is designed, it seems likely to me as a recovering Executive Branch speechwriter, to reduce the heat on the roiling pot that contains the conspiracy theories Iranians cook up and consume on a depressingly regular basis. The practical purpose? To get the Supreme Leader to authorize the concessions he needs to make to let the deal happen, in return for which we promise not to betray his trust. Respect worked for Aretha Franklin; maybe it’ll work for Barack Obama, too.
But note that, in the list of Iranian sins, the President did not even mention Iran’s role in Syria, or in Yemen. Note, too, that he omitted mentions of Iranian-supported terrorist and insurgent-war acts that have claimed American lives. He never warns that we now intend to link the nuclear negotiations with Iranian regional behavior, as we should have been doing all along. Note too, however, that if we have already secretly consummated a “big deal” with Iran to split U.S. regional security responsibilities with Tehran largely at Arab expense—as some commentators here but especially in the region think is a done deal already a few years ago—it would be harder to make sense of this sort of klutzy fawning language.
The Administration may still yearn for such a deal, however, which now, as in 2009, gives off the sound of one tongue flapping. Here we are, it would seem, at the second coming (or third or fourth coming, depending on what evidence you credit and how you count) of the original outstretched hand offering engagement to mutual benefit for the future. The first time the Administration did this, the Iranian “Green movement” protesting a rigged election was a victim, and our hand got slapped. (Or as Shel Silverstein once wrote: “Cast your bread on the water and what do you get? Another day older, and your bread gets wet.”) Nor did the Supreme Leader deign to answer the first of now three private presidential letters.
It remains to be seen who will suffer this time around, but one thing is certain: When the Saudis, Israelis, and other U.S. associates in the region hear presidential language like this, they head for their mental bunkers and hunker down. Meanwhile, President Obama should not be watching his mailbox for a letter from Tehran.
It will all be judged wise and worldly, perhaps, if the tactic succeeds and we get in due course a nuclear deal worth having. Me, I’m with Joe Biden on this one, as an earlier post explained in some detail. But will it succeed?
Some clever folks in the White House are sensitive to Iranian insecurities and have coached the President on how to make the Iranian lion purr. Alas, they can’t turn the Iranian lion into a vegetarian, and they have a long way to go to evoke any genuine purring. I do not think this will succeed, and let me explain why by speculating on how the Supreme Leader and other Iranians of his ilk will probably hear this sort of language.
The Iranian Lion. Not a vegetarian.
“So”, says the Supreme leader to President Rouhani over mint tea one afternoon, “the Americans think they get to judge whether we can be a successful regional power! They presume their dominance, these upstarts, as they speak to the heirs of the Achaemenid dynasty, the Sassanid dynasty, the Safavid dynasty—as these historical adolescents speak to the very founders of civilization. They speak to us not as equals but as masters. They are not and never will be our masters.”
“Yes, sir”, answers Rouhani. “You will remember when Judge [William P.] Clark, one of the NSC Advisors during the Reagan years, characterized Iranian statesmen as ‘a bunch of rug merchants’, do you not? Despite all their failures since, the hubris in Washington is undaunted. This young and inexperienced man speaks of how everyone will benefit if Iran submits to America’s will, as if life on earth can be like paradise. He speaks of international norms and rules as though everyone accepts them, despite the fact that most people in the world have suffered from the Western arrogance and oppression they symbolize.”
Yes, there is no doubt that Khamenei and Rouhani remember Judge Clark’s comment, for they assiduously collect every insult cast their way in faithful expectation of historical revenge; and you can bet your bottom dollar that the President and his advisers, including current NSC Advisor Susan Rice, lack that particular datum in their active memory banks. And much more important, yes, the Iranian government is full of geostrategic realists who know what a revisionist state is. And they are people who, for the most part—whether we can them moderates or hardliners—sincerely project the Shi’a martyrology complex onto the imagined political sociology of the world. This precisely was the Ayatollah Khomeini’s creative and expansive act of ideological genius; it still defines Iranian foreign policy ideals just as it sustained the revolution in its infancy, particularly during very hard times. So when Barack Obama tells Iranians how much they suffered during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, he comes across like a trespasser on sacred cemetery soil. “Who is this idolatrous man who presumes to narrate our holy suffering?”, the Supreme Leader asks the President.
When Robert Burns wrote, “O would God the gift to gi’ us, to see ourselves as others see us”, he weren’t just whistling Dixie folks, or suggesting that short Cliffs Notes courses in cultural studies would suffice for serious purposes. He really meant it.
The NPR interviewer asked the President whether in his last two years in office he would help war-torn countries like Libya, Syria, and Iraq. His answer was that these countries have to take the lead: “We can help, but we can’t do it for them. I think the American people recognize that. There are times here in Washington where pundits don’t; they think you can just move chess pieces around the table. And whenever we have that kind of hubris, we tend to get burned.”
Well, obviously the President is reading the wrong pundits (and in my view he acts unpresidentially even to mention them publicly). He should be reading me. I don’t want us to be engaged in a bombing campaign against the Islamic State if it is premised on a counterproductive half-strategy. I don’t want U.S. combat troops aiding the Abadi government in Baghdad, along side of Iranian Revolutionary Guard units, trying to reclaim for a unitary Iraqi state what it cannot firmly reclaim. I never argued for boots on the ground in Syria, or anything on the ground or in the air with respect to Libya. I and The American Interest with me over the years have been sympathetic to not “devoting another trillion dollars” to misbegotten foreign wars because, yes, as the President said, “we need to spend a trillion dollars rebuilding our schools, our roads, our basic science, and research here in the United States.” We at TAI used the phrase “nation-building at home” before he did (you can look it up—just check out the lead section of volume 4, number 3, published just before Obama’s inauguration).
Cover
So then what’s wrong with this picture of presidential remarks on Libya, Syria, and Iraq? What’s wrong is that the President is apparently unable or unwilling to connect his own damned dots.
Did Libya’s troubles today, by which I mean in brief that it has not one dysfunctional government but pretenses of two, just fall out of the sky one day? Unless you mean the U.S. cruise missiles targeted on Tripoli that kicked off a war in March 2011, no. If that is what you mean, as the NPR interviewer had the temerity to suggest, than yes. It was U.S. policy that caused the destruction of the Libyan state, such as it was. U.S. policy, from starting a war to failing to plan for its Phase 4 post-combat aftermath, explains not only the god-awful mess that Libya has become, but also what happened to Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Libya has to get its act together to deserve our help?! What Libya? There is for all practical purposes no Libyan state for us to help.
Did Iraq’s troubles today, by which I mean the state’s collapse back into roughly the three Ottoman provinces cobbled together to create it in 1920, just sort of happen, too? Like Libya, Iraq was a nasty, authoritarian hellhole before U.S. policy made it even worse. We may blame that on the Bush Administration for mis-starting a war that had not been properly planned, but Iraq would not be quite the mess it is today had the Obama Administration not mis-ended it by yanking our presence out without a SOFA agreement. Iraq has to get its act together to deserve our continued or expanded help?! What Iraq? There is, very nearly, no Iraqi state for us to help.
Did Syria’s troubles fall out of the sky, too? Here U.S. policy is mostly guilty of sins of omission rather than sins of commission, some of them circling back to our hands-off-Iran supinity, but it is guilty all the same. As we have said here at TAI many times over the past three years, a judicious early use of U.S. power and leadership well short of kinetic action—difficult though it always was, true—could have averted the still evolving worst-case calamity that Syria has become. Syria is well on its way to complete Somalization. So Syria, too, has to get its act together to deserve our help?! What Syria? There is, very nearly, no Syrian state for us to help.
Far be it for me to advocate the use of U.S. force in any of these places. We cannot put these states back together at an acceptable cost in blood and treasure. As I have stressed in earlier posts (for example, here), what is happening, at base, is historio-structural in nature and no mere policy nipping and tucking can restore the status quo ante. I am no more in a mood to move chess pieces around on a table than the President is, especially if I have to do it with bombers, APCs, and Aegis cruisers loaded up with SLCMs. But to pontificate about the need for Arab self-help in these three cases, as though U.S. policy had nothing whatsoever to do with their present plights, very nearly surpasses credulity. It reminds me of a three-year old not yet well experienced at hide-and-go-seek who covers his face and thereby imagines that others cannot see him. Who in the region does the President think he’s fooling?
I have commented in recent weeks about the dropping away of relevant context in the reporting of important news stories, which I suspect is linked to the generic disappearance of even relatively recent historical memory in our IT-addled, radically segmented collective cognitive state (see, for example, this). But this amnesic babble really takes all, and coming from the President of the United States it frankly makes me a bit uncomfortable.
One of my secular New Year’s resolutions is to read and think more, write and speak less. Another, however, is to write more quickly on the heels of breaking stories, as I’m doing now. Another is to cut back on the ice cream; I like to think that will buy me an indulgence for a bit more single malt, which is more conducive to thinking than to writing, and so the circle of my resolutions comes to completion.
I wish Vice President Biden success in his effort to cut back further on committing truths in public. I’m always here for you, Joe, if you need me.
As for the President, I hope he will add a resolution for 2015 to stop saying stupid “stuff” to his previous determination to not do stupid “stuff.” Since saying and doing are mingled behaviors, especially when they emanate from the Oval Office, a truth that even non-speechwriters can appreciate and that this President seems implicitly to credit more than most, there’s reason to expect both resolution and redemption. Happy New Year!
Adam Garfinkle is editor of The American Interest.
President Obama told Latin America leaders in Panama Friday that the days of U.S. exploitation of the region are over, and that America owes a debt to the rest of the world for helping to bring equality to the U.S.
“We are respectful of the differences among our countries,” Mr. Obama said at the Summit of the Americas. “The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past.”
The crowd erupted in sustained applause.
Mr. Obama urged leaders in the region to embrace democratic principles, including public debate and dissent.
“It’s not to say that my country’s perfect, we are not. And that’s the point,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to wrestle with our own challenges from issues of race to policing to inequality. We embrace our ability to become better through our democracy.”
Referring to slavery and Jim Crow-era segregation in the U.S., Mr. Obama also said that outside forces helped to improve life in America.
“There was a time in our own country when there were groups that were voiceless and powerless,” Mr. Obama said. “Because of world opinion, that helped to change those circumstances. We have a debt to pay because the voices of ordinary people made us better. That’s a debt I want to make sure we repay in this hemisphere and around the world.”
Earlier, Mr. Obama took an apparent swipe at Cuba’s communist regime when he said “almost everybody” in Latin America has been smart enough to move their countries to a market-based economy.
“By virtue of wisdom, and some things that didn’t work and some things that did, everybody around the region … has a very practical solution, or a practical orientation,” Mr. Obama said.
Then he grinned and added, “Maybe not everybody, but almost everybody.” The audience of business leaders laughed.
The president, who is expected to meet for the first time with Cuban President Raul Castro Saturday on the sidelines of the summit, said countries in the hemisphere previously subscribed either to a “statist” economic model or a free-market approach.
“Everything was very ideological in this region in discussing how economic development went forward,” Mr. Obama said. “I believe the free market is the greatest wealth-generator and innovator and is a recipe for success for countries.”
Dave Boyer is a White House correspondent for The Washington Times. A native of Allentown, Pa., Boyer worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 2002 to 2011 and also has covered Congress for the Times. He is a graduate of Penn State University. Boyer can be reached at dboyer@washingtontimes.com.
Voir encore:
Remarks by President Obama at the Civil Society Forum
On April 10, 2015, in Office of the Press Secretary, Speeches and Remarks, The President, Western Hemisphere, by The White House
Hotel El Panama
Panama City, Panama
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Buenas tardes. Thank you, President Varela. Thank you very much, Panama, for hosting this Summit of the Americas. And I thank everybody who’s traveled here from across the region for the courageous work that you do to defend freedom and human rights, and to promote equality and opportunity and justice across our hemisphere and around the world.
I am proud to be with you at this first-ever official gathering of civil society leaders at the Summit of the Americas. And I’m pleased to have Cuba represented with us at this summit for the very first time. (Applause.)
We’re here for a very simple reason. We believe that strong, successful countries require strong and vibrant civil societies. We know that throughout our history, human progress has been propelled not just by famous leaders, not just by states, but by ordinary men and women who believe that change is possible; by citizens who are willing to stand up against incredible odds and great danger not only to protect their own rights, but to extend rights to others.
I had a chance to reflect on this last month when I was in the small town of Selma, Alabama. Some of you may have heard of it. It’s a place where, 50 years ago, African-Americans marched in peaceful, nonviolent protest — not to ask for special treatment but to be treated equally, in accordance with the founding documents of our Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights. They were part of a civil rights movement that had endured violence and repression for decades, and would endure it again that day, as many of the marchers were beaten.
But they kept marching. And despite the beatings of that day, they came back, and more returned. And the conscience of a nation was stirred. Their efforts bent, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, the arc of the moral universe towards justice. And it was their vision for a more fair and just and inclusive and generous society that ultimately triumphed. And the only reason I stand here today as the President of the United States is because those ordinary people — maids, and janitors, and schoolteachers — were willing to endure hardship on my behalf. (Applause.)
And that’s why I believe so strongly in the work that you do. It’s the dreamers — no matter how humble or poor or seemingly powerless — that are able to change the course of human events. We saw it in South Africa, where citizens stood up to the scourge of apartheid. We saw it in Europe, where Poles marched in Solidarity to help bring down the Iron Curtain. In Argentina, where mothers of the disappeared spoke out against the Dirty War. It’s the story of my country, where citizens worked to abolish slavery, and establish women’s rights and workers’ rights, and rights for gays and lesbians.
It’s not to say that my country is perfect — we are not. And that’s the point. We always have to have citizens who are willing to question and push our government, and identify injustice. We have to wrestle with our own challenges — from issues of race to policing to inequality. But what makes me most proud about the extraordinary example of the United States is not that we’re perfect, but that we struggle with it, and we have this open space in which society can continually try to make us a more perfect union.
We’ve stood up, at great cost, for freedom and human dignity, not just in our own country, but elsewhere. I’m proud of that. And we embrace our ability to become better through our democracy. And that requires more than just the work of government. It demands the hard and frustrating, sometimes, but absolutely vital work of ordinary citizens coming together to make common cause.
So civil society is the conscience of our countries. It’s the catalyst of change. It’s why strong nations don’t fear active citizens. Strong nations embrace and support and empower active citizens. And by the way, it’s not as if active citizens are always right — they’re not. Sometimes people start yelling at me or arguing at me, and I think, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But sometimes they do. And the question is not whether they’re always right; the question is, do you have a society in which that conversation, that debate can be tested and ideas are tested in the marketplace.
And because of the efforts of civil society, now, by and large, there’s a consensus in the Americas on democracy and human rights, and social development and social inclusiveness. I recognize there’s strong differences about the role of civil society, but I believe we can all benefit from open and tolerant and inclusive dialogue. And we should reject violence or intimidation that’s aimed at silencing people’s voices.
The freedom to be heard is a principle that the Americas at large is committed to. And that doesn’t mean, as I said, that we’re going to agree on every issue. But we should address those issue candidly and honestly and civilly, and welcome the voices of all of our people into the debates that shape the future of the hemisphere. (Applause.)
Just to take one example: As the United States begins a new chapter in our relationship with Cuba, we hope it will create an environment that improves the lives of the Cuban people -– not because it’s imposed by us, the United States, but through the talent and ingenuity and aspirations, and the conversation among Cubans from all walks of life so they can decide what the best course is for their prosperity.
As we move toward the process of normalization, we’ll have our differences, government to government, with Cuba on many issues — just as we differ at times with other nations within the Americas; just as we differ with our closest allies. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I’m here to say that when we do speak out, we’re going to do so because the United States of America does believe, and will always stand for, a certain set of universal values. And when we do partner with civil society, it’s because we believe our relationship should be with governments and with the peoples that they represent.
It’s also because we believe that your work is more important than ever. Here in the Americas, inequality still locks too many people out of our economies. Discrimination still locks too many out of our societies. Around the world, there are still too many places where laws are passed to stifle civil society, where governments cut off funding for groups that they don’t agree with. Where entrepreneurs are crushed under corruption. Where activists and journalists are locked up on trumped-up charges because they dare to be critical of their governments. Where the way you look, or how you pray, or who you love can get you imprisoned or killed.
And whether it’s crackdowns on free expression in Russia or China, or restrictions on freedom of association and assembly in Egypt, or prison camps run by the North Korean regime — human rights and fundamental freedoms are still at risk around the world. And when that happens, we believe we have a moral obligation to speak out.
We also know that our support for civil society is not just about what we’re against, but also what we’re for. Because we’ve noticed that governments that are more responsive and effective are typically governments where the people are free to assemble, and speak their minds, and petition their leaders, and hold us accountable.
We know that our economies attract more trade and investment when citizens are free to start a new business without paying a bribe. We know that our societies are more likely to succeed when all our people — regardless of color, or class, or creed, or sexual orientation, or gender — are free to live and pray and love as they choose. That’s what we believe.
And, increasingly, civil society is a source of ideas — about everything from promoting transparency and free expression, to reversing inequality and rescuing our environment. And that’s why, as part of our Stand with Civil Society Initiative, we’ve joined with people around the world to push back on those who deny your right to be heard. I’ve made it a mission of our government not only to protect civil society groups, but to partner with you and empower you with the knowledge and the technology and the resources to put your ideas into action. And the U.S. supports the efforts to establish a permanent, meaningful role for civil societies in future Summits of the Americas. (Applause.)
So let me just say, when the United States sees space closing for civil society, we will work to open it. When efforts are made to wall you off from the world, we’ll try to connect you with each other. When you are silenced, we’ll try to speak out alongside you. And when you’re suppressed, we want to help strengthen you. As you work for change, the United States will stand up alongside you every step of the way. We are respectful of the difference among our countries. The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past. (Applause.)
But what it does mean — but we do have to be very clear that when we speak out on behalf of somebody who’s been imprisoned for no other reason than because they spoke truth to power, when we are helping an organization that is trying to empower a minority group inside a country to get more access to resources, we’re not doing that because it serves our own interests; we’re doing it because we think it’s the right thing to do. (Applause.) And that’s important.
And I hope that all the other countries at the Summit of the Americas will join us in seeing that it’s important. Because sometimes, as difficult as it is, it’s important for us to be able to speak honestly and candidly on behalf of people who are vulnerable and people who are powerless, people who are voiceless. I know, because there was a time in our own country where there were groups that were voiceless and powerless. And because of world opinion, that helped to change those circumstance. We have a debt to pay, because the voices of ordinary people have made us better. That’s a debt that I want to make sure we repay in this hemisphere and around the world.
Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) God bless you.
January 30, 2005
SURELY some bright bulb from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York or the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton has already remarked that President Bush’s inaugural address 10 days ago is the fourth corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. No? So many savants and not one peep out of the lot of them? Really?
The president had barely warmed up: « There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants … and that is the force of human freedom…. The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. … America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one… » when – bango! – I flashed back 100 years and 47 days on the dot to another president. George W. Bush was speaking, but the voice echoing inside my skull – a high-pitched voice, an odd voice, coming from such a great big hairy bear of a man – was that of the president who dusted off Monroe’s idea and dragged it into the 20th century.
« The steady aim of this nation, as of all enlightened nations, » said the Echo, « should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. …Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. …The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. … The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right cannot be divorced. »
Theodore Roosevelt! – Dec. 4, 1904, announcing to Congress the first corollary to the Monroe Doctrine – an item I had deposited in the memory bank and hadn’t touched since I said goodbye to graduate school in the mid-1950’s!
In each case what I was hearing was the usual rustle and flourish of the curtains opening upon a grandiloquent backdrop. But if there was one thing I learned before departing academe and heading off wayward into journalism, it was that these pretty preambles to major political messages, all this solemn rhetorical throat-clearing – the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous – are inevitably what in fact gives the game away.
Theodore Roosevelt’s corollary to President James Monroe’s famous doctrine of 1823 proclaimed that not only did America have the right, à la Monroe, to block European attempts to re-colonize any of the Western Hemisphere, it also had the right to take over and shape up any nation in the hemisphere guilty of « chronic wrongdoing » or uncivilized behavior that left it « impotent, » powerless to defend itself against aggressors from the Other Hemisphere, meaning mainly England, France, Spain, Germany and Italy.
The immediate problem was that the Dominican Republic had just reneged on millions in European loans so flagrantly that an Italian warship had turned up just off the harbor of Santo Domingo. Roosevelt sent the Navy down to frighten off the Italians and all other snarling Europeans. Then the United States took over the Dominican customs operations and debt management and by and by the whole country, eventually sending in the military to run the place. We didn’t hesitate to occupy Haiti and Nicaragua, either.
Back in 1823, Europeans had ridiculed Monroe and his doctrine. Baron de Tuyll, the Russian minister to Washington, said Americans were too busy hard-grabbing and making money to ever stop long enough to fight, even if they had the power, which they didn’t. But by the early 1900’s it was a different story.
First there was T.R. And then came Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. In 1912 Japanese businessmen appeared to be on the verge of buying vast areas of Mexico’s Baja California bordering our Southern California. Lodge drew up, and the Senate ratified, what became known as the Lodge Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The United States would allow no foreign interests, no Other Hemispheroids of any description, to give any foreign government « practical power of control » over territory in This Hemisphere. The Japanese government immediately denied having any connection with the tycoons, and the Baja deals, if any, evaporated.
Then, in 1950, George Kennan, the diplomat who had developed the containment theory of dealing with the Soviet Union after the Second World War, toured Latin America and came away alarmed by Communist influence in the region. So he devised the third corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Kennan Corollary said that Communism was simply a tool of Soviet national power. The United States had no choice, under the mandates of the Monroe Doctrine, but to eradicate Communist activity wherever it turned up in Latin America … by any means necessary, even if it meant averting one’s eyes from dictatorial regimes whose police force did everything but wear badges saying Chronic Wrongdoing.
The historian Gaddis Smith summarizes the Lodge and Kennan Corollaries elegantly and economically in « The Last Years of the Monroe Doctrine, 1945-1993. » Now, Gaddis Smith was a graduate-schoolmate of mine and very much a star even then and has remained a star historian ever since. So do I dare suggest that in this one instance, in a brilliant career going on 50 years now, that Gaddis Smith might have been …wrong? … that 1945 to 1993 were not the last years of the Monroe Doctrine? … that the doctrine was more buff and boisterous than it has ever been 10 days ago, Jan. 20, 2005?
But before we go forward, let’s take one more step back in time and recall the curious case of Antarctica. In 1939 Franklin Roosevelt authorized the first official United States exploration of the South Pole, led by Admiral Richard E. Byrd. The expedition was scientific – but also military. The Japanese and the Germans were known to be rooting about in the ice down there, as were the Russians, the British, the Chileans, the Argentines, all of them yapping and stepping on one another’s heels. Gradually it dawned on the whole bunch of them: at the South Pole the hemispheres got … awfully narrow. In fact, there was one point, smaller than a dime, if you could ever find it, where there were no more Hemispheres at all. Finally, everybody in essence just gave up and forgot about it. It was so cold down there, you couldn’t shove a shell into the gullet of a piece of artillery … or a missile into a silo.
Ah, yes, a missile. On the day in November 1961, when the Air Force achieved the first successful silo launching of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the SM-80, the Western Hemisphere part of the Monroe Doctrine ceased to mean anything at all – while the ideas behind it began to mean everything in the world.
At bottom, the notion of a sanctified Western Hemisphere depended upon its separation from the rest of the world by two vast oceans, making intrusions of any sort obvious. The ICBM’s – soon the Soviet Union and other countries had theirs – shrank the world in a military sense. Then long-range jet aircraft, satellite telephones, television and the Internet all, in turn, did the job socially and commercially. By Mr. Bush’s Inauguration Day, the Hemi in Hemisphere had long since vanished, leaving the Monroe Doctrine with – what? – nothing but a single sphere … which is to say, the entire world.
For the mission – the messianic mission! – has never shrunk in the slightest … which brings us back to the pretty preambles and the solemn rhetorical throat-clearing … the parts always omitted from the textbooks as superfluous. « America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one, » President Bush said. He added, « From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth. »
David Gelernter, the scientist and writer, argues that « Americanism » is a fundamentally religious notion shared by an incredibly varied population from every part of the globe and every conceivable background, all of whom feel that they have arrived, as Ronald Reagan put it, at a « shining city upon a hill. » God knows how many of them just might agree with President Bush – and Theodore Roosevelt – that it is America’s destiny and duty to bring that salvation to all mankind.
This article misstated part of the history of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The silo launching of a solid-fuel SM-80 Minuteman missile in November 1961 was not the first of an ICBM; a less practical liquid-fuel Titan missile was launched from a silo earlier that year.
Tom Wolfe is the author, most recently, of « I Am Charlotte Simmons. »
VIDÉO – Samed, les deux présidents américain et cubain ont échangé une poignée de main et se sont entretenus en marge du sommet des Amériques à Panama. Mais le chemin de la normalisation reste semé de nombreux points de contentieux.
De notre correspondante à Washington
Un peu plus d’une heure, à portes fermées. C’est le temps qu’ont passé ensemble les présidents Barack Obama et Raul Castro, ce samedi lors du sommet des Amériques à Panama. Il n’y avait pas eu de telle rencontre entre un dirigeant américain et un dirigeant cubain depuis 1956 quand Eisenhower y avait rencontré le dictateur Batista. Quand Obama et Castro se sont levés et se sont tendu la main, souriants et décontractés dans leurs costumes sombres, le moment historique a donc été fixé sur pellicule par des nuées de photographes et de cameramen. Un nouveau chapitre s’ouvrait dans l’histoire des Etats-Unis et de Cuba.
«Cela a été une conversation franche et fructueuse», un dialogue «très direct», a affirmé le président Obama devant les journalistes, reconnaissant toutefois que des différences importantes persistent sur les Droits de l’homme. «Nous avons réussi à parler honnêtement de nos différences et de nos préoccupations, de telle manière que je pense que nous détenons la possibilité de faire avancer la relation entre nos deux pays dans une direction différente et meilleure», a-t-il ajouté, optimiste. Raul Castro, lui, a affirmé qu’il faudrait «beaucoup de patience». «L’Histoire entre nos deux pays a été compliquée, mais nous sommes disposés à avancer et à discuter de tout, y compris des droits de l’homme». Le Cubain, visiblement de bonne humeur, avait déjà montré son intention de créer un climat détendu lors du Sommet, en plaisantant sur le fait qu’il avait droit à 8 minutes de discours multipliés par 6, puisque Cuba avait été exclu pendant six sommets. Après un long plaidoyer contre les ingérences des anciennes administrations américaines dans les affaires cubaines et latino-américaines, il a salué la probité de Barack Obama, le qualifiant «d’honnête homme». Il a dit vouloir avancer dans un ‘’dialogue respectueux, pour permettre une «coexistence civilisée» en dépit de «profondes différences».
La reprise des relations diplomatiques a figuré en bonne place dans les discussions, faisant suite à trois séries de discussions de haut niveau entre La Havane et Washington. Castro a demandé à Obama d’accélérer les démarches pour le retrait de Cuba de la liste des pays soutenant le terrorisme, indiquant qu’il verrait comme un «pas positif» une «décision rapide» des États-Unis sur ce dossier. L’Américain a indiqué qu’il avait reçu une recommandation favorable du Département d’Etat, mais qu’il n’avait pas encore eu le temps de l’étudier avant de la transmettre au Congrès. Un sujet qui risque de susciter des tiraillements au sein de la majorité républicaine, sur la colline du Capitole.
Au-delà des relations diplomatiques, le chemin de la normalisation reste semé de nombreux points de contentieux, dont le plus délicat est bien sûr l’embargo total sur les transactions économiques et financières avec Cuba, imposé depuis 1962. Le président cubain a une nouvelle fois insisté samedi sur la nécessité de «résoudre» cette question. Depuis l’annonce historique du rapprochement avec Cuba en décembre, Obama a demandé au Congrès, de travailler à la levée de l’embargo car lui seul peut le faire. Mais les deux chambres, dominées par les républicains sont pour l’instant très partagées sur la question, sous la pression notamment de la minorité cubaine américaine, dans l’ensemble très conservatrice sur la question des relations avec Cuba. Cette minorité influente exige toujours des changements préalables substantiels en matière de libertés à Cuba, que le clan conservateur des généraux de l’île, veut empêcher à toute force.
Le chemin de la normalisation s’avère donc semé d’obstacles, même si la nouvelle génération de cubains américains est plus ouverte à la réconciliation que celle de leurs parents. «Nous sommes en terre inconnue ici, il s’agit de changer fondamentalement la manière dont les Etats-Unis considèrent Cuba, son gouvernement, sa population, sa société civile», a résumé le principal conseiller de politique étrangère d’Obama, Ben Rhodes. L’équipe du président Obama espère que le développement des relations et la modernisation finissent par créer une dynamique positive d’ouverture au plan politique, une approche soutenue par l’opinion publique américaine, favorable à une évolution des relations à 59%. La normalisation avec Cuba est d’autant plus soutenue qu’elle va entraîner une normalisation des relations des Etats-Unis avec l’ensemble de la région, notent les experts. «Le fantôme de Cuba était présent dans toutes les relations bilatérales et multilatérales, à partir de maintenant, il disparaît», a confié à l’AFP Santiago Canton, responsable du centre Robert Kennedy pour la justice et les droits de l’homme.
HAVANA – The start of talks on repairing 50 years of broken relations appears to have left President Raul Castro’s government focused on winning additional concessions without giving in to U.S. demands for greater freedoms, despite the seeming benefits that warmer ties could have for the country’s struggling economy.
Following the highest-level open talks in three decades between the two nations, Cuban officials remained firm in rejecting significant reforms pushed by the United States as part of President Barack Obama’s surprise move to re-establish ties and rebuild economic relations with the Communist-led country.
« One can’t think that in order to improve and normalize relations with the U.S., Cuba has to give up the principles it believes in, » Cuba’s top diplomat for U.S. affairs, Josefina Vidal, told The Associated Press after the end of the talks. « Changes in Cuba aren’t negotiable. »
It’s not clear if Cuba’s tough stance is part of normal negotiation tactics or a hardened position that could prevent the talks from moving forward.
The Obama administration has dedicated significant political capital to rapprochement, but closer ties with the economic giant to the north also could have major importance for Cuba, which saw growth slow sharply in 2014 and is watching with concern as falling oil prices slam Venezuela, which has been a vital source of economic support.
In a wide-ranging interview, Vidal said that before deciding whether to allow greater economic ties with the U.S., Cuba was seeking more answers about Obama’s dramatic of loosening the half-century trade embargo.
Measures put into effect this month range from permitting large-scale sales of telecommunications equipment to allowing U.S. banks to open accounts in Cuba, but Vidal said officials on the island want to know if Cuba can buy such gear on credit and whether it is now free to use dollars for transactions around the world, not just those newly permitted with U.S. institutions. Until now, at least, U.S. law and policy has banned most foreign dealings with Cuba.
« I could make an endless list of questions and this is going to require a series of clarifications in order to really know where we are and what possibilities are going to open up, » Vidal said.
Obama also launched a review of Cuba’s inclusion on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and Vidal said « it will be difficult to conceive of the reestablishment of relations » while Cuba remains on that list, which imposes financial and other restrictions.
Vidal also said full normalization will be impossible until Congress lifts the many elements of the trade embargo that aren’t affected by Obama’s executive action — a step seen as unlikely with a Republican-dominated Congress. Among key prohibitions that remain is a ban on routine tourism to Cuba.
Even a relatively simple measure such as granting U.S. diplomats freedom of movement around Cuba, she said, is tied to reduced U.S. support of dissidents, whom Cuba says are breaking the law by acting to undermine the government of behalf of U.S. interests.
« It’s associated with a change in behaviour in the diplomatic missions as such and of the diplomatic officials, who must conduct themselves as our officials in Washington do, with total respect for the laws of that country, » Vidal said.
She also said Cuba has not softened its refusal to turn over U.S. fugitives granted asylum in Cuba. The warming of relations has spawned new demands in the U.S. for the State Department to seek the return of fugitives including Joanne Chesimard, a Black Liberation Army member now known as Assata Shakur, who fled to Cuba after she was convicted in 1977 of killing a New Jersey state trooper.
Vidal said the two nations’ extradition treaty « had a very clear clause saying that the agreement didn’t apply to people who could be tied to crimes of a political nature. »
But the opening already has led to some changes, at least in the short-term: Cuba significantly relaxed its near-total control of public information during the talks in Havana, allowing the live broadcast of news conferences in which foreign reporters questioned Vidal about sensitive topics including human rights. Cuban television even broadcast part of a news conference with Vidal’s counterpart, Roberta Jacobson, to foreign reporters, state media and independent Cuban reporters who are considered members of the opposition.
Cubans said they were taken aback by the flow of information but wanted to know much more about what the new relationship with the U.S. means.
« We’ve seen so much, really so much more than what we’re used to, about very sensitive topics in our country, » said Diego Ferrer, a 68-year-old retired state worker.
Jesus Rivero, also 68 and retired from government work, sat on a park bench in Old Havana reading a report in the official Communist Party newspaper, Granma, about Jacobson’s press conference.
« It’s good that Granma reports the press conference in the residence of the head of the Interests Section, » Rivero said. « But I think they should explain much more so that the whole population really understands what’s going on. »
Voir de plus:
The Abuse of Satire
Garry Trudeau on Charlie Hebdo, free-speech fanaticism, and the problem with “punching downward”
Garry Trudeau
The New Yorker
Apr 11 2015
The following is the text of remarks Garry Trudeau delivered on April 10 at the Long Island University’s George Polk Awards ceremony, where he received the George Polk Career Award.
My career—I guess I can officially call it that now—was not my idea. When my editor, Jim Andrews, recruited me out during my junior year in college and gave me the job I still hold, it wasn’t clear to me what he was up to. Inexplicably, he didn’t seem concerned that I was short on the technical skills normally associated with creating a comic strip—it was my perspective he was interested in, my generational identity. He saw the sloppy draftsmanship as a kind of cartoon vérité, dispatches from the front, raw and subversive.
Why were they so subversive? Well, mostly because I didn’t know any better. My years in college had given me the completely false impression that there were no constraints, that it was safe for an artist to comment on volatile cultural and political issues in public. In college, there’s no down side. In the real world, there is, but in the euphoria of being recognized for anything, you don’t notice it at first. Indeed, one of the nicer things about youthful cluelessness is that it’s so frequently confused with courage.
One of the nicer things about youthful cluelessness is that it’s so frequently confused with courage.
In fact, it’s just flawed risk assessment. I have a friend who was the Army’s top psychiatrist, and she once told me that they had a technical term in the Army for the prefrontal cortex, where judgment and social control are located. She said, “We call them sergeants.”
In the print world, we call them editors. And I had one, and he was gifted, but the early going was rocky. The strip was forever being banned. And more often than not, word would come back that it was not the editor but the stuffy, out of touch owner/publisher who was hostile to the feature.
For a while, I thought we had an insurmountable generational problem, but one night after losing three papers, my boss, John McMeel, took me out for a steak and explained his strategy. The 34-year-old syndicate head looked at his 22-year-old discovery over the rim of his martini glass, smiled, and said, “Don’t worry. Sooner or later, these guys die.”
Well, damned if he wasn’t right. A year later, the beloved patriarch of those three papers passed on, leaving them to his intemperate son, whose first official act, naturally, was to restore Doonesbury. And in the years that followed, a happy pattern emerged: All across the country, publishers who had vowed that Doonesbury would appear in their papers over their dead bodies were getting their wish.
So McMeel was clearly on to something—a brilliant actuarial marketing strategy, but it didn’t completely solve the problem. I’ve been shuttled in and out of papers my whole career, most recently when I wrote about Texas’s mandatory transvaginal probes, apparently not a comics page staple. I lost 70 papers for the week, so obviously my judgment about red lines hasn’t gotten any more astute.
I, and most of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful. Not only was one cartoonist gunned down, but riots erupted around the world, resulting in the deaths of scores. No one could say toward what positive social end, yet free speech absolutists were unchastened. Using judgment and common sense in expressing oneself were denounced as antithetical to freedom of speech.
And now we are adrift in an even wider sea of pain. Ironically, Charlie Hebdo, which always maintained it was attacking Islamic fanatics, not the general population, has succeeded in provoking many Muslims throughout France to make common cause with its most violent outliers. This is a bitter harvest.
Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.
Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.
By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks.
The White House took a lot of hits for not sending a high-level representative to the pro-Charlie solidarity march, but that oversight is now starting to look smart. The French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another.
What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.
I’m aware that I make these observations from a special position, one of safety. In America, no one goes into cartooning for the adrenaline. As Jon Stewart said in the aftermath of the killings, comedy in a free society shouldn’t take courage.
Writing satire is a privilege I’ve never taken lightly. And I’m still trying to get it right. Doonesbury remains a work in progress, an imperfect chronicle of human imperfection. It is work, though, that only exists because of the remarkable license that commentators enjoy in this country. That license has been stretched beyond recognition in the digital age. It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it.
Basilique vaticane
IIe Dimanche de Pâques (ou de la Divine Miséricorde), 12 avril 2015
Chers frères et sœurs Arméniens, chers frères et sœurs,
En des occasions diverses j’ai défini cette époque comme un temps de guerre, une troisième guerre mondiale « par morceaux », où nous assistons quotidiennement à des crimes atroces, à des massacres sanglants, et à la folie de la destruction. Malheureusement, encore aujourd’hui, nous entendons le cri étouffé et négligé de beaucoup de nos frères et sœurs sans défense, qui, à cause de leur foi au Christ ou de leur appartenance ethnique, sont publiquement et atrocement tués – décapités, crucifiés, brulés vifs –, ou bien contraints d’abandonner leur terre.
Aujourd’hui encore nous sommes en train de vivre une sorte de génocide causé par l’indifférence générale et collective, par le silence complice de Caïn qui s’exclame : « Que m’importe ? », « Suis-je le gardien de mon frère ? » (Gn 4, 9 ; Homélie à Redipuglia, 13 septembre 2014).
Notre humanité a vécu, le siècle dernier, trois grandes tragédies inouïes : la première est celle qui est généralement considérée comme « le premier génocide du XXème siècle » (Jean-Paul II et Karekin II, Déclaration commune, Etchmiadzin, 27 septembre 2001) ; elle a frappé votre peuple arménien – première nation chrétienne –, avec les Syriens catholiques et orthodoxes, les Assyriens, les Chaldéens et les Grecs. Des évêques, des prêtres, des religieux, des femmes, des hommes, des personnes âgées et même des enfants et des malades sans défense ont été tués. Les deux autres ont été perpétrées par la nazisme et par le stalinisme. Et, plus récemment, d’autres exterminations de masse, comme celles au Cambodge, au Rwanda, au Burundi, en Bosnie. Cependant, il semble que l’humanité ne réussisse pas à cesser de verser le sang innocent. Il semble que l’enthousiasme qui est apparu à la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale soit en train de disparaître et de se dissoudre. Il semble que la famille humaine refuse d’apprendre de ses propres erreurs causées par la loi de la terreur ; et ainsi, encore aujourd’hui, il y en a qui cherchent à éliminer leurs semblables, avec l’aide des uns et le silence complice des autres qui restent spectateurs. Nous n’avons pas encore appris que « la guerre est une folie, un massacre inutile » (cf. Homélie à Redipuglia, 13 septembre 2014).
Chers frères arméniens, aujourd’hui nous rappelons, le cœur transpercé de douleur mais rempli d’espérance dans le Seigneur ressuscité, le centenaire de ce tragique événement, de cette effroyable et folle extermination, que vos ancêtres ont cruellement soufferte. Se souvenir d’eux est nécessaire, plus encore c’est un devoir, parce que là où il n’y a plus de mémoire, cela signifie que le mal tient encore la blessure ouverte ; cacher ou nier le mal c’est comme laisser une blessure continuer à saigner sans la panser !
Je vous salue avec affection et je vous remercie pour votre témoignage.
Je salue et je remercie pour sa présence Monsieur Serž Sargsyan, Président de la République d’Arménie.
Je salue aussi cordialement mes frères Patriarches et Évêques : Sa Sainteté Karekin II, Patriarche Suprême et Catholicos de tous les Arméniens ; Sa Sainteté Aram Ier, Catholicos de la Grande Maison de Cilicie ; Sa Béatitude Nerses Bedros XIX, Patriarche de Cilicie des Arméniens Catholiques ; les deux Catholicossats de l’Église Apostolique Arménienne, et le Patriarcat de l’Église Arméno-Catholique.
Avec la ferme certitude que le mal ne vient jamais de Dieu infiniment Bon, et enracinés dans la foi, affirmons que la cruauté ne peut jamais être attribuée à l’œuvre de Dieu, et en outre ne doit absolument pas trouver en son Saint Nom une quelconque justification. Vivons ensemble cette célébration en fixant notre regard sur Jésus-Christ, vainqueur de la mort et du mal.
It’s been nearly eleven years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which, almost since it began, proved to be the historically fatal element in the war on terror launched by George W. Bush’s White House. His Administration, and its sundry neoconservative wingmen, went so far as to tout the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy across the Muslim lands. At the same time, there was a growing unease that things might not turn out well. In a 2005 conversation I had with the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the time, Zalmay Khalilzad, he spoke of his fears: “I shudder to think what we could face if we don’t fix Iraq.” He foresaw the possibility that an Iraqi civil war between Sunnis and Shiites could infect the entire Middle East.
Where are we today? It seems a good time to take stock.
In Iraq, two years after President Barack Obama made good on his word and pulled U.S. troops out—forty-five hundred American lives later, and God knows how many Iraqi lives later—the slumbering sectarian war has reignited. At least eight thousand Iraqis were killed in the violence in 2013, a majority of them Shiite civilians targeted for murder or killed in bomb blasts set by the reascendant Sunni extremists of Al Qaeda. That’s right: they’re back. Now calling themselves ISIS—the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham—the jihadis, who were supposedly defeated by Sunni tribesmen and American troops under the tutelage of David Petraeus, in the so-called Sunni Awakening of 2006-08, are not only active again; they are dominating the Syrian battlefield on the rebel side, and in the past few weeks seized the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and a good part of nearby Ramadi, too.
Remember Fallujah? That’s the city on the outskirts of Baghdad, in the Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, the homeland of restive tribes since the British occupation of Mesopotamia, a hundred years ago. It’s also where, in 2004, in a bid to beat the extremists who controlled it at the time, U.S. combat troops fought two separate battles, at a cost of more than a hundred and twenty American lives. Nearly a quarter of the American troops killed in Iraq during the war—about a thousand men and women—died in Anbar Province.
Now the Al Qaeda flag waves in the center of Fallujah. At least fifty-two people died in Iraq from terrorist bombs on Wednesday. There are car bombs nearly every day.
In Syria, more than two and a half years into a bloody civil war, as many as a hundred and twenty thousand people are dead, with more than a quarter of the country’s population now living as refugees, either displaced internally or in neighboring countries. Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups have taken over what was once a popular, broad-based uprising against the Assad dictatorship, and are killing one another, and ordinary Syrian civilians, across a wide swath of that country. Having effectively lost control of much of the country’s second most important city, Aleppo, to rebels, the regime is now feeling confident enough to be preparing an assault to retake it. Syria’s conflict is about a lot of different things, of course, but in the business of killing, which is the hardtack, everyday stuff of war, it, too, is Shiite versus Sunni.
As for neighboring Lebanon—the Mediterranean rump state formed in the European carve-up of the Ottoman Empire, in the wake of the First World War—thanks to the spillover of Syria’s conflict, it is looking increasingly like a cracked pane of glass, just waiting for the next hard shake to fall apart completely. As in Syria, the violence is pitting Shiite against Sunni, and also against Christian.
And on and on. The region is, effectively, coming apart. If the Cold War helped to suppress long-standing feuds and rivalries (while helping to incubate militant Islam), which the fall of the Soviet Union exposed, it seems obvious now that key nerve endings were cut by the U.S. intervention in Iraq—and the one in Afghanistan, too—finishing off whatever uneasy compromises remained. (The death, by hanging, of Saddam Hussein, in 2006, had a vengeful quality, but it appeased none of Iraq’s demons.) The Arab Spring of 2011, that phenomenon which so raised hopes and caused hearts to flutter in the West—and, indeed, across the Middle East—has collapsed, and been replaced by increasing volatility. Egypt, the bulwark of American power in the region, a staunch Western ally ever since Anwar Sadat signed a peace deal with Israel at Camp David, is now, post-Mubarak and post-Muslim Brotherhood, in the grip of a military clique that is, by the day, widening its definition of who and what is a terrorist. Extremist violence has begun as a reaction, or possibly as a provocation, or both. Expect tyranny, and more violence, in the land of the pharaohs, and—who knows—maybe even civil war. In Bahrain, the Shiite majority simmers under a Sunni king. In Saudi Arabia, hundreds of young male volunteers, anxious for the chance to kill Shiites in Syria’s jihad, manage to go off and do just that, with the ease of Californians flying to Las Vegas for weekend gambling breaks.
And there is anarchic Libya, with its myriad armed gangs, its jihadis, and its own waves of bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations; fragile (and still marginally hopeful) Tunisia; Mali and the other shaky statelets of western Africa, Burkina Faso and Niger, in which terrorists occasionally kill and are chased but nothing is the same as it was; Nigeria, with the fanatical jihadi group Boko Haram, which seeks common cause with Al Qaeda in the region and at home, and kills Christians with breathtaking frequency, only to find its own people massacred by out-of-control government troops; and the Central African Republic, where poverty and underlying tribal enmities have now found terrifying expression within a Christian-versus-Muslim prism.
Indeed, an arc of violent political instability now links Muslim nations from Mauritania to Pakistan, affecting neighbors in Europe and Africa, and there is no end in sight. Most worryingly, in the contiguous nations of central and eastern Africa, where the states are weak, a rash of uncontained conflicts has spread, their violence and refugees flowing outward and overlapping, in a great bulge of mayhem that extends from the Horn to the Nile and from the Great Lakes region to the Sahel. It is dangerous: war thrives in a vacuum.
Nowadays, the U.S. has no interest in sending combat troops, just advisers or small SWAT teams dispatched here and there on specific missions (to kill Osama bin Laden or sundry terrorists in Somalia). Instead, it supports peacekeeping missions, sends humanitarian aid, and engages in hard-nosed diplomacy. That’s all well and good. Why fight wars if you can’t win them? More troops won’t rewind the past or undo the tragic mistakes and the stupidities of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath. But, at the same time, who says that this is not a world at war? Do we have a plan of action?
Back in the days when he was trying to fix Iraq, Ambassador Khalilzad talked about his use of chaos theory, but he lamented the lack of American strategists with the heft and the depth of Zbigniew Brzezinski, his old mentor, or Henry Kissinger, helping to steer things at the top—someone with a world view and a chess master’s eye. It was, I suppose, his way of saying that, for all its sweeping ambitions, the U.S.S. Enterprise was steering blind.
No new Brzezinski ever appeared on the scene. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld have long since retired to their ranches to, variously, paint, get a heart transplant, and write self-serving memoirs. Robert Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, has come out with a tell-all book of his own, revealing, among other things, that he cried at night over the deaths of American troops. That’s comforting. We’re all back home now, or nearly so. But we’ve left a mess behind. So what’s next? Where do we go from here?
As for those American soldiers asking, “Was our sacrifice in Fallujah worth it?,” one is at a loss about how to reply to the thought that comes to mind this week: No, it really wasn’t. It is time to get angry.
La gauche a beaucoup de chance. Des historiens et des politologues complaisants veulent toujours voir dans les turbulences qui l’agitent le fruit de divergences idéologiques, de visions du monde opposées comme l’on disait autrefois. Ainsi, on opposera une gauche girondine à une gauche jacobine, une première gauche à une seconde etc…
On remarquera que pour beaucoup ces fractures internes sont issues de la révolution française. Curieusement, une période de la révolution est toujours oubliée. Si l’on excepte de rares occasions, on parle peu de la gauche thermidorienne et pourtant, pensons nous, cette période est capitale pour comprendre ce qu’est devenue, aujourd’hui, la gauche française. La période thermidorienne débute avec la chute de Robespierre le 9 thermidor (27 juillet 1794) et finit avec le coup d’Etat de Bonaparte, le 18 brumaire (9 novembre1799). Elle culminera avec le Directoire. La coalition qui mettra fin à la dictature robespierriste est, dans sa composition, assez hétéroclite. Elle va d’ex-conventionnels terroristes aux anciens girondins en passant par le centre mou de la révolution : le fameux marais. En apparence, sauf l’hostilité à Robespierre, pour des raisons diverses d’ailleurs, ils ne sont d’accord sur rien. En apparence seulement. Car comme le soulignent Furet et Richet dans leur livre La révolution française, ce qui les réunit c’est la poursuite d’un double objectif : celui de la conquête et de l’intérêt. Il ne s’agit plus de créer l’homme vertueux mais de profiter (au sens plein du terme) des acquis de la révolution. Les thermidoriens les plus célèbres, dont le fameux Barras, seront des jouisseurs. Ils aiment l’argent et la jouissance dans tous ses aspects. De ce point de vue, la gauche Canal+ vient de loin, elle n’est pas née avec le mitterrandisme, ni avec 1968. La république spartiate rêvée par Robespierre et Saint-Just fait désormais place à la République des palais et des costumes extravagants.
La période du Directoire sera aussi cette époque où les spéculateurs de tout poil vont nouer avec le pouvoir politique des relations troubles. Les liaisons de la gauche avec la finance ont des antécédents et on se rend compte alors que ce n’est pas simplement ici une rencontre de circonstance. Pour se maintenir au pouvoir et profiter de leurs richesses, souvent acquises de manière suspecte, les thermidoriens seront prêts à tout, notamment aux coups d’Etat. Voyant des complots royalistes partout ils sauront en profiter pour s’offrir une virginité politique à bon compte. Malgré leur cynisme et le caractère très intéressé de leur investissement en politique, ces hommes sont pourtant, d’un point de vue philosophique, des hommes de gauche. Barras, Tallien, Reubell, La Révellière-Lépeaux et bien d’autres encore communient à la philosophie des lumières. Ils croient en la politique de la table rase et vomissent le catholicisme. Leur vision du monde est celle du progressisme de Condorcet. L’anticléricalisme leur est d’autant plus utile qu’il masque l’abandon de leur part de toute volonté de transformation sociale. Car, comme les socialistes d’aujourd’hui les thermidoriens sont, pour la plupart, des bourgeois (Barras était lui issu de la noblesse) qui se méfient de la « canaille ». Les philosophes des lumières leur ont légué une méfiance du peuple qui ne fera que s’approfondir. De ce point de vue aussi, la « prolophobie » actuelle du parti socialiste vient de loin. Ainsi, plus le directoire accentuera sa politique favorable aux intérêts, plus l’anticléricalisme se fera pesant avec un point paroxystique atteint après le coup d’Etat de Fructidor qui entrainera la déportation de centaines de prêtres. Le sociétalisme de la gauche n’est pas né ces trente dernières années, il lui est consubstantiel. Comme l’a bien montré Michéa, il n’est que la manifestation politique de la vision progressiste du monde telle qu’issue de la philosophie des lumières. La nouveauté que les thermidoriens vont léguer à la gauche contemporaine réside dans leur très forte capacité à habiller le cynisme et un amour inconsidéré du pouvoir pour le pouvoir des oripeaux du progressisme. Si l’on ne saurait exonérer les thermidoriens d’un minimum de convictions, ce qui les caractérise avant tout c’est une passion pour le pouvoir et de tout ce qu’il permet. Dans cette perspective, les nombreux dirigeants du PS qui sont issus de l’extrême gauche ne sont pas sans rappeler tous ces ex-conventionnels adeptes de la terreur qui sauront très bien se reconvertir après le 9 thermidor et entamer, pour beaucoup d’entre-eux, des carrières très fructueuses (à tous les points de vue), on pense ici à Fouché5. Il y a beaucoup de thermidorisme dans la trajectoire d’un Cambadélis, passé du lambertisme au strauss-kahnisme et ce n’est pas un hasard s’il est devenu premier secrétaire du parti socialiste. Ayant à peu près tout renié, il ne cesse de déclamer son progressisme avec une insistance qui fait sourire. N’est pas homme des lumières qui veut !
Enfin, dernier legs de Thermidor : l’institutionnalisation du pouvoir intellectuel. C’est dans cette période que va, en effet, s’institutionnaliser le pouvoir intellectuel en France avec la création de l’Institut et la domination des fameux idéologues tant raillés par Bonaparte puis Napoléon. Dès lors, l’intellectuel français va adopter des caractéristiques qui ne le quitteront plus. Il sera philosophiquement progressiste, socialement bourgeois, très souvent anticlérical ou athée, profondément élitiste (même s’il proclame le contraire) et très souvent fâché avec le monde réel. Et conclurons-nous très proche des pouvoirs établis ! L’intellectuel de gauche n’est pas né avec l’affaire Dreyfus, il est un enfant de Thermidor.
La gauche est mal à l’aise avec Thermidor. C’est un héritage qu’elle ne revendique pas. D’ailleurs, c’est le parent pauvre de l’histoire de la révolution française alors que d’un point de vue chronologique c’est la période la plus longue (hors Consulat). On débat toujours de Robespierre mais qui se souvient de Barras ? Pourtant, lorsque l’on examine avec attention cette période on se rend compte que toutes les contradictions de la gauche et toutes ses évolutions futures s’y trouvent contenues. La phase thermidorienne de la révolution française est en quelque sorte le laboratoire historique de la gauche contemporaine. Le cynisme, le sociétalisme des oligarques socialistes ne sont pas des accidents de l’histoire, ils sont ancrés en elle. L’argent roi et le progressisme fou sont des vieux compagnons de route de la gauche française !
L’audace de l’espoir. Voilà le meilleur de l’esprit américain ; avoir l’audace de croire, malgré toutes les indications contraires, que nous pouvions restaurer un sens de la communauté au sein d’une nation déchirée ; l’audace de croire que malgré des revers personnels, la perte d’un emploi, un malade dans la famille ou une famille empêtrée dans la pauvreté, nous avions quelque emprise- et par conséquent une responsabilité sur notre propre destin. Barack Hussein Obama
Je ne suis pas contre toutes les guerres ; je suis seulement contre les guerres idiotes. Barack Hussein Obama
Il n’y a aucune raison que nous ne puissions restaurer le respect dont jouissait l’Amérique et le partenariat qu’elle avait avec le monde musulman voilà 20 ou 30 ans de cela. (…) J’ai déclaré durant la campagne qu’il est très important pour nous de faire en sorte que nous utilisions tous les outils de la puissance américaine, y compris la diplomatie, dans nos relations avec l’Iran. Barack Hussein Obama
We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.” The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it? Barack Hussein Obama
J’annonce au monde entier que si les infidèles font obstacle à notre religion, nous nous opposerons au monde entier et nous ne cesserons pas avant leur anéantissement, nous en sortirons tous libérés ou nous obtiendrons une plus grande liberté qui est le martyr. Soit nous nous serrerons les uns aux autres pour célébrer la victoire de l’islam sur le monde ou bien nous aurons tous la vie éternelle grâce au martyr. Dans les deux cas, la victoire et le succès seront à nous.Khomeiny
Ce qui se vit aujourd’hui est une forme de rivalité mimétique à l’échelle planétaire. Lorsque j’ai lu les premiers documents de Ben Laden, constaté ses allusions aux bombes américaines tombées sur le Japon, je me suis senti d’emblée à un niveau qui est au-delà de l’islam, celui de la planète entière. Sous l’étiquette de l’islam, on trouve une volonté de rallier et de mobiliser tout un tiers-monde de frustrés et de victimes dans leurs rapports de rivalité mimétique avec l’Occident. René Girard
Le problème n’est pas la sécurité d’Israël, la souveraineté du Liban ou les ingérences de la Syrie ou du Hezbollah : Le problème est centré sur l’effort de l’Iran à obtenir le Droit d’Abolir l’Exclusivité de la Dissuasion. La prolifération sauvage, le concept de «tous nucléaires» sera la fin de la Guerre Froide et le retour à la période précédant la Dissuasion. Les mollahs et leurs alliés, le Venezuela, l’Algérie, la Syrie, la Corée du Nord et la Russie…, se militarisent à une très grande échelle sachant qu’ils vont bientôt neutraliser le parapluie protecteur de la dissuasion et alors ils pourront faire parler la poudre. Chacun visera à dominer sa région et sans que les affrontements se déroulent en Europe, l’Europe sera dépouillée de ses intérêts en Afrique ou en Amérique du Sud et sans combattre, elle devra déposer les armes. Ce qui est incroyable c’est la myopie de la diplomatie française et de ses experts. (…) Aucun d’entre eux ne se doute que la république islamique a des alliés qui ont un objectif commun: mettre un terme à une discrimination qui dure depuis 50 ans, la dissuasion nucléaire ! Cette discrimination assure à la France une position que beaucoup d’états lui envient. Ils attendent avec impatience de pouvoir se mesurer avec cette ancienne puissance coloniale que beaucoup jugent arrogante, suffisante et gourmande. Iran-Resist
En tant que défenseur de la rue arabe, [l’Iran] ne peut pas avoir un dialogue apaisé avec les Etats-Unis, dialogue au cours duquel il accepterait les demandes de cet Etat qui est le protecteur par excellence d’Israël. Téhéran a le soutien de la rue arabe, talon d’Achille des Alliés Arabes des Etats-Unis, car justement il refuse tout compromis et laisse entendre qu’il pourra un jour lui offrir une bombe nucléaire qui neutralisera la dissuasion israélienne. Pour préserver cette promesse utile, Téhéran doit sans cesse exagérer ses capacités militaires ou nucléaires et des slogans anti-israéliens. Il faut cependant préciser que sur un plan concret, les actions médiatiques de Téhéran ne visent pas la sécurité d’Israël, mais celle des Alliés arabes des Etats-Unis, Etats dont les dirigeants ne peuvent satisfaire les attentes belliqueuses de la rue arabe. Ainsi Téhéran a un levier de pression extraordinaire sur Washington. Comme toute forme de dissuasion, ce système exige un entretien permanent. Téhéran doit sans cesse fouetter la colère et les frustrations de la rue arabe ! Il doit aussi garder ses milices actives, de chaînes de propagande en effervescence et son programme nucléaire le plus opaque possible, sinon il ne serait pas menaçant. C’est pourquoi, il ne peut pas accepter des compensations purement économiques offertes par les Six en échange d’un apaisement ou une suspension de ses activités nucléaires. Ce refus permanent de compromis est vital pour le régime. (…) Il n’y a rien qui fasse plus peur aux mollahs qu’un réchauffement avec les Etats-Unis : ils risquent d’y perdre la rue arabe, puis le pouvoir. C’est pourquoi, le 9 septembre, quand Téhéran a accepté une rencontre pour désactiver les sanctions promises en juillet, il s’est aussitôt mis en action pour faire capoter ce projet de dialogue apaisé qui est un véritable danger pour sa survie. Iran Resist
La politique étrangère des pays industrialisés ne doit pas devenir l’otage des pays producteurs de pétrole. Henry Kissinger
Certains semblent croire que nous devrions négocier avec des terroristes et des radicaux, comme si un discours ingénieux suffisait à persuader ces derniers qu’ils se trompent depuis le début. Nous avons déjà entendu cette illusion ridicule par le passé. Lorsque les chars nazis marchaient sur la Pologne en 1939, un sénateur américain avait dit: ‘Monsieur, si seulement nous avions pu parler à Hitler, tout cela ne serait jamais arrivé. Nous avons l’obligation d’appeler cela le confort illusoire de l’apaisement, qui a été discrédité à maintes reprises dans l’Histoire. George Bush (devant le parlement israélien, le 15 mai 2008)
For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.(…) Still, the ultimate significance of the framework will depend on its verifiability and enforceability. Negotiating the final agreement will be extremely challenging. For one thing, no official text has yet been published. The so-called framework represents a unilateral American interpretation. Some of its clauses have been dismissed by the principal Iranian negotiator as “spin.” A joint EU-Iran statement differs in important respects, especially with regard to the lifting of sanctions and permitted research and development. (…) Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment? In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging. (…) The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran. (…) The interim agreement accepted Iranian enrichment; the new agreement makes it an integral part of the architecture. For the U.S., a decade-long restriction on Iran’s nuclear capacity is a possibly hopeful interlude. For Iran’s neighbors—who perceive their imperatives in terms of millennial rivalries—it is a dangerous prelude to an even more dangerous permanent fact of life. Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible. If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? (…) Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment? Some have suggested the U.S. can dissuade Iran’s neighbors from developing individual deterrent capacities by extending an American nuclear umbrella to them. But how will these guarantees be defined? What factors will govern their implementation? Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? (…) What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail?(…) Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means. The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts. (…) If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order. Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms.Henry Kissinger and George Schultz
L’argument selon lequel la liberté ne peut venir que de l’intérieur et ne peut être offerte à des peuples lointains est bien plus fausse que l’on croit. Dans toute l’histoire moderne, la fortune de la liberté a toujours dépendu de la volonté de la ou des puissances dominantes du moment. Le tout récemment disparu professeur Samuel P. Huntington avait développé ce point de la manière la plus détaillée. Dans 15 des 29 pays démocratiques en 1970, les régimes démocratiques avaient été soit initiés par une puissance étrangère soit étaient le produit de l’indépendance contre une occupation étrangère. (…) Tout au long du flux et du reflux de la liberté, la puissance est toujours restée importante et la liberté a toujours eu besoin de la protection de grandes puissances. Le pouvoir d’attraction des pamphlets de Mill, Locke et Paine était fondé sur les canons de la Pax Britannica, et sur la force de l’Amérique quand la puissance britannique a flanché. (…) L’ironie est maintenant évidente: George W. Bush comme force pour l’émancipation des terres musulmanes et Barack Hussein Obama en messager des bonnes vieilles habitudes. Ainsi c’est le plouc qui porte au monde le message que les musulmans et les Arabes n’ont pas la tyrannie dans leur ADN et l’homme aux fragments musulmans, kenyans et indonésiens dans sa propre vie et son identité qui annonce son acceptation de l’ordre établi. Mr. Obama pourrait encore reconnaître l’impact révolutionnaire de la diplomatie de son prédecesseur mais jusqu’à présent il s’est refusé à le faire. (…) Son soutien au » processus de paix » est un retour à la diplomatie stérile des années Clinton, avec sa croyance que le terrorisme prend sa source dans les revendications des Palestiniens. M. Obama et ses conseillers se sont gardés d’affirmer que le terrorisme a disparu, mais il y a un message indubitable donné par eux que nous pouvons retourner à nos propres affaires, que Wall Street est plus mortel et dangereux que la fameuse » rue arabo-musulmane ». Fouad Ajami
Les dirigeants iraniens ont déjà obtenu toutes les concessions imaginables de la part d’une administration Obama qui est prête à tout pour qu’un accord soit signé et pour qu’au bout du processus, Obama soit sur la photo, à côté de Rouhani, mais toutes les concessions imaginables ne leur suffisent pas. Ils veulent davantage : l’humiliation des Etats-Unis et d’Obama. Et ils ne désespèrent pas obtenir ce qu’ils veulent. Il leur suffit pour cela de demander toujours ce qu’ils savent que leurs interlocuteurs ne pourront pas accepter sans se rouler dans la fange. Ils savent qu’Obama ira jusqu’à se rouler dans la fange : c’est d’ailleurs ce qu’il a commencé à faire en tenant un discours grotesque en lequel il y a deux ou trois mensonges par phrase. Les dirigeants iraniens sont à la tête, nombre de commentateurs l’oublient, d’un régime révolutionnaire et islamique. Ils ne veulent pas s’entendre avec les Etats-Unis : cela, ils pourraient l’obtenir aisément dans les circonstances présentes. Ils veulent la défaite des Etats-Unis. Ils ne veulent pas se voir reconnus en tant que puissance importante : cela, ils l’ont obtenu avec le cycle de négociations qui ne s’achève pas, et qui amènent autour de la table pour des journées entières ministres et délégations. Ils veulent que leur reconnaissance comme puissance importante soit accompagnée d’un abaissement du monde occidental tout entier. Ils ne veulent pas seulement obtenir une position de puissance hégémonique sur tout le Proche-Orient : cela, ils l’ont quasiment déjà obtenu aussi, grâce à tout ce qui leur a déjà été concédé. Ils veulent obtenir les moyens d’en finir avec Israël, et avec les régimes sunnites du statu quo (Jordanie, Egypte, Arabie Saoudite). Et il faut le dire, hélas : ils sont en train d’obtenir la défaite des Etats-Unis. Ils ont pour cela des alliés de poids : Barack Obama, et John Kerry eux-mêmes. La guerre et le chaos qui embrasent peu à peu tout le Proche-Orient, et qui débordent sur l’Afrique sont l’œuvre de l’action d’Obama depuis six ans, et de Kerry depuis qu’il est Secrétaire d’Etat. Obama et Kerry ont semé la guerre et le chaos dans tout le Proche-Orient et dans une part importante de l’Afrique. Ils ont placé les Etats-Unis dans une situation où les ennemis des Etats-Unis voient en eux des crétins à jeter après usage, et où les amis des Etats-Unis voient en eux des imbéciles dangereux et sans aucune fiabilité. Ils ne maîtrisent quasiment plus rien. Obama mériterait, si ce prix existait, un prix Nobel du désastre. (…) La doctrine Obama, que la plupart des journalistes ne veulent pas voir, aux fins de parler comme si elle n’existait pas, voulait la défaite des Etats-Unis, l’hégémonie régionale de l’Iran, l’abaissement du monde occidental en son ensemble. Elle voulait l’asphyxie d’Israël aux fins de lâcher Israël aux chiens islamistes. Elle voulait le renversement des régimes sunnites du statu quo, au profit des Frères Musulmans. Elle a tout obtenu, sauf les deux derniers points. Il lui reste moins de deux ans. Les attaques de l’administration Obama contre Israël, sur le terrain diplomatique, voire sur d’autres terrains, vont redoubler d’intensité.Guy Millière
Tout au long de sa phénoménale carrière publique, il n’aura cessé d’adopter des postures consternantes. «Homme de gauche», absolument de gauche, il aura épousé toutes les mauvaises causes de sa génération sans en manquer aucune, aura approuvé toutes les révolutions sanguinaires, de Cuba à la Chine. Toujours disposé à accabler ces fascistes d’Américains, Ronald Reagan et, bien sûr, George W. Bush (c’est sans risque), l’a-t-on en revanche entendu, ne serait-ce qu’un peu, dénoncer le fascisme de Mao Zedong ? Ou celui des islamistes ?(…) Comment s’interdire de songer à cette génération entière d’intellectuels et d’artistes en Europe, en France surtout, autoproclamée de gauche – au point que le mot ne fait plus sens –, qui n’ont cessé d’adopter des postures morales tout en illustrant des causes absolument immorales ? Comment ne pas voir surgir des spectres : ceux qui hier, ont aimé Staline et Mao et, bientôt, vont pleurer Castro ? Ceux qui n’ont rien vu à Moscou, Pékin, La Havane, Téhéran, Sarajevo, et Billancourt ? Ceux qui, maintenant, devinent dans l’islamisme une rédemption de l’0ccident ? Cette grande armée des spectres, de l’erreur absolue, dieu merci, elle n’a jamais cessé de se tromper d’avenir. (…) Par-delà ce cas singulier, on ne se méfie pas assez du grand écrivain et de la star dès qu’ils abusent de leur séduction pour propager des opinions politiques, seulement politiques, mais déguisées autrement. (…) On se garde de l’homme politique, l’élu démocratique, beaucoup trop puisqu’il avance à découvert. On ne se garde pas assez, en revanche, de l’artiste quand son talent le dissimule, surtout quand le talent est grand : des magiciens, grimés en moralistes, on ne se méfie jamais assez.Guy Sorman (sur Gunther Grass)
Combien de temps les grandes démocraties peuvent-elles survivre face à la capacité de la télévision à faire ressembler certains d’entre nous aux dieux qu’ils ne sont pas? Peter Hitchens (2007)
The candidate is already 2007’s champion fundraiser. He has momentum. Old Clinton stalwarts desert Hillary to serve at his side. It must be a Democrat for the White House next time, they say, and this guy, this eloquent, thoughtful, handsome, black guy, is the real deal. Why, didn’t his quasi-autobiography cum manifesto, sell 1.3 million copies, top the New York Times list and win glowing reviews to boot? And didn’t he write it (rather mellifluously) himself? Look, no ghost hands here! So The Audacity of Hope invites sterner scrutiny than your average political potboiler. It is a presidential calling card. It may be all our futures. And there is fascination as the pages turn. In one sense, Barack Obama defies easy categorisation: ‘The child of a black man and white woman, born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a sister who’s half-Indonesian … a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese descent, some blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for [black comedy actor] Bernie Mac.’ No wonder family Christmases are like the United Nations General Assembly, he writes. No wonder, either, that he can open windows to a wider world of understanding. (…) Yes … but is he a President? Does he know more about climate change than Al Gore, more about high office than Hillary Clinton, more about glad-handing and rubber-chicken dinners than John Edwards? There’s the difficulty. (…) Why The Audacity of Hope? Why not ‘The Mendacity of Despair’ or any permutation between? There’s nothing particularly daring about the prudent non-specifics he peddles most of the time. (Indeed, his middle-way title might best have been ‘The Sagacity of Further Thought’.) And his onerously repetitive chapter structure also casts a pall if you read too much, too fast. Take an event, maybe a day in the Senate, all personal achievements listed, a moment of prayer, a flying official visit to Iraq, then add anecdotes and personal conversations to taste. Obama could go hither and yonder by private jet, but he likes sweating in a coach and talking to ordinary Joes on the baggage line. Then build a brisk philosophical edifice on these emotions and encounters, opening out (as the ‘Faith’ chapter turns into the ‘Race’ chapter) into hints of what his policy might be when the time is ripe to formulate one. (…) Tired of confrontations between brutal neocons and old-style liberals locked in a time warp? Discover the joys of compromise and intelligent discussion with Obama: make positive consensus your theme for the 21st century. It is not a particularly invigorating thesis at this stage of development. It can be boiled down to the simple injunction: try to be nicer to people, wherever possible. (…) Do you sense a lurking lack of stamina, a slightly oddball compulsion to contemplation? Is the deal really real? Where’s the fine line between empathy and sanctimony? Where’s the depth of experience?The Observer (2007)
Ce qui rendait Obama unique, c’est qu’il était le politicien charismatique par excellence – le plus total inconnu à jamais accéder à la présidence aux Etats-Unis. Personne ne savait qui il était, il sortait de nulle part, il avait cette figure incroyable qui l’a catapulté au-dessus de la mêlée, il a annihilé Hillary, pris le contrôle du parti Démocrate et est devenu président. C’est vraiment sans précédent : un jeune inconnu sans histoire, dossiers, associés bien connus, auto-créé. Il y avait une bonne volonté énorme, même moi j’étais aux anges le jour de l’élection, quoique j’aie voté contre lui et me sois opposé à son élection. C’était rédempteur pour un pays qui a commencé dans le péché de l’esclavage de voir le jour, je ne croyais pas personnellement le voir jamais de mon vivant, quand un président noir serait élu. Certes, il n’était pas mon candidat. J’aurais préféré que le premier président noir soit quelqu’un d’idéologiquement plus à mon goût, comme par exemple Colin Powell (que j’ai encouragé à se présenter en 2000) ou Condoleezza Rice. Mais j’étais vraiment fier d’être Américain à la prestation de serment. Je reste fier de ce succès historique. (…) il s’avère qu’il est de gauche, non du centre-droit à la manière de Bill Clinton. L’analogie que je donne est qu’en Amérique nous jouons le jeu entre les lignes des 40 yards, en Europe vous jouez tout le terrain d’une ligne de but à l’autre. Vous avez les partis communistes, vous avez les partis fascistes, nous, on n’a pas ça, on a des partis très centristes. Alors qu’ Obama veut nous pousser aux 30 yards, ce qui pour l’Amérique est vraiment loin. Juste après son élection, il s’est adressé au Congrès et a promis en gros de refaire les piliers de la société américaine — éducation, énergie et soins de santé. Tout ceci déplacerait l’Amérique vers un Etat de type social-démocrate européen, ce qui est en dehors de la norme pour l’Amérique. (…) Obama a mal interprété son mandat. Il a été élu six semaines après un effondrement financier comme il n’y en avait jamais eu en 60 ans ; après huit ans d’une présidence qui avait fatigué le pays; au milieu de deux guerres qui ont fait que le pays s’est opposé au gouvernement républicain qui nous avait lancé dans ces guerres; et contre un adversaire complètement inepte, John McCain. Et pourtant, Obama n’a gagné que par 7 points. Mais il a cru que c’était un grand mandat général et qu’il pourrait mettre en application son ordre du jour social-démocrate. (…) sa vision du monde me semble si naïve que je ne suis même pas sûr qu’il est capable de développer une doctrine. Il a la vision d’un monde régulé par des normes internationales auto-suffisantes, où la paix est gardée par un certain genre de consensus international vague, quelque chose appelé la communauté internationale, qui pour moi est une fiction, via des agences internationales évidemment insatisfaisantes et sans valeur. Je n’éleverais pas ce genre de pensée au niveau d’ une doctrine parce que j’ai trop de respect pour le mot de doctrine. (…) Peut-être que quand il aboutira à rien sur l’Iran, rien sur la Corée du Nord, quand il n’obtiendra rien des Russes en échange de ce qu’il a fait aux Polonais et aux Tchèques, rien dans les négociations de paix au Moyen-Orient – peut-être qu’à ce moment-là, il commencera à se demander si le monde fonctionne vraiment selon des normes internationales, le consensus et la douceur et la lumière ou s’il repose sur la base de la puissance américaine et occidentale qui, au bout du compte, garantit la paix. (…) Henry Kissinger a dit une fois que la paix peut être réalisée seulement de deux manières : l’hégémonie ou l’équilibre des forces. Ca, c’est du vrai réalisme. Ce que l’administration Obama prétend être du réalisme est du non-sens naïf.Charles Krauthammer
The current troubles of the Obama presidency can be read back into its beginnings. Rule by personal charisma has met its proper fate. The spell has been broken, and the magician stands exposed. We need no pollsters to tell us of the loss of faith in Mr. Obama’s policies—and, more significantly, in the man himself. Charisma is like that. Crowds come together and they project their needs onto an imagined redeemer. The redeemer leaves the crowd to its imagination: For as long as the charismatic moment lasts — a year, an era — the redeemer is above and beyond judgment. He glides through crises, he knits together groups of varied, often clashing, interests. Always there is that magical moment, and its beauty, as a reference point. Mr. Obama gave voice to this sentiment in a speech on Nov. 6 in Dallas: « Sometimes I worry because everybody had such a fun experience in ’08, at least that’s how it seemed in retrospect. And, ‘yes we can,’ and the slogans and the posters, et cetera, sometimes I worry that people forget change in this country has always been hard. » It’s a pity we can’t stay in that moment, says the redeemer: The fault lies in the country itself — everywhere, that is, except in the magician’s performance. (…) Five years on, we can still recall how the Obama coalition was formed. There were the African-Americans justifiably proud of one of their own. There were upper-class white professionals who were drawn to the candidate’s « cool. » There were Latinos swayed by the promise of immigration reform. The white working class in the Rust Belt was the last bloc to embrace Mr. Obama—he wasn’t one of them, but they put their reservations aside during an economic storm and voted for the redistributive state and its protections. There were no economic or cultural bonds among this coalition. There was the new leader, all things to all people. A nemesis awaited the promise of this new presidency: Mr. Obama would turn out to be among the most polarizing of American leaders. No, it wasn’t his race, as Harry Reid would contend, that stirred up the opposition to him. It was his exalted views of himself, and his mission. The sharp lines were sharp between those who raised his banners and those who objected to his policies. (…) A leader who set out to remake the health-care system in the country, a sixth of the national economy, on a razor-thin majority with no support whatsoever from the opposition party, misunderstood the nature of democratic politics. An election victory is the beginning of things, not the culmination. With Air Force One and the other prerogatives of office come the need for compromise, and for the disputations of democracy. A president who sought consensus would have never left his agenda on Capitol Hill in the hands of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Obama has shown scant regard for precedent in American history. To him, and to the coterie around him, his presidency was a radical discontinuity in American politics. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Obama read, with discernment and appreciation, of the ordeal and struggles of his predecessors. At best there was a willful reading of that history. Early on, he was Abraham Lincoln resurrected (the new president, who hailed from Illinois, took the oath of office on the Lincoln Bible). He had been sworn in during an economic crisis, and thus he was FDR restored to the White House. He was stylish with two young children, so the Kennedy precedent was on offer. In the oddest of twists, Mr. Obama claimed that his foreign policy was in the mold of Dwight Eisenhower’s. But Eisenhower knew war and peace, and the foreign world held him in high regard. During his first campaign, Mr. Obama had paid tribute to Ronald Reagan as a « transformational » president and hinted that he aspired to a presidency of that kind. But the Reagan presidency was about America, and never about Ronald Reagan. Reagan was never a scold or a narcissist. He stood in awe of America, and of its capacity for renewal. There was forgiveness in Reagan, right alongside the belief in the things that mattered about America—free people charting their own path. If Barack Obama seems like a man alone, with nervous Democrats up for re-election next year running for cover, and away from him, this was the world he made. No advisers of stature can question his policies; the price of access in the Obama court is quiescence before the leader’s will. The imperial presidency is in full bloom. There are no stars in the Obama cabinet today, men and women of independent stature and outlook. It was after a walk on the White House grounds with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, that Mr. Obama called off the attacks on the Syrian regime that he had threatened. If he had taken that walk with Henry Kissinger or George Shultz, one of those skilled statesmen might have explained to him the consequences of so abject a retreat. But Mr. Obama needs no sage advice, he rules through political handlers. Valerie Jarrett, the president’s most trusted, probably most powerful, aide, once said in admiration that Mr. Obama has been bored his whole life. The implication was that he is above things, a man alone, and anointed. Perhaps this moment—a presidency coming apart, the incompetent social engineering of an entire health-care system—will now claim Mr. Obama’s attention. Fouad Ajami
Les lamentations sur ce qui est advenu de la politique étrangère américaine au Moyen-Orient passent à côté de l’essentiel. Le plus remarquable concernant la diplomatie du président Obama dans la région, c’est qu’elle est revenue au point de départ – jusqu’au début de sa présidence. La promesse d’ « ouverture » vers l’Iran, l’indulgence envers la tyrannie de Bashar Assad en Syrie, l’abandon des gains américains en Irak et le malaise systématique à l’égard d’Israël — tels étaient les traits distinctifs de l’approche du nouveau président en politique étrangère. A présent, nous ne faisons qu’assister aux conséquences alarmantes d’une perspective aussi malavisée que naïve.Fouad Ajami (oct. 2013)
Passage en revue des erreurs commises. En Libye, on a aidé au renversement de Mouammar Kadhafi, ce qui a entraîné l’anarchie et la guerre civile. En Égypte, on a poussé Hosni Moubarak à la démission et soutenu ensuite les Frères Musulmans, ce qui a conduit l’actuel président Sissi à se tourner vers Moscou. On s’est aliéné le gouvernement israélien qui était l’allié le plus solide dans la région. On a considéré l’EIIL comme une équipe de jeunes amateurs, jusqu’à ce qu’il s’empare de villes importantes. On a salué le Yémen comme une réussite de la lutte contre le terrorisme juste avant que son gouvernement soit renversé. On a alerté l’Arabie Saoudite au point que celle-ci a mis sur pied une coalition militaire contre l’Iran. En Turquie, on a ménagé Recep Tayyip Erdoğan au point d’encourager ses penchants dictatoriaux. On a quitté l’Irak et l’Afghanistan prématurément, condamnant ainsi l’investissement considérable des États-Unis dans ces deux pays. Et le pire de tout : on a conclu des accords dangereusement boiteux avec des mollahs iraniens aux ambitions nucléaires. Cette série d’erreurs est-elle le fruit du hasard et d’un gouvernement incompétent ou y a-t-il une grande – mais fausse – idée derrière tout cela ? Dans une certaine mesure, il s’agit d’une attitude inepte : dans un premier temps, Obama s’est incliné devant le roi saoudien et a menacé le gouvernement syrien à propos des armes chimiques avant de changer d’avis ; en outre il envoie l’armée américaine pour aider Téhéran en Irak alors qu’il combat l’Iran au Yémen. Mais il y a également derrière tout cela une grande idée qui nécessite des explications. En tant qu’homme de gauche, Obama voit les États-Unis comme un pays qui, dans l’histoire, a exercé sur le reste du monde une influence néfaste et dont les compagnies avides, l’ensemble militaro-industriel surpuissant, le nationalisme grossier, le racisme invétéré et l’impérialisme culturel ont, en fin de compte, fait de l’Amérique une force du mal. En tant qu’élève de l’organisateur communautaire Saul Alinsky, Obama n’a pas exprimé ouvertement ce point de vue, mais il s’est fait passer pour un patriote, quoiqu’il ait (lui et sa charmante épouse) manifesté occasionnellement des opinions radicales au sujet de la « transformation fondamentale des États-Unis ». Dans sa course à la présidence, Obama a changé progressivement car, soucieux d’être réélu, il était peu enclin à susciter l’inquiétude. Mais maintenant qu’il a passé six années au pouvoir et que son héritage reste désormais la seule source d’inquiétude, Obama se révèle dans toute sa splendeur. Saul Alinsky, l’organisateur communautaire par excellence (et que l’auteur de cet article à rencontré vers 1965). La Doctrine Obama est simple et universelle : relations chaleureuses avec les adversaires et distantes avec les amis. Daniel Pipes
Chaos libyen, abandon de Moubarak au profit des Frères musulmans, désaffection pro-russe de l’actuel président égyptien, rejet d’Israël, encouragement de l’autocratisme turc ou cubain, abandon au chaos djihadiste de l’Irak et bientôt de l’Afghanistan, mépris de « l’équipe junior » de l’Etat islamique, célébration du succès contre-terroriste du Yémen juste avant sa chute, abandon de l’Arabie soaudite face à l’Iran, blanc-seing à l’Etat terroriste iranien …
Y a-t-il une mauvaise cause que le président Obama n’aura pas épousée ?
Alors que pour ceux qui ne l’avaient pas encore compris, l’accident industriel qui sert actuellement de président à nos amis américains et de chef du Monde libre au reste d’entre nous …
Est en train, avec la cerise sur le gâteau de son dernier pré-accord avec les mollahs, de démontrer l’inépuisable ingéniosité de sa recherche des erreurs à faire pour meubler ses deux dernières années au pouvoir …
Petit décryptage croisé avec l’islamologue Daniel Pipes et le maitre-serveur de soupe du New York Times Thomas Friedman …
Sur la désormais fameuse Doctrine Obama …
Qui se révèle en fait – où avions-nous la tête ? – être tout simplement dans le titre de son premier livre …
James Jeffrey, ancien ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de Barack Obama en Irak, a déclaré à propos des résultats enregistrés actuellement par les États-Unis au Moyen-Orient : « Nous sommes en pleine chute libre. »
Passage en revue des erreurs commises. En Libye, on a aidé au renversement de Mouammar Kadhafi, ce qui a entraîné l’anarchie et la guerre civile. En Égypte, on a poussé Hosni Moubarak à la démission et soutenu ensuite les Frères Musulmans, ce qui a conduit l’actuel président Sissi à se tourner vers Moscou. On s’est aliéné le gouvernement israélien qui était l’allié le plus solide dans la région. On a considéré l’EIIL comme une équipe de jeunes amateurs, jusqu’à ce qu’il s’empare de villes importantes. On a salué le Yémen comme une réussite de la lutte contre le terrorisme juste avant que son gouvernement soit renversé. On a alerté l’Arabie Saoudite au point que celle-ci a mis sur pied une coalition militaire contre l’Iran. En Turquie, on a ménagé Recep Tayyip Erdoğan au point d’encourager ses penchants dictatoriaux. On a quitté l’Irak et l’Afghanistan prématurément, condamnant ainsi l’investissement considérable des États-Unis dans ces deux pays.
Et le pire de tout : on a conclu des accords dangereusement boiteux avec des mollahs iraniens aux ambitions nucléaires.
Le sort de Kadhafi en Libye est-il un succès pour Obama ?
Cette série d’erreurs est-elle le fruit du hasard et d’un gouvernement incompétent ou y a-t-il une grande – mais fausse – idée derrière tout cela ? Dans une certaine mesure, il s’agit d’une attitude inepte : dans un premier temps, Obama s’est incliné devant le roi saoudien et a menacé le gouvernement syrien à propos des armes chimiques avant de changer d’avis ; en outre il envoie l’armée américaine pour aider Téhéran en Irak alors qu’il combat l’Iran au Yémen.
Mais il y a également derrière tout cela une grande idée qui nécessite des explications. En tant qu’homme de gauche, Obama voit les États-Unis comme un pays qui, dans l’histoire, a exercé sur le reste du monde une influence néfaste et dont les compagnies avides, l’ensemble militaro-industriel surpuissant, le nationalisme grossier, le racisme invétéré et l’impérialisme culturel ont, en fin de compte, fait de l’Amérique une force du mal.
En tant qu’élève de l’organisateur communautaire Saul Alinsky, Obama n’a pas exprimé ouvertement ce point de vue, mais il s’est fait passer pour un patriote, quoiqu’il ait (lui et sa charmante épouse) manifesté occasionnellement des opinions radicales au sujet de la « transformation fondamentale des États-Unis ». Dans sa course à la présidence, Obama a changé progressivement car, soucieux d’être réélu, il était peu enclin à susciter l’inquiétude. Mais maintenant qu’il a passé six années au pouvoir et que son héritage reste désormais la seule source d’inquiétude, Obama se révèle dans toute sa splendeur.
Saul Alinsky, l’organisateur communautaire par excellence (et que l’auteur de cet article à rencontré vers 1965).
La Doctrine Obama est simple et universelle : relations chaleureuses avec les adversaires et distantes avec les amis.
Plusieurs idées préconçues sont à la base d’une telle approche : le gouvernement américain doit, sur le plan moral, compenser ses erreurs antérieures ; faire bonne figure avec des États hostiles incitera ceux-ci à en faire autant ; l’usage de la force crée plus de problèmes qu’il n’en résout ; les alliés, partenaires et soutiens historiques des États-Unis sont des complices moralement inférieurs. Au Moyen-Orient, cela signifie tendre la main à des révisionnistes (Erdoğan, les Frères Musulmans, la République islamique d’Iran) et écarter les gouvernements coopérants (Égypte, Israël, Arabie Saoudite).
Parmi tous ces acteurs, deux sortent du lot : l’Iran et Israël. L’établissement de bonnes relations avec Téhéran apparaît comme la grande préoccupation d’Obama. Comme l’a montré Michael Doran de l’Hudson Institute, Obama a travaillé pendant toute sa présidence à faire de l’Iran ce qu’il appelle « une puissance régionale qui réussit… dans le respect des normes et conventions internationales. » Par contre, les relations amicales qu’il entretenait avant sa présidence avec des antisionistes agressifs comme Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi et Edward Saïd, indiquent la profondeur de son hostilité envers l’État juif.
La Doctrine Obama permet de comprendre ce qui, sans elle, serait impénétrable. Ainsi, elle explique pourquoi le gouvernement américain a joyeusement passé l’éponge sur le cri outrageant de « Mort à l’Amérique » poussé en mars dernier par le guide suprême iranien, comme s’il n’avait été lancé que pour contenter les Iraniens, et ce au moment même où Obama se rangeait à l’avis donné presque simultanément par le Premier ministre israélien en campagne électorale et selon lequel il rejetait la solution à deux États avec les Palestiniens aussi longtemps que durerait son mandat (« nous le prenons au mot »).
Le guide suprême iranien, Ali Khamenei, a beau parler, Obama n’en tient aucun compte.
La Doctrine donne également les lignes directrices qui laissent présager de quoi sera fait le reste du mandat d’Obama. À titre d’exemples, ces misérables accords des 5+1 avec l’Iran qui contraindront le gouvernement israélien à attaquer les installations nucléaires iraniennes, cette politique de modération avec Damas qui laissera la voie libre au régime d’Assad pour redéployer son pouvoir ou encore le choix d’Ankara de provoquer une crise en Méditerranée orientale à propos des réserves de gaz et de pétrole chypriotes.
La grande question qui se pose désormais est celle de savoir comment, dans leur grande sagesse, les Américains jugeront la Doctrine Obama quand ils voteront dans 19 mois pour les prochaines présidentielles. Rejetteront-ils sa politique d’atermoiements et de contrition, comme ils l’ont fait en 1980 quand ils ont élu Ronald Reagan de préférence à Jimmy Carter ? Ou vont-ils choisir de prolonger cette politique pour quatre années de plus et faire ainsi de la Doctrine Obama la nouvelle norme et des Américains, des masochistes rongés par le remords comme on en voit tant en Europe ?
Le jugement qu’ils rendront en 2016 pourrait avoir des implications historiques à l’échelle mondiale.
Obama on Iran and His View of the World
In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, President Obama says that his policy of engagement in Iran and elsewhere doesn’t mean the United States isn’t ready to defend its interests or that of its allies.
In September 1996, I visited Iran. One of my most enduring memories of that trip was that in my hotel lobby there was a sign above the door proclaiming “Down With USA.” But it wasn’t a banner or graffiti. It was tiled and plastered into the wall. I thought to myself: “Wow — that’s tiled in there! That won’t come out easily.” Nearly 20 years later, in the wake of a draft deal between the Obama administration and Iran, we have what may be the best chance to begin to pry that sign loose, to ease the U.S.-Iran cold/hot war that has roiled the region for 36 years. But it is a chance fraught with real risks to America, Israel and our Sunni Arab allies: that Iran could eventually become a nuclear-armed state.
President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran. Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.
President Obama lays out his preference for engagement over isolation in his approach to foreign policy. This is an excerpt of an interview with Thomas L. Friedman.
“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that’s the thing … people don’t seem to understand,” the president said. “You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”
The notion that Iran is undeterrable — “it’s simply not the case,” he added. “And so for us to say, ‘Let’s try’ — understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that we’re not naïve — but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place. … We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”
Obviously, Israel is in a different situation, he added. “Now, what you might hear from Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, which I respect, is the notion, ‘Look, Israel is more vulnerable. We don’t have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do,’ and I completely understand that. And further, I completely understand Israel’s belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people, they can’t be dependent solely on us for their own security. But what I would say to them is that not only am I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them. And that, I think, should be … sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table.”
He added: “What I would say to the Israeli people is … that there is no formula, there is no option, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward — and that’s demonstrable.”
The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.
With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.
“This is an area that I’ve been concerned about,” the president said. “Look, Israel is a robust, rowdy democracy. … We share so much. We share blood, family. … And part of what has always made the U.S.-Israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party, and I think that has to be preserved. There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as … opposing Israel. There has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti-Democrat, and I think the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have, there are going to be strategic differences. And I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side. … But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It’s been a hard period.”ry
You take it personally? I asked.
“It has been personally difficult for me to hear … expressions that somehow … this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”
As for protecting our Sunni Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, the president said, they have some very real external threats, but they also have some internal threats — “populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances. And so part of our job is to work with these states and say, ‘How can we build your defense capabilities against external threats, but also, how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries, so that Sunni youth feel that they’ve got something other than [the Islamic State, or ISIS] to choose from. … I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. … That’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”
That said, the Iran deal is far from finished. As the president cautioned: “We’re not done yet. There are a lot of details to be worked out, and you could see backtracking and slippage and real political difficulties, both in Iran and obviously here in the United States Congress.”
On Congress’s role, Obama said he insists on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval. However, he added, “I do think that [Tennessee Republican] Senator Corker, the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, is somebody who is sincerely concerned about this issue and is a good and decent man, and my hope is that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives — and ensures that, if in fact we get a good deal, that we can go ahead and implement it.”
Since President Obama has had more direct and indirect dealings with Iran’s leadership — including an exchange of numerous letters with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — than any of his predecessors since Iran’s revolution in 1979, I asked what he has learned from the back and forth.
“I think that it’s important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country — just like we’re a complicated country,” the president said. “There is no doubt that, given the history between our two countries, that there is deep mistrust that is not going to fade away immediately. The activities that they engage in, the rhetoric, both anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, is deeply disturbing. There are deep trends in the country that are contrary to not only our own national security interests and views but those of our allies and friends in the region, and those divisions are real.”
But, he added, “what we’ve also seen is that there is a practical streak to the Iranian regime. I think they are concerned about self-preservation. I think they are responsive, to some degree, to their publics. I think the election of [President Hassan] Rouhani indicated that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community, an emphasis on the economics and the desire to link up with a global economy. And so what we’ve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction. It’s not a radical break, but it’s one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that.”
What about Iran’s supreme leader, who will be the ultimate decider there on whether or not Iran moves ahead? What have you learned about him?
“He’s a pretty tough read,” the president said. “I haven’t spoken to him directly. In the letters that he sends, there [are] typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances against Iran, but what is, I think, telling is that he did give his negotiators in this deal the leeway, the capability to make important concessions, that would allow this framework agreement to come to fruition. So what that tells me is that — although he is deeply suspicious of the West [and] very insular in how he thinks about international issues as well as domestic issues, and deeply conservative — he does realize that the sanctions regime that we put together was weakening Iran over the long term, and that if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter the community of nations, then there were going to have to be changes.”
Since he has acknowledged Israel’s concerns, and the fact that they are widely shared there, if the president had a chance to make his case for this framework deal directly to the Israeli people, what would he say?
“Well, what I’d say to them is this,” the president answered. “You have every right to be concerned about Iran. This is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel, that has denied the Holocaust, that has expressed venomous anti-Semitic ideas and is a big country with a big population and has a sophisticated military. So Israel is right to be concerned about Iran, and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” But, he insisted, this framework initiative, if it can be implemented, can satisfy that Israeli strategic concern with more effectiveness and at less cost to Israel than any other approach. “We know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’
Continue reading the main story
“We know that if we do nothing, other than just maintain sanctions, that they will continue with the building of their nuclear infrastructure and we’ll have less insight into what exactly is happening,” Obama added. “So this may not be optimal. In a perfect world, Iran would say, ‘We won’t have any nuclear infrastructure at all,’ but what we know is that this has become a matter of pride and nationalism for Iran. Even those who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran, and given that they will not capitulate completely, given that they can’t meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth, there are no Iranian leaders who will do that. And given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead, they’ve shown themselves willing, I think, to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or, in some cases, national survival.”
The president continued: “For us to examine those options and say to ourselves, ‘You know what, if we can have vigorous inspections, unprecedented, and we know at every point along their nuclear chain exactly what they’re doing and that lasts for 20 years, and for the first 10 years their program is not just frozen but effectively rolled back to a larger degree, and we know that even if they wanted to cheat we would have at least a year, which is about three times longer than we’d have right now, and we would have insights into their programs that we’ve never had before,’ in that circumstance, the notion that we wouldn’t take that deal right now and that that would not be in Israel’s interest is simply incorrect.”
Because, Obama argued, “the one thing that changes the equation is when these countries get a nuclear weapon. … Witness North Korea, which is a problem state that is rendered a lot more dangerous because of their nuclear program. If we can prevent that from happening anyplace else in the world, that’s something where it’s worth taking some risks.”
“I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have,” he added, “and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this, but what I can say to them is: Number one, this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, and number two, what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel, America will be there. And I think the combination of a diplomatic path that puts the nuclear issue to one side — while at the same time sending a clear message to the Iranians that you have to change your behavior more broadly and that we are going to protect our allies if you continue to engage in destabilizing aggressive activity — I think that’s a combination that potentially at least not only assures our friends, but starts bringing down the temperature.”
There is clearly a debate going on inside Iran as to whether the country should go ahead with this framework deal as well, so what would the president say to the Iranian people to persuade them that this deal is in their interest?
If their leaders really are telling the truth that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, the president said, then “the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people, and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms, that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them. Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region. For that matter, what I’d say to the Iranian people is: You don’t need to be anti-Semitic or anti-Israel or anti-Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region. I mean, the truth is, Iran has all these potential assets going for it where, if it was a responsible international player, if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors, if it didn’t express anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment, if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself, but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region, by virtue of its size, its resources and its people it would be an extremely successful regional power. And so my hope is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that.”
Clearly, he added, “part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past. … But if we’re able to get this done, then what may happen — and I’m not counting on it — but what may happen is that those forces inside of Iran that say, ‘We don’t need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine. Let’s excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people,’ that those folks get stronger. … I say that emphasizing that the nuclear deal that we’ve put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes.
“It is a good deal even if Iran doesn’t change at all,” Obama argued. “Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.”
Continue reading the main story
There are several very sensitive points in the framework agreement that are not clear to me, and I asked the president for his interpretation. For instance, if we suspect that Iran is cheating, is harboring a covert nuclear program outside of the declared nuclear facilities covered in this deal — say, at a military base in southeastern Iran — do we have the right to insist on that facility being examined by international inspectors?
“In the first instance, what we have agreed to is that we will be able to inspect and verify what’s happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz,” the president said. “What that means is that we’re not just going to have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites. We are going to be able to see what they’re doing across the board, and in fact, if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon, they’d have to create a whole different supply chain. That’s point number one. Point number two, we’re actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what they’re importing, what they’re bringing in that they might claim as dual-use, to determine whether or not what they’re using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program. And number three, what we’re going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors can go anyplace.”
Anywhere in Iran? I asked.
“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”
A lot of people, myself included, will want to see the fine print on that. Another issue that doesn’t seem to have been resolved yet is: When exactly do the economic sanctions on Iran get lifted? When the implementation begins? When Iran has been deemed to be complying fully?
“There are still details to be worked out,” the president said, “but I think that the basic framework calls for Iran to take the steps that it needs to around [the Fordow enrichment facility], the centrifuges, and so forth. At that point, then, the U.N. sanctions are suspended; although the sanctions related to proliferation, the sanctions related to ballistic missiles, there’s a set of sanctions that remain in place. At that point, then, we preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions, if there is a violation. If not, though, Iran, outside of the proliferation and ballistic missile issues that stay in place, they’re able to get out from under the sanctions, understanding that this constant monitoring will potentially trigger some sort of action if they’re in violation.”
There are still United States sanctions that are related to Iran’s behavior in terrorism and human rights abuse, though, the president added: “There are certain sanctions that we have that would remain in place because they’re not related to Iran’s nuclear program, and this, I think, gets to a central point that we’ve made consistently. If in fact we are able to finalize the nuclear deal, and if Iran abides by it, that’s a big piece of business that we’ve gotten done, but it does not end our problems with Iran, and we are still going to be aggressively working with our allies and friends to reduce — and hopefully at some point stop — the destabilizing activities that Iran has engaged in, the sponsorship of terrorist organizations. And that may take some time. But it’s our belief, it’s my belief, that we will be in a stronger position to do so if the nuclear issue has been put in a box. And if we can do that, it’s possible that Iran, seeing the benefits of sanctions relief, starts focusing more on the economy and its people. And investment starts coming in, and the country starts opening up. If we’ve done a good job in bolstering the sense of security and defense cooperation between us and the Sunni states, if we have made even more certain that the Israeli people are absolutely protected not just by their own capacities, but also by our commitments, then what’s possible is you start seeing an equilibrium in the region, and Sunni and Shia, Saudi and Iran start saying, ‘Maybe we should lower tensions and focus on the extremists like [ISIS] that would burn down this entire region if they could.’ ”
Regarding America’s Sunni Arab allies, Obama reiterated that while he is prepared to help increase their military capabilities they also need to increase their willingness to commit their ground troops to solving regional problems.
“The conversations I want to have with the Gulf countries is, first and foremost, how do they build more effective defense capabilities,” the president said. “I think when you look at what happens in Syria, for example, there’s been a great desire for the United States to get in there and do something. But the question is: Why is it that we can’t have Arabs fighting [against] the terrible human rights abuses that have been perpetrated, or fighting against what Assad has done? I also think that I can send a message to them about the U.S.’s commitments to work with them and ensure that they are not invaded from the outside, and that perhaps will ease some of their concerns and allow them to have a more fruitful conversation with the Iranians. What I can’t do, though, is commit to dealing with some of these internal issues that they have without them making some changes that are more responsive to their people.”
One way to think about it, Obama continued, “is [that] when it comes to external aggression, I think we’re going to be there for our [Arab] friends — and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have, and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression.” But, he repeated, “The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries. Now disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country, how we sort that out, how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation that’s been so important to our own security — without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ — I think that’s a tough conversation to have, but it’s one that we have to have.”
It feels lately like some traditional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches, when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy, have been breached. For instance, there was the letter from 47 Republican senators to Iran’s supreme leader cautioning him on striking any deal with Obama not endorsed by them — coming in the wake of Prime Minister Netanyahu being invited by the speaker of the House, John Boehner, to address a joint session of Congress — without consulting the White House. How is Obama taking this?
“I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed,” the president said. “I felt the letter that was sent to the supreme leader was inappropriate. I think that you will recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war, but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or to European leaders … trying to undermine the president’s policies I think is troubling.
“The bottom line,” he added, “is that we’re going to have serious debates, serious disagreements, and I welcome those because that’s how our democracy is supposed to work, and in today’s international environment, whatever arguments we have here, other people are hearing and reading about it. It’s not a secret that the Republicans may feel more affinity with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views of the Iran issue than they do with mine. But [we need to be] keeping that within some formal boundaries, so that the executive branch, when it goes overseas, when it’s communicating with foreign leaders, is understood to be speaking on behalf of the United States of America, not a divided United States of America, making sure that whether that president is a Democrat or a Republican that once the debates have been had here, that he or she is the spokesperson on behalf of U.S. foreign policy. And that’s clear to every leader around the world. That’s important because without that, what you start getting is multiple foreign policies, confusion among foreign powers as to who speaks for who, and that ends up being a very dangerous — circumstances that could be exploited by our enemies and could deeply disturb our friends.”
As for the Obama doctrine — “we will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities” — the president concluded: “I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it. But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors.”
Whatever happened in the past, he said, “at this point, the U.S.’s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial. … Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements aren’t taking place. Our interests in this sense are really just making sure that the region is working. And if it’s working well, then we’ll do fine. And that’s going to be a big project, given what’s taken place, but I think this [Iran framework deal] is at least one place to start.”
Voir encore:
Opinion The Iran Deal and Its Consequences
Mixing shrewd diplomacy with defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has turned the negotiation on its head.
Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz
The Wall Street journal
April 7, 2015
The announced framework for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has the potential to generate a seminal national debate. Advocates exult over the nuclear constraints it would impose on Iran. Critics question the verifiability of these constraints and their longer-term impact on regional and world stability. The historic significance of the agreement and indeed its sustainability depend on whether these emotions, valid by themselves, can be reconciled.
Debate regarding technical details of the deal has thus far inhibited the soul-searching necessary regarding its deeper implications. For 20 years, three presidents of both major parties proclaimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon was contrary to American and global interests—and that they were prepared to use force to prevent it. Yet negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years.
Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran. While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer.
Inspections and Enforcement
The president deserves respect for the commitment with which he has pursued the objective of reducing nuclear peril, as does Secretary of State John Kerry for the persistence, patience and ingenuity with which he has striven to impose significant constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.
Progress has been made on shrinking the size of Iran’s enriched stockpile, confining the enrichment of uranium to one facility, and limiting aspects of the enrichment process. Still, the ultimate significance of the framework will depend on its verifiability and enforceability.
Negotiating the final agreement will be extremely challenging. For one thing, no official text has yet been published. The so-called framework represents a unilateral American interpretation. Some of its clauses have been dismissed by the principal Iranian negotiator as “spin.” A joint EU-Iran statement differs in important respects, especially with regard to the lifting of sanctions and permitted research and development.
Comparable ambiguities apply to the one-year window for a presumed Iranian breakout. Emerging at a relatively late stage in the negotiation, this concept replaced the previous baseline—that Iran might be permitted a technical capacity compatible with a plausible civilian nuclear program. The new approach complicates verification and makes it more political because of the vagueness of the criteria.
Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites. The physical magnitude of the effort is daunting. Is the International Atomic Energy Agency technically, and in terms of human resources, up to so complex and vast an assignment?
In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. Devising theoretical models of inspection is one thing. Enforcing compliance, week after week, despite competing international crises and domestic distractions, is another. Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.
Compounding the difficulty is the unlikelihood that breakout will be a clear-cut event. More likely it will occur, if it does, via the gradual accumulation of ambiguous evasions.
When inevitable disagreements arise over the scope and intrusiveness of inspections, on what criteria are we prepared to insist and up to what point? If evidence is imperfect, who bears the burden of proof? What process will be followed to resolve the matter swiftly?
The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran.
The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing. Limits on Iran’s research and development have not been publicly disclosed (or perhaps agreed). Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken.
The follow-on negotiations must carefully address a number of key issues, including the mechanism for reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium from 10,000 to 300 kilograms, the scale of uranium enrichment after 10 years, and the IAEA’s concerns regarding previous Iranian weapons efforts. The ability to resolve these and similar issues should determine the decision over whether or when the U.S. might still walk away from the negotiations.
The Framework Agreement and Long-Term Deterrence
Even when these issues are resolved, another set of problems emerges because the negotiating process has created its own realities. The interim agreement accepted Iranian enrichment; the new agreement makes it an integral part of the architecture. For the U.S., a decade-long restriction on Iran’s nuclear capacity is a possibly hopeful interlude. For Iran’s neighbors—who perceive their imperatives in terms of millennial rivalries—it is a dangerous prelude to an even more dangerous permanent fact of life. Some of the chief actors in the Middle East are likely to view the U.S. as willing to concede a nuclear military capability to the country they consider their principal threat. Several will insist on at least an equivalent capability. Saudi Arabia has signaled that it will enter the lists; others are likely to follow. In that sense, the implications of the negotiation are irreversible.
If the Middle East is “proliferated” and becomes host to a plethora of nuclear-threshold states, several in mortal rivalry with each other, on what concept of nuclear deterrence or strategic stability will international security be based? Traditional theories of deterrence assumed a series of bilateral equations. Do we now envision an interlocking series of rivalries, with each new nuclear program counterbalancing others in the region?
Previous thinking on nuclear strategy also assumed the existence of stable state actors. Among the original nuclear powers, geographic distances and the relatively large size of programs combined with moral revulsion to make surprise attack all but inconceivable. How will these doctrines translate into a region where sponsorship of nonstate proxies is common, the state structure is under assault, and death on behalf of jihad is a kind of fulfillment?
Some have suggested the U.S. can dissuade Iran’s neighbors from developing individual deterrent capacities by extending an American nuclear umbrella to them. But how will these guarantees be defined? What factors will govern their implementation? Are the guarantees extended against the use of nuclear weapons—or against any military attack, conventional or nuclear? Is it the domination by Iran that we oppose or the method for achieving it? What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail? And how will such guarantees be expressed, or reconciled with public opinion and constitutional practices?
Regional Order
For some, the greatest value in an agreement lies in the prospect of an end, or at least a moderation, of Iran’s 3½ decades of militant hostility to the West and established international institutions, and an opportunity to draw Iran into an effort to stabilize the Middle East. Having both served in government during a period of American-Iranian strategic alignment and experienced its benefits for both countries as well as the Middle East, we would greatly welcome such an outcome. Iran is a significant national state with a historic culture, a fierce national identity, and a relatively youthful, educated population; its re-emergence as a partner would be a consequential event.
But partnership in what task? Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability. There exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding. Even while combating common enemies, such as ISIS, Iran has declined to embrace common objectives. Iran’s representatives (including its Supreme Leader) continue to profess a revolutionary anti-Western concept of international order; domestically, some senior Iranians describe nuclear negotiations as a form of jihad by other means.
The final stages of the nuclear talks have coincided with Iran’s intensified efforts to expand and entrench its power in neighboring states. Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries, operating beyond the control of national authorities. With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally. Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, an agreement freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering Iran’s hegemonic efforts.
Some have argued that these concerns are secondary, since the nuclear deal is a way station toward the eventual domestic transformation of Iran. But what gives us the confidence that we will prove more astute at predicting Iran’s domestic course than Vietnam’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq’s, Syria’s, Egypt’s or Libya’s?
Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony. They will increasingly look to create their own nuclear balances and, if necessary, call in other powers to sustain their integrity. Does America still hope to arrest the region’s trends toward sectarian upheaval, state collapse and the disequilibrium of power tilting toward Tehran, or do we now accept this as an irremediable aspect of the regional balance?
Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening
American involvement.
If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.
Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves.
Messrs. Kissinger and Shultz are former secretaries of state.
His hope springs eternal
Democrat hopeful Barack Obama looks good and writes well in The Audacity of Hope – but can his third-way politics carry him to the ultimate prize, asks Peter Preston
The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
Peter Preston
The Observer
29 April 2007
The Audacity of Hope
by Barack Obama
Canongate £14.99, pp375
The candidate is already 2007’s champion fundraiser. He has momentum. Old Clinton stalwarts desert Hillary to serve at his side. It must be a Democrat for the White House next time, they say, and this guy, this eloquent, thoughtful, handsome, black guy, is the real deal. Why, didn’t his quasi-autobiography cum manifesto, sell 1.3 million copies, top the New York Times list and win glowing reviews to boot? And didn’t he write it (rather mellifluously) himself? Look, no ghost hands here! So The Audacity of Hope invites sterner scrutiny than your average political potboiler. It is a presidential calling card. It may be all our futures.
And there is fascination as the pages turn. In one sense, Barack Obama defies easy categorisation: ‘The child of a black man and white woman, born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a sister who’s half-Indonesian … a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese descent, some blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for [black comedy actor] Bernie Mac.’ No wonder family Christmases are like the United Nations General Assembly, he writes. No wonder, either, that he can open windows to a wider world of understanding.
This isn’t some stock chaser after high American office, a standard Wasp with a standard mindset. This is a genuinely interesting man from a singular family background, who still carries its lessons, memories and baggage with him. Obama spent years of austere, troubled childhood in Jakarta when his mother was married to a young Indonesian army officer. He saw pain, distress and poverty (and marriage breakdown) close up. It encircled him. He still knows, from experience, how to relate to those in need. He’s a recognisable human being with a gift for empathy.
Yes … but is he a President? Does he know more about climate change than Al Gore, more about high office than Hillary Clinton, more about glad-handing and rubber-chicken dinners than John Edwards? There’s the difficulty.
Some of this personal credo arrives eloquent and moving. You can sense instinctively why Obama invites devotion. But then, because there’s an election pending, you can also sense formulaic caution. The Guardian has an entertaining practice of dishing up potted reads, books of the day laconically stripped to the bone. Obama often invites that kind of dissection. Why The Audacity of Hope? Why not ‘The Mendacity of Despair’ or any permutation between? There’s nothing particularly daring about the prudent non-specifics he peddles most of the time. (Indeed, his middle-way title might best have been ‘The Sagacity of Further Thought’.)
And his onerously repetitive chapter structure also casts a pall if you read too much, too fast. Take an event, maybe a day in the Senate, all personal achievements listed, a moment of prayer, a flying official visit to Iraq, then add anecdotes and personal conversations to taste. Obama could go hither and yonder by private jet, but he likes sweating in a coach and talking to ordinary Joes on the baggage line. Then build a brisk philosophical edifice on these emotions and encounters, opening out (as the ‘Faith’ chapter turns into the ‘Race’ chapter) into hints of what his policy might be when the time is ripe to formulate one.
That’s a realistic route if you want to mount a candidacy that is still standing in November 2008. But it’s a bit of tedious tease for today, little helped by the new/old brand of politics he promulgates. Tired of confrontations between brutal neocons and old-style liberals locked in a time warp? Discover the joys of compromise and intelligent discussion with Obama: make positive consensus your theme for the 21st century.
It is not a particularly invigorating thesis at this stage of development. It can be boiled down to the simple injunction: try to be nicer to people, wherever possible. And even Obama can’t keep the sermonising going indefinitely. He has to reach back into history and hail the great god FDR (also worshipped by old liberals, one seems to remember). He has to plump for less tax on the poor and hard-working Americans, not more tax cuts for the rich and rapacious. He believes in Middle East peace, not war, and spoke out against Iraqi invasion before it happened (though that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be tough in crisis). His wonderful wife and kids get a chapter of their own.
So much, perhaps, is par for the campaign course. We shouldn’t be disappointed. There are enough insights and memories to give (non-audacious) hope of something rather better if he gets in. But still the warning signs gather. Obama doesn’t always win. He challenged for Congress in 2000 and lost badly. He ‘began to harbour doubts about the path I had chosen’. He went through ‘denial and anger’ and ‘came to appreciate how the Earth rotated around the sun and the seasons came and went without any particular exertion on my part’. And then his honed profile and splendid rhetorical skills got him a starring role at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He beat off a duff rival to a Senate seat. He made it to Washington and, maybe, four years later to the doors of the Oval Office.
Do you sense a lurking lack of stamina, a slightly oddball compulsion to contemplation? Is the deal really real? Where’s the fine line between empathy and sanctimony? Where’s the depth of experience? But at least these are intriguing problems in a debate that’s pounding along. And at least, with refreshing honesty, you can begin to make your own mind up early. You can move on – or rediscover hope.
Senator Obama: man of letters
1995: Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, a memoir, in which Obama confessed to having taken drugs.
2004: Signed a $1.9m contract for three books. The first was The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (2006). Next up, a children’s book co-written by Obama’s wife and children, with all proceeds going to charity.
2006: Wrote forewords to It Takes a Nation: How Strangers Became Family in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina and Real Men Cook: More than 100 Easy Recipes Celebrating Tradition and Family
2007: Obama’s almost universal good press may change in July with the publication of David Mendell’s Obama: The Ascent of a Politician. Mendell wrote about Obama’s sex appeal in 2004 after he saw him enthusiastically kissing the wife of his Senate opponent on the cheek (the lady in question ‘flushed and smiled broadly’).
L’accord sur le nucléaire iranien n’a pas été signé le 1er avril. Il ne le sera pas le 2 ou le 3 avril.
Guy Millière –
Dreuz info
3 avril 2015
Il ne le sera vraisemblablement pas, sinon sous la forme d’un texte lamentable et sans signification qui donnera à Obama et Kerry l’allure de paillassons. Cela viendra peut-être fin juin. Ce n’est pas même certain. C’est très loin d’être certain.
Les dirigeants iraniens ont déjà obtenu toutes les concessions imaginables de la part d’une administration Obama qui est prête à tout pour qu’un accord soit signé et pour qu’au bout du processus, Obama soit sur la photo, à côté de Rouhani, mais toutes les concessions imaginables ne leur suffisent pas.
Ils veulent davantage : l’humiliation des Etats-Unis et d’Obama. Et ils ne désespèrent pas obtenir ce qu’ils veulent. Il leur suffit pour cela de demander toujours ce qu’ils savent que leurs interlocuteurs ne pourront pas accepter sans se rouler dans la fange. Ils savent qu’Obama ira jusqu’à se rouler dans la fange : c’est d’ailleurs ce qu’il a commencé à faire en tenant un discours grotesque en lequel il y a deux ou trois mensonges par phrase.
Les dirigeants iraniens sont à la tête, nombre de commentateurs l’oublient, d’un régime révolutionnaire et islamique. Ils ne veulent pas s’entendre avec les Etats-Unis : cela, ils pourraient l’obtenir aisément dans les circonstances présentes. Ils veulent la défaite des Etats-Unis.
Ils ne veulent pas se voir reconnus en tant que puissance importante : cela, ils l’ont obtenu avec le cycle de négociations qui ne s’achève pas, et qui amènent autour de la table pour des journées entières ministres et délégations. Ils veulent que leur reconnaissance comme puissance importante soit accompagnée d’un abaissement du monde occidental tout entier.
Ils ne veulent pas seulement obtenir une position de puissance hégémonique sur tout le Proche-Orient : cela, ils l’ont quasiment déjà obtenu aussi, grâce à tout ce qui leur a déjà été concédé. Ils veulent obtenir les moyens d’en finir avec Israël, et avec les régimes sunnites du statu quo (Jordanie, Egypte, Arabie Saoudite).
Et il faut le dire, hélas : ils sont en train d’obtenir la défaite des Etats-Unis. Ils ont pour cela des alliés de poids : Barack Obama, et John Kerry eux-mêmes. La guerre et le chaos qui embrasent peu à peu tout le Proche-Orient, et qui débordent sur l’Afrique sont l’œuvre de l’action d’Obama depuis six ans, et de Kerry depuis qu’il est Secrétaire d’Etat. Obama et Kerry ont semé la guerre et le chaos dans tout le Proche-Orient et dans une part importante de l’Afrique. Ils ont placé les Etats-Unis dans une situation où les ennemis des Etats-Unis voient en eux des crétins à jeter après usage, et où les amis des Etats-Unis voient en eux des imbéciles dangereux et sans aucune fiabilité. Ils ne maîtrisent quasiment plus rien. Obama mériterait, si ce prix existait, un prix Nobel du désastre.
Il faut le dire : les dirigeants iraniens sont, aussi, en train d’obtenir l’abaissement du monde occidental tout entier. L’attitude de Barack Obama et de John Kerry n’est ni désapprouvée ni dénoncée par les dirigeants européens : ceux-ci, au contraire, rivalisent de pusillanimité pour s’accrocher aux basques des méprisables duettistes de Washington. Seul Laurent Fabius essaie de faire entendre une voix un peu discordante, mais vue l’attitude de la France sur le dossier « palestinien », on voit que Laurent Fabius n’a aucune pensée cohérente et parle faux.
Il faut le dire enfin : Obama, Kerry et leurs complices européens ne donnent pas du tout l’impression qu’ils sont prêts à défendre Israël. Tout en étant prêts à s’entendre avec les mollahs de Téhéran, et tout en faisant comme s’ils n‘entendaient pas les vociférations haineuses de Khamenei, ils semblent réserver le rôle d’ennemi principal à Binyamin Netanyahou, et n’accordent aucune importance à ses avertissements concernant le danger iranien. Obama, Kerry et leurs complices européens ne donnent pas non plus l’impression d’être prêts à défendre les régimes sunnites du statu quo.
Nul ne peut prévoir avec exactitude ce qui va se passer dans les mois à venir, mais ce qui est certain est qu’ils seront les mois les plus dangereux depuis qu’Obama est arrivé à la Maison Blanche.
La doctrine Obama, que la plupart des journalistes ne veulent pas voir, aux fins de parler comme si elle n’existait pas, voulait la défaite des Etats-Unis, l’hégémonie régionale de l’Iran, l’abaissement du monde occidental en son ensemble. Elle voulait l’asphyxie d’Israël aux fins de lâcher Israël aux chiens islamistes. Elle voulait le renversement des régimes sunnites du statu quo, au profit des Frères Musulmans.
Elle a tout obtenu, sauf les deux derniers points. Il lui reste moins de deux ans. Les attaques de l’administration Obama contre Israël, sur le terrain diplomatique, voire sur d’autres terrains, vont redoubler d’intensité.
Les attaques de l’administration Obama contre les régimes sunnites du statu quo vont aussi s’accentuer.
Si vous constatez que l’Iran des mollahs est au pouvoir, outre Téhéran, à Bagdad, Damas, Beyrouth, Sanaa et tente de s’emparer d’Aden, si vous voyez un large sourire sur le visage du Ministre des affaires étrangères iranien pendant que des atrocités surviennent à proximité des villes susdites, et si vous vous demandez pourquoi il en est ainsi, regardez du côté de la Maison Blanche, vous trouverez la réponse.
Si vous constatez que l’Irak était stable et al Qaida vaincu en 2008, qu’aujourd’hui l’Irak est démembré au milieu d’un océan de cadavres, qu’al Qaida en Irak est devenu l’Etat Islamique, sur une superficie équivalente à celle de la Grande Bretagne, et que la guerre en Syrie a fait environ deux cent cinquante mille morts, et si vous vous demandez pourquoi il en est ainsi, regardez à nouveau du côté de la Maison Blanche, vous trouverez la réponse.
Si vous constatez que le Yemen est présentement plongé dans une guerre qui s’aggrave de jour en jour, que l’Arabie Saoudite est menacée et vient de mettre sur pied une alliance avec les autres régimes sunnites du statu quo, que la guerre pourrait aisément devenir une conflagration régionale, que des hordes islamiques ravagent le Sinaï et la Libye, avec débordements vers la Tunisie, que l’Iran pourrait être bientôt à même de contrôler le détroit d’Ormuz et le Bab El Mandeb, avec toutes les conséquences à même de découler, et qu’Israël, seul îlot de stabilité dans ce déferlement fait face à un réarmement du Hamas, à l’incursion de Gardiens de la Révolution sur les hauteurs du Golan, côté syrien, et est en même temps au cœur de toutes les récriminations occidentales et de manœuvres sombres qui s’amorcent aux Nations Unies et à la Cour Pénale Internationale, et si, une fois de plus, vous vous demandez pourquoi il en est ainsi, regardez encore du côté de la Maison Blanche.
Vous trouverez la réponse.
Les Républicains, au Congrès, voudraient limiter les dégâts : le peuvent-ils encore ? L’avantage est qu’ils savent, eux, ce que veut Obama. L’inconvénient est que leurs moyens d’action face au premier Président résolument anti-américain de l’histoire des Etats Unis, et face à ses porte-cotons, sont limités.
La question iranienne sera abordée dans deux semaines, à la Chambre des représentants et au Sénat : ce qui va se passer devra être suivi avec la plus grande attention.
Le sénateur Tom Cotton a résumé le contenu de l’ « accord d’étape » du 3 avril (qui n’est en rien un accord, et qui est, au mieux, une capitulation du monde occidental) :
« L’Iran va garder son stock d’uranium enrichi et des milliers de centrifugeuses, y compris celles du site souterrain et fortifié de Fordow, qui est un bunker militaire. L’Iran va aussi moderniser son réacteur de production de plutonium, à Arak. L’Iran n’aura pas à révéler les dimensions militaires de son programme nucléaire, en dépit des demandes réitérées des Nations Unies. En outre, l’Iran va bénéficier d’une levée massive de sanctions de manière immédiate, levée qui rendra le retour à des sanctions ultérieures virtuellement impossible… Les concessions accordées ne feront rien pour changer le comportement de l’Iran. L’Iran reste le pire Etat soutenant le terrorisme à l’échelle mondiale. Les agressions iraniennes vont continuer à déstabiliser le Moyen Orient. Et l’Iran continue à détenir plusieurs otages américains ».
Le sénateur Mark Kirk a ajouté que « Neville Chamberlain avait obtenu davantage d’Adolf Hitler ».
Les faucons affirment (…) que le président Ahmadinejad a déclaré vouloir “rayer Israël de la carte”. Mais cet argument repose sur une mauvaise traduction de ses propos. La traduction juste est qu’Israël “devrait disparaître de la page du temps”. Cette expression (empruntée à un discours de l’ayatollah Khomeiny) n’est pas un appel à la destruction physique d’Israël. Bien que très choquant, son propos n’était pas un appel à lancer une attaque, encore moins une attaque nucléaire, contre Israël. Aucun État sensé ne peut partir en guerre sur la foi d’une mauvaise traduction.John J. Mearsheimer et Stephen M. Walt (2007)
Si des pays comme l’Iran sont prêts à desserrer le poing, ils trouveront une main tendue de notre part.Barack Hussein Obama (27.01.09)
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.Barack Hussein Obama (24.01.12)
Aujourd’hui, les estimationsindiquentquel’Iranest à seulementdeuxoutroismoisde l’acquisition desmatièrespremièresquipourraientêtreutiliséespour produire uneseulebombenucléaire.En vertu de cetaccord,l’Iranaaccepté de ne pas stockerlesmatériauxnécessairespourconstruireunearme.Mêmes’ilviolaitl’accord,pourles dix prochainesannéesaumoins,l’Iranserait à unminimumd’unande l’acquisition d’assez de matériauxpour fabriquer unebombe. (…) L’Iran a donné son accord pour un régime de transparence et les inspections les plus approfondies jamais négociées dans l’histoire des programmes nucléaires. Si l’Iran triche, le monde le saura. (…) C’est un bon accord qui répond à nos objectifs fondamentaux, y compris des limites strictes sur le programme de l’Iran afin de couper toutes les voies que Téhéran pourrait prendre pour développer une arme nucléaire. (…) Puisque le chefsuprêmede l’Iranaémisunefatwacontreledéveloppementdesarmesnucléaires,cecadredonne à l’Iranlapossibilitédevérifierquesonprogrammeest bienpacifique. Barack Hussein Obama (2015)
In return for Iran’s actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place (…) —even though that’s always led to Iran making more progress in its nuclear program … Barack Hussein Obama
A l’époque, pendant que nous étions en train de discuter avec les Européens à Téhéran, nous installions des équipements dans certaines parties d’Ispahan, et le projet était sur le point d’être complété. En réalité, c’est en créant un climat de sérénité, que nous avons pu achever Ispahan. Hassan Rohani (03.11.03)
Israël doit disparaître (…) Israël est une vieille blessure sur le corps du monde musulman. Hassan Rohani (2013)
Les grandes puissances ont reconnu à l’Iran le droit à l’enrichissement (…) Certains pensent qu’il faut soit se battre avec le monde, soit se rendre face aux grandes puissances. Nous croyons à une troisième option, nous pouvons coopérer avec le monde. Hassan Rohani (2015)
What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true. Marziyeh Afkham (Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, 26.11.13)
The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments (…) Why don’t we all stick to what we agreed to ? Why do we need to produce different texts ? (…) The terminology is different. The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again (…) And I urge you to read the entire text. If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. (…) What Iran has agreed is not to enrich above 5%. We did not agree to dismantle anything. Javad Zarif (Iranian foreign minister, 23.01.14)
We expected that the Iranians would need to spin this for their domestic political purposes, and are not surprised they are doing just that.Senior Obama administration official (23.01.14)
La victoire résidera dans la lutte entre les différentes interprétations. Javan (journal iranien proche des Gardiens de la révolution)
Le poing que l’Iran a agité à la face du Grand Satan, n’est pas encore complètement relâché. Mais les doigts se détendent, et l’accord, bien qu’incomplet, laisse la possibilité qu’ils se transforment en poignée de main. NYT
Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic. (…) The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements. Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement.Free Beacon
It only took North Korea 12 years to get a nuclear weapon from the time we reached the agreed framework in 1994 to the time they tested their first weapon in 2006. Tom Cotton
La Corée du Nord a appris au monde qu’au poker nucléaire la folie feinte vous vaut de l’aide étrangère ou l’attention planétaire — du fait que même la certitude qu’on a affaire à un bluff à 99% reste suffisante pour effrayer les opinions publiques occidentales. La Corée du nord est le proverbial envieux psychopathe du quartier qui agresse constamment ses voisins prospères d’à côté, en partant du principe que les voisins ne pourront manquer de prendre en compte ses menaces aussi sauvages qu’absurdes parce qu’il n’a rien et qu’ils ont tout à perdre. (…) L’Iran pourrait reprendre à l’infini le modèle de Kim — menaçant une semaine de rayer Israël de la carte, faisant machine arrière la semaine d’après sous prétexte de problèmes de traduction. L’objectif ne serait pas nécessairement de détruire Israël (ce qui vaudrait à l’Iran la destruction de la culture persane pour un siècle), mais d’imposer une telle atmosphère d’inquiétude et de pessimisme à l’Etat juif que son économie en serait affaiblie, son émigration en serait encouragée et sa réputation géostratégique en serait érodée. La Corée du nord est passée maître dans de telles tactiques de chantage nucléaire. A certains moments, Pyongyang a même réussi à réduire les deux géants asiatiques – Japon et Corée du Sud – à la quasi-paralysie. (…) Un Iran nucléaire n’aurait à s’inquiéter ni d’un ennemi existentiel avec une population d’un milliard d’habitants à côté tel que l’Inde ni d’un mécène tout aussi peuplé comme la Chine susceptible d’imposer des lignes rouges à ses crises de folie périodiques. Téhéran serait libre au contraire de faire et de dire ce qu’il veut. Et son statut de puissance nucléaire deviendrait un multiplicateur de force pour son énorme richesse pétrolière et son statut auto-proclamé de leader mondial des musulmans chiites. Si la Corée du Nord est un danger, alors un Iran nucléaire plus gros, plus riche et sans dissuasion serait un cauchemar. Victor Davis Hanson
Like so many things in in life, one can learn a lot from Saddam Hussein. (…) Following the war (…) The authorities that the Security Council mandated for UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors to verify Iraq’s disarmament were extraordinary and probably well beyond anything Iran will accept. In essence, inspectors could go anywhere in Iraq, interview anyone, fly their own aircraft and helicopters, install sensors or cameras anywhere, take possession of documents, etc. (…) And yet, with all of these authorities and tools, we were unable to complete the tasks given by the Security Council. UNSCOM and the IAEA after more than seven years of operations inside Iraq could not verify that Saddam had completely disarmed. Ironically, we later learned, Saddam had, eventually, pretty much given up his WMD program by 1997-98. But we could not verify his claims, and by that time no one was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, as he told us in debriefings, he retained the intent to restart the programs once conditions permitted. In practice, Saddam (…) pursued two tracks—one of grudging incremental revelations about WMD and the second track was the divide the Security Council and cause sanctions to erode. (…) Indeed, almost from the start, some members of the Security Council were in close consultation with Iraq. Some had longstanding business relations with Saddam—especially France and Russia. In manipulating the Security Council, Saddam applied the same tactics to countries as he did to individuals. He offered reward or punishment. He gave some members a stake in his survival. We know all this from debriefings of Saddam and his top lieutenants following the 2003 war as well as from the regime documents we obtained, particularly those concerning disbursement of oil allocations during the so-called Oil-for-Food program. (…) Iran will have learned from Saddam’s experience too. Tehran will know that support can be bought in the Security Council. Tehran will know that some countries have an immediate financial interest that Tehran can exploit. And some Council members will have a political incentive to build a relationship with Iran. The leaders in Iran, like Saddam in Iraq, play a long game. So do the Russians. (…) If I were John Kerry, I would not want to be defending a deal that depends upon Vladimir Putin. Charles Duelfer
Iran’s habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking a crisis. A year may simply not be enough time to build an international consensus on measures to redress Iranian violations. Michael Hayden, Olli Heinonen and Ray Takeyh (former CIA director, former IAEA deputy chief and Iran expert)
After negotiations with North Korea (shortened here to “NK”)—and after the CIA reports that NK has separated enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons—the U.S. and NK in 1994 sign the Agreed Framework in Geneva. With NK promising to eliminate its ability to produce nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework is hailed as a major diplomatic triumph for the Clinton presidency. Through 1996-97, the U.S. negotiates with NK over ballistic-missile proliferation. (…) In October 2002, the U.S. says North Korea has admitted it has had a secret program to enrich weapons-grade uranium. (…) North Korea then cuts the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories, withdraws from the Non-Proliferation treaty and restarts a nuclear reactor. Talks resume in Beijing in April 2003. North Korea says it possesses nuclear weapons—but will dismantle its “nuclear facility” in return for fuel oil and food. In February 2005, NK’s foreign ministry says again that it has produced nuclear weapons. Months later, the Koreans now say they are willing to abandon “all nuclear weapons” and rejoin the nonproliferation treaty. A new round of talks begin. (…) In October, North Korea explodes a nuclear device in an underground test. (…) NK says it is no longer “bound” by any agreements. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducts its second underground nuclear test. (…) In November 2010, NK announces it has a 2,000-centrifuge uranium enrichment factory. In early 2012, the Obama administration offers to give 240,000 metric tons of food in return for “strict monitoring.” (…) In early 2013, a monitoring group detects activity with “explosion-like characteristics” at North Korea’s underground test site. (…) Last November, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that North Korea is ready to the resume six-party talks. Every member of the Senate should read the full 81-page chronology. North Korea proves, irrefutably, that the “talks” model, absent credible measures of coercion or threat, won’t work. Iran knows it has nuclear negotiators’ immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request—what else?—more talks. Iran’s nuclear-bomb and ballistic-missile programs will go forward, as North Korea’s obviously did, no matter what.Bret Stephens
Les Russes ont réagi à la vitesse de l’éclair, dès l’accord de Lausanne sur le nucléaire conclu. Puisque cet accord est conclu, puisque le nucléaire militaire iranien n’est plus considéré comme une possibilité, qu’il est en principe sur la voie d’être enterré, qu’est-ce qui justifie encore l’installation du réseau anti-missiles US en Europe (…), lequel fut officiellement lancé et développé contre une menace iranienne principalement ? (…) La rapidité de réaction de communication des Russes à peine l’accord de Lausanne bouclé pour faire ressortir l’affaire du réseau BMDE témoigne, outre leur maîtrise de la communication, de plusieurs points essentiels. Tous ces points ne sont pas que de simples constats, ils sont promis à un développement dans l’avenir et pourraient aggraver un cas ou l’autre, – une crise ou l’autre, – montrant par là qu’il est, aujourd’hui, dans le cadre de la crise d’effondrement du Système, absolument impossible de résoudre une crise seule, d’une façon indépendante, – si tant est que la crise du nucléaire iranien soit complètement et vraiment résolue, ce qui reste à voir. Justement, comme on va le voir, toutes les crises sont liées, interconnectées, dépendantes les unes des autres. (…) Le troisième point est l’attitude des Russes vis-à-vis de l’Iran à l’ombre de l’affaire du BMDE. Nul doute qu’ils vont activer, en même temps que certaines sanctions devraient être levées, leur démarche consistant à finalement livrer des S-300 de défense aérienne à l’Iran, dans le cadre du marché qu’ls avaient d’abord refuse d’honorer (à cause des sanctions, du temps de Medvedev, en 2009), et qu’ils proposeraient finalement d’honorer. Mais on devrait aller bien au-delà des S-300, et les Russes devraient effectivement proposer des S400 beaucoup plus avancés. (…) C’est une question d’abord commerciale, certes, mais, désormais, surtout stratégique. Les Russes feront tout pour renforcer la défense des Iraniens contre toute menace stratégique, à la fois pour réduire encore plus l’argument des BMDE mais aussi pour contrecarrer les menaces qui continuent à se développer d’une éventuelle frappe contre l’Iran, – des Israéliens, mais aussi des USA dans des cas extrêmes. Bref, les Russes feront tout pour renforcer la défense de l’Iran dans la balance stratégique face au bloc BAO, dans un cadre général stratégique où, à cause du réseau BMDE qui continue à se développer, ils doivent jouer à fond la carte du renforcement stratégique de l’Iran. D’autre part, certes, ils doivent tout faire pour renforcer leurs liens stratégiques avec l’Iran, et cela devrait commencer par l’admission comme membre effectif de l’Iran à l’Organisation de Coopération de Shanghai, en juillet prochain. Le paradoxe est ainsi que la résolution possible/probable de la crise iranienne pourrait conduire, sinon devrait conduire à un renforcement notable des tensions stratégiques générales du bloc BAO avec la Russie, notamment à partir de la crise ukrainienne qui en est son point de fixation central. L’Iran, “libéré” des contraintes internationales, et s’il l’est officiellement, va désormais être sollicité par les évènements eux-mêmes pour jouer un jeu important dans les grandes crises en cours. Certes, on pense naturellement et irrésistiblement à la crise générale et confuse du Moyen-Orient, mais c’est un aspect très opérationnel. Nous pensons surtout à l’aspect d’une grande stratégie diplomatique et de communication, et c’est vers le Nord et vers le Nord-Est que l’Iran va être sollicité, vers l’axe Moscou-Pékin, vers l’OCS ; et également vers des crises comme celles de l’Ukraine et les autres qui opérationnalisent le grand schisme entre le bloc BAO et les autres. L’Iran ne pourra pas observer une neutralité dans ce cas, il devra choisir son camp. On a vu (…) que ce n’est pas le camp du bloc BAO qui nous paraît le choix probable de l’Iran. Dedefensa
Les résolutions du Conseil de sécurité exigeaient l’arrêt des centrifugeuses. Aujourd’hui, on accorde à l’Iran le droit d’en conserver 6 000. Donc, petit à petit, les Iraniens, qui ne sont pas sur une même échelle du temps que les démocraties occidentales, obtiennent des concessions diplomatiques réelles et cruciales, tout en violant les lois internationales. Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier
The first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw. All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner. (…) It is not only in their length that the texts differ. They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives. The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin. The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions. The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details. » (…) Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran. He also wanted to stick it to Netanyahu, settle scores with Republicans, and please his faction within the Democratic Party; in other words, taking strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of dubious partisan gains. Amir Taheri
Attention: un déjà vu peut en cacher un autre !
Différences de longueur (291 en anglais pour la version irano-européenne, 512 pour la version persane, 231 pour la française, 1,318 pour l’américaine), différences de contenu (modèle de vacuité pour les versions irano-européenne ou française, « étonnantes spécificité et exhaustivité » du côté américain), différences d’étiquetage (simple « communiqué de presse » pour les Iraniens, « Paramètres d’un Plan d’action conjointet exhaustif » pour les Américains), différences syntaxiques (réduction, dans la version persane, de tout ce que la version américaine présente comme des « décisions » à des spéculations impersonnelles pour ce qui pourrait apparaitre comme des concessions iraniennes, précision persane au contraire pour les concessions occidentales), oppositions diamétrales (arrêt contre continuation de l’utilisation de centrifugeuses avancées, démantèlement contre modernisation du réacteur d’Arak, levée progressive contre immédiate des sanctions), disparitions pures et simples (supervision sur 10, 15 ou même 25 ans annoncées par les Obama et Kerry eux-même disparaissant totalement des versions persane, italienne et française), flagrantes contre-vérités (les 800 centrifugeuses iraniennes du début du premier mandat du président américain passant mystérieusement dans sa bouche à 6 000, toutes les voies coupées pour atteindre une bombe atomique qui pourraient néanmoins permettre l’obtention de celle-ci en un an, la fausse alternative entre la reddition préemptive actuelle et la guerre) …
Que tant le prétendu chef du Monde libre que ses thuriféraires …
Nous avaient vendu comme « historique » et « modèle de succès de la diplomatie multilatérale » ayant « toutes les chances d’être encore enseigné dans trente ans au sein des universités de sciences politiques du monde entier » …
A coup de « plus inspecté que n’importe quel autre pays dans le monde » et d’ « aucun pays au monde n’a accepté de telles restrictions en matière nucléaire » …
Avec son imparable pièce maitresse de sanctions qu’il suffit en cas de tricherie de remettre en place même si bien sûr on sait qu’elles sont inefficaces …
Et contre lequel étaient censés se « déchainer » les conservateurs de tout poil alors que « les détails ne sont pas connus avant l’échéance du 30 juin »…
Alors que quelques heures à peine après ledit accord, les négociateurs iraniens accusaient déjà comme ils l’avaient fait il y a deux ans la Maison Blanche de mensonges sur la teneur exacte des termes du prétendu accord …
Et que Moscou attend son tour pour demander le démantèlement du bouclier antimissile européen et renforcer contre d’éventuelles frappes israéliennes ou occidentales la défense anti-aérienne iranienne …
Comment ne pas voir avec l’iranologue Tamer Aheri …
Derrière l’étrange impression de déjà vu munichois que les plus indécrottables des néoconservateurs avaient osé évoquer …
Comme d’un certain accord-cadre nord-coréen dont un certain président Clinton nous avait il y a onze ans dit tant de bien …
Et sans parler, concernant l’autre pièce maitresse du système, du fiasco lui aussi historique des inspections contre l’Irak de Saddam …
La routine à présent bien rodée, après bientôt treize ans d’âpres négociations et pas moins de six résolutions contraignantes de l’ONU, de maitres-casuistes …
A qui on s’en souvient on devait déjà l’incomparable poésie d’un Israël …
Qui ne devait pas être « rayé de la carte » comme une traduction fautive nous l’avait un temps fait croire …
“Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.”
But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.
All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.
First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.
It is not only in their length that the texts differ.
They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives.
The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin.
The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.
The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only. The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.” What remains to be done is work out “implementation details.”
When referring to what Iran is supposed to do, the Iranian text uses a device of Persian grammar known as “nakarah,” a form of verbs in which the authorship of a deed remains open to speculation.
For example: “ It then happened that . . .” or “that is to be done.”
But when it comes to things the US and allies are supposed to do, the grammatical form used is “maerfah” which means the precise identification of the author.
This is an example of the first form: “The nuclear facilities at Fordow shall be developed into a center for nuclear research and advanced Physics.” It is not clear who is going to do those things, over what length of time, and whether that would be subject to any international supervision
An example of the second form: “The United Nations shall abrogate its previous resolutions while the United States and the European Union will immediately lift sanctions [imposed on] financial, banking, insurance, investment and all services related to oil, gas, petrochemicals and car industry.”
The Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”
The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.
The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.
Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.
The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”
The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.
In the past two days Kerry and Obama and their apologists have been all over the place claiming that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial offshoots would be put under a kind of international tutelage for 10, 15 or even 25 years.
However, the Persian, Italian and French texts contain no such figures.
The US talks of sanctions “ relief” while Iran claims the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.”
The American text claims Tehran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, an oblique reference to Iran’s development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no echo of that in the Iranian and other non-American texts.
In his jubilatory remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell the Americans a bill of goods.
He made three outrageous claims.
The first was that when he became president Iran had “ thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000. In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.
The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked. And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the “blocked paths.”
Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”
He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative. In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war.
Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies. He insisted that Kerry secure “something, anything” before April 14 to forestall the US Congress’ planned moves on Iran.
He also wanted to stick it to Netanyahu, settle scores with Republicans, and please his faction within the Democratic Party; in other words, taking strategic risks with national security and international peace in the pursuit of dubious partisan gains.
(CNN) — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that « we did not agree to dismantle anything. »
Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
« The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments » under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.
As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.
In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and « dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%, » according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.
Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language.
« The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again, » he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. « If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. »
He repeated that « we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%. »
« You don’t need to over-emphasize it, » Zarif said of the White House language. A separate summary sent out by the White House last week did not use the word dismantle.
In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani echoed Zarif’s statement, saying the government will not destroy existing centrifuges. However, he added: « We are ready to provide confidence that there should be no concern about Iran’s program. »
Responding to Zarif’s comments to CNN, a senior administration official said « we expected that the Iranians would need to spin this for their domestic political purposes, and are not surprised they are doing just that. »
Iranian and U.S. officials have tried to sell the nuclear agreement to domestic opponents in their respective countries who could scuttle it.
Iranian officials have called the interim pact a victory and said it failed to halt the nation’s nuclear development program, while U.S. officials say the agreement essentially froze Iran’s nuclear program and rolled back some capabilities.
Zarif noted the political pressure facing both sides, which includes a push in Congress for more sanctions against Iran that Tehran warns would destroy any chance for success in talks on a long-range nuclear agreement intended to prevent development of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
« All of us are facing difficulties and oppositions and concerns and misgivings, » he said, noting he had been summoned Wednesday to Iran’s parliament to answer questions.
Asked about his relationship with Secretary of State John Kerry, Zarif called it « very difficult because we’re both going into these negotiations with a lot of baggage. »
Progress has been made, he said, but « it’s yet too early to talk about trust. »
Zarif and Rouhani traveled to Switzerland for annual gathering of world political and business leaders in Davos as a new round of Syrian talks started in Montreux before moving to Geneva.
Iran, a major backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was invited to the Syrian talks by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, then disinvited under pressure from the United States because Tehran refused to endorse conditions in a previous agreement setting up the talks.
« We do not like the way Iran was treated, » he said, adding « it did not enhance the credibility of the United Nations or the office of the Secretary General. »
Zarif expressed hope that the Syrian talks could succeed, but he criticized Syrian opposition groups and their supporters that opposed Iran’s participation in the talks for what he called spreading extremism and trying to impose their will on the Syrian people.
He explained Iran’s support for the Syrian government, a longtime ally, by saying « Iran finds itself in a situation where we see the very prominent and serious danger of terrorism, extremism, sectarian tension being fed from outside and creating a very dangerous environment in Syria. »
To Zarif, an agreement among Syrians that brings a democratically elected government is the only solution, and he dismissed concerns that a free and fair vote would be impossible with al-Assad in power and running as a candidate.
Kerry said earlier Wednesday in Montreux that there was « no way » al-Assad will be part of a transitional government sought by the Geneva talks.
« Why don’t we talk about it? » Zarif asked. « And why don’t we allow the Syrians to talk about how they can conduct a free and fair election? Why do people need to set an agenda and impose their agenda on the Syrian people? »
Sciutto also asked Zarif about his visit last week to lay a wreath at the grave of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah in Lebanon.
The United States condemned the gesture, saying Mugniyah was « responsible for heinous acts of terrorism that killed hundreds of innocent people, including Americans, » said a statement by National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.
Zarif responded that his visit should be seen in the same context as the U.S. delegation that attended the recent funeral of Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli leader who was defense minister when mass killings occurred at refugee camps under his command in 1982.
« It’s a decision based on national perceptions and national beliefs, » he said, describing Mugniyah as a revered figure for resisting Israeli occupation while calling Sharon responsible for the massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese in the Sabra and Shatila camps.
« I believe Sabra and Shatila were crimes against humanity, » Zarif said.
Taheri, who was editor of the Iranian daily Kayhan before the Islamic revolution and today resides in Europe, notes that neither Obama nor anyone else has ever seen this fatwa, and that, even if it exists, it is likely to be phrased so ambiguously as to be open to countless interpretations. Moreover, he says, Iranian clerics recently voiced opinions suggesting that the religious ban on nuclear weapons is by no means absolute. One ayatollah even implied that building a nuclear bomb is a necessary condition for the return of the Mahdi, the Shi’ite messiah.
Taheri concludes that, before touting this fatwa, Obama should at least demand to see it. He also advises him to remember that Khamenei is not considered a big religious authority in Iran, so his fatwa, if it exists, does not necessarily carry much weight.
The following is the article, as it appeared in the English edition of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat:[2]
Amir Taheri
« When lobbying to prevent further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, US President Barack Obama often refers to a fatwa, an Islamic religious opinion. According to Obama, the fatwa supposedly issued by ‘Supreme Guide’ Ali Khamenei, confirms Tehran’s claims that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. Obama does not quote the text of the mysterious fatwa, nor does he tell us where and when he saw it.
« The trouble is that no one has actually seen the fatwa, although many people comment on it. In a bizarre twist, some mullahs even quote Obama as the source that confirms the existence of the fatwa. ‘Our Supreme Guide has issued a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons, as confirmed by the President of the United States,’ Ayatollah Mahmoud Yussefwand told the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) last week.
« Presented as a ‘Theological Expert of the Scientific Center,’ the ayatollah was one of more than 100 mullahs and government officials who attended a two-day conference in Tehran on ‘A Theological View of Nuclear Weapons.’ None of the speakers claimed that he had seen the text of the fatwa. Nor did anyone suggest that the fatwa—if there were such a thing—was meant to stop the Islamic Republic from securing the means of making a bomb.
« A few speakers, including Yussefwand, suggested that the use, though not the building and/or stockpiling of such weapons, might be haram, or forbidden. ‘Islam uses the term ifsad [corruption] to ban a number of weapons of mass destruction,’ Yussefwand said. ‘The term specifically designates poisoning water resources, the cutting down of forests and the use of arson as a weapon of war.’ The ayatollah then wondered whether the principle could also apply to nuclear weapons. He did not offer a definite opinion. In other words, no such ban exists at the moment.
« Another theologian, Ali-Reza Qorban-Nia, explained that adopting an ‘Islamic position’ on nuclear weapons would not be easy. On the one hand, he argued, such weapons could be banned because they ‘are blind in targeting,’ in the sense that they could ‘wipe out believers and kuffar [infidels] alike.’ On the other hand, ‘Shi’ite Islamic rules of war’ strongly recommend the use of any weapon that could accelerate the destruction of the enemies of the Umma. According to Qorban-Nia, this is indicated in the principle of ma-yarji bel-fatah, or ‘that which creates hopes of victory.’ Thus, if a nuclear bomb could ensure ultimate victory for the believers, it should not be shunned.
« To confuse matters further, Ayatollah Bahman Akbari claimed that Khamenei’s statements, though not the fatwa, which may not even exist, show that the Islamic Republic sees nuclear weapons as ‘a deterrent that assures the reciprocal destruction of the adversary.’ In other words, developing a nuclear arsenal for deterrent purposes could be licit. Akbari also suggested that the issue of a nuclear arsenal be examined ‘in the context of other weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological.’ This means that nuclear weapons should not be discussed as a special category, presumably the ultimate evil.
« During the seminar, two theologians, Mahmoud Hekmati-Nia and Hashem Zaafarani, criticized Akbari for not actually referring to Khamenei’s fatwa. The reason, of course, was that neither Akbari nor anyone else had seen the non-existent document.
« The closest reference to Khamenei’s fatwa came in a speech by the spokesman for the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Behruz Kamalvand, when he said: ‘Our Supreme Leader has fixed our slogan: ‘Nuclear weapons for no nation, nuclear energy for all nations! » In other words, the Islamic Republic would be prepared to abandon the military aspects of its nuclear program only in the context of global nuclear disarmament. And, if others had nuclear weapons, why should Iran deny itself such an instrument?
« While the conference was under way, Ayatollah Hassan Mamduhi, a member of the Assembly of (Clerical) Experts, offered an enigmatic quotation from the late Ayatollah Aziz-Allah Khoshwaqt to the effect that the Hidden Imam would conclude his Grand Occultation only when his ‘sword’ was ready. ‘The Return of the Mahdi is conditional on what our nuclear scientists are doing,’ Mamduhi said, without elaborating. The Tehran media, however, claimed that ‘The Sword of the Imam’ in the modern world could only mean a nuclear arsenal.
« A week later, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Council of the Guardians of the Constitution, claimed in a Friday sermon that the return of the Hidden Imam was ‘ imminent’ thanks to ‘fantastic progress’ achieved by the Islamic Republic in Iran. Ayatollah Khoshwaqt, who died last year, was regarded as Khamenei’s teacher and ‘guru’ and a strong opponent of negotiations to limit any aspect of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. His views have found echoes among a number of Khomeinist clerics who argue that, with the US in retreat under Obama, there is no reason to make concessions to the P5+1 group.
« One prominent cleric, Ayatollah Mahmoud Nabawian, has published a 40-page essay arguing that Tehran is now in a position to tell the rest of the world to ‘get lost.’ Another critic is Muhammad-Javad Larijani, son of an ayatollah and brother of Chief Justice Sadeq Larijani. He argues that Islamic powers should only ask non-Islamic nations to ‘submit’ to God’s ‘Final Word.’ In 1988, he carried a letter from Ayatollah Khomeini to Mikhail Gorbachev, inviting him to convert to Shi’ism.
« Obama would do well to consider three points before beating the drums for the mullahs. The first is that the famous fatwa either does not exist or is couched in the style of obfuscation that would open it to countless interpretations. The least that Obama should do is demand to see the fatwa that he is defending as a text that trumps even international law. The second point is that Khamenei, though a major political figure in Tehran, is not generally regarded as a theological heavyweight. In religious terms, any of the 10 or 12 grand ayatollahs and hundreds of lower-ranked clerics could overrule Khamenei’s fatwas.
Finally, Obama should know that the Iran nuclear project is a political issue and not a religious issue to be settled with a fatwa, which is, in any case, just an opinion and in no way legally binding on any individual, let alone the Islamic Republic as a nation-state. »
Endnotes:
[1] On the fatwa and Obama’s endorsement of it, see:
Special Dispatch No. 5406, « Release Of Compilation Of Newest Fatwas By Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei – Without Alleged Fatwa About Nuclear Bomb, » August 13, 2013;
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 5461, « President Obama Endorses The Lie About Khamenei’s ‘Fatwa’ Against Nuclear Arms, » September 29, 2013;
MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1022, « The Official Iranian Version Regarding Khamenei’s Alleged Anti-Nuclear Weapons Fatwa Is A Lie, » October 4, 2013.
[2] Aawsat.net, March 14, 2014.
A handout picture released by the official website of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, shows him delivering a speech in Tehran on November 20, 2013. (AFP PHOTO/ KHAMENEI.IR)
“Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.”
– President Obama, statement regarding conversation with President Rouhani, Sept. 27, 2013
“The supreme leader of Iran has said that there is a fatwa to development of a nuclear weapon.”
“So I close by saying to all of you that the singular objective that brought us to Geneva remains our singular objective as we leave Geneva, and that is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. In that singular object, we are resolute. Foreign Minister [Mohammad Javad] Zarif emphasized that they don’t intend to do this, and the supreme leader has indicated there is a fatwa, which forbids them to do this.”
– Secretary of State John F. Kerry, remarks to the media, Geneva, Nov. 24, 2013
As part of the administration’s diplomacy with Iran, senior officials have claimed that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons. A fatwa is a ruling by a religious authority, often with judicial implications. As Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran, his statements would seem to carry significant weight.
But there is a fine line between a fatwa and mere statements made by the leader to the media. As Abbas Milani of Stanford University put it, “The issue of the fatwa is complicated. Whether it actually exists and even whether Mr. Khamenei is entitled to issue fatwas and finally how changeable are fatwas are all contested matters.”
It may not even matter if the fatwa exists. Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Khamenei at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that it appears that Obama is referencing the fatwa in order to give the Iranians an easier route to compromise — because of their religious beliefs, not because of U.S.-led sanctions.
“I don’t think Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa reassures Obama that Iran doesn’t seek a nuclear weapons capability,” Sadjadpour said. “But if he can offer Khamenei a graceful way to stand down, that’s in his interests.”
With that in mind, let’s explore what is known about the alleged fatwa.
The Facts
Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said the Iranian government was the best source for information. But she added: “Many Iranian officials have spoken of the fatwa publicly, and their comments are publicly available. There are various descriptions of it in the public domain. And importantly, the Iranians have also referenced the fatwa in our negotiations.”
Indeed, the Iranian government’s slick new Web site on its nuclear program, http://www.nuclearenergy.ir, includes an entire section on the nuclear fatwa.
The Iranian Web site appears to trace the roots of Khamenei’s fatwa, which it claims was first issued in 2003, to a fatwa uttered by his predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, concerning a ban on the production and use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
But there’s one problem: Iran admitted to chemical weapons production after it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 1997, and U.S. intelligence agencies suspected Iran of maintaining a chemical weapons stockpile at least until 2003. So what does it say if the origin of the supposed fatwa is based on an apparently misleading statement?
[Update: Gareth Porter, in a rebuttal to this column, says that Iran only said that it had « chemical weapons capability, while maintaining the policy not to resort to these weapons. » He argues that the distinction between production and capability had been lost through years of inaccurate reporting. He is certainly correct we should have linked to an original document, but we could not find one, and are pleased to do so now. One of the Wikileaks cables included a statement from Iran to the United States in 2004 that chemical weapons agents were produced but not weaponized.]
Khamenei also has referred to Iran not having produced chemical weapons. Here is an excerpt from a March 2003 speech, as translated from the Persian by Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Studies.
“Nuclear technology is different than producing nuclear bomb. Nuclear technology is considered to be a scientific progress in a field that has lots of benefits. Those who want nuclear bomb can pursue that field and get the bomb. We do not want bomb. We are even against chemical weapons. Even when Iraq attacked us by chemical weapons, we did not produce chemical weapons.”
Khalaji, who in 2011 collaborated with Michael Eisenstadt on an in-depth look at the supposed fatwa, notes that on many occasions, Khomeini abruptly shifted course, despite a previously issued ruling. Khalaji says this is quite common among senior Shiite religious figures. So Khomeini said the modern tax system in Iran was against Islam — until he came to power and said such laws should be obeyed. He also was against women’s suffrage when the shah was in power — and then after the revolution urged women to vote. He was also against the eating of sturgeon — until he was for it.
Oddly, the Iranian Web site does not provide the text of the original fatwa — and then mostly cites Western news reports as evidence that Khamenei has reiterated it on several occasions. The fatwa does not appear to be written, but in the Shiite tradition equal weight is given to oral and written opinions.
The most definitive written account of the fatwa appears in a statement that an Iranian official read at an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005: “The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.”
But Khalaji also documents an interesting evolution in Khamenei’s statements over time. Whereas in 2005 Khamenei said that the “production of an atomic bomb is not on our agenda,” more recent statements have focused on use of nuclear weapons, often dropping references to the “development” of such weapons.
There is also an issue of translation, often a problem when dealing with Iran. One English language account has Khamenei saying this in 2012:
“We do not pursue to build nuclear weapons. In reality, having nuclear weapons is not to our benefit. From the viewpoint of ideology, theory, and the Islamic jurisprudence, we consider this as forbidden and proliferation of nuclear weapons as a wrong decision. We consider the use of such weapons a great sin while stockpiling it is not only pointless, but also harmful and hazardous. Therefore, we will never try to acquire such weapons.”
But Khalaji looked up the actual speech, as displayed in Persian on Khamenei’s official Web site, and rendered his own translation. There’s quite a difference:
“In fact, nuclear weapon is not economically useful for us. Furthermore, intellectually, theoretically and juridically [from Sharia point of view] we consider it wrong and consider this action wrong. We believe using such weapons are a great sin and stockpiling them are futile and harmful and dangerous and never go after it. They [big powers] know this too but they pressure on this point in order to stop this action [the nuclear program].”
The Pinocchio Test
Just about every Alfred Hitchcock thriller had what he called a “MacGuffin” — a plot device that gets the action going but is unimportant to the overall story. The Iranian fatwa thus appears to be a diplomatic MacGuffin — something that gives the Americans a reason to begin to trust the Iranians and the Iranians a reason to make a deal. No one knows how this story will end, but just as in the movies, the fatwa likely will not be critical to the outcome.
Even if one believes the fatwa exists — and will not later be reversed — it clearly appears to have evolved over time. U.S. officials should be careful about saying the fatwa prohibits the development of nuclear weapons, as that is not especially clear anymore. The administration’s statements at this point do not quite rise to the level of earning Pinocchios, but we will keep an eye on this issue.
Faut-il se fier à Téhéran? Peut-on vraiment être sûr qu’un accord nucléaire à Lausanne permettrait de s’assurer que l’Iran ne se dotera jamais de l’arme atomique? Le premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahou n’en croit pas un mot. La monarchie saoudienne non plus. Même parmi les puissances occidentales, le doute est permis. Mercredi, un accord nucléaire paraissait introuvable, même au lendemain de la date butoir. Difficile de lever toute sanction contre un pays qui a souvent dissimulé ses installations sensibles. Voyez plutôt.
1. Le secret de Natanz
Le premier choc a lieu en 2002. Un dissident iranien révèle l’existence de deux sites nucléaires: une installation d’enrichissement d’uranium à Natanz (en partie souterraine) et un réacteur à eau lourde à Arak, susceptible de fournir à terme du plutonium. Il s’agit des deux voies possibles pour fabriquer l’arme atomique.
En 2003, l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) confirme que depuis dix-huit ans l’Iran développe en secret son programme nucléaire. Téhéran jure qu’il est destiné à un usage strictement civil et qu’il était caché parce que les Etats-Unis voulaient priver la République islamique de l’accès à l’énergie nucléaire. Pour rétablir la confiance, l’Iran suspend l’enrichissement d’uranium. En 2005, le président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad le redémarre.
2. Fordo sous la montagne
En 2009, l’Iran annonce à l’AIEA qu’un autre site d’enrichissement d’uranium est en construction, sans préciser où. En fait, Téhéran limite les dégâts: les services occidentaux observaient depuis 2006 le chantier clandestin de Fordo, creusé sous la montagne près de la ville de Qom. Assez grand pour accueillir 3000 centrifugeuses et produire une tête nucléaire par an, à l’abri de frappes aériennes.
3. L’uranium très enrichi
En 2010 l’Iran, qui sait enrichir l’uranium à 3,5% (pour un usage civil), annonce qu’il est capable d’aller jusqu’à 20%, officiellement pour servir de combustible à un réacteur de recherche médicale à Téhéran. Mais techniquement, cela permet aussi de monter très vite à 90% (pour une bombe).
4. L’inquiétant Lavizan
En février dernier, des opposants iraniens en exil ont dénoncé «l’existence d’un programme nucléaire parallèle et secret» enterré sous une base militaire dans les faubourgs de Téhéran. Baptisé «Lavizan-3», ce site caché servirait depuis 2008 à développer des centrifugeuses plus sophistiquées pour l’enrichissement d’uranium. Impossible de confirmer. Mais le même groupe avait dévoilé l’existence de Natanz et de Fordo.
INTERNATIONAL – Après un an et demi de marathon diplomatique et plus d’une décennie de conflit, les négociations internationales sur le nucléaire iranien ont enfin débouché sur un accord ce jeudi 2 avril. Les grandes puissances et l’Iran sont en effet parvenus à s’entendre à Lausanne sur les « paramètres clés » pour résoudre le dossier du nucléaire iranien, étape fondamentale sur la voie d’un accord final d’ici au 30 juin, ont annoncé les dirigeants occidentaux et iranien.
C’est sur twitter que les Occidentaux et Iraniens, dont le président Hassan Rohani en personne, ont tous annoncé qu’un accord cadre avait été conclu à l’issue de plusieurs journées de négociations marathon.
« Des solutions sur les paramètres clés du dossier nucléaire de l’Iran ont été trouvées. L’écriture (d’un accord final) doit commencer immédiatement, pour être terminée d’ici le 30 juin », a écrit Hassan Rohani. On a « maintenant les paramètres » pour résoudre les principales questions, a confirmé le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry. « Grand jour (…) Retour au travail bientôt sur un accord final », a-t-il tweeté.
Le président Barack Obama a quant à lui salué la conclusion d’une entente « historique » et annoncé un sommet à Camp David avec les pays du Golfe au printemps.
Mais pourquoi États-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, Russie, Chine, France et Allemagne ont eu tant de mal pour trouver un accord? Quel est le problème avec le nucléaire en Iran? Le HuffPost vous propose de faire le tour de la question revenant sur 5 périodes clés depuis le début du conflit.
2002 : La découverte
Membre de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA), l’Iran a signé en 1968 le traité de non-prolifération nucléaire (TNP) des Nations unies qui a pour objectif principal d’empêcher les États dotés d’armes nucléaires d’en transférer ou d’aider ceux qui n’en ont pas à en produire tout en garantissant le droit à chaque pays de développer la recherche, la production et l’utilisation de l’énergie nucléaire à des fins pacifiques.
La différence entre ces deux types de produit (civil et militaire) et leur utilisation potentielle repose sur leur niveau d’enrichissement en uranium 235. Pour être utilisé dans des centrales nucléaires l’uranium a besoin d’être faiblement enrichi, c’est-à-dire entre 3 et 5 %. Au-delà de 20 %, l’uranium est considéré comme hautement enrichi et peut-être utilisé, en théorie, pour concevoir des bombes atomiques. En pratique, ce métal lourd radioactif est enrichi à plus de 85% lors d’utilisations militaires.
Le conflit avec l’Iran démarre en 2002, sur cette distinction. Alors que le pays se démène depuis 1975 pour terminer la construction de sa première centrale nucléaire à Bouchehr, un dissident révèle l’existence de deux sites nucléaires inconnus du reste du monde à Natanz et à Arak. Washington accuse alors Téhéran de chercher à hautement enrichir de l’uranium et de construire des armes de destruction massive et Téhéran décide d’autoriser les agents de l’AIEA à inspecter ces installations.
2003 – 2004 : Premier pas vers les négociations
Après la visite de l’AIEA — qui trouve des traces d’uranium enrichi et qui annonce que Natanz est en train de construire plus de 1000 centrifugeuses —, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Allemagne et la France demandent durant l’été 2003 à l’Iran de négocier sur le nucléaire.
Ces trois pays, surnommés « UE3 », envoient sur place chacun leur chef de la diplomatie pour une réunion historique qui débouche sur un accord: l’Iran accepte des inspections surprises de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique sur les sites nucléaires.
L’année suivante, Téhéran signe avec l’UE3 un nouvel accord et annonce au mois de novembre 2004 suspendre son programme d’enrichissement de l’uranium.
2005 – 2010 : Ahmadinejad ferme la porte aux discussions
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remporte l’élection présidentielle en juin 2005 et change radicalement la ligne diplomatique du pays sur ce dossier. Deux mois plus tard, l’Iran reprend l’enrichissement d’uranium dans son usine d’Ispahan. Le nouveau président défend devant l’ONU le droit du pays à développer un programme nucléaire civil.
Au mois de janvier 2006, l’Iran lève des scellés de l’AIEA sur plusieurs centres de recherche nucléaire ce qui déclenche le transfert de cette affaire devant le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU qui décrète quelques mois plus tard la suspension obligatoire de « toutes les activités liées à l’enrichissement » dans le pays.
Face à cette décision qu’elle juge « illégale » et aux premières sanctions économiques qui tombent, Téhéran réduit sa coopération avec l’AIEA à partir de 2007. A la fin de cette même année, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assure que le pays abrite maintenant plus de 3000 centrifugeuses. Ce qui lui permettrait en théorie d’obtenir suffisamment d’uranium hautement enrichi pour fabriquer une bombe atomique en moins d’un an.
En 2008, les cinq membres du Conseil de sécurité (États-Unis, Russie, Chine, France et Grande-Bretagne) et l’Allemagne — surnommé le groupe des 5+1 — lancent une nouvelle salve de négociations qui prend vite fin quand l’Iran inaugure à Ispahan sa première usine de combustible nucléaire.
Les discussions ne reprennent qu’en 2009 et la diplomatie internationale propose alors à l’Iran un accord prévoyant que le faible enrichissement de l’uranium iranien se fasse à l’étranger. Mais Téhéran refuse de se faire transiter ce métal lourd radioactif en dehors de ses frontières. En 2010, l’Iran commence à enrichir de l’uranium à 20 %.
2011 – 2012 : Accélération des sanctions internationales
Si en 2010 de nouvelles sanctions sont votées par l’ONU mais aussi par les États-Unis et l’Union Européenne, c’est à partir de 2011 que les répercussions prennent de l’ampleur.
Un renforcement des sanctions est décidé avant que plusieurs nouveaux rapports de l’AIEA ne soient publiés, dont un faisant mention de « sérieuses inquiétudes » sur la situation et évoquant une « possible dimension militaire du programme nucléaire » qui se développe dans le pays.
En guise de représailles, un embargo sans précédent sur le pétrole iranien décidé par l’Union Européenne entre en vigueur au 1er juillet, accompagné de suppressions de visas et de gels d’avoirs. Les négociations entre les 5+1 et l’Iran reprennent plusieurs fois mais n’avancent pas.
L’année 2012 se termine avec un nouveau rapport de l’AIEA prévenant que le site de Fordo fonctionne et permet à l’Iran d’augmenter significativement sa capacité d’enrichissement.
2013 – aujourd’hui : L’espoir d’un (difficile) accord
La situation prend un tournant nouveau en juin 2013 avec l’élection du président modéré Hassan Rohani. Ce dernier affirme être ouvert à des « négociations sérieuses ». Symbole de ce changement de ton, le coup de fil historique entre Obama et Rohani, premier contact d’un président américain avec un président iranien depuis 1979.
Les négociations reprennent à Genève quelques semaines plus tard entre l’Iran et le groupe des 5+1. Téhéran se dit alors prêt à accepter de nouveau le principe d’inspections surprises de ses sites nucléaires, comme en 2003. Un accord provisoire est enfin établi: l’arrêt du programme d’enrichissement contre la levée d’une partie des sanctions économiques.
Commence ensuite une longue série de sessions de négociations pour se mettre d’accord sur les détails du projet définitif. D’un commun accord, l’échéance fixée à juillet 2014 est repoussée car certains points clés posent problème comme la réduction du nombre de centrifugeuses et de stocks d’uranium en Iran.
La nouvelle échéance est maintenant fixée au 30 juin 2015 et les P5+1 et l’Iran étaient censés parvenir mardi 31 mars avant minuit à un premier compromis fondamental sur ce dossier inextricable pour tenir cette date butoir. Avec ce « cadre commun » décidé aujourd’hui, ce dossier a franchi une étape majeure.
Two days after the US-led powers and Iran hailed a historic framework understanding designed to ensure Iran’s nuclear program not enable it to build nuclear weapons, a leading Israeli analyst on Saturday highlighted six gaping areas of discrepancy between American and Iranian accounts of what the agreement actually entails.
Ehud Ya’ari, Middle East analyst for Israel’s Channel 2 News and an international fellow at the Washington Institute think tank, said the six discrepancies represent “very serious gaps” at the heart of the framework accord. They relate to issues as basic as when sanctions will be lifted, and how long restrictions on uranium enrichment will remain in place.
Referring to Thursday’s American-issued “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” on the one hand, and the “fact sheet” issued Friday by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, on the other, Ya’ari noted that no deal was actually signed on Thursday, and that the leaders’ statements and the competing fact sheets were thus critical to understanding what had been agreed.
Ya’ari also highlighted the highly similar language used by President Barak Obama to hail the framework agreement as a good deal that would make the world safer, on Thursday, and president Bill Clinton in presenting the failed US framework deal aimed at thwarting North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994.
Ya’ari cited the following central gulfs between the two sides’ accounts of what was resolved at the Lausanne negotiations last week:
1. Sanctions: Ya’ari said the US has made clear that economic sanctions will be lifted in phases, whereas the Iranian fact sheet provides for the immediate lifting of all sanctions as soon as a final agreement is signed, which is set for June 30.
(In fact, the US parameters state that sanctions will be suspended only after Iran has fulfilled all its obligations: “US and EU nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.” By contrast, the Iranian fact sheet states: “all of the sanctions will be immediately removed after reaching a comprehensive agreement.”)
2. Enrichment: The American parameters provide for restrictions on enrichment for 15 years, while the Iranian fact sheet speaks of 10 years.
3. Development of advanced centrifuges at Fordo: The US says the framework rules out such development, said Ya’ari, while the Iranians say they are free to continue this work.
4. Inspections: The US says that Iran has agreed to surprise inspections, while the Iranians say that such consent is only temporary, Ya’ari said.
5. Stockpile of already enriched uranium: Contrary to the US account, Iran is making clear that its stockpile of already enriched uranium — “enough for seven bombs” if sufficiently enriched, Ya’ari said — will not be shipped out of the country, although it may be converted.
6. PMD: The issue of the Possible Military Dimensions of the Iranian program, central to the effort to thwart Iran, has not been resolved, Ya’ari said.
(The US parameters make two references to PMD. They state, first: “Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.” And they subsequently add: “All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordo, Arak, PMD, and transparency).” The Iranian fact sheet does not address PMD.)
The differences between the sides became apparent almost as soon as the framework agreement was presented in Lausanne on Thursday night. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif issued a series of tweets late Thursday, for instance, that protested the US State Department’s assertion that the nuclear deal struck between Iran and world powers would only see sanctions on the Islamic Republic removed “in phases.”
Nonetheless, the White House expressed optimism on Friday that the June 30 deadline for a final deal would be met, and Obama reiterated that the deal reached Thursday represented a “historic understanding.”
Israel has castigated the framework as a bad deal, and a dangerous capitulation, that paves the way to an Iranian nuclear bomb.
L’accord-cadre conclu entre les grandes puissances et Téhéran sur le dossier nucléaire suscitait samedi de multiples interrogations dans la presse iranienne, notamment sur le calendrier toujours vague de la levée des sanctions internationales qui étouffent l’économie.
La presse conservatrice affichait son scepticisme sur les résultats obtenus en Suisse, profitant du silence observé par le guide suprême, l’ayatollah Ali Khamenei, l’ultime décisionnaire dans ce dossier.
La presse réformatrice et modérée saluait le travail des négociateurs iraniens mené par le chef de la diplomatie Mohammad Javad Zarif, mais les journaux conservateurs pointaient les différentes interprétations possibles, au détriment de la République islamique, du document publié à Lausanne.
L’agence de presse Fars a également souligné les différences entre le texte présenté par la délégation iranienne et celui diffusé par le département d’Etat américain.
« Qui est le véritable gagnant ? » s’interrogeait en Une le quotidien anglophone Iran News. Vatan-Emrooz (conservateur) se chargeait d’apporter une réponse en affirmant qu’ »il y a une grande différence entre ce qu’on donne et ce qu’on reçoit de l’accord de Lausanne ». Pour Javan, réputé proche des Gardiens de la révolution, l’armée d’élite du régime, « la victoire résidera dans la lutte entre les différentes interprétations » du texte.
L’ultra-conservateur Kayhan reprenait avec ironie l’expression d’un « accord gagnant-gagnant: le nucléaire va partir, les sanctions vont rester ».
L’Iran veut une levée totale et immédiate des sanctions imposées par l’ONU, les Etats-Unis et l’Union européenne, contre une levée graduelle évoquée par les grandes puissances.
Le ministre français des Affaires étrangères Laurent Fabius, a souligné vendredi que cette question était « un point qui est encore très compliqué » et « pas encore tout à fait réglé ».
Les sanctions imposées les Etats-Unis seront levées « par étapes », à mesure que Téhéran respecte ses engagements dans le cadre de l’accord final censé être conclu d’ici fin juin, a affirmé jeudi soir le secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry.
« L’accord de Lausanne montre que les choses que l’Iran a acceptées sont claires et vérifiables, mais ce que l’autre côté a accepté est vague et sujet à interprétation », estimait samedi dans un éditorial le directeur de Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari. « L’accord parle de suspension des sanctions et pas de leur levée », ajoute le responsable, directement nommé à son poste par l’ayatollah Khamenei.
Mansour Haghighatpour, vice-président de la commission parlementaire sur la sécurité nationale et la politique étrangère, a estimé que les négociateurs avaient outrepassé leurs prérogatives.
« Nous avons offert une clé pour des inspections occidentales sur les installations militaires et le protocole additionnel (du traité de non-prolifération nucléaire), alors que les décisions sur ces questions sont la compétence du Parlement », a-t-il dit, cité par l’agence Tasnim.
Nothing can work without tough inspections and enforcement. And for that we must rely on … Vladimir Putin.
Charles Duelfer
Politico
April 02, 2015
We don’t yet know all the details of the nuclear agreement that Iran, the United States and five other world powers announced Thursday they are aiming to complete by June 30. What we do know is that any acceptable final deal will depend on a strong weapons inspection element. In his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama declared Tehran had agreed to precisely that. “If Iran cheats, the world will know,” he said.
Yet weapons inspectors can be no tougher than the body that empowers them—in this instance the UN Security Council. And herein lies the agreement’s fundamental weakness—and perhaps its fatal flaw. Do we really want to depend on Vladimir Putin? Because Russia will be able to decide what to enforce in any deal—and what not to.
Like so many things in in life, one can learn a lot from Saddam Hussein. Certainly Tehran will have learned from Saddam’ s experience in trying to evade the scrutiny of the UN Security Council, weapons inspectors, sanctions, and individual governments.
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Washington led a response in the UN Security Council that produced a broad coalition unified around the objective of getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Ultimately this required military action—the Gulf War—despite the back-channel efforts of Russia’s special Iraq liaison, Yevgeny Primakov, to broker a deal.
Following the war, the Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution that retained the sanctions on Iraq, but linked them to additional requirements; Iraq must verifiably disclose and account for all its WMD, and Iraq must accept a monitoring system to assure they would not reconstitute their WMD programs in the future.
The Security Council created a new body of weapons inspectors (dubbed UNSCOM) who reported directly to the council. The IAEA also had a role in accounting for the extensive nuclear aspects of Saddam’s programs. This was a case of coercive disarmament as distinct from an arms control agreement like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It was akin to the disarmament provisions of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately suffered a similar fate.
The authorities that the Security Council mandated for UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors to verify Iraq’s disarmament were extraordinary and probably well beyond anything Iran will accept. In essence, inspectors could go anywhere in Iraq, interview anyone, fly their own aircraft and helicopters, install sensors or cameras anywhere, take possession of documents, etc. Moreover, the chairman or his deputy had authority to designate any location in Iraq as a site for inspection. And that included “no-notice’ inspections.
UNSCOM and the IAEA operated helicopters from a base inside Iraq. We had dedicated missions of the US U-2 aircraft (todays drones would be a cheaper more effective tool to provide aerial surveillance). UNSCOM operated a full-time monitoring center in a dedicated building in Baghdad.
Backing up the inspectors was the threat of force—at least on paper. The resolutions empowering the inspections were passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The key resolution, UNSCR 687, was a ceasefire resolution. If the Security Council found Iraq in material breech of its provisions, i.e. if Saddam did not comply with the inspectors, military actions could resume. On a few occasions over the ensuing years, some bombing strikes occurred.
And yet, with all of these authorities and tools, we were unable to complete the tasks given by the Security Council. UNSCOM and the IAEA after more than seven years of operations inside Iraq could not verify that Saddam had completely disarmed. Ironically, we later learned, Saddam had, eventually, pretty much given up his WMD program by 1997-98. But we could not verify his claims, and by that time no one was giving him the benefit of the doubt Moreover, as he told us in debriefings, he retained the intent to restart the programs once conditions permitted. It would be interesting to ask Saddam if he thought the IAEA inspectors given the intrusive access we had in Iraq, would be sufficient to detect and deter Iranian cheating.
Does anyone believe such access will be agreed, voluntarily, by Tehran?
In practice, Saddam regularly obstructed and delayed inspectors. He tested, from the start, the will of the Security Council. He cooperated only when he had no other option. And the only reason he cooperated at all, was to get out of sanctions. Saddam pursued two tracks—one of grudging incremental revelations about WMD and the second track was the divide the Security Council and cause sanctions to erode.
Critically, it is important to recall that as the inspection process went on, the unity of in the Security Council decayed. This is natural. As time goes on the objectives and priorities of fifteen nations will evolve and diverge. Saddam recognized and accelerated this trend. Indeed, almost from the start, some members of the Security Council were in close consultation with Iraq. Some had longstanding business relations with Saddam—especially France and Russia.
In manipulating the Security Council, Saddam applied the same tactics to countries as he did to individuals. He offered reward or punishment. He gave some members a stake in his survival. We know all this from debriefings of Saddam and his top lieutenants following the 2003 war as well as from the regime documents we obtained, particularly those concerning disbursement of oil allocations during the so-called Oil-for-Food program.
At the same time as inspectors were struggling to gain access to sites in Iraq, some members of the Security Council were strategizing with Baghdad on how to get rid of sanctions. Saddam knew that some members of the Security Council would not vote to authorize force against Iraq. His downside was thus limited. He worked to maximize his upside, i.e. get the sanctions officially removed, but alternatively cause them to collapse. The role of Russia stands out in this regard.
Russia (and to a lesser extent France), were the key advocates in the Security Council for Iraq. We now know unequivocally, that Saddam was buying influence. When I ran the Iraq Survey Group in 2004, we created a team to collect as much information about Iraq’s resources and how it expended them. The broad goal was to understand Iraq’s strategic intentions and understand where WMD fit in. We had a unique opportunity to record how his regime operated and how it managed to manipulate the international environment. As a priority, we obtained all the Iraqi records of the oil transactions.
Over some political objections, I published these records in the so-called Duelfer Report in 2004 (see “Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD,” Volume 1, section 2, “Regime Finance and Procurement.” These records (and extensive debriefings of top Iraqi officials) clearly show that Iraq was compensating Russian officials, and other individuals. Included among the beneficiaries in the list of Iraqi oil allocations were “the Russian Communist Party,” “the son of the Russian ambassador,” “the Russian Foreign Ministry,” and, “the Russian Presidential Office.” Putin was also a key actor in many of the Russian commercial entities that were engaged in oil transactions and the illicit export of weapons to Iraq while sanctions were in place.
The list of benefactors is long and includes three or four Americans as well as many foreign governments. But Russia dominated the list. Ultimately the UN sponsored an investigation (chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker). Many countries conducted their own prosecutions, but notably Russia did not.
It is also worth remembering that the Russian ambassador to the UN during most of this period was Sergei Lavrov—now foreign minister and negotiating with the P-5 + 1 on the Iran deal. Lavrov, in my judgment, was by far the sharpest ambassador in the Security Council. And like Putin, he is not especially friendly toward the United States.
Iran will have learned from Saddam’s experience too. Tehran will know that support can be bought in the Security Council. Tehran will know that some countries have an immediate financial interest that Tehran can exploit. And some Council members will have a political incentive to build a relationship with Iran. The leaders in Iran, like Saddam in Iraq, play a long game. So do the Russians.
The IAEA inspectors will be reporting whatever evidence they are permitted to collect to a Council that will have competing aims. They will be pressed to make judgments that suit various members. Iran would have to do something incredibly blatant for some Council members to not be able to debate the meaning of the evidence. Council members coached Saddam; they will coach Tehran as well.
Inspectors are also subject to direct actions by interested parties—for and against the inspected country. Iraqi weapons inspectors encountered active steps being taken by Council members to warn Iraq of upcoming inspections. This is to say nothing of the measures Iraq took to penetrate UNSCOM inspection planning and actions. IAEA will also be a prime target for Iranian intelligence. In my experience in Iraq, even with all the measures UNSCOM took, I doubt there was ever a truly “surprise” inspection. The IAEA will be a similar target.
If and when a detailed verification plan is agreed for an Iran nuclear agreement, the inspectors will have less access than in Iraq. The world may point to them as credible investigators—and they are. But whatever they report will go through the kaleidoscope of the Security Council. It will not be the IAEA that decides to re-impose sanctions. It will be the Security Council.
Putin will not give up his right to a veto. Nor will other members. Russia (and others) will have a stake in sustaining access to Iran’s markets, not re-imposing sanctions. The track record of Putin and Lavrov in the Iraq case suggests that they will be working bi-lateral deals with Tehran. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will get tough questions in closed hearings, not just on whether American intelligence and IAEA inspectors can reliably detect prohibited Iranian nuclear activities, also what deals Moscow or Beijing or others may have with Tehran.
If I were John Kerry, I would not want to be defending a deal that depends upon Vladimir Putin.
Charles Duelfer served as special advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and led the Iraq Survey Group, which conducted the investigation of the scope of Iraq’s WMD. Later, at the UN, Duelfer served as the deputy executive chairman and acting chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) from 1993 until its termination in 2000.
VIDÉOS – Très critiqué par Israël, l’accord d’étape sur le programme nucléaire iranien est une victoire diplomatique pour le président américain, et valide toute sa stratégie de négociation avec l’Iran.
Correspondante à Washington
Moment sobre mais savouré pour Barack Obama, ce jeudi, dans le jardin aux roses de la Maison Blanche, après ce qu’il a solennellement qualifié «d’entente historique» avec l’Iran sur le nucléaire. Le président a annoncé qu’un accord cadre avait fini par être trouvé entre Téhéran et le groupe P5+1 – donnant l’espoir d’empêcher l’Iran d’obtenir l’arme nucléaire si la négociation aboutit à un accord final d’ici au 30 juin.
Ce succès inespéré, fruit de longs mois de négociations, largement supervisés par la diplomatie américaine, représente l’aboutissement d’une politique de négociation défendue par Obama depuis le début de sa présidence. «Les négociations iraniennes ont réussi, exactement comme nous l’avions prévu», a-t-il souligné, non sans satisfaction. Pour lui, ce n’est pas une mince affaire, même si de nombreux points obscurs restent problématiques, comme celui concernant le sort qui sera réservé aux stocks d’uranium enrichi dont dispose l’Iran.
«C’est toute la philosophie de politique étrangère d’Obama qui se trouve validée» – une théorie selon laquelle il est possible de parler et de trouver des compromis avec des pays adversaires, a noté le journal Politico. Dès son discours d’investiture en janvier 2009, le patron de l’Amérique avait appelé l’Iran au dialogue, se disant prêt à «tendre sa main si l’autre partie est prête à desserrer le poing». Accusé de naïveté et d’irresponsabilité, il n’a jamais vraiment dévié de cette ligne, et pourrait aujourd’hui être en passe d’engranger un vrai succès, concret, de politique étrangère. S’il est confirmé le 30 juin, l’accord pourrait ouvrir une nouvelle ère dans les relations entre l’Iran et l’Occident. C’est en tout cas, clairement, l »espoir que caresse la Maison Blanche d’Obama. «C’est un moment de vérité», a noté ce jeudi le New York Times parlant «d’un pari» qui n’est pas encore gagné. «Le poing que l’Iran a agité à la face du Grand Satan, n’est pas encore complètement relâché. Mais les doigts se détendent, et l’accord, bien qu’incomplet, laisse la possibilité qu’ils se transforment en poignée de main», ajoute le grand journal new-yorkais.
«Si l’Iran triche, le monde le saura»
Soucieux de prévenir les attaques et le scepticisme qui ont déjà commencé de fuser chez les républicains du Congrès, persuadés qu’on ne peut faire confiance aux Iraniens, Obama a affirmé qu’il s’agissait «d’un bon accord» car «si l’Iran triche, le monde le saura». «L’Iran a donné son accord pour un régime de transparence et les inspections les plus approfondies jamais négociées dans l’histoire des programmes nucléaires», a expliqué le président américain qui martèle depuis des mois sa conviction que la voie diplomatique est «de loin, la meilleure».
Les sanctions américaines et européennes seront levées en fonction du respect de ses engagements par l’Iran. Elles seront rétablies «si l’accord n’est pas appliqué». Autant d’assurances que le président Obama s’est empressé de donner au roi d’Arabie Saoudite Salman puis au Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu, lors de coups de fils successifs. Bien sûr, de nombreuses interrogations pèsent encore sur le processus. Les détails techniques devront être mis noir sur blanc. Le Congrès devra renoncer à mettre en péril les trois mois de négociations qui doivent mener à l’accord final, et l’Iran respecter ses engagements à la lettre. Autant de conditions difficiles à remplir. «Le travail n’est pas fini», a d’ailleurs souligné le président avec force. Mais un processus vient de s’engager, faisant naître un espoir.
Voici les principaux « paramètres » de l’accord-cadre pour résoudre le dossier du nucléaire iranien, les détails de la mise en oeuvre étant « encore à négocier ».
Les grandes puissances – États-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, Chine, France, Allemagne, Russie – et l’Iran ont conclu jeudi à Lausanne, à l’issue de négociations marathons, un accord cadre pour résoudre le dossier du nucléaire iranien, étape fondamentale sur la voie d’un accord final d’ici au 30 juin. Voici les principaux « paramètres » de cet accord-cadre tels que présentés par les autorités américaines qui soulignent cependant que « les détails de leur mise en oeuvre sont encore à négocier » et que « rien n’est accepté tant que tout n’est pas accepté ».
Enrichissement
– Le nombre de centrifugeuses de l’Iran passera de 19 000 à 6 104 (réduction de deux tiers). Sur les 6 104, seules 5 060 auront le droit de produire de l’uranium enrichi pendant dix ans. Il s’agira de centrifugeuses de la première génération.
– Téhéran va réduire son stock d’uranium faiblement enrichi (LEU) de 10 000 kg à 300 kg enrichi à 3,67 % pendant quinze ans.
– L’Iran a accepté de ne pas enrichir d’uranium à plus de 3,67 % pendant au moins quinze ans.
– Le matériel excédentaire sera entreposé sous surveillance de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) et ne pourra servir qu’à des remplacements.
– Téhéran a accepté de ne pas construire de nouvelles installations d’enrichissement d’uranium pendant quinze ans.
Breakout time
Le « breakout time » est dans le jargon des experts le temps nécessaire pour fabriquer assez d’uranium enrichi pour produire une arme atomique. Ce « breakout time », qui est actuellement de deux à trois mois, sera d’un an au moins, et ce, pendant au moins dix ans.
Fordo, Natanz
– L’Iran accepte de ne plus enrichir d’uranium pendant au moins quinze ans dans le site de Fordo, enfoui sous la montagne et de ce fait impossible à détruire par une action militaire. Il n’y aura plus de matières fissiles à Fordo pendant au moins quinze ans. Le site restera ouvert mais n’enrichira pas d’uranium. Environ deux tiers des centrifugeuses de Fordo seront retirées du site.
– Natanz : c’est la principale installation d’enrichissement iranienne, avec quelque 17 000 centrifugeuses IR-1 de la première génération, un millier d’IR-2M plus rapides et une capacité d’en accueillir au total 50 000. Téhéran a accepté que Natanz devienne son unique installation d’enrichissement. Elle devra être dotée de seulement 5 060 centrifugeuses IR-1 de la première génération pendant dix ans. Les centrifugeuses IR-2M seront enlevées et placées sous contrôle de l’AIEA.
Contrôle
– L’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) sera chargée de contrôler régulièrement tous les sites nucléaires iraniens.
– Les inspecteurs de l’AIEA pourront accéder aux mines d’uranium et aux lieux où l’Iran produit le « yellowcake » (un concentré d’uranium) pendant vingt-cinq ans.
Arak
– Le coeur de ce réacteur à eau lourde, qui aurait pu produire du plutonium, sera détruit ou sera déplacé en dehors du territoire iranien. Le réacteur sera reconstruit pour se limiter à la recherche et à la production de radio-isotopes médicaux, sans production de plutonium à capacité militaire. Le combustible utilisé sera envoyé à l’étranger pendant toute la vie du réacteur.
– Téhéran ne pourra pas construire de nouveau réacteur à eau lourde pendant quinze ans.
Sanctions
Les sanctions américaines et européennes seront levées dès que le respect de ses engagements par l’Iran aura été certifié par l’AIEA. Elles seront rétablies si l’accord n’est pas appliqué. Les résolutions de l’ONU seront levées dès que l’Iran respectera tous les points-clés de l’accord. Une nouvelle résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU maintiendra les interdictions de transfert de technologies sensibles et soutiendra l’application de cet accord.
Périodes d’application
Elles varient de dix à quinze ans selon les activités et sont valables pendant vingt-cinq ans pour les inspections de la chaîne d’approvisionnement en uranium.
Les Russes ont réagi à la vitesse de l’éclair, dès l’accord de Lausanne sur le nucléaire conclu. Puisque cet accord est conclu, puisque le nucléaire militaire iranien n’est plus considéré comme une possibilité, qu’il est en principe sur la voie d’être enterré, qu’est-ce qui justifie encore l’installation du réseau anti-missiles US en Europe (gardons l’appellation BMDE pour Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe), lequel fut officiellement lancé et développé contre une menace iranienne principalement ? Alors que les travaux et les initiatives en faveur du BMDE se poursuivent, avec il y a quelques jours la visite du général Breedlove, le SACEUR de l’OTAN, en Roumanie, pour convaincre les Roumains d’accepter l’installation d’un élément du BMDE sur leur sol, – toujours pour nous protéger encore mieux de la menace iranienne ?
(Les USA avaient parlé accessoirement de la menace nord-coréenne, mais le ridicule de l’argument, bien plus encore que l’argument iranien déjà proche du grotesque, fait qu’on ne l’a plus guère évoqué. Nous parlons d’argument de pure communication, c’est-à-dire pour le cas des USA de pure narrative, qui constituent des arguments aussi piètres que de circonstance pour justifier le BMDE. Il n’empêche, puisqu’ils ont toujours été avancés officiellement par les USA, il importe de les accepter comme tels, surtout au moment où la narrative se défait dangereusement. Ce cas est d’abord une affaire de communication et l’affrontement, la guerre” du bloc BAO avec la Russie est d’abord une “guerre de communication”.)
Les grands groupes russes de communication ont donc aussitôt rouvert le dossier BMDE. RT consacre un article à la question, le 4 avril 2015. La réaction de l’OTAN au premier abord est significative, du type très pavlovien “l’accord de Lausanne ne change rien à la nécessité du système BMDE parce que l’accord de Lausanne ne change rien à la nécessité du système BMDE parce que l’accord…” Si, il y a tout de même un argument, époustouflant de puissance, “la menace posée par la prolifération des missiles balistiques contre la pays de l’OTAN continue à s’accroître…” («The threat to NATO countries posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles continues to increase… the framework [of the Iran nuclear program] agreement does not change that fact.») En matière d’activités de ses porte-parole, l’OTAN a, depuis longtemps, dépassé son maître en la matière, l’URSS brejnévienne au plus haut de sa dialectique relevant d’une sorte de parler automatique.
Sputnik-français a eu l’idée intéressante d’interviewer plusieurs experts de différents pays d’Europe et de l’Iran, en évitant comme la peste les experts en fonction des pays du bloc BAO dont il n’y a rien à attendre puisque tout est dit de leur pensée profonde dans la réaction de la porte-parole de l’OTAN telle qu’on l’a lue plus haut. Ces experts travaillent en général pour des think tank, y compris et surtout européens, qui peuvent continuer leur travail si nécessaire grâce à des donations qui vont bien, essentiellement US mais pas seulement… (Sputnik-français, le 3 avril 2015).
• Miroslav Lazanski, analyste militaire, éditorialiste du journal Politika (Belgrade): «Dès le moment où le déploiement du bouclier antimissile en Europe a été évoqué pour la première fois, j’ai toujours affirmé qu’il n’était lié ni au programme nucléaire iranien, ni aux missiles nord-coréens. Son unique vocation est de neutraliser le potentiel nucléaire russe.
»Les négociations avec l’Iran constituent le meilleur test pour l’Occident. A l’heure actuelle, il n’existe plus de raisons formelles pour poursuivre la création de ce bouclier. Cependant, les Etats-Unis continuent de le faire, car cela s’inscrit dans leur politique visant à «encercler» la Russie. Le danger principal du bouclier consiste dans le fait que les missiles intercepteurs peuvent être facilement remplacés par des missiles offensifs dotés d’ogives nucléaires.»
• Orhan Gafarli, expert en matière de sécurité eurasiatique, Centre analytique d’études stratégiques (Turquie): «Suite à la conclusion de l’accord de Lausanne, la nécessité d’installer des systèmes antimissiles américains en Europe de l’Est a disparu. Si le déploiement de ces systèmes près des frontières russes se poursuit, il sera clair pour tout le monde qu’ils sont dirigés contre la Russie. Dans ce cas, les Etats-Unis ne réussiront plus à induire l’opinion mondiale en erreur concernant leurs véritables intentions.»
• Marek Toczek, contre-amiral polonais à la retraite: «L’Iran n’est plus considéré aujourd’hui comme une menace, et je ne pense pas que la Pologne ait vraiment besoin de ce prétendu bouclier antimissile. Toute décision concernant le système de ce gendre profiterait à quelqu’un d’autre, mais pas à la Pologne. Si des structures et des sites de ce type étaient mis en place en Pologne, cela provoquerait manifestement une dissonance. Il fut un temps où nous étions fiers de voir les troupes étrangères quitter le territoire de notre pays. Nous sommes accédés à l’indépendance, tout au moins dans le domaine militaire. Si soutenons ce projet, cela signifie que nous n’avons tiré aucune leçon du passé. Nous accepterons donc une dictature qui nous causera à l’avenir un préjudice beaucoup plus important.»
• Emad Abshenass, expert en géopolitique, rédacteur en chef du journal Iran Press: «L’accord de Lausanne n’a pas apporté de changements fondamentaux aux relations irano-américaines. Mais les responsables politiques du monde entier savent que dans certains cas, des ennemis politiques jurés peuvent devenir amis et vice versa. Les dirigeants iraniens et américains continuent de se haïr. Des notes négatives à l’adresse de la République islamique se sont fait entendre hier dans le discours de Barack Obama. Il y a quelques jours, l’ayatollah Khamenei a pour sa part de nouveau employé sa formule habituelle “Mort à l’Amérique!” Donc, rien n’a changé dans les relations entre les deux pays. Washington n’a pas l’intention de démanteler ses éléments de défense antimissile en Europe de l’Est. Ces systèmes sont toujours dirigés à la fois contre l’Iran et la Russie.»
La rapidité de réaction de communication des Russes à peine l’accord de Lausanne bouclé pour faire ressortir l’affaire du réseau BMDE témoigne, outre leur maîtrise de la communication, de plusieurs points essentiels. Tous ces points ne sont pas que de simples constats, ils sont promis à un développement dans l’avenir et pourraient aggraver un cas ou l’autre, – une crise ou l’autre, – montrant par là qu’il est, aujourd’hui, dans le cadre de la crise d’effondrement du Système, absolument impossible de résoudre une crise seule, d’une façon indépendante, – si tant est que la crise du nucléaire iranien soit complètement et vraiment résolue, ce qui reste à voir. Justement, comme on va le voir, toutes les crises sont liées, interconnectées, dépendantes les unes des autres.
• Le premier point est une confirmation. Il s’agit de l’importance stratégique pour les Russes du réseau antimissiles US/OTAN, d’un point de vue stratégique. Cela explique en bonne partie la rapidité de leurs réactions au niveau de la communication. Les Russes n’abandonneront jamais cette affaire et n’accepteront jamais un compromis qui laisse passer la moindre possibilité que ce réseau BMDE représente pour eux une menace stratégique non contrôlée (quitte à prendre des contre-mesures draconiennes si le BMDE est tout de même installé). L’affaire du BMDE est, du point de vue stratégique nucléaire, aussi importante que la crise ukrainienne du point de vue de la stratégie géographique. Ce sont des domaines sur lesquels les Russes ne transigeront pas…. Ils transigeront d’autant moins que la crise ukrainienne a rendu d’autant plus importante, même si l’on n’en a guère parlé, la ”crise des antimissiles”. Les deux crises s’exacerbent l’une l’autre.
• Cela nous conduit au second point, qui est, justement, celui de l’interconnectivité des crises. On ne peut, aujourd’hui, traiter la crise iranienne sans prendre en considération ses connexions avec d’autres crises, dont certaines qui nous conduisent au cœur de la crise haute qui est celle de l’affrontement entre le bloc BAO et la Russie. Le cas du BMDE en est l’exemple-type, avec dans ce cas, la connexion avec la crise ukrainienne, ce qui lie indirectement la crise iranienne avec la crise ukrainienne. De ce point de vue, on ne peut donc considérer l’accord de Lausanne comme une démarche diplomatique achevée, qui clôt un chapitre crisique important. Tout juste peut-on parle d’une étape, qui peut conduire à d’autres développements qui ne seront pas nécessairement apaisés, tant s’en faut.
• Le troisième point est l’attitude des Russes vis-à-vis de l’Iran à l’ombre de l’affaire du BMDE. Nul doute qu’ils vont activer, en même temps que certaines sanctions devraient être levées, leur démarche consistant à finalement livrer des S-300 de défense aérienne à l’Iran, dans le cadre du marché qu’ls avaient d’abord refuse d’honorer (à cause des sanctions, du temps de Medvedev, en 2009), et qu’ils proposeraient finalement d’honorer. Mais on devrait aller bien au-delà des S-300, et les Russes devraient effectivement proposer des S400 beaucoup plus avancés. (Voir le 24 février 2015.) C’est une question d’abord commerciale, certes, mais, désormais, surtout stratégique. Les Russes feront tout pour renforcer la défense des Iraniens contre toute menace stratégique, à la fois pour réduire encore plus l’argument des BMDE mais aussi pour contrecarrer les menaces qui continuent à se développer d’une éventuelle frappe contre l’Iran, – des Israéliens, mais aussi des USA dans des cas extrêmes. Bref, les Russes feront tout pour renforcer la défense de l’Iran dans la balance stratégique face au bloc BAO, dans un cadre général stratégique où, à cause du réseau BMDE qui continue à se développer, ils doivent jouer à fond la carte du renforcement stratégique de l’Iran. D’autre part, certes, ils doivent tout faire pour renforcer leurs liens stratégiques avec l’Iran, et cela devrait commencer par l’admission comme membre effectif de l’Iran à l’Organisation de Coopération de Shanghai, en juillet prochain.
• Le paradoxe est ainsi que la résolution possible/probable de la crise iranienne pourrait conduire, sinon devrait conduire à un renforcement notable des tensions stratégiques générales du bloc BAO avec la Russie, notamment à partir de la crise ukrainienne qui en est son point de fixation central. L’Iran, “libéré” des contraintes internationales, et s’il l’est officiellement, va désormais être sollicité par les évènements eux-mêmes pour jouer un jeu important dans les grandes crises en cours. Certes, on pense naturellement et irrésistiblement à la crise générale et confuse du Moyen-Orient, mais c’est un aspect très opérationnel. Nous pensons surtout à l’aspect d’une grande stratégie diplomatique et de communication, et c’est vers le Nord et vers le Nord-Est que l’Iran va être sollicité, vers l’axe Moscou-Pékin, vers l’OCS ; et également vers des crises comme celles de l’Ukraine et les autres qui opérationnalisent le grand schisme entre le bloc BAO et les autres. L’Iran ne pourra pas observer une neutralité dans ce cas, il devra choisir son camp. On a vu (le 1er avril 2015) que ce n’est pas le camp du bloc BAO qui nous paraît le choix probable de l’Iran.
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Today, the United States — together with our allies and partners — has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. And I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer.
This has been a long time coming. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades. By the time I took office, Iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the materials for a nuclear bomb — and Iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility. I made clear that we were prepared to resolve this issue diplomatically, but only if Iran came to the table in a serious way. When that did not happen, we rallied the world to impose the toughest sanctions in history — sanctions which had a profound impact on the Iranian economy.
Now, sanctions alone could not stop Iran’s nuclear program. But they did help bring Iran to the negotiating table. Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world’s major powers — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.
Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas. And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, and that we could not verify their compliance and the interim agreement would fail. Instead, it has succeeded exactly as intended. Iran has met all of its obligations. It eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material. Inspections of Iran’s program increased. And we continued negotiations to see if we could achieve a more comprehensive deal.
Today, after many months of tough, principled diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.
Many key details will be finalized over the next three months, and nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed. But here are the basic outlines of the deal that we are working to finalize.
First, Iran will not be able to pursue a bomb using plutonium, because it will not develop weapons-grade plutonium. The core of its reactor at Arak will be dismantled and replaced. The spent fuel from that facility will be shipped out of Iran for the life of the reactor. Iran will not build a new heavy-water reactor. And Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors — ever.
Second, this deal shuts down Iran’s path to a bomb using enriched uranium. Iran has agreed that its installed centrifuges will be reduced by two-thirds. Iran will no longer enrich uranium at its Fordow facility. Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. The vast majority of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium will be neutralized.
Today, estimates indicate that Iran is only two or three months away from potentially acquiring the raw materials that could be used for a single nuclear bomb. Under this deal, Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb. And the strict limitations on Iran’s stockpile will last for 15 years.
Third, this deal provides the best possible defense against Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon covertly — that is, in secret. International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program — from uranium mills that provide the raw materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program. If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. Iran’s past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed. With this deal, Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world.
So this will be a long-term deal that addresses each path to a potential Iranian nuclear bomb. There will be strict limits on Iran’s program for a decade. Additional restrictions on building new facilities or stockpiling materials will last for 15 years. The unprecedented transparency measures will last for 20 years or more. Indeed, some will be permanent. And as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.
In return for Iran’s actions, the international community has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions — our own sanctions, and international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be phased as Iran takes steps to adhere to the deal. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place. Meanwhile, other American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.
Now, let me reemphasize, our work is not yet done. The deal has not been signed. Between now and the end of June, the negotiators will continue to work through the details of how this framework will be fully implemented, and those details matter. If there is backsliding on the part of the Iranians, if the verification and inspection mechanisms don’t meet the specifications of our nuclear and security experts, there will be no deal. But if we can get this done, and Iran follows through on the framework that our negotiators agreed to, we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security, and to do so peacefully.
Given the importance of this issue, I have instructed my negotiators to fully brief Congress and the American people on the substance of the deal, and I welcome a robust debate in the weeks and months to come. I am confident that we can show that this deal is good for the security of the United States, for our allies, and for the world.
For the fact is, we only have three options for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. First, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal — like this one — and peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The second option is we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East, and setting back Iran’s program by a few years — in other words, setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. Meanwhile we’d ensure that Iran would race ahead to try and build a bomb.
Third, we could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or add additional ones, and hope for the best — knowing that every time we have done so, Iran has not capitulated but instead has advanced its program, and that in very short order, the breakout timeline would be eliminated and a nuclear arms race in the region could be triggered because of that uncertainty. In other words, the third option leads us very quickly back to a decision about whether or not to take military action, because we’d have no idea what was going on inside of Iran.
Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so. That’s not how the world works, and that’s not what history shows us. Iran has shown no willingness to eliminate those aspects of their program that they maintain are for peaceful purposes, even in the face of unprecedented sanctions. Should negotiations collapse because we, the United States, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, it’s doubtful that we can even keep our current international sanctions in place.
So when you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East? Is it worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades, with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspections? I think the answer will be clear.
Remember, I have always insisted that I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and I will. But I also know that a diplomatic solution is the best way to get this done, and offers a more comprehensive — and lasting — solution. It is our best option, by far. And while it is always a possibility that Iran may try to cheat on the deal in the future, this framework of inspections and transparency makes it far more likely that we’ll know about it if they try to cheat — and I, or future Presidents, will have preserved all of the options that are currently available to deal with it.
To the Iranian people, I want to reaffirm what I’ve said since the beginning of my presidency. We are willing to engage you on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. This deal offers the prospect of relief from sanctions that were imposed because of Iran’s violation of international law. Since Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, this framework gives Iran the opportunity to verify that its program is, in fact, peaceful. It demonstrates that if Iran complies with its international obligations, then it can fully rejoin the community of nations, thereby fulfilling the extraordinary talent and aspirations of the Iranian people. That would be good for Iran, and it would be good for the world.
Of course, this deal alone — even if fully implemented — will not end the deep divisions and mistrust between our two countries. We have a difficult history between us, and our concerns will remain with respect to Iranian behavior so long as Iran continues its sponsorship of terrorism, its support for proxies who destabilize the Middle East, its threats against America’s friends and allies — like Israel. So make no mistake: We will remain vigilant in countering those actions and standing with our allies.
It’s no secret that the Israeli Prime Minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue. If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option. And I believe our nuclear experts can confirm that.
More importantly, I will be speaking with the Prime Minister today to make clear that there will be no daylight, there is no daylight, when it comes to our support for Israel’s security and our concerns about Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats toward Israel. That’s why I’ve directed my national security team to consult closely with the new Israeli government in the coming weeks and months about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel, and make clear our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s defense.
Today, I also spoke with the King of Saudi Arabia to reaffirm our commitment to the security of our partners in the Gulf. And I’m inviting the leaders of the six countries who make up the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain — to meet me at Camp David this spring to discuss how we can further strengthen our security cooperation, while resolving the multiple conflicts that have caused so much hardship and instability throughout the Middle East.
Finally, it’s worth remembering that Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, played a critical role in our current Iran policy, helping to shape the sanctions regime that applied so much pressure on Iran and ultimately forced them to the table. In the coming days and weeks, my administration will engage Congress once again about how we can play — how it can play a constructive oversight role. I’ll begin that effort by speaking to the leaders of the House and Senate today.
In those conversations, I will underscore that the issues at stake here are bigger than politics. These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts and what is ultimately best for the American people and for our national security. For this is not simply a deal between my administration and Iran. This is a deal between Iran, the United States of America, and the major powers in the world — including some of our closest allies. If Congress kills this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.
The American people understand this, which is why solid majorities support a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. They understand instinctively the words of President Kennedy, who faced down the far greater threat of communism, and said: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” The American people remember that at the height of the Cold War, Presidents like Nixon and Reagan struck historic arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, a far more dangerous adversary — despite the fact that that adversary not only threatened to destroy our country and our way of life, but had the means to do so. Those agreements were not perfect. They did not end all threats. But they made our world safer. A good deal with Iran will do the same.
Today, I’d like to express my thanks to our international partners for their steadfastness and their cooperation. I was able to speak earlier today with our close allies, Prime Minister Cameron and President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel, to reaffirm that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder in this effort.
And most of all, on behalf of our nation, I want to express my thanks to our tireless — and I mean tireless — Secretary of State John Kerry and our entire negotiating team. They have worked so hard to make this progress. They represent the best tradition of American diplomacy. Their work — our work — is not yet done and success is not guaranteed. But we have an historic opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran, and to do so peacefully, with the international community firmly behind us. We should seize that chance.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
La Maison Blanche
Bureau du secrétaire de presse
Washington, D.C.
Le 2 avril 2015
Paramètres d’un Plan d’action conjoint et exhaustif relatif au programme nucléaire de la République islamique d’Iran
Nous présentons ci-dessous les paramètres du Plan d’action conjoint et exhaustif relatif au programme nucléaire de la République islamique d’Iran, décidés à Lausanne (Suisse). Ces éléments serviront de fondation au texte définitif du Plan d’action conjoint, qui sera rédigé d’ici au 30 juin. Ils sont la manifestation des importants progrès réalisés dans le cadre des discussions entre le groupe P5+1, l’Union européenne et l’Iran. D’importants détails de mise en œuvre sont encore sujets à négociation, et rien n’est convenu tant que tout n’est pas convenu. Nous allons travailler afin de conclure le plan d’action conjoint sur la base de ces paramètres pendant les mois à venir.
Enrichissement
• L’Iran a accepté de réduire d’environ deux tiers son parc de centrifugeuses installées. L’Iran passera d’environ 19 000 centrifugeuses installées aujourd’hui à 6 104 unités dans le cadre de l’accord, dont 5 060 seulement enrichiront de l’uranium pendant les 10 années à venir. Ces 6 104 centrifugeuses seront du type IR-1, c’est-à-dire de première génération en Iran.
• L’Iran a accepté de ne pas enrichir d’uranium au-delà d’une teneur de 3,67 % pendant au minimum 15 ans.
• L’Iran a accepté de réduire son stock actuel, qui est d’environ 10 tonnes d’uranium faiblement enrichi (UFE), à 300 kilos d’UFE enrichi à 3,67 %, pendant une période de 15 années.
• Toutes les centrifugeuses et infrastructures d’enrichissement surnuméraires seront placées dans des entrepôts surveillés par l’AIEA ; elles seront affectées exclusivement au remplacement de centrifugeuses et équipements en exploitation.
• L’Iran a accepté de ne construire aucune nouvelle installation aux fins d’enrichir de l’uranium, et ce pendant 15 ans.
• Le « break-out time » de l’Iran, c’est-à-dire le temps qui lui serait nécessaire pour obtenir une quantité de matière fissile suffisante pour fabriquer une bombe nucléaire, est actuellement estimé entre deux et trois mois. Ce délai sera allongé à un an au minimum dans le cadre prévu, et cela pendant une période d’au moins dix ans.
L’Iran va reconvertir ses installations de Fordo afin qu’elles ne soient plus utilisées aux fins d’enrichir l’uranium
• L’Iran a accepté de ne pas enrichir d’uranium dans ses installations de Fordo pendant au minimum 15 ans.
• L’Iran a accepté de reconvertir ses installations de Fordo de façon à qu’elles ne soient utilisées qu’à des fins pacifiques, sous forme d’un centre de recherche sur la physique et la technologie nucléaires.
• L’Iran a accepté de ne conduire à Fordo aucune activité de recherche et développement liée à l’enrichissement de l’uranium, et ce pendant 15 ans.
• L’Iran ne détiendra aucune matière fissile à Fordo pendant 15 ans.
• Près des deux tiers des centrifugeuses et infrastructures de Fordo seront enlevées. Les centrifugeuses restantes n’enrichiront pas d’uranium. Toutes les centrifugeuses et infrastructures connexes seront soumises aux contrôles de l’AIEA.
L’Iran n’enrichira l’uranium que dans ses installations de Natanz, avec seulement 5 060 centrifugeuses IR-1 de première génération pendant dix ans.
• L’Iran a accepté de n’enrichir l’uranium qu’avec ses centrifugeuses de première génération (type IR-1) à Natanz, et ce pendant dix ans, en enlevant ses centrifugeuses de technologie plus avancée.
• L’Iran enlèvera les mille centrifugeuses de type IR-2M déjà installées à Natanz et les mettra pendant dix ans dans un entrepôt soumis aux contrôles de l’AIEA.
• Pendant dix ans au moins, l’Iran s’abstiendra d’utiliser ses centrifugeuses de type IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 ou IR-8 pour produire de l’uranium enrichi. L’Iran utilisera ses centrifugeuses de technologie avancée pour des activités de recherche et développement limitées, selon un calendrier et des paramètres convenus par le groupe P5+1.
• Pendant dix ans, l’enrichissement et les activités de recherche et développement dans le domaine de l’enrichissement seront limités de façon à assurer un break-out time d’au moins un an. Au-delà de ces dix années, l’Iran devra respecter son plan d’enrichissement et de R&D en matière d’enrichissement, tel que soumis à l’AIEA, et, conformément au Plan d’action, le Protocole additionnel induisant certaines limitations en termes de capacités d’enrichissement.
Inspections et transparence
• L’AIEA disposera d’un accès régulier à toutes les installations nucléaires d’Iran, y compris aux installations iraniennes d’enrichissement de Natanz et aux anciennes installations d’enrichissement de Fordo, et pourra utiliser les technologies modernes de contrôle les plus récentes.
• Les inspecteurs auront accès à la chaine d’approvisionnement qui alimente le programme nucléaire iranien. Les nouveaux mécanismes de transparence et d’inspection assureront un contrôle étroit des matériaux et/ou composants, afin de prévenir tout détournement au profit d’un programme secret.
• Les inspecteurs auront accès aux mines d’uranium et assureront un contrôle continu des usines de traitement où l’Iran produit ses concentrés d’uranium, et cela pendant une période de 25 ans.
• Pendant 20 ans, les inspecteurs assureront un contrôle continu des installations de production et stockage des rotors et cylindres de centrifugeuses. La filière iranienne de fabrication des centrifugeuses sera gelée et soumise à une surveillance continue.
• Toutes les centrifugeuses et infrastructures d’enrichissement retirées des installations de Fordo et de Natanz seront placées sous surveillance continue de l’AIEA.
• À titre de mesure de transparence supplémentaire, un canal d’approvisionnement dédié sera mis en place pour le programme nucléaire iranien, afin de surveiller et d’approuver au cas par cas la fourniture, la vente ou le transfert à l’Iran de certaines matières et technologies liées au nucléaire ou à double usage.
• L’Iran a accepté d’appliquer le Protocole additionnel de l’AIEA, donnant à cette dernière un bien meilleur accès au programme nucléaire iranien, et à des informations beaucoup plus développées à cet égard, au titre des installations déclarées comme non déclarées.
• L’Iran sera tenu de donner accès à l’AIEA pour lui permettre d’enquêter sur les sites suspects ou les allégations d’existence d’une installation clandestine de production de concentrés d’uranium, de conversion ou d’enrichissement d’uranium, ou de fabrication de centrifugeuses, et cela en tout lieu dans le pays.
• L’Iran a accepté d’appliquer le Code 3.1 modifié, qui impose une notification accélérée en cas de construction de nouvelles installations.
• L’Iran déploiera une série de mesures convenues pour répondre aux inquiétudes de l’AIEA en ce qui concerne le volet militaire possible du programme iranien.
Réacteurs et retraitement
• L’Iran a accepté de modifier la conception et de reconstruire un réacteur de recherche à eau lourde à Arak, sur la base d’un modèle validé par le groupe P5+1, lequel réacteur ne produira pas de plutonium de qualité militaire et contribuera à la recherche nucléaire et à la production d’isotopes à des fins pacifiques.
• Le cœur d’origine du réacteur, qui aurait permis de produire des quantités significatives de plutonium de qualité militaire, sera détruit ou retiré du pays.
• Pendant toute la durée de vie du réacteur, l’Iran expédiera à l’étranger la totalité du combustible usé du réacteur.
• L’Iran s’est engagé indéfiniment à ne conduire aucune activité de retraitement de combustible irradié ou de recherche et développement relative au combustible irradié.
• L’Iran s’interdit d’accumuler de l’eau lourde au-delà des besoins du réacteur d’Arak tel que modifié, et vendra pendant quinze ans sur le marché international toute quantité d’eau lourde résiduelle.
• L’Iran s’interdit de construire de nouveaux réacteurs à eau lourde pendant une période de 15 ans.
Sanctions
• L’Iran bénéficiera de mesures de levée des sanctions si le pays respecte ses engagements de manière vérifiable.
• Les sanctions des États-Unis et de l’Union européenne liées au nucléaire seront suspendues lorsque l’AIEA aura vérifié que l’Iran a pris toutes les mesures clés de sa responsabilité en matière nucléaire. Ces sanctions s’appliqueront à nouveau immédiatement si l’Iran manque à ses engagements à quelque moment que ce soit.
• L’architecture des sanctions américaines liées au nucléaire à l’égard de l’Iran sera maintenue pendant une grande partie de la durée de l’accord et permet le rétablissement immédiat des sanctions en cas de non-respect significatif.
• Toutes les résolutions adoptées dans le passé par le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU sur la question nucléaire iranienne seront abrogées simultanément lorsque l’Iran aura pris dans le domaine nucléaire les mesures réglant tous les principaux problèmes (enrichissement, Fordo, Arak, volet militaire possible, et transparence).
• Toutefois, les dispositions fondamentales des résolutions du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, à savoir celles traitant des transferts de technologies et d’activités à caractère sensible, seront reprises dans une nouvelle résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, validant le Plan d’action conjoint et appelant à sa mise en œuvre intégrale. Elle créera également le canal d’approvisionnement mentionné ci-dessus, qui constituera une mesure de transparence essentielle. Cette nouvelle résolution intégrera également d’importantes restrictions relatives aux armes conventionnelles et aux missiles balistiques, ainsi que des dispositions permettant l’inspection des expéditions correspondantes et des gels d’actifs.
• Un mécanisme de résolution des différends sera prévu, afin de permettre à tout participant au Plan d’action conjoint de chercher une solution aux différends pouvant concerner l’exécution des engagements figurant audit Plan d’action conjoint.
• Toutes les sanctions préexistantes de l’ONU pourront être réimposées si un désaccord portant sur une non-performance significative ne peut être résolu dans le cadre de ce mécanisme.
• Les sanctions prises par les États-Unis à l’égard de l’Iran au titre du terrorisme, des missiles balistiques et des violations des droits de l’homme restent en vigueur dans le cadre de l’accord.
Calendrier
• Pendant dix ans, l’Iran limitera ses capacités d’enrichissement domestiques et ses activités de recherche et développement, de façon à assurer un break-out time d’au minimum un an. Au delà, l’Iran sera tenu par son plan à plus long terme pour l’enrichissement et la R&D dans le domaine de l’enrichissement, qui a été partagé avec le groupe P5+1.
• Pendant quinze ans, l’Iran limitera d’autres aspects de son programme. À titre d’exemple, l’Iran ne saurait construire de nouvelles installations d’enrichissement ou de nouveaux réacteurs à eau lourde, limitera ses stocks d’uranium enrichi et accepte des procédures de transparence renforcées.
• Des mesures importantes en matière d’inspection et de transparence seront maintenues bien au-delà de 15 années.
• Le respect par l’Iran du Protocole additionnel de l’AIEA est une mesure permanente, y compris en ce qui concerne les importantes obligations prévues en matière d’accès et de transparence. Les mesures vigoureuses prévues en matière d’inspection de la chaine d’approvisionnement en uranium de l’Iran s’appliqueront pendant 25 ans.
• Même après la période d’application des mesures de limitation les plus sévères à l’égard du programme nucléaire iranien, l’Iran restera partie au Traité de non-prolifération (TNP), qui interdit le développement ou l’acquisition d’armes nucléaires par l’Iran et soumet son programme nucléaire au régime de contrôle de l’AIEA.
Il est dans votre intérêt qu’un seul homme meure pour le peuple, et que la nation entière ne périsse pas. Caïphe (Jean 11: 50)
Ce jour même, Pilate et Hérode devinrent amis, d’ennemis qu’ils étaient auparavant. Luc 23: 12
Je vous donne ma paix. Je ne vous donne pas comme le monde donne. Jésus (Jean 14: 27)
Il s’élèvera de faux Christs et de faux prophètes; ils feront de grands prodiges et des miracles, au point de séduire, s’il était possible, même les élus. Jésus (Matthieu 24: 24)
Quand les hommes diront: Paix et sûreté! alors une ruine soudaine les surprendra …Paul (I Thessaloniciens 5: 3)
En pleine semaine sainte, la polémique ne pouvait passer inaperçue. Mgr Di Falco a révélé que la RATP avait exigé que soient retirées des affiches annonçant le prochain concert du groupe «Les Prêtres» la mention «au profit des Chrétiens d’Orient» (…) Si la RATP a exigé que soit supprimée la mention des Chrétiens d’Orient, c’est parce que «la RATP et sa régie publicitaire ne peuvent prendre parti dans un conflit de quelque nature qu’il soit» selon leur communiqué commun. «Toute atteinte à ce principe ouvrirait la brèche à des prises de positions antagonistes sur notre territoire». Annoncer que ce concert était offert au profit de ces chrétiens d’Orient est «une information se situant dans le contexte d’un conflit armé à l’étranger et (…) le principe de neutralité du service public qui régit les règles de fonctionnement de l’affichage par Métrobus, trouve en effet dans ce cas à s’appliquer.» Vous avez bien lu. Pour la RATP, les Chrétiens d’Orient sont juste un camp face à l’autre, un camp pour lequel on ne peut pas prendre parti. Alors que la France, par la voix de Laurent Fabius, se démène à l’ONU pour que cesse le génocide dont sont victimes ces minorités d’Irak et d’ailleurs, alors que le Président de la République a reçu des Chrétiens obligés de fuir leur pays pour ne pas être massacrés par Daesh, la RATP -elle- refuse de choisir. Entre Daesh et ses victimes, elle veut rester «neutre».. Cette neutralité-là est impossible. Cette neutralité est une complicité avec celui qui massacre, contre l’innocent qui est massacré. Cette neutralité rappelle celle de Pilate et de tous ceux qui l’ont suivi depuis 2000 ans, se lavant les mains des massacres commis, et fermant les yeux sur le sort des victimes, pour ne pas faire de vagues ni perdre leur poste.Abbé Pierre-Hervé Grosjean (curé de Saint Cyr l’Ecole)
Le carême chrétien, qui en parle ? Il est coutumier de voir les politiques et les médias accompagner le ramadan. Cependant, personne n’aura dit un mot, en symétrie, du rituel catholique qui vient de s’achever. Les fêtes de Pâques ne sont pas davantage commentées.L’excès de discrétion des catholiques accélère leur effacement. La RATP vient ainsi de refuser d’apposer la mention « Au bénéfice des chrétiens d’Orient » sur une affiche du métro parisien. Elle annonce le prochain concert du groupe « Les Prêtres ». La RATP fait valoir la laïcité. Mais elle-même accepte fréquemment des publicités rappelant le ramadan. Le deux poids deux mesures saute au yeux. La RATP fait honte. Mais tendre l’autre joue a aussi ses limites. C’est la protestation des Chrétiens qui doit se faire entendre. Ivan Rioufol
Mes bons amis, pour la deuxième fois de notre histoire, un premier ministre britannique revient d’Allemagne apportant la paix dans l’honneur. Je crois que c’est la paix pour notre temps… Rentrez-chez vous et dormez en paix. Neville Chamberlain
Nous avons subi une défaite totale et sans mélange (…). Notre peuple doit savoir que nous avons subi une défaite sans guerre, dont les conséquences nous accompagneront longtemps sur notre chemin. (…) Ils ont accepté le déshonneur pour avoir la paix. Ils auront le déshonneur et la guerre. Churchill (1938)
Plus le mensonge est gros, plus il passe. Plus souvent il est répété, plus le peuple le croit. Goebbels
Ce qui se vit aujourd’hui est une forme de rivalité mimétique à l’échelle planétaire. Lorsque j’ai lu les premiers documents de Ben Laden, constaté ses allusions aux bombes américaines tombées sur le Japon, je me suis senti d’emblée à un niveau qui est au-delà de l’islam, celui de la planète entière. Sous l’étiquette de l’islam, on trouve une volonté de rallier et de mobiliser tout un tiers-monde de frustrés et de victimes dans leurs rapports de rivalité mimétique avec l’Occident. René Girard
Les lamentations sur ce qui est advenu de la politique étrangère américaine au Moyen-Orient passent à côté de l’essentiel. Le plus remarquable concernant la diplomatie du président Obama dans la région, c’est qu’elle est revenue au point de départ – jusqu’au début de sa présidence. La promesse d’ « ouverture » vers l’Iran, l’indulgence envers la tyrannie de Bashar Assad en Syrie, l’abandon des gains américains en Irak et le malaise systématique à l’égard d’Israël — tels étaient les traits distinctifs de l’approche du nouveau président en politique étrangère. A présent, nous ne faisons qu’assister aux conséquences alarmantes d’une perspective aussi malavisée que naïve. Fouad Ajami (oct. 2013)
J’annonce au monde entier que si les infidèles font obstacle à notre religion, nous nous opposerons au monde entier et nous ne cesserons pas avant leur anéantissement, nous en sortirons tous libérés ou nous obtiendrons une plus grande liberté qui est le martyr. Soit nous nous serrerons les uns aux autres pour célébrer la victoire de l’islam sur le monde ou bien nous aurons tous la vie éternelle grâce au martyr. Dans les deux cas, la victoire et le succès seront à nous.Khomeiny
Le problème n’est pas la sécurité d’Israël, la souveraineté du Liban ou les ingérences de la Syrie ou du Hezbollah : Le problème est centré sur l’effort de l’Iran à obtenir le Droit d’Abolir l’Exclusivité de la Dissuasion. La prolifération sauvage, le concept de «tous nucléaires» sera la fin de la Guerre Froide et le retour à la période précédant la Dissuasion. Les mollahs et leurs alliés, le Venezuela, l’Algérie, la Syrie, la Corée du Nord et la Russie…, se militarisent à une très grande échelle sachant qu’ils vont bientôt neutraliser le parapluie protecteur de la dissuasion et alors ils pourront faire parler la poudre. Chacun visera à dominer sa région et sans que les affrontements se déroulent en Europe, l’Europe sera dépouillée de ses intérêts en Afrique ou en Amérique du Sud et sans combattre, elle devra déposer les armes. Ce qui est incroyable c’est la myopie de la diplomatie française et de ses experts. (…) Aucun d’entre eux ne se doute que la république islamique a des alliés qui ont un objectif commun: mettre un terme à une discrimination qui dure depuis 50 ans, la dissuasion nucléaire ! Cette discrimination assure à la France une position que beaucoup d’états lui envient. Ils attendent avec impatience de pouvoir se mesurer avec cette ancienne puissance coloniale que beaucoup jugent arrogante, suffisante et gourmande. Iran-Resist
L’Iran aurait pu être la Corée du Sud; il est devenu la Corée du Nord. (…) Mais n’oubliez pas qu’Ahmadinejad n’est que le représentant d’un régime de nature totalitaire, qui ne peut se réformer et évoluer, quelle que soit la personne qui le représente. (…) Aujourd’hui, le problème ne vient pas de l’idée de se doter de l’énergie nucléaire ; il provient de la nature du régime islamique. (…) je ne crois pas que les mollahs soient assez fous pour penser un jour utiliser la bombe contre Israël: ils savent très bien qu’ils seraient aussitôt anéantis. Ce qu’ils veulent, c’est disposer de la bombe pour pouvoir s’institutionnaliser une fois pour toutes dans la région et étendre leurs zones d’influence. Ils rêvent de créer un califat chiite du XXIe siècle et entendent l’imposer par la bombe atomique (…) il est manifeste qu’un gouvernement paranoïaque crée des crises un peu partout pour tenter de regagner à l’extérieur la légitimité qu’il a perdue à l’intérieur. Les dérives du clan au pouvoir ne se limitent pas au soutien au Hamas, elles vont jusqu’à l’Amérique latine de Chavez. Il ne s’agit en rien d’une vision qui vise à défendre notre intérêt national. Si le régime veut survivre, il doit absolument mettre en échec le monde libre, combattre ses valeurs. La République islamique ne peut pas perdurer dans un monde où l’on parle des droits de l’homme ou de la démocratie. Tous ces principes sont du cyanure pour les islamistes. Comment voulez-vous que les successeurs de Khomeini, dont le but reste l’exportation de la révolution, puissent s’asseoir un jour à la même table que le président Sarkozy ou le président Obama? Dans les mois à venir, un jeu diplomatique peut s’engager, mais, au final, il ne faut pas se faire d’illusion. Même si Khatami revenait au pouvoir, le comportement du régime resterait identique, car le vrai décideur c’est Khamenei. Je ne vois aucune raison pour laquelle le régime islamiste accepterait un changement de comportement. Cela provoquerait, de manière certaine, sa chute. Il ne peut plus revenir en arrière. J’ai bien peur que la diplomatie ne tourne en rond une nouvelle fois et que la course à la bombe ne continue pendant ce temps. Reza Pahlavi
En tant que défenseur de la rue arabe, [l’Iran] ne peut pas avoir un dialogue apaisé avec les Etats-Unis, dialogue au cours duquel il accepterait les demandes de cet Etat qui est le protecteur par excellence d’Israël. Téhéran a le soutien de la rue arabe, talon d’Achille des Alliés Arabes des Etats-Unis, car justement il refuse tout compromis et laisse entendre qu’il pourra un jour lui offrir une bombe nucléaire qui neutralisera la dissuasion israélienne. Pour préserver cette promesse utile, Téhéran doit sans cesse exagérer ses capacités militaires ou nucléaires et des slogans anti-israéliens. Il faut cependant préciser que sur un plan concret, les actions médiatiques de Téhéran ne visent pas la sécurité d’Israël, mais celle des Alliés arabes des Etats-Unis, Etats dont les dirigeants ne peuvent satisfaire les attentes belliqueuses de la rue arabe. Ainsi Téhéran a un levier de pression extraordinaire sur Washington. Comme toute forme de dissuasion, ce système exige un entretien permanent. Téhéran doit sans cesse fouetter la colère et les frustrations de la rue arabe ! Il doit aussi garder ses milices actives, de chaînes de propagande en effervescence et son programme nucléaire le plus opaque possible, sinon il ne serait pas menaçant. C’est pourquoi, il ne peut pas accepter des compensations purement économiques offertes par les Six en échange d’un apaisement ou une suspension de ses activités nucléaires. Ce refus permanent de compromis est vital pour le régime. (…) Il n’y a rien qui fasse plus peur aux mollahs qu’un réchauffement avec les Etats-Unis : ils risquent d’y perdre la rue arabe, puis le pouvoir. C’est pourquoi, le 9 septembre, quand Téhéran a accepté une rencontre pour désactiver les sanctions promises en juillet, il s’est aussitôt mis en action pour faire capoter ce projet de dialogue apaisé qui est un véritable danger pour sa survie. Iran Resist
Les camps d’entraînement du Hezbollah sous contrôle iranien ou sous le nom du Hezbollah sont disséminés sur les quatre continents, dont l’Argentine, le Paraguay, la Colombie et probablement au Venezuela, en Asie Pacifique, l’Indonésie intéresse les mollahs. Il ne faut surtout pas oublier l’Afrique où les mollahs comptent de nombreux alliés parmi lesquels au premier rang se trouve l’Afrique du Sud, pays phare de ce continent et intermédiaire diplomatique dans de nombreux conflits régionaux. (…) Mais, il y a aussi les Etats-Unis, où le régime compte des nombreux partisans débarqués dans ce pays avec des passeports iraniens et des titres de professeurs ou chercheurs. L’Europe compte aussi d’importants centres (d’études et de recherches) gérés par le Hezbollah et selon la presse allemande, le nombre des partisans du Hezbollah sera de 900 dans ce pays. L’ensemble des ces réseaux internationaux qui sont présent en Amérique Latine, dans les pays du Golfe Persique, aux Etats-Unis, en Europe ou en Asie Pacifique font état d’une éclatante santé idéologique. (…) Dans ces conditions, nous songeons au dernier article d’Antoine Sfeir dans le Figaro. Sfeir qui est un des agents du lobby des mollahs en France et se rend souvent en Iran écrit naïvement : L’Iran possèdera tôt ou tard l’arme nucléaire. La véritable question est de savoir s’il l’aura avec nous ou contre nous ?”Iran-Resist
Une chose est claire, c’est que le USS Vincennes était en état de légitime défense. Cet accident tragique s’est produit dans un contexte d’attaques illégales iraniennes répétées, injustifiées et non-provoquées contre la marine marchande et les forces armées des Etats-Unis. Et il s’est produit au cours d’une attaque navale lancée par des navires iraniens contre un navire neutre et plus tard contre le Vincennes quand il est venu secourir le bateau innocent en perdition. Vice-président George H.W. Bush (Siège des Nations-Unies, le 14 juillet 1988)
Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism, striking Israel, U.S. Arab allies, and at times Americans. (…) Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has backed an array of terrorist groups. These groups have fostered unrest in Iraq and the oil-rich Gulf Kingdoms, killed Iran’s enemies in Europe, and struck at enemies like Israel and the United States. Most infamously for Americans, Iran has backed the Lebanese Hizballah, providing it with hundreds of millions of dollars, sophisticated arms, and advanced training. Among its many operations, Hizballah in 1983 bombed the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks hosting U.S. peacekeepers in Beirut, killing 17 embassy officials and 241 Marines. Iran has also backed Hizballah in its numerous operations against Israel, including a 2012 bus bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists and the bus driver, and has given money and weapons to Hamas, which has used these to attack Israel in repeated clashes. Tehran has also quietly maintained links to Al Qaeda itself, hosting several important figures though also restricting their activities. For Iran, ties to terrorists served multiple purposes. Ideologically, Tehran often believed that the terrorists’ goals – to spread an Iranian-style Islamic state, to overthrow an apostate regime, to battle Israel, and so on – were the right ones, and thus it was supporting the “good guys.” But strategic considerations also proved vital. Ties to terrorist groups enabled Iran to extend its influence around the world, something its weak military and struggle economy could not accomplish. With ties to groups like Hamas, Iran was also able to establish itself as an important actor against Israel – always a popular cause in the Middle East – and, in so doing, live up to its self-image of being an Islamic revolutionary power, not a champion of the Shi’a community, which is a minority in most Arab countries. (…) Especially as talks over Iran’s nuclear program appear close to bearing fruit, the United States should make clear it condemns terrorism of all stripes, regardless of who the victim is.Daniel L. Byman (Brookings, 2013)
L’ouvrage signé sous un pseudonyme – on parle d’un collectif d’opposants iraniens – revient d’abord sur l’organisation de l’appareil d’Etat iranien, avant d’analyser l’action de celui-ci à l’étranger, à travers le mouvement politique chi’ite mondial (POCHM) et la nébuleuse nationale-islamique iranienne (NINI), entre autres. Une approche très exhaustive s’attache à passer en revue les actions les plus déstabilisatrices et les réseaux d’amitiés / complicités de la république islamique sur l’ensemble de la planète, y compris dans des zones où une menace iranienne n’apparaissait pas évidente aux observateurs (de la Nouvelle Zélande à l’Uruguay, en passant par la Bolivie ou la Roumanie). (…) Malgré l’absence d’une hypothèse forte, sans doute due à l’effet-catalogue de ce travail, on voit bien la centralité des solidarités chi’ites à l’œuvre dans les réseaux présentés ici. (…) Il ne faut pas se fier au titre de cet ouvrage : il n’est pas question – ou si peu – du Hezbollah ici, ni en tant que tel, ni en tant que symptôme d’une méthode iranienne, consistant par exemple à transformer un pays arabe donné en « multivocal state », par l’établissement d’un pouvoir parallèle fondé sur la mise en œuvre d’un mouvement armé d’identité chi’ite mais capitalisant sur l’opposition à Israël. (…) On pourra, à partir des exemples nombreux qui sont passés en revue dans ce document, réfléchir à quelques problématiques qui en émergent : La question de l’animation, par l’Iran et d’autres, d’un réseaux de « politiques étrangères protestataires », solidaires entre elles, refusant les initiatives occidentales et leur « diplomatie de club » (pour reprendre l’expression de Bertrand Badie), politiques qui comptent des relais de téhéran à Caracas en passant par Pyongyang, Minsk, voire Pékin ou Moscou. La question de la nuisance en politique étrangère, qui consiste à contrer efficacement les initiatives dominantes au cas par cas, plutôt que de proposer une politique de puissance alternative avec une stratégie globale (ainsi l’Iran a-t-il davantage profité des erreurs américaines au Moyen-Orient, plutôt qu’il n’aurait bâti de stratégie a priori). Enfin, bien évidemment, la question de la mobilisation de ressources et de réseaux religieux à l’appui d’une action extérieure … Frédéric Charillon
Sur le long terme, Obama et son entourage ont toujours fantasmé sur une réconciliation globale entre les Etats-Unis et l’islamisme, qu’il s’agisse de l’islamisme sunnite des Frères musulmans ou de l’islamisme chiite iranien. C’était le sens, dès 2009, du discours-manifeste du Caire, prononcé, il ne faut pas l’oublier, au moment même où le pouvoir des mollahs écrasait dans le sang un « printemps iranien ». Cela a été également le sens, par la suite, de la temporisation d’Obama sur la question du nucléaire iranien : Washington s’est prononcé en faveur de sanctions économiques de plus en plus lourdes, mais n’a pas envisagé sérieusement une action militaire contre l’Iran ni accordé de feu vert à une éventuelle action militaire israélienne.(…) Des négociations discrètes ont été menées au début de l’été entre Washington et Téhéran, et elles avaient suffisamment abouti dès le mois d’août – quand Rouhani a pris officiellement ses fonctions – pour que plusieurs revues américaines influentes diffusent presque immédiatement des articles préparant l’opinion à cette « détente », sinon à ce renversement d’alliance. La New York Review of Books publie dans sa livraison datée du 15 août un long article en faveur d’un « nouvelle approche envers l’Iran » cosigné, de manière significative – l’union sacrée, pourrait-on dire -, par un universitaire pro-iranien, William Luers, un ancien ambassadeur aux Nations Unies, Thomas Pickering et un homme politique républicain, Jim Walsh. Quant à Foreign Affairs, elle consacre sa couverture de septembre-octobre au chef véritable du régime iranien, l’ayatollah et Guide spirituel Ali Khamenei. Akbar Ganji, un journaliste prestigieux, souvent présenté comme le « Soljénitsyne iranien », y affirme à la fois que Rouhani ne peut se rapprocher des Etats-Unis sans l’accord préalable et l’appui de Khamenei, ce qui est vrai ; et que les Etats-Unis doivent saisir cette « chance », ce qui est plus discutable. (…) A un autre niveau, à plus court terme, Obama a sans doute vu dans un rapprochement avec l’Iran le moyen d’effacer ou de faire oublier ses échecs répétés au Moyen-Orient : en Libye, en Egypte et finalement en Syrie. Une Grande Puissance, c’est un pays qui peut faire la guerre et qui, par voie de conséquence, est en mesure d’imposer sa volonté à d’autres pays. Et « pouvoir faire la guerre », en amont, cela suppose à la fois des moyens techniques (une armée, des armements, des technologies), et des moyens politiques ou moraux (une vision du monde, des objectifs, une détermination). L’Amérique d’Obama a toujours les moyens techniques d’une Très Grande Puissance, mais elle s’est comportée en Syrie, à travers ses tergiversations et finalement sa capitulation diplomatique devant la Russie de Poutine, comme si elle n’en avait plus les moyens politiques ou moraux. Ce que les alliés traditionnels des Etats-Unis ne sont pas près de pardonner au président sur le plan international (des Etats du Golfe à la France de Hollande), ni les Américains eux-mêmes en politique intérieure.(…) Les clés d’Obama se trouvent dans son livre autobiographique, Les Rêves de mon père. Deux faits, qu’il rapporte avec beaucoup de franchise : d’abord, un drame intime : il n’a pratiquement pas connu son père ; ensuite, un drame identitaire : l’Amérique traditionnelle – anglo-saxonne, judéo-chrétienne, blanche – est pour lui une sorte de pays étranger. Il est certes né aux Etats-Unis, mais il n’y a pas passé son enfance. Il n’a pas été élevé dans la foi chrétienne, mais dans un mélange d’humanisme athée et d’islam libéral. Et bien que sa mère soit blanche, il a toujours été considéré comme un Noir. Comment surmonte-t-il ces deux drames ? A travers l’action politique en vue d’une Amérique nouvelle, multiraciale, multireligieuse, multiculturelle. En fait, il veut enfanter cette nouvelle Amérique qui lui ressemblerait, être à la fois son propre père et celui d’une nation remodelée à son image. Ce qui passe, entre autre choses, par une réconciliation – fusionnelle – avec un islam qui est le contraire même de l’Amérique traditionnelle. Ce n’est là qu’un fantasme. La politique rationnelle d’Obama se réfère à d’autres considérations, d’autres raisonnements. Mais les fantasmes sont souvent aussi puissants ou plus puissants que la rationalité. Et qui plus est, les fantasmes personnels du président actuel recoupent ceux d’une bonne partie de la société américaine : les Noirs, les non-Blancs en général, mais aussi les milieux blancs d’extrême-gauche, une partie des élites intellectuelles… (…) Qui peut encore soutenir sérieusement qu’Israël est au cœur de tous les problèmes du Proche Orient et que tout passe, dans cette région, par la « résolution » du « problème palestinien » ? Depuis près de quatre ans, le monde arabe et islamique n’en finit pas de se décomposer et de se recomposer sous nos yeux, entraîné par ses pesanteurs propres. Une analyste géopolitique, Robin Wright, vient même de prédire dans le New York Times, le quotidien le plus pro-Obama des Etats-Unis, le remplacement de cinq Etats moyen-orientaux (la Syrie, l’Irak, l’Arabie Saoudite, la Libye, le Yemen) par quinze nouveaux Etats à caractère ethnoreligieux. Voilà qui merite au moins autant d’attention que les articles promouvant le « nouvel Iran » du président Rouhani. Et qui relativise le « processus de paix » Jérusalem-Ramallah. Michel Gurfinkiel
The foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran. (…) The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State. (…) Our withdrawal from Iraq in late 2011 contributed to a perception that the U.S. was pulling back from the Middle East. This perception has complicated our ability to shape developments in the region and thus to further our interests. These perceptions have also shaken many of our allies and, for a period at least, made it harder to persuade them to support our approaches. (…) Neither the Iranians nor Daesh are ten feet tall, but the perception in the region for the past few years has been that of the U.S. on the wane, and our adversaries on the rise. I hope that we can begin to reverse that now.David Petraeus
Iran is already in violation of a number of Security Council resolutions demanding it cease all uranium enrichment and heavy water activity – a process used to create weapons-grade plutonium. Furthermore, none of this activity is even remotely necessary if Iran, as it claims, only wants a peaceful nuclear program.There are many countries that have nuclear power that do not have the capability to enrich their own fuel. They buy it from abroad and that’s what Iran could do. And that’s what the media are neglecting to tell you. There are over thirty countries around the world that have nuclear power programs but according to the World Nuclear Association, only eleven have the capacity to enrich their own fuel. Here are some of the countries that have nuclear energy but don’t enrich their own nuclear fuel: Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, South Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine. The fact is that, of countries that have enrichment capabilities, the majority also possess nuclear weapons. Countries that enrich nuclear materials but do not have nuclear weapons include Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Countries that enrich and do have nuclear weapons include Pakistan, Russia and China. When you think of Iran, do you think it fits in with Germany, Japan and the Netherlands? Or, does it fit better with Pakistan, Russia and China? If that isn’t enough to make you uncomfortable, in a speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council in 2005, Rouhani himself said: A country that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons. Since Argentina, Armenia, Sweden and Spain can buy nuclear fuel from abroad, why can’t Iran? Since our neighbors Canada and Mexico can pursue this policy, why can’t Iran? Camera
La Corée du Nord a appris au monde qu’au poker nucléaire la folie feinte vous vaut de l’aide étrangère ou l’attention planétaire — du fait que même la certitude qu’on a affaire à un bluff à 99% reste suffisante pour effrayer les opinions publiques occidentales. La Corée du nord est le proverbial envieux psychopathe du quartier qui agresse constamment ses voisins prospères d’à côté, en partant du principe que les voisins ne pourront manquer de prendre en compte ses menaces aussi sauvages qu’absurdes parce qu’il n’a rien et qu’ils ont tout à perdre. (…) L’Iran pourrait reprendre à l’infini le modèle de Kim — menaçant une semaine de rayer Israël de la carte, faisant machine arrière la semaine d’après sous prétexte de problèmes de traduction. L’objectif ne serait pas nécessairement de détruire Israël (ce qui vaudrait à l’Iran la destruction de la culture persane pour un siècle), mais d’imposer une telle atmosphère d’inquiétude et de pessimisme à l’Etat juif que son économie en serait affaiblie, son émigration en serait encouragée et sa réputation géostratégique en serait érodée. La Corée du nord est passée maître dans de telles tactiques de chantage nucléaire. A certains moments, Pyongyang a même réussi à réduire les deux géants asiatiques – Japon et Corée du Sud – à la quasi-paralysie.(…) Un Iran nucléaire n’aurait à s’inquiéter ni d’un ennemi existentiel avec une population d’un milliard d’habitants à côté tel que l’Inde ni d’un mécène tout aussi peuplé comme la Chine susceptible d’imposer des lignes rouges à ses crises de folie périodiques. Téhéran serait libre au contraire de faire et de dire ce qu’il veut. Et son statut de puissance nucléaire deviendrait un multiplicateur de force pour son énorme richesse pétrolière et son statut auto-proclamé de leader mondial des musulmans chiites. Si la Corée du Nord est un danger, alors un Iran nucléaire plus gros, plus riche et sans dissuasion serait un cauchemar. Victor Davis Hanson
A l’époque, pendant que nous étions en train de discuter avec les Européens à Téhéran, nous installions des équipements dans certaines parties d’Ispahan, et le projet était sur le point d’être complété. En réalité, c’est en créant un climat de sérénité, que nous avons pu achever Ispahan. Hassan Rohani (03.11.03)
What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true. Marziyeh Afkham (Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman)
The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments (…) Why don’t we all stick to what we agreed to ? Why do we need to produce different texts ? (…) The terminology is different. The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again (…) And I urge you to read the entire text. If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. (…) What Iran has agreed is not to enrich above 5%. We did not agree to dismantle anything. Javad Zarif (Iranian foreign minister, 23.01.14)
Mort à l’Amérique, parce que l’Amérique est la source d’origine de cette pression. Ils insistent à mettre la pression sur l’économie de nos chères personnes. Quel est leur objectif ? Leur objectif est de monter les gens contre le système. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (20.03.15)
L’armement de la Cisjordanie a commencé et les armes seront fournies aux habitants de cette région. Les sionistes doivent savoir que la prochaine guerre ne sera pas limitée aux frontières actuelles et les Moudjahidine les repousseront. Mohammad Reza Naqdi (commandant de la milice Basij des Gardiens de la Révolution de l’Iran, 2014)
Là, c’est une étape importante, très importante même, mais le bout du chemin, c’est la fin juin (…) Il est écrit dans ce qu’on a signé: rien n’est acté tant que tout n’a pas été acté. (…) Les Américains et les Iraniens nous avaient proposé un texte, mais nous avions dit ‘non’ parce que le Président et moi avions estimé qu’il n’était pas assez solide. L’Iranien avait menacé de rentrer chez lui et de démissionner. Mais il est finalement resté à la table. (…) il faut « lever les sanctions au fur et à mesure que l’Iran respecte ses engagements. (…) la France « n’a rien contre l’Iran » : « nous voulons juste que l’accord soit perçu comme solide pour éviter que les autres pays du Golfe comme l’Arabie Saoudite se lancent dans la prolifération nucléaire.Laurent Fabius
We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program. Barack Hussein Obama (December 07, 2013)
Je suis convaincu que si cet accord-cadre mène à un accord total et définitif, notre pays, nos alliés et le monde seront plus en sécurité. L’Iran sera « plus inspecté que n’importe quel autre pays dans le monde. Si l’Iran triche, le monde le saura. Si nous voyons quelque chose de louche, nous mènerons des inspections. Cet accord n’est pas basé sur la confiance, il est basé sur des vérifications sans précédent.Barack Hussein Obama
Le programme nucléaire civil iranien et l’usage d’un réacteur de recherche (à Arak) sont acceptés par les 5+1, y compris l’enrichissement, ce qui n’était pas le cas auparavant. En face, Téhéran a accepté de réduire drastiquement ses capacités nucléaires ainsi que la mise en oeuvre du protocole additionnel du Traité de non-prolifération (TNP) qui facilitera les contrôles des inspecteurs de l’AIEA. L’Iran a aussi accepté que la levée des sanctions soit progressive et conditionnées au rythme de l’application de l’accord (diminution du nombre de centrifugeuses, fermeture de Fordo, etc.) (…) Grâce à l’accord de Lausanne, le programme nucléaire iranien est très sérieusement encadré. Il sera surveillé à la loupe. Les différentes clauses concernant l’enrichissement, ou les sites sensibles de Fordo, d’Arak ou de Natanz, permettront de limiter de façon drastique toute possibilité d’accès à l’arme atomique. Aucun pays au monde n’a accepté de telles restrictions en matière nucléaire. Au-delà même des 10 à 15 ans prévus par les paramètres de l’accord, l’Iran continuera en outre à être soumis aux contrôles prévus par l’AIEA. (…) Il s’agit maintenant de « mettre en musique » les lignes générales présentées jeudi soir par la chef de la diplomatie de l’UE, Federica Mogherini, et le ministre iranien des Affaires étrangères, Mohammad Javad Zarif ; d’affiner les détails de leur mise en oeuvre. Certains points de la déclaration commune sont très clairs, d’autres plus flous. Parallèlement à cette déclaration, les Etats-Unis ont diffusé un document comprenant une liste de « paramètres ». Celle-ci n’est pas formellement acceptée par les Iraniens, mais il semble qu’elle servira de ligne directrice pour la rédaction de l’accord détaillé. (…) La voie de la diplomatie est un pari. Les partisans du dialogue considèrent que le retour de la prospérité en Iran, après la levée des sanctions, va contribuer à détendre l’atmosphère. Certains craignent l’inverse, c’est vrai. L’aboutissement de ces longues discussions devrait, selon moi, renforcer le président Hassan Rohani, élu sur la promesse d’ouverture au monde. A l’intérieur comme en ce qui concerne la politique extérieure. De quoi renforcer le camp des modérés dont il est le chef de file, à l’occasion des prochaines législatives, en 2016. Réintroduire l’Iran dans le jeu international, faire en sorte qu’il se sente moins menacé, peut, je le crois, conforter la voie de la modération dans sa relation au monde. François Nicoullaud (ancien ambassadeur de France en Iran)
L’accord nucléaire avec l’Iran : un succès inespéré Obtenu après un marathon de huit jours et huit nuits de négociations à Lausanne, l’accord du 2 avril 2015 entre l’Iran et les grandes puissances de la «communauté internationale» (représentées par les ministres des Affaires étrangères des cinq membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, de l’Allemagne et de l’Union européenne) a toutes les chances d’être encore enseigné dans trente ans au sein des universités de sciences politiques du monde entier comme un modèle de succès de la diplomatie multilatérale. Car s’il n’est pas saboté d’ici le 30 juin (date prévue officiellement pour sa signature définitive incluant tous les protocoles techniques) par les extrémistes des deux bords (les faucons du Congrès américain et les conservateurs du Majlis iranien), ce deal sur le dossier atomique iranien mettra fin aux risques de prolifération nucléaire au Moyen-Orient. Mieux, pour la stabilité de cette région, il pourra faire de l’Iran un partenaire de l’Occident, et non plus un rival ou un ennemi. Renaud Girard (Le Figaro)
Iran’s habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking a crisis. A year may simply not be enough time to build an international consensus on measures to redress Iranian violations. Michael Hayden, Olli Heinonen and Ray Takeyh (former CIA director, former IAEA deputy chief and Iran expert)
Les négociations nucléaires avec la Corée du Nord prouvent que le programme de l’Iran ne manquera pas de se poursuivre, qu’il y ait ou pas un accord. Si l’on se fie aux critères de bonne foi nucléaire de Barak Obama et de John Kerry, la Corée du Nord était un État modèle-en 1992. En 1985, la Corée du Nord avait signé le Traité de non-prolifération des armes nucléaires. En 1992, elle cosignait en compagnie de la Corée du Sud une déclaration conjointe proclamant la «dénucléarisation» de la péninsule coréenne. La Corée du Nord signa par la suite un accord de contrôle avec l’Agence internationale pour l’Énergie atomique (AIEA). Dans les mois qui suivirent, l’AIEA décelait des «irrégularités» dans le programme nucléaire de la Corée du Nord. (…) Après des négociations avec la Corée du Nord, et suite à des rapports de la CIA révélant que ce pays avai séparé assez de plutonium pour une ou deux armes nucléaires, les États-Unis et la Corée du Nord signaient en 1994 un Accord-Cadre à Genève. Comme la Corée du Nord promettait de renoncer à ses capacités de production d’armes nucléaires, l’Accord-Cadre est célébré comme un succès diplomatique majeur de la présidence Clinton. En 1996-97, les États-Unis négocient avec la Corée du Nord sur la prolifération des missiles balistiques. (…) En octobre 2002, les États-Unis déclarent que la Corée du Nord admet l’existence d’un programme secret d’enrichissement militaire de l’uranium. (…) La Corée du Nord interdit alors tout accès de l’AIEA à ses installations nucléaires, quitte le Traité de non-prolifération et relance un réacteur nucléaire. Les négociations reprennent à Pékin en avril 2003. La Corée du Nord déclare qu’elle possède des armes nucléaires mais qu’ elle démantèlera ses «installations nucléaires» en contrepartie de pétrole et de nourriture. En février 2005, le ministre des affaires étrangères de la Corée du Nord déclare à nouveau que son pays a produit des armes nucléaires. Quelques mois plus tard, les Coréens affirment qu’ils sont prêts à abandonner «toute arme nucléaire» et à rejoindre le Traité de non-prolifération. Un nouveau cycle de négociations commence. (…) En octobre, la Corée du Nord procède à l’essai d’un engin nucléaire souterrain. (…) La Corée du Nord déclare qu’elle n’est plus « liée » par les accords antérieurs. Le 25 mai 2009, la Corée du Nord procède à un second essai nucléaire souterrain. (…) Début 2013, un groupe de contrôle détecte une activité ayant « toutes les caractéristiques d’une explosion » sur le site des essais nucléaires souterrains de la Corée du Nord. (…) En novembre dernier, le ministre des affaires étrangères russe Sergueï Lavrov déclare que la Corée du Nord est prête à reprendre les négociations à six. —- Il faut que tous les membres du Sénat lisent les 81 pages de la chronologie. La Corée du Nord prouve, de façon irréfutable, que le modèle des «négociations» ne fonctionne pas s’il n’est pas associé à des actes crédibles de menace et de coercition. L’Iran sait que ses négociateurs nucléaires lui procurent l’immunité. La question n’est pas quand ou comment l’Iran violera un accord quelconque. L’Occident lui demandera platement – quoi d’autre? – davantage de négociations. Les programmes nucléaires et balistiques de l’Iran se poursuivront à l’image de la Corée du Nord, c’est l’évidence, quoi qu’on dise.Daniel Henninger
À peine les négociateurs avaient-ils annoncé l’accord avec l’Iran sur le nucléaire que les conservateurs dégainaient leurs tweets vengeurs annonçant, avec leur ton mesuré légendaire, la fin du monde. Ils accusent le président Obama de s’être aplati devant les Iraniens et d’avoir lâché trop de concessions. Peu importe si les détails ne sont pas connus avant l’échéance du 30 juin, ils sont convaincus que cet accord est une catastrophe majeure. Leur comparaison favorite, ce sont évidemment les accords de Munich en 1938. « Neville Chamberlain a obtenu d’Adolf Hitler un meilleur accord », a déclaré le sénateur Mark Kirk de l’Illinois. « Arrêtez toute cette négativité sur l’accord avec l’Iran, mes chers conservateurs. Les Iraniens n’ont pas eu la région des Sudètes », ironise Ed Morrissey, un blogueur de droite. Dans le magazine National Review, l’historien Victor Davis Hanson écrit : « Notre déshonneur à Lausanne, comme à Munich, peut éviter une confrontation aujourd’hui, mais notre honte garantit une guerre dans l’avenir proche. » Les néoconservateurs, qu’on croyait enterrés avec le fiasco de la guerre en Irak, ont repris du poil de la bête et sont de nouveau très influents chez les républicains. Malgré leurs échecs répétés, ils ont conservé leur vision belliqueuse du monde et leur credo : pas de compromis avec les ennemis de l’Amérique, même si cela doit mener à une autre guerre et mettre la planète à feu et à sang. « Pour stopper la bombe de l’Iran, bombardez l’Iran, » écrivait récemment John Bolton, l’ambassadeur aux Nations unies de George W. Bush, dans le New York Times. Les conservateurs ont vraiment tout fait ces derniers mois pour torpiller les négociations avec Téhéran. Ils ont invité début mars le Premier ministre israélien, sans le dire à la Maison-Blanche. Benjamin Netanyahu, en plein Congrès, a attaqué la politique d’Obama en disant que tout accord « ouvrirait la voie » à une bombe atomique iranienne. Quelques jours plus tard, 47 sénateurs ont signé une lettre qu’ils ont envoyée directement à Téhéran à l’instigation du sénateur Tom Cotton de l’Arkansas. Objectif : rappeler au régime iranien que le Congrès pouvait faire machine arrière sur tout accord. Du jamais-vu dans les annales de la diplomatie.Hélène Vissière (Le Point)
Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic. (…) The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements. Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement. Free Beacon
I run into people constantly who believe that the bluffer in this relationship is Obama. Their argument holds that Obama will move toward a strategy of containment soon after the election, and that there is no way he would ever use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. I’m in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he’s repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic’s International Channel, I’ve posted below a partial accounting of Obama’s statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he’s told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.Jeffrey Goldberg (2012)
Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend them. In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Iran’s vulnerability. Instead of using the sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb. Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, “Death to America.” If Chamberlain possessed America’s strength and was dealing with Iran’s weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo? (…) It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude. Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world’s most dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional seats to the country’s Arab minority. We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy. In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism. The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region. The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way. Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel’s nuclear program, we believed that the president’s Iranian policy was motivated by a different vision of America’s interests in the Middle East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let alone to explain. But Mr. Obama’s latest petulant act shows that this is not a president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel’s nuclear program is made public while the report’s description of the programs of our NATO partners is redacted? (…) Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama’s legacy far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain’s.The Observer
The current negotiations with the Iranians in Lausanne, Switzerland, have all the hallmarks of the Munich negotiations. Most Westerners accept that the Iranian government funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has all but taken over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet the idea of stronger sanctions, blockades, or even force to stop Iranian efforts to get a bomb are considered scarier than Iran getting a bomb that it just possibly might not threaten to use. The U.S. and its NATO partners are far stronger than Iran in every imaginable measure of military and economic strength. The Iranian economy is struggling, its government is corrupt, and its conventional military is obsolete. Iran’s only chance of gaining strength is to show both its own population and the world at large that stronger Western powers backed down in fear of its threats and recklessness. Iran is not united. It is a mishmash nation in which over a third of the population is not Persian. Millions of protestors hit the streets in 2009. An Iranian journalist covering the talks defected in Switzerland — and said that U.S. officials at the talks are there mainly to speak on behalf of Iran. By reaching an agreement with Iran, John Kerry and Barack Obama hope to salvage some sort of legacy — in the vain fashion of Chamberlain — out of a heretofore failed foreign policy. Victor Davis Hanson
En ces temps étranges où une affiche de concert pour les Chrétiens d’Orient semblent plus choquants que leurs découpages à présent presque quotidiens au couteau de boucher …
A l’heure où du haut de six années de reculades et de lignes rouges comme de fausses promesses, le faux Messie noir de la Maison Blanche nous assure sans rire …
Saluant à qui mieux mieux un « succès inespéré » ayant « toutes les chances d’être encore enseigné dans trente ans au sein des universités de sciences politiques du monde entier comme un modèle de succès de la diplomatie multilatérale » …
Et ne trouvant pas de mots assez durs pour dénoncer, pour un pré-accord dont « les détails ne sont pas connus avant l’échéance du 30 juin », les républicains qui « se déchainent « et les « néoconservateurs, qu’on croyait enterrés avec le fiasco de la guerre en Irak » …
Pendant que comme à leur habitude quelques heures à peine après les négociateurs iraniens …
Accusaient déjà la Maison Blanche de mensonges sur la teneur exacte des termes du prétendu accord …
Comment ne pas avoir avec l’historien militaire américain Victor Davis Hanson …
Comme une étrange impression de déjà vu …
Jusqu’à l’indispensable tiers exclu, juifs ou chrétiens africains ou arabes (tant qu’ils ne sont pas… palestiniens !) remplaçant avantageusement la Tchécoslovaquie d’antan …
D’un tristement fameux accord dans une certaine ville de Bavière il y a quelque 77 ans ?
Once again our leaders are needlessly appeasing a hostile state that shows them nothing but contempt. The Western capitulation to Adolf Hitler in the 1938 Munich Agreement is cited as classic appeasement that destroyed Czechoslovakia, backfired on France and Britain, and led to World War II.
All of that is true.
But there was much more that caused the Munich debacle than simple Western naiveté. The full tragedy of that ill-fated agreement should warn us on the eve of the Obama’s administration’s gullible agreement with Iran on nuclear proliferation.
Fable one is the idea that most people saw right through the Munich folly. True, Europeans knew that Hitler had never once told the truth and was already murdering German citizens who were Jews, Communists, or homosexuals. But Europeans did not care all that much.
Instead, the Western world was ecstatic over the agreement. After the carnage of World War I, Europeans would do anything to avoid even a small confrontation — even if such appeasement all but ensured a far greater bloodbath than the one that began in 1914.
Another myth was that Hitler’s Wehrmacht was strong and the democracies were weak. In fact, the combined French and British militaries were far larger than Hitler’s. French Char tanks and British Spitfire fighters were as good as, or superior to, their German counterparts.
Czechoslovakia had formidable defenses and an impressive arms industry. Poland and perhaps even the Soviet Union were ready to join a coalition to stop Hitler from dissolving the Czech state.
It is also untrue that the Third Reich was united. Many of Hitler’s top generals did not want war. Yet each time Hitler successfully called the Allies’ bluff — in the Rhineland or with the annexation of Austria — the credibility of his doubters sank while his own reckless risk-taking became even more popular.
Munich was hardly a compassionate agreement. In callous fashion it immediately doomed millions of Czechs and put Poland on the target list of the Third Reich. Munich was directly tied to the vanity of Neville Chamberlain. In the first few weeks after Munich, Chamberlain basked in adulation, posing as the humane savior of Western civilization. In contrast, loud skeptic Winston Churchill was dismissed by the media and public as an old warmonger.
Hitler failed to appreciate the magnanimity and concessions of the French and British. He later called his Munich diplomatic partners “worms.” Hitler said of the obsequious Chamberlain, “I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.”
The current negotiations with the Iranians in Lausanne, Switzerland, have all the hallmarks of the Munich negotiations.
Most Westerners accept that the Iranian government funds terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. It has all but taken over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Yet the idea of stronger sanctions, blockades, or even force to stop Iranian efforts to get a bomb are considered scarier than Iran getting a bomb that it just possibly might not threaten to use.
The U.S. and its NATO partners are far stronger than Iran in every imaginable measure of military and economic strength. The Iranian economy is struggling, its government is corrupt, and its conventional military is obsolete. Iran’s only chance of gaining strength is to show both its own population and the world at large that stronger Western powers backed down in fear of its threats and recklessness.
Iran is not united. It is a mishmash nation in which over a third of the population is not Persian. Millions of protestors hit the streets in 2009. An Iranian journalist covering the talks defected in Switzerland — and said that U.S. officials at the talks are there mainly to speak on behalf of Iran.
By reaching an agreement with Iran, John Kerry and Barack Obama hope to salvage some sort of legacy — in the vain fashion of Chamberlain — out of a heretofore failed foreign policy.
There are more Munich parallels. The Iranian agreement will force rich Sunni nations to get their own bombs to ensure a nuclear Middle East standoff. A deal with Iran shows callous disagreed for our close ally Israel, which is serially threatened by Iran’s mullahs. The United States is distant from Iran. But our allies in the Middle East and Europe are within its missile range. Supporters of the Obama administration deride skeptics such as Democratic senator Robert Menendez and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as if they were doubting old Churchills.
Finally, the Iranians, like Hitler, have only contempt for the administration that has treated them so fawningly. During the negotiations in Switzerland, the Iranians blew up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. Their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, did his usual “death to America” shtick before adoring crowds. Our dishonor in Lausanne, as with Munich, may avoid a confrontation in the present, but our shame will guarantee a war in the near future.
Au terme de plusieurs mois de négociations, un accord cadre pour résoudre le dossier du nucléaire iranien a été conclu jeudi à Lausanne. François Nicoullaud, ancien ambassadeur de France en Iran, spécialiste du dossier, revient sur les avancées de ce compromis « historique ».
Barack Obama a parlé d’un accord « historique ». Est-ce vraiment le cas?
Oui. Cela faisait plus de 35 ans que les deux pays étaient en conflit. L’accord intervient douze ans après les premières négociations. Les détails de l’accord restent à formaliser, mais on vient de franchir une étape extrêmement importante pour la résolution de cette crise.
L’accord vous semble-t-il équilibré ?
Les deux parties ont chacune fait des concessions, mais chacune a su préserver des aspects essentiels de ses objectifs. Le programme nucléaire civil iranien et l’usage d’un réacteur de recherche (à Arak) sont acceptés par les 5+1, y compris l’enrichissement, ce qui n’était pas le cas auparavant. En face, Téhéran a accepté de réduire drastiquement ses capacités nucléaires ainsi que la mise en oeuvre du protocole additionnel du Traité de non-prolifération (TNP) qui facilitera les contrôles des inspecteurs de l’AIEA. L’Iran a aussi accepté que la levée des sanctions soit progressive et conditionnées au rythme de l’application de l’accord (diminution du nombre de centrifugeuses, fermeture de Fordo, etc.)
Les opposants à l’accord estiment qu’il encourage l’Iran dans sa course au nucléaire; le gouvernement israélien évoque un « pas dans une direction très très dangereuse »…
Les opposants aux négociations n’ont jamais présenté d’alternative crédible. Depuis 12 ans, ils ont évoqué des solutions radicales, sans résultat. L’usage de la force, la destruction des installations iraniennes était pour eux la seule option envisageable. Cela n’aura contribué qu’à l’aggravation des tensions dans une région qui n’en n’a guère besoin. Le compromis n’est peut-être pas parfait; mais c’est la nature même d’un compromis.Il constitue pourtant un véritable soulagement. Grâce à l’accord de Lausanne, le programme nucléaire iranien est très sérieusement encadré. Il sera surveillé à la loupe. Les différentes clauses concernant l’enrichissement, ou les sites sensibles de Fordo, d’Arak ou de Natanz, permettront de limiter de façon drastique toute possibilité d’accès à l’arme atomique. Aucun pays au monde n’a accepté de telles restrictions en matière nucléaire. Au-delà même des 10 à 15 ans prévus par les paramètres de l’accord, l’Iran continuera en outre à être soumis aux contrôles prévus par l’AIEA.
L’accord de Lausanne peut-il encourager la prolifération dans la région, comme le craignent ses adversaires ?
Je ne vois pas pourquoi un accord qui ferme toutes les voies d’accès à la bombe serait encourageant pour quiconque.Certains observateurs ont relevé que les termes de cet accord sont moins favorables que celui négocié en 2003 entre l’Iran et l’Union européenne…Il est clair qu’en 2003, au moment des premières discussions, Téhéran ne disposait que de quelques dizaines de centrifugeuses contre près de 20.000 aujourd’hui. L’Iran était prêt à accepter des contraintes plus fortes qu’aujourd’hui. Si on avait accepté de discuter sérieusement alors, la République islamique se serait probablement contentée d’un millier de centrifugeuse, tandis que l’accord cadre du 2 avril en prévoit près de 6000.
Que va-t-il se passer d’ici l’accord final du 30 juin?
Il s’agit maintenant de « mettre en musique » les lignes générales présentées jeudi soir par la chef de la diplomatie de l’UE, Federica Mogherini, et le ministre iranien des Affaires étrangères, Mohammad Javad Zarif ; d’affiner les détails de leur mise en oeuvre. Certains points de la déclaration commune sont très clairs, d’autres plus flous. Parallèlement à cette déclaration, les Etats-Unis ont diffusé un document comprenant une liste de « paramètres ». Celle-ci n’est pas formellement acceptée par les Iraniens, mais il semble qu’elle servira de ligne directrice pour la rédaction de l’accord détaillé.
La France a tenu une position souvent plus ferme que les Etats-Unis…
Elle a poussé à des solutions « robustes », selon le terme employé par Laurent Fabius. On trouve en effet la marque des exigences de Paris dans l’accord cadre: la levée des sanctions par phases, le démantèlement du coeur du réacteur à eau lourde d’Arak (remplacé par un réacteur destiné à la recherche). Je ne crois pas que les demandes de la France ont véritablement gêné les discussions. Elles ont pu générer des tensions, pas un blocage.Les détracteurs des négociations craignent que cet accord ne conforte le sentiment hégémonique de l’Iran dans la région…La voie de la diplomatie est un pari. Les partisans du dialogue considèrent que le retour de la prospérité en Iran, après la levée des sanctions, va contribuer à détendre l’atmosphère. Certains craignent l’inverse, c’est vrai. L’aboutissement de ces longues discussions devrait, selon moi, renforcer le président Hassan Rohani, élu sur la promesse d’ouverture au monde. A l’intérieur comme en ce qui concerne la politique extérieure. De quoi renforcer le camp des modérés dont il est le chef de file, à l’occasion des prochaines législatives, en 2016. Réintroduire l’Iran dans le jeu international, faire en sorte qu’il se sente moins menacé, peut, je le crois, conforter la voie de la modération dans sa relation au monde.
Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet
Adam Kredo
Free Beacon
April 2, 2015
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.
Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.
Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.
“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”
Zarif went on to push back against claims by Kerry that the sanctions relief would be implemented in a phased fashion—and only after Iran verifies that it is not conducting any work on the nuclear weapons front.
Zarif, echoing previous comments, said the United States has promised an immediate termination of sanctions.
“Iran/5+1 Statement: ‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?” he wrote on Twitter.
He then suggested a correction: “Iran/P5+1 Statement: ‘The EU will TERMINATE the implementation of ALL nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions’. How about this?”
The pushback from Iran’s chief diplomat follows a pattern of similar accusations by senior Iranian political figures after the announcement of previous agreements.
Following the signing of an interim agreement with Iran aimed at scaling back its nuclear work, Iran accused the United States of lying about details of the agreement.
On Thursday evening, Zarif told reporters the latest agreement allows Iran to keep operating its nuclear program.
“None of those measures” that will move to scale back Iran’s program “include closing any of our facilities,” Zarif said. “We will continue enriching; we will continue research and development.”
“Our heavy water reactor will be modernized and we will continue the Fordow facility,” Zarif said. “We will have centrifuges installed in Fordow, but not enriching.”
The move to allow Iran to keep centrifuges at Fordow, a controversial onetime military site, has elicited concern that Tehran could ramp up its nuclear work with ease.
Zarif said that once a final agreement is made, “all U.S. nuclear related secondary sanctions will be terminated,” he said. “This, I think, would be a major step forward.”
Zarif also revealed that Iran will be allowed to sell “enriched uranium” in the international market place and will be “hopefully making some money” from it.
With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees that Iran will limit its nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the Observer urges President Obama not to place his personal hunger for a legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty – protecting America’s national security.
Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend them.
In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China.
In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Iran’s vulnerability. Instead of using the sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb.
Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, “Death to America.”
If Chamberlain possessed America’s strength and was dealing with Iran’s weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo?
Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial portfolios. He was considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member. Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed Chamberlain to the new War Cabinet.
History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet.
On Iran, No Deal Is Better Than A Good Deal
It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude.
It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude.
Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world’s most dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional seats to the country’s Arab minority.
We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State.
In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy.
In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism.
The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism
The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region.
The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way.
Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel’s nuclear program, we believed that the president’s Iranian policy was motivated by a different vision of America’s interests in the Middle East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let alone to explain.
But Mr. Obama’s latest petulant act shows that this is not a president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel’s nuclear program is made public while the report’s description of the programs of our NATO partners is redacted?
We might call for Mr. Obama to find his inner Churchill and walk away from this tragedy, but we would be happy if he would simply find the character of the “real” Neville Chamberlain, who when dealing from a position of America’s strength would never have signed a deal with the devil. Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama’s legacy far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain’s.
We now have a definitive answer to the oft-asked but hardly challenging question of whether President Obama wanted a deal with Iran so badly he would accept a truly awful bargain. The answer: Of course he did.
Iranian negotiators have triumphed on nearly every substantive point: They will get complete sanctions relief and U.N. legitimacy all at once, while keeping thousands of centrifuges, multiple nuclear sites, the right to develop new, more advanced enrichment equipment — even permission to continue nuclear research at a highly reinforced underground facility that was kept secret from international inspectors for years. In exchange, the West got promises of a new, tough inspections regime, even though there is already a long record of Iran’s developing nuclear facilities in secret. The White House says the deal pushes the time it would take Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon to a year, but widely respected arms-control experts have said, given the difficulty of performing good inspections and of building consensus around violations, that this is not enough.
The Iranians’ success has little to do with the ability of the Iranian negotiators and a lot to do with the Obama administration’s zeal for an agreement at any cost. The president wanted a deal because he has been desperate to forge a opening to the Iranian regime since the beginning of his presidency, and unenforceable international agreements that damage American interests are his favorite form of laurel. (Winning wars seems to rank a good bit lower.)
The White House has made it more and more clear that it believes an agreement with Iran, and the rapprochement presumed to follow, will create an Iran we can deal with and will be a big step toward solving many of the region’s problems, such as the rise of ISIS.
This idea is, of course, fantastical. The enemy of our enemy and all, but legitimizing and strengthening a totalitarian, terrorist regime that happens to appear to be loosely on the same side of one battle (in Iraq, Iranian-backed Shia militias aren’t really the answer to Sunni radicals) isn’t much of a long-term strategy. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s founding doctrine renders the United States its mortal enemy. This regime is never going to be a partner, and this deal is premised not just on the idea that we think they could be, but that we should give them just about every concession possible to make it happen.
Obama’s plan is not necessarily a fait accompli. There are months until the final deal will be hammered out, and sanctions relief may not start for some time. The president suggested today that he will consult Congress about the deal, though it is almost inconceivable that he will voluntarily submit it for approval. It falls to Congress, then, to pass new legislation to set requirements for a final agreement with Iran and empower itself to vote a deal down, although it will take a veto-proof majority to get such a measure into law. The situation demands serious resistance from Congress, in any case, and from our sometimes-wiser allies, France chief among them. Yet it is also quite possible that this charade will proceed, and that Obama, elevating strategic naïveté to an art form, has committed one of the great diplomatic blunders of our time. An emboldened Iran will be a very dangerous thing for the Middle East and Israel; the nuclear-arms race that this deal could spark would be even worse. We hope the president and our allies will come to recognize the folly of the tentative deal before it is formally complete. If not, Congress must do everything it can to scuttle it, and show the world — and our allies — that U.S. policy has some adult supervision.
It legitimizes and advances Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. At a press conference this afternoon, President Obama lauded the preliminary agreement reached with Iran to reduce the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon, saying “this is a good deal.” He claimed it will keep Iran at least a year away from constructing a nuclear weapon and will be subject to intrusive and unprecedented inspections and verification. This preliminary agreement is the outline for a comprehensive agreement due by June 30.
The details of the framework agreement as spelled out in a White House fact sheet and President Obama’s speech raise many questions about a final deal. It is troubling that no final agreed-upon text has been released and that Iranian and EU officials were vague in their statements about the framework.
Earlier today on National Review, Patrick Brennan wrote about tweets by Abas Aslani, the head of an Iranian government news agency, that show how the Iranian view of the agreement differs from the Obama administration’s view. Aslani tweeted, for instance, that Iran will continue to develop advanced centrifuges during the duration of the deal and “all economic sanctions by EU, US will be lifted immediately including financial, banking, insurance, oil.”
Here are my initial thoughts about the preliminary agreement, based on our knowledge of it at this hour.
Uranium Enrichment
According to the White House fact sheet, Iran will go from 9,000 operational centrifuges to 6,104. Of these, 5,060 will enrich uranium for ten years. All centrifuges will be Iran’s first-generation IR-1 design. The remaining 10,000 operational and non-operational centrifuges will be put in storage and monitored by the IAEA. These machines will be used to replace operating centrifuges.
. For 15 years, Iran has agreed not to enrich over 3.67% U-235 and not to build additional enrichment facilities.
. Iran also has agreed to “reduce” its current enriched-uranium stockpile of about 10,000 kilograms (enough to fuel eight or more nuclear weapons if enriched to weapons-grade) to 300 kilograms. President Obama said in his speech today that Iran’s enriched uranium would be “neutralized.”
. The U.S. fact sheet says Iran will not use advanced centrifuge models for ten years and will develop them according to a schedule worked out under the agreement. However, an Iranian spokesman tweeted that Iran will continue its R&D on advanced centrifuges during the agreement and will do “the beginning and completing process” of IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 to IR-8 centrifuges during the ten-year span of the agreement.
. Iran will move most of its centrifuges out of its underground Fordow enrichment facility and will not enrich uranium there for at least 15 years. Two-thirds of Fordow’s centrifuges will be put in storage, and the facility will be used for peaceful purposes.
Comment
This agreement will allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment, an activity that the United States has refused to agree to in nuclear-technology cooperation agreements with its friends and allies because it is so easy to use a peaceful enrichment program to make weapons fuel. There is no practical reason for Iran to conduct uranium enrichment with 6,000 centrifuges. It would take about 200,000 centrifuges for Iran to enrich enough uranium to fuel its Bushehr power reactor. 5,000 centrifuges are far too many for other peaceful purposes such as producing medical isotopes or fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor. Moreover, it would be far more economical for Iran to purchase reactor fuel rods, fuel plates, and medical isotopes from other countries.
The Obama administration hopes to address the risks of Iranian uranium enrichment by having intrusive IAEA inspections and by requiring Iran to “reduce” or “neutralize” its enriched-uranium stockpile. From the president’s statement and the White House fact sheet, it appears that Iran is refusing to send its enriched uranium to Russia as the U.S. had proposed. Also, the U.S. fact sheet says only that Iran’s current enriched-uranium stockpile will be reduced; it does not say what will happen to uranium enriched during the agreement.
We also don’t know what the words “reduced” or “neutralized” mean. The Obama administration previously claimed that the risk of Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile had been reduced because some of it had been converted to uranium powder. Experts later discounted this claim because this process can be reversed in about two weeks.
If Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile remains in the country and is only reduced to powder, Iran will retain the capability to make eight or more nuclear weapons in about three months. Former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen recently published a chart on Iran’s nuclear “breakout” time that shows how Iran could make enough enriched uranium for one weapon in twelve weeks from reactor-grade uranium using 6,000 centrifuges, and how it could do so in 16 weeks using only 1,000 centrifuges. Click here to view.
The decision to let Iran keep its previously secret, heavily fortified Fordow enrichment facility is a major American cave. President Obama said in 2012 about this facility: “We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful [nuclear] program.”
Bottom line
The preliminary agreement legitimizes — and even allows the advancement of — Iran’s uranium-enrichment program. It does not appear to delay the breakout time for an Iranian nuclear weapon. Incredibly, no enrichment equipment or facilities will be disassembled or destroyed. Given Iran’s long history of cheating on nuclear agreements and covert nuclear activities, allowing it to do any uranium enrichment is very dangerous. This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has said that Iran’s enrichment program has only one purpose: to make nuclear bombs. This is reason enough for the U.S. Congress to reject this agreement and impose new sanctions until Iran complies with U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring it to halt all uranium enrichment.
Inspections and Verification
President Obama said today: “Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.” According to Obama, “If Iran cheats, the world will know it.”
. The president also said, “Iran has agreed to give the IAEA access to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program, from uranium mills that provide the raw materials to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program.”
. According to the White House fact sheet, the IAEA will have access to these facilities for 20 to 25 years. According to the fact sheet, Iran has agreed to implement the IAEA additional protocol, which requires it to provide the IAEA with information on declared and undeclared nuclear sites. Iran also “will be required” to give the IAEA access to possible covert sites related to uranium enrichment.
. The president said “Iran’s past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed.” The fact sheet says “Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of its program.”
Comment
Although the verification measures detailed by the president go beyond what Iran is currently subject to, Tehran has never fully cooperated with IAEA inspectors. Moreover, this verification plan does not permit snap inspections and unfettered access to all Iranian nuclear facilities, including military bases where Iran is believed to have conducted nuclear-weapons work. The agreement also is vague on requiring Iran to answer questions about past weapons-related work. Iran agreed to a twelve-step program with IAEA in late 2013 to address these questions but has addressed only one of them.
It is hard to trust the Obama administration and Iran on verification and compliance. Iran violated the terms of the interim agreement that set up the nuclear talks, but the Obama administration repeatedly has claimed it was in compliance. President Obama again made this false claim in his speech today.
Bottom line
Verification of a final agreement must require Iran to answer all outstanding questions about weapons-related work and allow unfettered access by the IAEA to all facilities where nuclear activities are believed to have taken place. The preliminary agreement appears to give Iran a pass on previous nuclear-weapons work and set up a verification plan that will not detect all weapons-related activities.
Arak Heavy-Water Reactor
According to the White House fact sheet, Iran will remove the core of this reactor and install a new core so this reactor will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. This reactor will remain a heavy-water reactor and will be operated for peaceful purposes.
Iran has agreed not to reprocess the spent fuel of this reactor to produce plutonium indefinitely, will sell its excess heavy water not needed for the redesigned reactor, and will not build more heavy-water reactors for 15 years.
Comment
Heavy-water reactors are a very serious proliferation risk because they are a source of plutonium. If this reactor remains a heavy-water reactor, it will be a plutonium source. Iran constructed this reactor in defiance of IAEA resolutions. Allowing Tehran to operate it undermines the credibility of the Western states who pushed these resolutions and increases Iran’s expertise in operating and building plutonium-producing reactors.
Sanctions
According to the fact sheet, U.S. and EU sanctions will be lifted after the IAEA verifies that Iran has complied with “all of its key nuclear-related steps.”
. These sanctions will “snap back” if Iran fails to comply with its commitments.
. Previous U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iran will mostly be lifted if Iran complies with key nuclear-related steps, including resolving possible nuclear-weapons-related activities.
. As stated above, the Iranian government appears to believe all sanctions will be lifted immediately.
. U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human-rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place.
Comment
Iranian cheating on nuclear agreements has usually been slow and subtle. It is unlikely to engage in any unambiguous cheating that will force the Obama administration to restore sanctions if they are lifted. Moreover, once sanctions are lifted — especially EU and U.N. sanctions — it will be very difficult to reimpose them. The framework seems to set fairly easy benchmarks that would allow most sanctions against Iran to be lifted quickly. This would be a boon for the Iranian economy and would generate significantly more funds that Iran could use to bolster its ever-increasing efforts to interfere with its neighbors and spread its influence in the Middle East.
An American Capitulation
This framework appears certain to lead to a deal that will significantly advance Iran’s uranium-enrichment program, though agreement is supposed to reduce the threat from Iran’s nuclear program. By allowing Iran to improve its expertise in uranium enrichment and plutonium production and by legitimizing its nuclear program, a deal based on this framework will increase the risk from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Such an agreement will probably further destabilize the Middle East and could lead to a regional nuclear-arms race.
President Obama’s claim that the only alternative to this agreement is war with Iran is false. Continuing the status quo would be a much better outcome than an agreement that paves the way to an Iranian nuclear bomb.
The president claimed that the United States will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy if Congress kills this deal. I believe the opposite is the case. Our Middle East friends and allies are likely to reject this preliminary agreement as a sell-out to the Iranian mullahs that puts their security at risk at a time when Iranian influence is growing in the region.
For the sake of American security and the security of America’s Middle East friends and allies, Congress must do what it can to kill any nuclear agreement with Iran based on the deeply flawed framework unveiled today.
— Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy. He worked on the Iranian nuclear issue for the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee.
Western powers and Iran have announced that the framework for an eventual long-term deal on Iran’s nuclear program has been reached, defying expectations that they might just entirely blow past the end-of-March deadline.
A bit of good news: Iran does appear to have agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium (which is a couple, relatively short steps from being weapons material) out of the country, to Russia. Not great, but there had been rumors they would insist on keeping the material.
The bad news: pretty much everything else.
There isn’t really a deal, there are just “parameters” (in the words of the EU representative today), and the explicit wording of them won’t even be made public.
The details of the deal are supposed to be decided by the end of June, and it’s not clear that they will become public then, either. The actual interim agreement under which Iran, the U.S., international agencies, and others have been operating under for a year and a half now has never been made public. The details, such as they are, are seriously worrisome.
Tweets by the head of an Iranian government news agency, along with some (skeptical) context:
For lack of better phrasing, that is a lot of centrifuges — Iran has more than that now, but it’s a huge number. Once upon a time, the West’s position was that Iran should have no centrifuges. Arak is a plutonium plant that many worry could provide an alternative path to a nuclear weapon (though Iran has long said it will convert it into a harmless facility).
Arak is a plutonium plant that many worry could provide an alternative path to a nuclear weapon (though Iran has long said it will convert it into a harmless facility).
Fordow is a highly reinforced nuclear research facility that would be very difficult to destroy in the event that Iranian efforts to “break out” and build a bomb are detected — although Iran says it will not use those centrifuges for enrichment, just research. Perhaps Iran’s best scientists just don’t like sunlight and have a thing for heavy doors. Perhaps.
IR-8 centrifuges, for instance, are some of the most advanced ways Iran has of enriching uranium (that is, making nuclear fuel or bomb material). Really good centrifuges, just as much as a large number of centrifuges, period, offer a faster and more reliable to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon if Iran tries to do it. Again, once upon a time, concessions like this were not on the table — advanced centrifuge work was supposed to stop.
The U.S., Europe, and others had wanted the deal to be 20 years. The hope was that sanctions would be lifted gradually, as Iran demonstrates compliance.
Heckuva job, John.
UPDATE: A summary of the parameters is here. As with the interim deal that it replaces, though, this is, oddly, not an official text of an international agreement — just a description of it. (Sorta like a Vox-splainer, except, you know, with nuclear consequences.)
Voir de plus:
World News Concessions Fueled Iran Nuclear Talks
U.S. gave up on eliminating most of Iran’s nuclear program, while Tehran took steps such as agreeing to mothball centrifuges
The Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2015
The White House decided a less ambitious agreement would be pursued. “As soon as we got into the real negotiations with them, we understood that any final deal was going to involve some domestic enrichment capability,” a senior U.S. official said, referring to the production of nuclear fuel, which has both civilian and military uses. “But I can honestly tell you, we always anticipated that.”
Crucially, the goal of the talks shifted—away from dismantling structures and toward a more complex set of limitations designed to extend the time Iran would need to “break out” and make a dash toward a nuclear weapon.
That early yield would set the tone of the negotiations to come, with the U.S. making steady concessions over the course of the talks. But the Iranians also took steps—mothballing thousands of centrifuge machines, expanding the role of U.N. inspectors and diminishing its stockpile of fissile material—that many experts doubted they would.
The deal announced Thursday followed months of negotiation, topped off by marathon negotiating sessions in the last few days. U.S. officials called it a historic success because it places limits on all elements of Iran’s program, and introduces a system to verify them. “This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon,” President Barack Obama said.
But he added: “Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so. That’s not how the world works, and that’s not what history shows us.” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, for his part, said that while Iran will abide by the deal, “our facilities will continue.”
The framework now has to be turned into a final and formal agreement, by a deadline of June 30. Meanwhile, it will be at the core of bitter debate—at home and abroad—over whether the U.S. conceded too much, particularly by allowing Iran to retain its basic nuclear infrastructure, though in shrunken form.
“I’m a little puzzled by the political agreement,” said Olli Heinonen, a previous inspections chief at the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. “You’re going to leave Iran as a threshold state. There isn’t much room to maneuver.”
A recounting of some 19 months of direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, through interviews with American, European and Iranian diplomats, reveals a president single-minded in his focus on forging a landmark nuclear agreement with Iran.
Talks have been going on almost continuously—and through three extensions—since negotiators reached an interim agreement in November 2013 that capped parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an easing of some Western economic sanctions.
At that time, Mr. Obama said U.S. negotiators were still focused on dismantling much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including a heavy-water reactor in the city of Arak, a fortified underground enrichment facility called Fordow and advanced centrifuge machines which spin uranium gas into nuclear fuel.
But in the resumed negotiations, many of which were held in Vienna, Iran’s diplomats stuck to the line that none of the country’s nuclear facilities would be dismantled. Mr. Araghchi, the deputy foreign minister, told American officials that his country’s nuclear pursuit was equivalent to the U.S.’s space program during the height of the Cold War. But he denied, as have all Iranian officials, that the nuclear program had any military dimensions.
Tehran’s unbending position succeeded in substantially shifting Washington’s overall objective for the talks by early 2014, according to current and former U.S. negotiators.
While negotiations initially focused on substantially reshaping Iran’s overall program, the aim shifted to trying to deny Iran the ability to quickly “break out” from any restrictions and accumulate enough weapons-grade fuel for a bomb. U.S. scientists concluded that 12 months was enough time for the West to detect any moves by Tehran to assemble a bomb and to respond. Negotiators began focusing on that goal.
“We understood as soon as we got into a serious negotiation with them that at the end of the day they were going to have to have some domestic capacity because there’s no other deal that they’d say ‘yes’ to,” said the senior U.S. official who was briefed on negotiations.
As talks proceeded past two deadlines last year, the U.S. agreed to a stream of concessions. The American positions at times drew ire from other negotiating powers, particularly France, and U.S. officials acknowledged publicly for the first time that a final deal would leave many of Iran’s nuclear sites in place.
Talks centered on reducing the nearly 20,000 centrifuges Iran had assembled at its two main enrichment facilities in the cities of Natanz and Qom. Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief interlocutor was Mr. Zarif, a U.S.-educated diplomat who was appointed by Iran’s newly elected President Hasan Rouhani. But the White House knew Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was the ultimate arbiter on the nuclear issue, and that he held deep reservations about any engagement with Washington.
Mr. Obama decided to write a secret letter to Mr. Khamenei in October arguing that Washington and Tehran could cooperate in fighting Islamic State rebels if a nuclear accord was reached, according to people briefed on the correspondence.
In early November, the U.S. delegation passed on an eight-page document to Mr. Zarif’s team at meetings in Oman that they believed showed flexibility in solving the technical aspects of the nuclear dispute. It focused on the number of centrifuges Iran could run and the types of nuclear research it could pursue. A week later, the chairman of an Iranian parliamentary committee, Ibrahim Karkhaneh, made the proposal public and blasted it as aimed at bringing the country’s nuclear program “back to zero.”
This discord caused Washington and Tehran to miss a second deadline, on Nov. 24, to reach a comprehensive agreement. The White House decided to extend the talks again.
By January, opposition in Congress had gained steam as lawmakers saw the White House’s initial demands for the talks continue to slip. Mr. Obama, trying to manage the pressure to take a harder line, decided that month to tell lawmakers that the U.S. wouldn’t agree to another extension.
At the same time, during a series of meetings in Europe, Iran signaled a willingness to make a vital shift, according to senior Western diplomats.
The Road to a Deal
January 2003: The International Atomic Energy Agency begins to investigate Iran’s nuclear program.
December 2006: U.N. Security Council imposes first of several sanctions on Iran, including a ban on nuclear-related trade.
July 2010: President Barack Obama signs a law banning from the U.S. financial system foreign companies that do business with sanctioned Iranian entities.
November 2013: After three rounds of talks in five weeks, Iran and the six powers reach an interim deal offering Iran modest sanctions relief in exchange for curtailing the most advanced parts of its nuclear program.
Sept. 2, 2014: After talks in Tehran, Iran agrees to allow U.N. atomic experts additional access to nuclear-related sites and pledges to address Western suspicions that Iran worked on weaponizing its program.
Feb. 24, 2015: After talks in Geneva, a senior U.S. official says there has been progress toward a deal.
March 26-April 2, 2015: Iran and the six world powers agree on the parameters of a deal to block Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
The U.S. had for more than a year insisted that a final deal needed to put Iran at least a year away from being able to amass enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. In those January meetings, Iranian officials began asking questions about exactly what such a condition would entail.
By the time the world’s top diplomats gathered in Munich in early February for a security conference, the U.S. got clear word that Iran was willing to accept a deal structured around the one-year demand, said one of the diplomats in the talks.
From there, other stalled pieces began to fall into place.
Negotiators homed in on the number of centrifuges Iran would be allowed to operate—and Iran finally agreed to reduce them to 5,060. U.S. officials acknowledged in February that while they were aiming for a deal that would last 15 years or more, Iran would be able to scale up its enrichment activities and possibly its nuclear research in the final years of a deal.
When negotiators gathered in Switzerland in mid-March, enrichment had been pushed down the list of issues to resolve. But political pressure on Mr. Obama was as intense as it had been since talks began in 2013. U.S. lawmakers were moving toward a veto-proof bipartisan majority to override Mr. Obama’s promised veto of legislation that would give Congress the authority to approve or reject a deal. Mr. Obama’s relations with Israel were in tatters after its increasingly shrill denunciation of the deal being negotiated.
By the time they arrived in Lausanne on March 26, Mr. Kerry and his team had developed an increasingly close relationship with the Iranian delegation. In addition to Mr. Zarif, it included President Rouhani’s brother, Hossein Fereydoun, and Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. The nuclear scientist received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1970s at the same time U.S. Energy Secretary Ernes Moniz was teaching there, though they never met. Mr. Moniz joined the U.S. delegation.
The primary issues during the final round were the pace at which U.N. sanctions would be lifted on Iran and the future scope of Iran’s nuclear research and development, according to U.S. and European officials. Messrs. Kerry and Zarif went into talks almost immediately upon arriving at Lausanne’s Beau-Rivage Palace, an 18th century estate.
The crunch point came on Wednesday, more than a day after the March 31 deadline passed. The two men met for more than eight hours in a conference in a bid to resolve their differences.
One of the final sticking points was over Iran’s future nuclear research and development, U.S. officials said. Negotiators met at 9 p.m. that Wednesday, Switzerland time, and continued until Messrs. Salehi and Moniz reached an agreement on it at 6 a.m. Thursday.
It was midnight in Washington when Mr. Obama got a call from National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Mr. Obama gave them the go-ahead to close out a deal. “People know what my bottom lines are,” he said.
Mr. Obama signed off Thursday morning around 10 during his daily presidential briefing in the Oval Office. He began calling world leaders, first talking to British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President François Hollande of France. He also spoke with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, but left a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for later in the day because, a senior administration official said, that conversation “is going to take longer.”
Michael Hayden led the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009 and the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005. Olli Heinonen is a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
As negotiations between Iran and the great powers press forward, Secretary of State John F. Kerry seems to have settled on this defense of any agreement: The terms will leave Iran at least a year away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, thus giving the world plenty of time to react to infractions. The argument is meant to reassure, particularly when a sizable enrichment capacity and a sunset clause appear to have already been conceded. A careful assessment, however, reveals that a one-year breakout time may not be sufficient to detect and reverse Iranian violations.
Once the United States had an indication that Iran was violating an agreement, a bureaucratic process would be necessary to validate the information. It could be months before the director of national intelligence would be confident enough to present a case for action to the president. Several U.S. intelligence agencies, the Energy Department and national nuclear laboratories would need a chance to sniff the data to be convinced that a technical breach had occurred. Only after this methodical review was finished could the director go to the White House with conclusions and recommendations.
Given that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be the on-site inspection organization responsible for the verification of an agreement, the United States’ scoop would have to be forwarded to that body. Of course, both the speed and the extent of U.S. sharing would be affected by the need to protect sensitive human or technical sources of information. Only then would IAEA representatives begin talking with their Iranian counterparts about gaining access to disputed sites or activities. History suggests the Iranians would engage in protracted negotiations and much arcane questioning of the evidence. Iran could eventually offer some access while holding back key data and personnel. It would be only after tortured discussions that the IAEA could proclaim itself dissatisfied with Iran’s reaction. This process also could take months.
Should the indication of infractions originate with the IAEA, the United States would likewise want to validate the findings itself, which would also be time-consuming.
Once the IAEA arrived at a verdict of noncompliance, it would forward its grievances to the U.N. Security Council for adjudication. The United States would have to convince the other member states invested in the agreement — including veto-wielding Russia and China — that the accord was being violated and that forceful action was needed. Time would be spent quarrelling over divergent views, with several outcomes possible, including a Security Council presidential statement or a resolution whose content would need to be agreed upon. And only then could new economic sanctions be imposed on Iran. So, add at least a few more months.
Could sanctions really make a meaningful impact on Iran in whatever time, if any, remained in a one-year scenario? Any sanctions would take time to stress Iran’s economy, particularly in the aftermath of an agreement that paved the way for the return of trade and investment. Of course, the United States would not have to wait for the economic pressure to work and could use force against Iran without U.N. endorsement. However, since the advent of nuclear weapons, the United States has negotiated arms-control agreements with an entire spectrum of adversaries and has never used force in response to violations.
And the reality is that any cheating by Iran would always be incremental and never egregious. Throughout the duration of an agreement, there would be occasional reports of Iran enriching to unacceptably high levels and revelations of unreported nuclear installations and experimentation in weapon designs. Iran’s habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking a crisis. In the end, a year simply may not be enough time to build an international consensus on measures to redress Iranian violations.
In the midst of all the typical Washington political cacophony about the progress of the negotiations, what is lost is that an accord between the United States and Iran would be the most consequential arms-control agreement of the post-Cold War period. It would determine the level of stability in the Middle East and impact global nuclear nonproliferation norms. With stakes so high, we need a national debate about the nature and parameters of any agreement. The right venue for that debate is the halls of Congress. No agreement can be considered viable or enduring without such legislative approbation.
Voir aussi:
Wonder Land Why the Iran Deal Is Irrelevant
Nuclear talks with North Korea prove Iran’s program will go forward—deal or no deal.
Daniel Henninger
The WSJ
April 1, 2015
By the nuclear compliance standards of Barack Obama and John Kerry, North Korea was a model state—in 1992. In 1985, North Korea joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1992 it and South Korea jointly declared the “denuclearization” of the Korean peninsula. North Korea next signed a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Within months, the IAEA reported “inconsistencies” in North Korea’s nuclear program.
What follows is a quarter-century summary of arms negotiations with North Korea, based on the chronology assembled by the Arms Control Association. What happens in Lausanne doesn’t matter. No agreement is going to stop Iran. Agreements, and a lot of talk, did not stop North Korea.
After negotiations with North Korea (shortened here to “NK”)—and after the CIA reports that NK has separated enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons—the U.S. and NK in 1994 sign the Agreed Framework in Geneva. With NK promising to eliminate its ability to produce nuclear weapons, the Agreed Framework is hailed as a major diplomatic triumph for the Clinton presidency.
Through 1996-97, the U.S. negotiates with NK over ballistic-missile proliferation. On Aug. 31, 1998, NK launches the Taepo Dong-1 missile with a range of about 1,200 miles. The missile flies over Japan. U.S. intelligence admits “surprise” at the new third stage on the Paekdosan-1 launch vehicle.
Nonetheless, talks are held in December over a suspected underground nuclear factory. A U.S. inspection team visits the facility at Kumchang-ni and finds no violation of the Agreed Framework.
American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow John Bolton on whether the Iranian Supreme Leader will sign off on the nuclear deal in time for Tuesday’s deadline. Photo credit: Associated Press.
In 2000, the Clinton administration relaxes economic sanctions. Kim Jong Il tells visiting Secretary of State Madeleine Albright he won’t test the Taepo Dong-1 long-range missile again. The seventh round of missile talks is held in Malaysia.
In 2001, new U.S. President George W. Bush commits to “comprehensive” talks. In October 2002, the U.S. says North Korea has admitted it has had a secret program to enrich weapons-grade uranium. The State Department’s Richard Boucher calls it a “serious violation” of the Agreed Framework.
North Korea then cuts the IAEA seals on its nuclear factories, withdraws from the Non-Proliferation treaty and restarts a nuclear reactor. Talks resume in Beijing in April 2003. North Korea says it possesses nuclear weapons—but will dismantle its “nuclear facility” in return for fuel oil and food.
In February 2005, NK’s foreign ministry says again that it has produced nuclear weapons. Months later, the Koreans now say they are willing to abandon “all nuclear weapons” and rejoin the nonproliferation treaty. A new round of talks begin.
On July 4, 2006, North Korea fires seven ballistic missiles, including the new, long-range Taepo Dong-2. The State Department calls this “provocative.” U.N. Security Council Resolution 1695 condemns the Koreans.
In October, North Korea explodes a nuclear device in an underground test. The Security Council adopts Resolution 1718. Six-party talks resume in Beijing. North Korea says it will stop if it receives massive shipments of fuel oil. It gets the fuel oil.
In March 2007, the U.S. agrees to North Korea’s primary demand: that the U.S. unfreeze $25 million of its assets held in Banco Delta Asia in Macau. In 2008 President Bush removes NK as a state sponsor of terrorism.
In January 2009, North Korea says its stockpile of plutonium is “already weaponized.” We are now into the Obama presidency.
That April, NK launches the Unha-2 long-range ballistic missile, which the Security Council condemns. NK says it is no longer “bound” by any agreements.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducts its second underground nuclear test. The Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 1874. The State Department says the U.S. wants “a bilateral discussion with North Korea.” In November 2010, NK announces it has a 2,000-centrifuge uranium enrichment factory.
In early 2012, the Obama administration offers to give 240,000 metric tons of food in return for “strict monitoring.” Late that year, NK launches a long-range ballistic missile, which the Security Council condemns, citing violations of Resolutions 1718 and 1874.
In early 2013, a monitoring group detects activity with “explosion-like characteristics” at North Korea’s underground test site. The Security Council passes Resolution 2094.
Last November, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that North Korea is ready to the resume six-party talks.
***
Every member of the Senate should read the full 81-page chronology. North Korea proves, irrefutably, that the “talks” model, absent credible measures of coercion or threat, won’t work.
Iran knows it has nuclear negotiators’ immunity: No matter how or when Iran debauches any agreement, the West, abjectly, will request—what else?—more talks. Iran’s nuclear-bomb and ballistic-missile programs will go forward, as North Korea’s obviously did, no matter what.
The next U.S. president has to find an alternative to the existing nuclear negotiations model. Hillary will not. That unavoidable job falls to her opposition.
Iran is not North Korea.
It exists in a totally different geopolitical milieu.
North Korea has three neighbors, two of which (China and Russia) can and will make sure that its idiocy doesn’t get out of hand.
Iran is proud, an imperial aspirant, and more than a little embarrassed that the world tolerates a nuclear Pakistan, India, and Israel in its neighborhood but insists for it otherwise.
Voir de même:
Global View The Capitulationist
The Obama administration refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender to Iran be prematurely and fatally exposed.
Bret Stephens
WSJ
March 30, 2015
For a sense of the magnitude of the capitulation represented by Barack Obama’s Iran diplomacy, it’s worth recalling what the president said when he was trying to sell his interim nuclear agreement to a Washington, D.C., audience in December 2013.
“We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program,” Mr. Obama said of the Iranians in an interview with Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire philanthropist. “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.”
Hardly more than a year later, on the eve of what might be deal-day, here is where those promises stand:
Fordo: “The United States is considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.”—Associated Press, March 26.
Arak: “Today, the six powers negotiating with Iran . . . want the reactor at Arak, still under construction, reconfigured to produce less plutonium, the other bomb fuel.”—The New York Times, March 7.
Advanced centrifuges: “Iran is building about 3,000 advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuges, the Iranian news media reported Sunday, a development likely to add to Western concerns about Tehran’s disputed nuclear program.”—Reuters, March 3.
But the president and his administration made other promises, too. Consider a partial list:
Possible military dimensions: In September 2009 Mr. Obama warned Iran that it was “on notice” that it would have to “come clean” on all of its nuclear secrets. Now the administration is prepared to let it slide.
“Under the new plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon and Laurence Norman reported last week, “Tehran wouldn’t be expected to immediately clarify all the outstanding questions raised by the IAEA in a 2011 report on Iran’s alleged secretive work. A full reckoning of Iran’s past activities would be demanded in later years as part of a nuclear deal that is expected to last at least 15 years.”
Verification: Another thing the president said in that interview with Mr. Saban is that any deal would involve “extraordinary constraints and verification mechanisms and intrusive inspections.”
Foundation for Defense of Democracies Executive Director Mark Dubowitz on the Secretary of State’s concessions to Tehran as the nuclear-deal deadline nears. Photos: Getty Images
Iran isn’t playing ball on this one, either. “An Iranian official on Tuesday [March 24] rebuked the chief of the U.N. atomic agency for demanding snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, saying the request hindered efforts to reach an agreement with the world powers,” reports the AP. But this has done nothing to dent the administration’s enthusiasm for an agreement.
“It was never especially probable that a detailed, satisfactory verification regime would be included in the sort of substantive framework agreement that the Americans have been working for,” the Economist noted last week.
Ballistic missiles: In February 2014, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, testified to Congress that while the interim agreement was silent on Iran’s production of ballistic missiles, “that is indeed going to be part of something that has to be addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement.” This point is vital because ballistic missiles are a central component of a robust nuclear arsenal.
Except missiles are off the table, too. “Diplomats say the topic [of missiles] has not been part of formal discussions for weeks,” the AP reported Monday.
Break-out: President Obama has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. will only sign a deal that gives the U.S. and its allies a year’s notice if Iran decides to “break out” and go for a bomb.
But if the Iranians won’t come clean on their past weapons’ work, it’s impossible to know how long they would really need to assemble a bomb once they have sufficient nuclear material.
Nor does the one-year period square with the way Iran would try to test the agreement: “Iran’s habit of lulling the world with a cascade of small infractions is an ingenious way to advance its program without provoking a crisis,” Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, wrote with former IAEA deputy chief Olli Heinonen and Iran expert Ray Takeyh in a recent Washington Post op-ed. “A year may simply not be enough time to build an international consensus on measures to redress Iranian violations.”
***
Some readers may object that Iran has made its own significant concessions. Except it hasn’t. They may also claim that the U.S. has no choice but to strike a deal. Except we entered these negotiations with all the strong cards. We just chose to give them up.
Finally, critics may argue that I’m being unfair to the administration, since nobody knows the agreement’s precise terms. But that’s rich coming from an administration that refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender be prematurely and fatally exposed.
Nearly a century ago Woodrow Wilson insisted on “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in public view.” Barack Obama prefers to capitulate to tyrants in secret. Judging from the above, it’s no wonder.
03 avril 2015
INTERVIEW E1 – De retour de Lausanne où il a participé aux négociations sur le nucléaire iranien, le ministre des Affaires étrangères reste prudent après qu’un accord de principe a été trouvé.
Rester prudent malgré les avancées. Visage de la France autour de la table des négociations sur le nucléaire iranien à Lausanne, Laurent Fabius refuse de s’enthousiasmer après qu’un accord de principe a été trouvé jeudi soir entre l’Iran et les six Etats (Chine, Russie, Etats-Unis, Grande-Bretagne, France, Italie, Allemagne) qui participaient aux discussions.
Et pour cause, si l’idée d’une levée des sanctions économiques infligées à Téhéran et l’arrêt du programme nucléaire militaire iranien ont été actés, le texte signé ne définit pas précisément les modalités de mise en œuvre de ces deux chantiers d’envergure. C’est pourquoi Laurent Fabius s’était montré parmi les négociateurs les plus stricts envers Téhéran lors des pourparlers.
>> Une position qui avait été critiquée par une partie de la presse internationale. Au micro d’Europe 1, le ministre des Affaires étrangères s’en justifie.
Les termes de l’accord. Laurent Fabius résume les enjeux de l’accord qui vient d’être conclu en trois points. « L’énergie nucléaire civile, c’est 100% oui, la bombe atomique, c’est non. Le problème c’est que les mêmes machines permettent de créer les deux. C’est pourquoi le cœur des négociations porte sur les centrifugeuses. Et c’est pourquoi, sur les 9.200 centrifugeuses en marche en Iran, Téhéran a accepté de passer à 5.060. Le deuxième point porte sur les ressources en uranium et sur son taux d’enrichissement. Le ministre affirme que les négociations ont conclu que « l’Iran ne pourra plus avoir que 300 kilos d’uranium contre 8 tonnes actuellement, enrichi à 3.27% contre 20% actuellement ».
Dernier point, le plus flou pour l’instant, la durée du contrôle exercé par l’AIEA (agence internationale de l’énergie atomique) : « l’accord porte sur 10 ans au minimum, mais sur certains autres points elle porte sur 12, 13, 15 et même 25 ans. Tout cela reste à préciser ». Enfin, sur la levée des sanctions économiques, Laurent Fabius estime que « 150 milliards de dollars sont en jeu pour l’Iran ». Mais ce point-là « n’est pas le plus facile », conclut-il.
Le rôle de la France dans les négociations. « La France, elle est ferme », annonce d’emblée Laurent Fabius, qui assume sans ambages le rôle de garde-fou du Quai d’Orsay dans les négociations, quitte parfois à ralentir le processus, comme il l’explique au micro d’Europe 1 : « Les Américains et les Iraniens nous avaient proposé un texte, mais nous avions dit ‘non’ parce que le Président et moi avions estimé qu’il n’était pas assez solide. L’Iranien avait menacé de rentrer chez lui et de démissionner. Mais il est finalement resté à la table. Depuis, la France est regardée de manière particulière parce qu’on sait que nous voulons l’accord mais sur une base ferme. »
C’est pourquoi la prudence est de mise pour Laurent Fabius, qui résume la situation : « Rien n’est acté tant que tout n’a pas été acté. » Sur la levée des sanctions économiques à l’encontre de l’Iran, Laurent Fabius estime qu’il faut « lever les sanctions au fur et à mesure que l’Iran respecte ses engagements ». Mais là-dessus, « il n’y a pas encore un accord », tempère-t-il.
Pourquoi il faut « un accord solide et vérifiable » selon le Quai d’Orsay. « Notre position a toujours été de dire il faut un accord, mais il ne peut être conclu que s’il est solide et vérifiable », martèle sans relâche Laurent Fabius. S’il reconnaît que cet accord de principe « est une étape importante, très importante même », le ministre des Affaires étrangères rappelle que « le bout du chemin, c’est la fin juin », en faisant allusion à la signature d’un texte définitif aux contours plus précis.
Cette fermeté française se justifie pour Laurent Fabius qui assure que la France « n’a rien contre l’Iran » : « nous voulons juste que l’accord soit perçu comme solide pour éviter que les autres pays du Golfe comme l’Arabie Saoudite se lancent dans la prolifération nucléaire ».
Les détails n’étaient pas encore connus que les conservateurs étrillaient sur Twitter l’accord conclu à Lausanne, le « Munich » d’Obama, selon eux.
De notre correspondante à Washington, Hélène Vissière
À peine les négociateurs avaient-ils annoncé l’accord avec l’Iran sur le nucléaire que les conservateurs dégainaient leurs tweets vengeurs annonçant, avec leur ton mesuré légendaire, la fin du monde. Ils accusent le président Obama de s’être aplati devant les Iraniens et d’avoir lâché trop de concessions. Peu importe si les détails ne sont pas connus avant l’échéance du 30 juin, ils sont convaincus que cet accord est une catastrophe majeure. Leur comparaison favorite, ce sont évidemment les accords de Munich en 1938. « Neville Chamberlain a obtenu d’Adolf Hitler un meilleur accord », a déclaré le sénateur Mark Kirk de l’Illinois. « Arrêtez toute cette négativité sur l’accord avec l’Iran, mes chers conservateurs. Les Iraniens n’ont pas eu la région des Sudètes », ironise Ed Morrissey, un blogueur de droite. Dans le magazine National Review, l’historien Victor Davis Hanson écrit : « Notre déshonneur à Lausanne, comme à Munich, peut éviter une confrontation aujourd’hui, mais notre honte garantit une guerre dans l’avenir proche. »
« Bombardez l’Iran »
Les néoconservateurs, qu’on croyait enterrés avec le fiasco de la guerre en Irak, ont repris du poil de la bête et sont de nouveau très influents chez les républicains. Malgré leurs échecs répétés, ils ont conservé leur vision belliqueuse du monde et leur credo : pas de compromis avec les ennemis de l’Amérique, même si cela doit mener à une autre guerre et mettre la planète à feu et à sang. « Pour stopper la bombe de l’Iran, bombardez l’Iran, » écrivait récemment John Bolton, l’ambassadeur aux Nations unies de George W. Bush, dans le New York Times.
Les conservateurs ont vraiment tout fait ces derniers mois pour torpiller les négociations avec Téhéran. Ils ont invité début mars le Premier ministre israélien, sans le dire à la Maison-Blanche. Benjamin Netanyahu, en plein Congrès, a attaqué la politique d’Obama en disant que tout accord « ouvrirait la voie » à une bombe atomique iranienne. Quelques jours plus tard, 47 sénateurs ont signé une lettre qu’ils ont envoyée directement à Téhéran à l’instigation du sénateur Tom Cotton de l’Arkansas. Objectif : rappeler au régime iranien que le Congrès pouvait faire machine arrière sur tout accord. Du jamais-vu dans les annales de la diplomatie.
Jeudi, ils se sont aussitôt déchaînés pour dénoncer ce que le président Obama a qualifié d' »accord historique ». « Il n’y a pas d’accord avec l’Iran. Il y a seulement une liste de concessions américaines dangereuses », a clamé Tom Cotton. Jeb Bush, le candidat non officiel à la Maison-Blanche, a renchéri : « Je ne peux pas soutenir un tel accord foireux. » Le gouverneur du Wisconsin, Scott Walker, autre présidentiable, a lancé sur Twitter : « L’accord dangereux d’Obama avec l’Iran récompense un ennemi, sape la sécurité de nos alliés et menace la nôtre. »
La bataille du Congrès
Mais ils ont aussi beaucoup insisté sur le fait que le Congrès devait examiner l’accord et avoir le dernier mot. « Le Congrès doit être autorisé à revoir tous les détails de n’importe quel accord avant que les sanctions ne soient levées, » a affirmé John Boehner, le speaker de la Chambre des représentants, qui a invité Netanyahu et est allé lui rendre visite en Israël la semaine dernière.
Le sénateur Bob Corker a ajouté qu’il allait faire pression pour faire voter une loi qui donne au Congrès le pouvoir de modifier l’accord. Le président Obama a dit et redit qu’il mettrait son veto à toute législation qui donne au Congrès la possibilité d’approuver ou de rejeter un accord. L’avenir des négociations avec l’Iran dépend donc de la capacité de Barack Obama à convaincre tous les démocrates et quelques républicains de lui laisser les mains libres d’ici la fin juin.
Signe encourageant pour la Maison-Blanche : le soutien étonnant de Bill O’Reilly, l’un des commentateurs vedettes de la chaîne conservatrice Fox News, connu pour ses positions farouchement anti-Obama. Il a déclaré à l’antenne que l’on devait donner à la diplomatie une chance. « Vous ne voulez pas une guerre avec l’Iran, vous ne voulez pas bombarder ce pays » parce que « ça va enflammer le monde ». « Donc, si l’on peut obtenir quelque chose de correct, il faut tenter le coup », a-t-il lâché à la stupéfaction de la présentatrice de la chaîne qui l’écoutait.
Le commandant de la milice Basij des Gardiens de la Révolution de l’Iran a déclaré qu’ « effacer Israël de la carte » est « non négociable », a rapporté mardi, Radio Israel.
Mohammad Reza Naqdi a également menacé l’Arabie saoudite, en affirmant que l’offensive menée au Yémen « aura le même destin que celui de Saddam Hussein ».
Les commentaires de Naqdi ont été rendus publics alors que l’Iran et les six puissances mondiales se préparent, mardi, à présenter une déclaration générale acceptant de poursuivre les négociations nucléaires en entrant dans une nouvelle phase qui vise à parvenir à un accord global à la fin du mois de juin.
En 2014, Naqdi avait déclaré que l’Iran intensifiait ses efforts pour armer les Palestiniens de Cisjordanie dans sa bataille contre Israël, en ajoutant que cette manœuvre conduirait à l’anéantissement d’Israël, avait indiqué l’agence de presse iranienne Fars.
« L’armement de la Cisjordanie a commencé et les armes seront fournies aux habitants de cette région », a déclaré Naqdi.
« Les sionistes doivent savoir que la prochaine guerre ne sera pas limitée aux frontières actuelles et les Moudjahidine les repousseront », a-t-il ajouté.
Naqdi a affirmé que la majeure partie de l’arsenal du Hamas, la formation technique et le savoir-faire dans le conflit de l’été dernier avec Israël provenait de l’Iran.
Le Basij est une force armée religieuse composée de volontaires, mise en place en 1979 par les dirigeants révolutionnaires du pays. Elle sert de police morale et d’outil de répression des dissidents.
En janvier, un projet de loi qui aurait donné plus de pouvoirs à la Basij pour faire respecter le port obligatoire du voile par les femmes a été jugé anticonstitutionnel.
Cette milice fait des manœuvres annuelles, parfois aux côtés des unités de l’armée iranienne.
Jonathan Beck et l’AFP ont contribué à cet article.
Au vu de leur incapacité à parvenir à un accord en novembre 2014, l’Iran et le groupe des P5 + 1 ont décidé de prolonger la validité du plan d’action conjoint conclu à Genève le 24 novembre de six mois supplémentaires, jusqu’à juin 2015.
Suite à cet arrangement, les Etats-Unis ont prévu une poursuite des négociations en deux temps :
1. Trois mois (jusqu’à fin mars 2015) pour parvenir à un accord-cadre
2. Trois mois supplémentaires (jusqu’à fin juin 2015) pour s’entendre sur les points techniques de cet accord.
Toutefois, dans un discours prononcé en février 2015, le Guide suprême iranien Ali Khamenei a annoncé qu’il était en total désaccord avec cette procédure, affirmant qu’il n’y aurait pas deux, mais une seule étape, que l’accord devait être conclu en juin 2015, et qu’il comprendrait la levée de toutes les sanctions contre l’Iran. Cela signifie que la date limite du 31 mars 2015 ne signifie rien pour Khamenei.
De leur côté, les États-Unis ne tiennent pas compte de l’annonce de Khamenei, et s’efforcent, sans grand succès, de placer l’Iran dans cette logique de processus en deux temps qu’ils ont instituée. Mais l’Iran refuse de signer un document provisoire ; c’est pourquoi les ministres des Affaires étrangères occidentaux impliqués dans les négociations, comme le ministre des Affaires étrangères britannique Phillip Hammond, ont précisé que les arrangements qui seraient conclus à ce stade seraient uniquement oraux.
Il convient de souligner que l’Iran n’a rien cédé, à aucun moment, sur ses exigences initiales :
1. Téhéran refuse le retrait de son uranium enrichi d’Iran.
2. Téhéran refuse une levée progressive des sanctions.
3. Téhéran refuse toute restriction du nombre de ses centrifugeuses.
4. Téhéran refuse les inspections intrusives et les inspections inopinées.
5. Téhéran refuse toute interruption de ses recherches et activités de développement.
6. Téhéran refuse tout changement relatif à la nature de son réacteur à eau lourde d’Arak.
7. Téhéran refuse la fermeture de son site secret d’enrichissement de Fordow.
8. Téhéran refuse toutes les restrictions à ses activités nucléaires après l’expiration de l’accord.
9. Téhéran refuse que son programme de missiles à longue portée soit inclus dans les négociations.
10. Téhéran refuse de rendre des comptes sur ses anciennes activités nucléaires militaires clandestines.
11. Téhéran refuse d’autoriser des inspections de sites militaires soupçonnés de mener des activités nucléaires.
Dans sa déclaration du 18 février 2015, Khamenei a précisé qu’il accepterait uniquement un accord en une étape, et que cet accord devait inclure la levée de toutes les sanctions contre l’Iran et clairement établir que l’Occident ne profiterait pas d’un accord-cadre pour imposer sa position à l’Iran lors d’une seconde étape, lorsque les détails seraient discutés.
Ci-dessous la déclaration du 18 février de Khamenei sur les négociations nucléaires : [1]
« Les mains de la nation iranienne et de ses hauts responsables n’ont jamais été liées, ce que nous avons bien montré. A partir de maintenant, nous allons également le démontrer avec nos initiatives et notre courage. C’est l’Amérique qui est coincée et empêtrée dans un problème, et la réalité à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de la région le prouve.
C’est vous [les Américains] qui avez subi défaite sur défaite pendant de nombreuses années ; c’est la République islamique d’Iran qui progresse, et qui ne peut en aucune façon être comparée à [l’Iran] d’il y a 30 et quelques années…
L’Iran va de l’avant, tandis que les Américains, qui n’ont pas réussi à déraciner [la République islamique d’Iran], sont maintenant forcés de tolérer le régime de la République islamique. Leurs plans politiques, sécuritaires, économiques et culturels ne nous empêcheront pas d’avancer…
[Dans le cadre des négociations nucléaires,] je vais accepter un plan réalisable, mais je ne vais pas accepter un mauvais accord. Comme les Américains, je pense que pas d’accord vaut mieux qu’un mauvais accord, et je crois qu’il vaut mieux ne pas parvenir à un accord que de conclure un accord qui nuira aux intérêts nationaux de l’Iran et ouvrira la voie à l’humiliation de la nation iranienne.
La conduite des États-Unis au cours des négociations, et de certains pays européens qui lui obéissent, est illogique. Ils ont de multiples attentes et pensent que l’on va satisfaire toutes leurs exigences. Mais ce n’est pas ainsi que l’on mène des négociations. La nation iranienne ne tolérera pas le harcèlement, la cupidité et une conduite irrationnelle. J’accepte de poursuivre les négociations afin de parvenir à un bon accord… Les négociations doivent préserver l’honneur de la nation iranienne, et la poursuite [de son programme nucléaire]…
Le scénario d’un accord sur les grands principes, suivi d’un accord sur les détails, n’est pas recommandé, car notre expérience avec la partie adverse nous a appris qu’un accord-cadre leur servira à inventer une série d’excuses dans [la suite des négociations sur] les détails. Si un accord doit être atteint, ce sera un accord en une seule étape, et il doit comprendre le cadre général ainsi que les détails. Le contenu de l’accord doit être clair, et ne pas donner lieu à [diverses] interprétations. Les paragraphes de l’accord ne doivent pas permettre à la partie adverse, habituée à marchander, de chercher des excuses au sujet des différents points. Les sanctions doivent être complètement levées. »
En outre, Khamenei a menacé d’imposer des sanctions avec le gaz naturel : « S’il doit y avoir des sanctions, la nation iranienne peut également imposer des sanctions, et elle le fera. »
* Y. Carmon est président fondateur de MEMRI ; A. Savyon est directrice du Projet sur les médias iraniens.
Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism, striking Israel, U.S. Arab allies, and at times Americans. The twin blasts on Tuesday that destroyed the Iranian embassy in Lebanon and killed at least twenty people, however, should remind us that Iran faces a serious terrorism problem of its own. It is tempting to enjoy Iran getting a taste of its own medicine, but the growing violence risks further destabilizing the Middle East and harming U.S. interests there.
A History of Violence
Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has backed an array of terrorist groups. These groups have fostered unrest in Iraq and the oil-rich Gulf Kingdoms, killed Iran’s enemies in Europe, and struck at enemies like Israel and the United States. Most infamously for Americans, Iran has backed the Lebanese Hizballah, providing it with hundreds of millions of dollars, sophisticated arms, and advanced training. Among its many operations, Hizballah in 1983 bombed the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks hosting U.S. peacekeepers in Beirut, killing 17 embassy officials and 241 Marines. Iran has also backed Hizballah in its numerous operations against Israel, including a 2012 bus bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists and the bus driver, and has given money and weapons to Hamas, which has used these to attack Israel in repeated clashes. Tehran has also quietly maintained links to Al Qaeda itself, hosting several important figures though also restricting their activities.
For Iran, ties to terrorists served multiple purposes. Ideologically, Tehran often believed that the terrorists’ goals – to spread an Iranian-style Islamic state, to overthrow an apostate regime, to battle Israel, and so on – were the right ones, and thus it was supporting the “good guys.” But strategic considerations also proved vital. Ties to terrorist groups enabled Iran to extend its influence around the world, something its weak military and struggle economy could not accomplish. With ties to groups like Hamas, Iran was also able to establish itself as an important actor against Israel – always a popular cause in the Middle East – and, in so doing, live up to its self-image of being an Islamic revolutionary power, not a champion of the Shi’a community, which is a minority in most Arab countries.
A Two-Edged Sword
Yet Iran has long suffered from terrorism as well. Since the revolution, the Mujahedin-e Khalq has used violence against the regime, assassinating senior officials and waging a guerrilla war from nearby Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. (The United States listed the MEK as a terrorist organization in 1997 but delisted it in 2012). In response, Iran has engaged in a vendetta against MEK members, trying to kill its leaders around the world.
Iran has also suffered violence at home from other groups. Jundullah, which champions Iran’s Baluch community, which is also Sunni, has caused dozens of casualties in the last decade. Tehran also considers the assassination of its nuclear scientists and attacks on senior security officials, which it blames on Israel and the United States, as part of a terrorist campaign against the state.
The Syrian conflict, however, has shattered Iran’s careful plans and raised the risk from Sunni jihadist terrorist groups. In the eyes of Al Qaeda and local Sunni jihadist groups, Iran is very much on the wrong side of this war. They tie Iran, correctly, to Bashar al-Asad’s regime in Syria and the Nuri al-Maliki regime next door in Iraq. Iran is blamed for the Syrian regime’s atrocities in particular, and as the conflict has morphed from largely peaceful protest to sectarian civil war, Tehran, a Shi’a power, is lumped in with Asad’s regime, which is dominated by the Alawite community, which has similarities to Shiism. As such, Iran and Hizballah have become high on the list, at times at the very top, of the broader Sunni jihadist movement, with funders, suicide bombers, recruiters, and ideologues all decrying the apostates. Throughout the Arab world, Iran’s malevolent role is decried – a painful reversal for a regime that has long tried to lead this region. Israel, and even the United States, are still hated but are seen as less immediate threats. The Abdullah Azzam Brigades, which has links to Al Qaeda, claimed credit for the bombing of the embassy in Lebanon.
Indeed, that the bombing occurred in Lebanon is a symbol of Iran’s dangerous position. Lebanon is often portrayed as Iran’s playground, where its minion Hizballah holds sway. But Lebanon is also home to Sunni jihadists and an array of more secular and anti-Iran Lebanese groups. As Syria dominates the regional consciousness, Iran’s status in Lebanon has fallen.
The blows to Iran’s regional stature are good for U.S. influence, but anti-Iranian terrorism is not. In addition to the loss of innocent life, growing terrorism exacerbates Iran’s sense of isolation and grievance, leading it to double down on groups like Hizballah and Hamas. In addition, the skyrocketing sectarianism in the region also poses risks for U.S. interests, threatening to destabilize already precarious countries like Iraq and drag U.S. allies into proxy confrontations and self-defeating interventions, including support for jihadists who hate both Iran and the United States. Especially as talks over Iran’s nuclear program appear close to bearing fruit, the United States should make clear it condemns terrorism of all stripes, regardless of who the victim is.
Daniel L. Byman
Research Director, Center for Middle East Policy
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
Daniel Byman is the director of research and a senior fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. His research focuses on counterterrorism and Middle East security. He is also a professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program. He served as a staff member on the 9/11 Commission and worked for the U.S. government. His most recent book is A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Voir enfin:
Abbé Grosjean : «Entre Daech et les Chrétiens d’Orient, la RATP doit choisir»
Pierre-Hervé Grosjean
Le Figaro
01/04/2015
FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE – Au nom de la laïcité, la RATP a exigé le retrait de la mention «au profit des Chrétiens d’Orient» sur des affiches promotionnelles placardées dans le métro. Pour l’abbé Grosjean, cette neutralité devient une complicité avec ceux qui massacrent.
L’abbé Pierre-Hervé Grosjean, curé de Saint Cyr l’Ecole, est Secrétaire Général de la Commission «Ethique et Politique» du Diocèse de Versailles. Il a récement publié Aimer en vérité (Artège, 2014). Il est l’un des animateurs du Padreblog.
En pleine semaine sainte, la polémique ne pouvait passer inaperçue. Mgr Di Falco a révélé que la RATP avait exigé que soient retirées des affiches annonçant le prochain concert du groupe «Les Prêtres» la mention «au profit des Chrétiens d’Orient». Aux premières demandes d’explication, le groupe répond par le principe de «laïcité».
Ce député vient au secours de son évêque en dénonçant une décision de la RATP qui relève selon lui d’un véritable «intégrisme laïc».
La bêtise de l’argument va jusqu’à mettre en colère le député Joël Giraud, dont le Parti Radical de Gauche est pourtant connu pour sa vision souvent restrictive de la laïcité. Ce député vient au secours de son évêque en dénonçant une décision de la RATP qui relève selon lui d’un véritable «intégrisme laïc».
Les réseaux sociaux s’enflamment, et la RATP promet une nouvelle réaction, en lien avec sa régie publicitaire Metrobus. Cette nouvelle réaction est encore pire et révèle au choix une ignorance crasse de la situation ou un mépris incroyable des minorités persécutées dont il est question.
Si la RATP a exigé que soit supprimée la mention des Chrétiens d’Orient, c’est parce que «la RATP et sa régie publicitaire ne peuvent prendre parti dans un conflit de quelque nature qu’il soit» selon leur communiqué commun. «Toute atteinte à ce principe ouvrirait la brèche à des prises de positions antagonistes sur notre territoire». Annoncer que ce concert était offert au profit de ces chrétiens d’Orient est «une information se situant dans le contexte d’un conflit armé à l’étranger et (…) le principe de neutralité du service public qui régit les règles de fonctionnement de l’affichage par Métrobus, trouve en effet dans ce cas à s’appliquer.»
Pour la RATP, les Chrétiens d’Orient sont juste un camp face à l’autre, un camp pour lequel on ne peut pas prendre parti.
Vous avez bien lu. Pour la RATP, les Chrétiens d’Orient sont juste un camp face à l’autre, un camp pour lequel on ne peut pas prendre parti. Alors que la France, par la voix de Laurent Fabius, se démène à l’ONU pour que cesse le génocide dont sont victimes ces minorités d’Irak et d’ailleurs, alors que le Président de la République a reçu des Chrétiens obligés de fuir leur pays pour ne pas être massacrés par Daesh, la RATP -elle- refuse de choisir. Entre Daesh et ses victimes, elle veut rester «neutre»..
Cette neutralité est une complicité avec celui qui massacre, contre l’innocent qui est massacré. Cette neutralité rappelle celle de Pilate et de tous ceux qui l’ont suivi depuis 2000 ans, se lavant les mains des massacres commis.
Cette neutralité-là est impossible. Cette neutralité est une complicité avec celui qui massacre, contre l’innocent qui est massacré. Cette neutralité rappelle celle de Pilate et de tous ceux qui l’ont suivi depuis 2000 ans, se lavant les mains des massacres commis, et fermant les yeux sur le sort des victimes, pour ne pas faire de vagues ni perdre leur poste. Cette neutralité est indigne d’un groupe comme la RATP, elle révolte sans aucun doute nombre de ses agents qui ont pleuré avec tous nos compatriotes les victimes de l’horreur terroriste. Cette neutralité-là est une insulte à la France, qui a toujours mis sa fierté à défendre les droits de l’homme, et particulièrement des minorités persécutées, partout dans le monde. Plutôt que de reconnaître humblement et simplement une erreur d’appréciation, la RATP s’enfonce et finit par justifier l’injustifiable. Quel aveuglement et quelle mépris a-t-il fallu à celui qui a donné l’ordre de rayer de l’affiche cette mention des Chrétiens d’Orient! Et à ceux qui ont rédigé ce communiqué? Pensaient-ils faire taire la voix des persécutés, réduire au silence la communauté chrétienne, et au delà des Chrétiens, tous ceux qui sont émus par le sort des minorités martyrisées en Orient, en invoquant le principe de «neutralité»?
Je repense à la supplication des Chrétiens réfugiés rencontrés à Erbil en Irak, en accompagnant Mgr Barbarin qui venait les visiter et les soutenir. «Ne nous oubliez pas!» disaient-ils aux français. «Ne nous effacez pas!» sera leur nouveau cri du cœur, en apprenant cette histoire qui nous fait honte.
Pierre Mongin, président de la RATP, se retrouve ce jour devant trois questions auxquelles il doit répondre pour faire cesser le trouble:
-valide-t-il ce communiqué ou reconnaît-il une erreur bien regrettable mais du coup pardonnable?
-pense-t-il qu’on puisse être «neutre» devant le massacre des chrétiens persécutés? Entre Daesh et ses victimes, la RATP peut-elle revendiquer un principe de neutralité?
-serait-ce le mot «chrétiens» qui gêne certains, comme pourrait le laisser penser, dans un premier temps, le recours à l’argument de la laïcité?
Il faut espérer qu’il aura à cœur de nous rassurer et de réparer ce scandale, avant qu’il ternisse pour nous tous la joie de Pâques!
Reuters is reporting that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are both satisfied with their non-encounter at the United Nations last week. Both men « left the U.N. meeting with more than they arrived with: Obama with an assurance that Israel would not attack Iran’s nuclear sites before the November 6 U.S. presidential election, and Netanyahu with a commitment from Obama to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from producing an atomic bomb. »I found the second half of this statement surprising. If it is indeed news to Netanyahu that Obama has promised to do « whatever it takes » to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, then he hasn’t been listening. He’s not the only one who hasn’t heard the President clearly on the subject. I run into people constantly who believe that the bluffer in this relationship is Obama. Their argument holds that Obama will move toward a strategy of containment soon after the election, and that there is no way he would ever use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.I’m in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he’s repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic’s International Channel, I’ve posted below a partial accounting of Obama’s statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he’s told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:June 5, 2008, in Cairo: « I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America’s interest to prevent such a scenario. »
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: « The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat…. Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. »
October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: « We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table, »November 7, 2008, press conference: « Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening. »February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: « (W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. »
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: « And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. »
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: « Now, our opposition to Iran’s intolerance and Iran’s repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known. »
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: « You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…. So let me be absolutely clear — we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. »October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president: « Now, we don’t take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran. »November 14, 2011, press conference: « So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don’t trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That’s in the interests of all of us… I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it’s my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States. »
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): « No options off the table means I’m considering all options. »
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: « Another grave concern — and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world — is Iran’s nuclear program. And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…and that’s why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear. »
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: « Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. »March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: « I… don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. »March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: « I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. »
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: « … I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it. »
March 6, 2012, press conference: « And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon — because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: « …And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — in part for the reasons that David mentioned… We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we’ve got to have somebody on the other side of the table who’s taking this seriously. »September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: « Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained…the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. »
Les drones américains ont liquidé plus de monde que le nombre total des détenus de Guantanamo. Pouvons nous être certains qu’il n’y avait parmi eux aucun cas d’erreurs sur la personne ou de morts innocentes ? Les prisonniers de Guantanamo avaient au moins une chance d’établir leur identité, d’être examinés par un Comité de surveillance et, dans la plupart des cas, d’être relâchés. Ceux qui restent à Guantanamo ont été contrôlés et, finalement, devront faire face à une forme quelconque de procédure judiciaire. Ceux qui ont été tués par des frappes de drones, quels qu’ils aient été, ont disparu. Un point c’est tout.Kurt Volker
Le plus clair du temps, précise Motaghi, les Américains se font les avocats des thèses du régime iranien, poussant leurs alliés à admettre l’accord. (…) C’est Paris qui se montre le plus circonspect ; non que les Français soient tenaillés par l’inquiétude d’entériner un accord qui mettrait, outre Israël, l’Europe sous la menace des ogives nucléaires khomeynistes, mais parce que les bailleurs de fonds qui maintiennent la France en respiration artificielle – l’Arabie Saoudite et les Emirats du Golfe – font pression sur elle. Fait extrêmement inhabituel, Riad a béni le récent voyage sur les bords de Seine du ministre israélien du Renseignement stratégique, Youval Steinitz, venu expliquer à Laurent Fabius, au nom de tous les détracteurs du compromis avec Téhéran, les points sur lesquels il ne fallait en aucun cas céder à Obama et à Khamenei. La réaction des Arabes est des plus compréhensibles, lorsque l’on sait qu’ils affrontent indirectement les Iraniens dans la campagne qu’ils mènent contre les chiites au Yémen. Ils voient aussi les Pasdaran s’incruster dans la Guerre Civile Irakienne, paralyser le Liban, s’approcher du royaume hachémite et s’instiller sur le Golan face à Israël. Et ils constatent que ça n’a absolument pas l’air de déranger Barack Obama, qui réserve les missiles de ses avions aux seuls sunnites partout où ils interviennent. Quant aux images que nous avons diffusées du Hezbollah chiite libanais guerroyant en Syrie sur du matériel américain à peine sorti des cartons, elles font sauter les Arabes au plafond. L’Iran tente militairement de bâtir un empire dans tout le Moyen Orient. L’Amérique d’Obama coopère avec lui en Irak et en Syrie, tout en s’efforçant, à n’importe quel prix, de signer un accord trismégiste avec Téhéran, qui lui permettra : 1. de construire légalement des bombes atomiques dans dix ans et de se préparer à le faire en attendant ; 2. de récupérer des milliards de dollars et de redresser son économie ; 3. de réintégrer les travées de la communauté internationale, de reprendre le commerce des armes et de concurrencer les pays arabes sur le marché pétrolier.Metula News Agency
La domination militaire des communautés chiites embrigadées par l’Iran provoque une rupture stratégique majeure aux Proche et Moyen-Orients. Que les négociations sur le nucléaire aboutissent ou non, Téhéran devient une puissance incontournable, qui structure les communautés chiites. Pourtant, son ascension a été jalonnée d’obstacles: il a déjoué un millefeuille de sanctions pour s’imposer. Dès qu’elles seront levées, il disposera du dégel de 100 milliards de dollars et aura les moyens d’accentuer son influence et de développer ses arsenaux. (…) Les attentats du 11 septembre commis par des djihadistes sunnites ont effacé des mémoires les multiples attaques (QG des Marines, des Marsouins et de l’ambassade américaine à Beyrouth), assassinats, prises d’otages… commis par des chiites aux ordres de l’Iran. La propagande des djihadistes chiites maîtrise une communication parfaitement lissée, comparée à la mise en scène d’actes de barbarie commis par les djihadistes sunnites. Pourtant, sur le champ de bataille les djihadistes chiites pratiquent la même horreur. Les «crimes de guerre» dénoncés par Amnesty en Irak, l’usage d’armes chimiques par Assad et les 11.000 suppliciés morts sous la torture dans ses geôles suscitent moins d’émotion que les exactions de Daech. (…) La bombe iranienne, ou tout au moins l’arrivée au seuil nucléaire, annonce une prolifération régionale: l’Arabie, l’Égypte et la Turquie chercheraient alors à rejoindre Israël et l’Iran dans le club des nations atomiques. Téhéran serait tenté de provoquer des troubles en Arabie pour la détourner du lancement d’un programme fiable. Le conflit qui oppose les djihadistes chiites et sunnites n’est pas prêt de s’estomper, d’autant plus que l’Amérique d’Obama n’exerce plus son rôle arbitral. Le «Yalta» régional que Téhéran voudrait négocier avec Obama remettra en cause les frontières de Sykes-Picot, cent ans après leur instauration. Mais l’hégémonie iranienne ne saurait être synonyme de paix régionale. Le Yémen en est l’éclatante illustration.Antoine Basbous
L’Irak ne gagnera pas le combat contre l’État islamique, qui a commis de nombreuses atrocités, si ses propres forces se livrent à des attaques contre les civils en violation des lois de la guerre et de la décence humaine. Les exactions commises par les milices affectent les personnes plus vulnérables en Irak, et exacerbent les rivalités communautaires. (…) À l’évidence, l’Irak est exposé à de graves menaces dans le conflit qui l’oppose à l’EI, mais les exactions commises par les forces qui combattent l’EI sont tellement insidieuses et extrêmes qu’elles constituent une menace sur le long terme pour l’Irak. Les Irakiens se retrouvent pris en étau entre les horreurs commises par l’EI et le comportement répréhensible des milices. Et ce sont les civils irakiens qui en paient le prix.Joe Stork (Human Rights Watch)
Devant la recrudescence de la violence au Yémen, le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) se déclare préoccupé par les informations faisant état de victimes civiles suite aux frappes aériennes perpétrées dans la capitale Sanaa et dans d’autres parties du pays. La population yéménite – déjà durement éprouvée par des années de conflit – doit à présent endurer les effets de cette escalade. « Toutes les parties impliquées dans le cycle de violence actuel sont liées par les règles régissant la conduite des hostilités », déclare Cédric Schweizer, qui dirige la délégation du CICR au Yémen. En vertu du droit international humanitaire, les pays qui participent aux opérations militaires de la coalition, ainsi que les forces armées et les groupes armés yéménites, doivent tous se conformer aux principes de distinction, de proportionnalité et de précaution, et s’efforcer de ne pas nuire aux civils et de ne pas causer de dommages aux biens de caractère civil. Le CICR a également appelé toutes les parties impliquées dans le conflit à respecter la vie humaine, à traiter les détenus correctement et à veiller à ce que les blessés aient accès aux soins médicaux dont ils ont besoin. Les structures médicales doivent être protégées, et ne peuvent pas être attaquées.CICR
Devinez un peu qui est le Numéro Un absolu parmi tous les violateurs du droit des femmes dans le monde, à ce jour? Israël. Qui viole le droit des femmes palestiniennes. Du moins est-ce la vision de l’organisme des droits des femmes, au sommet de l’ONU, la Commission sur le droit des femmes (CSW). Le CSW a achevé sa rencontre annuelle de ce vendredi 20 mars, en ne condamnant qu’un seul et unique des 193 Etats-membres pour ses « violations » du droit des femmes : Israël. Ce n’est pas la Syrie. Où les forces gouvernementales utilise le viol, de façon routinière et d’autres formes de violence sexuelle et de torture contre les femmes en tant que tactique de guerre. Où, en 2014, le régime Assad a ffâmé, torturé et tué au moins 24.000 civils, et où 3 millions de personnes – essentiellement des femmes et des enfants – sont des réfugiés. (…) Cela ne peut pas être l’Arabie Saoudite. Où les femmes sont punies physiquement de tenues vestimentaires obligatoires, sont presque totalement exclues de la vie politique, ne peuvent pas conduire, ne peuvent pas voyager sans la présence d’un proche de sexe mâle, où elles ne reçoivent que la moitié de l’héritage de leurs frères, et où leur témoignage devant la loi ne vaut pas plus de la moitié de celui d’un homme. Pas le Soudan. Où la violence domestique n’est pas interdite ni sanctionnée. Où il n’y a pas d’âge minimal pour les rapports sexules « consentis ». Où l’âge légal du mariage pour les filles est fixé à … 10 ans. Où 88% des femmes de moins de 50 ans ont subi des mutilations génitales de leur féminité. Où on dénie des droits égaux aux femmes dans le mariage, l’héritage et le divorce. Pas plus l’Iran. Où chaque femme qui a tenté de se faire enregistrer comme candidate présidentielle au cours des dernières élections, a été disqualifiée. Où « l’adultère » est punissable de mort par lapidation. Où les femmes qui se défendent contre leur violeur et tue leurs aggresseurs sont systématiquement exécutées. La constitution interdit aux femmes de devenir Juge. Et les femmes doivent, d’abord, obtenir le consentement de leur mari pour travailler hors de la maison.Anne Bayefsky
La Cour est également compétente pour les crimes commis par les citoyens palestiniens (…), l’adhésion au Statut de Rome impliquant des droits et des devoirs. Fadi el-Abdallah (porte-parole de la CPI)
La diplomatie palestinienne cherche à tout prix à être reconnue et à partager sa cause, et cherche à le faire à travers des institutions légales et légitimes. C’est plus une réalisation diplomatique qu’autre chose. Chafik al-Masri (professeur de droit international)
Cette adhésion peut aussi se révéler être une arme à double tranchant : d’abord parce qu’Israël a déjà commencé à répliquer avec des actions en justice devant des juridictions ordinaires. Par exemple, avec des plaintes contre l’Autorité palestinienne pour les bombardements du Hamas qui ont perturbé le trafic de l’aéroport de Tel Aviv l’été dernier. Par ailleurs, (…) les Palestiniens pourraient par exemple devoir répondre devant la CPI de crimes commis par le Hamas ou depuis Gaza, alors même que le contrôle sur ce territoire échappe totalement à l’Autorité palestinienne.France 24
La démarche palestinienne est toutefois une arme à double tranchant et pourrait avoir des conséquences désastreuses : si les Palestiniens décident de poursuivre des Israéliens en justice, l’inverse est également vrai. Ainsi, des membres du Hamas, qui contrôle de facto la bande de Gaza, pourraient être amenés à comparaître devant un tribunal pour avoir visé des civils lors de l’opération israélienne en 2014. Ce qui pourrait court-circuiter ou presque l’offensive judiciaire des Palestiniens en les obligeant à répondre de ces accusations. L’Orient le jour
Nous avons réussi, notre récit a pris le dessus ! Ismaël Haniyeh (ancien premier ministre du Hamas, Al-Jazeera, 29 août 2014)
Les groupes armés palestiniens doivent mettre fin à l’ensemble des attaques directes visant les civils et des attaques menées sans discrimination. Ils doivent aussi prendre toutes les précautions possibles afin de protéger les civils de la bande de Gaza des conséquences de ces attaques. Cela suppose d’adopter toutes les mesures qui s’imposent pour éviter de placer combattants et armes dans des zones densément peuplées ou à proximité. (…) Les éléments selon lesquels il est possible qu’une roquette tirée par un groupe armé palestinien ait causé 13 morts civiles dans la bande de Gaza soulignent à quel point ces armes sont non discriminantes et les terribles conséquences de leur utilisation. (…) L’impact dévastateur des attaques israéliennes sur les civils palestiniens durant ce conflit est indéniable, mais les violations commises par un camp dans un conflit ne peuvent jamais justifier les violations perpétrées par leurs adversaires. (…) La communauté internationale doit aider à prévenir de nouvelles violations en luttant contre la banalisation de l’impunité, et en cessant de livrer aux groupes armés palestiniens et à Israël les armes et équipements militaires susceptibles d’être utilisés pour commettre de graves violations du droit international humanitaire. Philip LutherAmnesty International demande à tous les États de soutenir la Commission d’enquête des Nations unies et la compétence de la Cour pénale internationale concernant les crimes commis par toutes les parties au conflit. Amnesty international
Des groupes armés palestiniens ont fait preuve d’un mépris flagrant pour la vie de civils, en lançant de nombreuses attaques aveugles à l’aide de roquettes et de mortiers en direction de zones civiles en Israël durant le conflit de juillet-août 2014, écrit Amnesty International dans un nouveau rapport rendu public jeudi 26 mars. Ce document, intitulé Unlawful and deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict (…), fournit des éléments tendant à prouver que plusieurs attaques lancées depuis la bande de Gaza constituaient des crimes de guerre. Six civils, dont un petit garçon de quatre ans, ont été tués en Israël dans le cadre d’attaques de ce type, au cours de ce conflit ayant duré 50 jours. Lors de l’attaque la plus mortelle attribuée à un groupe armé palestinien, 13 civils palestiniens, dont 11 mineurs, ont été tués lorsqu’un projectile tiré depuis la bande de Gaza s’est écrasé dans le camp de réfugiés d’al Shati. (…) Toutes les roquettes utilisées par les groupes armés palestiniens sont des projectiles non guidés, avec lesquels on ne peut pas viser avec précision de cible spécifique et qui sont non discriminantes par nature ; recourir à ces armes est interdit par le droit international et leur utilisation constitue un crime de guerre. Les mortiers sont eux aussi des munitions imprécises et ne doivent jamais être utilisés pour attaquer des cibles militaires situées dans des zones civiles ou à proximité. (…) Selon les données des Nations unies, plus de 4 800 roquettes et 1 700 mortiers ont été tirés depuis Gaza vers Israël au cours de ce conflit. Sur ces milliers de roquettes et mortiers, environ 224 auraient atteint des zones résidentielles israéliennes, tandis que le Dôme de fer, le système de défense anti-missile israélien, en a intercepté de nombreux autres. (…) Lors de l’attaque la plus mortelle attribuée à un groupe armé palestinien durant ce conflit, 13 civils palestiniens, dont 11 mineurs, ont été tués lorsqu’un projectile a explosé à côté d’un supermarché, dans le camp – surpeuplé – de réfugiés d’al Shati (bande de Gaza) le 28 juillet 2014, premier jour de l’Aïd al Fitr. Les enfants jouaient dans la rue et achetaient des chips et des boissons sucrées au supermarché au moment de l’attaque. Si les Palestiniens ont affirmé que l’armée israélienne était responsable de cette attaque, un expert indépendant, spécialiste des munitions, ayant examiné les éléments de preuve disponibles pour le compte d’Amnesty International, a conclu que le projectile utilisé dans le cadre de cette attaque était une roquette palestinienne. (…) Mahmoud Abu Shaqfa et son fils Khaled, âgé de cinq ans, ont été gravement blessés lors de cette attaque. Muhammad, son fils de huit ans, a été tué. (…) Il n’y pas d’abri contre les bombes ni de système d’alerte en place pour protéger les civils dans la bande de Gaza. Le rapport décrit en détail d’autres atteintes au droit international humanitaire commises par des groupes armés palestiniens durant le conflit, comme le fait de stocker des roquettes et d’autres munitions dans des immeubles civils, y compris des écoles administrées par les Nations unies, ainsi que des cas dans lesquels des groupes armés palestiniens ont lancé des attaques ou stocké des munitions très près de zones où se réfugiaient des centaines de civils déplacés. Amnesty international
Attention: un crime de guerre peut en cacher un autre !
Attaques aveugles à l’aide de roquettes et de mortiers en direction de zones civiles en Israël (six civils, dont un petit garçon de quatre ans,) mais aussi sur Gaza même (13 civils palestiniens, dont 11 mineurs dans le camp de réfugiés d’al Shati, faussement attribués à Israël), placement de combattants et armes dans des zones densément peuplées ou à proximité, plus de 4 800 roquettes et 1 700 mortiers tirés depuis Gaza pendant 50 jours, pas d’abri contre les bombes ni de système d’alerte pour protéger les civils dans la bande de Gaza, stockage de roquettes et d’autres munitions dans des immeubles civils, y compris des écoles administrées par les Nations unies, attaques ou stockage de munitions très près de zones où se réfugiaient des centaines de civils déplacés …
A l’heure où poursuivant son intifada diplomatique et judiciaire à La Haye, l’Autorité dite palestinienne devient officiellement (non, ce n’est pas un poisson d’avril !) membre de la Cour pénale internationale …
Pendant qu’à Genève en cette treizième année de négociations qui n’ont jamais servi qu’à gagner du temps, le Predator in chief assure les relations publiques pour ceux qui sont en train, du Golan au Yemen et via leurs milices chiites, de mettre le Moyen-orient à feu et à sang …
Et qu’audit Yémen, des armées arabes sont à leur tour confrontées aux bavures à l’occasion de frappes dirigées contre des forces qui se cachent au milieu de civils …
Comment ne pas voir avec cette confirmation que vient de publier Amnesty international …
Huit mois après le témoignage d’un alors bien seul journaliste italien et contre l’infâme matraquage de nos médias tout au long de la guerre lancée par le Hamas à Gaza l’été dernier …
L’ultime preuve du manque total, de la part des ennemis d’Israël en général et du Hamas en particulier, de respect pour la vie humaine …
Que ces massacres désormais dument documentés de leur propre population ?
Des groupes armés palestiniens ont fait preuve d’un mépris flagrant pour la vie de civils, en lançant de nombreuses attaques aveugles à l’aide de roquettes et de mortiers en direction de zones civiles en Israël durant le conflit de juillet-août 2014, écrit Amnesty International dans un nouveau rapport rendu public jeudi 26 mars.
Ce document, intitulé Unlawful and deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict [en cours de traduction en français], fournit des éléments tendant à prouver que plusieurs attaques lancées depuis la bande de Gaza constituaient des crimes de guerre. Six civils, dont un petit garçon de quatre ans, ont été tués en Israël dans le cadre d’attaques de ce type, au cours de ce conflit ayant duré 50 jours. Lors de l’attaque la plus mortelle attribuée à un groupe armé palestinien, 13 civils palestiniens, dont 11 mineurs, ont été tués lorsqu’un projectile tiré depuis la bande de Gaza s’est écrasé dans le camp de réfugiés d’al Shati.
« Des groupes armés palestiniens, dont la branche armée du Hamas, ont à maintes reprises lancé des attaques illégales durant ce conflit, tuant six civils et en blessant d’autres. En menant ces attaques, ils ont fait preuve d’une indifférence flagrante vis-à-vis du droit international humanitaire et des conséquences de leurs violations sur les civils, que ce soit en Israël ou dans la bande de Gaza », a déclaré Philip Luther, directeur du programme Moyen-Orient et Afrique du Nord d’Amnesty International.
Toutes les roquettes utilisées par les groupes armés palestiniens sont des projectiles non guidés, avec lesquels on ne peut pas viser avec précision de cible spécifique et qui sont non discriminantes par nature ; recourir à ces armes est interdit par le droit international et leur utilisation constitue un crime de guerre. Les mortiers sont eux aussi des munitions imprécises et ne doivent jamais être utilisés pour attaquer des cibles militaires situées dans des zones civiles ou à proximité.
« Les groupes armés palestiniens doivent mettre fin à l’ensemble des attaques directes visant les civils et des attaques menées sans discrimination. Ils doivent aussi prendre toutes les précautions possibles afin de protéger les civils de la bande de Gaza des conséquences de ces attaques. Cela suppose d’adopter toutes les mesures qui s’imposent pour éviter de placer combattants et armes dans des zones densément peuplées ou à proximité », a déclaré Philip Luther.
Au moins 1 585 civils palestiniens, parmi lesquels plus de 530 mineurs, ont été tués à Gaza, et au moins 16 245 logements ont été détruits ou rendus inhabitables par les attaques israéliennes menées durant le conflit, dont certaines constituent également des crimes de guerre.
« L’impact dévastateur des attaques israéliennes sur les civils palestiniens durant ce conflit est indéniable, mais les violations commises par un camp dans un conflit ne peuvent jamais justifier les violations perpétrées par leurs adversaires », a déclaré Philip Luther.
« Le fait que des groupes armés palestiniens semblent avoir perpétré des crimes de guerre en tirant des roquettes et des mortiers à l’aveugle ne dispense pas les forces israéliennes de respecter leurs obligations aux termes du droit international humanitaire. Ce conflit a tué, détruit et blessé à un niveau sans précédent pour les 1,8 million de personnes vivant dans la bande de Gaza, et certaines des attaques israéliennes susceptibles de constituer des crimes de guerre doivent donner lieu à des enquêtes.
« Les autorités israéliennes et palestiniennes doivent coopérer avec les investigations de la Commission d’enquête des Nations unies et la Cour pénale internationale pour mettre fin à des décennies d’impunité, qui ont perpétué le cercle infernal des violations auquel les civils des deux côtés ont payé un lourd tribut. »
Selon les données des Nations unies, plus de 4 800 roquettes et 1 700 mortiers ont été tirés depuis Gaza vers Israël au cours de ce conflit. Sur ces milliers de roquettes et mortiers, environ 224 auraient atteint des zones résidentielles israéliennes, tandis que le Dôme de fer, le système de défense anti-missile israélien, en a intercepté de nombreux autres.
La mort de Daniel Tregerman, un garçon de quatre ans, le 22 août 2014, illustre clairement les conséquences tragiques de l’utilisation d’armes imprécises telles que des mortiers contre des zones civiles. Sa famille avait fui son domicile au kibboutz de Nahal Oz à cause des combats, puis y était retournée un jour avant qu’il ne soit tué. Quelques instants après le déclenchement des sirènes d’alarme, un mortier tiré depuis Gaza a frappé la voiture familiale garée devant la maison. Daniel est mort sous les yeux de sa petite sœur, qui était également présente.
« Mon époux et mon fils étaient dans le salon et je leur hurlais de venir dans l’abri. Des éclats [de mortier] ont atteint Daniel à la tête, le tuant sur le coup », a expliqué Gila Tregerman, sa mère, à Amnesty International.
Cette attaque a été revendiquée par les Brigades al Qassam, la branche armée du Hamas.
Le rapport souligne par ailleurs la réticence des autorités israéliennes à protéger adéquatement certaines populations civiles vulnérables dans le cadre du conflit, en particulier des villages bédouins de la région israélienne du Néguev, dont beaucoup ne sont pas officiellement reconnus par le gouvernement israélien. Ouda Jumian al Waj a été tuée par une roquette qui s’est écrasée dans le village bédouin de Qasr al Sir, près de la ville israélienne de Dimona, le 19 juillet.
La plupart des villages bédouins sont classifiés comme des « espaces ouverts » non résidentiels par les autorités israéliennes. Le système du Dôme de fer ne les protège donc pas et il n’y a pas d’abris contre les bombes sur place. Plus de 100 000 personnes vivent dans des villages bédouins dans le sud d’Israël.
« Les civils qui vivaient dans des villages bédouins pendant le conflit se sont retrouvés livrés à eux-mêmes et exposés au danger, exemple des discriminations qu’ils subissent au quotidien. Les autorités israéliennes doivent garantir que tous les résidents se voient accorder le même niveau de protection », a déclaré Philip Luther.
Les autres civils tués par les attaques lancées depuis la bande de Gaza incluent un travailleur agricole originaire de Thaïlande, Narakorn Kittiyangkul, qui a perdu la vie lorsqu’un mortier s’est abattu sur un site de production de tomates où il travaillait, dans le sud d’Israël. Zeev Etzion et Shahar Melamed ont été tués lors d’une attaque au mortier contre le kibboutz de Nirim, le 26 août.
Lors de l’attaque la plus mortelle attribuée à un groupe armé palestinien durant ce conflit, 13 civils palestiniens, dont 11 mineurs, ont été tués lorsqu’un projectile a explosé à côté d’un supermarché, dans le camp – surpeuplé – de réfugiés d’al Shati (bande de Gaza) le 28 juillet 2014, premier jour de l’Aïd al Fitr. Les enfants jouaient dans la rue et achetaient des chips et des boissons sucrées au supermarché au moment de l’attaque.
Si les Palestiniens ont affirmé que l’armée israélienne était responsable de cette attaque, un expert indépendant, spécialiste des munitions, ayant examiné les éléments de preuve disponibles pour le compte d’Amnesty International, a conclu que le projectile utilisé dans le cadre de cette attaque était une roquette palestinienne.
« Les éléments selon lesquels il est possible qu’une roquette tirée par un groupe armé palestinien ait causé 13 morts civiles dans la bande de Gaza soulignent à quel point ces armes sont non discriminantes et les terribles conséquences de leur utilisation », a déclaré Philip Luther.
Mahmoud Abu Shaqfa et son fils Khaled, âgé de cinq ans, ont été gravement blessés lors de cette attaque. Muhammad, son fils de huit ans, a été tué.
« La roquette est tombée près de la voiture […] le véhicule tout entier a été criblé d’éclats. Un morceau m’a transpercé […] Mon fils [Khaled] est venu vers moi. Il criait » Papa lève-toi, lève-toi […] » Ma jambe entière était déchiquetée et mon bras était tordu vers l’arrière. »
Il n’y pas d’abri contre les bombes ni de système d’alerte en place pour protéger les civils dans la bande de Gaza.
Le rapport décrit en détail d’autres atteintes au droit international humanitaire commises par des groupes armés palestiniens durant le conflit, comme le fait de stocker des roquettes et d’autres munitions dans des immeubles civils, y compris des écoles administrées par les Nations unies, ainsi que des cas dans lesquels des groupes armés palestiniens ont lancé des attaques ou stocké des munitions très près de zones où se réfugiaient des centaines de civils déplacés.
« La communauté internationale doit aider à prévenir de nouvelles violations en luttant contre la banalisation de l’impunité, et en cessant de livrer aux groupes armés palestiniens et à Israël les armes et équipements militaires susceptibles d’être utilisés pour commettre de graves violations du droit international humanitaire », a déclaré Philip Luther.
Amnesty International demande à tous les États de soutenir la Commission d’enquête des Nations unies et la compétence de la Cour pénale internationale concernant les crimes commis par toutes les parties au conflit.
Various news outlets are reporting that it was a ‘suspected’ Israeli air strike that killed 10 at the Al Shati refugee camp in Gaza.
Middle East Eye: In pictures: Death and devastation at al-Shati refugee camp
A suspected Israeli strike on a playground in the western Gaza City’s Al-Shati Camp killed 10 children on Monday, though the Israeli army denied culpability –
The Nation: Missile Strike at Al-Shati Refugee Camp Kills 10, Including 8 Children
Ten people were killed in the attack, including eight children, and forty were injured, thirty-two of them children, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. Israel claimed a misfired militant rocket caused the carnage, but several eyewitnesses blamed the explosion on an airstrike.
The Daily Beast: Israel’s Campaign to Send Gaza Back to the Stone Age
In the emergency room yesterday afternoon, young children writhed in pain on gurneys waiting for scrambling ER doctors to attend to them following an air strike on the Al Shati Refugee camp. Nine of the ten people killed in the attack were children and are many more were wounded.
However, Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati on the ground in Gaza affirms the Israeli claim that the “massacre” at the Al Shati refugee camp was actually caused by a misfired Hamas rocket.
There will be journalists in Israel who report that the IDF caused these deaths. They will do so without fear of retaliation from Israel. That should tell you something.
How should the Supreme Court rule on gay marriage?
For Gay Marriage
Against Gay Marriage
VOTE!
*Voting entitles you to receive conservative alerts from Twitchy.com
La Palestine devient mercredi membre de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), avec l’intention d’y faire juger les dirigeants israéliens pour crimes de guerre. Au-delà du symbole, les conséquences de cette démarche restent néanmoins incertaines.
La menace d’adhérer à la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) était brandie de longue date par les Palestiniens. C’est désormais acté : mercredi 1er avril, la Palestine va devenir formellement membre de l’instance internationale qui siège à La Haye, aux Pays-Bas. Cette adhésion au Statut de Rome – qui régit la CPI – donne, après la reconnaissance comme État membre de l’ONU, une arme diplomatique à l’Autorité palestinienne. Celle-ci peut toutefois s’avérer dangereuse à manier.
En intégrant la CPI, les Palestiniens ne cachent pas qu’ils veulent faire juger des dirigeants israéliens pour crimes de guerre, en lien ou non avec l’occupation. Il est du ressort de cette cour indépendante et permanente, créée en 2002, de juger les auteurs des crimes les plus graves qui touchent la communauté internationale : génocides, crimes contre l’humanité ou crimes de guerre. Elle ne peut être saisie qu’en dernier recours, après échec devant les juridictions nationales, et peut seulement poursuivre des individus, non des États.
Cette adhésion risque de compliquer un peu plus sérieusement les relations israélo-palestiniennes, déjà particulièrement tendues par le conflit à Gaza durant l’été 2014 et récemment encore, à la suite des déclarations du Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahou sur la solution à deux États. L’Autorité palestinienne vient ainsi d’annoncer une révision de sa politique de coopération sécuritaire avec Israël.
Dépôt de plaintes dès l’adhésion formelle
Certains responsables palestiniens ont promis les premières plaintes dès l’annonce de l’adhésion formelle. Il reviendra toutefois à la procureure Fatou Bensouda de décider de l’opportunité des poursuites à partir des faits portés à son attention. Les espérances palestiniennes pourraient ne pas être entièrement satisfaites. Les Israéliens avaient pris les devants, en punissant d’avance les Palestiniens et décidé de geler environ 100 millions d’euros de taxes prélevées par Israël pour leur compte. Une mesure que Benjamin Netanyahou a décidé de lever. Cette décision a-t-elle fait l’objet d’un marchandage contre une attitude plus modérée des Palestiniens à la CPI ? Certains medias israéliens l’affirment et l’Autorité palestinienne le nie.
Mais cette adhésion peut aussi se révéler être une arme à double tranchant : d’abord parce qu’Israël a déjà commencé à répliquer avec des actions en justice devant des juridictions ordinaires. Par exemple, avec des plaintes contre l’Autorité palestinienne pour les bombardements du Hamas qui ont perturbé le trafic de l’aéroport de Tel Aviv l’été dernier.
Des droits et des devoirs
Par ailleurs, le porte-parole de la CPI, Fadi el-Abdallah, interrogé par France 24, souligne que la Cour « est également compétente pour les crimes commis par les citoyens palestiniens (…), l’adhésion au Statut de Rome impliquant des droits et des devoirs ». Dès mercredi, les Palestiniens pourraient par exemple devoir répondre devant la CPI de crimes commis par le Hamas ou depuis Gaza, alors même que le contrôle sur ce territoire échappe totalement à l’Autorité palestinienne.
L’usage que feront les Palestiniens de ce nouveau droit est encore incertain et s’inscrit dans une logique « d’intifada diplomatique », mais on est sans doute encore loin de voir Benjamin Netanyahou jugé à la Haye. Pour Éric David, professeur de droit international à l’Université libre de Bruxelles, « le simple fait d’adhérer est déjà un évènement en soi » mais « il faut être plus prudent et patient quant au résultat ».
Voir également:
Moyen Orient et Monde Palestiniens et CPI : le jeu en vaut-il la chandelle ?
Proche-Orient: L’adhésion à l’instance judiciaire internationale pourrait se révéler une arme à double tranchant, l’État hébreu pouvant à son tour poursuivre le Hamas pour crimes de guerre.
Samia Medawar
L’Orient le jour
01/04/2015
Aujourd’hui, la Palestine devrait devenir officiellement membre de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI). Ce moment décisif survient alors que les élections législatives israéliennes ont été emportées haut la main par le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu, déterminé à empêcher la création d’un État palestinien. Plus que jamais, les pourparlers de paix sont au point mort ; la situation, surtout économique, des territoires palestiniens est plus que précaire, particulièrement dans la bande de Gaza, dévastée par l’opération israélienne « Bordure protectrice » en été 2014.
Déjà État observateur non membre de l’Onu, la Palestine a promis d’user du droit de faire appel aux instances judiciaires internationales pour faire juger des dirigeants ou des militaires israéliens devant la CPI pour crimes de guerre ou en rapport avec la colonisation dénoncée comme illégale par la communauté internationale. En effet, contrairement à la Cour internationale de justice, une instance onusienne qui règle des contentieux judiciaires entre États, la CPI se charge, elle, de poursuivre des individus.
Prochaine étape
Que sera la prochaine étape pour les Palestiniens ? « Après l’adhésion, de premières plaintes concernant des situations précises devraient être présentées à la procureure générale », en l’occurrence Fatou Bensouda, explique Chafik al-Masri, professeur de droit international. « Cette dernière décide ou pas si le processus a lieu d’être lancé. Si c’est le cas, elle redirige la plainte vers la chambre préliminaire, qui décidera si l’accusation peut être présentée devant la chambre de première instance » si les charges sont confirmées. Pour rappel, la CPI découle directement du Statut de Rome, adopté en 1998, et signé et ratifié par plus de 120 États. Israël a signé le traité, sans le ratifier. L’État hébreu n’est donc pas obligé de reconnaitre la CPI, mais la signature en elle-même, si elle n’est pas retirée par l’État, représente un geste de bonne volonté. « Le plus important, explique le professeur Masri, est le fait que le statut de membre de la Palestine à la CPI permettrait, si la plainte était acceptée, la convocation obligatoire d’Israéliens devant un tribunal, quitte à demander l’intervention « musclée » du Conseil de sécurité selon le chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations unies », c’est-à-dire l’émission d’un mandat d’arrêt à l’encontre des récalcitrants.
La démarche palestinienne est toutefois une arme à double tranchant et pourrait avoir des conséquences désastreuses : si les Palestiniens décident de poursuivre des Israéliens en justice, l’inverse est également vrai. Ainsi, des membres du Hamas, qui contrôle de facto la bande de Gaza, pourraient être amenés à comparaître devant un tribunal pour avoir visé des civils lors de l’opération israélienne en 2014. Ce qui pourrait court-circuiter ou presque l’offensive judiciaire des Palestiniens en les obligeant à répondre de ces accusations.
Par ailleurs, les négociations de paix, même moribondes, pourraient se retrouver définitivement enterrées. « Israël a récemment affirmé qu’en cas de poursuites judiciaires, les Palestiniens le regretteraient… »
En attendant, déposer une plainte à la CPI revient à entamer un processus interminable qui pourrait prendre des années si jamais il aboutissait. Au point de se demander si cela en vaut la peine… « Les ingérences politiques ralentissent énormément le travail de la CPI. La preuve, (le président soudanais) Omar Béchir, sous le coup d’un mandat d’arrêt, court toujours. Mais la diplomatie palestinienne cherche à tout prix à être reconnue et à partager sa cause, et cherche à le faire à travers des institutions légales et légitimes. C’est plus une réalisation diplomatique qu’autre chose », estime M. Masri. Les instances judiciaires représentent donc le dernier recours d’une Autorité palestinienne acculée dans ses derniers retranchements, excédée par des décennies d’occupation et de brimades, de colonisation croissante, de guerres, de dénuement total, de revendications vaines.
Cette adhésion est un pas de plus dans la confrontation diplomatique et judiciaire engagée en 2014 par la direction palestinienne.
C’est aussi une démarche aux conséquences incertaines, non seulement parce que le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu et d’autres dirigeants israéliens semblent loin de comparaître un jour à La Haye, siège de la CPI, mais aussi parce qu’on ignore où mènera cette nouvelle dégradation annoncée dans les relations.
Les Palestiniens disent n’en avoir cure. Exaspérés par des décennies de vaines négociations, sans aucune perspective de voir naître prochainement l’Etat auquel ils aspirent depuis longtemps, ils ont fait le choix d’internationaliser leur cause.
Fin 2014, ils ont décidé de rejoindre la CPI, qui a pour vocation de poursuivre les auteurs de génocides, crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de guerre, après avoir vu rejeter par le Conseil de sécurité un projet de résolution mettant fin à l’occupation sous trois ans.
« La Palestine emploie et continuera à employer tous les moyens légitimes à sa disposition pour se défendre contre la colonisation israélienne et les autres violations du droit international », disait alors le dirigeant palestinien Saëb Erakat.
– ‘Le train a quitté le quai’ –
La CPI était brandie de longue date comme l’une des armes ultimes des Palestiniens. Depuis, ils en ont dégainé une autre sur la voie du non-retour: la fin de la coopération sécuritaire, cruciale, avec les Israéliens.
Les rapports ont continué à se tendre. L’éventualité d’enquêtes de la CPI révulse Israël. M. Netanyahu a accusé le gouvernement palestinien, incluant le Hamas considéré comme terroriste par Israël, de « manipuler » la Cour.
En représailles, Israël a cessé de reverser à l’Autorité palestinienne les plus de 100 millions d’euros de taxes qu’il prélève chaque mois pour son compte.
Les récentes élections israéliennes ont donné lieu à une nouvelle surenchère. M. Netanyahu a enterré l’idée d’un Etat palestinien si – comme ce fut le cas – il restait à son poste.
Depuis, M. Netanyahu a accepté de débloquer les sommes dues à l’Autorité palestinienne, essentielle aux finances d’une institution aux abois qui fait vivre des dizaines de milliers de Palestiniens.
Différents journaux israéliens ont fait état d’un donnant-donnant: en échange de l’argent, les Palestiniens accepteraient de ne pas déposer leurs premières plaintes devant la CPI le 1er avril.
« C’est un énorme mensonge », réagit Xavier Abou Eid, un porte-parole de la direction palestinienne, « ces taxes n’ont rien à voir avec notre démarche à la CPI. Le train de la CPI a déjà quitté le quai ».
– Des ‘abîmes d’absurdité’ –
Dans les faits, le 1er avril risque d’avoir surtout une dimension cérémonielle quand sera remise au ministre palestinien Ryiad al-Malki la copie du Statut de Rome, fondateur de la CPI.
Certains dirigeants palestiniens ont annoncé de premières plaintes dès mercredi. En réalité, les Palestiniens pourraient attendre, ne serait-ce que parce qu’un Etat membre ne peut déposer de telles plaintes, mais porter à l’attention de la cour des situations précises, à charge pour la procureure d’enquêter ou non.
Ensuite, cette même procureure, Fatou Bensouda, qui a participé au tribunal international pour le Rwanda, a déjà décidé le 16 janvier de se pencher sur le conflit israélo-palestinien.
En même temps qu’il demandait l’adhésion à la CPI, le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas avait envoyé à la cour un document autorisant la procureure à enquêter sur des crimes présumés commis dans les Territoires palestiniens depuis le 13 juin 2014.
Les évènements de juin 2014 avaient déclenché une escalade culminant dans la guerre de Gaza, qui a fait près de 2.200 morts côté palestinien et 73 côté israélien.
Pour l’instant, aucune enquête n’est ouverte et les faits en sont à l’examen préliminaire. Aucun délai n’est fixé. Mais les Palestiniens se veulent confiants que les choses ne devraient pas traîner étant donné « toute l’attention accordée à la Palestine » à la CPI selon eux.
Ils rejettent l’objection selon laquelle les dirigeants israéliens n’auront jamais de compte à rendre puisqu’Israël n’est pas signataire du Statut de Rome. La Cour peut aussi poursuivre des faits commis sur le territoire d’un Etat membre comme la Palestine, disent-ils.
« Dans quels abîmes d’absurdité la CPI a-t-elle sombré », avait demandé M. Netanyahu en commentant l’examen préliminaire. Parmi différentes formes de riposte, Israël soutient les plaintes de victimes d’attentats. En février, un jury new-yorkais a signalé que de tels procès pouvaient avoir des effets désastreux pour les Palestiniens, en condamnant l’Autorité et l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP) à des centaines de millions de dollars d’indemnités aux familles.
Sanaa/Genève (CICR) – Devant la recrudescence de la violence au Yémen, le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) se déclare préoccupé par les informations faisant état de victimes civiles suite aux frappes aériennes perpétrées dans la capitale Sanaa et dans d’autres parties du pays. La population yéménite – déjà durement éprouvée par des années de conflit – doit à présent endurer les effets de cette escalade.
« Toutes les parties impliquées dans le cycle de violence actuel sont liées par les règles régissant la conduite des hostilités », déclare Cédric Schweizer, qui dirige la délégation du CICR au Yémen.
En vertu du droit international humanitaire, les pays qui participent aux opérations militaires de la coalition, ainsi que les forces armées et les groupes armés yéménites, doivent tous se conformer aux principes de distinction, de proportionnalité et de précaution, et s’efforcer de ne pas nuire aux civils et de ne pas causer de dommages aux biens de caractère civil.
Le CICR a également appelé toutes les parties impliquées dans le conflit à respecter la vie humaine, à traiter les détenus correctement et à veiller à ce que les blessés aient accès aux soins médicaux dont ils ont besoin. Les structures médicales doivent être protégées, et ne peuvent pas être attaquées.
Ces derniers jours, le CICR, en étroite collaboration avec le ministère de la Santé publique et de la Population, a fait don de tentes de triage à l’hôpital Al-Joumhouria à Aden, qui permettront d’accélérer les procédures d’évaluation de l’état de santé des patients et de les orienter vers les services adéquats. Des médicaments et d’autres secours ont également été distribués. À ce jour, l’hôpital aurait pris en charge une quarantaine de patients.
À Taïz, de violentes manifestations auraient fait huit morts et plus de 140 blessés. Le CICR a fourni un kit pour blessés de guerre contenant des secours médicaux pour traiter entre 50 et 70 patients.
Au fur et à mesure que la situation évolue, des secours sont acheminés aux structures de santé dans les gouvernorats d’Al-Dhale et de Lahij, tous deux touchés par la violence.
À Sanaa, en réponse aux attentats perpétrés contre les mosquées Badr et Al-Hachouch qui ont fait au moins 140 morts et 340 blessés, le CICR a fourni deux kits pour blessés de guerre et des secours médicaux aux trois hôpitaux qui ont pris en charge la plupart des victimes.
Le CICR, qui dispose d’une équipe de 300 personnes réparties à Sanaa, Saada, Taïz et Aden, se tient prête à répondre aux besoins humanitaires les plus urgents et à agir en tant qu’intermédiaire neutre. Il coordonne également les interventions d’urgence en étroite collaboration avec le Croissant-Rouge du Yémen.
Mar 31, 2015
Il plane une grande confusion sur ce qui se déroule entre les quatre murs de la salle de négociations de l’hôtel Beau Rivage à Lausanne entre les P5+1 et la délégation iranienne.
Il existe encore, certes, divers différends à résoudre entre les protagonistes. Mais à en croire le journaliste iranien Amir Hossein Motaghi, qui suivait les discussions, qui fut longtemps le principal conseiller du « Président » Hassan Rouhani, et qui vient de demander l’asile politique aux autorités helvétiques, il s’y déroule d’autres événements fort préoccupants.
D’après Motaghi, qui s’est confié au Telegraph de Londres, le rôle principal des Etats-Unis ne consiste pas à arracher des compromis aux représentants des ayatollahs, mais à persuader les autres membres des 5+1, le Royaume-Uni, la France, la Chine, la Russie et l’Allemagne, d’accepter les revendications perses présentées par Javad Zarif.
Le plus clair du temps, précise Motaghi, les Américains se font les avocats des thèses du régime iranien, poussant leurs alliés à admettre l’accord. Un texte dont la prégnance s’est réduite au fur et à mesure des difficultés, suivant ainsi la dévaluation de son intitulé, étant passé d’ « agrément cadre » à « déclaration de principes », pour n’être plus désormais qu’une « entente diplomatique ».
Le Secrétaire d’Etat, John Kerry, se contenterait actuellement d’un document d’un ou deux feuillets qui permettrait la poursuite des rencontres en vue d’un traité ultérieur – qui ne sera vraisemblablement pas finalisé à la date butoir fixée initialement au 30 juin prochain. Ce document a minima se bornerait, par la force des choses, à indiquer les problèmes à résoudre, et, de manière très laconique, la marche à suivre pour en venir à bout.
Dans certaines des autres délégations on craint une nouvelle entourloupe du genre du faux accord non signé de novembre 2013, qui ne consistait, comme la Ména l’avait révélé en exclusivité, qu’en un document de travail non paraphé, privé de toute force contraignante.
Cette fois, il sera toutefois plus difficile pour le Président Obama de brandir devant les caméras un document préparé par ses conseillers et présenté au monde comme le traité signé avec les Téhéranais.
En effet, les membres du Congrès ont désigné le 31 mars courant [demain] comme la date limite pour la signature par l’Administration du pré-accord définitif avec Khamenei. La majorité Républicaine dans les deux chambres, mais aussi un grand nombre de Démocrates, ont déjà annoncé que, s’ils ne voyaient pas, à la fin du mois, un mémo qui les satisfasse, tant au niveau du fond que de la forme, ils envisageraient sérieusement de décider de nouvelles sanctions à l’encontre de la théocratie chiite. Cette décision mettrait probablement un terme aux tentatives de Messieurs Obama et Kerry de résoudre le problème du nucléaire persan par la voie diplomatique.
La Maison Blanche s’est elle aussi exprimée à ce sujet, avertissant qu’elle imposerait son veto à l’adoption de telles sanctions. Cependant, elle ne pourra le faire que si elles sont votées par moins des trois quarts des représentants et des sénateurs.
Or le nombre des parlementaires indécis qui se détermineront dans un sens ou dans l’autre, dépendra, dans une large mesure, de ce que l’Administration va leur présenter. Un brouillon bâclé ne résolvant pas leurs principales inquiétudes, ou un constat d’échec mal documenté par le gouvernement, mettraient M. Obama dans une situation très délicate.
Cela explique le forcing entrepris par John Kerry en Romandie pour arrondir les angles avec Zarif, qu’il a déjà rencontré huit fois cette semaine, mais aussi pour inviter ses alliés à la souplesse, voire à la complaisance.
Pourtant, tous ne sont pas prêts à se montrer débonnaires en acceptant n’importe quoi. C’est d’abord le cas de la France, suivie du Royaume-Uni et de l’Allemagne. C’est Paris qui se montre le plus circonspect ; non que les Français soient tenaillés par l’inquiétude d’entériner un accord qui mettrait, outre Israël, l’Europe sous la menace des ogives nucléaires khomeynistes, mais parce que les bailleurs de fonds qui maintiennent la France en respiration artificielle – l’Arabie Saoudite et les Emirats du Golfe – font pression sur elle.
Fait extrêmement inhabituel, Riad a béni le récent voyage sur les bords de Seine du ministre israélien du Renseignement stratégique, Youval Steinitz, venu expliquer à Laurent Fabius, au nom de tous les détracteurs du compromis avec Téhéran, les points sur lesquels il ne fallait en aucun cas céder à Obama et à Khamenei.
La réaction des Arabes est des plus compréhensibles, lorsque l’on sait qu’ils affrontent indirectement les Iraniens dans la campagne qu’ils mènent contre les chiites au Yémen. Ils voient aussi les Pasdaran s’incruster dans la Guerre Civile Irakienne, paralyser le Liban, s’approcher du royaume hachémite et s’instiller sur le Golan face à Israël. Et ils constatent que ça n’a absolument pas l’air de déranger Barack Obama, qui réserve les missiles de ses avions aux seuls sunnites partout où ils interviennent. Quant aux images que nous avons diffusées du Hezbollah chiite libanais guerroyant en Syrie sur du matériel américain à peine sorti des cartons, elles font sauter les Arabes au plafond.
L’Iran tente militairement de bâtir un empire dans tout le Moyen Orient. L’Amérique d’Obama coopère avec lui en Irak et en Syrie, tout en s’efforçant, à n’importe quel prix, de signer un accord trismégiste avec Téhéran, qui lui permettra : 1. de construire légalement des bombes atomiques dans dix ans et de se préparer à le faire en attendant ; 2. de récupérer des milliards de dollars et de redresser son économie ; 3. de réintégrer les travées de la communauté internationale, de reprendre le commerce des armes et de concurrencer les pays arabes sur le marché pétrolier.
Pour ces raisons, les créanciers de la France lui demandent de ne pas se contenter d’un accord privant la junte cléricale chiite de l’accès à la Bombe durant 10 ans, comme Washington est prêt à l’accepter, mais d’exiger que la durée de l’agrément soit de 20 ans à tout le moins.
Autre objection arabo-israélienne soutenue par le Quai d’Orsay : l’obligation sine qua non de voir les Perses accepter contractuellement des inspections inopinées par les inspecteurs de l’AIEA des sites de leur choix. Cette condition s’ajoute à celle de l’installation de caméras de surveillance émettant en direct et 24h sur 24h dans les installations jugées à risque, et à l’obligation, pour le régime de Téhéran, d’adopter et de respecter le Protocole Additionnel du Traité de Non-prolifération Nucléaire. Jusqu’à ce mardi matin, les ayatollahs s’opposaient au principe des visites surprises.
Toujours au chapitre des visites des commissaires : la France, les Arabes et Israël exigent que les Iraniens permettent enfin aux inspecteurs de l’Agence Internationale de l’Energie Atomique de visiter des sites militaires iraniens dont ils sont tenus à l’écart, en particulier, celui de Perchin.
L’AEIA suspecte fortement que les Perses s’y soient livrés à des séries de tests, au début des années 2000, liés à la production d’armes atomiques.
Cette exigence est peut-être la plus cruciale de toutes, puisque Téhéran persiste à affirmer n’avoir jamais entretenu de programme nucléaire à finalité militaire ; au cas où les inspecteurs trouveraient sur ces emplacements les traces qu’ils sont convaincus qu’ils trouveraient, le mensonge iranien serait mis à nu, ce qui remettrait en question l’ensemble de la coopération avec les ayatollahs et accentuerait de façon dramatique les revendications de la communauté internationale.
Ce n’est toutefois pas l’avis des Etats-Unis, qui tentent de persuader les Européens de se concentrer sur l’avenir et d’oublier les tests qui ont eu lieu dans le passé.
Des divergences persistent également quant à la levée des sanctions qui sont de trois types : les avoirs encore bloqués dans les banques occidentales, l’interdiction de commercer avec les banques iraniennes et d’acheter du pétrole perse, et la levée des sanctions à l’ONU.
Les 5+1 continuent à proposer une levée graduelle, simultanée à l’obtention des évidences démontrant que Téhéran respecte sa part d’engagements, alors que les ayatollahs, dont la situation économique est critique, campent sur une annulation immédiate des sanctions du Conseil de Sécurité et des entraves commerciales.
La France, les Arabes et Israël s’opposent également avec fermeté à la poursuite par les chiites des activités de recherche et de développement, particulièrement à la mise au point de nouvelles centrifugeuses. Pour ces pays, si ces occupations se poursuivaient pendant la durée de l’accord, le breakout time menant à la capacité atomique à l’issue de celui-ci ne serait que de trois à quatre mois.
Les négociations de Lausanne ont avancé dans les autres domaines en suspens, notamment le nombre de centrifugeuses que la théocratie serait autorisée à maintenir en opération. Elles se chiffrent à 6 000, alors que la demande initiale des grandes puissances se limitait à quelques centaines. De plus, Téhéran n’aurait aucune obligation de détruire les autres centrifugeuses qu’il possède, ce qui génère la colère et l’incompréhension des Israéliens, sur les thèmes : mais que va-t-il bien faire avec autant de minerai enrichi dont il n’a aucun usage, et pourquoi conserver 19 000 centrifugeuses si l’on ne compte pas confectionner des bombes atomiques ?
La « République » Islamique entrepose déjà quelques huit tonnes d’uranium enrichi entre 3,5 et 5 pour cent ; de quoi, si le processus de purification se poursuivait à 90 % et au-delà, assembler cinq ou six bombes.
Les interrogations légitimes de Jérusalem demeurent sans réponses, ce qui ne semble pas non plus inquiéter la Maison Blanche. Jusqu’à hier, celle-ci se rassurait en rappelant que Zarif avait donné son accord pour transférer la plus grande partie de ses stocks en Russie et recevoir du carburant nucléaire en barres (inutilisable pour faire des bombes) afin de faire tourner sa centrale de Bushehr.
Quel est le rationnel, pour un pays ruiné, de fabriquer et d’exporter du matériel inutile à coups de centaines de millions de dollars ? Ce qui n’est pas raisonnable est suspect, dit-on à Métula…
Aujourd’hui, du reste, Zarif a retiré la proposition d’envoyer ces matières en Russie. Il sait parfaitement que l’Amérique veut si désespérément un accord qu’elle acceptera presque certainement cette rupture fondamentale de l’équilibre des négociations.
Les interrogations concernent aussi le réacteur à eau lourde en construction à Arak. Khamenei aurait accepté de modifier son architecture afin qu’il ne produise plus que des quantités négligeables de plutonium, avec lequel on peut également confectionner des bombes atomiques.
Mais si quelqu’un connaît la raison pour laquelle l’Iran a besoin d’un réacteur à eau lourde, à part pour fabriquer des armes atomiques, qu’il parle maintenant ou qu’il se taise à jamais. Il mérite assurément un Prix Nobel.
Tant de questions cruciales, d’intérêts divergents et de flou artistique entourent les négociations de Lausanne. On y voit les Etats-Unis dans un rôle inédit, suivant des orientations stratégiques improbables, abandonnant leurs alliés moyen-orientaux pour signer à tout prix et jusqu’à demain un traité qui ne fait l’affaire de personne. Et certainement pas la leur.
C’est une situation étrange, ingérable, presque infantile, dans laquelle on se demande bien ce que pensent les 4+1 en regardant John Kerry gesticuler et se ridiculiser de manière désordonnée devant les Iraniens. Une situation qui permet à Binyamin Netanyahu d’évoquer un axe Iran-Lausanne-Yémen. Dans les salons de l’hôtel Beau Rivage, les négociateurs sont effectivement assis sur une bombe. On se demande, sur notre rocher, comment Barack Obama va s’en sortir. Et jusqu’où ses alliés le suivront dans son délire ? Réponse à partir de demain : on est au comble de l’attente et de notre curiosité.
FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE-. Antoine Basbous met en garde contre l’hégémonie iranienne au Proche et Moyen -Orients qui s’accroît au fil des conflits entre les djihadistes chiites et sunnites, comme récemment au Yemen.
La domination militaire des communautés chiites embrigadées par l’Iran provoque une rupture stratégique majeure aux Proche et Moyen-Orients. Que les négociations sur le nucléaire aboutissent ou non, Téhéran devient une puissance incontournable, qui structure les communautés chiites. Pourtant, son ascension a été jalonnée d’obstacles: il a déjoué un millefeuille de sanctions pour s’imposer. Dès qu’elles seront levées, il disposera du dégel de 100 milliards de dollars et aura les moyens d’accentuer son influence et de développer ses arsenaux.
Le premier coup d’arrêt aux conquêtes iraniennes est intervenu ce 25 mars: tombé aux mains d’une faction chiite, les Houthis, le Yémen devient le théâtre d’une réplique militaire d’une coalition sunnite menée par l’Arabie. Il s’agit d’un sursaut à l’encerclement de Riyad par son rival régional. Mais l’Iran maintient sa supériorité stratégique. Des voix s’élèvent discrètement à Téhéran pour demander que le «Chiistan» irakien élargi, puisse être intégré à l’Iran afin de devenir la première puissance énergétique, devant l’Arabie.
Les desseins iraniens sont servis par un prétexte religieux: huit des douze sanctuaires les plus saints du chiisme se trouvent en Irak. L’antagonisme identitaire entre Arabes et Perses a été gommé au profit de l’accentuation de l’opposition confessionnelle entre Sunnites et Chiites, vieille de 14 siècles.
La vision stratégique iranienne est animée par une foi messianique dans la victoire du chiisme qui prépare le retour du Mahdi (le 12ème imam caché). Elle semble aujourd’hui triompher, notamment grâce aux Gardiens de la Révolution qui mettent en œuvre une diplomatie militaire basée sur des réseaux souterrains au sein des communautés chiites.
Les attentats du 11 septembre commis par des djihadistes sunnites ont effacé des mémoires les multiples attaques (QG des Marines, des Marsouins et de l’ambassade américaine à Beyrouth), assassinats, prises d’otages… commis par des chiites aux ordres de l’Iran.
Outre les révoltes arabes, une conjoncture a contribué aux succès du plan iranien: les États-Unis se sont perdus dans les excès de George W. Bush qui a frappé sans discernement au lendemain du 11 septembre, puis de Barack Obama, brillant orateur mais diplomate frileux, qui, à l’inverse, a renié les responsabilités internationales de l’Amérique. Obama voulait désengager l’Amérique des deux guerres dont il a hérité, celles d’Afghanistan et d’Irak et d’éviter tout réengagement des États-Unis sur de nouveaux théâtres. Comme la Russie dans ses ex-satellites de l’Europe de l’Est, l’Iran y a perçu une opportunité qu’il n’a pu que saisir.
Les attentats du 11 septembre commis par des djihadistes sunnites ont effacé des mémoires les multiples attaques (QG des Marines, des Marsouins et de l’ambassade américaine à Beyrouth), assassinats, prises d’otages… commis par des chiites aux ordres de l’Iran. La propagande des djihadistes chiites maîtrise une communication parfaitement lissée, comparée à la mise en scène d’actes de barbarie commis par les djihadistes sunnites. Pourtant, sur le champ de bataille les djihadistes chiites pratiquent la même horreur. Les «crimes de guerre» dénoncés par Amnesty en Irak, l’usage d’armes chimiques par Assad et les 11.000 suppliciés morts sous la torture dans ses geôles suscitent moins d’émotion que les exactions de Daech.
L’inconsistance des arabes sunnites, qui ont toujours compté sur le «bouclier» américain, a contribué à l’accession de Téhéran au rang de première puissance régionale. Là où la «Mollahrchie» dispose d’une structure offensive et centralisée et de la volonté d’exporter sa «Révolution islamique», les pays arabes se perdent dans des querelles stériles, sans redresser le caractère schizophrénique de leurs sociétés. Et si la richesse se trouve dans les monarchies dépeuplées du Golfe, l’Égypte, pays sunnite le plus peuplé, est encore handicapé par une transition politique. Quant aux pays du Maghreb, ils sont focalisés sur leurs querelles autour du Sahara Occidental.
Le principal théâtre de la confrontation entre Sunnites et Chiites se situe dans le triangle Beyrouth-Téhéran-Sanaa, où l’Iran a patiemment implanté ses cellules et collectionné les succès depuis plus de trente ans. Le Hezbollah a légitimé l’ingérence perse dans l’espace arabe et permis à l’Iran de revendiquer le titre de premier ennemi d’Israël, gagnant les faveurs des Arabes humiliés. Parallèlement, les Iraniens ont noué des alliances avec les alaouites de Syrie (secte intégrée au chiisme par une fatwa de 1972) et les chiites d’Irak dont ils ont hébergé les représentants persécutés par Saddam Hussein. Après la chute de ce dernier, Téhéran a créé son «Croissant chiite», de la Caspienne à la Méditerranée.
Le « feu orange » dont bénéficient les Iraniens pour exercer leur hégémonie, pousse l’Arabie à lancer son programme nucléaire en s’appuyant sur l’expertise du Pakistan dont elle a financé l’accès à la Bombe.
Lorsque le «Tsunami» arabe a frappé à la porte de Damas, cette alliance s’est activée pour secourir Assad. La détermination de Téhéran, doublée de celle de Moscou, a fait avorter le rêve de renverser Assad, lequel a transformé une révolution initialement pluraliste et porteuse de valeurs démocratiques en une guérilla confessionnelle, justifiant l’afflux de dizaines de milliers de mercenaires chiites au nom de la défense de leurs rares sanctuaires et autant de djihadistes sunnites pour évincer le dictateur. Si les chiites sont efficaces et coordonnés, les muhajireen sunnites se battent davantage contre les rebelles et les affaiblissent.
En s’emparant de plusieurs capitales arabes et en le revendiquant avec arrogance, les djihadistes chiites ont dopé leurs homologues sunnites qui cultivent le germe de l’extrémisme, au prétexte de contrer l’hégémonie chiito-iranienne. Ainsi, le «Croissant chiite» a été brisé en son centre par la prise de Mossoul et Raqqa, en juin 2014, à la satisfaction dissimulée des États sunnites du Golfe. Mais ces derniers se trouvent doublement bernés: l’Irak sous tutelle iranienne leur interdit d’intervenir contre Daech sur son sol, alors que l’Iran est autorisé à envoyer ses Pasdarans et ses bombardiers pour combattre les djihadistes sunnites et créer des milices chiites qui sont devenues plus puissantes que la fantomatique armée irakienne. Aussi, en Syrie, les aviations arabes partenaires de la Coalition n’ont le droit que de bombarder Daech, sans jamais pouvoir cibler les forces d’Assad, ni les factions chiites.
En se plaçant sous les ordres de Washington, les Arabes se sont mis de facto au service de l’Iran qui intervient en Irak et en Syrie aux dépens des communautés sunnites locales. Cette situation est très inconfortable pour les arabes qui devront justifier cette posture contreproductive. En France, des voix encore timides s’interrogent sur la pertinence de placer les moyens de l’armée française sous la tutelle du Pentagone, au moment où Washington semble tenté d’exercer un condominium avec l’Iran sur la région.
Le roi Salman d’Arabie doute désormais de la validité de «l’assurance tous risques», contractée par son père auprès d’Eisenhower en 1945. Le «feu orange» dont bénéficient les Iraniens pour exercer leur hégémonie, pousse l’Arabie à lancer son programme nucléaire en s’appuyant sur l’expertise du Pakistan dont elle a financé l’accès à la Bombe.
La bombe iranienne, ou tout au moins l’arrivée au seuil nucléaire, annonce une prolifération régionale: l’Arabie, l’Égypte et la Turquie chercheraient alors à rejoindre Israël et l’Iran dans le club des nations atomiques. Téhéran serait tenté de provoquer des troubles en Arabie pour la détourner du lancement d’un programme fiable.
Le conflit qui oppose les djihadistes chiites et sunnites n’est pas prêt de s’estomper, d’autant plus que l’Amérique d’Obama n’exerce plus son rôle arbitral. Le «Yalta» régional que Téhéran voudrait négocier avec Obama remettra en cause les frontières de Sykes-Picot, cent ans après leur instauration. Mais l’hégémonie iranienne ne saurait être synonyme de paix régionale. Le Yémen en est l’éclatante illustration.
(New York) – Des milices, des combattants volontaires et des forces de sécurité irakiennes se sont livrés à la destruction délibérée de biens civils après avoir obligé les combattants de l’État islamique (EI) à battre en retraite de la ville d’Amerli et des alentours après les frappes aériennes menées par les États-Unis et l’Irak début septembre 2014, a indiqué Human Rights Watch dans un rapport paru aujourd’hui. Le gouvernement irakien devrait contrôler les milices afin de mettre fin aux abus, et les pays qui participent à la lutte contre l’EI, notamment les États-Unis et l’Iran, devraient veiller à ce que les opérations militaires et les autres actions menées dans le cadre de ce combat n’ouvrent pas la voie à de telles exactions.
Le rapport de 31 pages intitulé « After Liberation Came Destruction: Iraqi Militias and the Aftermath of Amerli » (« Après la libération, la destruction : Les milices irakiennes et les conséquences de l’assaut contre Amerli ») documente, au moyen de visites sur le terrain, de l’analyse d’images satellite, d’entretiens avec des témoins et des victimes et l’étude de photos et de vidéos, le fait que des milices ont pillé les biens de civils sunnites qui avaient fui les combats, incendié leurs habitations et commerces et détruit entièrement au moins deux villages. Ces actes ont violé les lois de la guerre. Human Rights Watch a également confirmé l’enlèvement de 11 hommes au cours de l’opération, en septembre et en octobre.
« L’Irak ne gagnera pas le combat contre l’État islamique, qui a commis de nombreuses atrocités, si ses propres forces se livrent à des attaques contre les civils en violation des lois de la guerre et de la décence humaine », a déclaré Joe Stork, directeur adjoint de la division Moyen-Orient et Afrique du Nord à Human Rights Watch. « Les exactions commises par les milices affectent les personnes plus vulnérables en Irak, et exacerbent les rivalités communautaires. »
Le 2 mars 2015, les forces de sécurité irakiennes et des milices chiites ont lancé une attaque sur Tikrit, la capitale de la province de Salah al-Din afin de déloger l’EI de la région. En juin dernier, Tikrit a été le théâtre du massacre par l’EI d’au moins 1 000 soldats irakiens.
Fin août, à la suite d’un siège de trois mois par l’EI, des opérations terrestres menées par des milices chiites progouvernementales et des forces gouvernementales irakiennes et kurdes sur le terrain, ont délogé l’EI d’Amerli, dans la province de Salah al-Din province. À l’exception de quelques affrontements sporadiques, la zone est depuis restée largement exempte de la présence des combattants de l’EI, selon les résidents.
À l’issue des opérations menées pour mettre un terme au siège, les milices, les combattants volontaires et les forces de la sécurité ont attaqué des villages sunnites et les environs d’Amerli dans les provinces de Salah al-Din et Kirkuk. Nombre d’entre eux étaient des villages que l’EI avait traversés et, dans certains cas, utilisés comme des bases. Les milices semblent avoir prévu à l’avance au moins certaines de leurs attaques, soulevant la question de savoir si les instances politiques et militaires du gouvernement qui supervisent les milices sont responsables de la planification de ces attaques.
Ailleurs en Irak et en Syrie, Human Rights Watch a documenté de graves exactions et des crimes de guerre commis par Al-Qaïda, puis l’EI, qui sont vraisemblablement des crimes contre l’humanité.
De nombreux résidents sunnites ont fui la zone pendant le siège d’Amerli par l’EI. Les personnes interrogées par Human Rights Watch ont rapporté que l’EI avait pris pour cibles les habitations et les biens de ceux qu’ils estimaient être liés au gouvernement irakien, mais qu’ils avaient épargné les autres résidents.
Vingt-quatre témoins, notamment des représentants peshmerga et des cheikhs locaux ont affirmé à Human Rights Watch avoir assisté au pillage des villages autour d’Amerli par les milices après la fin de l’offensive contre l’EI, juste avant qu’elles ne détruisent les habitations de la ville. Ils ont déclaré avoir vu les hommes de la milice s’emparer d’objets de valeur, comme des réfrigérateurs, des postes de télévision, des vêtements et même du câblage électrique avant de mettre le feu aux habitations.
Les résidents ont expliqué à Human Rights Watch que les milices, dont les véhicules et les insignes les ont identifiés comme appartenant aux brigades Badr, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haqq, Kita’ib Hezbollah et Saraya Tala’a al-Khorasani, notamment, ont détruit entièrement ou partiellement, de nombreux villages situés entre les villes de al-Khales, dans le sud de la province de Diyala et d’Amerli, à environ 50 kilomètres au nord.
Des représentants des forces kurdes peshmerga qui se sont joints au gouvernement dans l’opération menée contre Amerli ont déclaré à Human Rights Watch avoir vu 47 villages détruits dont les habitations, les commerces, les mosquées et les bâtiments publics avaient été saccagés.
Les images satellite analysées par Human Rights Watch ont corroboré les dires des témoins. Les images ont montré que l’essentiel des dégâts avait été causé par des incendies volontaires et la démolition intentionnelle de bâtiments ayant eu lieu après la levée du siège d’Amerli par les milices et les forces de la sécurité et après la fuite de l’EI de la zone, entre début septembre et la mi-novembre.
Human Rights Watch n’a pas documenté les homicides perpétrés contre des civils dans cette opération, mais a signalé des allégations d’homicides perpétrés par les milices ainsi que d’autres exactions ayant eu lieu dans de nombreux autres lieux irakiens dans plusieurs rapports publiés en 2013 et 2014. Les rapports des médias sur les homicides perpétrés par les milices au cours des combats ont augmenté considérablement entre fin 2014 et 2015. Le 17 février, le chef religieux chiite Moqtada al-Sadr a condamné les exactions commises par les milices et annoncé le gel des activités des deux milices qu’il supervise, Yawm al-Maw’oud et Saraya al-Salam, qui avaient aussi combattu contre l’EI.
Dans un courrier daté du 12 mars, le bureau du Premier ministre Hayder al-Abadi a répondu à une lettre du 25 février de Human Rights Watch résumant les principaux constats de son rapport. Le bureau du Premier ministre a reconnu l’existence de « défaillances individuelles sans lien avec la conduite du gouvernement ». Le courrier a indiqué qu’il y avait eu des arrestations dans certains cas individuels, mais que les victimes présumées n’avaient pas comparu devant le tribunal afin de témoigner en personne. Le courrier a en outre affirmé que les violations imputées aux forces de la milice Hashd al-Shaabi (« Mobilisation populaire ») avaient en fait été perpétrées par l’État islamique, et que « la plupart des informations sur des sites Internet » étaient des « séquences [vidéo] fabriquées ». Le courrier n’a pas abordé la question des images satellite, qui montrent que la majorité des dégâts dus à des incendies dans certaines zones n’ont été visibles qu’après la prise de ces zones par Hashd al-Shaabi et par d’autres milices.
Le gouvernement irakien devrait contrôler les milices dans le but de les démanteler, a déclaré Human Rights Watch. Le Premier ministre Hayder al-Abadi devrait prendre immédiatement des mesures de protection des civils dans les zones de combat des milices, d’évaluation et d’offre en matière de besoins humanitaires des populations déplacées par les milices. Il devrait aussi tenir les dirigeants et les combattants des milices responsables des graves exactions commises, comme celles signalées dans ce rapport.
Dans une tribune parue dans le Wall Street Journal le 18 décembre 2014, le Premier ministre Hayder al-Abadi s’est engagé à « faire passer (…) sous le contrôle étatique tous les groupes armés. Aucun groupe ou milice armée n’agira en dehors ou en parallèle des Forces de sécurité irakiennes ». Les exactions signalées par Human Rights Watch montrent qu’il est impératif pour Hayder al-Abadi d’honorer sa promesse.
Le Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies devrait documenter publiquement les exactions commises par les milices et les forces de la sécurité à l’encontre des civils ainsi que les crimes perpétrés par l’EI, a affirmé Human Rights Watch. Les pays fournissant une aide militaire à l’Irak, notamment les États-Unis et l’Iran, devraient demander au gouvernement d’apporter la preuve des mesures prises pour mettre un terme aux très graves exactions commises par les milices.
« À l’évidence, l’Irak est exposé à de graves menaces dans le conflit qui l’oppose à l’EI, mais les exactions commises par les forces qui combattent l’EI sont tellement insidieuses et extrêmes qu’elles constituent une menace sur le long terme pour l’Irak », a conclu Joe Stork. « Les Irakiens se retrouvent pris en étau entre les horreurs commises par l’EI et le comportement répréhensible des milices. Et ce sont les civils irakiens qui en paient le prix. »
Le pire violateur des droits des femmes à travers le monde? C’est Israël bêle l’ONU.
Devinez un peu qui est le Numéro Un absolu parmi tous les violateurs du droit des femmes dans le monde, à ce jour? Israël. Qui viole le droit des femmes palestiniennes.
Du moins est-ce la vision de l’organisme des droits des femmes, au sommet de l’ONU, la Commission sur le droit des femmes (CSW). Le CSW a achevé sa rencontre annuelle de ce vendredi 20 mars, en ne condamnant qu’un seul et unique des 193 Etats-membres pour ses « violations » du droit des femmes : Israël.
Ce n’est pas la Syrie. Où les forces gouvernementales utilise le viol, de façon routinière et d’autres formes de violence sexuelle et de torture contre les femmes en tant que tactique de guerre. Où, en 2014, le régime Assad a ffâmé, torturé et tué au moins 24.000 civils, et où 3 millions de personnes – essentiellement des femmes et des enfants – sont des réfugiés.
En fait, il n’existe aucune possibilité que cette Commission de l’ONU sur le statut des femmes puisse jamais critiquer l’Iran, puisque l’Iran est un membre élu de la CSW. Le Soudan – dont le Président El-Béchir est inculpé de génocide et de crimes contre l’humanité est, actuellement, Vice-Président de cette « Commission pour le droit de la femme »!
Cela ne peut pas être l’Arabie Saoudite. Où les femmes sont punies physiquement de tenues vestimentaires obligatoires, sont presque totalement exclues de la vie politique, ne peuvent pas conduire, ne peuvent pas voyager sans la présence d’un proche de sexe mâle, où elles ne reçoivent que la moitié de l’héritage de leurs frères, et où leur témoignage devant la loi ne vaut pas plus de la moitié de celui d’un homme.
Pas le Soudan. Où la violence domestique n’est pas interdite ni sanctionnée. Où il n’y a pas d’âge minimal pour les rapports sexules « consentis ». Où l’âge légal du mariage pour les filles est fixé à … 10 ans. Où 88% des femmes de moins de 50 ans ont subi des mutilations génitales de leur féminité. Où on dénie des droits égaux aux femmes dans le mariage, l’héritage et le divorce.
Pas plus l’Iran. Où chaque femme qui a tenté de se faire enregistrer comme candidate présidentielle au cours des dernières élections, a été disqualifiée. Où « l’adultère » est punissable de mort par lapidation. Où les femmes qui se défendent contre leur violeur et tue leurs aggresseurs sont systématiquement exécutées. La constitution interdit aux femmes de devenir Juge. Et les femmes doivent, d’avbord, obtenir le consentement de leur mari pour travailler hors de la maison.
En fait, il n’existe aucune possibilité que cette Commission de l’ONU sur le statut des femmes puisse jamais critiquer l’Iran, puisque l’Iran est un membre élu de la CSW. Le Soudan – dont le Président El-Béchir est inculpé de génocide et de crimes contre l’humanité est, actuellement, Vice-Président de cette « Commission pour le droit de la femme »!
La résolution 2015 de la CWS sur Israël répètera, comme elle le fait chaque année, que « l’occupation israélienne demeure l’obstacle majeur pour les femmes palestiniennes, en ce qui concerne leur avancement, leur autonomie et leur intégration dans le développement de leur société… «
Et ce n’est pas à cause des hommes palestiniens. Pas plus que de leurs règles et tradition. Qui n’est pas une culture de violence. Qui n’est pas un système éducatif bâti dans le rejet de toute coexistence pacifique et de tolérance.
Au lieu de cela, la faute majeure, pour ces statistiques de l’ONU comme celles-ci – une moyenne de 17% de femmes palestiniennes ont rejoint la force de travail pour 70% d’hommes palestiniens – repose entièrement sur les épaules du boucx-émissaire juif.
Ce fait provient de l’un des seulement neuf rapports officiels produits par l’ONU en vue de cette réunion annuelle de 2015 à la CSW. Huit était de nature procédurale ou générale et un seul s’intitulait : « La situation des femmes palestiniennes et l’assistance qu’on leur prête ».
En comparaison, il n’y avait aucun rapport sur les femmes et les filles chinoises, un demi-milliard de personnes, sans droits civils et politiques élémentaires, qui sont encore confrontées à la perspective d’être forcées à avorter et à être stérilisées.
Pas un seul rapport sur les femmes de Somalie, où la mutilation génitale est ominprésente, où la violence sexuelle est courante et où les femmes sont systématiquement subordonnées aux hommes.
Pas de rapport, non plus, sur les femmes du Yémen, où le code pénal innocente les tueurs de femmes, à cause du comprtement « immodeste » et défiant de celles-ci, où il n’y a pas, non plus, d’âge minimal pour le mariage forcé, où les femmes n’ont pas de droits égaux à la propriété, à l’emploi, au crédit, au salaire, à l’éducation ni au logement.
Et la scène théâtrale du « droit des femmes » n’est pas la seule imposture vis-à-vis des libertés, à l’ONU.
L’organisme des droits de l’homme au sommet de l’ONU, le Conseil des Droits de l’Homme (CDH), se réunira en session principale la semaine prochaine pour adopter un minimum d’au moins 4 fois plus de résolutions fustigeant Israël que n’importe quel autre pays sur la planète.
Ces condamnations d’Israël comprendront une résolution exigeant qu’Israël restitue immédiatement les hauteurs du Golan (actuellement occupées par un corps expéditionnaire iranien) à la Syrie – un endroit où les Syriens se battent actuellement contre leur propre gouvernement et ses alliés et tentent de lui échapper pour obtenir des soins médicaux israéliens, seuls capables de leur sauver la vie.
Si on totalise toutes les résolutions et décisions condamnant un Etat spécifique, tout au lmong de l’histoire du Conseil des Droits de l’homme, un tiers a été uniquement dirigé contre Israël.
Vous vous souvenez de l’Ukraine? Au cours de l’année passée, on compte au moins 5.500 morts confirmés – et un récent rapport allemand suggère que le total pourrait être de 50.000 morts- en plus d’un million de personnes déplacées. Mais le score se chiffre à 67 résolutions et décisions du conseil qui attaquent Israël et zéro en ce qui concerne la Russie.
Mais qui mène la barque au Conseil? En se penchant de plus près sur la composition de ces membres, il s’avère que des lumières des droits de l’homme, tels que le Qatar – qui finance les organisations terroristes comme le Hamas- aux côtés de la Chine, du Pakistan, de la Russie et de l’Arabie Saoudite distribuent les cartes.
Il est impossible d’additionner tout cela ensemble sans conclure que le traitement de l’ONU envers Israël puisse être autre chose que purement et sauvagement discriminatoire. Dans la novlangue orwélienne des droits de l’homme à l’ONU, le moyen pour y parvenir est un verbiage sur l’égalité, lorsque le résultat du jeu aboutit au pire préjugé.
L’Administration Obama a une réponse à proposer à ce dilemme. Elle se contente de voter contre les résolutions, tout en payant l’addition pour la gestion de ces organismes qui les adoptent. Se joindre à cette institution pour la rendre parfaitement légitime, tout en tâchant de consoler les pauvres délégitimés en leur disant qu’elle ressent leur peine et leur douleur…
Comme l’a bien dit le Secrétaire d’Etat Kerry devant ce Conseil, le 2 mars 2015 : « Le Président Obama et moi-même soutenons totalement le HCR… » et « L’obsession du HCR envers Israël risque réellement d’entacher la crédibilité de cette organisation toute entière ». Ce la « risque d’entacher » – qui s’oppose à » a déjà grossièrement entaché ».
Cette attitude, envers la diabolisation d’Israël consommée à l’ONU, préfigure la politique de cette administration à l’égard de l’Etat Juif dans les temps à venir : une politique que n’affecte absolument pas les résultats des élections.
Les Palestiniens continueront d’utiliser l’ONU et la Cour Pénale Internationale pour tenter d’accomplir, grâce à des politiques toxiques et mortelles ce qu’ils n’ont jamais réussi à faire grâce à la force létale du terrorisme. Et le Président Obama leur tiendra toute grande la porte.
Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Follow her on Twitter @AnneBayefsky.
Le futur est déjà là – il est juste encore inégalement réparti. William Gibson
Publié par jcdurbant 
Ce qui se vit aujourd’hui est une forme de rivalité mimétique à l’échelle planétaire. Lorsque j’ai lu les premiers documents de Ben Laden, constaté ses allusions aux bombes américaines tombées sur le Japon, je me suis senti d’emblée à un niveau qui est au-delà de l’islam, celui de la planète entière. Sous l’étiquette de l’islam, on trouve une volonté de rallier et de mobiliser tout un tiers-monde de frustrés et de victimes dans leurs rapports de rivalité mimétique avec l’Occident. 
Hope springs eternal. Proverbe anglais
jcdurbant 
