Forum

Bonjour,

Pas d’accord du tout, cette fois, sur votre commentaire empreint d’un relativisme désenchanté, duquel ressortirait une “victoire de l’histoire” aussi surprenante que totalement impalpable et indéfinie ; par ailleurs, si vos commentaires sur la prestation de Sarkozy me paraissent tout à fait valables, vous perdez manifestement tout recul quand il s’agit de Ségolène Royal pour vous enliser dans des commentaires convenus genre Figaro ; excusez-moi de cette référence pas trop glorieuse, mais précisons le point de vue :

“elle prétend le tenir en définissant le temps historique par ses incantations à la fois Rive-Gauche et post-68. Nous sentons dans le temps historique quelques signes d’agacement.”

Ces termes, d’“incantations Rive Gauche” et “post-68”, je ne pensais vous voir les employer. J’appelle cela, manifestement, de l’emploi de termes sur un ton méprisant sans fondement ni argumentation. Sans argumentation, cela me désole d’autant que le seul à faire référence à Mai 68 pour indiquer qu’il veut détruire et éradiquer ce pan de l’histoire française dont par ailleurs, il est si fier quand il s’agit de mentionner les Croisades ou la Guerre d’Algérie, ces grands moments de tolérance, c’est Nicolas Sarkozy.

Bref, sur ce passage-là, vous faites votre une rhétorique sarkozienne, que vous imputez à l’adversaire, (tactique sarkozienne), sans aucune argumentation. C’est vraiment très très dommage.

Je n’insisterai pas sur le terme “incantation Rive-Gauche”. Tout le monde peut apprécier le caractère à la fois méprisant, la coloration manifestement donnée de l’impuissance et de l’idéologie que revêt les terme “incantation”, et aussi, la vacuité complète de l’expression dans son intégralité : Qu’est-ce donc qu’une “incantation rive Gauche ? ” et où donc Ségolène Royal en a-t-elle fait preuve ?

Pas d’éclairage.
On dirait que vous avez fait votre, de la rhétorique “anti-gauchiste” sans réflexion.

J’aurai plus apprécié que vous discutiez plus finement de son discours sur les dérèglements de la société actuelle. c’était un discours revendicatif et protestataire, certes. Mais il mérite tout sauf ce genre de mépris approximatif.

Autre commentaire :
“La question de la “brutalit锅 Ségo avait accepté une tactique étrange : faire montre de toute la brutalité possible, notamment, pour démontrer la brutalité supposée de Sarko. Elle a surtout confirmé que l’évolution de la place de la femme dans les affaires de la collectivité est une crise qui affecte la substance même de la femme. L’argument de Sarko sur le nécessaire sang-froid pour être président(e) est le bon”

Aucune des trois phrase de ce commentaire ne me paraît réellement digne de votre critique par ailleurs beaucoup plus fine.

Commençons avec le terme “brutalité”, que vous employez. Vous confondez brutalité et agressivité.
C’est très décevant de voir cela sur un site comme le vôtre où l’on a, par ailleurs, très bien décortiqué la dialectique de l’emploi du mot “terrorisme” à toutes les sauces pour justifier la lutte contre des mouvements de résistance à l’oppression, de tomber dans la déformation grossière, par l’emploi d’un mot inapproprié. Ségolène n’a manifestement utilisé d’aucune “brutalité” dans ses propos ; elle n’a pas employé des mots comme “liquider”. Ce faisant vous donnez plutôt raison au principal utilisateur de termes brutaux, sans qu’il n’en ait besoin plus que de raison, tant il s’en donne à coeur joie pour passer pour une victime. Nous pouvons discuter de la tactique agressive de Mme Royal sereinement, cela dit. Etait-ce la bonne ? Il aurait probablement fallu qu’elle se maîtrise un peu avant sur sa petite colère (certainement plus réelle que feinte, d’ailleurs, étant donné sa difficulté à se calmer), elle a donné mauvaise image, j’en conviens.

Ensuite, votre commentaire sur la subtsance même de la femme, excusez-moi d’être très critique, me semble totalement fumeux et donne l’impression que vous avez une idée aussi précise que déterministe de la “substance même de la femme”. Ce genre de propos n’est pas loin d’être aussi bête que ceux concernant le déterminisme génétique, étant donné que, hommes et femmes sont principalement différenciés…par les gênes. C’est aussi une sorte de négation de l’influence sociale sur les êtres. On pourrait discuter de psychologie féminine dans un débat politique où il n’existe aucun précédent, mais il faut le faire avec beaucoup plus de finesse. je pense d’ailleurs que ce débat marquera l’irruption d’une “féminisation” de la pensée politique, il est précurseur en ce sens ; pour l’instant, il a plutôt désavantagé de fait la femme en question sur l’image qu’elle a pu donner ; mais je crois, qu’à la réflexion, il constituera une inflexion de départ vers un changement de mode de pensée.

Enfin, l’argument de Sarko sur le nécessaire sang-froid du Président est un argument “tarte à la crème” de tout permier choix. Que veux-je dire par là ? Qu’il ne sert, exclusivement, que lors des débats politiques de ce type et n’a strictement, aucune autre conséquence nulle part. Vous savez bien qu’il n’existera pratiquement aucune autre situation politique à laquelle peut être confronté un président, au cours de laquelle il est en position de devoir faire des joutes verbales avec un adversaire direct et concurrent pour le même poste devant un plateau télé et en direct. 

La plupart du temps, un Président n’a rien à prouver et n’est confronté à nulle situation au cours de laquelle il pourrait perdre ses nerfs : ce sont des situations totalement “virtuelles”, inexistantes. Par ailleurs, si l’on se souvient des quelques fois où un dirigeant politique de premier ordre a pu perdre ses nerfs ou, disons plus vraisemblablement “faire un coup de sang”, comme par exemple l’ami Khroutchev avec sa chaussure à l’Assemblée Générale de l’ONU, mis à part l’anecdote croustillante, ou même Chirac “take my plane” en Israël, ou même la Dame Thatcher avec son “I want my money back” il me semble bien que ces gestes et déclarations n’aient strictement eu AUCUNE espèce d’influence sur la politique de leurs pays respectifs ni sur la perception de cette politique par le reste du monde, par la suite.

Donc, l’argument Sarko est une très très grosse tarte à la crème (je l’appelle ainsi car c’est comme le gag qui s’en rapporte : toujours gros, rabâché, et qui fait mal à personne).

Encore un de vos commentaires qui appelle un peu plus de réflexion :

“Le résultat est la perte de la spécificité féminine, — qualités et défauts, avantages et inconvénients, —, une affirmation dialectique d’autorité souvent impressionnante, parfois excessive, parfois caricaturale. (Le nombre de “je”, de “je veux”, de “je dis” est impressionnant chez Ségo ; on retrouve le même phénomène chez la ministre de la défense Michèle Alliot-Marie.)”

Encore faut-il assimiler la prestation de Ségolène comme représentante typique de la “féminité” pour parler de perte de spécificité féminine. C’est vite dit. Néanmoins, il est vrai qu’elle a dû adopter, comme toutes les femmes avec des responsabilités politiques, un attitude dialectique d’autorité que l’on associe généralement - et peut-être un peu abusivement - au concept de masculinité. Je vous rappelle, pour vous remettre en contexte, que sa “compétence” même, pour des raisons objectivement inexistantes et subjectivement tendant vers le machisme”, était remise en cause. cela n’a jamais été le cas pour aucun candidat précédent à la Présidentielle au 2e tour, masculin, donc, qui donne un peu de poids à ma suspicion de “machisme”, d’autant que ce qui lui est reproché en terme d’approximation, n’excède pas les approximations de NS. pourquoi ce traitement “de faveur”, donc ?
Elle a choisi - et toutes les femmes ne feront pas ainsi -  de se présenter en femme battante et de compétente pour contrer ces accusations; C’est une tactique - payante ou pas - mais qui n’a peut-être pas grand-chose à voir avec la “spécificité féminine”.
Enfin, dernier commentaire :
“Le refus ferme et clair de Sarko de toucher aux institutions de la Vème République constitue un point important dans le débat institutionnel français. Il s’oppose aux projets réformistes de Ségo, restés assez vagues et qualifiés (ou caricaturés) par Sarko de «retout à la IVème république». Des deux dynamiques, il est évident que c’est celle de la continuité qui domine, qui devrait également et finalement attacher Ségo si elle était élue.”

Point de vue très partisan, et, à mon humble avis, dépassé. La réforme des institutions est une nécessité. La France ne la décidera peut-être pas avant longtemps, ce qui la fera végéter longtemps ; je n’ai évidemment pas le pouvoir de faire en sorte que la france se décide mais je suis convaincu, pour mille raisons, de la sclérose en plaque des institutions politiques qui affecte économie et société. Il faudrait en discuter dans un autre post. Mais je suis certain de la décadence qui résultera du non-choix de cette réforme, tant qu’on en restera là.
Mais encore, ce point de vue peut se discuter. Par contre, que vous tombiez dans la caricature ridicule des projets de réforme institutionnelle portés par Ségolène Royal est extrêmement décevant. Soit vous ne savez rien de son programme à ce sujet, soit vous faites preuve de mauvaise foi manifeste. On peut évidemment ne pas les approuver mais ils sont strictement TOUT SAUF FLOUS. Ils impliquent un très grand changement politique, au contraire.
Ma déception s’accroît quand vous reprenez l’argumentaire-calomnie de Nicolas Sarkozy sur le “retour à la quatrième république”. Est-il un de vos maîtres à penser ? Outre le fait que nous n’avons probablement pas besoin ici, d’arguments-choc mal justifiés de ce genre, et émanant d’une formule politicienne, pour débattre de la réforme institutionnelle proposée par Mme Royal qui n’est CERTAINEMENT PAS un “retour” à quoi que ce soit, la “critique-calomnie” sur la Quatrième République (qui n’a rien à voir avec les réformes de Mme Royal susdites, mais, selon le procédé bien connu, on calomnie indirectement ce que l’on associe à une autre calomnie), est non argumentée, et donc indigne. La quatrième république est un système qui a très bien fonctionné et auquel les français sont redevables de nombreuses avancées sociales et pendant laquelle la coopération politique entre camps pour faire face aux défis de l’avenir était plus qu’une simple “incantation”, comme de nos jours. Mais ce régime est tombé du fait du blocage poltique complet dans lequel s’est installée l’élite politique française à propos d’un seul évènement - la Guerre d’Algérie - qu’elle n’a pas su affronter avec lucidité. Je vous rappelle que c’était une guerre de décolonisation doublée d’une guerre civile, avec toutes les problématiques que cela implique, situation qui n’existe plus pour la France du XXIe siècle. 

Voilà mon petit coup de gueule, sur un site que par ailleurs j’apprécie beaucoup, ainsi que le ton qui va avec. Mais là, deontologiquement et philosophiquement, vous avez tendu un gros bâton pour vous faire battre.

Sans rancune et avec toute mon attention pour plus de débats et d’argumentation.

Fishlord

(vendre des F22)>(à Israël ? Si Israël en veut

Votre référence a israel date un peu (2003)

cet article plus récent donne un avis contraire:

http://www.a7fr.com/Default.aspx?tabid=52&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=33765

Le F.22 en route pour Israël !
Raphael Aouate
mercredi 25 avril 2007 - 18:41

[Comment] EU should consult Turkey on new Central Asia policy
03.05.2007 - 17:52 CET | By Turkish foreign ministry

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - EU authorities have not yet consulted with Turkey on the formation of the union’s new policy toward Central Asia. No official appeal has been made to the relevant Turkish authorities concerning the matter. As a result we do not have any feedback about what kind of role the EU envisages for Turkey in its relations with the countries of the region, despite some minor consultations at EU working group level.

In general, diplomats from EU member states seem willing to contact their Turkish counterparts serving in the region. Turkey has considerable presence in the region. She was the first country to recognize the independence of Central Asian countries and the first to open embassies in all of them. Turkish people have close cultural ties and linguistic affinities with the peoples of Central Asia and share a common ethnic and historical heritage with the countries of the region. Therefore, our diplomats possess considerable experience on the subject.

The advantages of Turkey’s membership of the EU are closely related to the future vision of the EU. Turkey’s full-membership will contribute not only to the maintenance of stability and peace in Europe but also to the spread of universal values to the region and beyond.

Turkey’s location in the centre of the “Eurasian” geography makes Turkey a key country. In respect to its close ties with the regions, namely the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Middle East, Turkey has the historical and cultural accumulation, strategic location and influence to make positive contributions to the shaping of EU policies towards these regions.

Turkey as EU energy bridge
Also with a growing East-West corridor for oil and gas, Turkey already has a central place on the route through which these resources will be transferred to the western markets, making it a reliable partner for energy security in Europe.

An enlarged EU with Turkey as a member will be a source of inspiration to other regions as well. This new vision will demonstrate that diversity and differences may well be accommodated on the basis of common values and interests. This will promote intercultural tolerance and understanding. It will enhance the strategic reach of the EU.

Turkey forms a natural energy bridge between the resource-rich countries of the Caspian basin and the world markets. In this context, Turkey is realising major projects with a view to strengthening its role as a transit country and an energy hub in the region. By doing so, we believe we can substantially contribute to the global energy supply security. The Trans-Caspian natural gas project is one of these schemes.

We believe that the Trans-Caspian gas project through which Turkmen and/or Kazakh natural gas will reach Europe via Turkey, is a matter of urgency as it will contribute to the diversification of routes and supply sources of Europe. Turkey places utmost importance to the realisation of this project without which the East-West Energy Corridor will not be complete.

EU should not make fresh divisions
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are obviously the most important and leading countries of Central Asia, with Uzbekistan having the largest population and bordering all the countries in the region and possessing considerable energy resources. Kazakhstan has vast energy resources and occupies a wide stretch of strategic geography. However, we believe that the region should be handled as a whole and certain countries should not be singled out for any purpose. All external actors must refrain from creating new division lines in the region, which would in turn impede regional economic integration.

Since their independence, Central Asian states have taken significant steps in state building, enhancing their sovereignty and increasing their interaction with the world. However, they still face enormous challenges. Democratic transition in the region remains slow and human rights abuses are widespread. The regimes are repressive and dominated by authoritarian leaders. Democratic political opposition is often not tolerated. Emerging civil society and free media are confronted with continuous obstacles. Calls for democratization and improvement of human rights conditions are regarded as a direct threat to existing structures and political interests.

However, transition to democracy and to the rule of law in Central Asia, after 70 years of Soviet rule should be seen as a long term and gradual process to be completed as political stability and economic conditions are gradually enhanced. We believe that the EU has a role to play in that respect. Their integration with the European and Euro-Atlantic institutions will certainly support democratic practices in the region.

This comment was prepared by the Turkish foreign ministry for EUobserver

————————————————————————————————————————

© EUobserver.com 2007
Printed from EUobserver.com 04.05.2007

The information may be used for personal and non-commercial use only.

This article and related links can be found at: http://euobserver.com/9/23990

Concernant la mésentente entre alliés membres de l’OTAN en Afghanistan : cette mésentente est peut-être de pure façade.

Les réactions du commandement US et son mépris des civils afghans source d’hostilité de la population afghane pour l’ensemble des membres de l’OTAN impliqués dans cette guerre, s’explique peut-être par la volonté US de faire en sorte que leurs alliés soient considérés comme aussi détestables qu’eux.

Cela favoriserait la formation de ce front occidental anti-reste du monde que la diplomatie US semblent vouloir constituer sans succès depuis des années ( Caucus de démocraties en marge de l’ONU, guerre des civilisations).

Il est vraisemblable que cela se fait avec l’appui tacite des pays concernés dont l’hostilité des populations, qui a d’autres chats à fouetter, à l’interventionnisme restreint la marge de manoeuvre dans leur soutien à la politique US de recolonisation du monde.

Après tout quand on est haï partout il ne reste plus qu’à se battre qu’on le veuille ou non.

Cependant, le succès d’un tel projet est à la merci des convulsions politiques dont sont victimes les pays européens face à leur adaptation à la globalisation. L’état de l’opinion à l’intérieur de chaque pays est tributaire de l’économie (et maintenant du climat), du type de programme proposé par les gouvernements et on a vu par exemple certains candidats de l’élection présidentielle en France revenir peu ou prou sur leur engagement atlantiste pour tenir un discours gaulliste.

L’Europe notamment, continue d’être une région dont l’américanisme semble peiner à obtenir une fiabilité dans le soutien qu’elle est censée lui apporter dans le projet géopolitique commun occidental (dont je déplore qu’il n’ait pas été ouvertement sondé sur ce site) qui semble exister quelque part sur le papier et que les US semblent avoir été désignés pour mettre en oeuvre.

Hello,

Non, pour moi ce n’est pas une victoire de l’histoire. Cela ne veut rien dire. La conception maistrienne repose sur une illusion. Quelle est donc cette force mystérieuse qui mettrait en mouvement des révolutions? Elle n’existe pas, pas même dans un monde platonicien d’idées pures.
Le moteur de l’histoire c’est l’homme
L’histoire, c’est l’homme qui la fait.
l’histoire, c’est l’homme.
Elle n’est pas cette chose qui se déroule sans que nous puissions la maîtriser, elle n’a pas de vie propre.
L’histoire ne peut pas être victorieuse, pas même en ce qu’elle représengterait une résurgence ou une continuité de l’existant, un immobilisme.
A tout prendre, ce serait la défaite de l’histoire…
L’histoire se conjugue au présent, elle est ce qui se passe, ce qu’en font les hommes.

D’autre part, je trouve vos considérations sur la substance de la femme creuse et frôlant l’essentialisme générique méprisant et ignorant. Je ne rentre pas dans les détails mais vos références à la spécificité féminine et à la substance de la femme sont assez pauvres et ne font que colporter la vision dominante et patriarcale que la société porte sur la femme.

L’argument de Sarko sur le sang-froid est ridicule comme le reste de ce débat de toute façon. Mais si on considère - pour résumer - que l’histoire se fait toute seule, pas étonnant qu’on préfère la passivité - feinte - d’un Sarkozy à la réaction indignée - feinte également - d’une Royal.

Bien à vous.

nico

Vous demandez “Jane Austen est-elle encore un écrivain américain ?”. Je crois que l’élan réthorique a emporté votre plume.
Jane Austen était anglaise. Et même, exquisement anglaise.

Bonsoir,

Encore de la friture sur la ligne.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi lawmakers said Thursday they might consider shortening — or even canceling — their planned two-month summer break to continue working. But they insisted that pressure from Washington is not behind the possible holiday-on-hold.

And besides, they say, the U.S. Congress is not thinking of calling off its own recess because of wartime debate.

The first salvo in the spat came after some U.S. lawmakers complained that it wasn’t right for     Iraq’s parliament to close up shop while American troops were fighting. Iraqi legislators — at least those who hadn’t fled the country — were quick to fire back.

“Certainly taking a two-month vacation will have an effect on passing some important laws,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker. “We can stay if we feel that this is very important, but I think that the worries by the congressmen are premature. Moreover, they themselves take vacation.”

A recess, which would start in July, may leave several crucial pieces of U.S.-supported legislation unfinished, including a bill for distributing oil revenue and plans to reverse measures that barred many Sunnis from holding certain jobs and government office.

Criticism of the planned vacation erupted after     President Bush vetoed legislation to continue funding the war, which would also have ordered U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq on Oct. 1.

“If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages,” said Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican.

The U.S. Congress leaves for four weeks each August — often with important legislation unfinished — and takes a week off, sometimes more, around prominent holidays.

However, U.S. lawmakers said it was inappropriate for Iraqi legislators to abandon efforts to end the country’s sectarian violence while U.S. soldiers continued fighting to contain that violence. More than 3,350 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since 2003.

“That is not acceptable,” said Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. “An action of that consequence would send a very bad signal to the world that they don’t have the resolve that matches the resolve of the brave troops that are fighting in the battle today.”

Congressional leaders and White House aides began negotiations Thursday on a new funding bill for the war. Possible compromises under consideration would require the Iraqi government to meet a series of benchmarks, including passing reform legislation, in order for U.S. troops to remain here.

Iraqi lawmakers said that many in parliament use the two-month break to visit their families outside the country or in remote provinces or to take care of personal business.

“When the Iraqi parliament decides to have a vacation, it is intended to help its members work and have contact with citizens, to hold meetings and know their problems,” said lawmaker Hameed Mousa from the Iraqi Communist Party. “The Iraqi parliament has the right to decide this vacation while the others have no right to interfere in this internal affair.”

Even when parliament is in session, many Iraqi lawmakers are often nowhere to be seen. With many often in Jordan or     Syria or honoring sporadic boycotts, the parliament often fails to garner the quorum of lawmakers it needs to do business.

Some legislators said Thursday they would consider canceling the two-month holiday if they have not passed the crucial legislation by the summer.

“There is a possibility that this vacation will be put off this year or limited to 15 days,” said Nassar al-Rubaie, a lawmaker from the radical Shiite bloc. He said his party “thinks that the vacation should be canceled this year because the country is in a crisis and we have a number of important laws to be passed.”

“We support abolishing this vacation whether the (U.S.) Congress demands it or not,” he said. “However, Iraqi issues are the concern of Iraqis only.”

Salim Abdullah, a Sunni lawmaker, agreed that now “is not the best time to take a vacation in Iraq. The country is undergoing an exceptional period and there is important decisions to be made by the lawmakers.”

___

AP reporter Anne Flaherty contributed to this report from Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_summer_break;_ylt=Ai9g0FE9ngp4DsEm8s1CGGULewgF

“We can stay if we feel that this is very important…”
“...may leave several crucial pieces of U.S.-supported legislation unfinished, including a bill for distributing oil revenue ...”
“”...that would be the outrage of outrages,” said Rep. Chris Shays…”
““That is not acceptable,” said Sen. John Warner…”
“...send a very bad signal to the world…”
“...“The Iraqi parliament has the right to decide this vacation while the others have no right to interfere in this internal affair.”“
““However, Iraqi issues are the concern of Iraqis only.”

Subject: Fw: Lee Iacocca said this?
________________________________

Lee Iacocca, seasoned industrial leader.  This is no fawning liberal,
this
is a past CEO and architect of one of the greatest company comeback
stories in American history.  Politically centered, he voted for George
W.
Bush in 2000.  Wait ‘til you hear what he has to say!

                Had enough?
                By Lee Iacocca
                  Scribner
          Copyright (c) 2007 Lee Iacocca
              All right reserved.
          ISBN:  9781416532477

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening?
Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder.
We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right
over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we
can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.
But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads
when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course?  You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the
damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I’m getting senile,  that I’ve gone off my rocker, and
maybe I have. But someone has to speak up.  I hardly recognize this
country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free
pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war
on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a
huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most
famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in
handcuffs.  While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning
and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms
instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my
parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How
about you?

I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yo urself a patriot if you’re
not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.

My friends tell me to calm down.  They say, “Lee, you’re eighty-two
years old. Leave the rage to the young people.” I’d love to—as
soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get
them to pay attention. I’m going to speak up because it’s my
patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a
reputation as a straight shooter. So I’ll tell you how I see it,  and
it’s not pretty, but at least it’s real. I’m hoping to strike a nerve
in those young folks who say they don’t vote because they don’t trust
politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up.
These guys work for us.

WHO ARE THESE GUYS, ANYWAY?
Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in
Washington? Well, we voted for them—or at least some of us did.
But I’ll tell you wha t we didn’t do. We didn’t agree to suspend the
Constitution. We didn’t agree to stop asking questions or demanding
answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech
treason. Where I come from that’s a dictatorship, not a democracy.

And don’t tell me it’s all the fault of right-wing Republicans or
liberal Democrats. That’s an intellectually lazy argument, and it’s
part of the reason we’re in this stew. We’re not just a nation of
factions. We’re a people. We share common principles and ideals.  And
we rise and fall together.

Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make
us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of
Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and
Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great
leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all
the leaders gone?

THE TEST OF A LEADER
I’ve never been Commander in Chief, but I’ve been a CEO. I understand
a few things about leadership at the top. I’ve figured out nine
points—not ten (I don’t want people accusing me of thinking I’m
Moses). I call them the “Nine Cs of Leadership.”  They’re not fancy or
complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader
should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks
up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January
2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008.
Then let’s be sure we use the leadership test to screen the
candidates who say they want to run the country. It’s up to us to
choose wisely.

So, here’s my C list:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of
the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously,
because the world is a big,  complicated place. George W. Bush brags
about never reading a newspaper. “I just scan the headlines,” he
says. Am I hearing this right? He’s the President of the United
States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said,
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government
without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not
hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.” Bush disagrees. As long
as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the
sound system, he’s ready to go.

If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different
ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn’t put his beliefs to the test, how
does he know he’s right? The inability to listen is a form of
arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you
just don’t care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big
point of saying he didn’t listen to the polls. Yeah, that’s w hat they
all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened,
because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong
track. It took a “thumping” on election day to wake him up, but even
then you got the feeling he wasn’t listening so much as he was
calculating
how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.

A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try
something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush
prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is
spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-
flopping. There’s a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty.
Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few
months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval
Office outlining his concerns to the President—the explosive mix
of Shiite and Sunni, the disba nded Iraqi army, the problems securing
the oil fields. “The President was serene,” Joe recalled. “He told me
he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be
well. ‘Mr. President,’ I finally said, ‘how can you be so sure when
you don’t yet know all the facts?’” Bush then reached over and put a
steadying hand on Joe’s shoulder. “My instincts,” he said. “My
instincts.” Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush, “Mr. President, your
instincts aren’t good enough.” Joe Biden sure didn’t think the matter
was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn’t.

Leadership is all about managing change—whether you’re leading a
company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative.
You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard
Business School.

A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I’m not talking about running off at the
mouth or spouting sound bites. I’m talking abo ut facing reality and
telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know
how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time
trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem.
I don’t know if it’s denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive
you crazy after a while. Communication has to start with telling the
truth, even when it’s painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other
things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who
didn’t cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being
told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount,  we’ve
stopped listening to him.

A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the
difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the
right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you want to test a man’s
character, give him power.” George Bu sh has a lot of power. What does
it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold
action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows
little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops
(not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to
their deaths—for what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his
daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show
his daddy he’s tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are
questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man
of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.

A leader must have COURAGE. I’m talking about balls. (That even goes
for female leaders.)  Swagger isn’t courage. Tough talk isn’t courage.
George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he
likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigge r than your
gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn’t mean posturing and
bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table
and talk.

If you’re a politician, courage means taking a position even when you
know it will cost you votes. Bush can’t even make a public appearance
unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a
series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums
packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.

To be a leader you’ve got to have CONVICTION—a fire in your belly.
You’ve got to have passion. You’ve got to really want to get
something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set
the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S.
President—four hundred and counting. He’d rather clear brush on
his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even
told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was
catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.

It’s no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-
seven days in 2006. That’s eleven days less than the record set in
1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term do-nothing
Congress. Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so
little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find
the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that’s not leadership.

A leader should have CHARISMA. I’m not talking about being flashy.
Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It’s
the ability to inspire.  People follow a leader because they trust
him. That’s my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great
guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a
global summit where the future of our plane t is at stake, and he
doesn’t look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding
around he enjoys so much don’t go over that well with world leaders.
Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome
shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up
behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right
through the roof.

A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn’t it? You’ve
got
to know what you’re doing. More important than that, you’ve got to
surround yourself with people who know what they’re doing.  Bush
brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him
competent? Well, let’s see. Thanks to our first MBA President,  we’ve
got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life
support, and we’ve run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far)
in Iraq. And that’s just for starters. A leader has to be a problem
solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on
the back burner.

You can’t be a leader if you don’t have COMMON SENSE. I call this
Charlie Beacham’s rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in
the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford’s zone manager in
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham,
who
was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big
Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel.
Charlie used to tell me, “Remember, Lee, the only thing you’ve got
going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your
common sense. If you don’t know a dip of horseshit from a dip of
vanilla ice cream, you’ll never make it.” George Bush doesn’t have
common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know —
Mr.they’ll-welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-
job-Brownie-mission-a ccomplished Bush.

Former President Bill Clinton once said, “I grew up in an alcoholic
home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based
world—and I like it here.”

I think our current President should visit the real world once in a
while.

THE BIGGEST C IS CRISIS
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis.
It’s easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory.
Or send someone else’s kids off to war when you’ve never seen a
battlefield yourself. It’s another thing to lead when your world
comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other
time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the
ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to

kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting
there for twenty minutes with a baffled l ook on his face. It’s all on
tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the
quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to
reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn’t
safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for
the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his
bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs,  scared out of our
wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be
okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get
his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.

That was George Bush’s moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And
what did he do when he’d regained his composure? He led us down the
road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when
he was President. But Bush didn’t listen to Daddy. He listened to a
higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality
based. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, I don’t know what
will.

A HELL OF A MESS
So here’s where we stand. We’re immersed in a bloody war with no plan
for winning and no plan for leaving. We’re running the biggest
deficit in the history of the country. We’re losing the manufacturing
edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered
by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in
power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our
borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every
which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you’ve got to ask: “Where have all the
leaders gone?” Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where
are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and
common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I thi nk you get
the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than
making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We’ve spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy,  and
all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina.
Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the
hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were
made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone’s hunkering down,
fingers crossed, hoping it doesn’t happen again. Now, that’s just
crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what
you’re going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we
can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have
believed that there could ever be a time when “the Big Three”
referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen— and more
important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down
the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care
problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are
eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress.  We didn’t elect you to sit on
your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is
being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.
What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will
call them a name? Give me a break. Why don’t you guys show some spine
for
a change?

HAD ENOUGH?
Hey, I’m not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I’m
trying to light a fire. I’m speaking out because I have hope. I
believe in America . In my lifetime I’ve had the privilege of living
through some of America’s greatest moments. I’ve also experienced
some of our worst crises—the Great Depression, World War II,  the
Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil
crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If
I’ve learned one thing, it’s this: You don’t get anywhere by standing
on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether
it’s building a better car or building a better future for our
children, we all have a role to play. That’s the challenge I’m
raising in this book. It’s a call to action for people who, like me,
believe in America. It’s not too late, but it’s getting pretty close.
So let’s shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let’s tell ‘em all
we’ve had enough.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Lee Iacocca & Associates, Inc., a California
Corporation
—

Article d\‘Asia Times un peu ancien (Aout 2006) mais amusant.

Asia Times Online Middle East   Aug 8, 2006
The loser in Lebanon: The Atlantic alliance   By Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke

The United States and France have produced a United Nations resolution of sorts aimed at ending the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, but the negotiations between US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and France\‘s Jean-Marc de La Sabliere nearly ended in disaster.

Through the course of a single week, the US and France came as close to a bitter split over Middle East policy as they had on the eve of the Iraq war. At issue in the confrontation was a US insistence that an international force (led by France) be deployed to Lebanon prior to the declaration of a ceasefire - a requirement the French thought ludicrous. They weren\‘t the only ones.

\“The position that we\‘re taking in the UN is just nuts,\” a former White House official close to the US decision-making process said during the negotiations. \“The US wants to put international forces on the ground in the middle of the conflict, before there\‘s a ceasefire. The reasoning at the White House is that the international force could weigh on the side of the Israelis - could enforce Hezbollah\‘s disarmament.\”

All of this, this former official noted, \“is covered over by this talk about how we need a substantive agreement that addresses the fundamental problems and that will last. But no one is willing to say exactly what this means.\”

A former US Central Intelligence Agency officer confirmed this view: \“I am under the impression that [President] George [W] Bush and [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice were surprised when the Europeans disagreed with the US position - they were running around saying, \‘But how can you disagree, don\‘t you understand? Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.\’\”

The normally taciturn La Sabliere was particularly enraged when Bolton indirectly accused him of naivety. Responding to a reporter\‘s question about the French position calling for a ceasefire prior to a troop deployment, Bolton was at his arrogant best: \“I think it simplistic, among other things. I want somebody to address the problem on how to get a ceasefire with a terrorist organization.\”

Bolton then took a leaf from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld\‘s 2003 criticism of France and Germany as \“old Europe\” - calling the French ceasefire initiative \“old thinking\”. La Sabliere not only bristled at Bolton\‘s language, he threatened to end all discussions with the US over ending the Lebanon conflict.

While Bolton and La Sabliere eventually buried their differences, the US-French face-off reflected deep-rooted and long-lasting French resentments over America\‘s apparent willingness to allow the conflict to run its course - under the belief that it is only a matter of time before Israel destroyed Hezbollah.

\“The Bush people have never heard a shot fired in anger, and it\‘s apparent,\” an official in the UN Secretary General\‘s Office noted. \“The French were quite fearful that one miscalculation, one stray rocket could set the region on fire. No one in Washington seemed willing to admit that as a possibility.\”

Bolton\‘s continued \“cheerleading for Israel\” didn\‘t help, according to this same official. \“It\‘s a real row that started with Bolton\‘s statement that you couldn\‘t compare the deaths of Lebanese to the deaths of Israelis,\” the official said. \“He implied that because Lebanon harbored Hezbollah, Lebanese lives were forfeit. It was a stupid thing to say. It tore the scab off the wound.\”

Bolton refused to back down, reiterating that the death of Lebanese civilians, while \“tragic and unfortunate\”, was understandable considering Israel\‘s right to \“self-defense\”. In any event, Bolton went on to say, Israel did not \“desire\” the deaths of innocents - unlike Hezbollah.

The US press was quick to pick up on this, parroting the administration\‘s line. Even the venerable Washington Post implied that seven Canadians who had died as a result of Israeli air strikes in the war\‘s first days were of lesser value than other Westerners - since they were \“Lebanese holding Canadian passports\”.

The French, as well as the British, also resented what they viewed as Israel\‘s \“high-handed\” lecturing of the Europeans on their own constituent problems. The European anger boiled over, according to one UN diplomat, during an exchange between Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman and a French official during a meeting on the composition of a proposed international force.

While the diplomat would not recount the words used by Gillerman, he confirmed that the phrases Gillerman used \“he repeated in the media\”. The diplomat was referring to Gillerman\‘s remarks during an appearance on CNN, where he was spurred on by host Anderson Cooper\‘s comparison of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to Adolf Hitler. \“I certainly hope the world understands [that] this war is not just about the safety of Israel or the freedom of Lebanon, it is about preserving civilization as we know it,\” Gillerman said.

\“When you see Hezbollah flags in London and in Brussels and in Paris and you see that most of the demonstrators in Trafalgar Square and in the other cities are Muslims, I would advise these European countries to look very carefully at what is happening in Beirut today because to a very great extent, what they\‘re seeing in Beirut, what they\‘re seeing happening in Lebanon, what Hezbollah has done to the Lebanese people is really just a preview of what they may expect if they don\‘t take care of that problem as they say in this country, soon to be seen in theaters everywhere.\”

Even the British were enraged: \“Take care of that problem? Take care of that problem? What would Ambassador Gillerman suggest we do with our Muslims? That\‘s a hell of a thing for him to say,\” a British member of parliament sputtered.

Bolton\‘s inflammatory statements, US insistence on the deployment of an international force prior to a ceasefire, and Gillerman\‘s offensive hectoring of European diplomats deepened French suspicions over US-Israeli aims at the height of negotiations over a UN resolution.

But despite his offensive characterizations of the Muslim problem, Gillerman is right in one sense - the shifting demographics of Europe, where Muslim minorities constitute increasingly powerful voting blocs, is beginning to exact a toll on America\‘s long-standing ties with its erstwhile allies. The French, in particular, are painfully aware that their Muslim minorities are capable of making their presence felt, particularly if they believe their political grievances are not being aired.

\“The difference between the US and Europe on how to handle the Middle East is stark,\” a Finnish diplomat said during a recent private meeting in Washington. \“In the US your political parties worry about the Jewish vote - in Europe, political parties worry about the Muslim vote. It\‘s just that simple.\”

Some of these concerns, and the divide that Europe\‘s new demographics are cleaving between Washington and European capitals, is now finally beginning to make its way into the press. At issue is US and Israeli terminology, which tends to paint Muslims as terrorists and Israelis as Westerners fighting for civilization.

\“It\‘s not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism,\” UN deputy secretary Mark Malloch Brown said last Tuesday. His voice edged with anger, Brown hinted that the United Kingdom could be forced to rethink its by now predictable support for the US initiative.

\“Britain has tried very, very hard to keep with the US on this; no one respects the reasons for that entirely, but you have a Security Council and international public opinion, while fully understanding what has been done to Israel, now believes strongly in a cessation to hostilities.\”

After hesitating for only a moment, Brown issued a warning on a future British vote - stating almost baldly that Prime Minister Tony Blair\‘s government might decide to side with Europe over the United States. \“This is where the UK is a crucial swing vote,\” he said. \“When it comes behind a cessation of hostilities, it makes it that much harder for the last stalwarts to hold out.\”

The Saturday announcement that France and the United States had agreed on a draft resolution has not helped to allay these growing fears. The draft resolution finesses the divide between America\‘s call for the deployment of an international force and France\‘s call for a ceasefire - saying that there should be a \“full cessation of hostilities\” prior to the tabling of a second resolution, which will deal with the more difficult political issues posed by the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

In truth, a number of UN diplomats concede that the battle between the US and France inside the Security Council only diverted the attention of both countries from the conflict in the Middle East. Getting Arab nations to sign on to the resolution was postponed in order to get the resolution agreed to. Nor, it seems, were the Lebanese consulted at all during the process. The resolution, in fact, seems to satisfy the French and Americans - but no one else, and so angered Arab diplomats that Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, denounced it publicly, while privately calling the resolution \“a surrender document\”.

A spokesman for Hezbollah in Beirut was even blunter, saying that the resolution was \“dead on arrival\”. He added, \“The French caved in to American and Israeli pressure. Israel gets to stay on our land. We are required to disarm. Why isn\‘t an international force deployed in northern Israel? Our arms get cut off and the US gets to fly cluster munitions into Ben Gurion [Airport in Tel Aviv]. Just who do they think is winning this war?\”

For now, Condoleezza Rice is hailing the US-French draft as a symbol for US-European cooperation. But for many European diplomats, agreement on the draft resolution has only papered over a deepening rift between the United States and its European partners, with some European diplomats muttering that America\‘s real goal is to induce the Europeans to wade into Lebanon on the side of a defanged and humiliated Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert \“bragged that Israel would destroy Hezbollah\”, a French diplomat said in Washington, \“and if he can\‘t do it that\‘s his problem. I don\‘t care what the secretary of state says, we\‘re not going to do it for him.\”

There are more difficult days ahead - particularly when the US and France square off in the coming week over the draft of a second resolution. With nearly everyone now wondering whether the US position in the Middle East is unraveling, one UN diplomat said the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict may spell the end of an era in which the US and Europe established a tradition of diplomatic cooperation: \“We might as well face up to it. Sooner or later the United States is going to have to choose what is more important - its strategic alliance with Europe, or its friendship with Israel.\”

No matter what the answer to that question might be, the very fact that it has been asked means that the real loser in the current Middle East conflict is the Atlantic alliance.

Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke are co-directors of the Conflicts Forum, based in Beirut, London and Washington, DC. They are the authors of the Asia Times Online series How to lose the \‘war on terror\’.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)

Périodiquement, des personnes signent des articles ou des livres, généralement virulents, exposant que toute cette affaire de réchauffement n’est qu’une chimère de scientifiques et que le plus urgent est de ne pas prêter attention à toutes ces mises en garde. Ils ajoutent souvent que de lutter contre le changement climatique va “coûter très cher” et donc que nous devrions nous dépêcher de nous occuper d’autre chose.

Jean-Marc Jancovici vous propose ici quelques commentaires sur quelques unes de ces publications :

http://www.manicore.com/documentation/serre/ouvrages/calembredaines.html

Jean-Marc Jancovici est un ingénieur polytechnicien français, expert climatique et consultant auprès de divers organismes publics ou privés. Il est connu pour son travail de vulgarisation et de sensibilisation sur le changement climatique, l’effet de serre, et la crise énergétique. (Wikipedia)

OXFORD ANALYTICA, via-IHT:

EU/US: Summit fails to resolve policy deadlock

Oxford Analytica
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
<A HREF=“http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3546/3/0/%2a/h%3B71109619%3B0-0%3B0%3B4933421%3B4252-336/280%3B19787860/19805754/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.emailstrategie.com/com_clients/iht/landing_pages/compplace.asp?location=Italy&promocode=COPL” TARGET=“_blank”><IMG SRC=“http://m.fr.2mdn.net/518758/mpu-336x280.gif” WIDTH=“336” HEIGHT=“280” ALT=“Click here…” BORDER=“0”></a>

US President George Bush yesterday hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso for the annual US-EU summit. Their agenda covered a range of vital issues and steps were taken towards liberalising transatlantic trade. Although the tone was positive, little progress was made on contentious issues.

This year’s US-EU summit came at a promising moment for transatlantic relations. The divisions that emerged following the US-led invasion of Iraq have faded. The NATO alliance largely has addressed tensions concerning burden sharing in Afghanistan, and Washington and Brussels are cooperating on a number of foreign policy flash points.

Moreover, the erosion of democracy in Russia and Russian government’s increasingly antagonistic foreign policy may serve to draw together the United States and EU. This summit produced no surprising breakthroughs, but the overall tone was extremely positive and progress was made on economic liberalisation.

The United States and EU have agreed to a Transatlantic Economic Council charged with leading efforts to dismantle regulatory barriers to trade:

• Transatlantic Economic Council. The council will promote harmonisation of regulatory standards and elimination of regulatory barriers to trade. The agreement marks a victory of sorts for Merkel who has made a priority of improving US-EU relations and promoted a ‘transatlantic free trade area’.

• Limited prospects. However, prospects remain limited for significant progress on reducing barriers to trade. Strong disagreements will continue to block progress. These reflect strong, substantive differences in risk assessment and regulatory priorities.

• Lack of support. Moreover, there is little political support for moving toward a true transatlantic free trade area.

Since the United States abandoned the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, the EU has positioned itself as the global leader in the fight against climate change. The EU recently has pressured Washington to join it in establishing a framework for fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires:

• Target deadlock. The Bush administration continues to refuse to commit to binding greenhouse gas targets unless developing countries also commit.

• Limited consensus. Nevertheless, Merkel tried to present the summit outcome in a positive light.

Relations between the NATO allies and Russia have deteriorated:

• Growing tensions. Moscow’s angry reaction to US plans to expand military bases in Eastern Europe and install a missile defense system is forcing Washington and Brussels to address tensions. This dispute is symptomatic of the more general decline in relations.

• Re-engaging Russia. In a joint statement, the United States and EU emphasised the importance of their relationship with Russia. Although discussion of new tensions did not figure prominently, intense diplomatic talks concerning developments of NATO-Russian relations are sure to continue.

The United States and EU signed the ‘open skies’ agreement that will liberalise transatlantic aviation:

• Liberalising transatlantic aviation. Open skies replaces bilateral agreements. The new framework, which takes effect on March 30, 2008, will lift restrictions on US airlines flying to the EU and vice versa.

• Ownership controversy. The new agreement constitutes a first step towards full liberalisation of transatlantic aviation.

US and EU leaders also discussed European demands concerning the US visa waiver programme:

• Non-reciprocal arrangement. Currently, while the EU allows US citizens visa-free travel, the United States has not extended its visa waiver programme to twelve EU member states.

• Congress opposition. Although Bush has spoken in favour of extending the programme to all EU citizens, the US Congress has resisted. However, this is likely to be achieved in the near future.

Efforts to liberalise transatlantic trade may bear fruit over the long term, but significant progress in the short or medium term is unlikely. Similarly, while both parties agreed on the threat posed by climate change, for the foreseeable future, Washington will continue to resist EU pressure for binding cuts. US and EU responses to the renewed tensions with Russia will have profound implications for the future of the transatlantic partnership.

Valmy vu par Goethe, c’est le “sens” de Valmy davantage que ce qui s’est effectivement passé ce jour-là. Il y a tout de même une armée encore encadrée à cette date, composée en grande partie de régiments ex-royaux (un tableau célèbre montre d’ailleurs autant d’uniformes blancs que bleus), les effets de la réforme de Saint-Germain, l’artillerie de Gribeauval, puis dans les années qui suivent la nouvelle rationalisation de l’armée, les demi-brigades puis la formation divisionnaire de Carnot reprise par Bonaparte, l’invention des corps d’armée autonomes, les communications avec les premiers télégraphes visuels, les ballons (peu utilisés sauf à Jemmapes), etc…

C’est donc une armée populaire qui entre en guerre en 1792 (jusqu’en 1815), mais une armée qui bat également les armées “frédériciennes” sur leur propre terrain avec leurs propres concepts qui ont formé les Hoche, les Moreau, les Jourdan, les Bonaparte. La “Furia Francese” révolutionnaire est une réalité, elle n’est pas pour autant l’explication première.

Il faut donc faire attention aux réductions que les historiens américains adorent faire, pensant se doter ainsi d’une profonde culture alors qu’ils ne font que s’arrêter aux analogies superficielles, non par manque de connaissance, mais parce que, écrivait Tocqueville (tiens, ça faisait longtemps…), les Américains, dans leur recherche d’une pensée unique universelle et de totalisation du monde et de l’histoire, recherchent toujours le plus petit dénominateur commun.

Or dans le cas qui nous arrête, on pourrait très facilement montrer que c’est parce que les Français ont poussé la structure frédéricienne jusqu’à la perfection qu’ils sont gagné à Iéna, et non pas parce qu’ils auraient choisi dès 1792 la guerre “asymétrique” de la guerre des peuples. D’ailleurs Trotski, le Carnot soviétique et père de l’armée rouge, a fait de même dans un contexte similaire.

La constante “talibane” est l’importante influence pakistanaise sous-tendant la totalité de la “question afghane”.

Un rapide retour en arrière permet de constater que c’est le Pakistan, notamment sous la présidence de Mme Bhutto, et par l’intermédiaire de ses puissants services secrets (ISI), qui a totalement créé et instrumentalisé les talibans au milieu des années 90. C’est le Pakistan qui fournissait la quasi-totalité de la logistique militaire qui leur permettait de combattre les forces qui s’opposaient à eux, la plus constante d’entre elles étant celle dirigée par AS Massoud.
Jusqu’en 2001, de nombreuses preuves étaient apportées de l’implication complète du Pakistan dans la lutte des talibans sur le sol afghan, matériel militaire, troupes régulières au sol et aviation inclus.

Cette intervention du Pakistan dans les affaires afghane remonte, pour la période la plus récente, à la guerre sovieto-afghane. Le Pakistan, après avoir servi de relais à l’aide occidentale et arabe aux afghans de l’intérieur, revendiqua, par la voix du président Zia Ul Haq, un “droit à l’ingérence, gagné du fait de l’aide apportée”. Le soutien apporté à Gulbudin Hekmatyar dans la période tampon entre la fin du gouvernement pro-soviétique et l’apparition des talibans fut la suite logique de cette politique, et la création des talibans répondit à l’impossibilité pour le Hezb I Islami de Hekmatyar de s’assurer le pouvoir à Kaboul.

Les buts pakistanais tiennent autant à la politique intérieure (gérer les zones tribales, sécuriser une frontière jamais acceptée par l’Afghanistan (“ligne Mortimer Durand”), obtenir l’assentiment des conservateurs religieux…) qu’extérieure (s’assurer une “profondeur stratégique” face à l’Inde).

Entre 1998 et 2001, le Pakistan était le seul pays, avec l’Arabie Saoudite et les Emirats, à reconnaitre les talibans comme gouvernants légitimes de l’Afghanistan, quand l’ONU continuait à ne reconnaitre que le gouvernement largement affaibli de Rabbani. La propre nièce de Richard Helms, Leila Helms, agissait alors en tant qu’ambassadrice officieuse des talibans pour leur reconnaissance à l’ONU avec pignon sur rue à Washington.

Le soutien apporté à la “guerre contre le terrorisme” des USA et de l’OTAN peut parfois paraître paradoxal dans un tel cadre. Dans tous les cas, force est de reconnaitre le double jeu auquel se livre le Pakistan, bien entendu compliqué par le fait que des forces antagonistes (président, armée, services secrets, conservateurs…) se livrent dans le pays une guerre sans merci.

L’ingérence pakistanaise est la principale cause de l’instabilité en Afghanistan, et rien ne sera possible dans les domaines de la sécurité et du développement dans ce pays tant que ne sera pas résolue la question de cette pernicieuse influence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/the-united-states-gun-vi_b_47153.html

Given the virtually unregulated access to guns in the US, it’s actually surprising that there aren’t more than 80-90 gun deaths and 200-300 injuries everyday. There are an average of 30,000 gun deaths and 100,000 gun injuries each year. The average US annual firearm fatality rate is 10.6 per 100,000 population which is more than the entire industrialized world combined.

Since 1999 when the US experienced a 30 year low in violent crime, most US cities have experienced a dramatic increase in gun violence. The difference between then and now is that the gun lobby now dictates national gun policy, ...

... Massachusetts has enacted the most effective gun violence prevention laws and initiatives in the Country and is among the top three states with the lowest firearm fatality rate in the US, it is an island surrounded by a sea of states where criminals can buy and sell an unlimited number of guns without even an ID or background check. To make matters worse in the last seven years the Federal government has not only turned a blind eye towards gun violence it has intentionally allowed easy access to guns and restricted law enforcement’s ability to prevent and prosecute criminals how use and traffic guns…

http://www.economicpolicymonitor.com/2007/04/dick-cheneys-inve...

Friday, April 27, 2007

Dick Cheney’s Investment Advisor: We Are in a worldwide Bubble

Jeremy Grantham, chairman of the Boston-based investment advisory firm Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo and who counts Vice President Dick Cheney among his clients, has just released his quarterly letter to clients. In it he writes that we are now seeing the first worldwide bubble in history, covering all asset classes.

He writes that global credit is more extended and more complicated than ever before so that no one is sure where all the increased risk has ended up.
“Every bubble has always burst,” he writes. And “the bursting of this bubble will be across all countries and all assets…Risk premiums in particular will widen.
Since no similar global event has occurred before, the stresses to the system are likely to be unexpected.”

He provides no timeline as to when the bubble might burst, but writes that a bubble generally does not burst until there is an exponential upward move.
Grantham, Mayo is the largest stock picker for the Cheneys, overseeing more than $5 million in US stocks, according to public filings.
It also handles at least $6 million in foreign stocks for John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Labels: Cheney, economy posted by Raymond Weber @ 1:25 PM