Malk Content
27/10/2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3956129.stm
La peur du scandale
am1893
26/10/2004
Un article intéressant sur la pratique des élections présidentielles aux Etats-Unis, provenant de la revue en ligne “En temps réel”
L’auteur est Jamin Raskin, professeur de droit constitutionnel.
Stassen
25/10/2004
Volatilisés dans la nature
Près de 400 tonnes d’explosifs très puissants, pouvant servir à une arme nucléaire et surtout à d’énormes attentats terroristes, ont disparu d’un dépôt d’armes en Irak laissé sans surveillance par les Américains.
Le gouvernement intérimaire irakien s’est inquiété de ces disparitions auprès de l’AIEA (Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique), basée à Vienne, le 10 octobre dernier, a indiqué Melissa Fleming, porte-parole de cette agence de sûreté de l’Onu, confirmant des informations parues dans le New York Times lundi matin. Le directeur-général de l’AIEA, Mohamed ElBaradei en rendra compte dans la journée au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, a-t-elle précisé.
Ces matériels peuvent être utilisés comme détonateur pour provoquer l’explosion d’une bombe nucléaire. Mais si d’un point de vue de prolifération il existe une application possible dans une arme nucléaire, notre crainte immédiate est que ces explosifs puissent tomber entre de mauvaises mains et servir à des actes terroristes, a ajouté Mme Fleming.
D’après le New York Times, près de 380 tonnes d’explosif conventionnels puissants—susceptibles d’être utilisés pour détruire des immeubles, faire des têtes de missiles et détoner des armes nucléaires—ont disparu de l’un des anciens sites militaires les plus sensibles d’Irak. L’énorme installation, appelée Al Qaaqa, était censée être sous contrôle américain, mais c’est maintenant un terrain vague, où des pilleurs étaient encore à l’oeuvre dimanche, ajoute le journal américain.
Ces explosifs ont commencé à disparaître après avril 2003 et la chute de Saddam Hussein suite à l’intervention américano-britannique, ajoute le quotidien, précisant qu’il s’agissait surtout de HMX et de RDX, substances qui pourraient produire des bombes assez puissantes faire sauter des avions et éventrer des immeubles, ajoute le New York Times.
Le clan Kerry accuse
L’équipe du candidat démocrate à la présidentielle, John Kerry, a interpellé lundi le président sortant George W. Bush sur la disparition de ces 400 tonnes d’explosifs en Irak, qualifiée d’erreur potentiellement grave et catastrophique. Aujourd’hui, l’administration Bush doit répondre de ce qui pourrait être l’erreur la plus grave et catastrophique d’une série tragique de fautes en Irak, selon un communiqué de Joe Lockhart, conseiller de John Kerry.
Comment ont-ils échoué à sécuriser 380 tonnes d’explosifs mortels connus, en dépit de mises en garde claires de l’Agence Internationale pour l’Energie atomique (AIEA) ? écrit l’ancien porte-parole de Bill Clinton de 1998 à 2000. Pourquoi cette information n’a-t-elle pas été mise au jour par les journalistes, et pourquoi a-t-elle été couverte par nos responsables à la sécurité nationale ?, poursuit-il.
(D’après AFP)
http://www.lesoir.be/rubriques/mond/page_5179_267558.shtml
Stassen
25/10/2004
The war on terror is NATO’s new focus
R. Nicholas Burns IHT Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The alliance’s future I
BRUSSELS Last month, NATO took a major step forward in helping Iraq meet its extraordinarily difficult security challenges by agreeing to begin a significant new training program for the country’s security forces. Like most decisions reached by an alliance of 26 democracies, it was preceded by a healthy debate. Once again, however, NATO showed a readiness to reach beyond its traditional area of operations in Europe to those countries that are on the front lines of the global war on terror.
NATO’s new mission could not come at a more critical moment. When Iraq’s president, Ghazi al-Yawar, met with NATO ambassadors in Brussels on Sept. 14, he urged the alliance to move rapidly to help stabilize the country before its elections “so that Iraqis can cast their votes without being intimidated or in fear.”
This collective role in Iraqi reconstruction was first suggested by President George W. Bush at the Istanbul summit last June. The subsequent agreement of NATO’s 26 heads of government sent a clear message to friends and foes alike that the alliance could speak with one voice on the vital issues of our day.
Some have asked whether an alliance established to safeguard the security of Europe and North America should have any role at all in Iraq, a country that lies well beyond Europe’s borders. The simple answer is that if NATO is to remain the world’s most effective military and political alliance, it must adapt its fundamental strategy to the realities of the post- Sept. 11 world. This means that NATO must be present on the front lines of the war on terrorism.
NATO’s decision to begin training in Iraq - along with its leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, where its deployment of additional forces in the last two weeks will help provide security for that country’s historic presidential election in October - reflects its new sense of strategic purpose. The Soviet menace is gone, but Europe and America now face an elusive and potentially devastating danger from terrorist groups. Iraq has become a central battleground in this new war. It is clearly in the interest of both Europe and America to help build a free and democratic Iraq that can become a catalyst for peaceful reform throughout the region. The alternative would be a severe blow not just to America but to European interests as well.
It is ironic that while many European critics have accused the United States of losing interest in multilateral organizations like NATO, it is America that has proposed many of the initiatives that have reformed NATO’s structure and strategic mission in the last two years. In addition to the training mission in Iraq, Bush led the push in Istanbul to build a more robust NATO presence in Afghanistan for the country’s elections and beyond, and to launch a new initiative to engage countries of the broader Middle East in constructive security cooperation. Time and again the United States has demonstrated its genuine desire to see the new NATO act collectively to confront these new challenges.
NATO is emerging from the difficult trans-Atlantic debates over Iraq with a new sense of purpose. We are bolstering our force in Afghanistan, and a majority of our allies have troops in Iraq. The reality is that while Europe and America will from time to time have serious disagreements, we are bound by a shared set of core values and common interests that will lead us to agree more than disagree on the major regional and global challenges ahead. Reasserting the importance of trans-Atlantic security should be a priority for 2005.
The NATO alliance was founded in 1949 to ensure that the fragile democracies of post-war Europe had a decent chance for survival. Now, more than 55 years later, the allies have come to realize that our security depends on the survival of peace and democracy in areas beyond our borders. The stakes are high in Iraq and Afghanistan. As NATO preserved democracy during the cold war, so we now have that same opportunity and obligation to help secure a peaceful and hopefully democratic future for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must help these countries become places of progress and peace, so they will not again become exporters of violence and terror. I’m proud to say that with its new mission in Iraq, NATO will demonstrate once again that multilateralism works.
R. Nicholas Burns is U.S. ambassador to NATO.
Tom Erichsen
25/10/2004
Ce communiqué de l’AFP donne un éclairage flagrant de l’état de guerre dans lequel baigne l’administration américaine de Défense. Et sa course à la suprématie sur ses alliés, même européens…
US could shoot down EU satellites if used by foes in wartime: report
Sat Oct 23, 8:35 PM
LONDON (AFP) - The United States could attack Europe’s planned network of global positioning satellites if it was used by a hostile power such as China.
Galileo, a constellation of 30 satellites and ground stations due to go into operation in 2008, is being launched by the European Union (news - web sites) and the European Space Agency to tap into a growing market of global satellite positioning, The Business weekly reported.
China last month became a partner in the Galileo program, which could help provide services such as communications for the 2008 Beijing Olympics but also has applications for strategic military use.
According to a leaked US Air Force document written in August and obtained by The Business, Peter Teets, under-secretary of the US Air Force wrote: “What will we do 10 years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system of perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?”
The paper also reported a disagreement between EU and US officials this month over Galileo at a London conference which led to the threat to blow up the future satellites.
The European delegates reportedly said they would not turn off or jam signals from their satellites, even if they were used in a war with the United States.
A senior European delegate at the London conference said his US counterparts reacted to the EU position “calmly”.
“They made it clear that they would attempt what they called reversible action, but, if necessary, they would use irreversible action,” the official was quoted as saying.
Washington has long expressed doubts about Galileo, which could compete with its Global Positioning System (GPS), although the transatlantic feud was reportedly ended following an agreement signed in June.
US officials have voiced fears that the rival system, which has also brought on board Russia and Israel in addition to China, could compromise US and NATO (news - web sites) military operations which rely on GPS for navigation and combatant location and might also interfere with a classified Pentagon (news - web sites) positioning system known as M-Code.
At one point, Washington suggested that Galileo was an unnecessary rival to GPS that merely duplicated the US system.
Analysts said the US threat to Galileo’s future system exposed the true military value of the global navigation systems.
Previously, officials touted only the commercial benefit of Galileo, which is expected to tap into a burgeoning market for satellite positioning systems that doubled from 10 billion euros in 2002 to 20 billion euros in 2003.
Brussels has also argued Galileo will create 150,000 new jobs across the European bloc.
The Business warned in an editorial that technological choices—Galileo versus GPS—now would fuel more international political division.
“Technological decisions required by Galileo mean countries have to commit themselves to the ugly delineation of the Iraq (news - web sites) War: pro-America (GPS) or anti-America (Galileo).”
It warned that Britain, Washington’s staunchest ally in the Iraq war, would once again find itself trapped between the two camps—and that as a result “the Anglo-American alliance is quietly splitting behind the scenes”.
Yves Bataille
17/10/2004
Why did Ashdown Lose the Key Agent?
Ekstra Magazin - September 26, 2004
The West Balkans region is becoming the polygon for winning predominance between intelligence agencies from the US and the Great Britain, a source well informed about activities in secret services told Extra, adding that revealing identity of Andrew Monkton, official at the British Embassy in Belgrade and long time powerful chief of the MI6 department in the Balkans, represents hard slap to British intelligence network.
Monkton came to Belgrade right before Milosevic was overthrown from power and he had significant role in Milosevics deportation to the Hague. He was uncrowned king of the western intelligence agencies in the Balkans.
According to our collocutor, Americans are planning to use installment of the NATO Center in Sarajevo where about 600 civilians will work on intelligence activities in order to push back indisputable network of intelligence agents who worked for the interest of the Great Britain. They will also employ people form loyal countries such as the Netherlands, Nordic and Eastern European countries, while French and Brits would be marginalized.
Media preparations for war of intelligence agents is being done by a magazine from Sarajevo that has been revealing intelligence network developed by Brits for years, by connecting it with crime and corruption in BiH.
Departure of NATO, i.e. SFOR and American soldiers worried Bosniaks and opposition leaders in both entities who saw hope in them that constitutional reorganization in BiH will take place, i.e. that they will return on power with the help of American Ambassador in Sarajevo.
It is the fact that Americans will be present in Bosnia, but character of their presence and behavior will be totally different. Therefore those aforementioned do not really have a reason for optimism.
Our source claims that the US will favor those political parties that oppose the HR to BiH, and this option is for now, only present in the RS. It implicates that Ashdown, after the recent change of situation, will not be able to implement his intentions, which is dismissal of politicians according to new lists for executions and punishments of the RS due to not fulfilling conditions for cooperation with the Hague Tribunal. Ashdown gave short deadline for arresting war crime suspects and his intention is to launch revision of the Dayton Peace Accords (whose final goal is abolishing of the RS) if those conditions are not met.
However, since he lost Monkton who had to leave Belgrade, he does not have the key associate who supplied him with important information. Besides Monkton, Julian Braithwaite, the OHR Information Director who served as liaison between Ashdown and Monkton, also had to leave.
Intelligence war has regional character and it is being led in Zagreb as well. In the recent days, Zagreb was plastered with posters that should turn Croatian public against EU to which Croatia strongly aspires.
The aspiration is so strong that they refused to send their soldiers to Iraq and it also did not sign the Agreement on Non Extradition of the US citizens to ICC. EU is not cool, but cheese and sour cream are is the message placed on billboards in which large amount of money has been invested, Source of money is not known, but it could be guessed. Such stances created a problem in finding a suitable person (Croat) for a position in the BiH Intelligence Agency (OSA).
Our source said that this agency will be one the Americans trumps in their attempt to take over intelligence in the Balkans. One experienced Serb pre-war agent who was on important positions in the RS during and after the war, is being especially considered. At the present he is standing on the side and his name is kept secret.
It is interesting that most of agents that have been compromised by revealing of their names and uncovering of their real activities in the three Balkans capitals (Sarajevo, Zagreb, and Belgrade) were at the end of their mandates. Those who are familiar with this domain concluded that who ever wanted them harm did not want to jeopardize their security.
All sources familiar with intelligence scene agreed that that this could not have been coordinated operation of the Bosniak, Croat and Serb intelligence agencies although all of them were involved in compromising British agents.
Therefore, the conclusion is: it was a question of international intelligence war that is being led in these areas, while Monkton and others were set up by one of the big intelligence agencies with vast use of local resources, i.e. fears and interests.
————————————————————————————————————————
Source: Ekstra Magazin (Serbian national bi-weekly from Bijeljina), September 26, 2004
Translated by: U.S. Army Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) Cell, ACofS G2 MNB(N)
Jean GODBOUT
16/10/2004
A tous ceux qui s’intéressent aux Droits de l’Homme, je vous invite a découvrir comment le gouvernement du Québec m’a frauduleusement rendu invalide et comment les tribunaux méprisent la dignité humaine a :
http://csst-queca.com
Merci de votre visite,
Jean GODBOUT
maoulida
11/10/2004
http://www.lexpress.fr/info/monde/dossier/speusa/dossier.asp?ida=429774
Je vous laisse aller le lire directement à la source, vu la taille de l’article…
Un ancien conseiller de Reagan crie haut et fort que l’administration Bush est menée par des ultra-religieux etc…
federico
09/10/2004
L’analyse de Stratfor, dirigée par le Dr. G. Friedman
—-
Al Qaeda: Using an Old Conflict to Stir Up New Trouble
Summary
The Oct. 7 triple bombing attacks on Egyptian Red Sea resorts by an al
Qaeda-linked group might upset all the key regional players’ calculations on
how to approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Egypt, Israel, the
Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian Islamist militant groups
will be forced to react in a way that could have serious effects on the
issue’s dynamics. Each player, to some degree, is faced with the quandary of
how to secure its respective interests after the global jihadist network’s
physical entry into the Israeli-Palestinian theater.
Analysis
Israeli intelligence said Oct. 8 that al Qaeda was behind the attacks that
struck the Egyptian Red Sea resorts of Taba, Ras al Satan and Nuweiba,
leaving at least 22 dead and more than 100 wounded. Maj. Gen. Aharon
Zeevi-Farkash, chief of Israel’s military intelligence, said at an emergency
Cabinet meeting that the global jihadist network was most likely behind the
attacks. Elsewhere, a Hamas spokesman for the Gaza Strip issued a formal
denial of responsibility for the attacks Oct. 8 with the remark, “Our firm
stand, our firm position is that the battle is within the occupied lands
(West Bank and Gaza Strip), and this stand remains the same and has not
changed.” Meanwhile, there have been claims by two separate and previously
unheard of jihadist groups claiming responsibility for the attacks.
Stratfor has already demonstrated how the attacks in Egypt had al Qaeda’s
fingerprints all over them, regardless of whether the operation was carried
out by members of the jihadist network or some local or regional affiliated
group. The more important question is how this affects the regional
geopolitical equation. How will Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s regime,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government, the Palestinian National
Authority (PNA) and the militant Palestinian groups—particularly those
with Islamist leanings—react and adjust to al Qaeda entering the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and becoming a possible center of power for
militant Palestinians?
Egypt reportedly has arrested 10 people suspected of involvement in the
bombings. This was expected, as Cairo will try to restore the absence of
jihadist activity that had existed in Egypt since 1997 up until Oct. 7. This
is not an easy task—but Mubarak has more to worry about than a resurfacing
of jihadists.
The attacks targeted Israelis vacationing on Egyptian soil. Besides that,
Cairo is mediating between Israel and Palestinian factions leading up to the
proposed Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in late 2005. While Mubarak
has no love for the Palestinians, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation is a
major Egyptian foreign policy initiative that serves to advance Cairo’s
interests in the region because Egypt holds great influence over the
Palestinians. To protect Egypt’s relations with Israel and its position as
mediator between the Israelis and the Palestinians—and the Gaza Strip
pullout talks themselves—Mubarak will have to take on the jihadists while
preventing Israel from using the attacks as a bargaining tool.
Thus far, the Israelis have appreciated Egyptian security efforts following
the blasts. They have also refrained from trying to use the attacks to their
advantage in talks with the PNA. However, the situation might change—
Israel gained an upper hand against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade last year, and the Israelis might perceive the
attacks in Egypt as a sign of a new emerging threat from al Qaeda. Tel Aviv
could say that al Qaeda has sympathizers among the Palestinians—a claim it
could use to drive a hard bargain in the indirect negotiations with the
Palestinians.
In a bid to sustain U.S. support for countermilitancy offensives in
Palestinian territories, many senior members of the current Likud-led Israeli
coalition government—including Sharon—have said before that Hamas and
PIJ are linked to al Qaeda. Tel Aviv could use the al Qaeda threat as a
reason to grant fewer concessions, ramp-up countermilitancy efforts or even
put off withdrawing from the Gaza Strip. Faced with the prospect of
Palestinian militants having links to al Qaeda, Israel will put pressure on
Hamas and PIJ to come out with a much clearer position on the Oct. 7 attacks
than the Oct. 8 statement from the Hamas spokesman.
Even before the attacks in Egypt, Hamas and PIJ (the former more than the
latter) had reached a crucial point where many of the groups’ leaders had
been eliminated and their military capabilities were badly degraded. Hamas is
under pressure to position itself as a political entity in order to gain a
piece of the post-withdrawal Gaza administration.
Given this situation, it is likely that many from the Hamas constituency are
disillusioned with the path the militant Islamist group might be taking. They
are already disappointed with the PNA, given its inability to redress their
grievances. This leaves a political vacuum that al Qaeda is likely trying to
penetrate. This would explain the most recent communique from al Qaeda’s
deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, focusing specifically on the Palestinian
situation.
That al Qaeda could possibly make inroads with Islamist-leaning Palestinians
poses a critical challenge to Hamas, which will have to make tough choices.
Hamas is stuck between negotiating with PNA and the Israelis over Gaza and
sustaining its image and reputation as an anti-occupation resistance movement
by engaging in attacks.
The idea that Hamas could be forced to compete with al Qaeda and will focus
on launching attacks may prevent Israel from postponing the pullout from
Gaza. This, however, does not make Hamas’ life any easier. It must still face
the fear that the current situation in the Palestinian territories, Iraq and
the broader Muslim world—in which some Muslim groups and governments are
seen as capitulating in the U.S.-led war on terrorism—could result in the
locus of leadership for the Islamist struggle for Palestine shifting toward
al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda’s presence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also puts the PNA in
a difficult position. The PNA would be happy to see Hamas further degraded as
a result of these attacks because that degrades competition between the
groups in Gaza. On the other hand, if Hamas is weakened too much, the PNA
faces al Qaeda-style Palestinians.
Just how Egypt, Israel, Hamas and the PNA choose to deal with the situation
created by al Qaeda’s entrance into their arena remains to be seen. What is
certain is that al Qaeda—by stepping into the heart of the Middle East—
has forced actors who were otherwise rivals to consider cooperation to bring
stability to the region. From al Qaeda’s point of view, whether the players
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict choose to cooperate or clash, it is a
win-win situation for the jihadist network.
(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
federico
08/10/2004
de Libération, 8 octobre
—-
Chirac donne une leçon d’antiaméricanisme à Hanoi
Il s’est emballé sur les risques d’une «sous-culture généralisée».
Par Antoine GUIRAL
vendredi 08 octobre 2004 (Liberation - 06:00)
Hanoi envoyé spécial
Les lycéens et étudiants vietnamiens venus dialoguer avec lui au centre culturel français en sont restés bouche bée. Hier à Hanoi, au deuxième jour de sa visite d’Etat, Jacques Chirac s’est livré à une diatribe contre les Etats-Unis qu’il a carrément accusés de vouloir imposer «une sous-culture généralisée dans le monde». Une leçon d’antiaméricanisme à faire rosir de gêne les très orthodoxes dirigeants de la République socialiste du Vietnam…
En roue libre. Accueilli dans la rue par des dizaines d’enfants agitant des petits fanions aux couleurs de la France et du Vietnam, Chirac s’installe sur l’estrade du centre culturel et commence par louer «la formidable jeunesse du Vietnam» avec laquelle, comme il se doit, il entend «avoir un petit échange de vue marqué au coin de l’amitié, de l’estime et du respect». A peine le temps d’évoquer un souvenir de 1993 à Hô Chi Minh-Ville, où un poète lui avait déclamé «qui ne se souvient pas de son pays ne pourra jamais devenir un homme», et le chef de l’Etat part en roue libre sur ses thèmes de prédilection : dialogue entre les civilisations, respect de la diversité culturelle, défense des minorités. Une jeune fille en longue robe rose traditionnelle le ramène sur terre en lui demandant si «apprendre le français pour un Vietnamien est un bon investissement pour trouver du travail demain». «Le français est une langue utile sur le plan économique, tente-t-il de la convaincre. Rien ne serait pire pour l’humanité qu’il n’y ait qu’une seule langue. Ce serait rétrécir la pensée.» Et de lancer une mise en garde : «Il y a une tendance à une culture majoritaire anglo-saxonne qui efface les autres. Si on acceptait les thèses de nos amis américains, il y aurait très rapidement une expression culturelle unique. Et toutes les autres expressions culturelles seraient étouffées au profit de la seule culture américaine.»
Dadas. Très applaudi par la salle, Chirac plonge alors dans ses fiches plastifiées pour répondre à une question. Il extrait de ses antisèches les noms de «deux très beaux films vietnamiens», le Gardien du buffle et le Temps révolu, qui, selon lui, n’auraient pas pu voir le jour sans aides financières publiques. «D’ailleurs, ajoute-t-il, nous menons une sorte de combat contre les thèses américaines [relatives à la culture] car si on les suivait, on finirait par avoir une sous-culture généralisée dans le monde, ce qui serait la pire des choses.» A cet instant, Jacques Chirac frôle le surrégime et lâche ses fiches. Ce qui n’est pas forcément une bonne idée : «S’il y avait une seule langue, une seule culture, tout le reste disparaîtrait et ce serait une véritable catastrophe écologique», lance-t-il à un auditoire interloqué.
Très au fait des dadas du Président, un autre étudiant vietnamien l’interroge aussitôt sur sa théorie des «quatre piliers du développement durable». Cette fois, le chef de l’Etat dégaine son discours de défenseur des damnés de la terre : «Attirés par le gain et le progrès immédiat, les hommes ne sont pas raisonnables. On est en train de piller et d’épuiser notre planète.» Très en verve, il enchaîne sur sa proposition, faite avec le président brésilien Lula, de créer une taxation sur les recettes de la mondialisation afin de dégager «50 à 100 milliards de dollars supplémentaires» en faveur de l’aide publique au développement. A l’en croire, il aurait déjà rallié à sa cause «près de 120 pays». Et le Président de prophétiser : «Les Etats-Unis ne pourront pas résister à ce grand mouvement international.» George W. Bush et ses amis n’ont plus qu’à bien se tenir.
Maoulida
08/10/2004
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/041008/202/4362r.html
Prison pour une journaliste du New York Times refusant de citer ses sources
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Un juge fédéral américain a condamné à une peine de prison jeudi pour outrage à magistrat une journaliste du New York Times qui a refusé de dévoiler ses sources dans une affaire de fuites impliquant la Maison Blanche.
La peine ne sera pas appliquée dans l’attente de l’appel interjeté par la journaliste Judith Miller.
Le juge Thomas Hogan a souligné que la Cour suprême stipule de manière claire que le Premier amendement de la Constitution américaine n’accorde pas aux journalistes d’immunité concernant leurs sources confidentielles.
La durée de l’emprisonnement n’a pas été fixée. Si la condamnation était appliquée, Mme Miller resterait en prison tant qu’elle ne se serait pas soumise aux injonctions de la justice, a-t-on précisé de source judiciaire.
Judith Miller, et d’autres journalistes, avait été assignés à comparaître par le procureur Patrick Fitzgerald chargé d’enquêter sur des fuites concernant l’identité d’un ancien agent de la CIA, Valérie Plame, épouse de Joseph Wilson. Ce dernier, ancien ambassadeur américain, a attribué ces fuites à la Maison Blanche, en représailles à ses propos affirmant publiquement que l’Irak ne cherchait pas à acquérir de l’uranium enrichi.
“C’est tout simplement effrayant qu’en faisant mon travail et en parlant à des employés du gouvernement sur des sujets publics, je puisse être privée de ma liberté et de ma famille”, a déploré Mme Miller dans un communiqué. “Je n’aurais pas pu être une journaliste d’investigation au Times, couvrant Al-Qaïda et la sécurité nationale, sans la confiance que mes sources m’accordent et l’assurance qu’elles ont que je vais les protéger”, a ajouté la journaliste qui indique qu’elle continuera à agir en ce sens.
Le nom de Valérie Plame avait été divulgé en juillet 2003 par un célèbre éditorialiste d’un journal conservateur, Robert Novak, qui a cité deux “hauts responsables de l’administration” comme étant ses sources.
Le New York Times s’est dit jeudi “étonné” de la décision du juge Hogan, en la qualifiant d’attaques contre la possibilité pour les journalistes de rendre compte des actions des gouvernements, des entreprises et autres sujets.
“Judith Miller n’a rien fait de mal”, écrit le journal dans un communiqué. “Elle n’a pas révélé l’identité d’un agent de la CIA mais elle est condamnée à une peine de prison alors que la vraie personne qui a exposé Mme Plame à la face du public est impunie”, ajoute-t-il.
Filippe
06/10/2004
Bonjour,
A la conclusion de votre article, BAE perd énormément de savoir-faire. Or, pour y avoir des amis qui y travaillent, ils n’en restent pas moins avancés d’un point de vue drônes, missiles, etc. Donc, exagérez-vous, ou alors me trompe-je ?
Stassen
05/10/2004
Sweden and Finland announce joint EU battle group
05.10.2004 - 09:41 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk
Finland and Sweden have agreed to set up a joint Nordic battle group as their contribution to an EU rapidly deployable force.
The deal was announced by Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson and Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen during a meeting yesterday (4 October) in the border region of Tornionjokilaakso.
Sweden will contribute 900 soldiers and Finland 300 to the Nordic battle group.
The two Prime Ministers also urged Norway to join the group, which would result in a total of 1,500 soldiers trained to fight in different environments and situations.
The Norwegian defence minister Kristin Krohn Devold has already indicated that Oslo would be keen to take part in the creation of EU battle groups, a key military goal of the Union.
Accepting a NATO country (Norway) into a battle group together with two non-aligned countries (Finland and Sweden) would not be a problem, Swedish Premier Göran Persson indicated.
The question is rather whether the EU would accept a non-EU member (Norway) to participate in the battle groups. There are also concerns over potential opposition to the plan amongst the Norwegian people, reports Swedish radio.
The EU battle groups project will see the creation of six or seven groups of 1,500 soldiers, which could be sent to international trouble spots from 2007
http://euobserver.com/?aid=17443&rk=1
—-
Norway interested in EU defence role
21.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Andrew Beatty
Norways defence minister has said her country has a “real interest” in taking part in EU defence projects, despite not being a member of the Union.
Kristin Krohn Devold told Norwegian broadcaster NRK yesterday (Monday 20 September) that Oslo would be keen to take part in the creation of EU battle groups, a key EU military goal.
“We are very fortunate to have a number of niche capabilities which are in strong demand and I’m sure that these capabilities will probably interest the EU”, she said.
The project, which is due to be operational by 2007, will see the creation of six or seven groups of 1,500 soldiers trained to fight in different environments and situations.
“We have a real interest in participating”, she told NRK.
Norway has twice voted against joining the European Union but regularly aligns itself with EU statements and contributes to the EU budget.
Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik has yet to comment.
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=13&aid=17334
—-
EU defence ministers admit global responsibility
18.05.2004 - 14:46 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The 25 EU member states have committed themselves to be able to respond to crises throughout the world by 2010.
“The European Union is a global actor, ready to share in the responsibility for global security”, are the first words in an ambitious plan “Headline Goal 2010”, adopted by EU defence ministers in Brussels on Monday (17 May).
Under the plan, the 25 EU member states are committing themselves to be able by 2010 to respond to crises throughout the world. These include humanitarian and rescue tasks, crisis-management, peace-keeping and joint disarmament operations.
According to the plan, the EU must be fit to “take the decision to launch an operation within 5 days” and the forces should be capable of implementing their mission on the ground “no later than 10 days after the EU decision to launch the operation”.
Battle groups concept
There is already agreement on the so-called Battle Groups concept, which is a key instrument in the new EU military planning.
Member states are to start contributing to these multinational “high readiness joint packages” at the beginning of the second semester of 2004.
These rapidly deployable Battle Groups are supposed to be completed in 2007.
European Defence Agency
In mid-February, work to establish a European Defence Agency, another cornerstone of the plan, started.
The agency will be tasked to identify and fulfil shortfalls in the field of military equipment. The plan also commits Member States to “harmonise their respective future requirements” by 2010.
The 2010 Headline Goal plans will now be submitted to EU leaders in June for final approval.
http://euobserver.com/?aid=17443&rk=1
Summary (Excerpts) of the remarks by Javier SOLANA,
EU High Representative
for the Common Foreign and Security Policy,
at the INFORMAL MEETING OF DEFENCE MINISTERS
Brussels, 5 - 6 April 2004
« REACTION RAPIDE
Les travaux sur les capacités de réaction rapide doivent être une priorité pour l’Union Européenne. Nous avons besoin de forces rapidement déployables, rapidement utilisables et pouvant s’adapter aux circonstances particulières de chaque intervention. Ces forces doivent être capables de conduire l’ensemble des missions envisagées par l’UE, y compris des engagements de haute intensité.
Le rapport que je propose à votre attention comprend quatre parties.
- La première traite du développement des capacités de réaction rapide en particulier au travers du Concept de Battle group. Elle fixe certains objectifs pour la mise en place de ces battle groups. Il est évident que la capacité de réaction rapide ne se limite pas à ces battle groups, mais il me semblait pertinent de travailler en priorité sur ce concept dans la mesure où il répond clairement à nos besoins, et où un large consensus s’est dessiné pour le soutenir.
- La seconde partie traite du processus de prise de décision et de la planification. Le tempo de la décision et de la planification doit être cohérent avec celui du déploiement des troupes. Il n’y a pas de réponse rapide sans planification et décision rapide.
- La troisième partie traite des relations avec l’ONU. C’est un élément important ; les Nations Unies attachent beaucoup d’importance au développement d’une coopération concrète avec l’UE dans ce domaine. Il faut que nous puissions soutenir les Nations Unies, en étant très
clairs sur ce que nous pouvons faire; il faut traduire dans les actes nos engagements à soutenir les Nations Unies. L’opération Artémis a permis de montrer à l’ONU que les capacités européennes en matière de défense pouvaient être mises à la disposition de l’ONU; il faut poursuivre dans cette voie.
- La quatrième partie est consacrée à la coopération avec l’OTAN. Le principe fondamental doit être celui du renforcement mutuel. Les forces de réaction rapide développées par les Etats-Membres doivent pouvoir être mises à la disposition tant de l’une que de l’autre des
deux organisations, faute de quoi il n’y aura pas de renforcement mutuel, mais une compétition coûteuse et inutile.
Je voudrais revenir sur quelques points :
Le développement des capacités de réaction rapide est bien entendu un élément important de ce processus. Plus nous aurons de capacités, mieux cela sera pour l’Union Européenne, mais également pour l’OTAN. Je ne peux qu’encourager les Etats-Membres à faire un effort dans ce domaine. Ceci étant, ainsi que l’a montré l’Opération Artémis, nous disposons déjà de capacités de réaction rapide, qui correspondent aux paramètres du projet de Battle groups. Il faut maintenant avancer sur ce sujet, en mettant en place ces Battles groups. Les objectifs proposés
dans mon rapport sont ambitieux, mais peuvent être atteints; votre soutien et votre engagement sont la condition du succès.
Au delà des capacités militaires il nous faut également réfléchir à la manière dont nous pouvons conduire rapidement et efficacement le processus de prise de décision et de planification. Il n’y aura de réaction rapide que si la planification et la prise de décision sont rapides. Etre capable de déployer rapidement des forces n’a aucun sens s’il nous faut plusieurs semaines pour prendre la décision de les déployer. Là encore l’exemple d’Artémis doit être utilisé. L’opération a été lancée moins de 10 jours après la décision du Conseil qu’une opération de l’UE devait être envisagée. Ce délai de réaction doit être notre objectif. »
Anamorphose
03/10/2004
Mardi 5 octobre à 20H45, (pour ceux qui auraient encore quelques doutes), reportage sur Arte analysant les liens des Bush avec les milieux d’affaires; ensuite, d’autres reportages sur le pire président que l’Amérique ait offert au monde.
Et le lendemain, mercredi 6 à 20H45, toujours sur Arte, reportage sur l’assasinat de JFK.
Ah, s’il n’y avait pas Arte….
Federico
01/10/2004
Contrairement à ce que disent MM. Rumsfeld, Bush & Co.
Tiré du Washington Post
—-
washingtonpost.com
Growing Pessimism on Iraq
Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies
By Dana Priest and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01
A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.
While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.
People at the CIA “are mad at the policy in Iraq because it’s a disaster, and they’re digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper,” said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. “There’s no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments.”
“Things are definitely not improving,” said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.
“It is getting worse,” agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. “It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago.”
This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. “Yes, it’s getting worse,” he said of the insurgency on ABC’s “This Week.” At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we will fight our way through the elections.” Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place.
Powell’s admission and Abizaid’s sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration’s and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments.
In the best-case scenario, the NIC said, Iraq could be expected to achieve a “tenuous stability” over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war.
The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that also were more pessimistic in tone than the administration’s portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, according to senior administration officials. “All say they expect things to get worse,” one former official said.
One official involved in evaluating the July document said the NIC, which advises the director of central intelligence, decided not to include a more rosy scenario “because it looked so unreal.”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of “pessimists and naysayers” after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times.
President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials. “The CIA laid out several scenarios,” Bush said on Sept. 21. “It said that life could by lousy. Life could be okay. Life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.”
Two days later, Bush reworded his response. “I used an unfortunate word, ‘guess.’ I should have used ‘estimate.’ “
“And the CIA came and said, ‘This is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility,’ ” Bush continued. “But what’s important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality’s right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That’s the best report.”
Rumsfeld, who once dismissed the insurgents as “dead-enders,” still offers a positive portrayal of prospects and progress in Iraq but has begun to temper his optimism in public. “The path towards liberty is not smooth there; it never has been,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. “And my personal view is that a fair assessment requires some patience and some perspective.”
This week, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak criticized the CIA and Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer on the NIC who supervised the preparation of the assessment. Novak said comments Pillar made about Iraq during a private dinner in California showed that he and others at the CIA are at war with the president. Recent and current intelligence officials interviewed over the last two days dispute that view.
“Pillar is the ultimate professional,” said Daniel Byman, an intelligence expert and Georgetown University professor who has worked with Pillar. “If anything, he’s too soft-spoken.”
“I’m not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive,” said one CIA official, who like many others interviewed would speak only anonymously, either because they don’t have official authorization to speak or because they worry about ramifications of criticizing top administration officials. “We weren’t trying to make them look bad, we’re just trying to give them information. Of course, we’re telling them something they don’t want to hear.”
As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, “There’s a real war going on here that’s not just” the CIA against the administration on Iraq “but the State Department and the military” as well.
National security officials acknowledge that the upcoming presidential election also seems to have distorted the public debate on Iraq.
“Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people,” said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, “I don’t think the political discourse that we’re in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There’s a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side.”
Reports from Iraq have made one Army staff officer question whether adequate progress is being made there.
“They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but what I hear from the ground is that they aren’t working,” he said. “There’s a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out.”
He added: “I hope I’m wrong.”
Staff writers Walter Pincus and Robin Wright contributed to this report.
-
Pour poster un commentaire, vous devez vous identifier