U.S. Department of State

Traduction de mon cru d’un article du blog de l’ex-diplomate M.K. Bhadrakumar, ancien ambassadeur indien en Turquie notamment, et journaliste à Asia Times commentant et citant un article du Council on Foreign Relations faisant ouvertement la promotion d’une stratégie d’instrumentalisation d’al-Qaïda en Syrie. Comme le poids du CFR dans la définition de la politique étrangère américaine est notoirement important, on peut y voir clairement l’expression des arrière-pensées d’un partie au moins de l’establishment politique US.

►http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar

Al-Qaïda pour remplir le vide de Kofi [Annan] en Syrie

Pour tous ces experts de notre communauté stratégique qui écoutent religieusement les paroles du Council of Foreign Relations à New York comme s’il s’agissait de la Bhagavad Gita, ce doit être un choc terrible – un argumentaire d’un senior fellow du CFR justifie la logique de l’utilisation de combattants salafistes comme un instrument de la politique des États-Unis pour provoquer un « regime change » en Syrie. L’argument fonctionne comme ceci :
Malgré tous les sujets du roi et tous les chevaux du roi [référence à une comptine anglaise], les rebelles syriens ne sont pas en mesure de l’abattre. Ils sont démoralisés (comme n’importe quelle armée hétéroclite de mercenaires le serait). Donc les combattants d’Al-Qaïda sont nécessaires. "L’afflux des jihadistes apporte la discipline, la ferveur religieuse, l’expérience du combat de l’Irak, le financement de sympathisants sunnites dans le Golfe, et surtout, des résultats en termes de morts."
"En bref, l’ASL [les rebelles syriens] ont besoin d’Al-Qaïda aujourd’hui". Bien sûr, les combattants d’Al-Qaïda auraient leur propre ordre du jour dans le renversement du régime syrien - la mise en place d’un "quartier général dans la région où les moudjahidines pourraient profiter d’un refuge sécurisé"
Mais, ne vous inquiétez pas. Parce que, "Le calcul politique tacite entre les décideurs politiques [US] est de se débarrasser d’Assad en premier - affaiblir la position de l’Iran dans la région -. Puis de faire face à Al-Qaïda ensuite."
C’est compris ? C’est aussi simple que cela. N’était-ce pas l’agenda que Zbigniew Brzezinski avait également épousé - avec la cohorte d’un autre roi d’Arabie saoudite et d’un dictateur militaire pakistanais - pour l’Afghanistan vers 1980 et qui avait été réalisé avec succès ? Les Etats-Unis, l’Arabie saoudite et le Pakistan ayant ainsi obtenu un « regime change » réussi à Kaboul, enfin. Ça n’est qu’un détail mineur qu’Oussama ben Laden et Jalaluddin Haqqani en ait pourvoyé le cadre en acier à cette époque.
Ce que soutient cet expert du CFR est en fait la politique [réelle] des États-Unis sur la Syrie. Il suffit de lire et méditer la dépêche d’aujourd’hui dans le Washington Post [1] . L’estimation des Etats-Unis est que l’agenda du « regime change » en Syrie est enlisé dans la boue. Le régime syrien est intact [2] .
Par conséquent, une poussée militaire est nécessaire. Le nom de ce jeu est parvenir à un « atterrissage en douceur » à Damas sans effusion de sang américain - comme Wapo dit. Maintenant que les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés se sont débarrassés de la nuisance de Kofi Annan, le chemin à parcourir est clair. Lire le commentaire du CFR ici :
►http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782#

[1] : ►http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-official-says-defection-of-syrian-prime-minister-more-evidence-assad-regime-is-crumbling/2012/08/06/365cafc8-dfcd-11e1-8d48-2b1243f34c85_print.html

[2] : ►http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/555948

15 morts palestiniens, 0 mort israélien, la Clinton condamne cette intolérable disproportion :
►http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4200978,00.html

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned the barrage of rockets fired towards Israel from the Gaza Strip.
 
Clinton said in a meeting with Opposition leader Tzipi Livni in New York that Israel has the right to defend itself. Livni in turn urged the international community to speak out against terrorism directed at Israel’s southern communities.

Les États-Unis exportent la démocratie (suite) : c’est bon, les 21 tonnes de gaz lacrymogène que nous avons exporté vers l’Égypte, c’est le même que nous utilisons pour gazer notre propre population.
►http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/11/177861.htm#EGYPT

MR. TONER: Well, it’s – again, as I said, these are – this tear gas is approved for export to many countries around the world. It’s used by police forces in many countries around the world including our own.

#Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World | Hillary Clinton
►http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm

(...) rights and freedoms of others around the world depends on maintaining a balance between what’s public and what should and must remain out of the public domain. The scale should and will always be tipped in favor of openness, but tipping the scale over completely serves no one’s interests. Let me be clear. I said that the #WikiLeaks incident began with a theft, just as if it had been executed by smuggling papers in a briefcase. The fact that WikiLeaks used the internet is not the reason we criticized its actions. WikiLeaks does not challenge our commitment to internet freedom.

And one final word on this matter: There were reports in the days following these leaks that the United States Government intervened to coerce private companies to deny service to WikiLeaks. That is not the case. Now, some politicians and pundits publicly called for companies to disassociate from WikiLeaks, while others criticized them for doing so. Public officials are part of our country’s public debates, but there is a line between expressing views and coercing conduct. Business decisions that private companies may have taken to enforce their own values or policies regarding WikiLeaks were not at the direction of the Obama Administration.

#atla

Remarks on Internet Freedom
►http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm

Hillary Clinton #humour #wikileaks

And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

Après les prisonniers de guerre qui ne sont pas des prisonniers de guerre (Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions...), les Américains définissent l’organisation médiatique qui n’est pas une organisation médiatique: #Wikileaks. Et #Assange n’est pas un «#whistleblower», mais un «acteur politique» (sans doute un «anarchiste»).
►http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/12/152291.htm

“QUESTION: Do you know if the State Department regards WikiLeaks as a media organization?

MR. CROWLEY: No. We do not.

QUESTION: And why not?

MR. CROWLEY: WikiLeaks is not a media organization. That is our view.

QUESTION: So P.J., going back to the answer to your last question, have you contacted governments that have been censoring this to protest that – or sites that they have —

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not in a position to say what governments have done or what conversations have occurred between governments and media. There’s – certainly, there are countries around the world that do not have as robust a focus on these issues as ours does. That’s probably not a surprise to us, and when we do meet with these governments, we talk about media issues among key human rights issues. Our dialogue is not going to change over this.

QUESTION: P.J., on that subject of WikiLeaks, Amazon, as we know, did have them on their server for a time and then stopped doing that. And there’s a human rights group that says that Amazon was directed by the U.S. Government to stop that relationship. Do you know anything –

MR. CROWLEY: All I can say is I’m not aware of any contacts between the Department of State and Amazon.

QUESTION: Or the U.S. Government or just State?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not in a position on this particular issue to talk about the entire government. I’m just not aware of any contacts directly.

QUESTION: From your perspective, what is WikiLeaks? How do you define them, if it is not a media organization, then?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, as the Secretary said earlier this week, it is – one might infer it has many characteristics of some internet sites. Not every internet site you would call a media organization or a news organization. We’re focused on WikiLeaks’s behavior, and I have had personally conversations with media outlets that are reporting on this, and we have had the opportunity to express our specific concerns about intelligence sources and methods and other interests that could put real lives at risk.

Mr. Assange, in a letter to our Ambassador in the United Kingdom over the weekend, after documents had been released to news organizations, made what we thought was a halfhearted gesture to have some sort of conversation, but that was after he released the documents and after he knew that they were going to emerge publicly. So I think there’s been a very different approach. And Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist.

QUESTION: What is his political objective?

QUESTION: The same letter —

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: What is his political objective?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, his – I mean he could be considered a political actor. I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist.

QUESTION: So his objective is to sow chaos, you mean?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, you all come here prepared to objectively report the activities of the United States Government. I think that Mr. Assange doesn’t meet that particular standard.

QUESTION: But just so I understand, P.J., what – I mean you just said the – that you thought he was —

MR. CROWLEY: Well, but I mean – let me – he’s not a journalist. He’s not a whistleblower. And there – he is a political actor. He has a political agenda. He is trying to undermine the international system of — that enables us to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and to work in multilateral settings and on a bilateral basis to help solve regional and international issues.

What he’s doing is damaging to our efforts and the efforts of other governments. They are putting at risk our national interest and the interests of other governments around the world. He is not an objective observer of anything. He is an active player. He has an agenda. He’s trying to pursue that agenda, and I don’t think he can – he can’t qualify as either a journalist on the one hand or a whistleblower on the other.

QUESTION: Sorry. What is that agenda, that political agenda? Can you be more —

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it for Mr. Assange to define his agenda. He has been interviewed by some of your news organizations. He has the ability to talk for himself. But you asked — I was asked a specific question, “Do we consider him a journalist?” The answer is no.”

Pour le Département d’État, pour être journaliste ou whistleblower, il ne faut donc pas avoir d’«agenda politique».

#cablegate

Avant hier, conférence de presse au Département d’État. Un certain Philip J. Crowley répond aux questions des journalistes.
►http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/11/152148.htm

M. Crowley se fend d’une déclaration officielle condamnant une déclaration par un officiel palestinien, qui n’a pas l’heur de plaire aux Israéliens et aux Américains. Et là, tout déraille.

Un journaliste teigneux lui demande d’expliquer pourquoi un officiel américain, à Washington, prend le temps de condamner publiquement une déclaration d’un officiel palestinien, alors qu’il n’a pas condamné publiquement, la semaine précédente, la reprise des constructions juives à Jerusalem Est, les É-U se contentant d’évoquer la question en privé avec les israéliens.

“QUESTION: Before moving on, P.J., on that, if you recognize that the Jerusalem – status of Jerusalem is so important to all sides, why were you so noncommittal when I asked the other day about the Israeli approval of new Jewish construction – new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem?”

“QUESTION: Well, you’re right. There’s absolutely no equivalence between some guy mouthing off and giving his opinion, whether you agree with it or not, and actual bricks and mortar going up in an area that’s disputed. I mean, the equivalent – you come out and denounce this statement, which is mere – simply words, and it took a question from a reporter to get you to say anything about the actual, physical, on-the-ground construction there. So I don’t understand the equivalence that you’re – your idea of equivalence here. One seems to be much more serious than another.”

“QUESTION: In the city of Hebron, which is home to 220,000 Palestinians and 600 settlers, there is an area called the Martyrs Street that is completely closed to Palestinians where they have to traverse on rooftops. Are you aware of a situation like this? Is this something that you would raise with the Israeli Government to sort of relieve the hardship of the Palestinians in Hebron?”

#Palestine #Israël #Jerusalem #États-Unis