Européennes 2009


Images Aléatoires

Mardi 16 juin 2009
Le président Obama réagissait lundi soir aux évènements en Iran. Un discours empreint de modération, entre respect de la souveraineté iranienne et soutien à la liberté du peuple iranien dans un contexte de fraude électorale au bénéfice du président sortant Ahmadinejad.


Publié dans : Géopolitique - RI - Voir les 1 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire
Samedi 6 juin 2009

Affirmer cela au moment où les élections européennes vont battre un record d'abstention à travers l'Union paraît décalé. On peut voir comme un gâchis le fait que parmi 494 millions de personnes vivant dans un espace de droit et de liberté (seuls les Indiens font mieux même si leur société n'a pas pleinement atteint des conditions de liberté similaires, avec ses inégalités encore plus frappantes, ses Intouchables et ses mariages forcés), seulement la moitié des électeurs aillent voter pour l'élection majeure de l'Union : celles de leurs députés européens. Un vote aussi important que les présidentielles en France ou les législatives en Espagne et qui conditionne la composition du Parlement européen, qui adopte les directives européennes, qui détermine 80% des législations nationales...qui s'imposent finalement aux citoyens dans presque tous les aspects de leur vie quotidienne: commerce, agriculture, énergie, droit de la consommation, développement durable, normes de sécurité, transports, nouvelles technologies...etc.


Une construction européenne agitée


Face à cet enjeu, les portugais se demandent si des voix ont été achetés par leurs responsables politiques, l'Italie nous fait une campagne bouffonne sur les affres sexuels du « Cavaliere », l'Allemagne peine à sortir des contradictions de la grande coalition, les britanniques votent surtout sur le scandale des notes de frais de ses parlementaires, les français se demandent s'il faut en faire un vote sanction contre Sarkozy...Partout les enjeux nationaux supplantent un réel débat au niveau européen projet continental contre projet continental. Et pour cause, il n'y a pas de scrutin organisé de manière uniforme dans l'Europe des 27. Il n'y a que des scrutins nationaux avec les mêmes personnalités politiques connues pour tel parcours et visant telle ascension. Et les Pays-Bas qui récidivent en transmettant leurs résultats alors que les autres n'ont pas encore voté, comme en 2004.


Les torts sont partagés entre les acteurs de la vie démocratique de l'Union européenne : les responsables politiques ont une attitude pour le moins perfectible et seraient plus avisés d'améliorer l'offre politique en proposant des projets ambitieux et efficaces plutôt que de rejeter leur incompétence sur les fautes des « technocrates bruxellois ». Les médias sont coupables par complicité lorsqu'ils privilégient la vente de papier et le scoop qui plaît aux masses. La transmission d'une véritable information impartiale et pédagogue sur les enjeux à la bonne échelle, donc européenne, est le mieux pour solidifier le lien entre l'Europe et ses citoyens. Mais l'impératif de l'audience fait que l'on se contente d' émissions tardives où les contraintes de la communication et les questions centrées sur les personnes empêchent tout débat de fond et de qualité. Les torts reposent aussi sur les citoyens européens qui font insulte à un droit que plus du milliard de l'humanité leur envie : celui de choisir. Bref, l'Union européenne est une mer agitée. Cependant, loin de la surface, discrètement, elle poursuit sa construction initié par les pères fondateurs. Et cette poursuite se fait autant par nécessité que par espérance.


Une construction européenne régulière


Elle se construit chaque jour avec les arrêts de la CJCE, par le dispositif d'échange universitaire Erasmus, par la circulation des citoyens européens, par la pratique transnationale de la politique au Parlement européen, par les traités successifs depuis Rome qui ne cessent de transférer de nouvelles compétences à l'Union. Et souvent à la majorité qualifiée, donc de manière supranationale puisque chaque État se plie à la majorité des autres quand ils représentent une certaine part de population européenne(les deux tiers).

Même d'autres compétences qui n'avaient pas été prévues comme devant entrer dans le champ de compétence de l'Union le sont entrées comme la libre circulation (au début on ne parle que de circulation des travailleurs), ou la compétence sociale (avec l'article 137 du traité de Rome modifié par le traité d'Amsterdam). Bientôt, l'Union européenne aura la personnalité juridique et une charte des droits fondamentaux applicables dans tous les États sauf en Pologne et au Royaume-Uni. Qui aurait cru en 1952 que la petite assemblée commune de la CECA deviendrait le Parlement européen actuel élu au suffrage universel par des millions de citoyens et ayant un pouvoir législatif qui n'a de cesse de s'étendre, avec 69 domaines de compétence sur 90?


Une « fédéralisation » discrète


Loin d'être condamnée à ne devenir qu'une vaste zone de libre-échange du fait du rejet du Traité constitutionnel par deux Etats, la construction européenne est une aventure qui a déjà dépassé ce à quoi s'attendait ceux qui s'y sont engagés, tant les besoins de notre temps et les mutations du monde appellent les nations à s'unir. Les États ont conscience que la mondialisation a donné une nouvelle ampleur à des enjeux auparavant simples mais désormais insurmontables à la seule échelle nationale : la protection sociale et la solidarité fiscale quand les entreprises s'internationalisent, la formation des personnes quand la main d'œuvre très qualifiée est mobile, la santé publique quand les personnes circulent davantage et l'industrie se développe, la pollution quand un pétrolier coule au large de plusieurs Etats...etc. Ce n'est pas un hasard si après la crise financière, l'Islande qui a tend joué sur le dumping fiscal et social avec le Royaume-Uni envisage d'intégrer une Union européenne qu'elle avait toujours refusé.

Par leurs grèves européennes à Strasbourg et leur mobilisation autour de la législation communautaire et de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, les syndicats aussi ont compris que l'action collective était européenne. Les partis politiques ont également conscience de l'enjeu même s'il reste beaucoup pour passer de simples coordinations de partis nationaux à de vrais partis européens. Le Parti socialiste européen (le PSE), principale formation politique avec son adversaire le PPE (Parti populaire européen, les droites d'Europe) a pour cela franchi un pas très important en présentant comme programme un manifeste issu d'une position commune aux 27 partis socialistes et sociaux-démocrates de l'Union européenne pour le scrutin du 7 juin prochain. Ce pas est irréversible tant on voit mal le même PSE régresser en proposant 27 projets différents la prochaine fois...

La confusion née du meeting commun entre Angela Merkel et Nicolas Sarkozy est à cet égard symbolique d'une certaine transition vers l'Europe fédérale, comme aux Etats-Unis, où le gouverneur d'un État assiste sans mal à un meeting républicain ou démocrate avec d'autres gouverneurs. A condition de bien distinguer les fonds utilisés (sont-ils ceux du Président et de la Chancelière dans un cadre diplomatique ou ceux de l'UMP et de la CDU dans un cadre électoral ?), ses rencontres se multiplieront inéluctablement, suivant l'exemple là encore montré par les socialistes et sociaux-démocrates européens avec les premiers meetings voyant Zapatero en France ou Rassmussen en Espagne. La rencontre et le soutien mutuel croissant des dirigeants européens issus des mêmes formations politiques permet d'impulser des dynamiques électorales qui font défaut à l'heure de l'abstention.


Les espérances d'une Europe unie


Autant que par la nécessité, l'Union Européenne en tant que modèle original de fédération est à même de susciter de nombreuses espérances. Première puissance commerciale avec plus de la moitié des échanges mondiaux, première puissance économique avec un PIB représentant un tiers des richesses de la planète, puissance militaire colossale si l'on agrège les données des Etats-membres qui la composent (11 000 chars, 3000 avions de combat, 4 millions de soldat, 8 sous-marins nucléaires l'anceurs d'engins et une dizaine de porte-avions), puissance culturelle et sportive avec ses opéras, ses festivals, ses artistes, ses compétitions et ses nombreuses récompenses, puissance spatiale avec ses satellites d'observation de notre orbite jusqu'en dehors de notre système solaire en passant par Mars, sans compter le meilleur lanceur au monde qu'est la fusée Ariane V, puissance politique avec ses gouvernements stables, influents et ses deux membres permanents au Conseil de sécurité des Nations-Unies,  troisième puissance démographique du monde, l'Europe a des arguments à faire valoir. Il lui faut maintenant mettre en valeur ses atouts pour mener à bien les objectifs qui devraient être les siens .


Une Europe ambitieuse


En matière de recherche et d'innovation, ne pas aggraver son retard sur les Etats-Unis et les Japon et ne pas en prendre vis à vis des autres pour rester en lice au moment où la Chine, l'Inde et le Brésil y mettent les moyens. Ceci pour accélérer un progrès qui n'est jamais acquis mais à acquérir et pour développer des réponses efficaces aux pathologies les plus mortelles de notre époque, au premier rang desquels le cancer, le SIDA, le paludisme et désormais la grippe A. Développer des sources d'énergie alternative et des modes de vie urbaine plus sains, en insistant sur le solaire, le recyclage des déchets, un habitat mieux inséré dans l'environnement naturel et le respect des normes par les acteurs privés. Défendre et améliorer son système d'économie sociale de marché, en luttant contre les abus et en allant vers plus de progressivité de l'impôt et de justice pour protéger les citoyens et combattre efficacement les fléaux du chômage, de la précarité et de la pauvreté. User de son pouvoir d'attraction (son « soft power ») pour promouvoir avec respect mais fermeté les valeurs fondamentales et les droits attachés à l'Humanité dans lesquels chacun se retrouvent quelque soit sa culture ou sa tradition. Aider à la restauration d'un monde multipolaire où la paix et la coordination l'emporte sur des conflits auxquels tout le monde y perd, les vainqueurs étant généralement visés par les successeurs des défaits.

Mettre sur pied un grand programme spatial pour atténuer les conflits énergétiques en allant chercher les ressources où elle se trouvent en quantité mille fois plus importante : sur la Lune, dans la ceinture d'astéroïdes, bref en dehors de notre fragile bulle. Loin d'un projet fantaisiste, c'est un objectif à la fois réalisable et difficile qui nous pousseraient dans nos retranchements pour nous élever. Il est peu coûteux : la dernière sonde Phoenix, qui a confirmé la présence d'eau sur Mars coûte 400 millions de dollars, une miette comparés aux 2000 milliards de dollars de la guerre en Irak, une guerre qui a remplacé un dictateur par une guerre civile inter-religieuse et déstabilisé l'ensemble de la région. C'est également par un tel projet que l'on entraînera d'autres progrès, l'exemple le plus parlant étant celui de la santé : les missions programmées vers Mars obligent la communauté scientifique à vaincre définitivement le cancer dés le premier stade avant d'exposer des hommes aux radiations solaires dans l'espace pendant plusieurs mois.

 

Akli LE COQ

 

 

Publié dans : Géopolitique - RI - Voir les 0 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire
Jeudi 4 juin 2009

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               June 4, 2009
 

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt


1:10 P.M. (Local)


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much.  Good afternoon.  I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions.  For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement.  And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.  I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt.  And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country:  Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate.  The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.  More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.  Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.


Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims.  The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights.  All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity.  And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.  Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.


I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight.  I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.  But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.  There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.  As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth."  (Applause.)  That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.


Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims.  As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.  As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam.  It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment.  It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.  Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation.  And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.  (Applause.)


I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story.  The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.  In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."  And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.  They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.  And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library.  (Applause.)


So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.  That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.  And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)


But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America.  (Applause.)  Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.  The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known.  We were born out of revolution against an empire.  We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world.  We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept:  E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one." 


Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President.  (Applause.)  But my personal story is not so unique.  The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.  (Applause.)


Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion.  That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders.  That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.  (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt:  Islam is a part of America.  And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God.  These things we share.  This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task.  Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people.  These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.


For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere.  When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk.  When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.  When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean.  When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.  (Applause.)  That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century.  That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.


And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace.  For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.  Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating.  Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.  So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.  Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.  (Applause.)


Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite:  We must face these tensions squarely.  And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. 

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.


In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam.  (Applause.)  We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject:  the killing of innocent men, women, and children.  And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together.  Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support.  We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11.  But let us be clear:  Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.  The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody.  And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale.  They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.  These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.


Now, make no mistake:  We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan.  We see no military -- we seek no military bases there.  It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women.  It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.  We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.  But that is not yet the case.


And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries.  And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken.  Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists.  They have killed in many countries.  They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims.  Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.  The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind.  (Applause.)  And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.  (Applause.)  The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.


Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.  That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.


Let me also address the issue of Iraq.  Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.  Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.  (Applause.)  Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said:  "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."


Today, America has a dual responsibility:  to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.  And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources.  Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August.  That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.  (Applause.)  We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy.  But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.


And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles.  Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country.  The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.  We are taking concrete actions to change course.  I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.  (Applause.)


So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.  And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened.  The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.


America's strong bonds with Israel are well known.  This bond is unbreakable.  It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.


Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.  Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.  Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today.  Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful.  Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.


On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.  For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation.  Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.  They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation.  So let there be no doubt:  The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.  And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.  (Applause.)


For decades then, there has been a stalemate:  two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive.  It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond.  But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth:  The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.  (Applause.)


That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest.  And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires.  (Applause.)  The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear.  For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.


Palestinians must abandon violence.  Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed.  For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation.  But it was not violence that won full and equal rights.  It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding.  This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.  It's a story with a simple truth:  that violence is a dead end.  It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.  That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.


Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build.  The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities.  To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.


At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's.  The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  (Applause.)  This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop.  (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society.  Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.


And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.  The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems.  Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.  (Applause.)  We cannot impose peace.  But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away.  Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state.  It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed.  Too much blood has been shed.  All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.  (Applause.)


The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us.  In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.  Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.  This history is well known.  Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.  The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.


I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve.  There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect.  But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point.  This is not simply about America's interests.  It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not.  No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.  And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.  (Applause.)  And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.  (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq.  So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
 
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.  Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.  America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.  But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.  And that is why we will support them everywhere.  (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise.  But this much is clear:  Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure.  Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.  America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.  And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.  (Applause.)  So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power:  You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.  Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.  We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.  I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.  That is the spirit we need today.  People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.  This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.


Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.  The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.  (Applause.)  And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.


Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.  We must always examine the ways in which we protect it.  For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.  That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. 

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.  We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
 
In fact, faith should bring us together.  And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.  That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.  Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster. 

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.  (Applause.)  I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue.  I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.  (Applause.)  And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.


Now, let me be clear:  Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.  In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.  Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.  (Applause.)  Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential.  I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.  And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.  (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.


I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory.  The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.  Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities.  In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear.  Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith. 

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied.  There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures.  The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.  In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.


And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.  Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development.  But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas.  I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country.  And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.


On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America.  (Applause.)  At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.  And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.


On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries.  And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs.  We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.  Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio.  And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership.  Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.


The issues that I have described will not be easy to address.  But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected.  Those are mutual interests.  That is the world we seek.  But we can only achieve it together.


I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning.  Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress.  Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur.  There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years.  But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward.  And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.


It's easier to start wars than to end them.  It's easier to blame others than to look inward.  It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share.  But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path.  There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  (Applause.)  This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew.  It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world.  It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.


We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us:  "O mankind!  We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us:  "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us:  "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."  (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace.  We know that is God's vision.  Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you.  And may God's peace be upon you.  Thank you very much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END        
2:05 P.M. (Local)

Publié dans : Géopolitique - RI - Voir les 0 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire
Samedi 30 mai 2009

Des chiffres étouffés. Des rapports sans suite. Un bilan des victimes très vraisemblablement sous-estimé. Des principes reniés.

Bien qu'elle ait disposé d'éléments accablants sur la conduite de l'armée sri-lankaise, la hiérarchie de l'ONU a, selon une enquête du Monde, gardé le silence, de peur de compromettre ses activités dans ce pays.Tandis que se préparait ce qu'elle a fini par décrire comme un "bain de sang", l'ONU a fait le choix de la conciliation avec Colombo, au risque de faillir à son devoir envers des centaines de milliers de civils en danger.

Le refus de l'ONU de publier le bilan des victimes est emblématique. Tout au long de l'offensive de l'armée contre l'une des plus vieilles et des plus violentes guérillas dans le monde, les séparatistes des Tigres de l'Eelam tamoul (LTTE), une cellule onusienne a collecté et recoupé des données auprès d'employés locaux de l'ONU, d'ONG, de médecins ou de prêtres.

Son total, entre le 20 janvier et le 13 mai (une semaine avant l'assaut final), est de 7 720 morts (dont 678 enfants) et 18 465 blessés (dont 2 384 enfants). Il y a eu "une tentative de suppression systématique de ce matériel", affirme un officiel onusien.

Quand les chiffres ont été communiqués à la presse par des voies détournées, le coordonnateur local de l'ONU, Neil Buhne, a exigé d'être, désormais, le seul destinataire de ces bilans. En public, les responsables onusiens ont pris leurs distances avec ces chiffres.

Contre l'avis du secrétaire général, Ban Ki-moon, et de Vijay Nambiar, son chef de cabinet, le haut-commissaire de l'ONU aux droits de l'homme, Navi Pillay, a jugé qu'il était de la responsabilité de l'ONU de publier ces données "crédibles", selon elle (le décompte était alors de 2 800 morts). De peur de provoquer l'ire de Colombo, le chef des affaires humanitaires de l'ONU, John Holmes, a dû prévenir l'ambassadeur du Sri Lanka à l'ONU.

Bien qu'il ne tienne pas compte des lourdes pertes des derniers jours, le chiffre de 7 700 morts continue à faire référence dans la presse. Mais Vijay Nambiar a été informé que le bilan final "dépasserait sans doute les 20 000 morts". Ce chiffre, non vérifié, est une extrapolation des rares informations disponibles. Imparfait, il reste méthodologiquement plus solide que le bilan de 300 000 morts au Darfour cité par M. Holmes, en 2008.

Dès le début, l'ONU aurait dû s'attendre au pire. Le 23 janvier, 17 de ses employés, dont deux "internationaux", sont au centre de distribution de nourriture de Udaiyaarkaddu (Nord), dans la zone dite de "sûreté", lorsque l'armée sri-lankaise pilonne l'endroit. Des dizaines de personnes sont tuées. Dans l'hôpital le plus proche, les fonctionnaires onusiens prennent des photos des femmes blessées, d'enfants défigurés, brûlés, amputés.

Dans les semaines suivantes, les responsables onusiens restent informés de l'évolution des combats à travers les SMS désespérés d'employés locaux de l'ONU et d'ONG, coincés dans la zone des combats. Les hôpitaux sont frappés par des bombes sri-lankaises. Les SMS égrènent les morts, par centaines. Les blessés, par milliers. Un message du 9 mars : "S'il vous plaît, demandez à l'ASL (armée sri-lankaise) d'arrêter." Le 14 mars : "Où est la zone de sûreté ?"

Au milieu du chaos, les LTTE recrutent de force. Le 12 mars : "Les deux camps nous torturent." "Nous mourrons ! Deux obus ont atterri à 10 m." Le 19 mars : "Les jeunes sont emmenés au combat, très triste. Quelle est la réaction de la communauté internationale ?" Le 21 mars : "Des centaines de gens qui essayaient de s'échapper ont été arrêtés par des dictateurs locaux. Ils ont été battus avec des bâtons, sans distinction d'âge ni de sexe. Je les entends pleurer très fort." "Pourquoi la communauté internationale reste-t-elle silencieuse ?"

A situation nouvelle, nouveaux outils. Incapable d'être sur le terrain, l'ONU fait appel à une de ses agences (Unosat) pour suivre les déplacements de population sur des photos satellite. Les clichés révèlent des cratères, certains de 12 m de diamètres, produits par des bombardements aériens du gouvernement. "Malgré les assurances données au plus haut niveau de l'ONU, le gouvernement n'a jamais arrêté de bombarder, pas une seule fois", explique un responsable. L'ONU détient la preuve de violations du droit international, mais n'en fait pas grand cas.

Mi-avril, lorsqu'il arrive pour sa première mission au Sri Lanka, Vijay Nambiar délivre aux responsables onusiens un message étonnant : l'ONU devrait garder "un profil bas" et jouer "un rôle d'appui", "compatible avec le gouvernement", explique-t-il. A cette époque, les morts et les blessés se comptent par milliers. A son retour, l'ONU annonce que Colombo accepte la venue d'une mission humanitaire dans la zone des combats. Elle ne verra jamais le jour.

L'attitude de la hiérarchie onusienne, de New York à Colombo, suscite un profond malaise chez plusieurs cadres. "On savait qu'on se préparait à un carnage", explique l'un d'eux. "On a tiré la sonnette d'alarme pendant des mois, mais ils n'ont jamais frappé en public sur le gouvernement." "Tout le monde a peur que son agence soit jetée dehors", explique une fonctionnaire. De fait, les autorités sri-lankaises n'hésitent pas à menacer d'expulsion ou à intimider quiconque sort du rang.

Le 11 mai, après la mort de plus de 100 enfants, le porte-parole de l'ONU à Colombo, Gordon Weiss, évoque enfin un "bain de sang". Le gouvernement le somme de s'expliquer. Sa hiérarchie le lâche. Sur la BBC, Amin Awad, le chef local du Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR), explique qu'il est difficile de démêler les accusations des contre-accusations.

Le 17 mai, sur Al-Jazira, M. Awad encore, abondant dans le sens des déclarations victorieuses du gouvernement, affirme qu'il ne reste presque aucun déplacé dans la zone de combat ; 20 000 réfugiés en sortiront le lendemain. "C'était donner un chèque en blanc au gouvernement pour lâcher un tapis de bombes sur la zone", déplore un responsable onusien.

La fin des combats n'a pas marqué la fin des dilemmes. Dans les camps où sont détenus 300 000 déplacés tamouls, les ONG éprouvent une gêne croissante. "Les compromissions, ça suffit", résume une responsable d'ONG qui accuse l'ONU ne pas se battre pour faire appliquer les principes élémentaires de l'aide humanitaire : l'accès aux victimes, la liberté de mouvement des réfugiés, la démilitarisation des camps...

Dans une lettre envoyée le 11 mai à Neil Buhne, 7 ONG s'inquiètent de l'aide apportée par l'ONU au gouvernement pour étendre le camp de Menik Farm (Nord), qui comprend "une installation d'internement semi-permanente" dont les extensions pourraient "représenter le stade initial d'un site plus permanent". "Nos opérations ne devraient pas seulement satisfaire des besoins matériels mais aussi promouvoir et respecter la dignité des déplacés", assure le document.

Philippe Bolopion
Article paru dans l'édition du Monde du 29.05.09.
Publié dans : Géopolitique - RI - Voir les 0 commentaires - Ecrire un commentaire

Recherche

IRIS


Créé en 1985, l'Année stratégique est un ouvrage annuel de l'Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS) qui s'est imposé comme une publication de référence sur les questions internationales de l’année écoulée.

L'Année stratégique permet à un large public d'accéder à une vision globale et détaillée de la scène mondiale et des rapports stratégiques qui s’y organisent : grandes tendances de la vie politique internationale, enjeux économiques, diplomatiques et stratégiques des grandes aires géographiques, enjeux militaires.

Les articles sont accompagnés d'abondants documents statistiques, cartographiques, et chronologiques. Le tout est complété par des références de sites internet et des renvois bibliographiques.

IFRI

Politique étrangère, la plus ancienne revue française dans ce domaine, est une revue de débats et d'analyses sur les grandes questions internationales. Son ambition est de mettre en lumière l'ensemble des éléments du débat, de proposer des analyses approfondies de l'actualité, et d'être un instrument de référence pour les milieux académiques, les décideurs et la société civile. Elle est ouverte aux contributions des chercheurs et des spécialistes du monde entier.

Syndication

  • Flux RSS des articles

Calendrier

Juillet 2009
L M M J V S D
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
<< < > >>
 
Créer un blog sur over-blog.com - Contact - C.G.U. - Signaler un abus