Diplomacy & Crisis News

Après un nouveau tir de missile balistique nord-coréen, les États-Unis, la Corée du Sud et le Japon ont demandé une réunion d’urgence du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

Dans ce contexte, nous vous proposons de lire en avant-première l’article d’Antoine Bondaz, « Corée du Nord/États-Unis : jusqu’où ira la confrontation ? », à paraître dans le numéro d’hiver 2017-2018 de Politique étrangère (en librairie le 6 décembre).

Le 30 juin 2017, le président Trump tweetait : « L’ère de la patience stratégique avec le régime de la Corée du Nord a échoué. Cette patience est terminée. » Il critiquait ainsi la stratégie de son prédécesseur. Les stratégies visant un « démantèlement complet, vérifiable et irréversible » du programme nucléaire nord-coréen, qu’elles soient basées sur les incitations ou les sanctions, qu’elles soient unilatérales ou multilatérales – comme les pourparlers à six qui ont été menés de 2003 à 2009 – ont toutes échoué. La nucléarisation de la République populaire et démocratique de Corée (RPDC) représente un sérieux échec pour la communauté internationale, et notamment pour les États-Unis, dont l’ancien président Clinton affirmait, dès 1993, que Pyongyang «ne [pouvait] pas être autorisé à développer une arme atomique ».

Depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir de Donald Trump, le régime nord-coréen a testé pour la première fois des missiles balistiques à portée intermédiaire (Hwasong-12) et intercontinentale (Hwasong-14) pouvant théoriquement frapper l’île de Guam et le continent américain. Il a fait exploser une bombe nucléaire d’au moins 100 kilotonnes en septembre 2017, et a menacé de réaliser un essai nucléaire dans le Pacifique depuis un missile balistique, ce qui constituerait le premier essai nucléaire atmosphérique depuis 1980. De nombreuses questions se posent également sur les conséquences de la possession de telles armes nucléaires et des vecteurs associés, notamment en termes de posture vis-à-vis de la Corée du Sud.

Devant ces essais et les déclarations nord-coréennes, le président Trump a multiplié les sorties médiatiques conduisant à une escalade verbale avec le régime nord-coréen. Certaines déclarations ont été maladroites et peu diplomatiques. Elles rappellent néanmoins l’importance de la dissuasion américaine. Lors du discours controversé devant l’Assemblée générale de l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU), Donald Trump a par exemple affirmé : « Si nous sommes obligés de nous défendre ou de défendre nos alliés, nous n’aurons d’autre choix que de détruire totalement la Corée du Nord. » D’autres formules laissent sous-entendre une possible intervention militaire américaine, à l’instar du « feu et de la fureur » auxquels s’exposerait la RPDC si elle continuait à « proférer davantage de menaces envers les États-Unis », ou semblent établir une ligne rouge comme ce tweet du 3 janvier 2017 affirmant que « la Corée du Nord a déclaré qu’elle était dans les dernières étapes du développement d’une arme nucléaire capable d’atteindre une partie des États-Unis. Cela n’arrivera pas ! ».

En dépit de la rhétorique du président américain, la stratégie mise en œuvre par l’administration Trump vise à imposer une pression maximale sur le régime nord-coréen afin de le ramener à la table des négociations, tout en évitant pour l’heure une solution militaire dont le coût politique, humain et économique serait considérable. Le risque principal est cependant celui d’une erreur d’appréciation, d’un côté comme de l’autre, notamment lors d’exercices militaires, ou d’un incident militaire, susceptible de conduire à un conflit qui n’est manifestement dans l’intérêt d’aucune des deux parties.

La radicalisation de la position nord-coréenne sur les armes nucléaires

La RPDC, malgré la nature opaque de son régime, est prévisible. Depuis plus de 20 ans, le pays a défié les efforts de la communauté internationale. Il est resté intransigeant dans son objectif de développement d’armes nucléaires et des vecteurs associés. Il s’est retiré du Traité de non-prolifération nucléaire (TNP) en 2003, a déclaré en février 2005 avoir fabriqué des armes nucléaires, a révélé la construction d’une installation d’enrichissement d’uranium en 2010, a redémarré le réacteur de Yongbyon en 2015 et, surtout, a conduit six essais nucléaires entre 2006 et 2017. Ces essais nucléaires sont les seuls à avoir été menés à bien depuis le début du XXIe siècle.

[…]

Lisez la suite de l’article ici.

Découvrez le sommaire complet du numéro 4/2017 ici.

Abonnez-vous à Politique étrangère ici.

À 5 jours de la sortie en librairie, découvrez la vidéo de présentation du prochain numéro de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2017) !

Au sommaire

DOSSIER : « L’Irak après Daech »

CONTRECHAMPS : « Trump : une rupture de l’ordre mondial ? »

Et de nombreux articles d’actualité : Corée du Nord, Yémen, Iran…

> > Découvrez le sommaire complet du numéro ici < <

Dans l’émission de Christine Ockrent du 25 novembre dernier sur France Culture, l’article écrit par Hans Stark, « Élections allemandes : le jour d’après », et publié dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n° 3/2017) a été mentionné.

« Angela Merkel qui a dominé la scène internationale, ces dernières années,  n’est pas prête à lâcher la barre, malgré les difficultés. Pourquoi ? Est-ce qu’on enterre trop vite la chancelière ?  Quel calendrier politique en Allemagne et pour l’Union Européenne alors que les négociations pour le Brexit sont en jeu ? »

Stéphan Martens, Enseignant à l’université de Cergy Pontoise et chercheur associé au Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (IFRI).  Il a publié avec Philippe Gustin, _France-Allemagne : relancer le moteur de l’Europe,aux éditions Lemieux, en 2016 et vous avez co-dirigé avec Barbara Kunz et Hans Stark, L’Allemagne sur la scène internationale : en quête de stabilité dans un monde qui change_ publié cette année aux éditions Presses universitaires du Septentrion.

Hans Stark, Secrétaire général du Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes de l’Ifri (Institut Français des Relations Internationales) et professeur à l’université de Paris IV. Outre l’Allemagne sur la scène internationale, précédemment cité, il a co-dirigé avec Nele Katharina Wissmann, L’Allemagne change ! : risques et défis d’une mutation,  aux Presses universitaires du Septentrion en 2015. Signalons aussi, dans la revue Politique étrangère, « Élections allemandes : le jour d’après » (n° 3, automne 2017).

Pour réécouter l’émission, cliquez ici.

Pour lire intégralement l’article de Hans Stark, cliquez ici.

Le grand débat sur le « déclin des Etats-Unis », que les dirigeants politiques cherchent à exorciser en lançant la puissante démonstration militaire dans le Golfe, s'accompagne d'un véritable vent de millénarisme, d'une renaissance des cultes de Satan et d'une multiplication des crimes rituels... (...) / États-Unis (affaires intérieures), Mutation, Secte - 1991/02

Given that the last strongholds for ISIS (known as Daesh in the region) in Raqaa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq have fallen, it is likely the group in its current territory-based form will gone by the end of 2017.  Only weeks ago, Daesh was allowed to leave central Syria before the Syrian Army closed the 5-kilometer gap between Al-Raqqa and Homs. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syrian government forces, supported by the Russian Air Force, had liberated over 90 percent of the country’s territory.

Fortunately, there has been a plan for this moment.  The Americans and the Russians—the main power brokers in the conflict– have been in direct talks regarding the future of Syria since 2015; indeed, everything is on the table regarding a transitional phase, the presidency, and even the future governing body. According to leaks and news reports, the two sides have agreed on that the president and transitional governing body shall exercise executive authority on behalf of the people but in line with a constitutional declaration. As for the president, he or she may have one or more vice presidents and delegate some authorities to them. This draft will be proposed during the Geneva Conference at the end of November.

As for the transitional governing body, it reportedly will serve as the supreme authority in the country during the transitional phase. According to drafts we have seen, it is proposed to have 30 members: 10 appointed by the current government, 10 from independent individuals named by the UN Secretary General and 10 by the opposition. The chairman will be elected from among the independent members by simple majority. This representative structure—which includes representatives from Assad’s government—stems from the recent visits to Damascus by officials from the European Union, Russia and the United States.

According to American sources, an important provision of the new constitution would be Presidential term limits. The proposed article states that “The President of the Syrian Republic shall be elected for seven calendar years by Syrian citizens in general after free and integral elections. The president might be re-elected only for one other term.”

The involvement of the Assad government in these deliberations should surprise no one. Former American ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford stressed in a recent article published in Foreign Affairs that “The Syrian civil war has entered a new phase. President Bashar al-Assad’s government has consolidated its grip on the western half of the country, and in the east. By now, hopes of getting rid of Assad or securing a reformed government are far-fetched fantasies, and so support for anti-government factions should be off the table. The Syrian government is determined to take back the entire country and will probably succeed in doing so.”

 

After Daesh, Syria still matters, and not only because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis there. Major political trends in the Middle East tend to happen because big countries want spheres of influence in geostrategic locations.  Russia has an interest in Syria, for example, as a Middle Eastern forward operating base, for access to warm water ports, and more generally, to check U.S. influence. The U.S. (and its allies) see in Syria a country cleared of Daseh that must now be “held” to prevent the regrowth of the terrorist caliphate, as a bulwark to protect neighboring Israel, and to maintain the free flow of oil.

In other words, the big countries that represent such geostrategic players such as Syria aspire to influence and change the geopolitical situation within her borders to improve their own strategic position and enable them to gain cards in the Middle East region.

But Syria is not merely a proxy battlefield for the big powers. With the end of Daesh in sight, Syria has a chance to reclaim her sacred sovereignty, which as the basis of the international order gives it the ability to control what happens inside its own borders. The upcoming constitutional process is an opportunity to restart and reconnect the Syrian people to its institutions, which should in turn serve them and only them. It should not be lost.

 

Shehab al-Makahleh is an author and analyst of terrorism, military, and security affairs in the Middle East and co-founder of Geostrategic Media and is based in the UAE and Jordan.

 

Maria al-Makahleh is a political commentator, researcher, and expert on Middle Eastern affairs based in Russia, and serves as President of the International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub) in Moscow.

The post The End of ISIS is in Sight. What is Next? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization’s (UNIDO) was reappointed for a second term on Monday as the 17th UNIDO General Conference opened in Vienna, Austria.

Mosul’s Al Qasoor Water Treatment Plant is on the eastern bank of the Tigris River which bisects the city that was, until about six months ago, one of the last strongholds of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Level (ISIL).

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on Monday warned that more than 11 million Yemeni children – almost every single Yemeni boy and girl – are in acute need of humanitarian assistance, despite the successful delivery of 1.9 million doses of vaccines to Sana’a airport on Sunday.

Ahead of fresh intra-Syrian talks on Tuesday in Geneva, the United Nations mediator said Monday that the crisis now has the potential to move towards “a genuine political process.”

Solutions to today’s critical development challenges exist in the Global South, and every country – large or small, emerging economy or least developed – has something to offer to the world, a senior United Nations official said today, as the 2017 Global South-South Cooperation Expo opened in Antalya, Turkey.

LE problème de la pauvreté est désormais pris en compte par la totalité de la classe politique. Le débat à l'occasion de l'élection présidentielle montre même une convergence sur certaines mesures. L'idée d'un revenu garanti est avancée par tous les partis, mais tous aussi restent très flous sur les (...) / Inégalités, Mutation, Parti politique, Pauvreté, Politique, Société, Travail - 1988/05

From Syria to Iraq, Trump’s Middle East policy enables Iran to spread its tentacles across the region.

During the elections, Donald Trump was highly critical of former US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy to the Middle East. From Obama refusing to follow his own red line policy on Syria to the Iranian nuclear deal, Trump proclaimed that “Obama is a disaster on foreign policy” who treated enemies with “tender love and care” while picking fights “with our older friends.” However, since he became US President, Donald Trump has demonstrated not only that he is no better than Obama on foreign policy but some analysts claim that on Middle Eastern affairs, he is actually worse than him to the point that certain circles in Washington, DC who could not stand Obama are actually beginning to miss him.

Let us begin with Syria. While ISIS is essentially dead in the country, Trump has enabled both Russia and Iran to fill the void. He has backed away from seeking regime change. While the US did assist the Syrian Democratic Forces in their struggle against ISIS, Trump has left Russia and Iran in charge of securing security arrangements, creating safe zones, and above all, leading the diplomatic process that will determine the future of the country. While Trump has not abandoned the Syrian Kurds yet for he is still supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces against ISIS, he did leave that option on the table in order to prompt Turkey to abandon the Iranian axis and to reach a greater understanding on Syria with Russia.

Many Syrian Kurds feel that this is a great betrayal after they worked so hard in order to help the US rid the country from ISIS. Furthermore, had Trump supported breaking up Syria into separate states that better reflect the ethnic reality in the country, only part of the country rather than the entire area will fall to Tehran! The US should have engaged with the Kurds, the Druze and Sunni Arabs in order to make sure as many areas as possible did not fall to the Iranian axis. While Obama abandoning his red lines enabled the radical Islamists to overtake what was a peaceful revolution, Trump’s Syria policy has empowered the Iranian regime in Syria to the detriment of America’s natural allies.

Not only Syrian Kurds feel betrayed by Trump. The State of Israel is greatly disturbed that US President Trump has allowed Iranian-backed militias to be within 3 miles of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. This is a horrendous reality that even Obama did not impose on the State of Israel. Now, Iran is building a permanent base some 50 kilometers from the Israeli Golan Heights and making moves in order to secure its land route from Iraq to Syria to the Israeli border. This will give Iran a strategic advantage in harming the State of Israel. And this decision was made by a US President who claims there is “no one more pro-Israel than I am.”

In addition, the situation in Iraq has greatly deteriorated largely because Trump has decided to side with Abadi over the Iraqi Kurds. The US knowingly allowed the transfer of US weapons and technology to the Iranian backed militias in order to attack the Kurds while making assurances that the movements of these militias were only to be used against ISIS. If Trump had supported Kurdistan’s Independence Referendum and given the Kurds the very same arms that the US gave on a silver platter to Iraq, then Iran would not be making massive gains in Iraq.

It is critical to note that Abadi is just as bad for the US as Maliki is and to oppose our natural allies the Kurds merely to empower Abadi is a strategic mistake. Like Maliki, Abadi is also an Iranian proxy. Both Iraq and Syria are failed states that Iran seeks to preserve so that they can benefit from the resources, oil, water, etc. and to use as a launching pad against Israel and the GCC. In order to obtain its goals, the Iranian-controlled Iraqi government started the process of purging any reference to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, ethnically cleansing the Kurdish areas and is now holding them hostage for food, fuel, humanitarian supplies, etc. The Iraqi Supreme Court also is seeking to erase any Kurdish gains or rights. Is this the kind of government the US should support?

Nevertheless, Trump has chosen to take hostile positions towards the Kurds that even Obama would never take. While Obama also did not get that a united Iraq is a failed policy for the country was artificially created by colonial powers and Iraq would be more stable if it was broken up into three countries, at the very least, he would not tolerate American weapons being used to attack the Kurds in Kirkuk and other areas. Under his watch, the Kurds enjoyed autonomy and de facto independence. Now, even that is being robbed from them as Trump stands by and does nothing. Given this, Trump is not the Mr. Tough on Iran that he claims to be. To the contrary, he is enabling Iranian aggression across the Middle East.

The post Does Trump’s foreign policy enable Iranian aggression in the Middle East? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the Security Council have strongly condemned Sunday&#39s attack allegedly perpetrated by the anti-Balaka group against a convoy of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic, in which one peacekeeper from Egypt was killed and three others were injured.

Unless the international community tackles violence against women, the world will not eradicate poverty or reach any of the other Sustainable Development Goals, Secretary-General António Guterres said in his message today for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

Reflecting on the legacy of Nelson Mandela, United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed called for investment in women and girls, decrying gender inequality as perhaps the most pervasive disparity around the world.

Four United Nations peacekeepers and a member of the Malian armed forces were killed and 21 others were wounded on Friday in what Secretary-General António Guterres called &#8220outrageous&#8221 attacks against the UN mission in the country.

A United Nations expo next week in Turkey is set to highlight the critical role of South-South cooperation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in light of the vast array of knowledge, skills, expertise and resources that is, and can further be, shared among developing countries.

Participants from Europe, Central Asia and North America gathered this week at a United Nations forum in Geneva to explore ways to combat racial discrimination and to ensure effective promotion and protection of the human rights of people of African descent.

Stating that the beating of refugees and asylum-seekers at the former regional processing centre on Manus Island by uniformed officers is both &#8220shocking and inexcusable,&#8221 the United Nations refugee agency has urged the Australian Government to take immediate action to ensure their safety and protection.