The Sheikh Hasina government recently declared that Bangladesh is an Islamic state and “anyone who pronounces offensive statements against it or against the Prophet Muhammed will be prosecuted according to the law.”
Ahead of next month’s elections, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has announced that she plans to get the Saudis to build 560 model mosques and an Islamic university. In addition, she declared that Bangladesh is an Islamic state: “Anyone who pronounces offensive statements against it or against the Prophet Muhammed will be prosecuted according to the law.” These actions come after she declared that a degree from an Islamic madrassa will be on par with a university degree within the country. Analysts report that these moves were made in order to pander to radical Islamist voters but the BNP also panders to that same voter base. This means that presently, there is no secular liberal alternative running in the upcoming Bangladeshi elections. The question remains, is Bangladesh becoming the next Pakistan?
Bangladeshi dissident Sazzadul Huq thinks that Bangladesh is well on the road to being the next Pakistan: “It is true that there is no Blasphemy Law in Bangladesh. But, the ICT act (Information and Technology Act) which has turned into the Digital Security Act is just a de facto of blasphemy law. Bloggers, journalists, writers, online activists, human rights activists and LGBT activists have been under the microscope of the government and threats from Islamic fundamentalists for online materials that may have been perceived by some to have hurt their religious beliefs. As a result, peoples’ freedom of thought and expression is being violated. The conscious people of Bangladesh are being restricted from speaking the truth.”
On June On 12, 2018, Bangladeshi secular writer Shahzahan Bachchu was shot dead in the Munshiganj district. Bachchu had previously received threats from extremists groups due to his outspoken support for secularism. Renowned photographer Shahidul Alam criticized the government a few months ago on Al Jazeera in the wake of the student protests against the widespread road accidents within the country. He argued that the students were protesting not only against road accidents but also against the widespread government corruption within the country. Because of that, the Bangladeshi government arrested him. According to Huq, “Many teachers, writers and activists have also been arrested.”
Huq also suffered himself immensely due to the present reality in Bangladesh. On May 27, 2017, dissident Sazzadul Hoque posted on his Facebook: “I wish to live like a human and not a Muslim. Things that I was taught and made to believe are wrong.” As a result of this post, he was suspended from Facebook and got expelled from university. He faced numerous online threats, which proclaimed: “This guy renounced Islam. We are asking the authorities to apprehend this guy as soon as possible for if not, there might be religious riots like there were in the past;” “We don’t need a bastard like yourself. You should be persecuted or even killed. You don’t have a right to live on this land;” “Sisterfucker, you are making the biggest mistake of your life and let Allah cause you all kinds of misery;” “You are not a human. You are the son of a prostitute. You are a dog fucker. If you came in front of me, I would slice you. Your meat would have been distributed to the dogs, you fucking pig;” “If only I could get my hands on you, I would decapitate and slaughter you, you son of a pig.”
Islamist groups were threatening him and his friends. Hundreds of people came to visit his maternal uncle and his mother, threatening to kill him. The government did nothing to protect him. However, some Islamist teachers did attempt to get the police to arrest him. Due to this horrific situation, he left Dhaka and returned to his village but he could not stay there once the locals realized that he was there. He received phone calls stating that he would be killed wherever he was found. He moved from his home to that of his maternal aunt. When they found out where he was, they threatened to burn down her home for sheltering him so he left her home as well. As he fled from place to place, imams were preaching in the local mosques that he should be killed as an apostate. Due to these threats, he moved to India but is only allowed to stay there under his present visa for another two months. He faced numerous cyber threats and media outlets which covered his story in Bangladesh also faced numerous threats until they were forced to delete the news.
If Sheikh Hasina’s legislation comes into fruition, a horrific situation for journalists and bloggers like Huq will become even worse, thus leaving one to ponder whether the country will turn into the next Pakistan. Already, Pakistan is an unfree country where it is unsafe for journalists to openly speak and report the truth. According to dissident Repunzel Baloch, hundreds of journalists have been abducted and killed by Pakistani forces in Balochistan, Pashtunistan, Sindh and Pok. He claimed that in Balochistan alone, over 50 journalists have been abducted, tortured and killed by Pakistani military forces.
“Hamid Mir who was an honest journalist working for Pakistani TV was attacked by ISIS for reporting the truth about the Baloch cause and highlighting the crimes of the government,” Baloch added, emphasizing that Manzoor Bugti was abducted, Javed Naseer disappeared, Razzaq Gul also went missing, Haji Abdul Raqiz Baloch was abducted, and that there are many more cases of journalists who fell victim to the Pakistani government.
While Asia Bibi, a Christian mother who insulted her Muslim neighbors in Pakistan by drinking from a well, won’t be executed for blasphemy in the end and she was recently released from prison, her life is still in danger. There is a bounty that was placed on her head by various radical groups. As a result, she and her family is seeking to flee her country, where the blasphemy law is still in place. Ahmedi Muslims, Christians, Hindus and others can still face the ordeal that Asia Bibi faced in the future. If the Sheikh Hasina government is not put in check, this is what Bangladeshis have to look forward to.
The post Op-Ed: Will Bangladesh be the next Pakistan? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Créée en 1936, Politique étrangère est la plus ancienne revue française dans le domaine des relations internationales. Chaque vendredi, découvrez « l’archive de la semaine ».
* * *
L’article « L’avenir du monde occidental » a été écrit par Robert Strausz-Hupé, ancien diplomate américain, dans le numéro 4-5/1963 de Politique étrangère.
Je dois à un maître sage et éclairé d’avoir été familiarisé dès mon jeune âge avec Thucydide et son Histoire de la Guerre du Péloponèse ainsi qu’avec les Vies de Plutarque. J’en ai retiré un enseignement qui a fortement marqué mon esprit : c’est parce que les cités grecques n’ont pas su s’allier contre le danger commun qu’elles ont péri. Philippe de Macédoine n’eut qu’à les cueillir les unes après les autres.
N’ayant à cet âge aucune expérience des hommes et de la politique, je m’interrogeais sur l’incapacité manifeste des Grecs à discerner un danger si évident pour tous et une solution à leur problème qui sautait aux yeux. C’est peut-être la même angoisse avec laquelle je suivais dans les pages de mon livre la désintégration, par une défaite commune, d’une Grèce divisée, qui m’étreint de nouveau aujourd’hui lorsque je contemple le désarroi de l’Alliance atlantique.
Par un artifice aussi vieux que le monde, il est facile, dans un débat politique, de compliquer ce qui est simple et de rendre simple tout ce qui est compliqué. Il ne devrait échapper à aucun membre de l’Alliance atlantique que l’essentiel de la puissance militaire soviétique est toujours stationné en Europe et fait face à l’Occident. Aucun changement politique, économique et social ayant pu se produire en Union soviétique depuis la mort de Staline y compris la proclamation, par M. Khrouchtchev de la politique de coexistence, ne peut changer ces faits, pas plus que ne peuvent le faire les controverses qui ont surgi entre les membres du bloc communiste, en particulier entre l’Union soviétique et la République populaire de Chine.
Au cours de ces dernières années, la plupart des débats de politique étrangère à l’intérieur des pays de l’Alliance atlantique ont été centrés sur ces changements supposés et ces controverses au sein du monde soviétique. Le monde communiste peut difficilement échapper à la loi universelle du mouvement ; une pratique communiste bien établie veut que la bataille doctrinale ait toujours fait rage parmi ceux qui briguaient la direction du parti, depuis Marx, en passant par Lénine, Staline, Trotsky et Boukarine ; et ce serait un phénomène historique sans précédent qu’aucun conflit ne surgisse entre les aspirations nationales des divers membres du bloc communiste.
En vérité, depuis la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale, il y a eu des changements notables dans la structure du pouvoir en URSS, dans les relations entre pays communistes, dans la politique stratégique de Moscou vis-à-vis du reste du monde. La nature de ces changements est l’objet de recherches qui peuvent être passionnantes pour des professeurs de sciences politiques : d’un point de vue pratique, s’il s’agit de politique étrangère, nous devons nous demander si ces changements diminuent pour l’Occident les dangers de l’expansion communiste, et s’ils atténuent la sérieuse menace soviétique qui vise les membres européens de l’Alliance.
En politique étrangère, il faut, dans les rapports avec les États, savoir sonder leurs intentions. C’est une tâche difficile, car il n’est jamais facile et souvent impossible de jauger la profondeur des sentiments qui font agir autrui ni de faire correctement la distinction entre ce qui est dit dans l’intention de faire connaître sa pensée et ce qui est dit de façon à mieux dissimuler ses motifs véritables.
Les communistes ont toujours cherché à tromper les « capitalistes » et les « impérialistes » sur leurs intentions. Le langage dialectique marxiste que les communistes utilisent pour se comprendre entre eux, pose bien des problèmes de sémantique ; c’est pourquoi il nous appartient d’examiner ce que nous pensons être les buts communistes à la lumière de leurs possibilités. Dans le cas de la confrontation de l’Alliance atlantique avec les puissances de ce qu’on appelle le Pacte de Varsovie, il appartient à l’alliance occidentale de mener son jeu d’après les possibilités militaires de l’alliance orientale.
En disant ceci, je n’ai pas ajouté grand chose à ce qu’un enfant ignorant des subtilités de la haute politique aurait pu trouver de lui-même. Cependant, il semble que tous les hommes d’État occidentaux ne soient pas guidés par cet instinct logique et je l’admets, simpliste.
M. Khrouchtchev, lorsqu’il commente les vertus de la coexistence pacifique, est très persuasif. Les démocraties occidentales se laissent mieux convaincre encore par des solutions de facilité et des formules alléchantes qui leur promettent, en matière de sécurité militaire, la paix au plus bas prix.
Je suis assez vieux pour me souvenir de cette aube d’espoir qui s’était levée au moment du pacte Briand-Kellog, il y a trente-cinq ans de cela. Une vague d’optimisme semblable à celle qui, avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, avait balayé les capitales occidentales, avait semblé surgir, ces derniers temps, dans les mêmes capitales, à Londres et à Washington surtout. Si nous insistons sur le fait que les péroraisons de M. Khrouchtchev sont destinées avant tout aux oreilles de ses camarades du parti et non à l’opinion publique occidentale, et que la politique étrangère soviétique continue à se durcir dans la pratique, on nous accuse d’un scepticisme grincheux — à moins qu’on ne nous attribue des arrière-pensées plus ténébreuses encore.
D’après une revue très lue aux États-Unis et réputée bénéficier de la confiance de l’Administration américaine, le plus grand problème actuel n’est pas l’expansionisme communiste, mais la réticence que montrent certains alliés européens des États-Unis à suivre les Américains sur le chemin de la détente. La revue fait carrément allusion au désir de l’Administration de conclure un pacte de non-agression entre les puissances atlantiques et les puissances du Pacte de Varsovie. Il en ressort que ce ne sont pas les Soviétiques, mais l’Allemagne et la France qui font obstacle à un règlement européen qui permettrait une co-existence pacifique, écartant ainsi le cauchemar d’une guerre atomique, particulièrement celle qui pourrait être déclenchée par accident ou par erreur. La revue conclut son étude sur la politique étrangère américaine par cette phrase :
« On est d’avis, aux États-Unis, que si les deux super-puissances peuvent s’entendre, les réserves actuelles de la France et de l’Allemagne seront éventuellement surmontées ». (Newsweek, 12 août 1963, p. 30). […]
Lisez l’article en entier ici.
Découvrez en libre accès tous les numéros de Politique étrangère depuis 1936 jusqu’à 2005 sur Persée.
In the moral version of human history – expressed in the Quran, Bible, and Torah – corruption is considered the worst reckless impulse that caused men to fall from grace. It was the betrayal of trust and loyalty for purely selfish gains.
From that perspective, the root cause of corruption is individual moral shutdown, derailment or deficiency. On the other hand, modern-day scrutiny of corruption zooms in on institutions and good governance – professional and technocratic excellence and adherence to policies and procedures.
Much of this article will be dealing with the latter perspective, though no lasting solution to corruption can be found without considering the individual aspect. This could be the reason why corruption is scandalously ever-present in every aspect of the Somali government.
Harmonized Contradictions
Ironically, if a “Corruption Hall of Shame” were inaugurated, the majority of the top 10 list would be Muslim rulers representing nations ranking high in natural resources. Somalia would be leading the list as it has the past decade. This is the direct result of a culture of impunity and a lack of anti-corruption teachings.
However, you would not have heard this from the former UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for Somalia Michael Keating. In his briefing to the Security Council last month, he said that Somalia has “a government with a compelling reform agenda anchored in strong partnership between President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo and Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khayre.” He continued by telling the Council members that “its centerpiece is to make the country creditworthy and accountable as a step to gain full sovereignty, reduce dependency and attract both public and private investments. IMF benchmarks are being met … and debt relief is closer.”
Well, of course. Somalia’s politicians are ready for more loans and dodgy deals such as Soma Oil and Gas, whose former Executive Director for Africa is the country’s current prime minister. Never mind the glaring conflict of interests.
Being instituted a few months after Somalia emerged out of its “transitional period” in 2012, the UN Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM) was established as a central bank of the donor funds and to facilitate the reconciliation process. However, UNSOM gradually morphed into the carrot-dangler that lures all across the political spectrum, the gatekeeper of the political process, and the legitimizer of any selected new government through corruption as long as it does not challenge certain dubious deals such as Soma Oil and Gas and the massive IMF and World Bank debts.
Incidentally, the United Kingdom is Somalia’s penholder at the Security Council. In other words, the U.K. has the most powerful role in all Somalia related issues. It has the exclusive authority to draft resolutions and frame any debate on the country. All three UNSOM leaders were British (guerilla) diplomats, though the latest has South African citizenship.
If I was not blunt enough in the past, let me try again. The international apparatus that was set up to “fix Somalia” is the main hoax for keeping it perpetually broken. As long as there are corrupt or pitifully credulous Somali politicians who are eager to legitimize the current system for their personal gains the schizophrenia –journey toward sovereignty– will continue but the nation will remain at the mercy of international and local predators.
On Scale
In a 2013 article titled The Corruption Tango I wrote: “While robust functioning of all governmental institutions and policies of checks and balances are crucial to fighting corruption, the most crucial is the branch that enforces such policies.” Five years later, there is not an iota of improvement towards that end. The courts remain scandalously corrupt. Cash, clan, and connections are still the three most popular currencies in Somalia. Yet the current government audaciously claims it is committed to ending corruption.
Can a government that came to power through a manifestly corrupt process of purchasing votes through dark money “eradicate that sick mentality,” as Prime Minster Khayre said in 2017? Of course not, but it can manage perceptions and put on a good show for public relations.
Selective Enforcement and Co-option
Unlike its predecessor, the current government has a clever plan for distraction. They routinely carry out public prosecutions of petty corruption cases with media fanfare and public trumpet blasts while turning a blind eye to various shady deals that involve top officials within the government.
A few mega “corporations” practically own the entire country. Over the past two decades, these companies, especially those in the telecommunication business who are granted exclusive right to use the official gateway and country code without paying licensing fees or taxes, have been investing in keeping business as usual. It is an open secret how these mega companies co-opt key political actors by bringing them on board as stakeholders or through kickbacks to ensure their silence. Meanwhile, the old lady selling tomatoes under the scorching sun is routinely harassed by the municipality to pay her “public service” dues.
This widely accepted, flagrantly unjust clan-based system, known as the 4.5 system, remains the most potent force that maintains the culture of corruption and impunity in Somalia. Certain clans are guaranteed high ministerial positions. Once inside, these ministers are expected to suck as much as they can for their respective clans, themselves or both. Nepotism continues to be the most common practice in all branches of the government.
Defusing Scrutiny
Like the previous governments, the current administration facilitates key Members of Parliament and their family members with foreign medical services, scholarships for their children, and armored vehicles for protection.
Certain elements within the international community not only tolerate this corruption but also cultivate the right environment for it. Selected Somalian ministers may be granted easy access to funds for this or that project, or may be invited to some of those never-ending conferences in foreign cities. In return, these key individuals give those in the international community priceless cover, a patronage system, and a code of silence that sustains a two-way system of corruption.
Most of the Somalian ministers are members of the parliament, and the government is aggressively using whatever is in its disposal to co-opt the parliament. Only days after President Farmajo returned from his Qatar state visit in May, his office or the executive branch offered the Somali parliamentarians a deal none of them could refuse: an early vacation or recess and $5,000 cash per MP – so much for checks and balances.
These actions are to neutralize a restless parliament bent on advancing a “no confidence” motion to oust the current prime minister, whose long affiliation with the predatory Soma Oil and Gas and his draconian policies to silence opposition groups reached a breaking point.
The post Somalia and the Houdinis of Corruption appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
(Photo from the Enough Project)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has historically been the focal point of devastating internal conflict since colonial times, and this has persisted to the present day. King Leopold II’s reign was one of the most brutal in history. Following independence in 1960, the conflict has continued to worsen. Since 1998, upwards of 5.4 million lives have been claimed, the largest death toll due to one cause since World War II. Unfortunately, the United States contributes each day to policies that mirror those of the colonialist era.
Overview
The fundamental reason why these human rights abuses are able to continue is a culture of resource extraction and exploitation that has been perpetuated in the DRC. Instead of this culture occurring only during colonial times, it is happening at this very moment. According to most estimates, the region comprising the DRC contains upwards of 24 trillion dollars-worth of natural resources, rendering it the richest country on earth. These minerals are critical for the United States because they are involved in the manufacturing process of consumer technology goods. Tungsten, tin, tantalum and gold, which are found in every laptop, tablet, and phone, have been deemed by the international community to be “conflict minerals”.
Each of these minerals plays a foundational role in the consumer electronic production process. Tin is a vital component in the process of coating other metals to create alloys and prevent corrosion. In combination with tungsten, this generates durability to withstand high-temperature situations. Gold, prized for its malleability, and tantalum are both instrumental in conductivity. These minerals are also used in car production, jewelry and industrial machinery. Therefore, the demand is extremely high, and the United States and other countries give hundreds of millions of dollars for the acquisition of these minerals.
Rather than going toward promoting self-determinism and economic vitality for artisanal miners, these minerals have been monopolized by armed rebel groups as a means of securing profit, analogous to the sale of illicit drugs in other conflict zones throughout the world. Unlike illicit drugs, however, the exchange of these minerals is recognized as a legitimate business activity by the international community, and therefore has not attracted the same level of scrutiny. To make matters worse, the United States lacks incentive to ameliorate the situation due to a deeply rooted interest in obtaining these minerals and has historically maintained a primarily passive stance. These minerals serve as the fundamental source for funding for armed rebel groups equating to anywhere from $300 million to $1.4 billion per annum. This money fuels the procurement of weapons and enables the perpetuatuation of conflict, leading to the rapid militarization of the country. Armed rebel groups function by maintaining their presence in artisanal mines and engaging directly with miners, who are often stolen from their homes and enslaved. Armed groups actively participate in illegal taxation efforts and forced labor as a means of procuring and selling minerals, thereby supplementing income. From the mines, these groups transport minerals through highly decentralized trade networks which interweave between local and foreign actors. These trade networks often leave violent trails, as armed groups frequently employ brutal intimidation tactics.
(Photo from Jewish World Watch)
Responses
Despite the lack of international attention, there has been some progress in the United States related to the trade of conflict minerals. The most comprehensive effort occurred in 2010 when the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed into law. Section 1502 of the law requires publicly traded companies to annually disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission the details of their supply chains, which creates pressure for conflict-free sourcing. Any association with conflict mines in the DRC must be documented, and the information made available to the public. While the law does not require companies to source conflict-free minerals, the public nature of the reporting has sparked companies to take action to trace, audit and certify their supply chains. Major brand companies like Intel have taken admirable strides to ensure that their operations and the resulting products do not promote and support violence. In 2014, Intel innovated the first certifiably conflict-free microprocessor and has since been dedicated to become completely conflict-free. Since the enactment of Dodd-Frank, more companies have elected to comply with the rules, and consumers have advocated for companies to ensure their supply chains are not contaminated by unverified materials. Since April of 2017, “420 mines in eastern Congo had been validated as conflict-free by multi-stakeholder teams made up of U.N. officials and Congolese civil society, business, and government representatives”. While Section 1502 of Dodd Frank has yielded substantial effects, there is still much work to be done. There has been an increase in the smuggling of conflict gold as crackdowns on the tungsten, tin and tantalum trade have yielded results. Gold is relatively easier to smuggle, since small quantities have high value. Though strides have been taken to increase transparency, armed groups are still profiting.
Colonialist Policies
Many of the practices occuring in the DRC are a mirror image of the policies instituted by King Leopold pre-1960. Colonialist tendencies are still manifesting themselves in our everyday lives. Congolese women and children are often subjected to the worst trauma – experiencing sexual assault and physical torture. Almost every person in the United States owns a cellphone, computer or tablet. Yet, few are aware that these devices are serving as a sustainable flow of funds to armed groups in the DRC. Our consumer electronic devices are fabricated at the expense of millions of Congolese lives, and this is enabled by the deep rooted colonialist policies that have not disappeared despite independence.
The post Conflict Minerals: A Manifestation of Modern-Day Colonialism appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (n°3/2018). Norbert Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Stefano Ugolini, The Evolution of Central Banking: Theory and History (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, 328 pages).
Stefano Ugolini, professeur à l’université de Toulouse, nous présente une étude remarquable sur les banques centrales, qui s’inscrit dans la lignée des travaux de recherche publiés ces trois dernières décennies par Charles Goodhart, Curzio Giannini et Charles Calomiris. S’affranchissant de l’approche institutionnelle, le livre approfondit les quatre fonctions principales d’une banque centrale : l’entretien du système de paiement, la supervision des établissements de crédit, l’émission de monnaie et la conduite de la politique monétaire.
La mise en place d’un système de paiement est loin d’être élémentaire. En théorie, un tel système devrait avoir toutes les caractéristiques d’un monopole naturel, c’est-à-dire d’un marché où l’ensemble de la demande peut être satisfaite au plus faible coût par une seule entreprise plutôt que par plusieurs. En pratique, il en va tout autrement puisque de nombreuses économies ont été longtemps réticentes à l’avènement d’un tel monopole. Le même problème se pose quant à l’instauration d’un système de paiement international. Il faudra attendre la faillite retentissante de la banque Herstatt en 1974 pour qu’une coordination transnationale s’organise sous l’égide du Comité de Bâle sur le contrôle bancaire.
Le chapitre sur la supervision éclaire les différences de culture qui prévalent des deux côtés de l’Atlantique. Les États-Unis ont souvent privilégié les outils d’intervention ex ante (exigence de fonds propres et réserves obligatoires), tandis que l’Europe a préféré les outils d’intervention ex post (renflouements, garanties des dépôts et rôle de prêteur en dernier ressort de la banque centrale). Toutefois, l’auteur souligne que ces grands modèles de supervision ont tous deux échoué à endiguer le phénomène d’aléa moral depuis les années 1990. La taille excessive et la forte « interconnection » des grandes institutions financières expliquent cet échec.
La capacité d’une banque centrale à émettre de la monnaie est évidemment liée à sa crédibilité, qui requiert la préservation des droits et intérêts des créanciers. Au fil du XXe siècle, cette crédibilité a été renforcée avec l’indépendance des banques centrales, facteur clé de la stabilité monétaire. À cet égard, une divergence perdure entre Européens et Américains. Chez les premiers, les banquiers centraux sont en charge de la stabilité interne (faible inflation) et externe (faible fluctuation de la monnaie vis-à-vis des autres devises). Chez les seconds, la Federal Reserve se consacre exclusivement à la maîtrise de l’inflation, laissant au Trésor le soin de veiller à la stabilité monétaire externe. L’histoire récente a cependant montré que cette dernière demeure une préoccupation mineure de l’administration américaine : « Le dollar, c’est notre monnaie mais c’est votre problème », comme l’avait claironné en 1971 le secrétaire au Trésor John Connally.
Cet ouvrage s’adresse aux lecteurs qui souhaitent mieux comprendre le champ d’action et l’étendue des pouvoirs des banques centrales. La légitimité de ces dernières dépend fondamentalement de leur capacité à maximiser leur utilité sociale. Elles doivent donc demeurer pragmatiques et s’adapter en permanence aux chocs économiques et politiques. Tout un programme pour la Banque centrale européenne !
Norbert Gaillard
> > S’abonner à Politique étrangère < <
« Que reste-t-il de l’État dans le monde d’aujourd’hui ? »
Cette année, les trois premiers numéros de Politique étrangère ont abordé, chacun à leur façon, la question de l’État et de son efficacité dans le monde actuel.
Pour approfondir cette réflexion, l’Ifri et Diploweb vous invitent à assister à la rencontre-débat organisée à la Sorbonne le mercredi 21 novembre, de 19h à 20h30 :
« L’État est-il has been ? »
Cette rencontre sera animée par Pierre Verluise, directeur de Diploweb et Marc Hecker, rédacteur en chef de Politique étrangère, avec :
* * *
Adresse : Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, Amphi de Gestion.
Accès par le 14 rue Cujas, 75005 Paris.
Inscription en ligne : Conférence gratuite. Inscription obligatoire via ce lien.
Pour plus d’informations sur le débat :
Service des Publications de l’Ifri, lavergne@ifri.org.
Despite knee-jerk reactions from pundits and politicians (on both sides of the aisle) that would suggest easy solutions to foreign policy issues, any serious question in foreign policy requires a bit more thought and consideration than we see from a typical sound bite or tweet. By definition, foreign policy issues impact numerous players and have various combinations and permutations of outcomes. Take for example, the murder of journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. It seems clear from almost all accounts that Mr. Khasshoggi was murdered in what appears to be a savage and ruthless fashion, all for speaking out about a ruling class that he opposed. And, while it is yet unproven whether or not members of the royal family were directly involved in the planning of this despicable act, eighteen Saudi nationals, including senior military officials, have been identified as being directly involved.
So, what would be the appropriate foreign policy response from the United States? A knee jerk reaction might be to suspend trade with the Saudi government. Maybe pull out of the arms deal with the Saudis where they agreed to purchase $110 billion of arms immediately and $350 billion over ten years. Let’s think this through a bit. If the United States pulled out of the arms deal, Russia and China would likely be more than happy to fill that void with the end result still being that the Saudis get their military equipment but the United States contractors lose the business and American citizens lose jobs. But this is perhaps a bit short sighted and maybe we should consider the longer-term implications and ramifications. Journalists are murdered in numerous countries around the world every day, much for the same reason Mr. Khashoggi was likely murdered. Should the United States refrain from doing business with all such countries? How about countries that have clear human rights violations … should we stop trading with them, including Russia and China …. hmm that would have interesting consequences.
On the other hand, it would seem at odds with America’s values as the world’s oldest democracy to allow for the suppression of speech and state-inflicted violence against journalists by close allies. American presidents have, in the not so distant past, promised to “end tyranny in the world” and force a choice, “between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.” In light of this, to ignore the actions taken by the Saudi government would ring with hypocrisy. The United States should be able to use its support for Liberal values and institutions as an instrument of soft power around the world, but if our country continues to turn a blind eye when strategic allies violate those values that influence will be diminished. Perhaps we should be more careful choosing our partners in the first place…
Regardless of the personal position we may hold, it is clear that these sorts of events deserve more than snap reactions. Perhaps events such as this require thoughtful, bipartisan analysis evaluating the immediate and longer-term consequences of our actions. Perhaps this foreign policy stuff isn’t so easy after all. If only everything was as easy as dealing with some large number of people from various countries all showing up on our southern border at the same time seeking asylum.
Both the matter of Mr. Khasshoggi’s murder and the migration of thousands of people from America’s southern neighbors will paint the way people around the worldview the United States. Does our nation stand by its foundational values at the cost of strategic and material advantage, or should we prioritize a hard strategy calculus that puts our principles to the side for the sake of achieving our national goals? These questions have been raging in foreign affairs circles for decades, and America’s answer has varied dramatically depending on the political fashion of the moment and the severity of the stakes.
All of this goes to say that conducting foreign affairs is an exercise in trade-offs. We must find the appropriate balance between endorsing American values abroad and ensuring that our partnerships have meaningful strategic benefits for our nation. The world is simply too complex to make decisions based on any single datapoint or in light of any singular perspective.
–
Written by Peter Scaturro, Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association
The post No such thing as a Foreign Policy 101 … appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (n°3/2018). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage dirigé par Martin Motte, La mesure de la force. Traité de stratégie de l’École de guerre (Tallandier, 2018, 416 pages).
Parce que « la guerre est la voie qui mène à la survie ou à l’anéantissement, il est indispensable de l’étudier à fond ». Pour nous aider à tenir compte de cet avertissement de Sun Tzu, les auteurs – tous quatre des références dans le domaine de la pensée stratégique – proposent un manuel à partir des cours de stratégie dispensés à l’École de guerre depuis plusieurs années. En 13 chapitres clairs et passionnants, les principaux domaines de la matière sont abordés.
Les cinq premières parties reviennent sur les fondements de la théorie stratégique. Le propos liminaire est utilement consacré à un travail de définition. Est retenue celle de Georges-Henri Soutou : « La stratégie est l’art de la dialectique des volontés et des intelligences employant, entre autres, la force ou la menace de recours à la force à des fins politiques. » S’ensuivent des réflexions sur le stratège et les qualités dont il doit faire preuve, ainsi que sur la nature de la stratégie, entre science et art. Un chapitre est dédié aux principes de la guerre. Deux tendances y sont distinguées : une « clausewitzienne », qui s’efforce de penser globalement la guerre, et une autre « jominienne », davantage concentrée sur l’exécution.
Deux parties sont ensuite dédiées aux stratégies de milieu : navale et maritime d’abord, puis aérienne. Dans cette dernière, il est bien montré que les principaux concepts stratégiques aériens ont été empruntés à la stratégie maritime. On pense, par exemple, à la maîtrise de l’air ou à la puissance aérienne. Deux autres chapitres reflètent l’élargissement de la conflictualité à de nouveaux milieux, dédiés aux stratégies spatiale et cyber. La partie consacrée à la cyberstratégie revient de façon pertinente sur les principes et les modes d’action applicables à ce milieu, où l’on peut aussi agir par le choc, le feu ou la manœuvre. Les cultures stratégiques ne sont pas oubliées et font l’objet d’importants développements.
L’évolution de la stratégie classique depuis 1945 est analysée, notamment au prisme du mouvement de balancier entre focalisation sur la guerre majeure et sur les conflits de basse intensité. À ce titre, un rappel salutaire : « Toute puissance militaire conséquente doit en permanence faire porter sa réflexion stratégique sur l’ensemble du spectre des affrontements – et en particulier sur les savoir-faire de haute intensité, car ils sont difficiles à acquérir et à maintenir. » Le chapitre qui suit renvoie à cette problématique. On y étudie les stratégies « alternatives », revenant notamment sur les notions d’irrégularité et d’approche globale. Un bilan, pour le moins contrasté, des deux dernières décennies d’opérations antiterroristes et de contre-insurrection est ébauché. Quant aux stratégies nucléaires, elles sont bien entendu détaillées : elles tiennent un rôle de pivot, tant
« l’emploi de l’arme nucléaire bouleverse le rapport coût/bénéfice qui fonde le calcul stratégique depuis la nuit des temps ».
Cet excellent ouvrage n’est certes pas, et les auteurs le savent, le plus complet sur la stratégie – on se référera pour cela au Traité de stratégie d’Hervé Coutau-Bégarie (1999) qui reste la référence en français –, mais il constitue un indispensable manuel de stratégie à destination du « grand public cultivé ».
Rémy Hémez
> > S’abonner à Politique étrangère < <