Diplomacy & Crisis News

Most Americans have never heard of Edward Miliband. And given this week’s result in the U.K. elections it is very likely they never will. After a crushing defeat he has already resigned as leader of the Labour Party and is poised to return to the Wallace & Gromit animated films from which he seems to have been discovered. His electoral failure and that of his party once again proves the old electoral adage that unappealing leaders and incompetent campaigns often produce bad results.

That’s not to take anything away from David Cameron, whose Conservative Party won a resounding victory that was so surprising that not only has it left Miliband out of a job, but in all likelihood he has taken scores of U.K. pollsters with him. Cameron stunned the pundits to a degree that echoes the recent electoral victory of Bibi Netanyahu in the elections in Israel, the country that along with the U.K. has historically had the greatest claim on having a special relationship with the United States.

Both elections however, suggest on several levels that those special relationships, neither of which has been what it used to be during the past several years, are in for a period of further decline.

In part, the decline in the relationships has been due to historical reasons that have made both countries less important to the United States. The United Kingdom is a shadow of its former self, the sun long ago having defied the old saying and actually having set on the former empire. British school children no longer study maps that show a quarter of the world in red or pink to depict the lands loyal to their monarch. Even Britain’s last great claim on global domination — in the area of TV car shows — suffered a devastating blow this year when “Top Gear,” broadcast in 214 countries with an audience of hundreds of millions, saw its blowhard, politically troglodyte host Jeremy Clarkson unceremoniously booted off the air for behaving like an ass, thus shutting down production.

Perhaps the fact that puts this decline in clearest focus is the steep decline in the size of the British Army. With cuts slated to take it from 102,000 to 82,000 regulars and a recent report suggesting that further cuts could reduce it in size to 50,000 within a few years, we face the prospect that in the not too distant future the military that once conquered the world will be roughly the same size as the New York Police Department. (A promise of Cameron and the Tories was that they would stop such cuts from taking place, but whether Britain’s financial health — more on that later — will permit them to honor that pledge is another matter.)

Similarly, whereas a generation ago Israel was seen as central to U.S. Mideast policy, today, while it is still America’s most important and best-supported ally in the region, events have undercut its importance in practical terms. Once it was key to the U.S. Cold War strategy in the region, but the Cold War ended. Once the Middle East was more important to the United States as a source of energy, but that is clearly less true today than at any time since the Second World War. Once the Israel-Palestine conflict was seen as central to all the problems and geopolitical issues of the region; now that is far from being the case. Indeed, that issue, once number one among U.S. regional priorities, might have a hard time making the top ten today. (Coming in after: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, containing Iran, the Iranian nuclear deal, the spread of extremism, the current crisis in Yemen, the looming crisis in Libya, Egyptian stability, maintaining eroding support among our traditional Arab allies, and a host of other such issues.)

Further, both special relationships are fading in the minds and hearts of Americans as a new generation starts assuming power, one that has few memories of the historical reasons for the founding of Israel or of Britain’s vital partnership with the United States in two world wars.

Part of the deterioration in these two relationships has to do with policy decisions made by the governments that have just won second terms in power. The U.S.-Israel relationship sure doesn’t feel that special when the prime minister of Israel tries to politically body-slam the U.S. president. It is devalued when the prime minister of Israel appears to choose sides in the U.S. political debate, seeming to be willing to save his specialness for his Republican friends. And it is certainly deeply damaged when Israel wages a brutal and unjustifiable campaign against the people of Gaza that violates international norms and offends the sensibilities of all with a hint of conscience, as the Netanyahu government did last year.

Britain has not so much offended as it has simply slinked away from center stage. Perhaps in the wake of British public revulsion at the degree to which Tony Blair was seen to have become George W. Bush’s “poodle,” perhaps due to the degree to which national attention has been drawn to domestic problems, we have seen a reordering of the power landscape of Europe. Britain, once our closest and most important ally, now falls third on that scale behind Germany (more important) and France (more supportive of the United States in recent years). Add in the belligerent, erratic, dangerous Vladimir Putin and a newly aggressive Russia, and Britain is now only the fourth most important power with which the United States regularly deals in Europe.

The fact that Britain’s role in Europe will now be open to question for months to come, thanks to Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum regarding whether Britain should remain a part of the EU, only makes further deterioration more likely. That is because the doubt the referendum is likely to raise may have deleterious effects on the British economy. It is also because there is a possibility that Britain could choose to leave the EU. This would be economically foolish and would take the country from being an important player in the world’s largest market to being a more marginal independent actor. Further, should Scotland renew the push to breakaway from the United Kingdom, and the election results showed huge strides made by the Scottish National Party, it would clearly make a Not-So-Great Britain more likely.

Given the likelihood of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal being successfully concluded and the U.S. administration’s commitment to ensuring that is the case, the prospect for further bad relations between Netanyahu and the White House is great. This alienation will have multiple effects, many of which have already manifested themselves to some degree. The Israelis will seek to diversify their international alliances, reaching out to India, China, Russia, and others. And the United States will seek to emphasize and cultivate other ties in the region (whether that means with Iran or with GCC partners is unclear…. Both seem unlikely, but at the same time both may expect greater efforts at outreach from Washington even as Israel sees a further chill.)

None of this is improved upon by some of the behavior and policies of the Obama administration. It doesn’t help, for example, to call the Israeli prime minister “chickenshit,” or to get drawn into petulant exchanges with the Israelis more suited to the schoolyard than to statecraft. Matters have not been helped by America’s shying away from playing the leadership role that is expected of the United States nor by the inconsistent nature of Obama’s personal diplomacy with our friends abroad. And frankly, the likelihood of the Obama team spending much real time repairing these problems during their waning days in office is pretty slim.

Will the next U.S. president aggressively seek to reverse the course of these once-crucial but now-declining relationships cited here? Undoubtedly candidates for that job will certainly promise to do so in the months ahead. But the historical factors and current geopolitical trends cited above will make it very hard for anyone to restore these relationships to the special place they occupied in the past. For Cameron and Netanyahu and their new governments, this is a reality they may wish to deny but that they will find it very difficult to reverse.

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

Patan, Nepal (Photo: cpcmollet via Flickr).

Nepal, Before and After the Earthquake
The New York times Magazine
Text by Jon Mooallem/Photographs by Giles Price

With pictures as beautiful and saddening as the text that describes them, The New York times Magazine depicts the beauty of Nepal and its people, and the destruction of their country after a major earthquake last week.

The Right to Blaspheme
The Atlantic
By David Frum

In response to the attempted terror attack in Garland, T.X., David Frum makes the distinction between hate speech and blasphemy, and what freedom of speech entails.

The Aesthetic Failure of ‘Charlie Hebdo’
The New Republic
By Jeet Heer

In the months following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, a debate has broken out about the satire magazine’s refusal to modernize its message.

What Happens in Atomic City Stays in Atomic City
Medium
By Cassie Benjamin

The Manhattan Project was the secret U.S. initiative to construct an atomic bomb to help end World War II. Keeping it hidden from enemies was obvious, but the extent to which it was hidden from the thousands of employees is surprising.

A League of His Own
Bloomberg Business
By Tariq Panja, Andrew Martin, and Vernon Silver

Bloomberg Business published an in-depth feature on the divisive FIFA president, Sepp Blatter, and the political orchestrating he navigates while controlling the world’s most popular game.

Blogs:
An Israel Itinerary for Scott Walker by Josh Klemons
Defending Europe by Michael Crowley
Why We All Innately Know What Justice Should Be by Richard Basas
Forty Years After the War, Vietnam Welcomes the U.S. by Gary Sands

In early 2014, Nigerian-Cameroonian pop singer Dencia launched Whitenicious, a line of skin-care products and lightening creams. She called the products dark-spot removers and argued they were intended not to bleach users’ entire skin tone but to address small dark blemishes that left skin looking uneven.

Her controversial product line is now one of many, including Fair & White and Divine Derrière, that will likely be deemed illegal in Ivory Coast, where the government passed legislation to ban most bleaching creams on Thursday. In addition to their social controversy, the creams have a record of severely burning skin, and medical experts widely consider them to be carcinogenic.

Ivory Coast is not the first country to take action against the products. In South Africa, products with more than 2% hydroquinone — a whitening agent — have been illegal since the 1980s.

Polls published by the World Health Organization found that in some African countries, including Nigeria and Togo, the majority of women use some form of skin-whitening product.

But even if they are increasingly popular, the reaction from Dencia’s fans proved there is a growing movement against the popularity of these products. She faced public backlash after she openly stated that she thinks “white means pure” and went back and forth in interviews on whether she herself had used lightening creams to change her look.

Fans argue that photos prove her skin has become significantly lighter since she first rose to stardom, and many saw the launch of Whitenicious as her using her fame to encourage young women to regard her chemically induced whiteness, not her natural blackness, as beauty.

And the explanation behind the name Whitenicious? Dencia offered her take in an interview with Ebony magazine last year: “When you see Whitenicious, you see the container, you see the product, obviously you’re thinking this is gonna work, right? That’s what you’re thinking.”

In that same Ebony interview, she bragged that another passenger on an international flight complimented her skin and asked if she was Puerto Rican. But when asked if she regarded dark skin to be an obstacle, she said she thought dark was “beautiful.” Her products cost upward of $150 for a small container.

The lightening creams, which in all fairness can also effectively reduce the effects of hyperpigmentation, have become so popular that the industry is now estimated to be worth billions of dollars. In January, Oprah Winfrey’s television network released a documentary about the industry, featuring those who were victims of its harmful side effects.

But ask Dencia about her product’s risk, and she’ll tell you it’s worth it.

“Guess what?” she said.  “The air you breathe outside causes you cancer. Everything in the world causes cancer.”

SIA KAMBOU/AFP/Getty Images

The bipartisan push for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is akin to epic dramas where competing leaders set aside their quarrels to join forces when the fate of the realm is in the balance. President Barack Obama and Republicans have locked arms to break down barriers that threaten our economic vitality and global leadership. Both the president and congressional leaders must skillfully outmaneuver undermining forces on each of their flanks to achieve victory.

For 75 years, America has heeded past lessons that rejecting the benefits of trade prolongs economic misery. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in 1930 sparked retaliatory duties that drove a drastic reduction in U.S. exports that deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. We cannot let their protectionist successors similarly prolong the Great Recession.

President Obama joins an unbroken string of Democratic presidents that have successfully championed trade. Both he and Republicans face hurdles in delivering the votes necessary to extend this record.

Republicans must overcome dissenters in their ranks that are loathe to grant this president any more authority or perceive a hidden plot to open up immigration.

The president must surmount determined opposition within his party. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), fabricates more trade monsters than a Halloween costume factory. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is being bipartisan in his own unique way: opposing Obama with the same zeal that he opposed Republican presidents.

While Republicans will have to carry most of the water on this deal, Democratic votes will be pivotal. President Bill Clinton mustered 102 Democrat votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Obama is no Bill Clinton. Sadly, given her absence from this historic trade debate, neither is Hillary Clinton.

With 432 House seats now filled, 217 votes will be needed in the House. Recent estimates suggest that only 180 to 200 of the 244 Republicans can be counted on for support. Fewer than 20 Democrats in the House have backed TPA so far, leaving its fate in question.

With Reid’s challenges in the Senate, 60 votes will be required to overcome procedural hurdles. If all 54 Republicans stick together against Reid’s challenge, they will need at least six Democrat votes. Even though seven Democrats supported TPA in committee, most are not saying if they will reject Reid’s leadership and vote to allow the bill to proceed to the Senate floor.

With all of that math in mind, it’s essential to remember they key components of assembling for battle on any issue: determining they paramount questions of what, where, who, and how in such a way that your answer is the best conclusion for crucial audiences to draw.

What

Those who define the question at hand win political contests. Answering the other side’s question is playing on their turf. You must establish the supremacy of your question.

Opponents of trade liberalization try to make the question some particular detail of the deal. The recent refrain of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is typical, “I tell everybody the same thing: I’m pro-trade, but…” The general rule in politics is to ignore everything before a “but.”

Obama has rightly focused on taking the debate to a higher level, asserting that no matter the imperfections of this deal, the alternative is far worse.

His question from the State of the Union frames the issue well, “as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field.”

The president has also rightly kept the focus on how trade benefits America’s workers and the middle class.

Where

Today’s contentiousness requires a strong outside game, speaking out publically about the merits of a deal, and a dedicated inside game through individual meetings with undecided members. This president prefers the former to the latter, but in this instance both are essential.

Who

United States Trade Representative Michael Froman has assured me that regular cabinet huddles are occurring on TPA and the entire administration’s shoulder is pressed to the wheel. That is excellent, but no substitute for presidential leadership.

Clearly Republican leadership and the coalition of groups that have historically advocated for trade must also be fully engaged if the coalition resisting passage is to be overcome.

How

Obama’s bold public statements rejecting determined opposition from within his own party are an essential element of building public support. His discussions with House and Senate members on the fence at the White House reflect this commitment to aggressively build Congressional approval. It must continue.

America’s embrace of trade following World War II drove its rise to global leadership. Continuing to push for trade liberalization is essential to preserving our ability to continue to be the stabilizing force that averts anarchy.

Completing pending trade agreements in both Asia and Europe would strengthen each region’s commitment to the global order and boost our allies’ economic prospects, while boosting opportunities for American workers, our middle class. Not passing these accords would be seen as America raising a white flag. May this epic saga instead have a happy ending!

 Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Vadim Makhorov and Vitaliy Raskalov are two of my favorite lunatics in the world right now. They travel the world and illicitly scale tall buildings, videotaping and photographing their journeys. I’ve written about their adventures before, and the climbing pair have a new video out documenting their climb of what will be China’s tallest building. It’s harrowing and totally amazing.

When completed, the Ping An Finance Center in Shenzhen will be the world’s second-highest skyscraper, behind only the Burj Khalifa in Dubai. Makhorov and Raskalov’s climb took place over Chinese New Year, explaining why the construction site was totally deserted at the time of their summit. Presumably, the building’s owners will be none too pleased when they find out that these Russian daredevils made it not only to the building’s roof and then proceeded to climb to the top of the crane being used to build it.

YouTube/on the roofs

Jean Cavaillès (1903-1944) était professeur de philosophie des sciences, et grand logicien. C'est précisément en tant que philosophe et logicien qu'il s'engagea dans la Résistance. / France, Culture, Idées, Intellectuels, Personnalités, Politique, Science, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945 - (...) / France, Culture, Idées, Intellectuels, Personnalités, Politique, Science, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945 - 2014/05

C'est devenu une évidence : le fossé se creuse entre les citoyens et leurs représentants. Adopté en violation de la volonté exprimée par les électeurs le 29 mai 2005, le traité de Lisbonne a signalé la tentation autoritaire d'une partie des élites. L'élection d'une Assemblée constituante en France (...) / Europe, France, Démocratie, Droit, Élections, Histoire, Idées, Parti politique, Politique - 2014/04

Quarante ans d'immigration dans les médias en France et aux Etats-Unis, échapper à la confusion politique, la guérilla littéraire du collectif d'écrivains bolonais Wu Ming, l'internationalisme au temps de la Commune de Paris : voici une sélection d'archives en rapport avec quelques articles du numéro (...) - La valise diplomatique

« Produire toujours plus, toujours moins cher, avec toujours moins d'agriculteurs » : Aurélie Trouvé résume ainsi la logique de l'agriculture productiviste. Dans son dernier livre, la coprésidente de l'association Attac, ingénieure agronome, montre avec clarté comment, sous couvert d'une modernité (...) / Agroalimentaire, Alimentation, Écologie, Entreprise, Industrie, Libéralisme, Santé, Travail, Environnement, OGM - 2015/05

« Voiture banalisée arrêtée par un platane banal » ou « Professeur de géographie perdu dans le désert » : voilà des situations qu'aimait dessiner Yvan Le Louarn (1915-1968). Il choisit comme pseudonyme Cheval, en hommage au facteur, mais devint Chaval à la suite d'une erreur typographique. Hérité de sa (...) / Art, Culture, Presse, Bande dessinée - 2015/05

Whatever the Assad regime and its opponents may think, no side is heading toward military victory in Syria. On its current trajectory the war will worsen, with the already devastating death toll accompanied by increasing trans-border radicalization and further destruction of the country’s social and urban fabric.

Alors que nous célèbrerons demain, 8 mai 2015, le 70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, c’est l’occasion d’examiner comment, l’Allemagne d’aujourd’hui continue à faire face aux fantômes du passé.

Nous vous invitons pour cela à lire l’éditorial spécialement écrit par le Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (Cerfa) de l’Ifri : “70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale : Changement dans la culture de mémoire allemande ?”

“Le 8 mai 2015, pour la première fois, un historien et non pas un représentant politique interviendra devant le Bundestag pour commémorer le 70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Depuis 1964, le président fédéral et le chancelier se sont relayés pour assumer cette tâche clé pour la nouvelle identité démocratique de la RFA. La politique se retire-t-elle alors du cycle mémoriel comme le constatent plusieurs observateurs et connaisseurs de l’Allemagne ?”

Lisez la suite de l’article sur le site de l’Ifri.

En parallèle à cet éditorial et pour approfondir le sujet, nous vous invitons à relire l’article “L’Allemagne : le passé qui ne passe pas” publié dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (1/2014).

Retrouvez l’intégralité de cet article sur Cairn.info.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

(Own report) - German foreign policy experts are calling for a "renaissance" of the transatlantic alliance to defend Western global hegemony. According to the strategy paper written by two German authors, published recently by the think tank of the European People's Party (EPP), the EU must strengthen its cooperation with the United States in spite of certain controversies. The experts write that the "global liberal order," which had secured a global hegemony for Western countries since the end of the Cold War, can only be maintained if Europe and North America enhance their economic, political, and military cooperation. All efforts aimed at improving cooperation with Russia should be halted. To enhance influence, the focus should, instead, be shifted to engaging NGOs and East European religious communities in pro-western activities. A new consensus within the EU must be established and pro-Russian "disinformation" must be systematically "exposed." One of the authors even calls for the nuclear rearmament of Europe, claiming "we" must be "willing to go to war."

Cette recension d’ouvrage est issue de Politique étrangère (1/2015). Stéphane Taillat propose une analyse de l’ouvrage d’Eric Sangar, Historical Experience. Burden or Bonus in Today’s Wars? The British Army and the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan  (Freiburg im Breisgau, Rombach, 2014, 280 pages).

La littérature sur l’adaptation militaire a connu un renouveau avec les conflits d’Irak et d’Afghanistan. Conçue comme un processus de changements organisationnels, doctrinaux et opérationnels en temps de guerre, l’adaptation a été analysée selon différentes échelles (institutions et unités sur le terrain) ou à partir de plusieurs variables (matérielles, culturelles, sociales, politiques). Eric Sangar s’intéresse ici au rôle de l’histoire dans ce processus. Amplement discutée dans les cercles militaires – notamment anglo-saxons –, la recherche d’enseignements par l’observation du passé demeure sous-théorisée. D’un côté domine une conception positiviste de l’histoire comme réservoir d’expériences dont il suffirait d’identifier les plus pertinentes. De l’autre, se retrouve une vision critique insistant sur le danger des métaphores et analogies. Sangar s’interroge plutôt sur la manière dont les expériences sont analysées et diffusées dans les organisations militaires. Son approche pragmatique de l’usage de l’histoire voit cette dernière comme une source d’arguments rhétoriques permettant de débattre et d’évaluer les stratégies possibles. Dans cette optique, une organisation possédant un riche répertoire d’expériences sera plus capable de développer une stratégie fondée sur une compréhension correcte du présent. À condition qu’elle réussisse à transformer cette expérience en enseignements nourrissant les débats et en une interprétation partagée du présent. Ainsi le passé joue-t-il un rôle essentiel dans la formulation des stratégies contemporaines ; mais il n’est ni une structure déterminant les agents, ni le produit de leurs seules actions.

L’expérience historique est une ressource qui doit être mobilisée et exploitée, et qui peut l’être par d’autres organisations, selon les traditions de ces dernières. Tirer des enseignements du passé est primordial pour orienter l’action opérationnelle : l’auteur compare ainsi l’utilisation de l’histoire par la British Army et par la Bundeswehr confrontées au conflit d’Afghanistan.

La riche expérience en contre-insurrection de la première n’a pas produit d’adaptation initiale en Irak ou dans le Helmand. L’absence de débats sur les enseignements de la Malaisie et de l’Irlande du Nord, couplée à la croyance en un lien mécanique entre expérience et expertise explique cette inertie. La perception d’un échec en Irak en 2007 a pourtant affecté la manière dont l’histoire était incorporée dans le processus d’adaptation. D’une part, les Britanniques ont effectué une analyse comparative de plusieurs cas historiques. D’autre part, le débat doctrinal a souligné la validité continue des principes de contre-insurrection définis par Robert Thompson après la Malaisie, tout en reconnaissant la singularité de chaque contexte opérationnel.

Le cas de la Bundeswehr illustre la combinaison d’une absence d’expériences et de débats doctrinaux. Ainsi, le mandat dans la province de Kunduz est-il tout d’abord interprété à l’aune des opérations de l’armée allemande dans les Balkans. D’où une posture essentiellement réactive du fait de l’écart entre ce modèle et les dynamiques de violence en Afghanistan. L’escalade de ces dernières à partir de 2009 produit donc une réorientation vers le combat classique interarmes hérité de la guerre froide.

L’ouvrage de Sangar apporte une ouverture bienvenue sur les mécanismes par lesquels l’histoire est incorporée dans la compréhension des contraintes opérationnelles. Son étude pourrait être utilement poursuivie en comparant les cas d’organisations articulant différemment répertoire d’expériences et propension aux débats doctrinaux.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

تمشي الأمم المتحدة على حبل رفيع في ليبيا. الشهر الماضي، اتخذ مجلس الأمن قراراّ بإدانة تنظيم الدولة الاسلاميّة – وهو آخر الفاعلين من غير الدولة الذي ظهر في الفوضى الحاليّة. وبسبب هذا التهديد، يزداد الضغط على الأمم المتحدّة للتخفيف من حظر السلاح الدولي المفروض منذ أربع سنوات للسّماح بتوريد السلاح للجيش الوطني الليبي لمحاربة تنظيم الدولة. إلّا أن هذه خطوة ستكون سيئة للغاية؛ حيث من شبه المؤكد أنها ستُفشِل المحادثات الجارية بواسطة الموفد الأممي برناردينيو ليون، والقضاء على أيّ أمل في حل سلميّ، وخلق تربة خصبة لازدهار الجماعات الجهاديّة.

Romancier, essayiste et dramaturge, Roger Vailland (1907-1965) a également connu une longue carrière de journaliste. L'un de ses articles, paru dans l'hebdomadaire communiste « Action » le 28 septembre 1945, relate la transformation d'un village français. / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, (...) / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, Histoire, Idées, Littérature, Personnalités, Presse, Région, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945, Mouvement de libération - 2015/04

Cette recension d’ouvrage est issue de Politique étrangère (1/2015). Marion Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Europa. La dernière chance de l’Europe  (XO Éditions, 2014, 188 pages).

À l’heure où l’Union européenne (UE) traverse une crise multiforme, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing propose aux dirigeants européens actuels et à venir un nouvel horizon pour leur continent. Son objectif est aussi de répondre au problème, crucial selon lui, de l’obésité de l’UE élargie et de faire de l’Europe une puissance dans le monde.

L’idée est de créer une nouvelle entité, Europa, « Union monétaire, budgétaire et fiscale, à l’espace homogène, dotée à terme d’un Trésor public et d’un mécanisme de solidarité financière ». L’auteur précise d’ailleurs que l’union monétaire existe déjà, tout comme l’union budgétaire grâce au Traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance (TSCG) de mars 2012.

Dès lors, quels sont les aspects novateurs de la proposition de l’ancien président ? Il s’agirait pour lui d’aller plus loin dans l’unité de cette zone monétaire en l’accompagnant d’une union fiscale. Il suggère qu’Europa constitue un espace neutre fiscalement – à l’exception de la fiscalité locale – au sein duquel les entreprises et les citoyens acquitteraient les mêmes impôts sur les bénéfices, les revenus ou le patrimoine, quel que soit leur lieu d’activité et de résidence. Par ailleurs, alors qu’il récuse l’idée jugée « prématurée, et donc absurde » d’une mutualisation des dettes, l’auteur propose la création, à terme, d’un Trésor public afin d’émettre des emprunts communs au sein de la zone.

Ce nouveau projet, qui a le mérite de faire une proposition concrète pour l’avenir de l’UE, présente néanmoins des limites. D’une part, il demeure flou sur les contours de cette Europa, qui n’est en fait qu’une nouvelle version des différentes réflexions autour de la création d’un noyau dur. L’auteur évoque en effet à plusieurs reprises la zone euro comme base de cette union mais, lorsqu’il en détaille la composition, on y trouve les six pays fondateurs de la Communauté européenne, auxquels s’ajoutent l’Espagne, le Portugal, l’Autriche, l’Irlande si elle accepte l’égalité fiscale, la Finlande si elle le souhaite, et la Pologne « le moment venu », c’est-à-dire une fois qu’elle aura intégré l’euro. Cette liste est loin d’inclure tous les membres actuels de la zone euro, y manquent notamment la Grèce et les « nouveaux » États membres qui ont rejoint l’union monétaire. Dès lors, au cas où Europa et la zone euro seraient deux entités distinctes, se poserait la question de leur articulation, qui peut sembler problématique.

D’autre part, le projet de l’ancien président français se révèle relativement intergouvernemental puisqu’il dépouillerait la Commission européenne de son droit de demander des ajustements budgétaires aux États, droit qui serait conféré au Conseil de la zone euro, lequel deviendrait ensuite le directoire d’Europa, composé des chefs d’État et de gouvernement. L’auteur en profite d’ailleurs pour fustiger les dérives de la Commission dans les années 1960 et pour glorifier la création, à son initiative, du Conseil européen en 1974.

On peut à cet égard regretter que l’ouvrage, présenté comme une proposition pour l’avenir de l’Europe, ne consacre finalement qu’une trentaine de pages à celle-ci et préfère revenir sur les grandes lignes de l’histoire de sa construction ainsi que sur l’action conjointe de l’auteur et de son préfacier Helmut Schmidt en faveur de son unification voici 40 ans.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Le forum de Bangui, qui s’ouvre aujourd’hui, est une étape fondamentale de la transition en République centrafricaine (RCA) et suscite des attentes très importantes. Il doit permettre aux participants de débattre des causes profondes de la crise, de forger un consensus national autour des principaux défis auxquels le pays est confronté et, selon les termes de la présidente de la transition, Catherine Samba-Panza, de « dégager une vision pour l’avenir ».

Romancier, essayiste et dramaturge, Roger Vailland (1907-1965) a également connu une longue carrière de journaliste. L'un de ses articles, paru dans l'hebdomadaire communiste « Action » le 28 septembre 1945, relate la transformation d'un village français. / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, (...) / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, Histoire, Idées, Littérature, Personnalités, Presse, Région, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945, Mouvement de libération - 2015/04