Diplomacy & Crisis News

M. Christian Blanc, secrétaire d'Etat chargé du développement de la Région capitale, a comme grand projet un métro automatique ultra rapide reliant les aéroports parisiens Roissy et Orly au centre de Paris. Une fois encore, les responsables politiques privilégient les cadres dynamiques des (...) / France, Inégalités, Région, Transports, Travail - 2009/11

A Roissy - Charles-de-Gaulle, en France, intervention des pouvoirs publics et intérêts des compagnies aériennes privées ont poussé au gigantisme des installations. Mais comment concilier travail, qualité de vie des riverains et développement territorial sans remettre en cause cette extension démesurée (...) / France, Capitalisme, Entreprise, Société, Transports, Aéronautique - 2009/11

A recent article in the Atlantic penned by Eliot Cohen, a former State Department luminary and currently Director of the Strategic Studies Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC, lamented the collapse of the global elite and its inability to offer anything of substance to a world in turmoil. He cited the political entropy recently on display at the Munich Security Conference, one of the most anticipated events of the year, at which breathless attendees jockey to be seen.

The picture he paints is of a perennial group of button-down government leaders, solipsistic, superficial policy wonks, and shoulder-rubbing wannabes, most of them oblivious to the notion of being held to account let alone shaking things up with an original idea.

Cohen’s is a weighty name, but his is not the only one to break the silence. In his recent book, The Retreat of Western Liberalism, Ed Luce, chief U.S. columnist for the Financial Times, tore into the World Economic Forum at Davos as “consistently one of the last places to anticipate what is going to happen next”. He opined that it “has made a brand of its blow-dried conventional wisdom”.

If Cohen and Luce are right, it is little wonder that large sections of the Western public have turned their backs. The trouble is that, in principle at least, major international gatherings that bridge government, military and business leaders with policy institutes, media outlets and grass roots organizations should be vital pieces of our democratic architecture. The current stand-off between the people and the elites is unsustainable. We can’t go on like this. What is to be done?

As advisers to the Halifax International Security Forum, North America’s leading foreign affairs and security conference, it is not our place to tell other major international gatherings such as Davos and Munich how to conduct themselves. Nor, by implicit comparison, do we pass judgment on the success or otherwise of Halifax. But there is a clear public interest in getting this issue right. In talking about what Halifax aspires to achieve that is what we are speaking to, and in so doing, we are open about where we ourselves have fallen short of the mark.

A case in point arose a couple of years ago when the Halifax hierarchy was startled to be hit by a tweet, shot right out of the middle of the audience of a plenary session, decrying the all male panel. Ouch. But as Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary General of NATO, pointed out at the most recent conference last November, inclusivity is a strategic imperative. This is not about political correctness, as Stoltenberg’s colleague on that panel, Canadian Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan, added. The (rather obvious) lesson for us was that major conferences earnestly in search of innovative solutions can’t expect people to engage with them if half the planet is excluded from the get-go.

Above all else, Halifax is a values-based forum for democracies. We are all too aware that much of the world’s population suffers under despotism, or inhabits a twilight landscape between democracy and tyranny. But Peter Van Praagh, President of the Forum, and his team are not ignoring the rest of the world by not seeking to replicate the General Assembly of the United Nations. We shouldn’t try to be all things to all people. Inclusivity is not the same as relativism. Democracy is better than tyranny. Halifax, we believe, demonstrates that there are certain debates and dialogues that are best undertaken among interlocutors who share the same core values, ones that support a liberal world order underpinned by a rules-based system.

At such a starting point, there is still a mountain to climb. How can we remain fresh? We are probably not alone in agonizing about that, and agonize we do. Given that every organization ultimately tends towards stasis and inertia, one technique Halifax employs is to hold fast to a policy that at least half of the 300 participants be new to the forum each year. It’s painful to turn away past participants who want to return, and it’s never personal. But fresh thinking and new perspectives require constant renewal.

Obviously, the death knell of freshness is fear of controversy. But stakeholders can sometimes get nervous about contentious topics. Everyone who has run anything from a high school debating society upwards can see the challenge: what if you start saying things your funders dislike? Again, that is where values come in. Criticism is central to a functioning democracy. If you’re frightened of controversy, you’re frightened of what makes a democracy come alive. Don’t accept stakeholders that can’t handle that. Be prepared to take the hit.

Halifax, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, has been fortunate in working with myriad governments of different political stripes from around the world. The vital role non-partisanship plays to our mission has been further buttressed over the years by Congressional delegations often led by John McCain for the Republicans and high ranking Democrats such as Tim Kaine, and Jeanne Shaheen.

Nonpartisanship is the right approach, but it is still not enough. One of the great criticisms of political elites is that whether from the Right or the Left, these days they all sound the same. Halifax is sensitive to that, which is why we actively seek individuals unafraid to rock the boat, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakkol Karman, who took last year’s conference by storm on an all women security panel. Likewise, discussions featuring Google’s Eric Schmidt on how new technologies, from AI to quantum computing, shape the geopolitical landscape inspired spirited debate and challenged entrenched assumptions.

So, yes, there is no doubt that global elites must shoulder their share of responsibility for the daunting challenges that face us, from climate change to the rise of neo-nationalism, and the festering of bloody, regional conflicts. And, of course, gatherings of global leaders alone cannot solve all of the world’s problems.  But through open and inclusive dialogue, a commitment to renewal, and earnest debate, hope and progress can yet take stronger root. Later this year, in Halifax Nova Scotia, people who share that commitment will huddle together, working on a brighter future for the democratic world.

 

Robin Shepherd is Senior Advisor to the Halifax International Security Forum. Dean Fealk, an international attorney, is its General Counsel and a Fellow of Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are their own.

 

The post On the Halifax International Security Forum appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Résoudre le conflit israélo-palestinien reste au centre de la stratégie de l'administration américaine. Son succès pourrait dépendre, en partie, de l'influence d'un nouveau lobby juif opposé à la politique de la droite israélienne dont la première convention s'ouvre le 25 octobre. / États-Unis (affaires (...) / États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Israël, Proche-Orient, Politique, Groupe de pression, Conflit israélo-palestinien - 2009/10

Déjà quinze assassinats politiques au Honduras depuis le renversement et l'expulsion, le 28 juin, du président Manuel Zelaya... Illégitime et répressif, le régime de M. Roberto Micheletti fait resurgir le spectre des dictatures des années 1970-1980. / Géopolitique, Politique, Solidarité, Violence, (...) / Géopolitique, Politique, Solidarité, Violence, Honduras, Matières premières - 2009/09

Présenté comme une panacée pour le développement, le libre-échange constitue la référence commune à toutes les organisations multilatérales (Fonds monétaire international, Organisation mondiale du commerce, Banque mondiale) et aux institutions européennes. L'histoire économique démontre pourtant qu'il (...) / Capitalisme, Commerce international, Économie, Libéralisme, Mondialisation, Propriété intellectuelle, Protectionnisme - 2003/06 Contestations

Photo Credit: World Hindu Struggle Committee

Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi has declared that it is time for the world to act against the systematic destruction of Hindu homes.

The late Elie Wiesel once proclaimed, “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” In recent days in Bangladesh, Hindu homes have been attacked and vandalized. According to Shipan Kumer Basu, the President of the World Hindu Struggle Committee, the Bangladeshi government systematically encourages the destruction of Hindu property and blames the wanton act of violence on its political opponents. Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi called upon the world to stand up against this and to force the Bangladeshi government to stop permitting attacks on Hindu homes!

According to local reports, the Hindu homes that were attacked and vandalized recently occurred in the background of a local dispute. Following an arbitration meeting over the dispute, local sources reported that Chairman of Chatlarmi Sheikh Hizam Uddin and his people attacked the Hindus during the meeting. These reports claim that after the Hindus came out of the meeting, Uddin ordered two to three hundred people including Awami League leader Kishore Majumder and Rajat Roy to attack and vandalize the Hindu homes. Following the incident, Uddin denied the allegations against him and blamed the incident upon local UP member Paroshosh Mandal.

In another instance, local sources reported that a family home was looted in Shimoli. During the incident, they claim that an entire family was kidnapped and all of the valuables in their home were robbed including gold ornaments and money. The stolen goods were supposedly worth 36 taka and it took them two truckloads to take everything away. The abductors did not stop there. Later on, according to the report, they tried to kill Mihir Biswas by strangling him with something like a telephone cable around his neck. They beat him heavily and dragged him out of his home. They then proceeded to break a statue of Kali and left the broken part of the statue lying on the floor.

Not too long ago, local sources reported that another Hindu from Jaleshwar village was found dead with his legs and hands tied up. His home was vandalized as well. In addition, a Hindu home in Sarankhola was burned to the ground. Furthermore, a Hindu temple in Sirajdikhan was attacked and two idols were desecrated. According to the president of the temple, metal and copper plates, dishes, glasses, gold chains and other goods worth tens of thousands of dollars were looted. A temple is a spiritual home and yet in Bangladesh, local sources noted that holy places belonging to minorities are under attack.

While the culprits hate Hindus, they have not spared poor animals belonging to Hindus. According to local sources, two goats recently were burned to death in Hindu areas. In addition, there are reports of cows being burned. Radical Muslims in Bangladesh often burn cows due to the sanctity of this animal in the Hindu faith. It is reported that the homes of the dead are not even spared from these cruelties. According to local sources, the Kali Puja Cemetery was attacked recently. According to these sources, during the attack, the assailants started to harass a group of Hindu girls and then proceeded to beat up a grandmother before destroying the tools of a temple and vandalizing a house on the premises of the cemetery.

Basu is demanding that this cruel phenomenon of minority oppression come to an end in his country: “We cannot tolerate the vandalism of our homes, holy places and cemeteries in Bangladesh. We mourn over the plight of the wounded gods and goddesses as well as the desecration of our homes and the destruction of our property.”

Basu blames the Bangladeshi government for the recent atrocities: “While the Bangladeshi government likes to blame their political adversities or local Islamists, in reality, ISIS is the culprit and the Bangladeshi government has given them freedom of action to operate in. ISIS recently murdered a Hindu monk yet the Bangladeshi government denies that ISIS is active in Bangladesh. But we know better than to believe a government that recently arrested the main opposition leader Khaleda Zia, who just got HC bail and who is working to cleanse Hindus and other minorities from the country. It is time for the international community to pull in the reigns on Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial rule. It is time for this grave injustice against the Hindu community to come to an end!” As Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi stressed: “It is our obligation in the free world to stand against anyone who stands up against the Hindu minority.”

The post Israeli Druze diplomat: Time to protest the destruction of Hindu homes! appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

There’s a scene in the 2007 film Charlie Wilson’s War when the titular character, a congressman played by Tom Hanks, tries to make a case to his congressional peers. He wants to allocate one million dollars toward building a school in Afghanistan, as a way for the United States to combat Soviet propaganda in the country. In response, one of his colleagues asks: “Afghanistan? Is that still going on?” seconds later, another quip follows: “We’re a little busy now reorganizing Eastern Europe, don’t you think?”

The film takes place in the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War. But even today, a similar scenario of political amnesia is playing out. In 2008, the entire transatlantic community, including Brussels and Washington, condemned Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Senator John McCain, known for his blistering critique of the Kremlin, famously declared: “Today, we are all Georgians.” But now, 10 years on, a familiar sort of forgetting has left Georgia, a country of geopolitical importance, jammed in a state of development limbo—one that actors neither inside nor outside the country seem to be in much of a hurry to remedy any time soon.

How to pluck out the heart of this particular mystery? In a sense, the current reality shouldn’t be all that surprising. After all, the West itself is facing challenges of the magnitude it hasn’t seen since the end of the Cold War. Its political, economic and even philosophical underpinnings seem to be losing legitimacy. Understandably, it’s in no mood to be a political cheerleader for a seemingly obscure country like Georgia.

Indeed, gone are the days of unfettered democracy promotion and calls for  NATO membership, even though Brussels, with support from Washington, had allowed for some progress in its relationship with Georgia. The issue isn’t necessarily the level of global support for Georgia, critical as it may be. Rather, it’s the carte blanche the West has traditionally given to Georgian governments. Which is to say: Western support for Georgia on the international stage might now be diluted by internal dynamics, ones unique to the long history of Sovietization of Georgia’s socio-political culture.

This domestic development has, in turn, cleaved Georgia into two entities: a pro-Western country on the one hand, and a post-Soviet one on the other. Yet the West has largely ignored this duality, fueling a mood of forgetfulness that in ways mirrors the one that came to beleaguer Afghanistan. (And the consequences have been severe: As the journalist Remy Tumin recently reported for The New York Times, “a truce was ostensibly called in 2008, but… ask any Georgian in the area and they will insist the conflict never really ended.”)

Yet this isn’t to point the finger of blame for Georgia’s glacial modernization solely at foreign powers. When it comes to Georgia’s relations with Russia, old habits appear to die hard. More specifically, the country hasn’t seemed to learn from the mistakes of its second and third presidents: Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikhail Saakashvili, respectively. During their tenure as president—Shevardnadze between 1995 and 2003, and Saakashvili between 2003 and 2012—both men transferred strategic economic assets to clandestine Russian-Georgian business groups. On top of that, Washington had to interfere to prevent the sale of the main Georgian oil pipeline to Gazprom, a large Russian company. What was perhaps most disturbing, however, was that Saakashvili—the great modernizer, and a tireless fighter against Putin’s regime—sold off almost the entirety of Georgia’s economy. Far from modernizing these sectors, Russian businesses drove them into the ground.

Today, these sectors languish in inefficiency, and they’re run by what’s been dubbed by the literature as “red directors.” They’re also drowning in dilettantism, raising questions about favoritism and corruption. It seems that over seven decades of Soviet dictatorship have eroded some people’s ability to distinguish between adversaries and friends.

Other internal actors have derailed Georgia’s development, too. For one, billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who made his money in Russia, has decided to maintain the status quo. The political environment he’s created has worsened the investment climate in the country. Ivanishvili was previously prime minister of Georgia, but stepped down after only one year in office. (The political party he financed with his money, the Georgian Dream party (GD), beat Saakashvili in parliamentary elections in 2012, effectively removing him from power.) While in office, he summoned the heads of Georgian companies and publicly scolded them for distorting the rules of the game in their favor. But that was merely a PR stunt, and it was the extent to which he cared to address Georgia’s clandestine, post-Soviet business landscape.

Now, as a private citizen, Ivanishvili is widely believed to be an unofficial ruler of the country, working through a network comprised of his relatives, members of the GD, and popular support he receives from those social elites who are beholden to him (mainly because he still pays their salaries and serves as a sort of arbiter of their professional careers). More startling, he also arguably wields the real power behind current Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili, though he still falls miserably short on his promises to develop a vibrant civil society and bolster human rights.

A decade after Georgia captured international attention, its development seems to be on no one’s mind—neither on the minds of international actors, nor on the minds of most domestic actors, who seem to care more about keeping their hands on the levers of power.

Both Brussels and Washington ought to use their political clout to reduce the crippling legacy of Soviet influence, which any wily person can mold to boost himself above institutions, creating a personal brood of followers. At the same time, it’s Georgia’s government that must ultimately do the grunt work of cleaning up its backyard. In the private sector, the government must create greater transparency of key economic sectors. It must also carve out a sense of social and political fairness (to see why, look at how Ivanishvili’s feud with the current Georgian president, Giorgi Margvelashvili, speaks to how he’s willing to place himself above his office; he’s yet to forgive Margvelashvili for allegedly disobeying directives, and has accused him of selling out to the opposition party).

Georgia’s political elites will likely avoid scrutiny from the West, but they’d be wise to remember that their fellow Georgians have a penchant for elevating politicians to the status of a deity—only to condemn them later with an equal and opposite intensity.

 

Giorgi Lasha Kasradze is an analyst focusing on political risk and a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The post Georgia on No One’s Mind appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The National People’s Congress meeting that kicked off on March 5 has ushered in some revolutionary stances . From the constitutional amendment to the two-term limit that was proposed by the Communist party on February 25 , the prospect of the abolition of the term limits looms large on the horizon. This indicates that the Chinese President Xi Jinping could stay on indefinitely beyond the expiration of his term in 2023. Such an act entails the continuity of Xi Jinping’s leadership which gives him greater control over the levers of power and money that underscores Xi’s standing as China’s most dominant political figure in decades . The move represents a dramatic departure from the rules and norms that nudges the country towards a kind of centralisation of power where China’s state-controlled media have sought to justify the move as one that guarantees stable leadership as China enters a period which Xi has identified as crucial in his vision to restore the country to its rightful place as a global power.’

The removal of term limits that was long the topic of speculation in the lead up to the 19th Party Congress is nevertheless audacious . From having his thought enshrined in the Constitution in a way that was only done by Mao Zedong previously , his failure to identify a successor at the 19th party Congress in October ,Xi Jinping believes that there is no other leader who is capable of pushing and achieving his vison . Recognising the imperative to reform the Party and state institutions which forms an integral part of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics the Politburo maintained that reforms should be implemented to strengthen the Party leadership and fulfil the requirements of the new era .In this sense the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) set forward the agenda where the text mentions that the proposed two-term limit will be conducive to safeguarding the authority and the unified leadership of the CCP Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core  and strengthen the leadership as China realised its major economic and social development goals under Jinping over the past five years .  This marks an end to institutionalised leadership that was put in place under Deng Xiaoping and makes all the talk about the rule of law under the party at the 18th Party Congress ‘ fourth plenum somewhat quaint in retrospect.

A recap of the past

Deng Xiaoping enacted China’s term limit in 1982 during his tenure as China’s paramount leader in the 80’s as part of his effort to ensure that China was never  again subjected to a crushing dictatorship like that of Chairman Mao and the turmoil it occasioned. Breaking from the West ‘s system of governance which constituted epithets like balance and checks, Deng instituted a form of governance with Chinese characteristics designed to prevent the recurrence of a cultish like obedience that was shown towards Mao during that time.

Jinping’s quest to firm up China’s presence in the world

 Prior to the elimination of the term limits the approval of the enshrining of Mr. Xi’s eponymous political theory  Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era of Socialism with Chinese Special Characteristics  as a new component of the party’s guide for action signifies that Xi is put on a doctrinal pedestal along with Mao and Deng which reaffirms that his reign would be supreme. Xi Jinping became the leader of China in 2012 where he espoused his Chinese doctrine of national rejuvenation. Since he assumed the mantle of leadership Jinping demonstrated that he is someone who does not shy away from breaking conventions . From methodically purging his potential rivals including Sun Zhengcai and Bo Xilai through anti-corruption campaign to assuming prominent positions related to military and national security Jinping is undertaking stronger stances to reframe the domestic structure of the country which reflects his overarching ambition to firm up his presence in the Communist Party. An appropriate instance includes Xi’s attitude to use his first term in office to monopolize an array of leadership positions reflected in the creation of several so-called leading groups which he heads to drive policies across a range of areas including finance, cybersecurity and relations with Taiwan . Although Mr. Xi was already provided the title  guojiya zhuxi which can be translated as state chairman , it is clear through Xi’s intention that he considers himself as  a transformational figure leading China and the party into new era when the Communist party conferred upon him the designation lingxiu or   China’s core leader that placed him on the same pedestal as Mao, Deng Xioping and Jiang Zemin . This is commensurate with Jinping’s position where he believes that it is only through attaining domestic stability and subsequently a stable relationship would be possible for China to reclaim its rightful place as a global power.

Apropos to Jinpin’s political theory his ardent desire to restore China’s eminence as a global power in the international arena got adequately reflected in  his statement at the historic 19th Communist Party Congress meeting. Outlining  two broader goals for China where first it will build a moderately prosperous society by 2020 and second  it will become a fully developed rich and powerful nation by 2050 , Jinping heralded the dawn of the new era of Chinese politics and power where the world witnessed Xi’s waxing poetic about the priorities of rejuvenating Chinese power and realising the Chinese dream . Although Jinping majorly stressed on domestic achievements , goals and challenges but for any foreign policy geek with an insight into present Chinese policy making will understand that his speech provides crucial insights into how China’s strongman leader seeks to advance his country’s role in the world.

A major takeaway for global community is Xi is extremely confident in China’s growing national power that has major implications for global politics . This was succinctly captured in Xi’s statement where he proclaimed that our Party, our country , our forces and our nation have changed in ways without precedent. The Chinese nation with an entirely new posture now stands tall and firm in the East . Against this backdrop of growing Chinese interest under Jinping’s leadership the assessment stands that the international community will face an increasingly assertive China . As was stated by a Beijing based political analyst right after the move to end term limits where he disclosed that  if we ‘ re beginning to see a much more aggressive international posture by china , expect more of that , turned upto 11  .

 The Chinese juggernaut rolls on

A corollary  of Jinping’s fervent commitment to establish Chinese prominence is the retrenchment of the US noticeable through Mr . Trump’s promise to Make America Great Again that smacks of a retreat into unilateralism which spells trouble for the fraying international liberal order. Two major instances in this regard include the evolving  Chinese maritime strategy where it has shifted from conducting coastal defense and near seas operations to far seas protection that underlie the expansion of China’s naval capabilities through deployment and berthing facilities under its String of Pearls strategy in the Indo-Pacific and secondly its colossal One belt one road ‘ global infrastructure initiative.

A stark reminder of the China’s increasingly expansive international agenda comprises of the recent phenomena of conclusion of the construction of the contested Spratly islands as part of its land reclamation activities . Through a host of installations which includes a ‘ 3 km long runway, large naval -grade berthing facilities and a range of military defences such as anti-aircraft guns and close -in weapons system (CIWS) ‘ reports on the built-up infrastructure in the islands suggest that the China has reclaimed almost seven  of the islands which houses surveillance measures. The reclaimed islands in the Spratleys are not merely fortified flag markers for China’s claim for sovereignty in the disputed South china sea but  they serve as a network of platform that strengthens Chinese military capabilities and  significantly enhances China’s projection of military power in the region.

Further on another accord through its Belt and Road initiative China under the garb of serving to enhance economic interconnectivity and facilitating development across regions including Eurasia, East Africa and more than 60 partner countries it is pursuing what analysts in the US has termed as a predatory economics. Through aggressively employing economic tools to advance its strategic interests Beijing has extended huge loans to financially weak states and ensnared in vicious debt traps that enhances its leverage . To exemplify of the 68 countries identified as potential borrowers in the BRI  23 were found to be  already at a quite high risk of debt distress  according to the Washington-based Centre for Global Development (CGD), a think tank. Moreover the report also determined that eight of those 23 countries would potentially face difficulties in servicing their debt because of future financing related to BRI projects that includes countries such as Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos , the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan and Tajikistan . This not  solely increases Beijing’s economic clout in International politics but gives a clear signal about the principle that is guiding China’s rise in global politics which is buying friendship through its economic heft. In other words co-opting countries to expand its sphere of influence both in Asia and the world .

What to do ?

Although reigning between the established superpower predominantly the US and rising power like China has not led to a full scale war yet the recent constitutional amendment poses an inflection point for liberal nations. From broadening its core interests by asserting sovereignty claims contrary to international law, continuing with its military expansive tendencies in the Indo-Pacific region , pursuing a predatory form of economics and colonial type exploitative policies in dealing with developing nations that are clear manifestations of Xi’s growing thirst for power has raised the chance of devastating instability. A takeaway in regard to China’s rise under Jining that despite there have been concerted attempts by nations in global platform to present initiatives like the Quad but to counteract the China’s increasing belligerence both within Asia and the world the current trajectory shows that it is going to be a long winding road before these come to fruition .

 

Sreeja Kundu is presently a researcher working at the Strategic Studies Program in the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank based in New Delhi, India. She has graduated with an M.Sc in International Relations from the University of Bristol in November 2016. She tweets @SreejaKundu

The post The ascent of the dragon continues – Implications for global politics appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Australia is pushing back against a campaign of political interference orchestrated by China.

Xi Jinping should be promoting evidence-based medicine, not quackery.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2017). Krzysztof Soloch propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Stanislaw Parzymies, Polityka Zagraniczna Francji Po Zimnej Wojnie (Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog, 2017, 600 pages).

Historien des relations internationales et spécialiste de la France, Stanislaw Parzymies propose une somme appelée à devenir un ouvrage de référence sur la politique étrangère française depuis la fin de la guerre froide jusqu’au mandat de François Hollande. L’auteur rappelle les défis auxquels la France était confrontée avec la disparition du monde bipolaire et met en évidence les constantes et les variables de sa politique étrangère conduite au nom de la multipolarité. Le concept qui, selon l’auteur, a guidé la diplomatie française depuis les 25 dernières années.

Dans son premier chapitre, il décrit avec minutie le processus de prise de décision de politique étrangère, privilégiant le rôle primordial à ses yeux du triangle Élysée-Matignon-Quai d’Orsay. Les deuxième et troisième chapitres traitent respectivement des États-Unis et de l’Allemagne, Stanislaw Parzymies rappelant que la France, puissance moyenne aux ambitions globales, a dû accepter la suprématie américaine dans le monde et celle de l’Allemagne en Europe. Ce qui n’a pas empêché Paris de développer une « nouvelle version de l’entente cordiale » avec la Grande-Bretagne et de mener une politique active en Méditerranée. L’auteur réussit à synthétiser la complexité des politiques arabes et africaines, destinées à entretenir des zones d’influence traditionnelles. Dans son chapitre sept, il éclaire le caractère sinusoïdal des relations avec la Russie. Malgré l’agressivité de la politique extérieure russe, qu’illustre notamment l’annexion de la Crimée, Paris a toujours veillé à ne pas créer un sentiment d’humiliation dans ses contacts avec Moscou. C’est d’ailleurs cette approche qui a parfois compliqué les relations franco-polonaises. Varsovie, principal allié de la France en Europe centrale, s’est avéré un partenaire exigeant, notamment au sein du Triangle de Weimar. L’auteur regrette d’ailleurs que ce format ne soit guère exploité, dans l’Union européenne (UE), à l’Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique nord (OTAN) ou à l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU). Dans son neuvième chapitre, Stanislaw Parzymies rappelle l’importance que l’Europe centrale et les Balkans ont toujours eue dans la politique étrangère française.

Traditionnellement, l’Asie n’est pas une priorité de la politique étrangère française. Mais au regard de son essor rapide, la France a dû redéfinir son attitude, notamment à travers une offensive économique dont l’auteur décrit tenants et aboutissants dans son dixième chapitre. Le chapitre onze est particulièrement intéressant dans la mesure où il analyse l’influence de la globalisation, du multilatéralisme et de la multipolarité dans l’élaboration de la politique étrangère française. L’auteur rappelle à juste titre que la France a usé du concept de multi­polarité pour valoriser son rôle dans les relations internationales et pour marquer son indépendance par rapport au leadership américain. Les douzième et treizième chapitres analysent la politique de Paris à l’égard de l’UE et de l’OTAN. L’auteur se livre également à un examen critique de la politique européenne de la France. En évoquant sa contribution essentielle au processus d’intégration européenne, il souligne que la France a pourtant parfois donné l’impression de sacrifier l’intérêt de la communauté au profit des intérêts nationaux.

Dans le quatorzième et dernier chapitre, l’auteur met en valeur le caractère exceptionnel de la diplomatie culturelle française, qui contribue à la stratégie d’influence et au rayonnement mondial du pays.

Voici sans conteste un ouvrage de référence pour quiconque s’intéresse à la politique étrangère de la France, et qui mériterait une traduction française.

Krzysztof Soloch

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

Italians are rearranging the deck chairs as their country irrevocably sinks.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2017). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Nicolas Hénin, Comprendre le terrorisme, (Fayard, 2017, 280 pages).

Le concept de terrorisme demeure flou pour beaucoup. Il suffit, pour en juger, d’explorer les réseaux sociaux ou d’écouter certains « experts » à la télévision ou à la radio.

C’est donc à un nécessaire travail pédagogique que Nicolas Hénin – reporter de guerre, auteur de plusieurs ouvrages, dont Jihad Academy (Fayard, 2015), et aujourd’hui président d’Action résilience – s’attelle ici. Avec succès. Sa méthode consiste à traiter en dix courts chapitres quelques-unes des questions les plus importantes autour du terrorisme celles aussi qui donnent lieu à l’expression du plus grand nombre d’idées préconçues, et à exposer clairement les arguments susceptibles d’y répondre, en faisant appel à des travaux de recherche reconnus.

L’auteur commence par un aperçu de l’histoire du terrorisme. Il nous rappelle que le phénomène n’a rien de nouveau, puisqu’il serait né au Ier siècle de notre ère avec les zélotes et les sicaires. Ce chapitre est aussi l’occasion de souligner que le terrorisme contemporain a connu plusieurs cycles : vagues anarchiste, anticoloniale, nouvelle gauche, enfin religieuse. Une autre partie du livre est, elle, consacrée à l’histoire du djihadisme, dont l’acception moderne comme lutte armée n’a qu’une cinquantaine d’années, et n’est reconnue que par une infime partie des musulmans.

Dans le deuxième chapitre, Nicolas Hénin s’interroge sur la définition à donner au terrorisme. C’est loin d’être évident. L’auteur rappelle d’ailleurs que dans leur ouvrage de référenceAlex. P. Schmid et Albert J. Jongman recensent 109 définitions différentes du terme. Hénin en retient finalement quatre points essentiels : l’usage de la violence, par une entité non étatique, sur des cibles civiles, dans un but politique.

Deux chapitres sont dédiés à la radicalisation et à la question de sa prise en charge. Ils sont tout particulièrement l’occasion de combattre les clichés : « La radicalisation est toujours un processus relativement long (la “radicalisation express” est largement un mythe), social (il n’y a pas “d’autoradicalisation” mais toujours des interactions) et complexe (résultat de plusieurs facteurs, à la fois personnels et environnementaux). » L’auteur redit aussi qu’il est impossible de dresser une typologie des radicalisés, tant leurs parcours sont divers.

Après avoir, entre autres, abordé la question des liens entre terrorisme et banditisme, ou encore celle de savoir si nous sommes « en guerre », Nicolas Hénin souligne avec force dans son dernier chapitre (la « voie étroite ») le péril qu’il y aurait à « se faire aveugler par ce qui vient de nous frapper ». Les « revenants » ne sont pas les seules personnes à risque. Les « velléitaires », ceux qui ont voulu partir mais en ont été empêchés, pourraient aussi poser problème. Le danger d’un terrorisme de réaction, qui prétendrait lutter contre le terrorisme djihadiste en s’attaquant à des cibles symboliques pour les musulmans n’est pas non plus anodin. L’auteur rappelle enfin l’état final recherché des terroristes, « l’éclatement des sociétés par leur polarisation ». D’où l’importance de leur résilience : «Vaincre le terrorisme, c’est d’abord vaincre la peur qu’il inspire. »

L’auteur nous offre ainsi un excellent livre grand public, particulièrement didactique, et qui permet de lutter contre les idées reçues en donnant accès à la recherche la plus sérieuse : par les temps qui courent, un vrai travail d’utilité publique.

Rémy Hémez

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

New leadership at Millennium Challenge Corporation comes under scrutiny after “disturbing” comments by a senior official and concerns over Trump’s pick to head the agency.

With Xi Jinping's great power comes great irresponsibility.

Xi Jinping's dictatorship isn't what the end of history was supposed to look like.

By Elias Groll, with Jenna McLaughlin and Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian McMassacre? With a CNN report Thursday that President Donald Trump may be on the verge of firing National Security Adviser Lt. General H.R. McMaster, the three-star Army general might be heading for a new position back in the military. McMaster has been the target of attacks ...

Local lawyers are fighting to hold the Philippine government accountable. To win, they need international human rights groups to give them more help.

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