Le plus mauvais article de l’histoire de The Economist?

Leurs éditoriaux sur la Palestine ou en faveur de la guerre en Irak mis à part, voici sans doute le pire article de The Economist que j’ai jamais lu: il concerne la nomination de la baronne Ashton comme haut-représentant de l’Union européenne et vice-présidente de la Commission européenne. La baronne fût une militante pacifiste au Royaume-Uni, et plus particulièrement au sein du CND – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament avant de devenir une digne représentante du New Labour blairiste. L’auteur de l’article – anonyme comme c’est la règle dans The Economist – raisonne de la manière suivante: imaginez une conservatrice britannique ayant milité dans le climat de guerre froide de la première moitié des années 80 contre l’expansion communiste en Afrique. Imaginez qu’il apparaisse que son organisation ait été financée par l’Afrique du Sud de l’apartheid. Il y aurait un scandale politique.

Et le « journaliste » de s’offusquer: la baronne Catherine Ashton fût trésorière du CND pacifiste; or, selon l’ex-dissident soviétique Vladimir Bukovsky, les pacifistes étaient orchestrés et financés par Moscou. Donc, Catherine Ashton est complice du goulag et des crimes contre l’humanité commis par Staline.Et personne n’en parle parce que l’Occident est amnésique quant aux crimes du communisme – et imaginez si les pacifistes avaient eu gain de cause dans les 80′s – je vous dis pas le cataclysme!

Lumineux, non? On croirait lire un blog ou une chronique de feu Moulay Ahmed Alaoui, mais non, c’est un article sérieux publié sur le site de The Economist (je ne sais pas s’il sera également repris dans la version papier).

Acune preuve que le CND ait été un organe dirigé ou financé par le KGB, sinon le « guilt-by-association » cher à McCarthy et au makhzen, sinon les dires de Vladimir Bukovsky. Cet ex-dissident soviétique, je le connais par écrits interposés depuis une vingtaine d’années: il écrivait régulièrement dans une revue de droite extrême voire d’extrême-droite, Contra (vous ne la connaissez pas? Normal, c’était une revue suédoise). Il est à la droite des néo-cons, en faveur des méthodes fortes cotnre les « ennemis de la liberté » qui se trouvent toujours être ceux du gouvernement étasunien. Depuis, il affirme que l’Union européenne est une nouvelle version de l’Union soviétique (ayant même publié un livre sur ce thème en 2005 – « L’Union européenne, une nouvelle URSS? »), et est un des parrains de l’United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), violemment europhobe. Ses propos sur le racisme pourraient être tenus par Jean-Marie Le Pen ou Eric Zemmour:

We don’t want to be racists: we’re all civilized people. But the situation is absurd. [In Britain] TV news anchors . . . it’s a requirement that she be black, swarthy. And the other one has to be something else. The recruitment of these minorities is huge. And you can’t find two news anchors. It turns out that a TV channel’s best bet is to hire a legless negro lesbian single mother. That’s great: she meets all the criteria. But if you don’t do this, you might be sued for discrimination. People do this [hire minorities] not because they’ve come to love everyone or accepted the theory of Marcuse, but because they can be sued. Sued and bankrupted. Suddenly there’s this big campaign [in Britain]: for some reason there are very few women in private companies, on boards of directors. Well, go figure, huh? It’s a national tragedy. But what do you know: these companies are forced to find women so that these women sit there stormily. This isn’t a joke, this is serious. This is private business: they don’t need these people. They need people who will work. But as a result it turns out that not only does this not produce any fairness in society, but also suspicion grows, racism grows. You go to the hospital and there’s a Pakistani doctor. For all I know he got his diploma because he’s politically correct. I don’t want to be treated by him. I would prefer to be treated by one of our guys, by a Russian immigrant. At least I know that he studied properly and learned a thing or two. But this guy [the Pakistani]? I don’t know who gave him his diploma and why. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned.

Vladimir Bukovsky, Smolny College of Liberal Arts, Saint Petersburg, 28 November 2007

Je suis réconforté dans ma décision ancienne déjà de me désabonner de The Economist, et le suis également par les réactions unaniment négatives dans les commentaires - et les commentateurs de The Economist ne sont pas à proprement parler des islamo-gauchistes…

Voici le corps du délit:

Better red than dead?

Europe.view Nov 26th 2009 From Economist.com

The peacenik past of the EU’s new foreign minister deserves scrutiny

IMAGINE a British Conservative politician—call her Catriona Aston—coming from obscurity to gain one of the top posts in the European Union, just as Baroness (Catherine) Ashton (pictured) has emerged from the Labour ranks to be the EU’s new foreign minister. Imagine that on closer scrutiny it turns out that in the early 1980s the fictional Ms Aston worked for a cold-war think-tank called something like the “African Freedom Foundation”, which campaigned against the spread of communism in Africa. Imagine that on closer examination it turns out that this outfit enjoyed strong behind-the-scenes support from the then apartheid government in South Africa. Among its supporters and officials are unrepentant defenders of the fascist regimes in Spain and Portugal and even those who said that Nazism had been a lesser evil than communism.It is easy to imagine what would happen. The hapless Ms Aston would be publicly disgraced and would have to resign forthwith. How could an EU representative credibly deal with the developing countries when she in the past had been a defender of a racist colonial regime? Nuance, context and balance would go out of the window. Nobody would ask if all causes supported by the former South African regime were equally evil, or if communism had maybe cost more African lives than apartheid.Against that hypothetical background, the lack of fuss about the real life Catherine Ashton’s involvement with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the 1980s looks puzzling. Ms Ashton (as she was then) was a paid organiser for CND in the late 1970s and its treasurer from 1980-82.It is worth remembering that CND was (and is) a legal organisation. It encompassed a wide range of views. Some supporters simply wanted Britain to get rid of its outdated and expensive “independent” nuclear deterrent. Others thought that the Reagan administration’s decision to put medium-range cruise and Pershing nuclear missiles in Europe was mistaken. Some idealists believed that a strong peace movement in Western Europe would inspire those behind the Iron Curtain to demand disarmament from their rulers too. Some were outright pacifists; others argued that nuclear weapons were so dangerous that “better red than dead” was the only rational approach.Yet the fact remains that the Kremlin found CND and other “peace movements” useful ways of undermining the unity of NATO, weakening the West’s defence posture and stoking anti-Americanism. The ex-dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, an expert in Soviet penetration of the West, says: “the worldwide disarmament campaign in the early 1980s was covertly orchestrated from Moscow. To a substantial extent it was also funded by the Soviet bloc”.As CND’s treasurer, Ms Ashton argued publicly for the organisation to produce audited accounts, to counter allegations of covert Soviet support. That does not convince Mr Bukovsky. CND funding, and who knew what when, may merit further investigation.

The real scandal, though, is the West’s continuing amnesia about the cold war. Given the Soviet Union’s history of mass murder, subversion, and deceit, it is astonishing that even tangential association with Soviet-backed causes in the past does not arouse the moral outrage now that is still so readily evoked by connections with the (undisputedly revolting) regime in South Africa. Most CND veterans see their peacenik days, at worst, as romantic youthful idealism. Warm-hearted but soft-headed, maybe: but better than being cold-hearted and hard-headed.That is a shameful cop-out. Imagine a 1980s Europe where CND had triumphed, with left-wing governments in Britain and Germany scrapping NATO, surrendering to Kremlin pressure and propping up the evil empire. Her opponents complain that Lady Ashton is ineffective. As a CND organiser, that may have been a blessing.

About these ads

2 Réponses

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ibnkafka, Maroc Blogs. Maroc Blogs said: Le plus mauvais article de l’histoire de The Economist?: Leurs éditoriaux sur la Palestine ou en faveur de la gu… http://bit.ly/8gXCkP [...]

  2. A new low in the decline of journalism.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

Suivre

Recevez les nouvelles publications par mail.

Rejoignez 110 autres abonnés

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :