ANTÓNIO RAMOS ROSA

 

Morreu hoje, com 88 anos, o poeta António Ramos Rosa. Autor de uma vasta obra, o PÚBLICO desenvolve a sua biografia e bibliografia. Não sendo um nome muito conhecido do grande público, era uma das figuras de relevo do nosso panorama literário.

A SÍRIA E O GÁS (NATURAL)

Publico, com a devida autorização, o mail que me foi enviado por um amigo, antigo embaixador de Portugal na Hungria:

Já conhecia razoavelmente bem o tema, mas é informativo para o público em geral. De leitura obrigatória, nos dias que correm. Todavia, necessitam-se informações adicionais para o quadro se tornar claro. 

Em suma, a meu ver, é  por aqui que as coisas começam.

Quando vivi na Hungria, na década passada, e a Gazprom suspendeu, em pleno inverno, a expedição de gás através do gasoduto ucraniano (por falta de pagamento destes últimos e alegados desvios de distribuição), o país ia entrando em crise e contavam-se as semanas e os dias das reservas húngaras até se entrar no…congelamento absoluto. Felizmente, não se chegou lá, por um triz. Mas vi bem até que ponto a Europa Central e de Leste dependia do abastecimento russo e como este era vital para a própria sobrevivência das respectivas populações o facto de disporem de livre acesso ao gás natural. Em contrapartida, percebeu-se bem até que ponto Putin mantinha em respeito aqueles países, com uma pistola carregada apontada à cabeça de cada um deles.

Tudo isto foi por mim relatado com a devida minúcia aos governantes lusos em n relatos ao longo de meses. Finalmente, um Senhor Luis Bem ou Mal Amado, não sei bem, depende dos gostos, que foi MNE de Sócrates, chega a Budapeste e ouve da própria Ministra Kinga Göncz a mesma história. Mostrou-se muito surpreendido e disse-me que eu devia ter informado Lisboa sobre o assunto em apreço. Pôs-me, pois, em cheque e jogou com o meu profissionalismo, mas retorqui-lhe, de imediato, em alto e bom som,  diante das duas delegações (portuguesa e húngara) que, devido aos seus afazeres, naturalmente o Ministro não teria tido tempo para ler os meus relatos, nem tão-pouco os seus assessores o haviam informado do respectivo conteúdo. Calou-se, mas não ganhei nada com o quiosque.

Assim se governa em Portugal e, pelos vistos, continua a governar. 

 * * *

Já andava desconfiado que na base do conflito da Siria deveria andar
gato escondido com o rabo de fora ....

Vejamos como está a guerra do gás:

 

O gás representa mais de um quarto do consumo energético da Europa e
a tendência é para aumentar rapidamente. A visualização, neste caso dos
gasodutos, explica muitas das guerras e tensões no Médio Oriente.

O continente europeu importa 50% do gás que consome, sendo a Rússia,
a Argélia e o Qatar os principais fornecedores. Um quarto desse gás vem
da Rússia, através de uma única empresa: Gazprom.

 

Para contornar a passagem actual do gás pela Ucrânia, a Bielorússia e aPolónia, a Rússia decidiu criar dois gasodutos, a norte o "North Stream"
e a sul o "South Stream", como podemos observar, a vermelho, no mapa
seguinte:

 

O "North Stream" é um projecto caro, dado que deverá passar por baixo
do mar Báltico para atingir directamente a Alemanha. Este projecto é
financiado a 51% pela Gazprom, mas também pela Alemanha, através da
E. On e BASF com 20% cada.

O "South Stream" deverá atravessar a Bulgária, a Hungria e a Sérvia e
transportar 63 mil milhões de m3 de gás por ano. A Servia, aliado
histórico da Rússia ira ter um papel determinante, com a construção de
um depósito de 300 milhões de m3 de gás para eventuais falhas de
abastecimento. Este projecto é co-financiado pela italiana ENI.

Este último projecto é um concorrente directo, como podemos ver do
projecto europeu de "Nabucco", a vermelho no mapa seguinte:

 

O gás proveniente do Azerbaijão deveria chegar até à Hungria, ondedepois, seria distribuído na Europa ocidental.

No entanto, o consorcio Shah Deniz, do Azerbaijão, optou recentemente
por um projecto alternativo: o "Trans-Adriatic Pipeline" (TAP), no mapa
seguinte a laranja.

 

O projecto TAP tem a vantagem de ter uma extensão com menos 400 km
de que o gasoduto de Nabucco. De qualquer maneira, apesar de
concurente do projecto russo, TAP ou Nabucco terá um custo duas vezes
superior ao de "South Stream" e só estará concluído em 2018 contra 2015
para o russo.

Existe um outro projecto de abastecimento europeu com o gás
proveniente do Qatar, terceira maior reserva do mundo, este deverá ser
encaminhado através do sul do Iraque, da Jordânia e da Síria para
chegar à Turquia. Aliás, a Turquia já tem essa parte do gasoduto pronta.

A Síria é um obstáculo a esse projecto, compreende-se melhor a
participação activa da Turquia e da Jordânia na queda do presidente
Sírio.

 

Existe, finalmente, um projecto para abastecer a Europa com gásproveniente do Irão com um gasoduto que atravessa o Iraque e a Síria,
onde sairia em direcção aos vários países europeus: o "Islamic Gas
Pipeline":

 

O projeto de um eixo Irão-Iraque-Síria não é bem visto pelos americanos
e seus aliados europeus, mas não prejudica o projecto russo e pelo
contrario, compete com os projectos americanos e europeus. Este facto
explica, em parte, a instabilidade criada pelos Estados Unidos na Síria,
que tem neste quadro uma importância estratégica fundamental.

Cumprimentos

Augusto Sanches

QUEM SÃO OS REBELDES SÍRIOS

A insuspeita CNN explica, em 20 pontos, quem são os rebeldes sírios:

Syria's rebels: 20 things you need to know

(CNN) -- Big questions loom over the debate on whether the United States should strike Syria: Who are the Syrian rebels? Should the United States and other countries help them?

The first thing to know is that the rebels aren't all playing on the same team. They're arrayed against the Syrian government in a constellation of groups and factions, each with its own agenda. Some are in league with al Qaeda.

Secondly, the opposition has morphed in the last few years. It started with ordinary Syrians angry at police for arresting children who painted anti-government graffiti. Now it attracts fighters from outside Syria.

What else should you know about the rebels in Syria? A lot.

Here are 20 points to get you up to speed, based on CNN's reporting since the Syrian crisis began in 2011.

1. The opposition didn't start out as a military movement.

Peaceful protests against President Bashar al- Assad's government are how it all started in February 2011, after authorities arrested 15 schoolchildren for painting anti-government graffiti on the walls of a school in the city of Daraa.

 Syrian security forces opened fire at one demonstration, killing at least four protesters -- the first casualties, activists say, in Syria's civil war.

2. But it wasn't long before things grew more violent.

As anti-government protests spread across Syria that year, calls for reforms quickly escalated into calls for the removal of the entire al-Assad regime.

In July 2011, seven Syrian military officers appeared in a YouTube video announcing their defection, calling themselves the "Free Syrian Army" and promising to wage guerrilla war against al-Assad.

Syrian security forces opened fire at one demonstration, killing at least four protesters -- the first casualties, activists say, in Syria's civil war.

2. But it wasn't long before things grew more violent.

As anti-government protests spread across Syria that year, calls for reforms quickly escalated into calls for the removal of the entire al-Assad regime.

In July 2011, seven Syrian military officers appeared in a YouTube video announcing their defection, calling themselves the "Free Syrian Army" and promising to wage guerrilla war against al-Assad.

3. Some rebel groups are closely allied with al Qaeda.

Syria's al Qaeda wing is known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and it's been gaining a greater foothold.

And analysts say al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally the most effective force fighting al-Assad. The group's name means "Victory Front." It was listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department in December.

4. That's one reason why many in the West have expressed qualms about helping them.

It's been a key concern expressed in debates on Capitol Hill this week.

The Syria rebels have promised U.S. and European officials that any military weaponry they get won't end up in extremists' hands. But that hasn't quelled criticism from some quarters that helping the rebels is a dangerous risk.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has cited extremism among the rebels as he slammed decisions by the West to arm the opposition. At an economic forum in June, he cautioned, "Where will those weapons end up?"

5. But not all the rebels are jihadists. Look at the Free Syrian Army, for example.

The Free Syrian Army's ranks swelled with soldiers who said they'd rather defect from the government military than obey orders to fire on protesters. But there also civilians among them.

The group first emerged in July 2011, claiming responsibility for an attack on an air intelligence base

6. There are also a lot of local militias.

Imagine the Minutemen during the American Revolutionary War, says Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

"It's extremely complicated to deal with them because there are so may voices among the opposition," Tabler says.

The rebel militias are composed in large part of defector soldiers. But there are also many civilians, including students, shopkeepers, real-estate agents, and even members of al-Assad's ruling Ba'ath party.

7. There have been efforts to unite the rebels, but still there's no central figure leading them. And if the regime falls, it's anybody's guess what could happen next.

An organization known as the Supreme Military Council, which formed late last year, now unites many rebel groups.

And for now, the rebels are working together to achieve a common goal -- toppling al-Assad's government. Here's how one local al-Nusra front leader put it to CNN in April: "In the period after the regime falls, our main goal is to create an Islamic state that is ruled by the Koran. It can have civilian institutions, but not democracy. We look at the other Free Syrian Army rebels as one of many groups defending religion, so we support them. In the future, we will handle this differently."

8. Religion motivates many of them.

The rebels are largely made up of Sunni Muslims battling against al-Assad's minority Alawite sect, which is associated with Shia Islam. Weapons and funds from Iran's Shia rulers have helped the Syrian regime, while Sunni states like Saudi Arabia have reportedly supported Syrian rebels.

"The conflict has become increasingly sectarian, with the conduct of the parties becoming significantly more radicalized and militarized," the UN said earlier this year.

That doesn't bode well for Syria's future. Studies have said religious civil wars are longer and bloodier than other types of clashes. They're also twice as likely to recur and twice as deadly to noncombatants.

9. They're not all Syrian.

Thousands of foreign fighters are believed to have traveled to Syria to join the rebels since early 2011. 

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy estimates the total at between 2,000 and 5,500.

That group includes hundreds of Europeans, the institute says. And there have also been reports of several people from the United States fighting with the rebels.

10. They're not just fighting al-Assad's regime -- they're fighting Hezbollah militants.

Early on in the Syrian conflict, reports surfaced that Hezbollah fighters were helping Syrian government forces. In May, the Lebanon-based Shiite militant group's leader confirmed it.

"Syria is the backbone of the resistance (in the region) and its main supporter," Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said in a televised speech. "The resistance will never stand by while its backbone is exposed."

11. It's not all about fighting on the battlefield.

The Syrian National Coalition is an umbrella group representing the Syrian opposition that formed last year.

They've met repeatedly with regional and Western political leaders and diplomats, pushing for financial and military assistance with al-Assad's ouster.

12. The rebels have gained significant ground in some parts of the country, but militarily, they're outmatched.

While rebels have won territory in key areas, like northern Syria, they've had trouble purging out pockets of regime strongholds. The Syrian military's air power leaves them vulnerable. And the Syrian government's grip on many areas of the country is tight.

13. The rebels get weapons from a variety of sources, including foreign governments.

That's shifted the balance within the rebels and strengthened more moderate groups among them, according to Elizabeth O'Bagy with the Institute for the Study of War.

"Saudi Arabia and a number of allied countries actually began to empower the more moderate forces through a train-and-assist program in which they were providing weapons and providing assistance," O'Bagy told CNN Thursday. "That had a significant impact on empowering these groups and giving them the capacity to marginalize the extremists and assert their own authority."

Sympathetic Sunni groups from other countries have also helped arm the rebels. And rebels have raided regime weapons stockpiles for supplies.

14. There are between 70,000 and 100,000 rebel fighters.

That's the estimate U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gave during congressional testimony this week.

15. How many of them are extremists? It depends on who you ask.

Syrian opposition leaders have regularly argued that extremists are a minority within their ranks.

Kerry said this week that 15-25% of the rebels are extremists. "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys," he said. "That's not true."

But Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said he didn't buy that figure, arguing that most of the Syrian opposition are radical Islamists. "Who are the rebel forces?" he asked Kerry. "I ask all the time in my briefings, and the answers get worse and worse."

And how strong the extremists are also depends on what part of the country you look at. Islamist militia are widely believed to have dominant control in rebel-held areas in northern and eastern Syria.

16. They've been accused of using chemical weapons, too.

In May, a U.N. official said evidence pointed to the use of the deadly nerve agent sarin by Syrian rebel forces. Carla Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.

But the commission later issued a news release saying it "has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

17. Human rights groups warn that Syrian rebels have also committed abuses.

Al-Assad's regime isn't the only one facing criticism from human rights groups over its record. Rebels have also been accused of possibly committing war crimes.

"Armed opposition groups too have committed serious abuses, including summary killing and torturing captured security forces, militia members and suspected informers," Amnesty International said in a March report.

Human Rights Watch called last year for opposition leaders to make it clear that kidnapping, torture and executions are unacceptable. "The Syrian government's brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups," the organization said.

18. Some disturbing videos purporting to show the rebels' brutality have surfaced online.

A video posted online in May purported to show a well-known rebel fighter carving out a government soldier's heart, prompting the U.N.'s human rights chief to call for the "atrocious act" to be investigated as a potential war crime.

On Thursday, concerns over rebels' human rights record surged after The New York Times published a video showing armed rebels getting ready to execute seven captured government soldiers and throwing their bodies into an unmarked mass grave. The newspaper said the video was recorded in the spring of 2012

19. At first, the United States said it would only give the rebels "non-lethal support," like communications equipment, food and medical supplies.

Officials said that was a way to help the rebels in their fight.

It was also an effort to hem in radical Islamist groups vying for influence in Syria after the fall of al-Assad, a senior State Department official told CNN earlier this year.

20. In June, the United States pledged to give the rebels weapons.

The United States said it would send the rebels small arms, ammunition and potentially anti-tank weapons. Rebels have said they never received those weapons.

And some activists worry that whatever the United States may do in Syria, it's too little, too late.

"The international community is so late in reaction...any action cannot be correct right now," Syrian activist Zaidoun told CNN's AC360 this week. "It's too late for anything. I don't know whether we can survive."

11. It's not all about fighting on the battlefield.

The Syrian National Coalition is an umbrella group representing the Syrian opposition that formed last year.

They've met repeatedly with regional and Western political leaders and diplomats, pushing for financial and military assistance with al-Assad's ouster.

12. The rebels have gained significant ground in some parts of the country, but militarily, they're outmatched.

While rebels have won territory in key areas, like northern Syria, they've had trouble purging out pockets of regime strongholds. The Syrian military's air power leaves them vulnerable. And the Syrian government's grip on many areas of the country is tight.

13. The rebels get weapons from a variety of sources, including foreign governments.

That's shifted the balance within the rebels and strengthened more moderate groups among them, according to Elizabeth O'Bagy with the Institute for the Study of War.

"Saudi Arabia and a number of allied countries actually began to empower the more moderate forces through a train-and-assist program in which they were providing weapons and providing assistance," O'Bagy told CNN Thursday. "That had a significant impact on empowering these groups and giving them the capacity to marginalize the extremists and assert their own authority."

Sympathetic Sunni groups from other countries have also helped arm the rebels. And rebels have raided regime weapons stockpiles for supplies.

14. There are between 70,000 and 100,000 rebel fighters.

That's the estimate U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry gave during congressional testimony this week.

15. How many of them are extremists? It depends on who you ask.

Syrian opposition leaders have regularly argued that extremists are a minority within their ranks.

Kerry said this week that 15-25% of the rebels are extremists. "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys," he said. "That's not true."

But Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said he didn't buy that figure, arguing that most of the Syrian opposition are radical Islamists. "Who are the rebel forces?" he asked Kerry. "I ask all the time in my briefings, and the answers get worse and worse."

And how strong the extremists are also depends on what part of the country you look at. Islamist militia are widely believed to have dominant control in rebel-held areas in northern and eastern Syria.

16. They've been accused of using chemical weapons, too.

In May, a U.N. official said evidence pointed to the use of the deadly nerve agent sarin by Syrian rebel forces. Carla Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.

But the commission later issued a news release saying it "has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

17. Human rights groups warn that Syrian rebels have also committed abuses.

Al-Assad's regime isn't the only one facing criticism from human rights groups over its record. Rebels have also been accused of possibly committing war crimes.

"Armed opposition groups too have committed serious abuses, including summary killing and torturing captured security forces, militia members and suspected informers," Amnesty International said in a March report.

Human Rights Watch called last year for opposition leaders to make it clear that kidnapping, torture and executions are unacceptable. "The Syrian government's brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups," the organization said.

18. Some disturbing videos purporting to show the rebels' brutality have surfaced online.

A video posted online in May purported to show a well-known rebel fighter carving out a government soldier's heart, prompting the U.N.'s human rights chief to call for the "atrocious act" to be investigated as a potential war crime.

On Thursday, concerns over rebels' human rights record surged after The New York Times published a video showing armed rebels getting ready to execute seven captured government soldiers and throwing their bodies into an unmarked mass grave. The newspaper said the video was recorded in the spring of 2012

19. At first, the United States said it would only give the rebels "non-lethal support," like communications equipment, food and medical supplies.

Officials said that was a way to help the rebels in their fight.

It was also an effort to hem in radical Islamist groups vying for influence in Syria after the fall of al-Assad, a senior State Department official told CNN earlier this year.

20. In June, the United States pledged to give the rebels weapons.

The United States said it would send the rebels small arms, ammunition and potentially anti-tank weapons. Rebels have said they never received those weapons.

And some activists worry that whatever the United States may do in Syria, it's too little, too late.

"The international community is so late in reaction...any action cannot be correct right now," Syrian activist Zaidoun told CNN's AC360 this week. "It's too late for anything. I don't know whether we can survive."

CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen and CNN's Nic Robertson, Nick Paton Walsh, Ivan Watson, Daniel Burke, Samira Said, Arwa Damon, Sarah Aarthun and Chris Lawrence contributed to this report.

DUALIDADE DE CRITÉRIOS

Transcrevemos, pelo seu interesse, o artigo publicado no semanário "Marianne", que nos foi enviado por um amigo:

Dans un Moyen-Orient qui s'enflamme, ne peut que fausser la perception des faits. Les conflits d'Afghanistan, d'Irak ou de Libye nous l'avaient déjà enseigné : parmi les libérateurs d'aujourd'hui, certains deviendront les bourreaux de demain. Pour en finir avec la bonne conscience, les « méchants » et les « gentils. »

 

Damas, Syrie - Uncredited/AP/SIPA

 

« Ces choses-là sont rudes, écrivait le père Hugo, il faut pour les comprendre avoir fait des études. » Et même si on a fait des études... Les enfants, quand on leur projette un film, demandent d'emblée : qui sont les bons, qui sont les méchants ? Les grandes personnes ne le demandent pas, parce qu'elles croient le savoir. Surtout si elles lisent le Monde. Or, face aux drames qui ensanglantent le Moyen-Orient, que répondre... ? 

Entre le sabre massacreur et le goupillon assassin, que choisir ? Entre le militarisme potentiellement dictatorial et le fanatisme intrinsèquement totalitaire, où va votre préférence ? Ni l'un ni l'autre ? Mais quand ceux que vous seriez disposé à applaudir se rallient à l'un ou se déclarent solidaires de l'autre ? 

My God ! On n'y comprend plus rien

En Egypte, on feint de croire que c'est simple : il y a de gentils « révolutionnaires » - concept - valise dans lequel on peut tout entasser, le marxiste comme le libéral - qui exigent qu'un pouvoir « cléricalo-réactionnaire », en passe de semer la désolation dans le pays, « dégage ». Lequel pouvoir refusait obstinément de passer la main sous prétexte qu'il était « issu des urnes », donc démocratique. L'armée décida de trancher. L'armée tranche toujours - au sabre -, c'est son truc. Les gentils révolutionnaires en furent un instant tourneboulés, mais se firent une raison. 

Auprès des lecteurs du Monde, le coup de balai passa moins bien. Et quand les islamistes chassés du pouvoir, résistant avec l'exaltation millénariste et la férocité dont ils sont capables, furent froidement massacrés, il ne passa plus du tout, le coup de balai. Du coup, la « révolution », avec un grand R, qui s'était d'abord transformée en « coup d'Etat révolutionnaire », devint un coup d'Etat tout court. 

My God ! On ne s'y reconnaissait plus ! Où étaient les bons, où étaient les méchants ? La police des militaires tirait dans le tas ; les résistants brûlaient les églises et pillaient les commerces coptes. Le monde démocratique, France en tête, condamnait les militaires ; une large fraction des démocrates égyptiens les applaudissait, une partie du peuple musulman soutenait les résistants islamistes, une partie du peuple égyptien du Caire les lynchait. 

Le Hamas palestinien stigmatisait la répression, le Fatah palestinien l'approuvait. La Turquie, le Qatar et le Soudan se déclaraient solidaires des victimes des massacres ; l'Arabie saoudite, le Koweït, les Emirats et la Jordanie se félicitaient que l'ordre ait été rétabli. La moitié de la Tunisie penchait d'un côté, l'autre moitié de l'autre. Solidaires des islamistes écrabouillés, du moins en parole : l'Amérique et l'Europe, mais aussi Cuba, le Venezuela chaviste et l'Iran ; solidaires du pouvoir militaire qui les écrabouillait : la Syrie, l'Algérie, la Russie et Israël. 

Les lunettes manichéennes vous permettent-elles encore d'y voir clair ? Même les lecteurs du Monde ont le vertige

Où sont les anges ? Où sont les démons ? Hier, les foules du monde arabe n'avaient d'yeux que pour la télé du Qatar, Al-Jazira, dont les Frères musulmans sont les chouchous. Aujourd'hui, cette chaîne est devenue, pour beaucoup, « l'organe des terroristes ». La Syrie était l'horreur, la Turquie le « top » ; au Caire, désormais, on amnistie volontiers Bachar al-Assad (les ennemis de mes ennemis sont mes amis), mais on voue aux gémonies Erdogan. Les médias égyptiens, issus de la révolution, diffusent de telles horreurs concernant Morsi et les Frères musulmans que les forfaits de Moubarak s'en trouvent relativisés. 

L'islamisme constitue-t-il un tout ? Les salafistes égyptiens et les wahhabites prennent ostensiblement leurs distances. Dans tout le monde musulman, on a certes manifesté son horreur du massacre, mais les foules étaient finalement riquiqui : 5 000 à Istanbul, 10 000 à Rabat. Assiste-t-on à un Trafalgar de l'islam politique ? 

Le camp du bien, le camp du mal ? Jusqu'à ce qu'on intervertisse les rôles

Au fond, il n'y a plus qu'en Europe qu'on s'accroche à l'idée que la compréhension d'un événement n'est possible que si on désigne clairement au préalable les bons et les méchants. Dût-on intervertir de temps à autre les rôles ; comme en Afghanistan où l'on combat ceux que, contre les Russes, on a soutenus ; comme en Syrie où l'on a failli livrer des missiles à ceux contre qui, au Mali, on fait la guerre ; comme en Irak que l'on a envahi pour chasser celui-là même qu'on avait financé et surarmé tant qu'il se déchaînait contre l'Iran ; comme en Libye où l'on est intervenu militairement contre un Kadhafi à qui, quelques mois plus tôt, on ne refusait rien (et pour cause), même pas l'accès à l'énergie nucléaire. 

Aujourd'hui, il est devenu banal de faire référence au « dictateur Moubarak » : « On est revenu, écrit le Monde, aux anciennes méthodes du dictateur Moubarak. » Mais pourrait-on citer un seul article, datant d'il y a plus de quatre ans, où un grand journal, de gauche ou de droite, qualifiait Moubarak de « dictateur » ? La veille de sa chute, Michèle Alliot-Marie, alors ministre française des Affaires étrangères, rendait encore hommage à son « action en faveur de la démocratie, de la modernité et de l'extension du respect des droits de l'homme ». 

Ni François Hollande ni Martine Aubry n'avaient exigé qu'il soit exclu de l'Internationale socialiste, pas plus d'ailleurs que le Tunisien Ben Ali, tyran caricatural cependant, auquel Bertrand Delanoë ne trouvait que des qualités. 

Quand Henri Guaino concocta une Union pour la Méditerranée dont les deux piliers étaient Moubarak et Ben Ali, aucun journal, même de gauche, ne s'insurgea. On applaudit plutôt. Or c'était comme si, à la fin des années 30, on en avait confié la coprésidence à Mussolini et à Franco. Seul le Monde, pour le coup, osa dénoncer l'ampleur des turpitudes du régime Ben Ali, et faillit le payer cher. 

N'a-t-on pas tendance à ne juger légitimes et respectables que les scrutins qui promeuvent ceux qu'on a à la bonne ?

L'armée égyptienne a renversé un gouvernement issu d'élections libres. C'est incontestable. Même si Morsi, avec 24 % des suffrages, ne dut son élection qu'à la division des oppositions démocratiques et libérales (et en particulier des progressistes nassériens). 

Mais, on l'a vite oublié, le Hamas avait très nettement remporté les élections palestiniennes. Or, on trouva normal de «le dégager» pour confier le pouvoir à ceux qui avaient perdu, mais convenaient à l'Occident. 

A priori, tout démocrate doit s'incliner devant le verdict du suffrage universel. Mais les médias, eux-mêmes, n'ont-ils pas tendance à ne juger légitimes et respectables que les scrutins qui promeuvent ceux qu'ils ont à la bonne, et à confondre volonté populaire et exigences de la rue. La presse américaine n'hésita pas à traiter de « dictateur » un Hugo Chavez démocratiquement élu et réélu à l'issue d'élections libres malgré des médias locaux qui lui étaient majoritairement hostiles... 

Poutine a été élu et réélu, ce dont personne ne doute, même si les résultats ont été quelque peu gonflés : or, la lecture de grands journaux français laisserait volontiers penser qu'il s'agit d'un semi-dictateur et que seuls les opposants qui défilent contre lui représentent l'authentique volonté populaire. De même, la « normalité » est-elle refusée à tout pouvoir ukrainien (ou serbe) qui n'est pas pro-occidental, même s'il a gagné les élections. Au fond, on admet difficilement la légitimité, fût-elle cautionnée par les urnes, d'un pouvoir qui nous est foncièrement antipathique. (Et Dieu sait que Poutine nous est antipathique.) 

Ne serait-il pas temps, au lieu de sauter d'une exaltation et d'une répulsion à l'autre, de rompre avec ce binarisme simplificateur ?

Quant à promouvoir les rassemblements de foules en expression majoritaire de la volonté du peuple, la gauche, en particulier, s'y laisse régulièrement aller. Mais croit-on vraiment que les contestataires d'Istanbul représentaient le sentiment profond du peuple turc ? On aimerait bien, mais hélas... pas plus, d'ailleurs que les foules parisiennes de Mai 68 n'étaient le reflet d'une aspiration hexagonale majoritaire. 

Ne serait-il pas temps, au lieu de sauter d'une exaltation à l'autre, d'une répulsion à l'autre, de rompre avec ce binarisme simplificateur pour passer une réalité de plus en plus complexe au filtre d'une lucidité froide ? 

Révolutionnaires égyptiens, démocrates tunisiens, rebelles syriens, insurgés libyens, sait-on l'infinité des courants contradictoires, souvent antagonistes, que recouvrent ces dénominations globalisantes qui permettent un temps, un temps seulement, de se réciter à soi-même une saga épique, en noir et blanc, mais en partie illusoire ? 

Comme si tout devait, coûte que coûte, et de force, entrer dans la boîte à chaussures de ce schéma : les diables et les anges. 

Les militaires font d'excellents méchants, mais les islamistes aussi. C'est selon. Chacun son tour. 

Mais quand les islamistes affrontent les militaires ? Les méchants, les méchants ? Alors on devient fou. Au temps de la terrible guerre civile en Algérie, un journal comme Libération en vint (ce qu'on peut comprendre) à exécrer beaucoup plus les militaires que les islamistes radicaux. Au point que, lorsque des démocrates progressistes, dans une réaction de survie, constituèrent des milices d'autodéfense pour combattre les tueurs du GIA aux côtés de l'armée, sous le nom de «patriotes», ce journal les dénonça presque comme des «collabos». Mais en Irak, pays de nouveau plongé dans un bain de sang, renverra-t-on dos à dos les forces de répression (pas plus tendres sans doute qu'en Algérie) et les criminels d'Al-Qaida qui tuent par fournées ? 

Sur la tragédie syrienne aussi, on a plaqué une vision en noir et blanc attentatoire à la réalité

Jamais on n'a pris autant conscience qu'aujourd'hui à quel point l'intervention blairo-bushiste en Irak fut catastrophique. Pour autant, les quelques-uns qui l'acclamèrent (les députés Hervé Mariton, Pierre Lellouche, Alain Madelin, le philosophe André Glucksmann et le chroniqueur du Figaro Ivan Rioufol, par exemple) n'ont jamais reconnu leur erreur. Pas plus que BHL à propos de la Libye. 

Le cas de la Syrie, au moment où des soupçons de recours à l'arme chimique peuvent conduire à l'internationalisation du conflit, est à cet égard exemplaire. A l'origine, une authentique et héroïque révolte populaire, comme en Egypte ou en Tunisie, contre une dictature plus implacable que celle de Moubarak. Un pouvoir, à la fois plus moderne et plus crapuleux, qui fit, comme en Tunisie et en Egypte, le choix de la répression. 

Mais sa base sociale était plus large : parce que le parti Baas, quasi stalinien, est beaucoup mieux implanté et structuré que les partis bidons de Ben Ali et Moubarak, parce que, surtout, les minorités chiite et alaouite, chrétienne, kurde et druze et certains laïcs préfèrent encore ce pouvoir-là à une domination islamiste sunnite. Or, sur cette complexité fut plaquée, une fois encore, une vision manichéenne simplificatrice - les démons et les archanges. 

Comment, à force de bonne conscience, on a rendu la tragédie syrienne paroxystique

Il existe, ou existait, en Syrie plus qu'ailleurs, une large opposition libérale, démocratique, progressiste qui se démarquait de l'opposition islamiste et refusait une militarisation de la révolte. Loin de la conforter, puisque l'opposition binaire entre le mal et le bien ne s'accommode pas de la nuance, on lui préféra la rébellion armée que soutenaient financièrement le Qatar et la Turquie. Ce qui attira évidemment les jihadistes de partout. 

On ne vit pas, ou plutôt on ne voulut pas voir, que, dès lors qu'on s'abandonnait à la logique des armes, cela avait deux conséquences : le régime en place, foncièrement militaire, qui se posait en adversaire du « terrorisme », en était conforté et, comme en Irak, les groupes islamistes les plus radicaux, proches d'Al-Qaida, eux-mêmes les plus militarisés et les plus professionnels, s'imposaient sur le terrain. Pendant un an, on refusa de regarder en face cette réalité, à nier que le mal, et même le très mal, s'infiltrait dans le camp du bien ; que l'ignominie répondait à l'ignominie. On se dissimulait derrière la fiction de «l'islamisme modéré» représenté par les Frères musulmans. 

L'islamisme modéré existe, en effet. Comme la démocratie-chrétienne en Occident. Mais en quoi un islamisme qui, même s'il ruse parfois, proclame qu'il n'y a pas d'autre loi à laquelle il convient de se soumettre, que celle de Dieu, que cette loi, qui l'emporte sur toutes les autres, a été définie une fois pour toutes il y a mille quatre cents ans et qu'elle doit être appliquée intégralement aujourd'hui, en quoi cet islamisme-là, qui accessoirement ne recule devant aucune violence, est-il modéré ? 

Article paru dans le numéro 853 du magazine Marianne

MUDANÇAS NO VATICANO

O Papa Francisco nomeou Pietro Parolin, arcebispo titular de Aquipendium e núncio apostólico na Venezuela, para o cargo de Secretário de Estado do Vaticano, com efectividade a partir de 15 de Outubro próximo.

O novo responsável pelo governo da Santa Sé (o cargo é equivalente ao de primeiro-ministro), de 58 anos,  sucede ao cardeal Tarcisio Bertone, desigando por Bento XVI e figura muito contestada na Cúria Romana.

Não vi a situação enfatizada pela comunicação social, mas, se me recordo, é a primeira vez,  nos pontificados do meu tempo, que é nomeado Secretário de Estado um prelado não cardeal. Será certamente elevado à púrpura cardinalícia no próximo consistório que Francisco convocará, possivelmente ainda antes da tomada de posse de Parolin. Caso contrário, o prelado será designado como Pró-Secretário de Estado até ao momento de ser criado cardeal.

Mantendo a tradição, o próximo consistório deverá elevar também ao cardinalato o Patriarca de Lisboa, como acontece desde D. João V. Aguarda-se com curiosidade quais os outros prelados que o Papa Francisco escolherá também para o Sacro Colégio.