Avertir le modérateur

La guerre contre le terrorisme, ça ne marche pas

La guerre contre le terrorisme, c’est une invention de l’impérialiste Bush en 2001. Nous sommes en 2017, et chacun peut faire le bilan. Non seulement, la guerre contre le terrorisme, ça ne marche pas, mais il est clair que ça ne fait qu’amplifier le problème. Il faut savoir regarder la réalité en face : il y a une relation de cause à effet entre les guerres que nos gouvernements soutiennent et mènent dans d’autres pays et le terrorisme sur notre sol. Les gouvernements passés n’ont pas eu la volonté de régler le problème de ces connections, et aujourd’hui la population est confrontée à ce terrorisme. Entretenir la fièvre ne mène à rien. Nos sociétés sont parfaitement unies, et ce n’est pas là le problème. Non, il faut reposer des bases saines pour l’action, c'est-à-dire que nous avons besoin d’agir d’une façon plus intelligente pour réduire la menace de pays qui entretiennent les terroristes et génèrent du terrorisme. Cela veut dire qu’il faut changer ce que nous faisons à l’étranger.

J’approuve totalement ce raisonnement, qui n’est pas le mien, mais celui de mon ami Jeremy Corbyn, le futur Premier ministre britannique, prononcé après l’attentat de Manchester. En France, la gauche ne sait pas où elle habite, et après avoir tant parlé pour ne rien dire, elle n’a cette fois-ci plus rien à dire.

Au Royaume-Uni, c’est un autre monde avec un Parti travailliste qui bouscule la majorité conservatrice, perdue dans ses contradictions internes et placée dans l’impasse de défendre toujours une caste. Quand Jeremy Corbyn se rend au festival de Glastonbury, il réunit plus de monde que les meilleurs groupes de rock. Et oui. Il y a des raisons, et le discours qu’il a prononcé après l’attentat de Manchester l’explique.

 Je n’ai trouvé le texte qu’en anglais, et désolé pour ceux qui ne pratiquent pas cette belle langue.


La guerre contre le terrorisme, ça ne marche pas,

il faut revoir notre politique étrangère,

par Jeremy Corbyn


Our whole nation has been united in shock and grief this week as a night out at a concert ended in horrific terror and the brutal slaughter of innocent people enjoying themselves. When I stood on Albert Square at the vigil in Manchester, there was a mood of unwavering defiance. The very act of thousands of people coming together sent a powerful message of solidarity and love. It was a profound human impulse to stand together, caring and strong. It was inspiring.

In the past few days, we have all perhaps thought a bit more about our country, our communities and our people. The people we have lost to atrocious violence or who have suffered grievous injury, so many of them heart-breakingly young .

 The people who we ask to protect us and care for us in the emergency services, who yet again did our country proud: the police; firefighters and paramedics; the nurses and doctors; people who never let us down and deserve all the support we can give them. And the people who did their best to help on that dreadful Monday night – the homeless men who rushed towards the carnage to comfort the dying, the taxi drivers who took the stranded home for free, the local people who offered comfort, and even their homes, to the teenagers who couldn’t find their parents.

They are the people of Manchester. But we know that attacks, such as the one at the Manchester Arena, could have happened anywhere and that the people in any city, town or village in Britain would have responded in the same way.

It is these people who are the strength and the heart of our society. They are the country we love and the country we seek to serve. That is the solidarity that defines our United Kingdom. That is the country I meet on the streets every day; the human warmth, the basic decency and kindness.

It is our compassion that defines the Britain I love. And it is compassion that the bereaved families need most of all at this time. To them I say: the whole country reaches out its arms to you and will be here for you not just this week, but in the weeks and years to come. Terrorists and their atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity will never divide us and will never prevail.

They didn’t in Westminster two months ago. They didn’t when Jo Cox was murdered a year ago. They didn’t in London on 7/7. The awe-inspiring response of the people of Manchester, and their inspirational acts of heroism and kindness, are a living demonstration that they will fail again.

But these vicious and contemptible acts do cause profound pain and suffering, and, among a tiny minority, they are used as an opportunity to try to turn communities against each other.

So let us all be clear, the man who unleashed carnage on Manchester, targeting the young and many young girls in particular, is no more representative of Muslims, than the murderer of Jo Cox spoke for anyone else. Young people and especially young women must and will be free to enjoy themselves in our society.

I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. That will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with. That’s what conflict resolution is all about. But do not doubt my determination to take whatever action is necessary to keep our country safe and to protect our people on our streets, in our towns and cities, at our borders.

There is no question about the seriousness of what we face. Over recent years, the threat of terrorism has continued to grow. You deserve to know what a Labour Government will do to keep you and your family safe. Our approach will involve change at home and change abroad.

At home, we will reverse the cuts to our emergency services and police. Once again in Manchester, they have proved to be the best of us. Austerity has to stop at the A&E ward and at the police station door. We cannot be protected and cared for on the cheap. There will be more police on the streets under a Labour Government. And if the security services need more resources to keep track of those who wish to murder and maim, then they should get them.  

We will also change what we do abroad. Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.

But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism.

Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone. Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform. And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre. But we must be brave enough to admit the war on terror is simply not working. We need a smarter way to reduce the threat from countries that nurture terrorists and generate terrorism.

That’s why I set out Labour’s approach to foreign policy earlier this month. It is focused on strengthening our national security in an increasingly dangerous world.

We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security.

Seeing the army on our own streets today is a stark reminder that the current approach has failed. So, I would like to take a moment to speak to our soldiers on the streets of Britain. You are doing your duty as you have done so many times before.

I want to assure you that, under my leadership, you will only be deployed abroad when there is a clear need and only when there is a plan and you have the resources to do your job to secure an outcome that delivers lasting peace.

That is my commitment to our armed services. This is my commitment to our country. I want the solidarity, humanity and compassion that we have seen on the streets of Manchester this week to be the values that guide our government. There can be no love of country if there is neglect or disregard for its people. No government can prevent every terrorist attack.  If an individual is determined enough and callous enough, sometimes they will get through.

But the responsibility of government is to minimise that chance, to ensure the police have the resources they need, that our foreign policy reduces rather than increases the threat to this country, and that at home we never surrender the freedoms we have won, and that terrorists are so determined to take away. Too often government has got it wrong on all three counts and insecurity is growing as a result. Whoever you decide should lead the next government must do better.

Today, we must stand united. United in our communities, united in our values and united in our determination to not let triumph those who would seek to divide us. So for the rest of this election campaign, we must be out there demonstrating what they would take away: our freedom; our democracy; our support for one another. Democracy will prevail. We must defend our democratic process, win our arguments by discussion and debate, and stand united against those who would seek to take our rights away, or who would divide us.

 Last week, I said that the Labour Party was about bringing our country together. Today I do not want to make a narrow party political point. Because all of us now need to stand together. Stand together in memory of those who have lost their lives. Stand together in solidarity with the city of Manchester. And – stand together for democracy.

Because when we talk about British values, including tolerance and mutual support, democracy is at the very heart of them. And our General Election campaigns are the centrepieces of our democracy – the moment all our people get to exercise their sovereign authority over their representatives.

Rallies, debates, campaigning in the marketplaces, knocking on doors, listening to people on the streets, at their workplaces and in their homes – all the arts of peaceful persuasion and discussion – are the stuff of our campaigns.

They all remind us that our government is not chosen at an autocrats’ whim or by religious decree and never cowed by a terrorist’s bomb.

Indeed, carrying on as normal is an act of defiance – democratic defiance – of those who do reject our commitment to democratic freedoms.

But we cannot carry on as though nothing happened in Manchester this week.

So, let the quality of our debate, over the next fortnight, be worthy of the country we are proud to defend. Let’s have our arguments without impugning anyone’s patriotism and without diluting the unity with which we stand against terror.

Together, we will be stronger. Together we can build a Britain worthy of those who died and those who have inspired us all in Manchester this week. Thank you.


  • Le " terrorisme " n'est pas une infraction au sens du droit pénal. Ce n'est qu'un mobile. Un mobile est indifférent à la commission d'une infraction.

    Pénalement, l'acte " terroriste " est un meurtre, un assassinat, une destruction, accompagné de circonstances aggravantes.

    Le " terrorisme " est donc un phénomène qui relève du champ du discours politique et non du droit pénal. Cela se vérifie historiquement. Le terrorisme est aussi vieux que la prostitution. Il a existé de tout temps.

    Vincent Sizaire, dans le Monde diplomatique, s'émeut de la confusion juridique de notre police et de notre justice à entretenir un discours qui vaudrait un zéro pointé en droit pénal :

    " En définitive, la seule raison d’être de l’infraction de terrorisme réside dans la prise en compte du mobile réel ou supposé de son auteur — à savoir la volonté de « troubler gravement l’ordre public par l’intimidation ou la terreur ». Une incongruité juridique, dans la mesure où le mobile (6) est traditionnellement indifférent à la constitution de l’infraction : il n’apporte qu’un élément permettant d’apprécier sa gravité relative et, ainsi, de déterminer le choix de la sanction. Intégrer le mobile dans la définition d’une infraction, c’est abandonner sa détermination à une appréciation nécessairement subjective des autorités. "

    Les sociétés démocratiques modernes se sont fourvoyées à légiférer de manière erronée sur un phénomène déjà réprimé par le droit pénal.

    Elles persévèrent à le faire avec la mansuétude des facultés de droit - les juristes sont des conservateurs plus sensibles à la notion d'ordre que de justice, d'où l'affaiblissement de l'Etat de droit et la régression démocratique. Voir le regain de succès du nazi Carl Schmitt et le désintérêt pour Habermas.

    Le " terrorisme " distingue des criminels parmi d'autres alors qu'ils ne valent pas mieux et que rien ne le justifie sinon un mobile (des plus confus et contradictoires invoquant une religion de paix pour justifier des assassinats).

    La théologie est étrangère au champ juridique d'un Etat laïc et une telle distinction ne se justifie pas en droit.

    A-t-on développé une branche du droit pénal qu'on appelle " passionalisme " parce qu'il y aurait des crimes passionnels ? Non.

    C'est ce que font pourtant l'exécutif et le législatif depuis des dizaines d'années avec le " terrorisme ".

    Cela montre que le " terrorisme " est de la communication politique - de nos politiques bien plus que des organisations criminelles - qui instrumentalise les peurs, l'angoisse, la crédulité.

    Le " terrorisme " est le millénarisme du 21° siècle, l'inquisition moderne. C'est une marque, un mythe, une appellation fourre-tout. La réalité est plus simple, ce sont des criminels qui fréquentent les mêmes réseaux que les autres : blanchiment d'argent, trafics, marché noir, commerce parallèle - si tant est qu'il se distingue de l'autre - corruption, criminalité financière, conflits d'intérêts, ...

    L'attaque au couteau en Sibérie serait l'acte d'un malade psychiatrique. Il n'y aura rien de surprenant à ce qu'on nous rapporte que Daech revendique les morts de la route, la contamination au Fipronil, les revendications de Gattaz dont la régression sociale qu'il promeut porte atteinte aux droits de l'Homme, les 2000 milliards annuels de fraude fiscale dans l'UE, ...

    La lutte contre le " terrorisme " fera un progrès décisif dès que le marketing politique cessera d'instrumentaliser les esprits par une surenchère anxiogène et parlera de criminels, de délinquance.

  • «Make François Hollande great again»

Les commentaires sont fermés.

Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr, l'actualité en temps réel Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr : l'actualité en temps réel | tout le sport : analyses, résultats et matchs en direct
high-tech | arts & stars : toute l'actu people | l'actu en images | La une des lecteurs : votre blog fait l'actu