Grandes puissances et conflits/Exercices/Obama à West Point

→ Rappel de la méthode de l'analyse de doc(s).

Obama à West Point

Sujet

Consigne : en analysant le document ci-dessous, vous montrerez qu'Obama fournit un état des lieux de la puissance américaine, ainsi que sa vision des interventions militaires à l'étranger.

Discours d'Obama à West Point

[...] This is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. [Applause] When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al Qaeda’s core leadership – those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. [Applause] And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.

In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise – who suggest that America is in decline, or has seen its global leadership slip away – are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics. Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth; our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations. America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. [Applause] So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.

But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.

It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead – not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as Commander-in-Chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self- described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.

A different view from interventionists from the left and right says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.

And each side can point to history to support its claims. But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American cities. As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked – whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world – will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries. [...]

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only – or even primary – component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader – and especially your Commander-in-Chief – to be clear about how that awesome power should be used.

So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America and our military should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.

First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it – when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake, when the security of our allies is in danger. In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life. [Applause] [...]

Now, that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces. But as we move to a train-and-advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So, earlier this year, I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel. Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia; working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya; and facilitating French operations in Mali. [...]

You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it’s taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. [...]

Barack Obama, U.S. Military Academy Commencement, West Point, NY, 28 mai 2014.

Pistes d'analyse

Introduction

L'introduction est consacrée d’abord à une présentation conventionnelle du doc (nature, auteur, date/contexte), puis à la formulation de l’idée générale (un peu comme une problématique), enfin à l'annonce du plan de l'étude.

Encore faut-il être capable de présenter Barack Obama... Le lieu du discours est particulier, à West Point, l'académie militaire de l'armée américaine (la marine a le sien à Annapolis, l'Air Force à Colorado Springs), lors de la cérémonie de remise du diplôme aux cadets (les futurs officiers). Le contexte de ce discours n’est pas anodin : juste après le Memorial Day (contexte patriotique) et peu avant les élections de mi-mandat (il y a un enjeu politique derrière le discours : la question de la politique extérieure étasunienne).

L'idée générale est la vision du rôle des États-Unis dans le monde ; pour reprendre une formulation du programme officiel (« les États-Unis et le monde »), c’est Obama et le monde. Quant au plan de l'analyse, souvent il est donné dans la consigne, ou bien il saute aux yeux (correspondant à la structure du doc).

Corps de texte

L’analyse doit être structurée, chaque partie correspondant à une des grandes idées du doc. S'il est impératif de citer le texte, une analyse ne peut se limiter à une paraphrase du doc, il faut l'expliquer, en montrant qu'on a compris les sous-entendus. Quelques pistes à creuser :

• pourquoi le début du discours d'Obama fait référence à la césure 2008-2009 ? Il s'agit de son début de mandat : il fait une comparaison entre son bilan et celui de son prédécesseur républicain, Bush junior.
• Pourquoi insiste-t-il sur la puissance militaire et économique américaine ? Il s'agit d'une réaction à la notion de déclin relatif des États-Unis.
• Pourquoi le président a-t-il besoin de faire une tel discours accès sur le militaire ? Il s'agit d'une réponse à ceux (surtout des républicains) qui le trouve trop timoré en politique étrangère, particulièrement vis-à-vis du Moyen-Orient. Le public est acquis à l'orateur : pour les cadets, il s'agit de leur commandant-en-chef ; pour les familles dans les tribunes, ils apprécient que leur fils ne soit pas envoyé en Irak ou en Afghanistan.

Conclusion

La conclusion peut être construite autour de deux points : d’une part les apports du document (pourquoi est-il donner à étudier ?) et d’autre part avoir un regard critique (on a là un point de vue, qui passe vite ou zappe certains aspects).