Modification de Los actores de la política exterior
Attention : vous n’êtes pas connecté(e). Votre adresse IP sera visible de tout le monde si vous faites des modifications. Si vous vous connectez ou créez un compte, vos modifications seront attribuées à votre propre nom d’utilisateur(rice) et vous aurez d’autres avantages.
La modification peut être annulée. Veuillez vérifier les différences ci-dessous pour voir si c’est bien ce que vous voulez faire, puis publier ces changements pour finaliser l’annulation de cette modification.
Version actuelle | Votre texte | ||
Ligne 1 : | Ligne 1 : | ||
We will describe these different actors and see how they interact over time. The American foreign policy is characterized, first of all, by an extremely important device and machinery in so far as one has to deal with a diplomacy that became global at the beginning of the 20th century. It is a multi-sectoral diplomacy that is developing in a whole series of areas being one of the absolutely fundamental elements of the concept of superpower. When we talk about superpower, we often take the politico-military aspects, but there are many others with the capacity to intervene in various fields. This diplomacy is taken care of by numerous professional and private actors. | |||
The State Department is not the only player in American foreign policy dealing with transnational history issues. This multipolar character of American foreign policy is the permanent interaction between public and private actors who are not responsible for the diplomatic function. There is an extremely blurred border when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and the distinction between public and private because there is a permanent back-and-forth between the public and private sectors. This phenomenon is a colonization of the public sector by private actors. There is also a proliferation of public institutions whose public nature is sometimes unclear with federal agencies. | |||
One may wonder whether or not American foreign policy is a coherent entity. Even today, the American position is difficult to determine because different actors take the floor and it is difficult to see how they agree. Foreign policy is also permanently between centralisation, i.e. coordination by the state authorities and decentralisation by the fact that the administration and government can be complemented or competing or contradicted by other institutions that will move in a different direction. As long as the United States has an increasingly global policy, we are witnessing a diversification of decision-making centres. | |||
= La diarquía Presidente/Congreso = | = La diarquía Presidente/Congreso = | ||
== | == Distribution of original powers == | ||
Esta diarquía es absolutamente fundamental porque tenemos dos jefes de la rama ejecutiva tanto en política interna como en política exterior. El sistema de controles y contrapesos es un sistema político marcado fundamentalmente por el equilibrio de poder. Cada poder tiene un contrapoder que se hace obligatorio por la constitución norteamericana para lograr la síntesis entre el poder fuerte para luchar contra los elementos externos y el respeto de la libertad interior para evitar la tiranía. | Esta diarquía es absolutamente fundamental porque tenemos dos jefes de la rama ejecutiva tanto en política interna como en política exterior. El sistema de controles y contrapesos es un sistema político marcado fundamentalmente por el equilibrio de poder. Cada poder tiene un contrapoder que se hace obligatorio por la constitución norteamericana para lograr la síntesis entre el poder fuerte para luchar contra los elementos externos y el respeto de la libertad interior para evitar la tiranía. | ||
Ligne 56 : | Ligne 30 : | ||
Desde la creación de la República Americana hasta finales del siglo XIX, hubo un predominio del Congreso en la política exterior, aunque Monroe se distanció de ella en los años 1804. Hay una bisagra entre los años 1890 y 1914 donde hay un cambio muy claro en el equilibrio de poder marcado por Theodore Roosevelt y Woodrow Wilson, que rompe el marco bastante restringido de las prerrogativas presidenciales. Roosevelt arroga la misión de "la americanización del mundo..." mientras que Wilson encarna el ascenso de la política exterior estadounidense viajando en persona a la Conferencia de Versalles. | Desde la creación de la República Americana hasta finales del siglo XIX, hubo un predominio del Congreso en la política exterior, aunque Monroe se distanció de ella en los años 1804. Hay una bisagra entre los años 1890 y 1914 donde hay un cambio muy claro en el equilibrio de poder marcado por Theodore Roosevelt y Woodrow Wilson, que rompe el marco bastante restringido de las prerrogativas presidenciales. Roosevelt arroga la misión de "la americanización del mundo..." mientras que Wilson encarna el ascenso de la política exterior estadounidense viajando en persona a la Conferencia de Versalles. | ||
<gallery | <gallery> | ||
Fichier:President Theodore Roosevelt, 1904.jpg|Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. | Fichier:President Theodore Roosevelt, 1904.jpg|Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. | ||
Fichier:Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg|Thomas Woodrow Wilson. | Fichier:Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg|Thomas Woodrow Wilson. | ||
Ligne 70 : | Ligne 44 : | ||
A partir de la década de 1970, el Senado se embarcará en una evaluación de los programas federales, y en particular de los programas federales destinados al mundo exterior. Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Estados Unidos se embarcó en la implementación de políticas globales de ayuda. En la década de 1980, la presidencia de Reagan relanzó la Guerra Fría sin referencia al Congreso, una época en la que gran parte de la iniciativa recayó en el gobierno federal. | A partir de la década de 1970, el Senado se embarcará en una evaluación de los programas federales, y en particular de los programas federales destinados al mundo exterior. Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, Estados Unidos se embarcó en la implementación de políticas globales de ayuda. En la década de 1980, la presidencia de Reagan relanzó la Guerra Fría sin referencia al Congreso, una época en la que gran parte de la iniciativa recayó en el gobierno federal. | ||
<gallery | <gallery> | ||
Fichier:George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, 1989 official portrait.jpg|Official portrait of George H. W. Bush, 1989. | Fichier:George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, 1989 official portrait.jpg|Official portrait of George H. W. Bush, 1989. | ||
Fichier:Bill Clinton.jpg|Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. | Fichier:Bill Clinton.jpg|Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. | ||
Ligne 102 : | Ligne 76 : | ||
=== El Department of Defense === | === El Department of Defense === | ||
The Department of Defense, which was originally divided into a War Department and a Navy Department, will merge to form the Department of Defense. This is a department that will become more and more important. In the rise of the Department of Defense, there are two world wars and in particular the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. In 1945, there was a partial demobilization since there were still other fronts and the Cold War was looming. The War Department, which must be deflated after a conflict, remains important, especially since the signals remain red in a whole host of areas. The Cold War arrived with the vote of the National Security Act, which finally merged the Department of War, Navy and the U.S. Navy and the Department of Aviation in a "super-department" of defense symbolized by the Pentagon<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947 National Security Act of 1947 on Wikipedia]</ref><ref>[http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/laws/nsact1947.pdf Text] at the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence</ref>. In 2009 it was 2 million employees, a budget of 500 billion dollars. During the Cold War 75% of the American administration works for this department. Today, the Department of Defense has taken the lead over the State Department. | |||
[[File:DoD Organization March 2012.png|center|vignette|400px|Structure of the DoD in March 2012.]] | [[File:DoD Organization March 2012.png|center|vignette|400px|Structure of the DoD in March 2012.]] | ||
Ligne 146 : | Ligne 120 : | ||
La política exterior estadounidense es mil hojas de papel entre organizaciones extremadamente diferentes que reportan a personas muy diferentes. El control sobre todas estas organizaciones no es tan fuerte como uno podría pensar. Hay una multitud de estructuras ad hoc y no departamentales como la Agencia de Información de los Estados Unidos[USIA] creada en 1953 e integrada en el Departamento de Estado en 1999, la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional[USAID], 1961. Integrado en parte en el Departamento de Estado después de 1989, el Organismo de Control de Armas y Desarme[ACDA] fue fundado en 1961 e integrado en el Departamento de Estado en 1999. | La política exterior estadounidense es mil hojas de papel entre organizaciones extremadamente diferentes que reportan a personas muy diferentes. El control sobre todas estas organizaciones no es tan fuerte como uno podría pensar. Hay una multitud de estructuras ad hoc y no departamentales como la Agencia de Información de los Estados Unidos[USIA] creada en 1953 e integrada en el Departamento de Estado en 1999, la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional[USAID], 1961. Integrado en parte en el Departamento de Estado después de 1989, el Organismo de Control de Armas y Desarme[ACDA] fue fundado en 1961 e integrado en el Departamento de Estado en 1999. | ||
= | = Private actors = | ||
Private actors initially appear to be fairly straightforward but are more complicated than they appear to be. Private actors have a role in U.S. foreign policy. In U.S. foreign policy, private actors are even more important than in other countries. The federal state, in American history, comes second only. Historically, the federal state is weak and gradually asserting itself during the 20th century, the actors having gained in importance will maintain it. | |||
The division between public and private actors is closely linked to the question of general interest. The general interest, the public interest, the interest of the nation is not only in theory embodied by the sovereign. More generally, what defines the general interest in the United States is the balance of power between the various actors in American foreign policy. The American general interest is only the result of the balance of the various forces that are investing in the political field, which makes it possible to explain a number of aspects of American foreign policy. | |||
Private actors participate in foreign policy in three ways: | |||
*Lobbying: | *Lobbying: putting pressure on the public authorities to steer foreign policy in a particular direction; | ||
* | *through field action: by conducting their "own diplomacy"; | ||
* | *by expert work: in the construction of foreign policy. | ||
== | == Lobbying in Congress == | ||
Lobbying is particularly active in Congress. Lobbying is an integral part of the American political culture, even being indicated in the Constitution of 1787 as a "right to petition", meaning that every citizen has the right to petition Congress. It is an essential element of the freedom of expression that underpins a lobbying right that will become institutionalized throughout American foreign and domestic politics. Lobbying is built according to the principle of the Checks and Balances with the idea that everyone can express their opinion and the one who is able to mobilize more in their favour wins. The general interest was the result of a sum of interests representing the lobbying system. | |||
Lobbying is first and foremost a practice that will be legally regulated from the 1940s onwards in order to avoid a certain number of excesses, then legally recognized as such in the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 and supplemented by the Lobbying disclosure Act of 1995, which determines precisely which groups are accredited to Congress. It's a series of interest groups that have been represented by specialized firms in Washington. | |||
There are three types of organisations and lobbies working in foreign policy at the Congress. | |||
* | *NGOs: like Human Rights Watch; | ||
*lobbies | *economic lobbies: all trade union associations such as the American Chamber of Commerce or employers' associations such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the AFL-CIO. The Congress will be approached by a series of large associations representing groups from the production sectors to represent the interests of their corporate branches; | ||
*Ethical groups: practically all diasporas have their own lobby group in Congress, such as the Israelis who will push for the implementation of a foreign policy in favour of Israel, the Cuban lobby, Armenians, etc. | |||
Lobbyists are not necessarily of private origin. The federal administration sometimes arouses a number of lobbies to override Congress, such as the American Israel Public Committee and administration to support the Eisenhower administration in implementing a foreign policy in favour of the Israeli state or the Cuban lobby in the Reagan administration to tighten immigration policy. | |||
== | == Action on the ground == | ||
Lobbying is only one element of the action of government actors, much of this work is done on the ground. From a transnational perspective, these actors act alongside, outside, against, parallel to the administration. By acting in parallel, they act outside of state boundaries and the state context. Non-governmental actors are not in contact with countries, the border issue is not of particular interest to them. Their latitude of action is not that of the American government, which is generally more flexible and responsive to events. It is questionable whether these non-state actors are completely independent or structurally dependent on the US state. No U.S. non-governmental organization is completely independent of the U.S. government, nor do they have the same understanding of the national interest as the state interest. | |||
Foreign policy is conducted by a host of parallel organisations. Protestant missions throughout the world, for example, have both their own specificity, acting in some way, but above all, there are structures that are organizations that are evangelized movements promoting at the same time an Anglo-Saxon way of life and values, in particular constituting a significant strike force throughout the 19th century. | |||
The great philanthropic foundations that developed from the end of the 19th century onwards are throughout the 20th century implementing philanthropic diplomacy. Foundations are organizations that set up humanitarian campaigns in Latin America, Asia and Europe that are both campaigns for the eradication of diseases and at the same time do so with an American apparatus that helps modernize public health facilities. It's a projection of American foreign policy. These large organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation in the inter-war period, the Ford Foundation in the Cold War, conduct a true diplomacy with substantial funds. | |||
NGOs developed during the First World War, such as CARD in the interwar period and with refugee aid committees. Between 1975 and 1988 will be set up Watch-Human Rights Watch and in 1993 will be founded Transparency International. They are humanitarian organizations that will act in particular in the First World War. These organizations are part of a global projection of the United States into the world embodying a number of principles. | |||
The industrialists and bankers led a banking diplomacy in the inter-war period, with the establishment of loans that allowed a number of post-World War I reconstruction in coordination with the State Department. The role is so important that they are more expansionist than the U.S. government itself because their financial interests are not the geopolitical interests of the U.S. government at the time, particularly in order to penetrate a number of banking markets. | |||
== | == Institutions of expertise: think tanks == | ||
This is one of the originalities of the American political system and American foreign policy. Expertise plays a major role in U.S. foreign policy since, at the end of the 19th century, the idea was to base political decision-making on precise, scientific and objective data and, finally, the decision maker had to rely on scientists to build his or her foreign policy and decision-making. The United States emerged as a world power at the end of the 19th century. The idea is that they must build a global foreign policy, so they must have instruments to steer this policy so that they can intervene in all geographical areas. It is the idea of having the instruments at your disposal that allow you to intervene everywhere and at any time, particularly by having at your disposal an important scientific expertise. | |||
With the issue of think tanks, we are in a distinction between private and public actors, extremely blurred because, in the end, think tanks are there to make the link between the public and private spheres and, in general, between the academic world, which is a provider of knowledge, and the political world, which needs knowledge to carry out its policy and concrete actions. It is the idea of bridging the gap and providing usable knowledge. The think-tank system is an academic type of knowledge but at the same time it must be usable by the political world. They are sometimes private organizations, sometimes public, sometimes public, sometimes both with a mixed character often falling under their financing. People are both public servants in the federal administration, sometimes private academics, sometimes both, there is institutionalized permeability. Think tanks are a foreign policy provider being a component of the Foreign Policy Establishment that represents an environment that is a small group that makes American foreign policy. | |||
There are several generations of think tanks. | |||
=== | === First Generation === | ||
[[File:Stain Glass Andrew Mellon.JPG|thumb|100px|Stained glass window dedicated to Andrew Carnegie in the National Cathedral.]] | [[File:Stain Glass Andrew Mellon.JPG|thumb|100px|Stained glass window dedicated to Andrew Carnegie in the National Cathedral.]] | ||
The first generation appeared in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [CEIP] founded in 1910 as one of the many organizations founded by Carnegie Magna Steel Magna in the United States with the aim of promoting international law worldwide. Not only is it an organization that develops a whole series of studies on what international law is, it also supports a whole series of institutions that develop international law. The Court allowing arbitration established after the Hague Conference is created with funds from Carnegie. The establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1921 will also be supported. The foundation also lobbies American political and legal circles to bring the United States into a wide range of international circles. This foundation is dominated by the great barons of the Republican Party highlighting the hybrid character of these organizations. | |||
[[File:Elihu Root, bw photo portrait, 1902.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Elihu Root in 1902.]] | [[File:Elihu Root, bw photo portrait, 1902.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Elihu Root in 1902.]] | ||
The Council on Foreign Relations was established in 1921 at the initiative of Elihu Root. It was created in reaction to the refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which divides a large part of the American political class. Finally, there is a whole internationalist faction of American political and academic circles that argues that the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles must be counterbalanced by inserting the United States as much as possible into the international arena through the development of solutions. Initially, the Council on Foreign Relations reflected on the place that the United States should have in the international system. | |||
From 1922 onwards, the journal Foreign Affairs was created to develop expertise on these issues. During the Second World War, as early as 1939 - 1940, the Council on Foreign Relations worked for the Foreign Department of State, launching a series of studies called "War and Peaces Studies", which brought together 682 reports, analysing what the post-1945 world would be like and how American foreign policy in the post-1945 world would look like. One of the main persons in charge of this programme is John Foster, who in 1953 became Secretary of State for Eisenhower. The Council on Foreign Relations is becoming an important political laboratory for foreign policy. | |||
The Institute of Pacific Relations was established in 1925. It is an institution that brings together private and public actors from the United States which is a kind of federation of different centres of expertise located in the Eastern United States and whose different centres are coordinated by the American section being a semi-public, semi-private mixed structure. This institute deals with geopolitical issues in the Pacific region, including the creation of Pacific Affairs magazine in 1926. If this institute deals with the Pacific region, it is no coincidence that after the First World War, the Pacific was a geographical area for American foreign policy, hence the idea of benefiting from precise expertise on geopolitical issues and being able to feed the circle of political decision-makers on what is happening in these regions. | |||
The Committee for Economic Development was founded in 1942 during the Second World War. It is one of those multiple institutes of expertise being created during this period and which will be working on the post-war economic order and the reorganization of the world economy, in particular the Treasury Department, which will influence the attitude of the role of decision-makers in the Bretton Wood Conference which provides the framework for the post-war economy. Work will also be developed, including the genesis of the Marshall Plan. One of the conclusions dreaming of these studies is that part of Europe is going to be completely destroyed and will need heavy funding to support their economies. | |||
=== | === Second Generation === | ||
The second generation appears after the Second World War and with the Cold War. One thing distinguishes them, of course, is that the Cold War context is quite different from the post-World War I and wartime context. | |||
The legacy is the context left by the Second World War and the Cold War, which will be the promotion of scientific issues and the important role of science in the war. The scientific questions will produce arguments but also guide policy, particularly the Bretton Woods Conference and the post-war conferences, where economists played a fundamental role. | |||
[[Fichier:Rand-logo.PNG|150px|vignette|droite]] | [[Fichier:Rand-logo.PNG|150px|vignette|droite]] | ||
The organizations are much more institutionalized than in the years 1910-1920, tending to become consulting firms under contract to the federal government. Links are institutionalized with contracts and the federal government will commission studies on specific topics. This is the case of the RAND Corporation created in 1948. | |||
The RAND Corporation is a product of the Cold War context, highlighting the permeability between public/private and quasi-institutionalized, since the RAND Corporation is the result of an agreement between Douglas and the U.S. Air Force. The RAND Corporation is going to work on researching new weapons in the framework of the arms race between the United States and the USSR. The objective is to enable the United States to maintain an advance on nuclear weapons. It is also a matter of knowing the impact of chemical and nuclear weapons on human beings and the environment. The RAND Corporation is also working to develop what will become the doctrine of deterrence, which is at the heart of the concept of balancing terror that has become the centre of geopolitical opposition in the heart of the Cold War. Mutual assured destruction[MAD] is the fact that if an opponent attacks, the damage he will suffer as a result of the riposte is so great that he will not carry out his attack. It is the idea that the United States has an increasingly important nuclear arsenal but that it should not be used, otherwise destruction would be too great. The systematization of reality and doctrine is largely due to the Rand Corporation. A division of the social sciences, headed by Hans Speier, is looking at propaganda issues to ensure that they have an impact on the target countries. | |||
The Center for Strategic and International Studies was established in 1962 as a bipartisan think tank specializing in safety issues. | |||
[[Fichier:Logo PNAC.gif|300px|vignette|centré]] | [[Fichier:Logo PNAC.gif|300px|vignette|centré]] | ||
The Project for a New American Century[PNAC] created in 1997 lived until 2006. This think tank is clearly labelled and linked to the neoconservative movement of the Republican Party. Its objective is to promote comprehensive American leadership from a political and military standpoint to reinvent its leadership in the context of a new world order. The founders of this think tank are well-known people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowit. This project brings together politicians as well as academics like Robert Kagan and publicists like William Kristol. | |||
<gallery | <gallery> | ||
Fichier:450px-46 Dick Cheney 3x4.jpg|Portrait of Dick Cheney. | Fichier:450px-46 Dick Cheney 3x4.jpg|Portrait of Dick Cheney. | ||
Fichier:480px-Rumsfeld1.jpg|Official portrait of Donald H. Rumsfeld, 2002. | Fichier:480px-Rumsfeld1.jpg|Official portrait of Donald H. Rumsfeld, 2002. | ||
Ligne 230 : | Ligne 204 : | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
The priority objective of the NACP is to reshape the geopolitical map of the Middle East. This is the context of the late 1990s when the Golf War took place, Iraq was expelled from Kuwait, and the idea is to bring democracy by force if necessary but also end the first Golf War by bringing down Saddam Hussein. This program will be set up under the Bush administration, and these personalities will become the driving force behind the implementation of this program set up by the NACP. With the return to power of a certain number of people, the theorized project within the framework of this think tank becomes George Bush's political line facilitated by the September 11 terrorist attack that changed the cards in the American foreign policy that allowed the state official doctrine. The bridge is also opaque between public and private with Dick Cheney who is vice-president at the same time as he has interests in Halliburton, a company that will be awarded oil contracts in the aftermath of the Second Golf War. | |||
== | == Institutions of Expertise: Private Actors in the Federal Administration == | ||
They are not institutions as such, but actors working closely with the federal government in a range of specific areas. The Inquiry that emerged in the years 1917-1919 is a whole staff of experts who came with Wilson to the peace conference and worked for two years on Europe's political reshaping issues, bringing together historians, economists, anthropologists, linguists and demographers in anticipation of what the United States' participation in peace will be through a series of questions and studies. The second most important body in the American delegation is the Inquiry. | |||
The Second World War brought the same process to the forefront, but in a tenfold increase. From the very beginning of the war, a whole series of experts were mandated to work on a number of issues. They are in particular emigrants from the European intellectual community who will work in the federal administration during the whole war. The center of all this work is the OSS with the Research and Analysis Branch, which is first a more or less independent branch and then integrated into the Department of State in 1945. In 1941, the Division of Special Research was created. At the end of the Second World War, part of it went to universities and part to the State Department. At the moment when the CIA is going to be created, some of the academics will play an important role in it. Large departments also employ private actors such as the State Department working with institutionalized think tanks but will hire a number of people as the departure from the defense. It can be considered that the federal administration is at the top of the decision-making process, but it can also be considered that the federal administration is colonized by a number of private actors. | |||
== | == Institutions of expertise: universities == | ||
Universities, which are privately owned, play an important role in the production of expertise that forms a partnership with the federal government. The issue of national security in the United States is a priority objective. Especially culturally, the notion of security is very important in understanding U.S. foreign policy, but the role of scientific knowledge in preserving national security plays an important role. This is a post-war reality, particularly in the context of the Cold War. | |||
Area studies are a whole series of interdisciplinary studies that cover specific geographical eras, combining historical, political and linguistic aspects in order to understand certain geographical areas. They are interdisciplinary departments. Expansion into American universities is closely linked to the emergence of the United States in international relations. These specialties guide American foreign policy. These disciplines are closely linked to the geopolitical context. | |||
These area studies began timidly in the inter-war period but the Second World War gave them considerable expansion as the United States reached the status of a great power and area studies provided the framework for the United States to shape its global policy. These are structures that were in the 1930s and World War II financed by private foundations and which after the Second World War were to be financed by intergovernmental funds. There is a direct continuity between the OSS and the study areas. Within the framework of the OSS, specialists working in certain regions, once demobilized, will find jobs in universities that are starting to create area studies departments. The major areas where area studies are developing are, first of all, Russia because it is quite clear that there is a need for the federal administration to know its enemy. The development of all these specialists provides expertise on regions of potential interest to the federal government. | |||
The issue of psychology and propaganda in the Cold War context is central because it is a geopolitical war and also a war of propaganda, culture and messages, since the two powers know full well that they will not go to war with each other. Propaganda warfare is an important instrument of the Cold War. Psychologists will be mobilized in the implementation of American Cold War policy to decode and target Russian propaganda. | |||
Through the question of private actors and expertise, it is clear that, depending on the context and on both sides of the two wars, government agencies and the federal agency have played a very important role in the role of these disciplines, which does not mean that the academic disciplines subsumed with the political field, the field of knowledge production, which is hardly independent of the political field and vis versa. | |||
= Referencias = | = Referencias = | ||
<references /> | <references/> | ||
[[Category: Ludovic Tournès]] | [[Category:Ludovic Tournès]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:histoire]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:relations internationales]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Histoire des États-Unis]] | ||
[[Category:2012]] | |||
[[Category: 2012]] | [[Category:2013]] | ||
[[Category: 2013]] | [[Category:2014]] | ||
[[Category: 2014]] |