Think Tank Confidential

This past October, Christopher DeMuth, who has been president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) since December 1986, announced that he intended to relinquish his position before the end of 2008.

On October 11, 2007, he published a valedictory in the Wall Street Journal on the nature of think tanks and their role in political debate and government decision-making. Following is an extended version of that essay with a postscript on the AEI succession.

by Christoph DeMuth, president of The American Enterprise Institute

The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2007

I will be stepping down as president of the American Enterprise Institute before the end of 2008, which would be twenty-two years at the post. The search for a successor has begun–this being AEI, it will be a competitive search, and we expect a happy conclusion long before the target date.

I hope to remain at the Institute, if my successor will have me, pursuing my own research and writing. Policy think tanks such as AEI have become important centers of applied scholarship, and friend and foe alike say we are terribly influential. But our position at the crossroads of politics and academics draws a certain amount of fire from both directions, and the reasons for our success are not widely understood. Here is my kiss-and-tell.

Secrets of Success

Think tanks are identified in the public mind as agents of a particular political viewpoint. It is sometimes suggested that this compromises the integrity of their work. Yet their real secret is not that they take orders from, or give orders to, the Bush administration or anyone else. Rather, they have discovered new methods for organizing intellectual activity–superior in many respects (by no means all) to those of traditional research universities.

To be sure, think tanks–at least those on the right–do not attempt to disguise their political affinities in the manner of the (invariably left-leaning) universities. We are “schools” in the old sense of the term: groups of scholars who share a set of philosophical premises and take them as far as we can in empirical research, persuasive writing, and arguments among ourselves and with those of other schools.

This has proven highly productive. It is a great advantage, when working on practical problems, not to be constantly doubling back to first principles. We know our foundations and concentrate on the specifics of the problem at hand. Working in schools encourages collegiality, and boldness and clarity in our work. These are healthy correctives to the vices of “academic politics” (personal and overwrought) and “academic writing” (timid and overqualified), but their positive virtues are more important. The solitary genius is a wonderful romantic figure, and a rarity. Intellectual progress depends heavily on milieu: significant achievements in the arts and sciences have been highly concentrated in time and place. Think tanks try to apply that lesson in the realms of political and social criticism and policy reform. In contrast to political partisans and ideologues, we welcome competition from other schools of thought. We like to work on hard problems, and there are many fertile disagreements inour halls over bioethics, school reform, the rise of China, constitutional interpretation, and what to do about Iran.

Think tanks aim to produce good research not only for its own sake but to improve the world. We are organized in ways that depart sharply from university organization. Think tank scholars do not have tenure, make faculty appointments, allocate budgets or offices, or sit on administrative committees. These matters are consigned to management, leaving the scholars free to focus on what they do best. Our research faculties are organized around issues rather than academic disciplines, and include not only scholars in established fields but also intellectuals (who make up their own fields) and people with practical experience in government, politics, and the professions who have the knack for generalization and organized argument and the zest for reform.

On the management side, we promote our output with an alacrity that would make many university administrators uncomfortable. And we pay careful attention to the craft of good speaking and writing. Many AEI scholars do technical research for academic journals, but all write for wider audiences as well. When new arrivals from academia ask me for whom they should write, I tell them: for your Mom. That is, for an interested, sympathetic reader who may not know beans about the technical aspects of your work but wants to know what you have discovered and why it makes a difference.

Our Origins

These methods are not new. They were in all essentials invented at AEI in the 1950s by William Baroody Sr., its president, and W. Glenn Campbell, its research director.

The two would commission top academics to study front-burner policy issues, publish the results as pamphlets and distribute them around Washington, and organize conferences and appearances before congressional committees. A particularly important innovation was to offer extracts to newspapers to run as “op-eds” (long before that term was coined) or to draw upon for their own editorials. No one had thought to do these things systematically before Baroody and Campbell.

They hit the big-time in the summer of 1954. In a matter of weeks, the Wall Street Journal ran a lengthy excerpt of an AEI critique of farm price supports, accompanied by a vigorous editorial applying its teaching to an upcoming Senate vote, and both the Journal and Barron’s lauded another AEI study proposing that fixed currency exchange rates be abandoned in favor of free convertibility. The currency-convertibility proposal heralded some distinctive AEI traditions. Barron’s noted that it was a radical concept, challenging conventional thinking in Washington and among the “hard-headed businessmen” who were AEI’s backers, and that it was advanced not only on economic but also “political and indeed moral” grounds. And then, of course, the idea gained adherents over time and eventually prevailed–although only when practical exigencies coincided with the intellectual arguments.

Bill Baroody refined these methods at AEI for more than thirty years. Glenn Campbell transplanted them to the Hoover Institution at Stanford after becoming its director in 1960, and other AEI alumni applied them with variations at newer conservative and libertarian think tanks in the 1970s and 1980s.

By the measures of participation in political debate and generation of influential policy ideas and proposals, the right-of-center think tanks have been stupendous successes. They appear in the national media, liberal as well as conservative, well out of proportion to their numbers and output. AEI essays appear more frequently than those from other think tanks of all persuasions, not only in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal but also those of the New York Times and Washington Post.

What accounts for this growth and prominence?

It is not publicity techniques, which are straightforward and available to all: today any assistant professor can e-mail his latest brainstorm to a dozen newspaper editors, and the blogosphere is filled with the writings of independent policy wonks, some of them quite brilliant. Part of the answer is organization by school-of-thought and specialization within think tanks–methods that have proven productive and therefore attract scholars of talent and ambition. So too is attention to clear, engaging writing.

But there is a deeper and more important reason. I have tried to explain it to people who have been setting up liberal and leftist think tanks in recent years, advising them that the secret of success is to go away and spend thirty years in the political wilderness. They have thought I was joking. Let me try again here.

Dissent and Independence

Every one of the right-of-center think tanks was founded in a spirit of opposition to the established order of things. Opposition is the natural proclivity of the intellectual (it’s what leads some smart people to become intellectuals rather than computer programmers), and is of course prerequisite to criticism and devotion to reform. And for conservatives, opposition lasted a very long time–in domestic policy, from the New Deal through 1980.

These circumstances meant that the think tanks in their formative years attracted many contrarian characters who were strongly disaffected by some aspect of politics or policy. One of AEI’s founders was Raymond Moley, the FDR brain-truster who coined the term “New Deal” and then became disillusioned with the project (a liberal mugged by reality long before the 1960s, he was a proto-neoconservative).

Milton Friedman was an active AEIer when he was still considered a crackpot in polite academic circles. Robert Bork and Jeane Kirkpatrick worked at AEI long before they became public personalities.

These were intellectual outcasts of extraordinary talent, seeking the company of kindred spirits. As dissenters, they were fiercely attached to the principles of intellectual independence, freedom of inquiry, and open debate. (AEI’s motto was “Competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society.”) And as dissenters with little hope of influencing actual policy, at least in the short run, they were politically independent, too–uninterested in accommodating their views to strategic calculations or partisan interests.

At think tanks such as AEI, that spirit of independence continued after 1980, when conservative, neoconservative, and libertarian ideas acquired real purchase in practical politics and our phones started ringing. At AEI, we have spent more time kibitzing with friends in high office and talking about current events on television, and the attention has not been unwelcome. But we are in a different line of work from those on the inside and have never hesitated to offer blunt criticism when we thought it was justified.

Storehouse and Sanctuary

The most gratifying moments in the think tank world come when ambitious ideas, politically out of the question at first, work their way through academic and professional debate, get noticed by public officials and legislators, and then are adopted as law or policy. That usually takes at least a dozen years–the period from the publication of Robert Bork’s first antitrust critiques to the adoption of his ideas by federal enforcers and courts in the 1980s, and from the publication of Charles Murray’s Losing Ground to the passage of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Currency convertibility took twenty years, as did the Milton Friedman proposition that monetary policy should target price stability rather than the unemployment rate.

Today we seem to be on schedule with the idea of reducing or eliminating capital taxation, and moving toward taxing consumption rather than income. (I predict that if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, the corporate income tax will be further reduced during his or her tenure.) The idea of eliminating the tax exclusion of employer-provided health benefits, scorned for decades as politically infeasible (especially by conservative activists), has now been embraced by President Bush and several smart legislators.

Think tank mavens like to point to episodes such as these as evidence that “ideas have consequences,” but we know better than anyone how partial and contingent is the role of ideas in the march of politics. Public inattention, well-organized interest groups, anti-social ideologies, and sheer happenstance powerfully shape the actions of governments. Think tanks serve as storehouses of ideas, patiently developed and nurtured, waiting for the crisis when practical men are desperately seeking a new approach, or for the inspired leader who sees the possibilities of action before the crisis arrives.

Sometimes the moment comes with astonishing speed. Last December, a group of military specialists closeted themselves at AEI to see if they could devise a new strategy for the war in Iraq, one that might have a reasonable prospect of victory following three years of catastrophic mistakes. Their plan was adopted within weeks by the White House, Pentagon, and new commanders in the field, with all credit due to our soldiers in action for their great success to date.

Other times it seems that the moment will never come. That 1954 study of farm price supports is still waiting. Undaunted, AEI published twenty-one studies of agriculture policy this year, intrinsically as good as our Iraq reports. When I showed them to an ambitious young Republican congressman, he smiled and shook his head.

My own think tank slogan is: “No one knows when the Berlin Wall will come down.” It is imperative to maintain intellectual sanctuaries in a world where Harvard University forbids the discussion of certain important issues and Columbia University welcomes the contributions of a master terrorist. Our sanctuaries have been instrumental to the expansion of human freedom in recent decades. We are laying the groundwork for further advances–as opportunities arise, as they surely will.

Postscript–the AEI Succession

If think tanks are as vital and wonderful as the foregoing essay says they are, then why should the author–after a considerable tenure as president of AEI, but still reasonably young and energetic–be stepping aside from leading one? My purpose is to prompt a change in the succession traditions of think tanks. The tradition, at AEI and elsewhere, is tribal: president-for-life, followed by a crisis. This seems to me a weakness standing alongside the strengths described in my essay. I believe that if more regular, businesslike succession procedures can be fashioned, the think tank as an institutional form will be not only vital and wonderful but more stable and durable as well.

Leadership succession is a policy issue of constitutional dimension–one of the most critical, as well as most problematic, issues faced by any organization, movement, or political system. AEI is a policy institute, so perhaps our approach to other issues can be helpful in thinking through our own succession policy.

The AEI approach may be said to be a melding of the conservative and the liberal. Our conservatism is that of Edmund Burke and Michael Oakeshott. It respects tradition and is skeptical about human reason. It is therefore suspicious of change and cultivates appreciation for the world as we find it: in particular, it recognizes that institutions and practices that have endured for long periods probably have virtues greater than we can fully rationalize at any point in time.

Our liberalism is that of John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. It celebrates progress and human reason and cultivates criticism and the spirit of reform. It is impatient with the shortcomings of the world as we find it and devotes itself to devising schemes for improvement. I would say that AEI is conservative in temperament but liberal in practice: we are reformers but not planners, and our reforms are grounded in a realistic, not romantic, view of human nature.

So maybe there are advantages that we do not completely comprehend about the leadership traditions of policy think tanks, and maybe we should not fuss with practices that have worked well enough to bring us to our current successful state. AEI is not simply academic, in the manner of a university, but also engagé–driven by a strong philosophy that unites its members and is controversial in the outside world. Perhaps it is in the nature of such an institution that, when it finds a leader who personifies its philosophy and terms of engagement, the personification cannot be transferred to another until mortality intervenes (or at least approaches to the extent colleagues cannot ignore it!). That, in any event, has been the implicit understanding and customary practice at many leading think tanks. It would not be the only instance of a seemingly primitive arrangement finding continuing utility in the modern world.

But there is another side to the matter. We at AEI may be chronic dissenters, and sometimes embattled ones, but in recent decades we have nonetheless become respectable, a recognized part of the Establishment. Our views are also the views of many of our fellow citizens, but these views are often inchoate in democratic practice and in need of the kind of development, exposition, and mobilization that we can provide. We have won too many policy arguments to ignore the possibility that our victories might be multiplied and expanded–and even made routine.

In all events, AEI and its sister think tanks have clearly moved from the fringe to the mainstream. In so doing, we have evolved from what Irving Kristol has called “intellectual clubs” into mature institutions. If we are to become what we might become–an independent intellectual force in American politics that is entrenched and effectively permanent–we need to attend to many institutional fundamentals that have been handled on an ad hoc basis in the past. And the conservative traditionalist in me cannot help but notice that virtually all mature institutions–commercial, professional, and political–have eventually moved beyond the personal in their leadership, and that the move has proven to be a source of continued strength and success.

The matter is by no means free from doubt, but executives are expected to make choices in the face of uncertainty on behalf of the organizations they work for. What can be said with certainty is that the risks of succession are eventually unavoidable, and that the advantages of facing them on our own time could be substantial. In explaining my decision to friends and colleagues, I have been struck that many people from the worlds of academics and politics have found the decision worrisome, while those from business and finance have generally found it sensible. A think tank is not a business, but it is not inconsistent with a think tank’s distinctive ethos and purposes to imagine that it might become, in the manner of a business firm, organic and self-perpetuating. That is the course that AEI’s trustees and scholars have set for ourselves, and our ambitions include several initiatives to bolster our financial structure and management as well as succession procedures. We are determined to make succession not a moment of crisis but a moment of renewal.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

L’alliance stratégique de l’Iran et la Syrie

Lors de la conférence de presse conjointe au Caire du 30 décembre 2007 avec le président égyptien Hosni Moubarak, Nicolas Sarkozy a indiqué que la France n’entrera plus en contact avec la Syrie “tant que nous n’aurons pas des preuves de la volonté de laisser le Liban désigner un président de consensus”.

Samir Geagea, président de la branche exécutive des forces libanaises, déclarait le 15 juillet 2006 au journal libanais Al-Mustaqbal: “Les événements actuels au Liban dépassent de loin la question des prisonniers (libanais détenus en Israël) et les autres problèmes marginaux (…) Ils entrent dans le cadre du conflit régional qui oppose l’axe occidental américain d’un côté à l’axe irano-syrien de l’autre.”

Dans ce contexte, un récent rapport du Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) évoque les volets militaire et économique de l’alliance stratégique de la Syrie et l’Iran sur la base de déclarations de hauts responsables des deux pays, de protocoles, de communiqués et d’articles publiés dans les médias arabes et iraniens.

Consulter le rapport.

“The Secret” Revealed

by Rabbi Benjamin Blech

A Book Review of The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

Rhonda Byrne, the Australian producer-turned spiritual entrepreneur behind the bestselling sensation, The Secret, certainly understands the secret of marketing. She has turned a simple idea into a New Age film and book that have catapulted into the glorified stratosphere of #1 ranking on Amazon and the New York Times Best Seller list.

With hundreds of “Secret” support groups sprung up round the world and the imprimatur of not one but two Oprah specials dedicated to discussing its “breakthrough” concept, we surely have to wonder if this is indeed the dawn of an unparalleled spiritual awakening.

Byrne claims what she preaches was inspired by the Bible. Her former partner, Esther Hicks, who argues that she is the one who first popularized the concept, gives seminars in which she summons the other-worldly spirit of Abraham to speak through her and counsel her rapt, capacity-filled audiences with the teachings of The Secret.

If you’re one of the few who haven’t yet spent your money to help Rhonda Byrne fulfill her financial fantasies, allow me to present, for free, the secret in a nut shell: People can get all the things they want simply by thinking positively about them. You see, as she profoundly explains, “When you think about something, you become a magnet for what you want.” This is “the law of attraction.”

The idea, she contends, is at least 3,500 years old and the key to most major religions. Think of it, she says, as “spiritual truth” and “the wisdom of the ages.” And apply it to everything. Need a parking spot? Concentrate hard and really believe it will be there for you. Didn’t happen? Oops… guess you didn’t really believe it enough. Well then give it more time. Practice till you get it right. Start small.

As Byrne, at her best, writes: “Everyone has to have their own experience to believe it. People should start with little things, like deciding that a cup of coffee will come to you or that you will see a feather.” When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are — and in the Byrne version you don’t even need the star!

I can’t help but admire the marketing genius that has repackaged the old “think and get rich” philosophy which was the staple of self-help advisors for centuries in a way that makes us believe it offers insights never previously published. I’m also highly impressed by the chutzpah that isn’t embarrassed to utter modern psycho-babble promising greater gifts than a mythical genie as reward for nothing more than unconditional wishes.

What troubles me, though, is what this incredible hoopla over a publishing craze tells us about contemporary spiritual naivete. Are people really that gullible — or simply that ignorant?

Let’s make clear at the outset that The Secret could never have found the slightest acceptance if it weren’t based on a measure of truth. A lie needs at least a little legitimacy to gain credibility. But, as George Christoph Lichtenberg so powerfully put it, “The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted.”

Thinking positively is always the first step to success. Should we ardently wish for things that we want? Of course! Hope fills us with conviction that our dreams are attainable. Desire serves as spur to our initiative. If it is not a magnet, it is at the least a supreme motivator. We should believe in the possibility of acquiring our heart’s desires. But that’s far from saying that there is a universal and unequivocal law that turns every one of our wishes into God’s command.

Judaism always understood that the answer to some of our most profound desires may still be “No.” Not every wish deserves to be granted. And even more to the point, not every wish ought to be fulfilled. George Bernard Shaw understood it when he pointed out that “There are two great tragedies in life. One is not having your prayers answered; the other very often is the reverse.” Jewish prayer asks of God, “And fulfill the requests of our heart for good” — only if what we ask for is truly in our best interest from the Divine perspective.

The Byrne “Secret” says, “We teach you to keep saying it the way you want it to be and if you keep saying it the way you want it to be the universe will line up and give you exactly what you’ve said you wanted.” And the Jewish not-so-secret secret reminds us, wouldn’t that be truly tragic?

Should every person’s dream for millions really come true? Is the “law of attraction” so automatic — in Byrne’s words as irrefutable as the law of gravity — that any one who truly desires wealth, fame or power must have the universe grant these to them no matter what the consequences?

Our tradition teaches us that God is kinder than to unquestioningly saddle us with all the penalties that we cannot possibly anticipate accruing from the realization of all of our daydreams. How sad if every teenager’s fantasy to lead the life of Paris Hilton would have to become reality because of the magnetic power of undisciplined desire.

Thankfully, the Divine plan allows for rejection of ignoble thoughts; the world doesn’t respond to our greed as much as it does to our need.

The Secret simply doesn’t work — and for very good reason. God wasn’t foolish enough to create a world blindly responsive to human cravings. Our wishes and our best interest are very often far apart, and God is much more concerned with taking care of the latter than responding to the former.

So The Secret is a failure first as a practical matter. But the danger of Byrne’s philosophy goes far beyond offering people a false panacea. We ought to worry not so much for those who find out that “the law of attraction” doesn’t really attract but for those who end up being held responsible for misfortunes for which they were totally blameless.

Since with positive thought you can create your perfect reality, those who suffer must be guilty of “negative thinking” that allows bad things to happen to them. That means those who experience widespread calamity, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, and even diseases like AIDS, experience them because they are, in Byrne’s words, “vibrating in exact alignment with these disasters, such as thinking they could be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Which of course makes them at least partially guilty themselves for the fate that befell them. How far is this incredible theology taken? Byrne strongly implies that the 3,000 people who died in the 9/11 attacks were victims of their own dark thoughts!

Whatever comfort might come to those who buy into The Secret’s promise of making all the world’s gifts readily accessible may well be outweighed by the guilt placed upon all those made to feel that their suffering is really all their own fault.

People can die for many reasons. We may not understand the why, but as believers we accept it as Divine decree. From a Jewish perspective, death is God calling a soul home because it has ended its mission on earth. For Byrne, death is a criminal choice by those who could have used The Secret to prevent it.

Forgive me therefore if I seem harsh in my judgment of a book that would appear to come bearing only a positive message. If only that were its point — that we ought to try a little harder and we might find our efforts blessed — I would embrace it warmly. But when it suggests that God is a cosmic bellhop just waiting to grant every one of our wishes if we only believe strongly enough that He’ll do it, that offends not only my intelligence but also my faith.

There are indeed secrets out there to discover. I don’t know from where in the Bible Byrne draws her conclusions, but I do know what King David tells us as the final word on the subject in his incomparable Book of Psalms: “The secrets of God belong to those who revere Him.” Happiness is the reward for those who choose to follow the ways of God.

About the author: Rabbi Benjamin Blech holds a masters degree in psychology from Columbia University. He has taught at Yeshiva University since 1966, and has received the American Educator of the Year award. A tenth-generation rabbi, Blech is a frequent lecturer in Jewish communities around the world. He has appeared on national television (including The Oprah Winfrey Show), and writes regularly for major newspapers and journals. He was recently ranked #16 in a listing of the 50 most influential Jews in America. Presently, Rabbi Blech is actively involved in meetings with the Vatican to arrange for the return of precious manuscripts held by the Church to the Jewish people.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.

Gespräch mit dem Künstler Anselm Kiefer

Der in Frankreich lebende deutsche Künstler Anselm Kiefer darf im Pariser Museum Le Louvre ausstellen.

“Die Liebe gibt keinen Sinn” gesteht er im Gespräch mit Sigrid von Fischern in der heutigen Ausgabe der Zeitung Der Tagesspiegel.

“Sie gibt vielleicht eine Befriedigung, aber keinen Sinn. Wir wissen nicht, woher wir kommen, warum wir hier sind. Die Abstammung, wie sie die Israeliten sehen, geht bis zu Abraham zurück. Doch niemand weiß, was das alles soll. Unser Universum ist etwas völlig Irrationales. Es gab die Bewegung des Christentums und den Marxismus, um der Welt einen Sinn zu geben. Aber es gibt keinen Sinn.”

Vollständiges Gespräch lesen.

Pakistan: Tragödie auf mehreren Ebenen

Der Publizist Tariq Ali sieht nach dem Attentat auf Benazir Bhutto Pakistan in einer hoffnungslosen Lage:

“Pakistans turbulente Geschichte, das Resultat fortwährender Militärherrschaft und beim Volk unbeliebter Auslandsbündnisse, stellt die herrschende Elite jetzt vor ernste Entscheidungen. Die Herrschenden scheinen keinerlei positive Zielsetzungen zu haben. Die überwältigende Mehrheit des Landes ist mit der Auslandspolitik der Regierung nicht einverstanden. Es herrscht Zorn über das Fehlen einer ernsthaften Innenpolitik, die nicht nur darauf abzielt, einer herzlosen und gierigen Oberklasse, zu der die parasitäre Geschwulst des Militärs gehört, die Taschen zu füllen.”

Zum Artikel.

Russia-Qatar cooperation

An article in the most recent issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, an Israel-based journal, examines political and economic cooperation between Russia and Qatar, two of the world’s leading natural gas producers.

Read full story.

Governing Diversity

A report sponsored by two Canadian think tanks examines the difficulties of managing democracy in increasingly multicultural countries and offers solutions for effective governance.

Read full story.

Pakistan after Bhutto

Less than a day after gun and bomb attacks killed Pakistan’s iconic opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, her death has already spurred more violence in her fragile homeland.

The New York Times reports violence erupted in cities across Pakistan today, as hundreds of thousands gathered in Bhutto’s ancestral village for her funeral procession.

The Times of India reports that an al-Qaeda leader claimed credit for Bhutto’s killing, calling her “the most precious American asset.”

Amid rampant speculation about the elections, which were expected to bring Bhutto back to power for a third term as prime minister, Pakistan’s current Prime Minister Mohammadian Soomro today announced elections would be held as scheduled and urged Pakistanis to remain calm. Western leaders have called for elections to proceed despite widespread concerns over whether the vote will be seen as legitimate.

A news analysis from the Wall Street Journal drives home the possible ripple effects and says extremist groups will be “emboldened by the demise of a secular, modern Muslim politician.”

An audio report on NPR‘s “All Things Considered” argues that U.S. policy toward Pakistan will need to shift in Bhutto’s absence and notes that a shift toward Islamist influence could be dangerous, given the country’s nuclear arsenal.

The Financial Times reports that investors in South Asia have been spooked by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, sending shares reeling throughout the region. Oil and gold, considered financial safe-havens against inflation and political uncertainty, spiked.

Bhutto’s death may also have repercussions on international efforts in Afghanistan, reports Canada’s National Post. One opposition leader in Australia said the news could have strategic effects on Australian troops stationed in Afghanistan.

The New York Times looks at Senator Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Benazir Bhutto.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a press conference yesterday that he had urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to offer the services of U.S. intelligence and security agencies for the investigation into Bhutto’s death.

Governor Bill Richardson will deliver a major speech today in which he will criticize U.S. policy toward Pakistan as having been “too much on personalities like President Musharraf and not enough on democratic principles and human rights.” In the speech, he will pledge that if he is elected, “not a penny more in aid will be provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism until Musharraf leaves office.”

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s former prime minister and a primary opposition leader, leaves a void ahead of critical elections.

Columnist Max Boot responds to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Commentary magazine’s blog, “Contentions”, writing that “her death brutally exposes how little success Pervez Musharraf has had in cracking down on the jihadists.”

Read full story.

Julien Gracq, un écrivain prodigieux et secret

L’écrivain français Julien Gracq est décédé samedi 22 décembre 2007 à Angers, à l’âge de 97 ans.

Normalien, entré dans «La Bibliothèque de la Pléiade» de son vivant, auteur éponyme du «Rivage des Syrtes», Julien Gracq était auréolé d’une réputation d’écrivain secret, revêche (il refusera le Prix Goncourt), et exclusif, ses oeuvres n’ayant été publiées qu’à tirage limité.

Extrait du «Rivage des Syrtes»: 

«Il y a dans notre vie des matins privilégiés où l’avertissement nous parvient, où dès l’éveil résonne pour nous, à travers une flânerie désœuvrée qui se prolonge, une note plus grave, comme on s’attarde, le cœur brouillé, à manier un à un les objets familiers de sa chambre à l’instant d’un grand départ. Quelque chose comme une alerte lointaine se glisse jusqu’à nous dans ce vide clair du matin plus rempli de présages que les songes; c’est peut-être le bruit d’un pas isolé sur le pavé des rues, ou le premier cri d’un oiseau parvenu faiblement à travers le dernier sommeil; mais ce bruit de pas éveille dans l’âme une résonance de cathédrale vide, ce cri passe comme sur les espaces du large, et l’oreille se tend dans le silence sur un vide en nous qui soudain n’a pas plus d’écho que la mer. Notre âme s’est purgée de ses rumeur et du brouhaha de foule qui l’habite; une note fondamentale se réjouit en elle qui en éveille l’exacte capacité. Dans la mesure intime de la vie qui nous est rendue, nous renaissons à notre force et à notre joie, mais parfois cette note est grave et nous surprend comme le pas d’un promeneur qui fait résonner une caverne: c’est qu’une brèche s’est ouverte pendant notre sommeil, qu’une paroi nouvelle s’est effondrée sous la poussée de nos songes, et qu’il nous faudra vivre maintenant pour de longs jours comme dans une chambre familière dont la porte battrait inopinément sur une grotte.»

Jews and the Founding of America

BY RABBI KEN SPIRO

The amazing story of Jewish influence on the founding of American democracy is a well-kept secret. 

The creation of the United States of America represented a unique event in world history – founded as a modern republic, it was rooted in the Bible, and one of its earliest tenets was religious tolerance.

This is because many of the earliest pilgrims who settled the “New England” of America in early 17th century were Puritan refugees escaping religious persecutions in Europe.

These Puritans viewed their emigration from England as a virtual re-enactment of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. To them, England was Egypt, the king was Pharaoh, the Atlantic Ocean was the Red Sea, America was the Land of Israel, and the Indians were the ancient Canaanites. They were the new Israelites, entering into a new covenant with God in a new Promised Land.

Thanksgiving – first celebrated in 1621, a year after the Mayflower landed – was initially conceived as a day parallel to the Jewish Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur; it was to be a day of fasting, introspection and prayer.

Writes Gabriel Sivan in The Bible and Civilization (p. 236):

“No Christian community in history identified more with the People of the Book than did the early settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed their own lives to be a literal reenactment of the Biblical drama of the Hebrew nation … these émigré Puritans dramatized their own situation as the righteous remnant of the Church corrupted by the ‘Babylonian woe,’ and saw themselves as instruments of Divine Providence, a people chosen to build their new commonwealth on the Covenant entered into at Mount Sinai.”

Previously, during the Puritan Revolution in England, some Puritan extremists had even sought to replace English common law with Biblical laws of the Old Testament, but were prevented from doing so. In America, however, there was far more freedom to experiment with the use of Biblical law in the legal codes of the colonies and this was exactly what these early colonists set out to do.

The earliest legislation of the colonies of New England was all determined by Scripture. At the first assembly of New Haven in 1639, John Davenport clearly stated the primacy of the Bible as the legal and moral foundation of the colony:

“Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men as well as in the government of families and commonwealth as in matters of the Church … the Word of God shall be the only rule to be attended unto in organizing the affairs of government in this plantation.”

Subsequently, the New Haven legislators adopted a legal code – the Code of 1655 – which contained some 79 statutes, half of which contained Biblical references, virtually all from the Hebrew Bible. The Plymouth Colony had a similar law code as did the Massachusetts assembly, which, in 1641 adopted the so-called “Capitall Laws of New England” based almost entirely on Mosaic law.

Of course, without a Jewish Oral Tradition, which helped the Jews understand the Bible, the Puritans were left to their own devices and tended toward a literal interpretation. This led in some instances to a stricter, more fundamentalist observance than Judaism had ever seen.

JEWISH INFLUENCE ON EDUCATION

The Hebrew Bible also played a central role in the founding of various educational institutions including Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Brown, Kings College (later to be known as Columbia), Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth etc.

Many of these colleges even adopted some Hebrew word or phrase as part of their official emblem or seal. Beneath the banner containing the Latin “Lux et Veritas,” the Yale seal shows an open book with the Hebrew “Urim V’Timum,” which was a part of the breastplate of the High Priest in the days of the Temple. The Columbia seal has the Hebrew name for God at the top center, with the Hebrew name for one of the angels on a banner toward the middle. Dartmouth uses the Hebrew words meaning “God Almighty” in a triangle in the upper center of its seal.

So popular was the Hebrew Language in the late 16th and early 17th centuries that several students at Yale delivered their commencement orations in Hebrew. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania taught courses in Hebrew – all the more remarkable because no university in England at the time offered it. (In America, Bible study and Hebrew were course requirements in virtually all these colleges and students had the option of delivering commencement speeches in either Hebrew, Latin or Greek.)

Many of the population, including a significant number of the Founding Fathers of America, were products of these American Universities – for example, Thomas Jefferson attended William and Mary, James Madison Princeton, Alexander Hamilton King’s College (i.e. Columbia). Thus, we can be sure that a majority of these political leaders were not only well acquainted with the contents of both the New and Old Testaments, but also had some working knowledge of Hebrew.

Notes Abraham Katsch in The Biblical Heritage of American Democracy (p. 70):

“At the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that ‘certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it.’”

JEWISH SYMBOLISM IN AMERICA

Their Biblical education colored the American founders’ attitude toward not only religion and ethics, but most significantly, politics. We see them adopting the biblical motifs of the Puritans for political reasons. For example, the struggle of the ancient Hebrews against the wicked Pharaoh came to embody the struggle of the colonists against English tyranny. Numerous examples can be found which clearly illustrate to what a significant extent the political struggles of the colonies were identified with the ancient Hebrews.

The first design for the official seal of the United States recommended by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas in 1776 depicts the Jews crossing the Red Sea. The motto around the seal read: “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

The inscription on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall in Philadelphia is a direct quote from Leviticus (25:10): “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.”

Patriotic speeches and publications during the period of the struggle for independence were often infused with Biblical motifs and quotations. Even the basic framework of America clearly reflects the influence of the Bible and power of Jewish ideas in shaping the political development of America. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Whereas, these words echo the ideas of the Enlightenment, without a doubt, the concept that these rights come from God is of Biblical origin.

This and the other documents of early America make it clear that the concept of a God-given standard of morality is a central pillar of American democracy. The motto “IN GOD WE TRUST” first appeared on U. S. currency in 1864 and an a 1956 Act of Congress (largely passed as a counterforce to Godless communism) made it the official motto if the United States.

Many more things can be said about the Jewish influence on the values of America, but this is, after all, a crash course. We next turn to the Jews themselves.

EARLY AMERICAN JEWS

The history of Jews in America begins before the United States was an independent country.

The first Jews arrived in America with Columbus in 1492, and we also know that Jews newly-converted to Christianity were among the first Spaniards to arrive in Mexico with Conquistador Hernando Cortez in 1519.

In fact, so many Jewish converses came to Mexico that the Spanish made a rule precluding anyone who could not prove Catholic ancestry for four generations back from migrating there. Needless to say, the Inquisition soon followed to make sure these Jewish converses were not really heretics, and burnings at the stake became a regular feature of life in Mexico City.

As for North America, the recorded Jewish history there begins in 1654 with the arrival in New Amsterdam (later to be known as New York) of 23 Jewish refugees from Recife, Brazil (where the Dutch had just lost their possessions to the Portuguese). New Amsterdam was also a Dutch possession, but the governor Peter Stuyvesant did not want them there. Writes Arthur Hertzberg in The Jews in America (p. 21):

“Two weeks after they landed, Stuyvesant heard the complaint from the local merchants and from the Church that ‘the Jews who had arrived would nearly all like to remain here.’ Stuyvesant decided to chase them out. Using the usual formulas of religious invective – he called the Jews ‘repugnant,’ ‘deceitful,’ and ‘enemies and blasphemers of Christ’ – Stuyvesant recommended to his directors … ‘to require them in a friendly way to depart.’”

The only reasons the Jews were not turned out was that the Dutch West Indian Company, which was heavily depended on Jewish investments, blocked it.

JEWS AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

By 1776 and the War of Independence, there were an estimated 2,000 (mostly Sephardic) Jews (men, women and children) living in America, yet their contribution to the cause was significant. For example, in Charleston, South Carolina, almost every adult Jewish male fought on the side of freedom. In Georgia, the first patriot to be killed was a Jew (Francis Salvador). And additionally, the Jews provided significant financing for the patriots.

The most important of the financiers was Haym Salomon who lent a great deal of money to the Continental Congress. In the last days of the war, Salomon advanced the American government $200,000. He was never paid back and died bankrupt.

President George Washington remembered the Jewish contribution when the first synagogue opened in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790. (It was called the Touro Synagogue and it was Sephardic.) He sent this letter, dated August 17, 1790:

“May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in the land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants. While everyone shall sit safely under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Note the reference to the “vine and fig-tree.” That unique phrase is a reference to the words of Prophet Michah prophesying the Messianic utopia:

But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow to it. And many nations shall come, and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for Torah shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.’ And he shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide concerning far away strong nations; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid; for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken it.

This was an interesting choice of words on the part of Washington, but, as noted above, it is not surprising in light of the enormous influence that the Hebrew Bible had on the pilgrims and on the founding fathers of the new nation.

AMERICAN AMBIVALENCE TOWARD THE JEWS

It must be noted however that some of the other founding fathers were a bit more ambivalent about the Jews than was Washington.

John Adams, who said some highly complimentary things about the Jews, also noted that “it is very hard work to love most of them [the Jews]. And he looked forward to the day when “the asperities and peculiarities of their character” would be worn away and they would become “liberal Unitarian Christians.”

Thomas Jefferson thought Jews needed more secular learning so that “they will become equal object of respect and favor,” implying that without such learning they could not expect to be respected. Writes Arthur Hertzberg in The Jews in America (p. 87):

“Jefferson was thus expressing the view of the mainstream of the Enlightenment, that all men could attain equal place in society, but the ‘entrance fee’ was that they should adopt the ways and the outlook of the ‘enlightened.’ Jefferson did not consider that a Yiddish-speaking Jew who knew the Talmud was equal in usefulness to society with a classically trained thinker like himself.”

This idea that there was freedom for you in America as long as you were not “too Jewish,” kept most Jews away. Until 1820, the Jewish population of America was only about 6,000!

This changed in the 1830s when Reform German Jews, who had scrapped traditional Judaism and were not “too Jewish,” began to arrive. The great migrations of poor, oppressed Jews from Eastern Europe would follow near the turn of the century.

About the author: Rabbi Ken Spiro is originally from New Rochelle, NY. He graduated from Vassar College with a BA in Russian Language and Literature and did graduate studies at the Pushkin Institute in Moscow. He has Rabbinical ordination from Yeshiva Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem and a Masters Degree in History from The Vermont College of Norwich University. Rabbi Spiro is also a licensed tour guide by the Israel Ministry of Tourism. He has appeared on numerous radio and television programs such as B.B.C. Radio and TV., The National Geographic Channel, The History Channel and Arutz Sheva-Israel National Radio. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife and five children where he works as a senior lecturer and researcher on Aish HaTorah outreach programs. He is the author of WorldPerfect – The Jewish Impact on Civilization.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah.

Nearly 30 years later, the Frenchman Claude François still a star

Claude François (01.02.1939, Ismaïlia, Egypt – 11.03.1978, Paris)

The Frenchman Claude François was one of the biggest stars of French music scene, emerging during the so-called “yé-yé” movement of the early ’60s.

Like Johnny Hallyday and Eddy Mitchell, his early success came mostly from French adaptations of English-language rock and folk hits. However, his image – immaculately coiffed hair and glitzy sequined suits – played just as big a role in his popularity, and made him a major teen idol in his heyday, when fans dubbed him “Clo-Clo.” He dressed his much-imitated quartet of backup dancers, the Clodettes, in even more flamboyant costumes, which gave his act a definite kitsch appeal and became a visual signature for much of his career.

Appropriately for the singer who recorded the original version of the song that became “My Way“, Claude François lived the outsized life of a star, cycling through a series of high-profile affairs and acquiring a reputation for being extremely difficult to work with.

Despite continued popularity, he endured a run of bad personal luck in the ’70s that culminated in his tragic death, on 11 March 1978, at only 39 years old, electrocuting himself in the bathtub while changing a light bulb.

Der Westen und der iranische Krieg gegen Israel

Konferenz gegen Appeasement und Kollaboration am 25. und 26. Januar 2008 in Berlin im Kinosaal der Humboldt-Universität

Veranstaltet vom Bündnis gegen Appeasement.

Amerikas Lügen” titelte im Dezember 2007 die „Zeit” als Reaktion auf die Veröffentlichung der jüngsten National Intelligence Estimate, der Einschätzung der US-Geheimdienste zum Stand des iranischen Atomprogramms.

Stoßen normalerweise alle Aktivitäten der amerikanischen Nachrichtendienste auf vollkommenes Misstrauen, kam dieser Bericht der deutschen Öffentlichkeit gerade recht. Was in den USA Gegenstand einer erbitterten politischen Auseinandersetzung um die richtige Strategie im Umgang mit dem Regime der Mullahs ist, ist in Deutschland schon weitgehend entschieden: Nicht der Iran ist die zurzeit weltweit größte Bedrohung, sondern die „unberechenbare” und unilaterale US-Politik. Dabei sagt der Bericht der Geheimdienste lediglich aus, dass – „mit mäßiger Gewissheit” – davon auszugehen sei, dass derzeit im Iran keine Atomwaffen gebaut werden würden. Der gleiche Bericht bestreitet keineswegs, dass das iranische Regime zurzeit fieberhaft an den technischen Voraussetzungen für ein Atomwaffenprogramm arbeitet: an der Urananreicherung und der Entwicklung geeigneter Interkontinentalraketen.

Diese Tatsachen sind seit 2002 bekannt. Die Zeit, die der Iran bis zur Herstellung der Atombombe braucht, verringert sich dramatisch: in frühestens einem, spätestens drei Jahren ist es angesichts der technologischen Fortschritte so weit. Während die Europäer sich bereits auf eine Politik des Appeasements gegenüber dem Iran festgelegt und wirksame Sanktionen und militärische Drohungen ausgeschlossen haben, deutet der jüngste Geheimdienstbericht möglicherweise einen höchst beunruhigenden Kurswechsel in der US-Außenpolitik im Kontext der bevorstehenden Präsidentschaftswahlen an. Gerade jetzt, wo die Solidarität mit Israel nötiger ist denn je, wächst die Gefahr, dass der jüdische Staat angesichts der ungehindert näher rückenden iranischen Bombe im Stich gelassen wird.

Das Streben nach der Atombombe gehört zur Entschlossenheit des Iran, sich an die Spitze des djihadistischen Weltkrieges zu stellen, der längst begonnen hat. Seine Opfer sind vorläufig überwiegend Menschen, die sich selber als Moslems begreifen und in Darfur, im Irak, in Afghanistan und anderswo für die Herrschaft des wahren Islam hingemetzelt werden. Auch im Iran gilt das Konzept der permanenten Mobilmachung gegen den inneren wie äußeren Feind. Keine Verfolgungsmaßnahme, sei es gegen Homosexuelle oder gegen sündhafte Frauen, kommt ohne den Hinweis aus, dass die Opfer im Bunde mit dem „zionistischen” Weltfeind” stünden. Die permanente Verfolgung im Inneren ist nicht zu trennen vom antisemitischen Krieg gegen Israel und die Juden, der wahnhaft auch nur bis zum Ende, dass heißt bis zur angestrebten Vernichtung des jüdischen Staates geführt werden kann. So wird Israel durch ein unberechenbares Schwanken zwischen zermürbendem Kleinkrieg, zerstörerischen Offensiven und dem Griff nach der Wunderwaffe bedroht.

Unterdessen verhandelt Europa über eine „friedliche Lösung” im „Atomstreit”, bescheinigt dem Iran „rationale Interessen” und bemüht sich um den kulturellen Dialog mit dem „gedemütigten” Islam. Appeasement, Faszination und Kollaboration sabotieren nicht nur jeden effektiven Schritt gegen das iranische Regime und die von ihm gesponserten Rackets der Vernichtung, sondern treiben die antisemitische Raserei immer weiter an. Auch hierzulande bedient die permanente islamische Revolution durch ihre ideologische Ausstrahlung ein gesellschaftliches Bedürfnis: sei es durch die unmittelbare Bewunderung des blutrünstigen Aufstands gegen Zivilisation und “Weltjudentum” oder durch die eher vermittelte Zustimmung, die den selbst angeheizten iranischen Krieg und die Gegenwehr durch Israel und die USA nutzt, um die eigene Identität als „Friedensmacht” immer radikaler auf dem eigenen Antizionismus und Antiamerikanismus zu gründen. Was auch kommen mag, nichts wird so sehr verdammt, wie die Intervention für die existentiell Bedrohten, für Israel und gegen die Durchsetzung offen barbarischer Verhältnisse.

Programm

Freitag, 25. Januar 2008

Beginn: 19:00 Uhr

Einleitungsbeitrag der Veranstalter: Europa zwischen Appeasement und Kollaboration

Gerhard Scheit: Die Reserven zur Herstellung des allgemeinen Chaos. Über das Verhältnis der Europäischen Union zur Islamischen Republik

Die Einheit im neuen islamischen „Unstaat” bildet das alte Erlösungsversprechen: Vernichtung der Juden. Während die Aufrüstungskonjunktur im Nazistaat sofortiges „Losschlagen” im totalen Krieg bedeutete, ermöglicht die Erdölkonjunktur des Islam die „Hudna”, also größere Flexibilität bei der Auslöschung Israels. Soweit der Westen selber als der Versuch gelten kann, im unvernünftigen Ganzen bei Vernunft zu bleiben, begreift es Deutschland als seine eigenste Bestimmung, innerhalb und zugleich außerhalb des Westens zu sein. Der Name dieses Vexierbilds lautet Europäische Union. Wer immer an deren politische Vertreter appellieren möchte, im Sinn jener Vernunft zu handeln, sollte sich der eigenen Ohnmacht bewusst werden: sie kommt vor allem daher, wie in diesem Europa der Bruch mit dem Nationalsozialismus vollzogen wurde und wird; wie durch ihn hindurch der alte „Unstaat” fortwest.

Justus Wertmüller: Das orientalische Bedürfnis

Nicht aus Angst erklärt Deutschland ausgerechnet dem offensichtlichen Aggressor Iran den Frieden, sondern aus tiefem Einverständnis mit einer scheinbar märchenhaften Welt, die angetreten ist, deutsche Sehnsucht nach Ursprünglichkeit gegen die kapitalistische Unnatur auf ihre Weise zu verwirklichen. Die Weltmeister der Vergangenheitsbewältigung, die innerhalb der Landesgrenzen unmittelbare Barbarei vorläufig nicht dulden, setzen alles daran, Anderen wirksame antifaschistische Maßnahmen gegen die ihnen drohende Barbarei zu verwehren. Wenn heute der deutsche Ruf nach Klimaschutz und Rettung der Tier- und Pflanzenwelt immer lauter ertönt, müssen Israel und seine Bewohner darauf gefasst sein, schon sehr bald und ganz offen unter die Hauptschädiger des moralischen Weltklimas gezählt und zur Selbstabschaltung ermahnt zu werden.

Samstag, 26. Januar 2008

Beginn: 10:30 Uhr

Einleitungsbeitrag der Veranstalter

11:00 Uhr Podium I: Iran – unter islamischer Herrschaft

Alex Gruber: Der islamische Hass auf die Sexualität und die Dekonstruktion des Subjekts

Während Ahmadinejad die Existenz von Homosexuellen in der Islamischen Republik Iran leugnet, werden Positionen aus dem akademisch-linken Sprektrum immer wirkungsmächtiger, die die (abstrakte) Subjektform des Homosexuellen und damit auch den Homosexuellenhass als einen Import aus dem Westen brandmarken. Die Vertreter des Regimes in Teheran propagieren den antiimperialistischen Wahn, Homosexualität sei ein “durch das Freudenhaus der Bourgeoisie” (Ali Schariati) in die islamische Welt eingepflanzter imperialistischer Spaltpilz aus dem Westen, während hierzulande dem Ressentiment gegen die Zumutungen des westlichen „Aufklärungsfundamentalismus” neue theoretische Weihen – diesmal dekonstruktivistische – verliehen werden.

Fathiyeh Naghibzadeh: Die Stellung der Frau im Gottesstaat Iran

Nach der Machtübernahme der Mullahs hat sich die Situation der Frauen und besonders das Verhältnis von Privatem und Öffentlichem völlig verändert. In der öffentlichen Sphäre wird die Frau sakralisiert und zum Inbegriff der islamischen Gemeinschaft gemacht, gleichzeitig steht sie unter dem permanenten Generalverdacht, ihre Aufgabe als Reproduzentin der islamischen Normen und Werte nicht zu erfüllen. Einziges Refugium vor dem Zugriff der Tugendwächter ist das Private. In Deutschland und Europa hingegen werden Tendenzen immer wirkungsmächtiger, dieses islamische Frauenbild zu idealisieren und einen kulturrelativistischen Beitrag zum Appeasement zu leisten.

13:00 Uhr Pause

13:30 Uhr Podium II: Der Iran und Europa / der Westen

Tobias Ebbrecht: Europäische Sehnsüchte und iranischer Kulturexport

Wenn von iranischer Kultur die Rede ist, überschlagen sich die positiven Reaktionen westlicher Kulturkritiker und Feuilletonisten. Sie zeichnen das Bild von einer pluralen und weltoffenen Gesellschaft im Iran. Gerade Filme, die westliche Wunschprojektionen vom Iran aufgreifen, sind hierzulande erfolgreich. Weibliche Protagonistinnen, Einsamkeit, Selbstmord, Armut werden dabei als sichere Insignien von kritischer Dissidenz rezipiert, drücken in Wahrheit jedoch den hohen Grad an Übereinstimmung der Filmemacher und des europäischen Publikums mit den sozialrevolutionären Elementen des gegenwärtigen Iran aus.

Tjark Kunstreich: Kunstgenuss und Holocaustleugnung: Der Iran als das bessere Deutschland

Kaum ein Theaterensemble, kaum ein Orchester aus deutschen Städten war noch nicht im Iran. Alle kehren begeistert zurück, schwärmen vom iranischen Publikum und von den interessierten Intellektuellen, die sie dort getroffen hätten. Die gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse werden nicht geleugnet, aber idealisiert: Hier kann Kunst noch bewirken, was in Deutschland wie im Westen überhaupt unmöglich scheint. Doch was sich als Subversion gibt, trägt in Wirklichkeit zur Legitimation der Mullah-Herrschaft bei. Die Holocaustleugnung des iranischen Präsidenten erscheint dabei nicht zufällig als Marotte eines Spinners. Denn über alles andere, das heißt darüber, dass Israel ein Problem darstellt, lässt sich schließlich reden.

15:30 Uhr Pause

16:00 Uhr Podium III: Der iranische Krieg gegen Israel

Thomas von der Osten-Sacken: Der Irak als Schauplatz des iranischen Kriegs

Das Bild, das die iranische Einmischung im Irak abgibt, ist chaotisch und widersprüchlich. Dass keine kohärente Strategie erkennbar ist, verweist auf die Widersprüche der Verstaatlichung des tendenziell anti-etatistischen islamischen Projekts und ist durchaus keine Beruhigung, sondern die eigentliche Gefahr. Jeder wird fündig, ob er die “Hardliner” des islamistischen Internationalismus oder die an vermeintlich rationalen wirtschaftlichen und hegemonialen Interessen orientierten “Gemäßigten” sucht. Doch die westliche Politik, die vorgibt, die angeblich gemäßigten Akteure zu stützen und die “Radikalen” einzudämmen, verweigert sich der Erkenntnis, dass der eine ohne den anderen nicht denkbar ist. Auch ohne dass es das eine geschlossene Machtzentrum im Iran gäbe, setzen sich im Konflikt zwischen politisch-ökonomischer Machtsicherung und islamischem Herrschaftsanspruch letztlich zwangsläufig die ideologischen und destruktiven Tendenzen durch. Gegen diese zerstörerische Logik der iranischen Einflussnahme regt sich gerade in den letzten Monaten überall im Irak Widerstand.

N.N., Bündnis gegen Appeasement: Islamische Revolution – Die Front der Rackets

Weder dem Iran noch den von ihm unterhaltenen Terrorgruppen Hisbollah und Hamas kommt es bei ihrem Krieg darauf an, im herkömmlichen Sinne zu “siegen”. Allein in der Entfaltung ihres destruktiven Potentials liegt ihr Triumph. Während man hierzulande unter dem Stichwort “Befriedung durch Verantwortung” dafür plädiert, ganze Weltgegenden den islamischen Banden auszuliefern, liegt tatsächlich im Widerspruch zwischen administrativen Aufgaben im jeweiligen Herrschaftsgebiet und dem revolutionären Ziel keineswegs der Schlüssel zur Befriedung, sondern vielmehr der Antrieb für den auf Vernichtung zielenden Krieg gegen Israel.

Kazem Moussavi: Die iranische Drohung mit der Vernichtung Israels

In der Ideologie und der praktischen Politik des islamischen Regimes im Iran bilden Antisemitismus, Menschenrechtsverletzungen und die kriegerische Expansion nach außen eine untrennbare Einheit. Das Ziel ist eine internationale islamische Herrschaft. Die angestrebte Atombombe ist das Instrument, das die Umsetzung aller ideologisch-politischen Ziele des Regimes gleichzeitig sichern und beschleunigen soll. Die deutsche bzw. europäische Zusammenarbeit und der Händedruck mit den Mullahs haben daher unkontrollierbare Konsequenzen. Diese schmutzige Politik stärkt die ökonomischen Potentiale des Irans, erleichtert den Zugang zu atomaren Waffen und führt zum weiteren Ausbau terroristisch-fundamentalistischer Netzwerke wie Hamas, Jihad Islami u.s.w. und verstärkt die Bedrohung Israels. Aus diesem Grund sind das Schicksal des Iran und die Menschenrechte der iranischen Bevölkerung mit dem Schicksal der Juden und Israels untrennbar und direkt verbunden.

ab 18:00 Uhr Ausklang der Konferenz im Café Krähenfuss.

Danny Boy

Danny Boy is a song, whose lyrics are set to the Irish tune Londonderry Air.

The lyrics were originally written for a different tune in 1910 by Frederick Weatherly, an English lawyer who never actually visited Ireland, and modified to fit Londonderry Air in 1913.

The first recording was made by Ernestine Schumann-Heink in 1915. Frederick Weatherly gave the song to Elsie Griffin, who made it one of the most popular in the new century. Frederick Weatherly later suggested in 1928 that the second verse would provide a fitting requiem for the actress Ellen Terry. The song is widely considered as the anthem of Northern Ireland.

Lyrics

Oh Danny Boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountainside.
The summer’s gone, and all the flowers are dying.
‘Tis you, ’tis you must go and I must bide.
But come ye back when summer’s in the meadow
Or when the valley’s hushed and white with snow,
For I’ll be here in sunshine or in shadow.
Oh Danny Boy, oh Danny Boy, I love you so.
But when ye come, and all the flowers are dying,
If I am dead, as dead I well may be,
Ye’ll come and find the place where I am lying
And kneel and say an Ave there for me.
And I shall hear, though soft you tread above me,
And o’er my grave shall warmer, sweeter be,
And if you bend and tell me that you love me,
Then I shall sleep in peace until you come to me.

Source: Wikipedia.

Russia-Norway collaboration on energy

A report from the French think tank IFRI examines collaboration on energy between Russia and Norway and the potential ramifications for the European Union of strengthened ties between Moscow and Oslo.

Read full story.

Schengen Expansion

The European Union expanded its passport-free zone, bringing nine Eastern European countries into the Schengen Agreement governing internal borders.

A Q&A from the BBC outlines the terms of the Schengen Agreement.

An article in RFE/RL says that the newly expanded Schengen Agreement has given the European countries that were not included a new sense of isolation.

Iraq ‘torture chamber’ discovered

A torture chamber and several mass graves were discovered in Iraq’s Diyala province. The discovery was made by the U.S. military while investigating an area that houses three detention facilities used by Iraqi fighters.

The discovery came on a day in which multiple attacks in Iraq left at least nineteen people dead.

Tod eines Handlungsreisenden

Schauspiel von Arthur Miller (1915-2005)

Bereits 1947 geschrieben, wurde das Stück 1949 in New York am Morosco Theater von Elia Kazan uraufgeführt und 1984 von Volker Schlöndorff mit Dustin Hoffman verfilmt. 1992 inszenierte Arthur Miller selbst noch einmal eine Aufführung seines Dramas in Stockholm.

Der Handlungsreisende Willy Loman, ein Selfmademan, glaubt, dass er es bis nach ganz oben schaffen kann, wenn er nur tüchtig genug ist. Und wenn nicht, dann seine beiden Söhne, in die er alle seine Hoffnungen und Wünsche legt. Ein Leben lang hat Loman für die Familie gearbeitet, damit sie es einmal besser hat als er. Doch der Traum von der Familienidylle in einer heilen Welt zerplatzt. Denn Lomans Söhne sind nicht so erfolgreich, wie der Vater sie immer sieht. Im Gegenteil, sie verweigern sich dem Erfolgsdruck und den Lebenslügen des Vaters: Biff ist auf die schiefe Bahn geraten, und Happy läuft nur noch den Frauen nach.

Als Loman auch noch seinen Job verliert, bricht für ihn die Welt zusammen. Er fühlt sich beruflich und privat als Versager und sieht nur noch im Selbstmord einen Ausweg. Sein letztes Geschäft macht Loman mit dem eigenen Tod.

Arthur Millers 60 Jahre altes Stück hat nichts von seiner Aktualität verloren. Die Phänomene sind sich gleich geblieben: Die Schwierigkeiten, sich in einem zunehmend als inhuman empfundenen Wirtschaftssystem, in dem es nur noch Gewinner oder Verlierer gibt, zu behaupten, den damit verbundenen Druck auf die Familie – all das sind längst keine Einzelphänomene mehr.

Arthur Miller wurde 1915 als Sohn jüdischer Einwanderer in New York geboren. Die Weltwirtschaftskrise 1929 hat ihn entscheidend geprägt, und so ist der Verlust aller wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Sicherheiten, das Ausgeliefertsein des Einzelnen in der Gesellschaft, zentrales Thema seiner Stücke. Der Tod eines Handlungsreisenden wurde mit dem Pulitzer-Preis ausgezeichnet und brachte ihm Weltruhm.

Termine:
Theater Magdeburg: 29.12.2007, 13.01.2008 und 07.02.2008, jeweils um 19 Uhr 30

Kontakt:
Theater Magdeburg / Kathrin Singer, Pressestelle
Universitätsplatz 9
39104 Magdeburg
www.theater-magdeburg.de
Telefon: (0391) 540 64 05

Bautechnische Höhenflüge: Der britische Architekt Richard Rogers im Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris

1977 haben zwei Architekten, der Italiener Renzo Piano und der Brite Richard Rogers, das legendäre Centre Georges Pompidou entworfen.

Dreißig Jahre nach seiner Eröffnung veranstaltet das Centre Pompidou eine Retrospektive mit Arbeiten Rogers – und sie ist einfach “fulminant“, meint Roman Hollenstein in der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ).

Zum Artikel.

United States presidential election, 2008: Alles Neoliberale

Sebastian Moll berichtet in der Frankfurter Rundschau über den angeblich linken Widerstand gegen Hillary Clinton und Barack Obama:

“Sicher hätte das etwas, wenn ein Schwarzer oder eine Frau das Land regieren”, zitiert er den Literaturprofessor Walter Benn Michaels, aber beide bewegten sich “‘bequem innerhalb der Grenzen des breiten neo-liberalen Konsenses in Amerika’… Das ganze Getue um die Gleichstellung von Frauen, Schwarzen und Homosexuellen in den USA ist nichts als eine Vermeidungsstrategie. Linke und Konservative hätten sich etwa zu Beginn der neunziger Jahre darauf geeinigt, gemeinsam gegen allerlei vermeintliche Diskriminierung vorzugehen, um sich bloß nicht mit der wahren Ungleichheit in Amerika auseinander setzen zu müssen: Jener nämlich zwischen arm und reich.”

Zum Artikel.

The Atlantic becomes a little wider

Richard Nathan Haass argues that transatlantic cooperation will be less predictable and more selective in the future.

by Richard Nathan Haass, president of The Council on Foreign Relations

New York, December 18, 2007

A good many observers are noting the recent improvement in transatlantic ties, attributing it to the election of pro-American leaders in Germany and France, the fading of Iraq as a divisive issue, the mellowing of the Bush administration or some combination of the three. This belief is comforting, but it is bound to end in disappointment.

US-European relations are not about to become as good or as significant as they were in decades past. Some of the reasons for this are familiar: social differences, including an unequal emphasis on religion and differing views on abortion rights and the death penalty; lingering anti-Americanism resulting from the Iraq war, perceived US neglect of the Palestinian issue and both Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo; and generational and demographic changes on both sides of the ocean. Fewer Europeans regard Americans as their liberators; fewer Americans view Europeans as their ancestors.

But there is another reason for the likelihood that the transatlantic alliance will count for less, one that reflects not so much what is going on in either Europe or the US as changes in the world as a whole. Alliances require predictability: of threat, outlook and obligations. But it is precisely this characteristic that is likely to be in short supply in a world defined by shifting threats, differing perceptions and societies with widely divergent readiness to maintain and use military force. The 21st-century world is far more dynamic and fluid than the relatively stable and predictable period of the cold war.

This is in no way meant to defend or advocate unilateralism. But it is a recognition that many in Europe disagree with some US objectives, with how the US goes about realising them, or both. As a result, the US often will be unable to count on the support of its traditional allies.

Also weakening Europe’s centrality to US foreign policy is that its capacity for global intervention is diminishing, especially in the military field. That is true even for occasions in which it does find itself inclined to act with, or in support of, the US. Afghanistan is becoming a case in point. The strengthening of European Union foreign policy institutions will help but will not be enough to reverse this trend.

Instead, we now face a future of “selective co-operation“. We are entering an era of foreign policy and international relations where countries are neither automatically predictable adversaries nor allies. They may be active partners on one issue on one day and largely inactive observers on another issue the next. Or they may carry out alternative or opposing policies. All of this is reminiscent of Lord Palmerston’s dictum: a nation has neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies – just permanent interests.

The result is that transatlantic co-operation will be less predictable and more selective. Interestingly, some of this was foreseen by those who founded Nato. There is the binding Article V commitment, in which each Nato member agrees that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. And there is the optional Article IV commitment, in which the members agree to consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the members is threatened. Although Article V was invoked in the aftermath of 9/11, the strategic reality is that we are living in an Article IV world of discretionary commitments, where coalitions of the willing will be more common and consequential than long-standing alliances.

But there is a silver lining. Opposition from former adversaries is also not assured. Indeed, one-time opponents may become limited partners. Take, for example, the assistance given by China in putting pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme. Beijing, in this case – not Nato – was and is the most important partner for Washington in its efforts to denuclearise North Korea. This does not, however, mean China is on the verge of becoming a US ally on other issues.

This assessment is not limited to transatlantic ties. The same will hold for US ties with, say, Japan, South Korea or Australia. In the case of Japan, what will limit the depth of the relationship will be the lack of political consensus in Japan favouring a robust role for that country in the region and the world. South Korea will be preoccupied by events on its peninsula. Australia will be selective in its willingness to partner the US, as the recent decision by the new prime minister to reduce its role in Iraq underscores.

Such uncertainty will make the practice of foreign policy more not less difficult. It will place a premium on consultation and coalition-building. The task will be to expand co-operation wherever and whenever possible – and not to allow inevitable disagreements to spill over and prevent co-operation where countries do in fact agree. It will be difficult to accomplish this, but it will be necessary if we are to manage the threats inherent in globalisation rather than have them manage us.

About the author: Richard Nathan Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a position he has held since July 2003. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.

Haass is the author or editor of ten books on American foreign policy. His most recent book, The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course, was published by Public Affairs. He is also the author of one book on management: The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: How to Be Effective in Any Unruly Organization.

From January 2001 to June 2003, Richard Haass was director of policy planning for the Department of State, where he was a principal adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate to hold the rank of ambassador, Haass also served as U.S. coordinator for policy toward the future of Afghanistan and was the lead U.S. government official in support of the Northern Ireland peace process. For his efforts, he received the State Department’s Distinguished Honor Award.

Ambassador Haass has extensive additional government experience. From 1989 to 1993, he was special assistant to President George Bush and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council. In 1991, Haass was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal for his contributions to the development and articulation of U.S. policy during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Previously, he served in the Departments of State (1981-85) and Defense (1979-80) and was a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate.

Haass also was vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, the Sol M. Linowitz visiting professor of international studies at Hamilton College, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a lecturer in public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a research associate at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. A Rhodes Scholar, Haass holds a BA from Oberlin College and the Master and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Oxford University. He has received honorary doctorates from Hamilton College, Franklin & Marshall College, and Georgetown University.

Richard Haass was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1951. He lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

This piece is drawn from ‘The Palmerstonian Moment’, appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of The National Interest.

Reprinted with kindly permission of The Council on Foreign Relations.

Skyrocketing Canadian Dollar

Canadian dollar exchange rates against US Dollar (noon spot rate, monthly average). Created by Luigi Zanasi using Excel from Statistics Canada (CANSIM) and Bank of Canada data.

TIME named Canada’s currency its “newsmaker of the year.”

In an accompanying article, the magazine examines the potential geopolitical effects of the skyrocketing “loonie.”

Read full story.

Hedge Fund Wizards

A new briefing from The Brookings Institution examines the regulation of U.S. hedge funds. The report says news of funds’ struggles during the current subprime debt crisis shouldn’t be surprising, given that their shrouded operations make it difficult for investors to fully appraise the performance of hedge fund managers.

Read full story.

The “King’s Dilemma” in the Arab World

A new paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace examines the “King’s dilemma” faced in several Middle Eastern countries. The paper says economic evolution and political pressure are forcing traditionally authoritarian regimes to forge ties with civil institutions.

Read full story.

U.N. Security Council unable to break impasse over Kosovo’s future

UN Security Council negotiations over the future of the Serbian province of Kosovo broke down yesterday, ending a last-ditch effort to secure a diplomatic resolution to Kosovo’s status.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad said the parties have reached “irreconcilable positions” and the “current situation is unsustainable.” Serbia’s president warned that it could trigger a “serious crisis” if Kosovo unilaterally declares independence.

At the meetings, Russia said recognizing Kosovo would be antithetical to the UN’s charter, illegal under the Security Council resolution that established Kosovo as a protectorate and would necessitate similar action in other provinces globally.

The New York Times says the breakdown signals that any resolution to Kosovo’s conflict will have to come from outside the United Nations, setting the stage for a politically messy process through which some countries will recognize an independent Kosovo and others won’t.

The Truth about the Israel-Lobby

The Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), David Harris, delivered a lecture, “The U.S. Debate on Israel: An Insider’s Perspective,” before a standing-room only crowd at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik) in Berlin.

The council had invited David Harris to offer AJC’s views after it hosted Professors Walt and Mearsheimer last month. During a two-day visit to Berlin, David Harris met with German Foreign Ministry officials, the U.S. and Israeli ambassadors, and German parliamentarians. He was invited to speak to students at the Hertie School of Governance, an elite graduate school of public policy, and the Ebert Foundation, the Social Democratic Party’s think tank.

More.

Israel hosts OSCE Mediterranean seminar

Rabbi Andrew Baker, American Jewish Committee director of international Jewish affairs, addressed the concluding session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) 13th Mediterranean Seminar in Tel Aviv.

It was the first time the conference was held in Israel. Although most of the OSCE’s Arab partners did not attend, and Egypt and Jordan sent low-level representatives, Baker noted that an NGO conference preceding the seminar and the discussions that took place at the event were signs of progress.

Read speech.